Mr. Speaker, last night when the House adjourned, I was saying that I heartily welcomed the fact that the Government was at last apparently beginning to recognize the facts of life in South Africa and that certain important changes in labour policy had been announced by three Ministers inside the House and by one Minister outside this House. I want to say that it is lucky for South Africa that economics is stronger than politics, because I believe that this country would have been utterly sunk otherwise by the economic policies that have been followed by the Government, which have inhibited industrial growth in South Africa. I speak of factors such as colour-bar regulations, restrictions on the mobility of labour, both horizontally and vertically, and Acts such as the Physical Planning Act. Fortunately, as I have said, economics is stronger than politics, and because of the inherent strength of our economy, South Africa has survived despite this Government. The only thing indeed that has saved us has been this fact, plus the occasional windfall that we have had, such as new mineral discoveries, for example in the Free State and on the West Rand, and the rise in the price of gold. What would have happened to South Africa without the attempted stranglehold on economics, is of course another matter. The prosperity and boom conditions in this country almost defy one’s imagination. But that is an academic matter, because we have not had an economy free from these strangleholds and therefore there is no point in pursuing that matter any further.

I want to say that job reservation, for instance, which was offered as the life raft for the White worker, as a protection against the competition of the Black worker, has largely fallen into disuse because of the pressure of economics and the demand for labour, and today less than 2,9 per cent of jobs are affected by job reservation. We have found that White shunters have quite miraculously become Black train assemblers, that engineering jobs have become deskilled as the colour of the operators changed, that postbags are toted on Black and Brown backs, that Coloured ladies serve White ladies across shop counters, and that Black voices answer White voices on the telephone. And believe it or not, Sir, the end of the world has not come; the South African economy has indeed flourished as a result of these changes.

It is clear from the recent Government commitment to growth without inflation, to the better utilization of non-White labour, and the exhortation to the private sector to follow the lead set by the Railways in making better use of non-White labour, that this must result in more and more Africans being drawn into the economy and into industry and commerce in all areas. The Government’s willingness, as announced by the Minister of Defence, to permit firms to exceed the White/Black labour ratio in the Witwatersrand triangle and in other areas, and to retain their present African labour quota in the White metropolitan areas even if they set up industries in the border areas, also means, of course, that there will be more non-White, and particularly Black, labour in the urban areas.

It may well be that economic historians writing of this particular period will call it the commencement of South Africa’s third industrial revolution, that is, providing the announcements made by the Ministers are followed in a positive way and that we are really going to make better use of our labour resources, and that we will have the resultant increased productivity which this must bring about. It follows also that any Government with any foresight would be taking a number of anticipatory steps in order to offset the obvious transitional difficulties that accompany any major socio-economic change.

What are the most important steps that a Government with foresight should be taking? The hon. member for Johannesburg North mentioned some of them the other day, including the important one regarding education and training for African workers. This is quite obvious. It is also obvious, as he mentioned, that the lack of basic education is an enormous stumbling block for the future training of Black workers; so something has to be done now if we are in the immediate future, within the next 10 or 15 years, to take advantage of the additional use of trained Black labour. There are other factors too. The hon. member is correct when he says that White labour should be retrained and deployed into other paths in order to ease these transitional difficulties. There are other steps which he did not mention, and which I should now like to enlarge upon. First of all, there is the provision of adequate transport to and from work, “adequate” being the operative word. Then there is the question of adequate accommodation for workers, housing on a stable family basis. Hostel accommodation for migrant workers is no answer when one is trying to use stabilized, skilled, trained labour. It is impossible to train a man who is for ever on the move. The Government’s attitude towards the provision of transport and housing, accommodation for workers, will obviously have to change completely.

Then I believe we shall have to have an entirely new deal in labour relations as far as non-White labour in South Africa is concerned. This entails decent minimum wages; it entails a reduction in the ever-widening gap between skilled and unskilled wages; it entails the rate for the job on the basis of proper scientific evaluation of the job, and not on the basis of the colour of the skin of the worker; and it entails— this is most important of all—collective bargaining rights for African workers, in other words, trade union rights and all that that implies.

What is the position of non-White workers in South Africa today, who constitute 80 per cent of our industrial working force? What is the position in particular of African workers who, of course, form by far the largest proportion of that 80 per cent? I may say it is a number which is going to increase and not decrease. This is quite obvious. First of all we must remember that there is no national minimum wage in South Africa. In 1963 I moved a private member’s motion asking for this in this House. I got no support from any member of the House, with the exception of the late Mr. Barnett, the Coloured Representative, who seconded the motion.

What we have in South Africa is a situation where wages are fixed either by direct bargaining between employers and employees, or by the Industrial Councils where they exist for an industry, after negotiations have been concluded between the employers and employees, or we have the Wage Board which operates as a statutory body, mostly for the unskilled occupations which are, of course, largely filled by Blacks. The interesting thing is that African workers are excluded completely from all these negotiations. They take no part in industrial council negotiations because by virtue of the definition in the Industrial Conciliation Act, they are excluded as employees. They have no direct representation on the Wage Board which, as I say, deals with occupations almost entirely performed by Black workers. It is perfectly true that any interested party may give evidence before the Wage Board before a determination is made, but the vast majority of African workers never have any knowledge as to when the Wage Board is sitting for their particular industry; they are unorganized; they have language problems and they are often migratory workers. Labour officials, I may add, also have considerable difficulties.

They have to deal with an overwhelming burden of work. They have to deal with many work categories; they have to deal with all sorts of different industrial occupations, conditions of service and so on, and indeed in practice what it all boils down to is that African workers have to place complete and total reliance on the goodwill of employers, which fortunately does exist in some cases, and they have to place reliance on the efforts—and some efforts are being made—by the White trade unions on their behalf when negotiations are being conducted with employers in a particular industry. They also have to place complete reliance on the efforts of the White officials of the Bantu Labour Board which was set up in 1953 by virtue of the Bantu Settlement of Disputes Act. It is interesting to note, Sir, that section 7 of that Act also made provision for works committees which are supposed to provide machinery for discussions between African workers and employers in any factory or plant employing more than 20 workers. At the last count there were only 29 such committees, many of them not even functioning, although there were more non-statutory committees that were functioning. But in all, I would say that they serve less than 1 per cent of the total number of industrial establishments which would qualify for such committees under the Act. Sir, one has only got to look at prevailing wage rates to realize how hopelessly the Bantu Settlement of Disputes Act and the machinery which exists have in fact operated as far as Black workers are concerned. Even if one uses the miserable poverty datum line, which is not even a standard of living—it is a standard of bare existence —the majority of occupations do not reach this level. Most sociologists today have discarded the poverty datum line. They use the Effective Minimum Level, which is 1½ times the poverty datum line, and that, I may say, brings up the necessary income for an urban African family of five, to something like R123 a month; that is the effective minimum level. The latest wages laid down for the major industrial occupations do not even reach the poverty datum line. In manufacturing it is roughly R53-30 per month, and in construction it is R49-90 a month. I might say that the average monthly wage paid to Africans by the Central Government, which is an enormous employer of African labour and which should be setting the lead to employers— the Government is always telling us that there is no limit on wages and that there is nothing to stop employers from raising wages—is a miserable R44-80, according to the latest figure that I could get; and only a couple of weeks ago, in reply to a question in this House, the Minister of Transport told us that more than 90 000 Black workers on the Railways were earning less than R2 per day. That is the situation as it stands at the moment. Sir, it seems to me to be abundantly clear that the hon. the Minister of Labour was talking nonsense the other day when he said, in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Wynberg, that African workers do not require collective bargaining rights “in view of the protection enjoyed by Bantu workers under existing legislation”. In fact, Sir, as I pointed out, according to the wage rates, African workers are hopelessly inadequately protected under the existing structure. This is quite obvious, not only from the low wages which they are paid, but also from the ever-widening gap between unskilled and skilled wages and the ever-widening gap between the remuneration of races that do enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining, more particularly the White workers, and the Africans.

What do you ascribe the industrial peace to?

Mr. Liebenberg, who was quoted by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, also said that the wage gap proved beyond doubt that the Act had failed completely. He said: “We have within our metropolitan areas some 5 million Black workers, who are very conscious of the disparity in wage and service conditions and their inability to do anything about it.” I say that there is only one way in which to redress this imbalance, and that is to grant collective bargaining rights for Africans. The Progressive Party has said since its inception that the right of collective bargaining is an elementary right in any modern industrial society, and we see no reason why African workers, just as White workers, Coloured workers and Indian workers, should not also enjoy the benefit of collective bargaining. Sir, can I take it that the hon. member for Wynberg was expressing official United Party policy the other day when she made a Press statement, following on a reply given by the hon. the Minister to a question, where she stated unequivocally that she also believed that collective bargaining rights should be extended to Africans? I hope she was speaking for the United Party, because I have never clearly understood what their trade union policy for Africans is. The shadow Minister of Labour, in outlining the policy in 1970, said this—

I think it would be very good, Sir, if we could get an unequivocal statement and some clarity on this very important question. It is especially important to know whether the right to strike is going to be conceded, because otherwise it is the old analogy of the watchdog without any teeth. One thing that I want to stress and that I think is not realized in South Africa is that the Act which prohibits Africans from striking does not in fact preclude strikes in South Africa. We are constantly hearing boasts from the Government side about our unbroken spell of industrial peace in South Africa. I would have thought that the recent example of the 13 000 Ovambo strikers might have given the lie to this claim, but just in case there are still people who are lulled into a sense of false security and believe that we enjoy only unbroken periods of industrial peace, I would like to point out that the real truth is that we do have strikes in South Africa, but that very little publicity is given to these strikes, because in most cases the police arrive on the scene and not the Press. [Interjections.] Sir, hon. members on that side never like hearing the truth. They like to live in their own euphoric world, but the truth of the matter is that it is the police who come in and not the Press, because Africans run serious risk of arrest if they strike. There is no such thing as a legal strike for Africans in South Africa.

You are talking to the outside world again.

Section 18 of the Bantu Settlement of Disputes Act lays down very heavy penalties for Africans who go on strike. There is no provision for legal strikes. The penalty for strikes is a fine of up to R1 000, or imprisonment up to three years, or both. Moreover, Africans run the risk of endorsement out of the urban areas if they are found to be undesirable, and they run the risk of losing their employment, because employers are always aware of the huge reservoir of unemployed Africans in the homelands. But, Sir, let me quote a few facts from official Department of Labour reports to show hon. members that they are wrong if they believe that we do not have any strikes. In fact, there were 702 strikes or work stoppages that involved African workers only, in the years between 1959 and 1969, and over 33 000 African workers actually went on strike. In 1970 there were 28 strikes involving more than 2 000 Africans; in 1961 643 Africans were prosecuted for striking, and in 1962, 277 Africans were prosecuted. It is significant that since 1962 there have been no official statistics about the number of Africans prosecuted for striking. Why, I wonder? Have there been no prosecutions? I doubt that very much indeed. One has only to recall a few of the strikes which did receive publicity. There was the Durban dockworkers’ strike in 1969 involving over 1 000 strikers.

Why do you mention these figures?

Because I want that hon. member to learn the facts of life, of which he is singularly ignorant. There has been the coal industry strike; there has been the fish canning strike in South-West Africa in 1968, the abattoir strike in Durban in 1971 and, at the end of last year, the Ovambo strike. I wonder, Sir, whether, when Dr. Waldheim visited South Africa, anybody told him about Proclamation R17 of 1972 and the numbers of people who have been put in detention under that proclamation? Quite recently the Secretary for Labour told the Assistant General Secretary of the National Metal Workers Federation that African workers were not mature enough to be included in trade union movements, but when asked to outline the conditions and sketch the steps to maturity, he refused to comment any further. We have had the same sentiments from successive Ministers of Labour, except a previous Minister, the present Minister of Transport, who made no bones about it when he introduced the Settlement of Disputes Act in 1953 and told us that he hoped it would prove the death knell of the African trade unions which then existed. I think it is cool cheek for the Government and Government officials to say that Africans are not mature enough to enjoy trade union rights when they have deliberately killed off the existing African trade union movement. As far back as 1919 African trade unions were functiontion. There was the ICU of Clements Kadale functioning, which had up to 50 000 workers at one stage. We have recognized trade union rights for Indian workers and for Coloured workers. I can see no reason why we cannot give these rights to African workers as well. I want to say that I do not underestimate the difficulties in providing proper collective bargaining rights for Africans and proper organizations for them.

Are you in favour of separate unions?

Oh no, that entirely depends upon the unions, but for the benefit of the workers it is much better to have mixed unions so that their interests do not clash. But I would not force integration. Like any other major change, it cannot be accomplished overnight. But I believe that recognition as a deliberate policy should be set as the target and reached as soon as possible. There are many problems but White workers and other workers have overcome those problems, like lack of organization and lack of experience. I believe that the longer Africans are denied the experience of trade unionism, the more open will they be to extremism. I believe that the change in attitude of White trade I unions is going to be immensely helpful. It is very encouraging that the White trade union movement is increasingly in favour of the extension of collective bargaining rights to Black workers. Tucsa of course has long taken this line, and of course it has fallen foul of the hon. the Minister of Labour as a result. But other workers’ organizations are now advocating the same line. They realize that the vast unorganized, badly-paid Black labour force, consisting more and more of semi-skilled and skilled workers, can only in the long run jeopardize their own bargaining position, vis-à-vis the employers, and they call this “enlightened self-interest”. That is what the trade unions call it, “enlightened self-interest”, and no doubt they realize that if present trends continue, and there is nothing in the world to prevent them from continuing, the percentage of African skilled and semi-skilled workers will increase all the time. Even the more conservative unions are coming around to this point of view. Mr. Liebenberg, although he is not in favour of the full extension of legal rights to African trade unions at this stage, has also said that other channels of industrial communication and points of contact must be considered to fill the vacuum and he believes that industrial peace cannot be maintained if Black workers are given no say. Anna Scheepers of the Garment Workers’ Union has long been in favour of trade unions. The president of Tucsa has warned … [Interjections.] The president of Tucsa, with over 200 000 workers, has warned that unless African workers were encouraged to identify themselves now with responsible trade unionism, the only alternative would be the emergence of an all-African trade union movement wedded to Black nationalism. Is that what hon. members want as an alternative? Surely it is better to organize trade unionism which will in the end achieve decent wages and proper working conditions for Africans, which will in turn redound to the benefit of every single White person in South Africa. Every White person would benefit from the fact that we have a contented and stable force earning decent wages and able to purchase commodities. Even the 35 per cent farming members of this House ought to be grateful for an increase in the purchasing power of Africans and I might say that with an increase in wages and better working conditions would come an increase in the productivity of our African workers. If White workers are beginning to realize that the denial to Black workers of the right to organize for collective bargaining can only engender frustration, alienation and hostility and if they realize too that the polarization of Whites and Black workers can be a very real threat to their own interests, one wonders why it is that the Government does not take cognizance of these views, which are coming, as I say, not only from unions which have always held the view that the rights of collective bargaining should be extended to Blacks, but which are increasingly being held by other workers. Only the Government, it seems, is blissfully unaware of the facts. Only the Government is unaware of the fact that we should take warning from the Owambo strike, from the fact that there are strikes in South Africa, despite the fact that Africans are not given the legal right to strike. Sir, I believe that it is high time that with this new attitude to the utilization of labour there should also be an entire new deal in labour relations in South Africa as a whole.

I do not want to deal at length with the hon. member for Houghton. All I want to say is that she and her party always remind one of the story of the man who was afraid that somebody else would murder him and so committed suicide. This is what they ask of the White man. Because he is threatened, because his position is jeopardized, he must commit suicide now. And we know what that party is the forerunner of. If that party ever succeeded in coming into power in South Africa, they would be the forerunners of anarchy and of eventual communistic dictatorship. They are the ones who prepare the way. They are the intercessors for all the people who contravene the laws. They are the intercessors for all the people who commit sabotage. They are the intercessors for all the enemies of law and order and of democracy. We may leave her at that. Fortunately South Africa is patriotic enough not to place such people in a position of power.

But I want to refer more particularly to a few matters raised here in the debate, especially those specifically raised by the hon. member for Durban Point when, referring to me, he used these words yesterday: “The Minister of Defence is dragging South Africa back into the lowest level of politics.” By that, I assume, the hon. member was continuing the refrain of the commotion which has been going on in the ranks of the Opposition in recent weeks in consequence of two speeches I made.

They were scandalous!

The hon. member says they were scandalous. I made the first speech at Villiersdorp, and I said there, inter alia, that I should like to see a certain little group of the hon. members of the Opposition going to hold meetings in Oudtshoorn. This was apparently the thing with which I brought South African politics to its lowest level. I asked them to send the following hon. members there. They should send the hon. member for Berea, Mr. Wood, there. I said they should send Dr. Fisher there. The hon. member said a moment ago that it was a scandalous speech because I had said that Dr. Fisher should go there. I also asked them to send Mr. Timony there. Furthermore, I asked that they should send their Chief Whip, Mr. Arthur Hopewell, there. According to the hon. member for Durban Point, this was politics on the lowest level. [Interjections.] No, wait a moment; I shall tell you in a moment why I mentioned it. I asked them to send the hon. member for Musgrave. Look at that hon. member sitting and looking at me like a hare in the moonlight. I asked them to send him. Then I asked that they should send a frontbencher, the hon. member for Parktown, Mr. Emdin. Now, why did I ask for this? I asked for it— and this is the point I made at Villiersdorp —because in its statement of policy this party says the following—

This is their official policy. Now I ask whether, if they should come into power and these hon. gentlemen I have mentioned should land in positions on the Government side—and I presume the hon. member, Mr. Emdin, would land there—we would again have a situation in South Africa such as we had under them, where an interpreter would have to sit next to virtually every Minister in order to tell them what the Afrikaner in South Africa wanted? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Wait a moment. [Interjections.] Hon. members may make as much noise as they like. Let these hon. gentlemen whom I have mentioned, rise and address this House in Afrikaans in this debate. I challenge the hon. member, the royal son from Musgrave, to rise and make an Afrikaans speech in this House. Can the hon. member do that? I challenge the hon. member, Mr. Emdin, to rise and make us a speech in Afrikaans here. If they fail to do this and can in fact speak Afrikaans, I say that this is worse. Then they would be doing so out of contempt.

May I ask a question?

No, my time is limited. I listened carefully to the hon. member yesterday and did not interrupt him.

I just want to ask a question.

I shall still come back to the hon. member. We shall still settle matters with each other.

How many speeches has your side of this House made in English this session?

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking for myself. I make it my regular practice, at the least whenever I deal with my vote and in the case of every Bill I deal with, to use English for one half of the time and Afrikaans for the other half.

That is not true.

Of course. When I introduce a Bill, I speak in English and in Afrikaans alternately. The reply is also given in English and in Afrikaans alternately. Go through my Hansard. But that is not the point. The point is that I can do so and they cannot. I realize that we have two population groups which must be served. I realize that in this regard there is a policy which has to be implemented. In that party, however, there are elements, both inside and outside this House, that hate the Afrikaner. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon, the Minister entitled to make an allegation in this House that I for one hate the Afrikaner? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this point of order?

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Speaker …

Order ! I have ruled that it is not a point of order. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Sir, may I address you on this point? Before you ruled that it was not a point of order, was the hon. member not allowed to address you on a point he wished to make? [Interjections.]

I heard what the hon. member had to say.

You could not have heard what the hon. member had to say …

Now you interrupt the chair.

Order!

May I address you on this point, Sir? The hon. the Minister read out certain names, including my own. He then made the statement a moment ago that these were the people in this House, including myself, who hated the Afrikaner.

Order! I again rule that that is not a point of order. The hon. member must resume his seat.

I repeat that the hon. member sitting over there holds Afrikaans in such contempt that he cannot address the Afrikaner.

On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it your ruling that the hon. the Minister is entitled to say in this House that I for one hate the Afrikaner? Is that your ruling?

That is not a point of order. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The hon. member for Musgrave is an Afrikaner hater. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Sir, may I say that the hon. the Minister is a scandalous liar …

Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Musgrave in his hatred called me a “scandalous liar”?

I did say it and I have no intention of withdrawing it. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is a scandalous liar. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon. member withdraw that allegation?

No, Sir.

Will he kindly leave the Chamber then?

(Mr. R. G. L. Hourquebie thereupon withdrew from the Chamber.)

I notice that several hon. members opposite are following the hon. member for Musgrave out of the Chamber. More or less all the Afrikaner haters have left the Chamber now. I repeat what I said at Villiersdorp and at Ceres, i.e. that if the United Party does not pull itself together, it is becoming a home for everything that hates Afrikaans.

That is absolute nonsense.

I am going to prove it now. The party of the hon. members opposite is governing in Natal. Shortly before the election of provincial councillors, the hon. the Prime Minister made an appeal here to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In addition, he made an appeal to the hon. member for South Coast. He told them it was his standpoint that everyone sitting in this House, serving on any other council, or occupying any other responsible position, should be bilingual.

Before the provincial election he appealed to them to give the assurance that they also took up that standpoint. I have the Hansard here where the hon. the Prime Minister spoke to the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not reply to him on that point. He failed to reply to him. The hon. member for Durban North replied to him by way of an interjection. What did he say to him? He said : “We do not elect the people in the Executive Committee of Natal.” The hon. the Prime Minister appealed to the hon. member for South Coast as the leader in Natal. The reply of the hon. member for Durban North was that the hon. member was not the leader, but the chairman. In this way they dispose of a matter of principle which appears in the programme they subscribe to. The provincial election took place and an Executive Committee was constituted in Natal. I now want to ask the hon. member for South Coast, he who loves the Afrikaner so much, what he did with the Executive Committee in Natal and how many unilingual persons are serving on that Committee today. I put it to the hon. member for South Coast that he not only ignored the plea made by the hon. the Prime Minister, but also treated it with contempt. Where he had the power, he had unilingual persons appointed to show the smaller number of Afrikaners what contempt he had for them. Those people cannot serve them in their own language. In spite of this, the hon. member has the audacity to say that his party stands for national unity. Then a frontbencher of his party has the audacity to say to me that I am dragging politics down to the lowest level. However, there are the people who, when they are called to apply in practice what they supposedly profess, fail to do so as they are sitting there today—ridiculous, condemned, and miserable failures.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Will the hon. the Minister tell me whether immigrants are welcome in this country?

Of course they are welcome. This Government allows them to enter the country. Is that hon. member out of his mind? What has it to do with this? Are the members of the Executive Committee of Natal immigrants?*

Yes, one of them is.

Then I say that if he wants to become a member of an Executive Committee, it is his duty to know both languages.

He knows both languages.

He cannot speak Afrikaans. When he receives a deputation, he cannot serve Afrikaners in their own language, and the hon. member knows that.

Nonsense!

There they are sitting in the benches on the opposite side.

It is not true.

You do not know what you are talking about!

I want to say to hon. members … [Interjections.]

The Minister of Agriculture should rather remain silent. Why does he not speak about Agliotti?

Order!

The hon. member for Yeoville may make as much noise as he likes, but I know him when he starts making a noise. It is when he is hurt. I want to read out to hon. members what that party expects of an Afrikaner. The hon. member for King William’s Town told us what that party thought of an Afrikaner.

Yes, let us hear.

I am going to read out now what he said in this House. He said—

That is perfectly correct—

Carry on.

I shall carry on—

Carry on.

“Or do hon. members on that side want Englishmen in this country?” This is what the hon. member said according to column 5394 of the Hansard of 1970.

Why have you stopped? [Interjections.]

I shall go further; the hon. members need not tell me to. I do not run away from any United Party man.

You left your books at meetings.

I have never run away from a United Party man. I have chased the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition until they did not know where they were! I say that we shall chase them again next week. Next week they are going to go over a mountain pass and not through a window. I may also tell the hon. member that I do not fight in the streets like drunk representatives of the United Party!

Order, order!

I want to take the matter further now. That party had three major opportunities of striking a blow for national unity in South Africa, and I want to mention those three opportunities. In the first place, they had the opportunity in this House of striking a blow for national unity when they let the chance slip by to support South African citizenship in principle. They rejected it. They did not want to be South African citizens. They arranged protest meetings throughout the country because they did not want South African citizenship.

We were …

They fought this South African Citizenship Act tooth and nail …

We were South African citizens. You will remain a South African citizen all your life. You are misleading again.

Surely it is true that those hon. members fought the South African Citizenship Act tooth and nail in all its stages. [Interjections.] He does not even know about his past.

I know what happened.

He does not know about his past. In the second place they had another opportunity. They had an opportunity to …

Chocolate soldier.

You may say just what you like about the “chocolate soldier”. Since the hon. member is trying to belittle me on that point, I shall challenge him on one point. Show me where in the administration of my department I have done an injustice to one, single section of English-speaking South Africa! I challenge you to do that !

What are you doing now?

No, those hon. members do not represent the decent section of English-speaking South Africa—they keep them from joining us. They had a second opportunity.

Frankie, what are you doing there?

Did I get any respect from you?

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

No, I am not.

They had a second opportunity of striking a blow for national unity, namely when we became a Republic. What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do? I will read out to him what he said.

Why do you not tell us what you did during the war?

On 19th January, 1960, in this Parliament, he …

What did you do during the war?

But give me a chance; surely you are a decent “Sir”! Give me a chance so that I may speak! On 19th January, 1960, he said the following in this Parliament—

Hear, hear!

This is the evidence.

Listen to that! I quote—

Hear, hear!

This Leader of the Opposition called the Republic a crime, and now he wants the people of South Africa to hand over the Republic to him. He wanted to murder the child before its birth and now he wants the child so as to strangle it further. What did the hon. member for South Coast say on 25th January, 1960? He said—

He sent me to hell in this House when I introduced the Referendum Bill.

Yes, and then the Transvaal, the Cape and Natal …

Yes, then he went to Natal and said that if the Republic gained a majority in the referendum, he would stand on his head and bang his feet together. [Interjections.]

That party had a third opportunity to strike a blow for national unity, i.e. when the rift occurred between this party and the Hertzog party. At that time this party to which I belong, dissociated itself from our erstwhile associates for the sake of bilingualism and for the sake of the rights of English-speaking South Africa. What did that party do? I shall tell you what they did, Sir. They put their arms around the Hertzogites. Sir, read this morning’s Cape Times if you want to see how the report in fact drivels about the so-called successful meeting of the H.N.P. What is more, the canvassers of that party, which pretends to be the party of national unity, are walking around in the streets of Oudtshoorn telling the voters, “You must protest. Vote for the United Party, but if you do not want to vote for us, vote for the H.N.P.”

That is untrue.

Very well, if it is untrue, I challenge the Leader of the Opposition:

May I go and say in his name at Oudtshoorn that his canvassers saying this in the streets are not speaking on behalf of him?

Yes.

In other words, the canvassers walking around in the streets there and saying on behalf of the United Party that the people should vote for the H.N.P., are not United Party people. [Interjections.] Thank you, Sir. We have evidence for that.

Such a fuss about Oudtshoorn.

They are peeping at the postal votes.

Sir, I am finishing off now.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may the hon. member say “they are peeping at the postal votes”? Is there not an ulterior motive?

Sir, I do believe there are people peeping at the postal votes. I did not say members on the opposite side. The United Party wants to abolish the postal votes, but you do not want to.

Order ! The hon. member may not make a speech.

The hon. member talks of postal votes. Last week his party was given a black eye in court about postal votes. They had to withdraw libellous statements in court.

That is not true.

Order!

I want to conclude now. We shall chase that party, because it is a stumbling block on the road to national unity. It is a stumbling block to good race relations. It is an opportunistic, many-headed organization which uses its opportunism to trim its sails to every wind. Sir, it must be exposed. They can become as angry as they like, but we shall expose that unprincipled, opportunistic party in this country. It is not worthy of ever governing this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise here as an Afrikaner, but at the same time …

You are no Afrikaner, man, you are a renegade.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker …

Order! Which hon. member said the hon. member is a renegade?

One of these chaps.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker,

Mr. Speaker, I start again. I say that I stand here as an Afrikaner who is at the same time proud to be a South African as well. Seldom in my life have I had to be as ashamed of a fellow-Afrikaner as today. I am certain that I speak on behalf of all right-minded South Africans and Afrikaners in South Africa when I say that, whether we belong to the United or to the National Party, we completely dissociate ourselves from the kind of racial hatred we heard today.

The hon. the Minister got up here and said that if the United Party came into power, interpreters would have to sit next to certain of the Ministers. I challenge him to point out one person on our side who is unable to understand precisely everything that is said. [Interjections.] One finds the proof in the replies by our English-speaking members. Now I want to say this: I do not have the right to tell any member on that side of the House in which language to make his speech; any decent member on that side has as little right to tell any member on this side in which language to make his speech. Anyone in South Africa has the right to use the language in which he feels most at home and in which he is able to state his standpoint best. What we heard here today is an insult to English-speaking South Africa. Sir, I do not wish to elaborate on this any further, but I remember how, for at least 15 or 20 years, practically no word of English came from the back benches of that side.

It is said that there are elements in this House that hate the Afrikaner. Why? I challenge them to produce proof that there is hatred of the Afrikaner on the part of any United Party members on this side of the House. I reject it with the greatest contempt with which I have ever rejected anything in this country. Sir, I am looking at a silent Minister over there on the opposite side, the Minister of the Interior.

He agrees with me … [Interjections.]

A few days ago he said : “The time for national unity here in South Africa is now or never.” I shall grant him this: when he was Administrator of Natal, he made efforts to bring together the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking people there. He made efforts and he succeeded to some extent. He would never have made a speech such as this one by the Minister of Defence when he was Administrator of Natal. Would he? I ask him today to get up …

I am still pleading for the same unity. [Interjections.]

Sir, this is the party for national unity; what is the Minister doing on that side? Sir, I do not want to go far back into history as the Minister of Defence did, but we know they are the people who drove a great South African, Gen. Hertzog, out of their party because he stood for equal political rights for Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people. [Interjections.] The speech we heard today strikes at the root of national unity here in South Africa. Here we are threatened by dangers from overseas. There are communist threats along our coasts and in North Africa. National unity is essential, and then we get a speech such as that one which wants to destroy national unity for the sake of a few votes. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, let me point out to you certain disservices perpetrated by that side of the House to the Afrikaner in South Africa.

What about the Kruithoring?

Of course, the Kruithoring was a disservice to the Afrikaner; that is why I left it. [Interjections.] Let me point out certain disservices they are doing the Afrikaner today. One of the biggest disservices perpetrated by them is the fact that they say the Afrikaner may vote for one party only; that he may vote for the National Party only. Yesterday we heard from the Minister of Labour …

That is correct.

There we again hear the call “That is correct”. It is an admission that they believe in a one-party State here in South Africa.

I say it is a disservice to the Afrikaner if you tell him : “You may vote for one party only; you dare not use your common sense to vote for a different party.” English-speaking people may do so; our other South Africans may do so, but only the Afrikaner is forbidden by them, by their Broederbond, to vote for another party. Otherwise he is branded as a renegade, as we heard here today, Sir.

Order! I must ask the hon. member to withdraw that word; the hon. member may not use it again.

I withdraw it, Sir. Do you know what this means, Sir They tell the electorate—and it is not only in Oudtshoorn; it is throughout the country: “The cost of living is rising and inflation is growing, but you dare not vote against these things; you must vote Nationalist only.” The disservice they do Afrikaners is to tell them: “You dare not vote against the fact that the Nationalist Government is fragmenting the country into eight independent Bantustans; you dare not do so; you must vote Nationalist; you may not vote against this; you may not vote on the Agliottis, the Bells or the fishing industry; you have to swallow that.” What self-respecting Afrikaner can accept that he must vote for that party if he is compelled to vote for one party only and if he does not have a free choice The Afrikaner is told by that side of the House: “You may vote for this one party only; do not vote against what this Government is doing today.” They must vote so that he and he may continue driving around in their black Cadillacs. Discrimination against the Afrikaner, Sir? Has greater discrimination ever been perpetrated against the Afrikaner in South Africa than by that secret organization, the Broederbond, of which a minority of a minority of a minority are or may be members? [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, you need not ask me for evidence. Here it is. In the Nataller, their official newspaper in Natal, there appeared a warning that the Broederbond was working against national unity in South Africa (translation)—

Their own newspaper, the Nataller, said this. One asks: Are the majority of the hon. members on the opposite side members of that secret organization, which bars the ordinary Afrikaner from membership? They say the ordinary Afrikaner may not become a member of it. [Interjections.]

I have never been a member of it.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development says he is not a member of the Broederbond. I accept that, but if he wants to become a member, he will not be able to find the Broederbond in the telephone directory, because they are not listed there. The big problem of hon. members opposite is that they are afraid to be South Africans as well. The hon. the Minister of Defence— he can say whether this quotation is correct —said this a few years ago—

Not a word about “South Africans”. Is the hon. member a South African or is he not? He does not want to reply. Where are the South Africans on that side of the House? They are too afraid to be South Africans. Sir, we in the United Party can be South Africans; we grow with our country; we grow with the youth of South Africa, and we look with pride upon the survey made recently, in which the findings was that 75 per cent of the Nationalists would rather he called South Africans than Afrikaners in the first place. Let me give hon. members on that side and everyone in the country the assurance that … [Interjections.] No, I am not prepared to reply to any question.

You are scared.

On a point of order. Sir, you ruled previously that if a member refuses to reply to a question, it may not be said that he is scared.

Order! Which hon. member said that the hon. member is scared?

I said that he is scared. I withdraw it. He is afraid.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

He is scared.

I am afraid that that hon. member is lacking in courage, politically speaking. [Interjections.]

Order! How many Speakers are there in this House? The hon. member may proceed. I want to ask the hon. members for Kensington and Turffontein to calm down now.

On a point of order, Sir, did the hon. member for Pretoria Central not also say that the hon. member for Orange Grove is “scared”?

Mr. Speaker, I said so too, and I withdraw it.

The hon. member may proceed.

At least there is one member over there who has some courage.

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing here today is actually a return to political barbarism, which we had hoped to get rid of in South Africa. We have not been unsympathetic when there have been signs of an outward policy on the part of the Government itself. We have cheered the few little advances that they have made, but what have they done? They have undermined and torpedoed all the good work that they have done in the past. What is the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs going to say when he goes to the United Nations and they show the Hansard of our Minister of Defence to him? Sir, we are not only back to political barbarism; we are back to jungle politics.

Sir, what I said about the hon. the Minister of Defence, applies equally to the speeches that we had yesterday from the hon. the Minister of Labour and the hon. the Minister of Community Development. What struck me particularly in these speeches was this : We have come in this debate with attacks on the Government in regard to the finances and the economy of this country and the parlous state of living costs in South Africa. Not a word of defence have we heard from the Minister of Finance or from the Minister of Labour about the parlous position in regard to the use of labour in South Africa, or from the Minister of Community Development— three of the Government’s senior frontbenchers—while the country is facing inflation, a 10 per cent increase in income tax, and some of the most Draconian measures this country has ever had, all they can say is : “The United Party is against the Afrikaner; the United Party wants to plough the Afrikaner under; we are going to get a Black Government in South Africa if the United Party comes into power.”

*Mr. Speaker, yesterday those two hon. Ministers made statements here bordering on either wilfulness or ignorance. Let us deal with them. The hon. the Minister of Community Development put a question to this side, and I shall gladly reply to it. I have the speech of the hon. the Minister here, and I want hon. members to listen to what the hon. the Minister said yesterday by way of introduction to his attack on us; he said—

He was going to be as reckless as be could possibly be.

That was his usual speech.

The hon. the Minister started talking about our Black labour policy, as he called it. He said—

I tell the hon. the Minister that this is untrue. I am now going to read out what our policy is, and if he or any of their agents in Oudtshoorn repeat that remark after my having read out our policy here, it may be said that that agent is telling a lie. Here it is clearly stated in the policy of the United Party—

Now listen to this—

And then the hon. the Minister says it is our policy that the Bantu should be able to obtain proprietary rights anywhere in South Africa.

But that is what you said.

Here it is stated very clearly in our policy that proprietary rights will be given in Bantu urban areas where the Bantu live.

In Soweto?

In Soweto, yes. Proprietary rights will be given to selected Bantu who have earned the right to it. To say that we are going to give proprietary rights to a Bantu anywhere in South Africa is downright, absolute nonsense. Of course, Sir, to the unsophisticated voter it sounds terrible to say that the Bantu are to get proprietary rights in the White areas, but tell that voter that it is only in the Bantu urban areas and then, of course, it is a horse of another colour. Sir, hon. members on that side do not know their own policy. Yesterday the hon. the Minister himself said—

They have been in power for more than 20 years, and they have not yet finished thinking about their policy in respect of two million of South Agrica’s citizens. Then we find that a certain Dr. C. Boshoff, a son-in-law of Dr. Verwoerd, comes to a Sabra youth congress …

It is not the same man.

… and accuses the Government of not wanting to create separate states … [Interjection.] Does that hon. member not read Die Burger? Does he not read Rapport? Read Rapport and the report in it. It is the same report in which Dr. Boshoff also wrote that they do not like a policeman and a Prime Minister who are afraid. Do you recall the report now? But, Sir, do you know that that Sabra Youth Congress was partly financed by the Government, by the Department of National Education and by the former Cultural Council, and do you know that a few days ago that Dr. Boshoff was put on the radio to deliver a plea for a separate state for the Coloured people in South Africa?

They say that our policy will destroy White civilization in South Africa. They have passed 119 Acts on so-called apartheid since they came into power, and what do we find? We find that there are still editorials and banner headlines across a full page in the Vaderland (translation): “When are we going to get apartheid?” That is after they have passed 119 Acts. Their policy has resulted in complete and hopeless failure and they are too scared to admit it. Some of their own people, such as Prof. Rhoodie and Prof. Jan Moolman, are persons who today make speeches in which, in many respects, they speak in the direction of the United Party’s federal idea of single control over South Africa, to some extent—I do not say entirely. Even the General Manager of Nasionale Pers, Mr. Dawid de Villiers, said that he foresaw a body in which there would be consultation among the various race groups in South Africa. Our policy also makes provision for a body for consultation in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister asked us whether we believe in job reservation. I believe I will be right in asking him whether they believe in job reservation, since 97 per cent of the White workers do not fall under statutory job reservation in South Africa today. They do not believe in their own policy, just as many of them do not even believe in their Bantustan policy. Then the hon. the Minister has the political audacity to come forward and say that after six years of United Party government we would have created a situation which must result in a bloody revolution.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says “Hear, hear!” Sir, it is not our policy that will lead to that, but there is the possibility that their policy may lead to it, and here I am again looking at the hon. the Minister of the Interior, and let him again explain what he said in connection with the possibility of a revolution in South Africa. [Interjections.] The Minister said that a situation was being created in that regard. Their friend in Lesotho, Chief Jonathan, said—

Bloodshed and revolution will not come from our side, but the possibility of these things will come from that side under that Government.

I think all of us were shocked by the speeches we heard yesterday from that side of the House, and I think there is now a last opportunity for the Government to undo the tremendous damage they did yesterday and today, not so much to themselves, but to our country, South Africa. It is now the opportunity to ask certain of those Ministers to state their attitude in regard to what we heard here. I want to hear it from the hon. the Prime Minister. I do not just want to hear him saying, “I still stand for national unity and I will not deceive the Englishman”. The Englishman was humiliated in this House today. Can he defend it? [Interjections.] I ask the Prime Minister to repudiate it, not with pious talk, but let him specifically repudiate that speaker of yesterday. Let the hon. the Minister of the Interior, who spoke so nicely and so piously about national unity, get up. Let him get up now and say whether he thinks the speeches we heard here from that siie of the House yesterday and today will in any way lead to national unity.

Don’t you simply want to listen to my speeches yourself and apply them?

If that hon. Minister is genuinely in favour of national unity, I may assure him that I, too, am sincere in that regard, and I can do it much better than he or his party can. But you see, Sir, he has not replied. He has not expressed a repudiation, and I suppose we now have to accept that the Minister of the Interior has also given in and fallen in behind this spate of racial hatred, the spate of attacks on the Afrikaner, on the English-speaking people and on the Coloured people by the hon. member for Lydenburg, and that he has also fallen in with that attack on South Africa. Mr. Speaker, I cannot emphasize enough that the time has arrived for this kind of thing to cease. One will never be able to build up a united state in South Africa with speeches such as those. They will destroy South Africa by carrying on in this way. They will make an end to the existence of a decent White civilization in South Africa. I hope the whole of South Africa will see them in their true colours now, and that the thin veneer of pseudoenlightment they had in the past has been stripped off, yes, that they have been unmasked and that we now see them in their naked racial hatred and animosity towards the Afrikaners and the English and towards the Whites and non-Whites in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove made certain statements here and expressed certain thoughts …

Speak English, Oom Pottie.

… and mentioned Oudtshoorn. Now I want to say that after I had listened to his statement, I thought of Oudtshoorn …

What was your experience there?

As long as you keep quiet one still thinks you know something. Oudtshoorn is once again the focal point of public and political interest, and I want to point out that the first person who captured Oudtshoorn for the National Party was a person by the name of Langenhoven. After listening to the speech made by that hon. member I want to quote what Langenhoven would have said if he had been here today. He would have said: Some people talk first and think afterwards; others think first and then say nothing. In addition to that he would perhaps have said : Learning in the mind of a fool is like a razor in the hand of an ape.

There rests a very great responsibility on me as Chief Whip today because I want to address a few words to you, Mr. Speaker, and also to the Chief Whip on the opposite side. I hope that you will grant me this opportunity. I have been in this House of Assembly for 29 years. I know the House of Assembly. It is unpredictable—one minute mirror-calm and the next, like today, a little unsettled. Yesterday, when it was quite unsettled here —although it was not my doing—I, as Chief Whip interrupted the hon. member for Yeoville in the heat of the altercation. Afterwards Mr. Scott of the Cape Times, for whom I have regard, pointed out that Mr. Steyn, the member for Yeoville, had said to me:“You are not trying to play the fool with Mr. Speaker”. After I had floundered about in a rather emotional way here, for which I apologize, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a person for whom I have an exceptional regard, rose to his feet. The article goes on to say—

I felt very badly about this. But you know what the other hon. members then did? They shouted “Chuck him out”. I am calm now, but I did have a rather restless night, because I am sensitive as far as this is concerned. [Interjections.]

Order!

I appreciate your actions, Sir, because instead of order hon. members are creating disorder. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I appreciate his having said that. Other hon. members, however, shouted “Chuck him out”. One learns from the youngest child, and I abo learn from someone who is the leader of an Opposition, a strong party which claims that they are going to take over, and in future I as Chief Whip will behave myself in such a way, temperamentally, that I will not again have to be called to order. I shall be an example in this House. But “Chuck him out”! Oh, no, do hon. members know what is going to happen? On 19th April we are going to chuck out the United Party at Oudtshoorn. That is what will happen. It is not necessary for me to speak English. I am true to English: I am perfectly bilingual. Hon. members cannot say that I am not, and they must therefore not accuse me of that. I am not one to boast, but I can also use pedantic language if I wish. I speak both languages fluently, as they will admit.

Now I want to speak to the Chief Whip on the opposite side. He is a person for whom I have exceptional esteem and respect. The hon. member for Lydenburg said yesterday that certain speakers should go to Oudtshoorn. I am not repudiating anyone, but I want to say that as far as the two Chief Whips are concerned, it is strange that when we get together we then speak English. But also, when I see him in turn, we speak Afrikaans. Is that correct?

That is true.

You see, Mr. Speaker, that I am a truth-loving man. If there are two persons who are really seeking to achieve national unity, then those persons are the two Chief Whips in South Africa. Let me also say that if there is one party which is the cornerstone of nationalism, South African nationalism, which is indispensable for national unity, then that party is the National Party, [Interjections.] I have not repudiated anyone. That is not true at all. I also want to tell the Chief Whip on the opposite side that I never really bother with newspapers. No matter how innocent one is, one always loses out with a newspaper, but if one is innocent, one always wins in a court. That I know.

As far as Die Burger is concerned, I must now perform a pleasant or an unpleasant task concerning the Chief Whip on the opposite side. Die Burger is an outstanding newspaper, particularly if one thinks of the illuminating leading articles. These are of the best and of a very high quality. Unfortunately I found the following report in Die Burger, and I must read this out to the House. The following is said in Die Burger of 11th April, 1972 (translation): “Readers of this column will know precisely how little punch there was in the Opposition’s attack simply by mentioning their names.” The names of a few very good members are then mentioned, as they always said in the time of Mr. Sauer, the then hon. member for Humansdorp, “along the Wailing Wall”. They are the speakers on economics. The report went on to read : “A better team of cicadas one cannot hope to find.” I have nothing to do with that, but among those names was that of my hon. friend, the Chief Whip. The report read further: “It is difficult enough to hear what the four other soft-spoken members have to say, but in the case of Mr. Hopewell it is virtually impossible. I have been trying since 1958, with a short break, to follow what he has to say, but I have not yet succeeded in making any sense of it.” [Interjections.] Hon. members are laughing now, but I want to say that I as Chief Whip on this side of the House have the greatest respect for the content of the speeches made by the hon. Chief Whip on that side. He is an economist; I am not. What I know about economics, and of the heavy demands with which a sound economy has to comply—such as full employment, a high standard of living, a sound balance of payments, etc.—I owe to a large extent to what I have heard from the hon. member and hon. members on this side. I therefore want to say to the Chief Whip on that side that this has been written about him in the newspaper, but that I on this side of the House appreciate his actions.

I now want to come to another matter. I want to address a few very friendly words to the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville is an excellent politician, and a scintillating speaker. When his party is in trouble, they always look to the hon. member for Yeoville. However, I read the following in Rapport, in a report under the caption “Mr. Marais Steyn gets bogged down in Oudtshoorn”—

[Interjections.] I do not want us to laugh about this, because it is a serious matter. The report goes on to read—

Hear, hear!

I am very pleased that hon. members heard. I maintain that if he says he invokes the name of the Almighty and that he is called upon and has the responsibility of maintaining White leadership over every part of the country, he must remember that leadership in fact means leadership for your own flesh and blood, for the nation to which you belong. Does the hon. member also grant Black leadership for the Bantu nations, and Coloured leadership for the Coloured nation?

Yes, that is why I advocate a federal policy.

Federal or non-federal; the hon. member must give me a chance. The hon. member spoke of White leadership, and invoked the name of the Almighty. He then said that our policy had not been properly thought out. I tell you that that cry of White leadership is the deadliest political recipe in South Africa for the downfall of the White man in this country.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Yes.

Did you support the hon. gentleman, Adv. J. G. Strydom, when he said that the policy of the National Party was White domination (baasskap) and nothing else?

I have been in this House for a long time, and I once heard Gen. Smuts say, in reply to a question put to him: “I stand for White paramountcy.” I challenge the hon. member to say that this is not true. It is recorded in Hansard.

Answer my question.

That is the answer. That is in fact the point. Gen. Smuts is quoted on any cause. And now? Mr. Strydom stood for White domination. The policy of White domination as it developed in South Africa is the White domination of the White man in his own fatherland and in his own Parliament. [Interjections.]

May I ask a question? [Interjections.]

Order!

No, I really cannot answer now, because I want to retain my Afrikanerdom, and he wants to abandon his. I shall come in a moment to the theme of White leadership, when we discuss the relations policy. He wants to tell me that we stand for White domination. In respect of this policy of the National Party the hon. member for Yeoville himself admitted, and I shall quote this to him from Hansard, that apartheid is theoretically correct! Did you not say that? Will you admit that?

I said that it could be theoretically correct.

Oh, the hon. member said that it could be theoretically correct. He said that it was theoretically correct, but we will accept now that he did in fact say that it could be theoretically correct.

I said that theoretically it could have a moral content.

It is not only theoretically correct; it is also scientifically correct and rests on a moral foundation.

I admit that it could have a moral foundation.

Order!

I hope the hon. member can keep quiet.

I was replying to the question.

You have already replied to the question, but now you are making a speech from your bench.

Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased and grateful, for if both of us make a speech at the same time, he cannot do what I should like him to do. I should like him to keep quiet so that you can at least listen to a sensible speech from a sensible man, for if he makes a speech at the same time as I do, he bedevils the matter. Now I want to ask why the hon. member was so nervous yesterday when he confused 1938 and 1948. I shall tell the hon. members what the problem was. He was referring back to that … I do not know what …

The Bastard placard.

Yes, that Bastard placard in 1938. Then, however, the hon. member spoke of 1948. I do not approve of that placard, and I want to admit this candidly, but why did he then speak of 1948? I shall tell hon. members why he did so. He did so because the date 1948 is indelibly engraved on the political mind of the United Party. This is so because never before in the political history of South Africa were the people of South Africa confronted with such a significant and such an important choice than they were in the year 1948. It was a crystal clear choice which was presented to them during a dramatic and unparalleled political election, namely the election of 1948. That result was so decisive that it was not only to a large extent of significance to the National Party in that it was victorious, but South Africa itself was the victor. That date, 1948, ushered in a new period in the political history of South Africa. It was a turning point, but that important, crystal-clear choice was made in 1948 and the choice which the nation made it gave as a commission to the National Party. Do hon. members know that the National Party Government has carried out that commission so purposefully and honestly, so faithfully and with so much energy that the people have for almost a quarter of a century now been giving the reins of the Government of South Africa into our hands? Is that not the greatest political miracle? Mr. Speaker, you and I came to this House 29 years ago, and who would ever have dreamt when we were in the Opposition that we would be the only two who would remain to have the privilege of belonging to a political party, a political party which has governed the country so well that we, who began with a majority of five in 1948, have been able to increase this to a majority of almost 70 in the year 1972?

It is declining rapidly.

Please do not interrupt me; if you must open your mouth, yawn instead, but please do not; speak. I say that this is the greatest political miracle which has taken place, i.e. that a party was brought to power and has since then been able to govern a democratic country for 25 years. It is a miracle that we have been able to implement the policy so faithfully, that the possibility exists—I do not want to think in terms of eternity—that we, it seems to me, may perhaps be able to govern South Africa for half a century.

Poor South Africa !

What were the three premises of our Nationalist action for the past 25 years since we first came into power? I shall tell the hon. members. The first was in respect of those things in regard to which the hon. members on the opposite side said: “Wipe them out!” We came forward with the rallying cry— this was our political creed and we suited action to our words—of “South Africa first”, and “South African Nationalism”. What did that party do then? They issued placards “Eradicate Nationalism”! It is when you have as your point of departure the idea of Nationalism first … [Interjections.] Yes, they issued them. Our point of departure is South African Nationalism. Successive National Party Governments were the architects of the structure of sovereign independence. It is we who introduced the unity creating symbols and it is we, this Government under the leadership of that great political and almost spiritual political sprinter in South Africa. Dr. Verwoerd, who carried out this South African nationalism to its logical consequences, to such an extent that we today have an independent and free Republic outside the Commonwealth. Is that not a mighty achievement? Becoming a Republic was in fact indispensable to national unity. Union citizenship was indispensable. The citizenship in which they believed, was ambiguous. The man’s body wandered around in South Africa while his soul wafted about in another country. It was a dual citizenship. One wanted one’s Union citizenship, now one’s Republican citizenship, and this in fact means a citizen of only one country, of the Republic of South Africa. That is the point of departure. It is an important one. We introduced the unity creating symbol, and carried it out to its logical consequences. I do not want to spend much time dealing with this.

We established national unity, and did so as well by means of mother-tongue education, not by means of dual medium schools, so that our English-speaking friends who are good South Africans could educate their little children through the medium of their own mother-tongue in order to have a perfect instrument for acquiring knowledge, so that we could have the wisdom of statesmanship for saving the White nation in this country. But what we do not begrudge them we do not begrudge the Afrikaans child, i.e. of also acquiring his knowledge through his own mother-tongue, so as to process this knowledge as well, together with his compatriots, the English-speaking South African, and in that way save our fatherland.

Nationalism is a common sentiment for both good English and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. Nationalism is not exclusive. When Dr. Malan was Prime Minister I was sitting there, and he stood here, and he said: “Nationalism is inclusive”. Hon. members did not understand what the Minister of Defence told them today, because he hit the nail on the head. He wants national unity on the right basis. It must be a felt experience. It must not be idle lip service. You must put your words into action, as we, as National Party, on this side of the House, do.

But there is a second point of departure. It is no use your having a nation which is free and growing with national pride, if you forget that you have been placed on this vast continent, in this South Africa, where there are Bantu, Indians and Coloureds. You are the Christian White nation with a calling and destiny, and you will not be able to hate, because hate destroys the hater. You will have to act in such a way, not only in your relations towards the Whites, but also towards the non-Whites, that you can also have peace in this country. That is why we have another point of departure, in our relations policy. You know, Mr. Speaker, how our groups convened in those days when we were in the Opposition. It is not only now that we have begun to think of these things. We thought of those things at that time and we thought out our entire policy, from its foundations, to the course it would take, to its ultimate consequences and aims.

For the Coloureds as well?

Of course I am still thinking, but you have stopped thinking. The people of South Africa must think, and you do not want to think. We have thought out our policy of apartheid to its logical consequences, so that Dr. Verwoerd could say that one should lift the damper, that you as Christian guardian should lead them along a course of development so that they could realize their potentials and acquire self-determination. We are part of a developing world. Even if it should take a hundred or a thousand years, one will be living in a world which consists of self-determining Black, Yellow and White states coexisting on a basis of international maturity. That is the background. It is a matter of politics. As I said at Calitzdorp, politics is the science of government. For, I said, politics itself is clean. Ugly people make for ugly politics, but clean people make for clean politics.

Now I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition is here. I want to say something to him, and he must tell me whether I am right or wrong. In the years prior to 1948 a U.P. man was still a U.P. man. Then they still spoke of integration. The hon. member for Yeoville said “Integration is a fact”, and his face was radiant.

I still say it.

He still says it. He himself said that Black people can be represented by Black people here in the House of Assembly, not so? But on the eve of the Hottentots-Holland election, in 1947, when the Leader of the Opposition was the candidate, he had sitting next to him on the platform the Crown Prince of the United Party, a man with a brilliant mind who was indicated in that year in Hansard as being the deputy premier of South Africa The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had this man as his spiritual compatriot, the future Prime Minister, who would succeed General Smuts. He addressed the meeting which took place there, and I want to quote Die Burger in this connection. The meeting took place on 15th January, 1947, in the Hottentots-Holland town hall. I now want to speak to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because he once repudiated me in this House. I also have the reference here where he said that it was not true. I have made a study of this, and I have found that I was right, and the hon. the Leader wrong. I now want to quote from Die Burger (translation)—

Do you see? Even at that early stage Mr. P. W. Botha was in action against the United Party; today, in his capacity as Minister of Defence, I find that he is doing it just as efficiently as he did it that night. Here are the questions and replies which were put that night—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was the candidate, and now I want to ask him : What Whites were too unsatisfactory as members here of the House of Assembly, to cause Mr. Hofmeyr to say that he would rather have Natives take the place of those White representatives? I want to know that.

Sam Kahn.

No, that hon. member is too young in politics. That Hottentots-Holland by-election took place in 1947, and Kahn was only elected to this Parliament at the end of 1948. Sam Kahn was not even here then, so it was not he whom they wanted to get rid of. What I can in fact say is that it is clear to me that they had not wanted Sam Kahn here, but in 1952, when we had to vote to turf Sam out, then they all voted that Sam was not a communist and that he should remain here. I now come to the Cape Times. In those days it was said: “That is merely Die Burger again”. Sir, as you know, all members of the House of Assembly study the newspapers. I note that members on the opposite side have also recently been reading Rapport frequently. What do I read in the Cape Times? I read the following—

Hear, hear!

Sir, that is the difficulty: Some people “hear, hear”; many people hear a thing, but the difficulty is that they do not understand it. You can hear something and not understand it. Why did the hon. member say “hear, hear”, and why are those hon. members of the United Party acclaiming her? She is the lady custodian of the logical consequences of the policy of the United Party. She, with her party, is in fact the political ark in which the ideals of the United Party are preserved. The hon. member opposite there is the member for Bezuidenhout, a wonderful constituency. He is a man with a wonderful name; he is a good Parliamentarian, but do you know why he left our party? Over the three Native representatives.

That was not the only reason, man.

Yes, but it was only three; now you already have 16, and you will continue until the whole country …

Now you are talking nonsense.

No, wait; give me a chance now.

You are talking nonsense now.

Order!

Sir …

The hon. member may proceed; it is not necessary for him to resume his seat.

Sir, I am very grateful that you allow a man speaking sense to remain on his feet and to continue speaking, while a man who is speaking nonsense, has to resume his seat. The hon. member sitting there, is separated from us in the flesh and in the spirit as well. In the flesh he is also separated from the hon. member for Houghton, but in the spirit they are one. If a political marriage should take place between the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Houghton, it would be an ideal marriage, for there would be compatibility of temperaments. It would be a perfect marriage. Let me now say this: If I am not mistaken, did Mr. Myburgh, the U.P. candidate in Oudtshoorn, not at one stage leave the United Party and befriend Mr. Japie Basson? Is that not true? And then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the spiritual compatriot of the hon. member for Houghton! And do you know what I hear now? I hear that in Oudtshoorn Mr. Myburgh is dissociating himself from Mr. Japie Basson. Can you see? That is why I said that that candidate is an ostrich candidate. But if I look at what their policy is, then their policy is an ostrich policy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the speech of the hon. the Minister of Defence, but I really would not like the hon. Chief Whip’s speech to pass unnoticed. Sir, I readily listen to him. His speeches usually deal with a period young people have only read about, but which he has lived through. I remember that Mr. Hennie du Plessis wrote a book with the title “Die Goue Draad”. Mr. du Plessis states that he listened very closely to a speech the hon. Chief Whip once made, and after the hon. Chief Whip had resumed his seat he came to the conclusion that he had learnt a lesson. That lesson he learnt from the Chief Whip was that the United Party men were responsible for the Great Trek!

May I ask a question? [Interjections.]

Sir, as I have said, I readily listen to the hon. Chief Whip. I am glad to hear this afternoon that he is a sensitive person. He also knows that I know that he was a student of the works of Nietzche. He is therefore a man with a philosophic background. We put a simple question to the hon. Chief Whip by way of an interjection. We asked him where he stood in connection with the question of White supremacy (baasskap). He launched a tremendous attack on us, and we asked him where he stood in connection with the question of White supremacy which was the policy of the late Mr. Strydom.

He gave a very clear reply to that.

The hon. Chief Whip says that he advocates White supremacy over White South Africa alone. I want to tell him that supremacy was already the policy of that party long before there was any mention of Bantustans on the political platforms of South Africa. Even after the Bantustan idea was born, White supremacy was still that party’s policy.

What is wrong with that?

I shall not deal with this at great length. I have here a pamphlet issued by Mr. Marais Viljoen in the 1953 election in which he stated: “Vote National and ensure White supremacy”. That is within the Bantustan concept. Sir, that is again a brand new idea. I now want to put this question to the hon. member for Potchefstroom: If your policy is one of White supremacy within the area you today regard as white South Africa, what about the Coloureds; are you going to exercise White baasskap over the Coloureds? The hon. Chief Whip on that side says that his party advocates White supremacy over the area known at the moment as white South Africa. Is the Chief Whip and his party, now and ad infinitum, going to exercise White supremacy over the Coloureds in South Africa?

What is your policy?

Sir, that is a simple question. But I do not want the hon. Chief Whip to have to reply to that now; he may reply to it at a later stage. I want to tell him that he must not speak about the Indians and their political position in South Africa. The hon. Chief Whip, as an historian, will know what the 1948 policy of the National Party was in relation to the Indians.

You policy was to have the Coloureds on a common voters’ roll.

The policy of the National Party was to send the Indians out of the country.

To drive them into the sea.

Now they have somersaulted. The Indians are here and it is only a question of time before the National Party is out. The hon. Chief Whip spoke about the 1948 placard, the question of White supremacy and the question of whether one’s child should share a school-desk with a Coloured. Sir, I want to tell the Chief Whip that in 1966 it was still one of the private platforms of the National Party in my constituency. There is nothing old about that. But I do not want to speak about that now. I want to tell the hon. member that he made a very reasonable speech in the atmosphere that prevailed here this afternoon. It seemed to me as if his speech had to serve as a lightning conductor for the explosion that came from the hon. the Minister of Defence. The hon. member’s speech was actually an apology for the conduct of the Minister of Defence. A Chief Whip on that side of the House had to come along here and indicate how a person ought to behave in the delicate position South Africa is in today. His was a reasonable speech.

Sir, I should now like to dwell for a moment on the hon. the Minister of Defence.

You surely know that a Whip is not allowed to whip up feelings.

Sir, for quite some time in South Africa there was a feeling and a trend of thought to the effect that the National Party, under the leadership of the new Prime Minister, the hon. B. J. Vorster, was moving along a new road, a road of enlightenment. It is a road that was initially embarked upon by the hon. the Prime Minister when he made his acceptance speech here on the steps of the House of Assembly and said that he was going to strive for the creation of national unity in South Africa. Subsequently, from his trend of thought, the word “outgoing” was born. It was a new course, and it was with gladness that people accepted the fact that we were going to move along a totally new road, a road that was regarded as the road of enlightenment. But, Sir, there were people opposed to that. The Hertzogites broke out of that party specifically as the result of the fact that the National Party was following a new course. They pulled out specifically because they said that the National Party, as it exists today, does not look after the cultural assets of the Afrikaner and is leaving the Afrikaner in the lurch. That is the first point. Secondly, the Hertzogites said they were breaking away from the National Party because that party is selling out the Whites to the non-Whites. Those are the two points. In spite of that the National Party went ahead and proclaimed their new outgoing policy, which was welcomed on all sides. They told the people that it is a good step for South Africa because the National Party is now growing up and the people are maturing. For the first time it was said in South Africa that we can now speak of a new politics, a politics that will be completely devoid of White racial division; a politics in which we can look at points of policy and weigh one point up against another as far as race relations are concerned, placing policy against policy as far as economic affairs are concerned. But in spite of this levelheaded standpoint, welcomed on all sides by the English and the Afrikaans Press and by numerous people, it took only one Brakpan to tear off the National Party’s verligte cloak and expose them as nothing more than Hertzogites. After having listened to the hon. the Minister of Defence this afternoon I want to tell him this : There is only one party that will profitably listen and take note of his words, only one party that will be smiling broadly, the party which actually achieved the victory yesterday and today, and that is the party of the Hertzogites. They achieved the victory. Let us view the position.

This campaign that was started yesterday, that was unleashed here by the hon. the Minister of Labour and taken further by the Minister of Defence, is a campaign that was initiated as far back as a few weeks ago, and do you know who the man was who set the bomb off? It was the hon. the Minister of Defence. I now want to state my case in these terms. Let us look at the hon. the Minister of Defence.

No, please.

We shall simply do so in thought. He is not a backbencher. He is not simply an ordinary junior Minister. He is one of the most senior Ministers and one of the Ministers holding one of the most important positions in the Cabinet. He is the person responsible for the military viability of the whole of South Africa, a viability that must be maintained against an Africa into which the communists are filtering, a viability that must be maintained against the terrorists on our borders. The hon. the Minister is responsible for the military viability of South Africa, and to give effect that viability successfully, that Minister must draw on the loyalty and the fidelity of not only the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking Whites, but he must also draw on the total loyalty of every sector of the South Africa population. Unless the hon. the Minister can succeed in relying on the loyalty of every sector of the population, White and non-White, English and Afrikaans speaking, I tell him he is grossly impinging upon South Africa’s viability. If the hon. the Minister is serious about South Africa’s military viability, he above all should at all times place himself above anything that encourages racial division and racial disloyalty in South Africa.

And you have no responsibility?

The Minister knows I am getting closer now. He now begins to feel it for the first time. He said we must sit still while he is making a noise. Now I want to make my speech, and will he please sit still?

We shall take these matters further under my Vote.

The man who is primarily responsible for the military viability of this country and for drawing on the loyalty of the citizens of South Africa is the Minister of Defence, and it is no use his telling us we are also responsible. He is the one who must set the example, but what did we get from him this afternoon? He made an unsurpassably verkramp speech; he was competing at the highest level with Jaap Marais and Dr. Hertzog. They cannot surpass him. It was a speech that took the blood of the Afrikaner as the medium through which it wanted to work. That is all. And I now ask him with tears in my eyes how the English-speaking South African in the South African Army must feel? There are many English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking United Party men in the Army.

Yes, but they are decent and bilingual.

How must they feel under such a Minister of Defence?

They are bilingual; they are not unilingual.

Sit still, Mr. Minister, I am coming to the question of language. Do not run away screaming now. The hon. the Minister’s problem is that if, in South Africa, he wants to be a responsible Minister of Defence, whom the people look up to, he must succeed at some time or other in getting rid of his party political cloak and putting on a uniform. He cannot at the same time wear a Broederbond cloak and a military uniform. The hon. the Minister cannot at the same time be Minister of Defence and a party politician of the quality he revealed himself to be this afternoon. He cannot do it. Now he comes along and speaks of language. Does the hon. the Minister not know about the new South Africa that is in the process of developing …

But it is not unilingual.

… where every Afrikaans-speaking South African says: “I am proud to be able to speak English”, and where the English-speaking South African says he is proud to be able to speak Afrikaans?

But the unilingual individuals are on your side.

Who speaks more Afrikaans, do we or do you?

The test is not how well I speak Afrikaans or English. The test is how competent I am to serve South Africa. The hon. the Minister and his Cabinet and members ought to lower their heads in shame because a newspaper supporting them has to tell them:“Please reinstate a former Cabinet Minister to come and show us how we must set the economy right”.

I now want to ask the hon. the Minister what he achieved this afternoon. Think of the problems facing South Africa in a dangerous outside world …

I unmasked your falseness.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is the hon. the Minister entitled to say he has unmasked the falseness of this side of the House?

The hon. the Minister must not use those words; he should rather withdraw them.

What must I withdraw, Mr. Speaker?

The word “falseness”.

I did not say the hon. member is false. I withdraw it and say that I unmasked the United Party’s falseness.

The hon. member may continue.

Again I put my question. I said that the hon. the Minister of Defence occupies a key position in South Africa. What did he achieve this afternoon when he bears in mind the problems facing this country?

I unmasked the United Party’s falseness.

You unmasked yourself.

No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister succeeded in draping a dark cloak over the inability and incapacity of the Nationalist Government to govern South Africa properly. He did not speak about a single problem.

[Inaudible.]

You are the last one to talk. You know what I should do with you.

The hon. the Minister is free to fling those threats hither and thither.

The second point I want to make is that it is very clear that the actions of the hon. the Minister of Defence, the hon. the Minister of Labour and the hon. the Minister of Community Development are not isolated instances. The tragedy is that it very clearly bears the stamp of the Cabinet, and even worse—and this is scandalous as far as South Africa is concerned —that is carries the stamp of the hon. the Prime Minister. Do hon. members know what I found to be the most shocking phenomenon this afternoon? I say this with the utmost respect for positions. [Interjections]. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what was the biggest shock this afternoon as far as I am concerned? While the hon. the Minister of Defence was carrying on in that way, and I was thinking of the problems resting on the shoulders of the first citizen of South Africa, I saw how the hon. the Prime Minister was delighting in the political clowning of the South African Minister of Defence, I could not believe it.

You think you alone can gossip or defame.

I challenge the hon. the Minister to tell me where I have been guilty of either gossip or defamation.

All you United Party men gossip. [Interjections].

Let me put it this way: If an action for defamation were to arise we would pay the costs ourselves and the State would not have to do so. Let me take the House back in time a little to the problems that were revealed by this Budget. This Budget was one of three. There was the Post Office Budget, that showed a tremendous deficit. The Railway Budget of the hon. the Minister of Transport showed a deficit of R39 million. The hon. the Minister of Finance furnished a Budget with a deficit that I can not even remember, because it is too colossal. What does the Minister now come to the House with? Did he tell us how he viewed the picture for the future? No, he comes along with nothing more than mere empty hope. He does not even have an idea of what the future will be like. He pays lip service to those very aspects that must initiate growth and economic prosperity in South Africa. The hon. member for Johannesburg North made an arresting and constructive speech about the labour question in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Labour was the next to stand up, but we are still waiting for a single word from that side. If he had only listened he would have heard that in the South African economic society, within eight years, no less than 1½ million trained Black people must be found if we want to have any proper growth in South Africa. They do not speak about that. Not a word! There is only a deathly silence. They do not say how we must cover this deficit next year. The Railways’ reserve finances have already been exhausted.

But tell us?

It seems to me the hon. member for Potchefstroom is now getting worried for the first time. He is looking for advice. Why does he not ask the advice of his own clever Ministers? Those are the questions we are faced with. There is the question of the millions of Bantu that are converging on the urban areas of South Africa and for whom the other side has no policy. This question is not being dealt with. When we ask hon. members opposite what their future policy is with respect to two million Coloureds, the hon. the Minister of Planning says he will make a plan. He is still planning after 24 years. Those are the people who tell us about a record. They are free to consult the political archives until tortoises grow feathers, but they must realize that the South African people are no longer interested in what used to be. They are familiar with the past 25 years, which were really arid politically, industrially and economically under a “Nat.” Government. What the people of South Africa now want is what this Government has to offer for the future. We got nothing from that side except a lot of abuse and disparagement. I am glad that what is coming to the fore is a new young generation that is looking for new politics and will find it, but not by digging up the old skeletons of the past. People are at liberty to tell me that I am soft as far as Communism is concerned, but will it be of any use to me, or will I gain anything by saying that that side of the House was at one time soft as far as Nazism is concerned? What does that mean to a modern South African? What are we solving? These two days will go down in parliamentary history in South Africa as one of the biggest tragedies that have yet been enacted here. The National Party may continue in this vein and they are welcome to win the Oudtshoorn election. However, of one fact I am certain, i.e. that they will lose the future as far as Afrikanerdom is concerned, because Afrikanerdom cannot exist alone in South Africa. It must co-operate wholeheartedly with the other Whites in South Africa.

Yesterday, the hon. member for Lydenburg blamed the Hertzogites for the way they made propaganda. But he is the one who tries to make political propaganda out of the possibility of a parliamentarian of this House having to eat with a Coloured. He wants to make propaganda out of that possibility. What is the difference between such a possibility and the photograph of the Prime Minister between two non-White women? If there is no difference … [Interjections]. Now they are becoming angry.

You are a Hertzogite.

There is no difference. The tragedy, as far as I am concerned, does not lie in these photographs, but in what effects this kind of speech of the hon. member for Lydenburg has on the non-Whites and the Coloureds in South Africa, they are the people who, day in and day out, must hear from that side of the House how fond the National Party is of them and how they would like to give them equality. It is no use our talking about photographs and about eating together.

You began with that.

That hon. member is the one who wants to make propaganda. The question in South Africa, as far as relations in Africa are concerned, is not whether Dr. Banda may eat with the Prime Minister. That is not the problem because the occasion can always be arranged. The question South africa is faced with is how we, as Whites, must behave towards the non-Whites so that the people of Africa will know that we are at least sincere in respect of our own Black people. As long as we get the kind of speech we had from the hon. member for Lydenburg, which was greeted with approving “Hear, hears” from the other side, we are destroying any good that we are possibly doing in the country.

I have never been ashamed of the fact that I am an Afrikaner. I challenge any Nationalist to tell me—except for the fact that I am a United Party man—where I have ever failed to do justice to the Afrikaner’s cultural assets. I challenge them. I say with all respect to my fellow-members that the pattern and the atmosphere created in this House from the Ministerial side, with the approval of the Prime Minister, is something that not only disturbed me, but made me very ashamed as an Afrikaner. I want to appeal to hon. members opposite that if they have the welfare of South Africa at heart, they should stop digging up the bones of South African politics and look at the problems as they exist in South Africa today.

Mr. Speaker, it was with astonishment that I listened to the hon. member for Maitland, and I have no intention of coming back to or saying much more about the question of unity and language than was said by the hon. the Minister of Defence. I want to put a question to the hon. member for Maitland, and he can reply to it. It is a very simple question. I want to know whether in the past—and this is not long ago—one member resigned from that party and crossed over to this party because, so he said, he could no longer stay in that party as that party was not prepared to promote national unity.

What about Blythe Thompson?

I am not dealing with Blythe Thompson at all. I am asking the hon. member for Maitland whether he is prepared to say that there was nobody on that side of the House who made this statement. Apparently the hon. member for Maitland is now having trouble with his Chief Whip, for they are engaged in a tête-à-tête. It was in fact, of all people, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who stated that this was one of the reasons why he resigned from the United Party. It was by no means donkey’s years ago that he made that statement. He did so in 1960, and since then 12 years have passed. Now this hon. member who has just resumed his seat, almost has a fit when one merely touches upon the question of national unity. I do not want to waste the time of the hon. House. The hon. member may look up these things for himself. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout claims that we have no idea of what things are like for the Afrikaner and his institutions under the United Party. The same member for Bezuidenhout had to report on certain things to Gen. Smuts because he had arranged a rally at which he spoke Afrikaans. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout landed in difficulties with his party because he banked with Volkskas. What is more, that hon. member for Bezuidenhout once walked into an election office of the United Party, and when he spoke Afrikaans, the person who sat there said to him, “Do not speak that language in this office.” Do those hon. members deny this? If they do, then let them rise and say so. Those hon. members may rise at any time to tell us whether they admit or deny this. They should not ask me; their battles are no concern of mine. They can make enquiries with the hon. “verligte” member for Bezuidenhout in regard to these matters. These things were said about that party, and when the hon. the Minister of Defence treads a little on their toes as regards this type of thing, it is, according to the hon. member for Maitland, the Minister who is absolutely dragging South Africa’s defence through the mud. This afternoon hon. members on that side referred sneeringly to the standpoint taken by our hon. Prime Minister when he said that we did not have all the answers in regard to the solution to the Coloured question, and that we would have to give further thought to the matter in the future. Now the National Party is being reproached with not having come to a final decision on the matter of race relations.

Blaar Coetzee said so.

We have never denied that we have not yet come to a final decision, but if one accuses someone else of not having come to a final decision, it implies that one oneself has already done so. Let us take a somewhat closer look at this squabble between the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the Leader of the Opposition. As recently as this year, during the course of this session’s no-confidence debate, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and his leader actually had a few words with each other unofficially. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had allegedly said, and I want to quote from Hansard, column 424, what was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say—

The people that are to be carried along according to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, are the non-White groups in South Africa. It is very obvious that if there is room for the standpoint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout within the framework of the United Party’s policy, the United Party has by no means come to a final decision. I say this because within that same framework there is room for people with views like those of the hon. member for South Coast. We in South Africa must take note of the fact that those people have not reached a final decision on the policy in South Africa. They have not even thought about this basic and fundamental question, namely the Bantu policy for South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition admits this himself. Apart from the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition which I have just quoted, he also said that representation and the manner in which representation would be effected in this White Parliament were not really relevant at this stage. According to the Argus of 24th September, 1971, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in Durban that the manner in which the Bantu would be represented in this House was purely an academic question. Therefore, it is of no practical importance to them. It is purely an academic question. We, on the other hand, indicate explicitly and very openly where we stand in regard to representation. The people outside may take note of what our standpoint is. This kind of laissez-faire policy of the United Party, this policy in terms of which there should be room within the framework for the “verligtes” as well as the “verkramptes”, is a direct consequence of what the United Party inherited in the person of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

Unfortunately I do not have the time to deal fully with this matter this afternoon, but if we look at the development of the United Party’s Bantu, Coloured and Indian policy, it really is striking that, since the hon. member for Bezuidenhout stated in 1960 the standpoints of his National Union in regard to this matter, the United Party has systematically taken over these standpoints of the National Union and of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Was it not the Leader of the Opposition himself who in the early sixties did not talk about this matter at all, but kept quiet about the fact and even denied that there was room for the thinking of a man such as the member for Bezuidenhout? Now, to me there is one very important question. When we are dealing with a two-party system, such as we have here in South Africa, we have a Parliament such as this one which is the highest derived authority in regard to national government. Therefore, in this derived authority, in its institutional form, as we have it here as a legislative assembly, we have the governing party as the people constituting the legislature. The role of an Opposition—I am referring specifically to the United Party Opposition—is therefore to be the conscience of the governing party within the framework of that institution, within the provision of the principle of derived authority. But in giving some serious thought to this matter, we should pause to reflect. We know what it means to have a conscience. Any person knows what it means to have a conscience. But if a governing party were to have a conscience such as the one the United Party has today, which finds it possible to adopt these dualistic standpoints and then wants to act as the conscience of a Parliament the functional body which has to handle the derived authority within all international boundaries, then what would happen here, is what we once again saw here today.

A lot of Quislings!

Order! The hon. member for Krugersdorp must withdraw the word “Quislings.”

I withdraw it, Sir.

What would happen then, would be the situation be once again had to experience today, namely that the conscience of this Parliament, the United Party, is unable to make a contribution, but merely comes forward with admissions and denials, as did the hon. member for Maitland, and, without any substance, levels a reproach at the hon. the Minister of Defence. I suppose the hon. members are rather exhausted after the first part of today’s sitting; that is why so few of them are here.

As I have shown, the hon. member for Maitland and those hon. members are not correct; even in their ranks there are people who detest the Afrikaner’s institutions and his language. If they are supposed to be the conscience of this House, we want to ask them this: What makes their conscience tick? Let us hear how their consciences work. Do they work in the manner in which the hon. member for Musgrave acted today? If that is the manner in which the conscience of this House acts, then the people outside should know that we in South Africa, within the province of the derived authority as a governing party, are governing without our having any conscience at all.

Mr. Speaker, in column 342 of Hansard of this year, the hon. the Minister of Justice placed on record certain quotations from a document entitled “Directive by the South African Communist Party”. I should like to refer to some of these sentences, as they appear in Hansard, as directives of the communists to their followers—

Sir, it is clear that no principle is sacrosanct to the communist and that all energies must be mustered to disparage and to vilify the Government and the Leaders of the National Party by means of false accusations and lies. And during the past three years in particular we have had a great deal of vilification. The Opposition has developed it into a fine art. In this regard many thousands of words were spoken for the purpose of disparaging anyone from the hon. the Prime Minister to the most junior Deputy Minister, and particularly for the purpose of casting suspicion on their motives. Especially in respect of those aspects of our policy in which the outside world takes an intense interest. The greatest measure of suspicion was aroused in that regard. This is a subtle policy with which the Opposition occupies itself.

Now I should like to refer in passing to the behaviour of the hon. member for Simonstown in this House, which gave rise to the situation that a Select Committee of this Parliament is at present investigating certain charges made by him against the hon. the Deputy Minister …

Order! It is still under consideration.

Sir, I was just referring to it.

In that case I want to refer to another incident, i.e. the behaviour of the hon. member for Simonstown when he was suspended from the service of this House the week before last.

Order! It has been disposed of.

Then I shall leave it at that too.

Sir, you will remember that while the hon. the Minister of Justice, was reading out the document entitled “Directive by the South African Communist Party”, the hon. member for Durban North rose and asked on a point of order whether the hon. the Minister was entitled to say that the Opposition wanted to assist the communists and other subversive elements who were the enemies of the State. Shortly afterwards it was the turn of the hon. member for Orange Grove to speak, and in column 343 he said the following—

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says “hear, hear!” For that reason I should like to repeat his last sentence to him. He said—

Now I want to challenge him on this statement. I want to ask him whether it is an act of patriotism and of love of our fatherland when the hon. member for Yeoville rises in this House and breaks the astounding news to the world that South Africa’s devaluation was an act of bankruptcy. Sir, the Opposition is suffering from a bankruptcy of comprehension and understanding of what is meant by patriotism and love of fatherland. Is it an act of patriotism and love of fatherland to create suspicion, by means of a subtle question in this House, a single word, a suggestive sentence, in the outside world of the action taken by the Government to ensure the security of this country and its people? I am referring to detention without trial, a matter about which the Opposition kicked up a tremendous fuss this session, a matter, the necessity of which was borne out once more during the recess when a train disaster and a land mine explosion claimed many human lives and caused injury to many more people. But yet the Sunday Times of last Sunday said the hon. the Minister of Police was exploiting these two matters for political gain when he, as a result of them, drew attention to communist and terrorist activities and again drew attention to the necessity of detention without trial. Now I want to accuse the Opposition along with their Press of attaching more value to the freedom of movement of communists and terrorists than to the security of this country and its people.

Sir, is it an act of patriotism and love of fatherland to suggest that the Security Police terrorize innocent people just because they are opposed to the Government’s policy of separate development? Is it an act of patriotism and love of fatherland to imply that the so-called ill-treatment of prisoners is Government policy? Then, in pursuance of the judgment in the terrorist trial at Pietermaritzburg, the Sunday Times last Sunday made the following pious statement—

This, Sir, after they themselves had brought the charge, after they themselves had conducted the trial and after they themselves had pronounced judgment against the Police and had found them guilty. Is that an act of patriotism and love of fatherland. Sir? Is it an act of patriotism and love of fatherland to present South Africa as a Police State for the suppression of the Black people? Why do they not answer me? I ask whether that is an act of patriotism and love of fatherland.

Who did that?

The hon. member asks who did that. If that is an indication that they are not implicated, then I want to state emphatically that they are implicated, and I want to prove this by putting the following question. Is it an act of patriotism and love of fatherland if the Opposition does not address one word of censure to these journalists who feed on this stinking carrion of politics for the purpose of vilifying South Africa and doing it untold damage overseas? The Opposition no longer knows anything about patriotism and love of fatherland, for otherwise the hon. member for King William’s Town would not have asked me in this House to abandon my Afrikanerhood and to join him and his lot of jingoes in forming a new nation with the Black people. Where is the patriotism of which the hon. member for Orange Grove boasted, and where is his love of his fatherland? These things fade away completely in the United Party’s zeal to destroy at all costs the National Party Government, which is basically an Afrikaner Government. Sir, they want to destroy the binding force of the Afrikaner people, i.e. its religion and its morals, its language and its culture, its traditions and its customs, those things which distinguish it from all other peoples and nations, those things which may be described in one phrase as national pride, that which gives the National Party its strength, with the concept of one nation consisting of 20 million people, because then the Afrikaner will no longer be a factor of political power in South African politics. If we realize our Afrikanerhood, to which the hon. the Minister of Defence referred, then, in their eyes, we are lowering politics to the lowest level in the history of South Africa. We may no longer realize our Afrikanerhood. That is what they demand from us, and what is more, they demand that we abandon it.

Who demands it?

The member for King William’s Town. He says we must abandon our Afrikanerhood for the ideal of one nation consisting of 20 million people.

May I ask you a question?

No, I have too little time to reply to questions.

Sir, let us take a look at the objection of the hon. member for Orange Grove to the so-called accusation of the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Minister of Police that the Opposition assist the enemies of the State. In addition to the quotations from the document “Directive by the South Africa Communist Party” which the hon. the Minister of Justice placed on record, I should like to place on record the following quotation as well, which was used by Lenin himself when he described the purpose of the Communist Party. He said—

Sir, the words “to secure the interest of the exploited majority” appear in quotation marks—

Sir, if you compare this statement of policy by Lenin on the purpose of the Communist Party to certain aspects of the Opposition’s policy, such as, inter alia, the policy that the economic growing-power of this country must be increased by uncontrolled numbers of non-Whites but with the reservation that the non-Whites will never be placed in a position of leadership—and I emphasize “with the reservation that the non-Whites will never be placed in a position of leadership”—secondly, the Opposition’s policy in respect of the development of Bantu homelands, with the reservation that they will never get independence—and I emphasize “that they will never get independence”—thirdly, the Opposition’s policy in respect of their federation scheme, with the reservation that White supremacy (baasskap) will be maintained in all spheres at all times—and I emphasize “that White supremacy will be maintained in all spheres at all times”—fourthly, their policy that non-Whites will be represented by Whites in this House—and I emphasize that it will be Whites—and, lastly, their policy in respect of the number of representatives they want to grant every population group in this House—and I emphasize the number—then I read in the Opposition’s policy the following words—

Sir, this is what I read in their Party’s policy, and the attitude which the Opposition wants to reflect to the outside world through this policy is that of a fair and just minority group in this House, that devotes itself wholeheartedly to the salvation of a vast mass of people who, for the greatest part, in the Opposition’s view, are too lazy or too stupid to realize that they are in need of salvation. Surely it is their policy that non-Whites should be represented here by Whites because the non-Whites are apparently too stupid to do so themselves. Surely it is their policy that the non-White should not elevate his own language to the status of an official language in the homeland because apparently it is an uncivilized language; surely it is their policy, Sir, that the non-Whites are not able to govern themselves in their own homeland because apparently they are too incompetent to do so. It is their policy, Sir, and I want to tell them that no matter how effective this policy may be outwardly under certain circumstances, it is and remains the antithesis of the democratic concept of politics and constitutional education with a view to bringing about political and constitutional maturity. Now I am speaking of political and constitutional maturity for the non-Whites. Sir, the share they want to grant non-White authorities in non-White homelands and the aspects of their policy I have outlined, are directly contained in the principle of the above quotation I made. Mr. Speaker, my time has expired.

Sir, it comes very ill from the hon. gentleman who has just sat down to say to us on this side of the House that we know nothing of patriotism. The history of the United Party has been one of patriotism. The very reason for its existence was patriotism, and the history of this party and the history of its leader is one of patriotism such as you will not find anywhere else in South Africa. The most unpatriotic thing that I have ever seen done was what was done here this afternoon deliberately, obviously planned, by the Minister of Defence. The most shocking exhibition of lack of patriotism that I have seen today apart from that, was the hon. the Prime Minister sitting in his bench watching and enjoying what the hon. the Minister of Defence was saying, Sir, after listening to that speech, the hon. the Prime Minister cannot ever again say, as he has said before and has been believed, that he believes in the unity of the two language groups. Unless the hon. the Prime Minister in this debate gets up and repudiates completely what the hon. the Minister of Defence has said …

Why should I?

So you approve of it?

I am not going to repudiate him at all.

So you approve of it.

That is fine, Sir. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus tried here this afternoon to revive the old communist story. In fact, he led as his star witness the hon. the Minister of Justice. He quoted what the hon. the Minister of Justice had said, that we were helping and making ourselves the tools of the communists. No, Sir, they tried that one just before the Brakpan election and it did not work, and this new story that they are trying for the Oudtshoorn election is not going to work either. But, Sir, I want to say this to the hon. gentleman who has just sat down to the hon. the Minister of Justice: When the same thing as the hon. the Minister of Justice said in the House was said outside this House in a pamphlet put out by that Party, we obtained a court order to stop it, and what is more, on the return day the interdict was confirmed by another judge and, what is more, since then the National Party has abandoned its appeal against that court order. Sir, I will say no more about it because there is an action for defamation against the publishers of that pamphlet.

Then the hon. member for Odendaalsrus talks about “beswaddering” that has taken place. He says that we have had a lot of it over the past three years. What is the “beswaddering” to which he refers? The moment one raises some of these matters, for example the Agliotti matter, everyone loses their cool and gets the jitters. This is not a campaign of “beswaddering”; these are the acts of this Government, inefficiency and all sorts of things, and surely we are entitled, and in fact it is our duty, to inquire about these matters. We had a debate the other day, a short debate, about the extraordinary goings on in the Natal Mercury offices in Durban when the investigator of the Agliotti investigation was being investigated. You will recall what happened, Sir.

So what?

I will tell you so what. We still have not had any satisfactory answer from the hon. the Minister of Police or from the Prime Minister as to what the position was.

That is not true.

Order! The hon. member may not say that and must withdraw it

I withdraw it.

One of the things that has become quite obvious is that this Government has lost its judgment as well. Its performance about the language groups this afternoon shows, I think, a lack of judgment. They do not appreciate what we have found; let me tell them that the man in the street, wherever you go during this Easter recess, whether it is in Brakpan or in Oudtshoorn or in Durban, is asking what on earth is going on in this Agliotti inquiry. Do they not know what is happenning? The public has every reason not only to know but to be extremely concerned about what is or what is not happening about the Agliotti inquiry. We keep asking but we do not get a reply, and when the public asks us we can only say that we asked but we got not reply.

It is because you gossip so much.

There it is. Sir, The hon. member for Prinshof says that is because we started “skinderstories”. What is this “skinderstorie”? Let me say at the very beginning, that all we had when we raised this matter, apart from some emotional displays from people who ought to have known better, was a lot of abuse from the hon. the Minister, who called me “Muddy Mitchell”. Why does he call me by that name? He does so because I inquired and asked for a short half-hour debate which you, Sir, allowed, about the happenings in the Natal Mercury offices, which was an investigation, as it now turns out, into a “skinderstorie”. I heard this “skinderstorie” for the first time from the hon. the Minister of Police. We did not know what was going on in regard to this extraordinary affair where the Commissioner of Police causes an investigation to be made into the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the Chief of the CID, behind his back, and sends a man on his own staff to go and get a sworn statement from a witness as to something which he, Gen. Bester, the Deputy Commissioner, is alleged to have said about the Agliotti affair. We did not know what it was and we kept on asking what it was, and what is it? Who tells us when for the first time we hear what it is? It is not the newspapers which tell us about these “skinderstories” and it is not the Sappe but the Minister himself. What is it? I want to read what the Minister himself said. He said that in the first place a report was conveyed to the Commissioner of Police personally that Gen. Bester had alledgedly made certain statements to a reporter of an English language newspaper in Natal. These statements which Gen. Bester had allegedly made were to the effect that the Government wanted to impose certain restrictions on certain aspects of the inquiry into the Agliotti matter. In other words what it amounted to was that the Police, because of action from the side of the Government, could not conduct their inquiry freely and in an unhampered way. Furthermore, according to the report which was conveyed to the Commissioner of Police, Gen. Bester had allegedly told the reporter that as a result of the interference of the Government in regard to the inquiry into the Agliotti case, he was going to retire before he was due to retire and that after he had retired he would make a full story and all the information available to this reporter for publication. That is more or less the content of the statement allegedly made to the reporter by Gen. Bester.

As I say, no one had heard of this before the hon. the Minister produced it and told us what it was. Sir, it is a devastating sort of statement for anyone to be alleged to have made, especially having regard to the extraordinary, inordinate, unexplained delay in the investigation into the Agliotti case. What was this statement that Gen. Bester is alleged to have made? This whole affair was investigated under the supervision of the Commissioner of Police, and this statement was called a “skinderstorie”.

Now in regard to this statement, either it was rumoured that Gen. Bester had said this or it was not a rumour but something more. I want to say that I find it very hard to believe, without any explanation, which we still have not had, …

That it is a “skinderstorie”.

Just be quiet for a moment. That statement was investigated by the Commissioner of Police. Was it just a rumour he heard? Surely he would not investigate his deputy behind his back just on a rumour? I would suggest that he would surely have said he would not investigate a “skinderstorie” like this unless he had a statement on oath, an affidavit. I do not believe that he would do such a thing unless he had such a statement.

How does he get a statement?

I want to know whether there is a statement. Why does he investigate? Just on a shadow? [Interjections.]

Order!

The Commissioner is on record as saying that as far as he was concerned what Gen. Bester had said or was alleged to have said was ridiculous. [Interjections.] Then surely he would have said that he was not going to investigate this unless he had a sworn statement. What we want to know is whether there is a sworn statement. If there is a sworn statement upon which the Commissioner acted against his deputy behind his back, will the Minister please tell us who made that statement? [Interjections.] How many are there?

Order!

It seems that that informer has now committed perjury. Is the Minister going to charge him, or does he give his informers indemnity against the charge of perjury too?

Where do you get that from?

Someone is lying. There are two affidavits. One of them is from Gerry Strauss, the reporter, and the other one, according to the Minister, is from Gen. Bester, and there is another sworn statement from someone else saying something different from what is in those sworn statements. What is he going to do about it? If there is no sworn statement, then I find it absolutely scandalous that the Deputy Commissioner of Police can be investigated behind his back merely on a rumour, not made on oath in a statement. And, Sir, will the hon. the Minister indicate whether there is a sworn statement? I hope he will. But if there is no sworn statement, then without a proper explanation, one can find no good reason for the commissioner having caused this investigation to take place in which he wanted sworn statements from people, unless someone had said to him : “I hear this has happened; I want it investigated.” Then he does not have to have a sworn statement if the person can ask him to do this. And there are only two people who could ask him to do it. The one is the hon. the Minister of Police and the other the hon. the Prime Minister. This whole situation, in so far as the Commissioner himself was concerned, was ridiculous and a lot of nonsense.

Then there is the other point which has not as yet been answered. The hon. the Minister did not answer it last time. Perhaps he did not have time. This concerns the question why this investigation took place behind Gen. Bester’s back. Why did he not as in the normal course of events say to Gen. Bester: This is what I hear has happened; what have you got to say about it? This did not happen. Even a common thief, when he is investigated by the Police, is told what the charge is against him. This is done before the investigation takes place. But not Gen. Bester, the chief of the C.I.D. He is the longest serving policeman in South Africa with an impeccable record. And this is the way he is treated. How do strange things like this happen? They don’t happen in the ordinary course of events in an ordinary departmental inquiry. In my experience certainly it does not take place in the Police Force where they are meticulous and excellent in their investigations and very fair to everyone within the Force.

But not in this case.

Not in this case and as I have said:“Why not?” This is the Chief of the C.I.D. It lends support to the view that this was not just an ordinary investigation. Someone has to explain. There are only two people who could have told the Commissioner to investigate without a sworn statement and those are the two gentlemen I have mentioned.

A long time has elapsed since this investigation started. If my memory serves me correctly, the hon. the Prime Minister himself ordered the Police investigation into this matter in September, 1971, while the commission that was enquiring into the Agliotti matter was still sitting. We have had no satisfactory reply from the hon. the Minister or anyone yet as to why these investigations which are now approximately 18 months old, have not been completed. In fact, earlier on, in June, 1971, for example, we found the following report in the Cape Times—

And then in the Sunday Times of the 6th June of that year, again you find—

This is what was going on then, having started in September. Nothing has happened at all. The hon. the Minister of Police can’t tell us why. But he can tell us—how extraordinary—that he expects that the inquiry is going to be completed by June. Why June? Why does he feel that it will be completed in June especially as the matter is still being investigated, but, Sir, even more especially, because he says “it is a delicate matter?” I will tell hon. members what is very interesting as well. It is not just the hon. the Minister who says it is delicate. In fact, he says it is very delicate. The Commissioner of Police says that the inquiry is a delicate matter. This is what we want to know. What is it that makes the inquiry into this ugly scandal of the Agliotti affair “delicate?” Surely the only thing that can make it delicate is that delicate matters arose during the course of the investigation. Why is it delicate? We want to know. We have not heard. It must be very, very delicate if the inquiry is as protracted as it has been, but we do not know. What we do know is that in the middle of all this the man who is in charge of the investigation is suddenly investigated himself concerning something he said about that. The country is sick and tired of having no answer to this question. In fact, the distinct impression that is created is that there is something not delicate, but something fishy and smelly about this whole affair. [Interjections.] See how touchy they get. They say it is all my creation. This is not so. The hon. the Prime Minister appointed a commission to look into the matter. The commissioner found that there were irregularities such as one could not have believed had one not seen them in the report. He also found there to be mala fides, and he suggested that the papers should be submitted to the Attorney-General for what action he could take. There were only two people that he mentioned in his report, namely Venter and Agliotti, in respect of whom he thought the Attorney-General should take action. Does this Government expect the country to believe that the Police have been investigating for 18 months and that they will not complete their investigations until June into the activities of two people involved in one transaction? I hope the hon. the Minister is going to give us a reply. We do not want a reply from the hon. member for Prinshof. We had his flow of abuse and invective last time. What we want are the facts …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I beg your pardon, Sir. I withdraw that. We had a lot of noise from the hon. member for Prinshof, but no facts. He does not know the facts and there is therefore no point in his talking about this matter. We want the facts now. Only the hon. the Minister can give us those facts. One of the immediate reactions to this affair came from senior members of the Police Force. They said in effect that they could not understand how Gen. Bester could be investigated behind his back. What one of them said, I think, sums the whole matter up, namely “If this is happening at the top, then God help us down below”. This is the Minister of Police who is there to look after the Police Department and the policemen to see that things are properly done and properly run. What does he say? What is his contribution and message to the Police Force? It is that as far as he is concerned, he approves of every action of the Commissioner. The Minister also said:“Had he asked me beforehand whether he should do this in the way in which in fact he did, I would have given him the necessary instructions to do so.” I would like him to justify that and I am sure every policeman in South Africa would like him to justify that and to say that he will have such an inquiry once more. All these questions still remain unanswered. The hon. the Minister said that he had given no instruction to the Commissioner of Police to set up this investigation. He also spoke in that regard on behalf of the hon. the Prime Minister. Did the hon. the Minister of Police know that this investigation was going on? Did he? That is a very important question for him to answer, because the distinct impression we got the last time he spoke on this matter was that he did not know that the investigation was going on. In fact, he said that had he been asked by the general to do it in the way it was done, he would have said yes. The impression is that he did not know. If he did know, why did he not know? Why did he, the Minister of Police, not know? It is no good his shaking his head like that, trying to fob it off; he is the Minister of Police. The Deputy Chief of Police is investigated behind his back, sworn statements are required and the Commissioner of Police in charge of it, the Commissioner of Police himself actually asks a witness for a sworn statement and the hon. the Minister of Police does not know anything about it. Is this possible? The only way it could be possible is that someone else gave the instruction. That person could only be the Prime Minister. No one else could have done it. If the Minister did not know about it, I do not believe that the Prime Minister could not have known about it as well.

You are very irresponsible.

No.

You are as irresponsible as a man could ever be.

No, there has to be some answer as to how this can possibly happen. We have had none from the hon. the Minister of Police. He does not even know that this is happening and now I ask the hon. the Prime Minister that question.

To drag me in is as irresponsible as you want it to be.

The hon. the Prime Minister is a former Minister of Police …

Are you doing it for publicity, as you have done in theSunday Times?

No. The hon. the Prime Minister is a former Minister of Police. Can he tell me whether he would allow this thing to happen within the Department of Police without his knowledge? Would you?

You can raise it when my Vote is under discussion.

Would you allow this to happen? I do not believe that the hon. the Prime Minister would have allowed this to happen when he was the Minister of Police without his being consulted about it. I should jolly well hope not, too!

I shall be very pleased if you raise it when my Vote is under discussion.

There is a simple answer you can give to that one.

How many statements were there?

Yes, of course, we want to know how many statements there were which caused this investigation. If you do not want to tell us the names, tell us how many there were and what has happened to them. There are all sorts of strange things. It is far from being “Sapskinderstories”. The only person who seems to know anything about this is a gentleman called Mr. Gert Claassen. Mr. Gert Claassen is certainly not a “Sap”; in fact, what he says about this affair is—

What is the whole truth about the Agliotti business? What is going on? What is happening? I think the hon. the Minister must now come clean. If there is not going to be a prosecution in this matter, come clean and tell us now. Surely, he knows by now; surely he can tell us what he could not before, namely whether there are other people who are being investigated for their involvement with a view to being prosecuted, other than Agliotti and Venter. Are there, or aren’t there? If there are, we would like the answer to that, because if the Government does not come clean on this thing very soon, it is going to do them a lot of harm. That does not worry me, but the fact is that it is doing the country immeasurable harm to have this scandal sitting in our public life all this time, unanswered for by this Government, with an inquiry going on, an inquiry which takes an inordinately long time and which is expected to end about the time Parliament ends. This is not good enough. Please, will the hon. the Minister get up and give us a good, clean and straight answer on this subject?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. the Minister of Labour made the statement that the United Party was trying to commit character assassination in South Africa according to the American pattern. If ever people wanted to have an example of that, they have had in this House this afternoon the most perfect example one can possibly have of groundless disparagement. I wonder whether the hon. member for Durban North will pay some attention, after I have sat here listening patiently to his nonsense. Now, what are the facts of this matter? What are the facts of the statement of the hon. the Minister and the statement of Gen. Joubert, the Commissioner of Police? If the hon. member for Durban North had used his brains at all, which he did not do, he would have known the facts immediately. Now I want to show to this hon. House that the hon. member was simply indulging in gossip and in discrediting Ministers and the Police to the worst degree. The fact of the matter is that Gen. Joubert said that he had heard a piece of gossip from Natal. He heard that Gen. Bester had made a statement. He immediately caused an investigation to be made. To me it is as clear as daylight why he caused the investigation to be made, because it is so that in Natal everybody goes about with their noses and ears to the ground so as to pick up every possible and impossible bit of gossip and to run with that to the Sunday newspapers to start a fire where there is absolutely no fuel.

What about Mr. Claassen?

And then the hon. member for Durban North walked in here and asked quite naïvely why a sworn statement was not obtained before an investigation was carried out. Gen. Joubert sent a police officer to obtain a sworn statement, and what statement did he obtain? The hon. members expect an answer from us, but when we give them the answer they do not listen. [Interjections.] I said the hon. member had asked why a sworn statement had not been obtained. Gen. Joubert sent an officer to obtain a sworn statement in regard to the so-called statement. What sworn statement did he obtain : Gen. Bester had said nothing! That concluded the matter. Why?—Because it was gossip. A sworn statement was obtained so that the Minister, when the gossip-mongers ran to Parliament to ask for a judicial commission of inquiry, would be able to say that there was a sworn statement to the effect that Gen. Bester had made no statement. That was all that happened, but what do we find now? The M.P.’s from Natal, the hon. member for Durban North, to be specific, heard something. He did not have the faintest idea of what he had heard. But, after all, he is a responsible member of the House of Assembly. He ran to the Sunday Times, but with what? He had nothing which made it necessary for him to run to the paper, but he came to light with a piece of gossip and made the headlines with that. What was his news? He put a question; and on the basis of that a full page was written! His question was: Who asked for an investigation to be ordered against Gen. Bester? In order to commit character assassination, he came to the conclusion, which was gossip, that it had to be either the Minister of Police or the hon. the Prime Minister. What was the idea of that? It had a single motive only, i.e. to start sowing suspicion and to discredit the Cabinet so as to allow of further gossip. That was the real motive. Now he has come to the House of Assembly …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Speaker, at this stage I cannot understand English. If the hon. member puts his question in Afrikaans, I shall reply to him. [Interjections.]

Where did the gossip start?

Reply! Reply!

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER; Mr. Speaker, I shall be very pleased to reply to that. The hon. member for South Coast asked where the gossip started. The gossip started where all gossip starts, and that is on the south coast of Natal. That is where all gossip starts. But what happened? The hon. member for Durban North came to this Parliament knowing that the Standing Orders give him the right …

On a point of order, Sir, may an hon. member tell another hon. member that he is an idiot?

Order! What hon.

member said that?

1 did, Sir. I withdraw it.

With the greatest respect for that hon. member, I must say in all honesty that I really cannot take any notice of such a statement, coming from him. If he said that, I forgive him.

Order! The hon. member withdrew it; therefore the hon. member may proceed.

The hon. member for Durban North called for a dramatic debate. What did he do in his dramatic debate? He put exactly the same question to us and made exactly the same little statement he had made in the Sunday Times. He produced the same piece of idle gossip. What motive did that have? The motive was to create, by way of repetition, a false image of our Cabinet and of the actions and work of our Police. It was a disparagement of our national administration; it was to tell the country outside, “Just see how bad this administration is—the Ministers do not even know what is going on in their departments”. The hon. member then came forward with these soggy arguments, repeated the same debate to which he had already received a full reply, and said that there had been no reply to his arguments. With all respect to the hon. member for Durban North, it is not our fault if he cannot understand the replies given to him. I am afraid, however, that that hon. member is one of those people to whom one may say something a hundred times, but once he has something in his head, he flies off at a tangent and it is impossible for one to bring him back to the right track. From here he will again proceed to Natal with the same gossip. On Sunday there will be another huge front-page report on one question only: “What is the answer?” He has been given the answer ten times, but even now he does not know what it is. If the hon. the Opposition comes into power, I should like, even at this stage, to tell the hon. the Leader something he must consider very seriously. The hon. member is supposed to be a shadow Minister. This kind of irresponsible action can only bring forth more of the same kind of thing. Today I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this : They are undermining the authority of our Police and our Ministers. What they are doing is deliberate, unfounded and unmotivated. They are occupied with a false impression at all times.

What are the answers to the questions I put?

What questions did you put? Ask, and I shall reply to you.

Are more than two persons being investigated?

That is more gossip you have heard in Natal. Why does the hon. member not put those questions in this House? Why does he not put them on the Question Paper? Here I want to say frankly to those hon. members …

Shut your trap now.

Order! The hon. member for Umlazi !

May he say a man must shut his trap?

Oh, Sir, he once told us that when he chased a thief it was to catch him. If he has said something, I am not paying any attention to it, because he will never be able to catch me, even if he wanted to arrest me.

Now I want to try to make this point. Once again we have to sit through six months and waste our time listening to the type of speech we have just heard from the hon. member for Durban North. [Interjections.] While we are sitting here and while those people are sitting there barking at the back, some of our sons are facing land mines up in the North. [Interjections.] Let me hear; what is the hon. member saying?

All our sons.

Yes, all our sons, and it behoves the hon. member to remember that. It is not our sons only; I speak of all the South African sons. While the hon. member is discrediting the administration of the police here, without any justification, those men are defending our country. Sir I want to tell the hon. member for Durban North that it is not proper of him to come and tell these pieces of unfounded gossip he has picked up on the south coast of Natal in a responsible Parliament such as this. It is not proper of him to conduct this kind of debate in these serious times. The proper thing for us to do, in the light of the given evidence, is to stand by the Police administration, Justice and the men. Sir, I just want to mention a few examples to you. Recently some of our young men were killed and others maimed in a landmine explosion up in the North. Do we ever get an outburst of indignation from the English-language press in respect of that kind of thing? Has the hon. member for Durban North ever risen, in the public interest, in a debate to ask the Minister of Police to strengthen the security of South Africa? No, Sir, while those things are taking place, they come here with that kind of nonsense and then we are to take it seriously. Last year when 49 people were rounded up here, hon. members on that side told us that we should not detain people without trial. Three of those people were charged forthwith and the Attorney-General said they could be released on bail. What happened? They absconded. Did the hon. member call for a debate that time to suggest that we should take steps to stop this kind of thing? No, he comes to this House with this kind of childish nonsense.

They are his comrades.

Sir, I want to read out to you what the Sunday Times wrote about this incident. Now this is a national paper, in the broad sense of the word; they say they are independent of political parties. I quote—

A wonderful statement, because it happened. But then the big “but” follows—

Does the hon. member for Durban North agree with that statement? I should like to know this. No, he is not replying; he agrees with it. He always runs to this newspaper for his news.

For publicity.

The article makes this further statement—

This refers to one of those who absconded

Does the hon. member agree with that statement? What does this newspaper mean when it speaks of “all manner of questionable laws”? It means two Acts only, i.e. the Suppression of Communism Act and the Terrorism Act. Does the hon. member for Durban North agree with this newspaper when it speaks of “questionable laws”?

When are you going to make your speech?

I am asking the hon. member a question; let him reply to my question first; after all, he is the man who is so fond of asking questions. Sir, what happened when 13 people were charged under the Suppression of Communism Act?

Mr. Speaker, will you allow me to reply?

No, the hon. member has already had a turn to speak.

He need only reply “yes” or “no”.

The hon. member need only tell me whether he agrees or not. This is his newspaper. Let him reply to my questions. When 13 people were tried in Pietermaritzburg, what happened? The statements that the Police had allegedly beaten up these people to force them to give evidence, were published under huge banner headlines. If the advocate put a question, not the answer but the question was published under banner headlines. If a question was put “Did you beat up such and such a man in the cell until the blood ran?”, the newspaper reported, “It is alleged that blood ran in the cell”. It was an attempt at disparaging this Government and this country’s administration of justice. With these attacks on the Terrorism Act that hon. member participated in this disparagement. And what did we find in the end? We found that an English-speaking Judge, the Judge-President of Natal, had found those people guilty.

What is your point?

The point I want to make is that that side of the House must now put an end to disparaging our Police. There is more than sufficient evidence here that these restrictions, that section 6 of the Terrorism Act, are absolutely essential. There is more than sufficient evidence of that, and I expect the hon. member for Durban North to rise and to agree wholeheartedly with me and to tell this Government, “Go ahead; you are doing a fine job of work”. Now I should like to address a request to the hon. member for Durban North.

What about Agliotti?

The hon. member for Durban North is a so-called legal man. He knows just as well as I do that when the Prime Minister appointed the Agliotti Commission so quickly it was virtually attempting the impossible for the Police to bring someone to book. I think it redounds to the credit of this Government that it is taking so much pains over such a long period to gather the evidence which is so vital. But what is made of this? In spite of the fact that the hon. member should have known this he again indulged in sowing suspicion in connection with the point he, as a legal man, ought to have known could not have been brought to finality any earlier. Sir, I want to make an appeal to hon. members on that side to put a stop to this character assassination and sowing of suspicion, particularly as far as the Police are concerned, and particularly as far as section 6 is concerned. The times are too dangerous. Hon. members on that side must not come and tell us that they, as a party, know better how to deal with subversion that we do. They did in fact do so, and they enjoyed doing so. Do you know why? Because the people against whom they acted were not communists—they were sitting together with them in the Friends of the Soviet Union—but Afrikaners. They enjoyed it because these people were Afrikaners, but what did they do with regard to the communists? They were sitting together with them in one melting pot—in the Friends of the Soviet Union. I want to tell hon. members on that side that they should stop that now; the people have been aware of it for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a very serious matter with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today. I want to discuss with him the conduct of the hon. member for Durban North. I have here an edition of the Sunday Tribune of 30th January, 1972. The caption reads—

Hear, hear!

Someone is saying “hear, hear!”

That was your own Chief Whip.

The second caption reads as follows—

Then comes the following report, of which I want to quote certain sections—

Matchmaker Mike Mitchell!

They married as White people.

But what is actually happening here? The hon. member for Durban North is making use of an obvious loophole in the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act to allow marriages between non-Whites and Whites to be performed. In practice the hon. shadow Minister of Justice is then opposed to the prohibition on mixed marriages. I now want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether the United Party is opposed to the prohibition of mixed marriages, or are they in favour of the prohibition of mixed marriages? I am putting that question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Is the United Party in favour of the prohibition on mixed marriages, or are they opposed to it? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not aware of the fact that I represent 1 600 U.P. supporters in my constituency. Must I now go and tell them that you do not want to reply to them? Must I now go and tell them that? I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a question. Is he or is he not in favour of the prohibition of mixed marriages? [Interjections.] I am not asking the hon. member for Yeoville; I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Sir, I am standing here as a back-bencher and I want information from the Leader of the Opposition. I challenge him to tell me whether he is in favour of the prohibition of mixed marriages, yes or no? [Interjections.]

Order!

I am placing it on record that the Leader of the Opposition does not have the courage to give me a yes-or-no answer across the floor of this House. I am placing it on record that the Leader of the Opposition is sitting in his bench at the moment and hears what I am saying, and I am placing it on record that the United Party may in the past have said that they are in favour of the prohibition of mixed marriages, but in practice they are opposed to it.

What about Agliotti?

We have by now heard such a great deal about Agliotti from the hon. member for Durban North that we no longer need to hear about it from the hon. member for Pinelands. This is a very important matter, one which deals with the relations policy in South Africa. It is a matter which deals with the relationships between Whites and non-Whites.

Sir, I shall tell you what conclusion I draw from what happened among the ranks of the United Party, and now the hon. members of the United Party may deny this if they wish. They have decided not to reply to the questions put by Nationalists, for they then find themselves in difficulties. Recently we have seen that all of them— from the Leader of the Opposition down, all the front-benchers and back-benchers— do not reply to the question if a member of this side of the House says he wants to put one, while hon. members on this side of the House are always prepared to reply to questions. [Interjections.] We discussed Agliotti, and we replied to all the questions put by hon. members. But I am levelling an accusation across the floor of this House to the effect that the hon. members on that side of the House have reached an agreement and have said to each other : We must stick together and not reply to any questions because as soon as we reply, they give us a damned good hiding (neuk ons op)! Is that, or is that not so?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

Then I say “thrash” (foeter) them.

The hon. member must first withdraw it before he may proceed.

I withdraw it. I maintain that the Parliamentary tactics of the United Party are undoubtedly to refrain from replying to penetrating questions, and I challenge the members on that side to deny that the hon. member for King William’s Town was hauled over the coals for replying to questions here yesterday.

Sir, what is the position here? The hon. member for Durban North says “Seven people from his constituency have come to him in desperation during the past few months, and there have been scores over the past few years and in each case they were helped to get married despite one partner holding a Coloured identity card”.

It is quite legal.

I am not asking him whether he can do this thing legally, through making use of a loophole. He looks as if he wants to reply to questions now. Perhaps he is becoming a little more loquacious now. Can he tell us whether he is in favour of the prohibition on mixed marriages, or is he opposed to it?

Do you need it?

Order! Did the hon. member say that that hon. member needs it?

I asked a question.

What does the hon. member mean by that? The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

I think the hon. member for Turffontein did not hear that he must withdraw that expression. He also put the same question to me three or four times. If that remark has to be withdrawn, then I ask whether the hon. member for Turffontein should not also withdraw it.

Did the hon. member also ask that question?

I withdraw it.

I also said it, and I withdraw it.

Sir, I also asked that question.

Order! I do not want hon. members to make a farce of this Parliament. If they do so again I shall take stronger action.

Parliamentary rules and practice make provision for my being able to put questions to the Opposition across the floor of the House, and it is customary that specific questions be answered. It is done daily. Why does the Leader of the Opposition not want to reply to the question? Let us analyse the position. Firstly, he does not know the answer, or secondly, if he knows the answer for the present, he is too afraid to reply for he knows that by doing so he will make certain members in his party angry. Further, he knows the answer; he knows they are opposed to the prohibition on mixed marriages, but he does not want to say it because a by-election is to be held in Oudtshoorn next week. Why does he not furnish a reply to this? We place it on record that the United Party is opposed to the prohibition on mixed marriages.

I want to make a single comment on national unity and what has been said in this connection. I want to make it very clear that we on this side of the House are quite clearly in favour of national unity. I want to make it clear that national unity at its best can flourish under the National Party and not under the United Party. This is so because we accord mutual recognition to the rights of the other language groups in the country, because we respect their language and are prepared to use it.

But you do not recognize their right to speak their own language in Parliament.

I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that in this House a person may speak whichever language he wishes to speak. That is not the issue here. The issue here is whether he is in fact prepared to show respect for the Afrikaner by using their language as well in this House. That is all that is at issue here. The Prime Minister said on one occasion “To speak and to understand the other man’s language is to show your respect for him”. The hon. members will probably not say whether they agree with that, but I want to sum up the standpoint of the National Party by saying: “We understand and we speak the English language and we do it because we respect it”. But what we ourselves do, we also demand for ourselves, and that is the difference. That is what is at issue here. The entire argument this afternoon revolves around the fact that the other side of the House is not prepared to show to the Afrikaner what the Afrikaner is prepared to show to the English-speaking South Africans. What is at issue is respect, and regard. Let me say this to that side of the House.

Do you know what rubbish is? That is what you are talking.

The hon. member who has just spoken now, is all at sea (van sy trollie af). He is out of his depth. We on this side of the House want to tell the hon. members there that when there are members among them who are not prepared to learn Afrikaans and are not prepared to speak Afrikaans, they are out of touch with the majority of the Englishspeaking population of South Africa.

Your Afrikaans is not all that good.

My Afrikaans may be poor, but it is nevertheless better than yours. Under the policy and the control of the National Party, and with the disposition of the Party as it is, national unity will always grow in South Africa, because the National Party will always stay in power.

Will the hon. member deny that he was egging on the hon. member for Lydenburg yesterday in his horrible speech?

I gladly furnish a reply to that question. Of course I agreed with every word the hon. member for Lydenburg said, because the hon. member for Lydenburg demanded that respect be shown, and because the hon. member for Lydenburg, through the challenge he levelled at the hon. member for Parktown, proved that that side of the House is not prepared to show respect towards and regard for the Afrikaans language. Of course I acclaimed that speech.

Mr. Speaker, after the exhibition that we have had both this afternoon and yesterday on the subject of national unity, I don’t think it behoves any hon. member on that side to deal any further with that topic. It was as repulsive to me to listen to some of the speeches, particularly the speech of the hon. the Minister of Defence, as it is to watch maggots feeding on a corpse. Hon. members, such as the hon. Minister of Defence, making speeches such as they did, feasted on the emotions of the people in as repulsive a way as do maggots on a corpse. And it was perhaps appropriate that the worst offender in that regard should have been the hon. the Minister of Defence because he has not only the spinelessness but the shape and the colour of those repulsive creatures as well. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pretoria Central who has just spoken, revealed his ignorance about the position in terms of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. He attempted to embarrass this side of the House and the hon. member for Durban North in regard to a certain situation which arose in terms of that legislation. And what was it? It was the case of a Coloured and a White living together with children. And what happened? Under the legislation of this Government, administered by the officials of this Government, these people were entitled to be married as Whites in terms of that legislation in order to legitimize their children.

That is not the position.

Why the hon. member for Durban North should take the blame for this state of affairs, I cannot imagine, more particularly as we have read recently of yet another case under the laws and the administration of this Government of a White woman classified as Chinese in order that she can marry a Chinaman. Now, let us leave these irrelevancies alone and get back to more important matters such as the position of the hon. the Minister of Police.

The hon. the Minister of Police has already lost a great deal of the shreds and tatters which remain of his reputation as a Minister when it was said by one of his own organs that he should be replaced by Mr. Haak from outside because he could no longer carry the portfolio of Commerce and Industry, having been a complete failure in that portfolio in the eyes of his own press to the extent that he must be replaced by a man as discredited as was Mr. Haak when he left the Cabinet. Having reached that position, what do we find in his other portfolio, namely that of Police? We are in a situation where the allegation is against a very senior, the second most senior police officer in the Police Force in South Africa. The duty of the hon. the Minister is to stand up in this House and to clear the name of that member; that is his duty. His duty is to disclose the facts to this House so that that senior policeman’s name is finally cleared. But what does he do? He hides behind senior Police officials, such as Gen. Joubert. He even hides behind the inadequate person of the hon. member for Prinshof. It is not only ourselves. …

Give me one instance where I have hidden behind an officer. If you cannot prove it to me, I say you are a liar.

It has been the hon. the Minister’s custom, whenever there is a ticklish statement to be made in regard to Police affairs, to put up a senior police officer to make that statement for him Gen. Gouws was one of those who had to be put in that position. Our concern in this matter is shared. I do not often find support in Die Burger, but our concern is shared by that organ of the National Party in an editorial of the 15th of June, 1971. Amongst other things they said—

This is the point. As daar koppe moet af, dan moet hulle af”. What is the inference to be drawn from the statement which was revealed for the first time as was pointed out by the hon. the Minister himself? It cannot be dressed up as rumours and scandalmongering which emanated from this side of the House. It cannot be dressed up as rumours and scandalmongering which emanated from the English-language press. Nobody in the country, not any organ of the Press nor any member of Parliament on this side of the House, knew of this alleged scandalmongering until the hon. the Minister made the statement in this House. Die Burger says that if heads must roll, they must roll. What was the allegation? What was the allegation which the hon. the Minister disclosed which Gen. Bester was alleged to have made? He is supposed to have said that there was interference by the Government in the investigation of the Agliotti case. The Minister spoke carefully and he left a number of things unsaid. What did he say? He said that it was alleged that Gen. Bester had said—and I quote the Minister’s Hansard—“that the Government wanted to impose certain restrictions on certain aspects of the inquiry into the Agliotti matter”. Now the first question immediately is what restrictions is it alleged the Government was placing upon the enquiry? This is what the country wishes to know, because as far as one can see the only restrictions which are conceivable in these circumstances are restrictions on the investigation of certain persons. We want to know who they were and what these restrictions are that it is alleged Gen. Bester said were being made by the Government upon this inquiry. We do not want the hon. member for Pretoria Central put up or the hon. member for Prinshof or the hon. member for Potohefstroom. We do not want the hon. the Minister to follow his usual habit of hiding behind somebody. We want him to get up to answer this question in this House.

Let us take the next step. The hon. member for Durban North …

That is right, coach him, False Bay. [Interjections.]

Perhaps after we have heard a few more speeches, and the hon. the Minister has been briefed a little further by the hon. member for False Bay, he may be in a position to make a statement. But what was the point of the hon. member for Durban North? One is faced here with a situation where the second most senior policeman in the country, the head of the C.I.D. …

You have said that before.

I know and I am going to say it again. Do not be embarrassed by it, because we will go on saying it until we get an answer. I myself do not propose to repeat it again after this. The circumstances are peculiar and they point to the very heart of this matter; that is why they must be stated. On the hon. the Minister’s own statement, not only is this man somebody of immense seniority and respect in the Police Force, and not only is he the head man investigating the Agliotti matter, but, so we are to understand, at the time when the Commissioner of Police who investigated, according to the Minister, who launched this investigation, at a time when the Commissioner of Police knew that the man involved was such a man as is Gen. Bester, at a time when the Commissioner of Police and I repeat, who launched this according to the Minister—knew that the rumour which had come to him was ridiculous and unfounded, knowing all that, we are to understand …

How did he know that?

Because he said he knew it. The very first thing he said when he came into this matter with the Natal Mercury was that he knew that it was ridiculous and a whole lot of nonsense. Knowing all this we are to accept as an intelligent report that he launched this enquiry on his own account. He did this not by facing up to Gen. Bester and saying that it is a ridiculous story which they know is ridiculous, but one which he had better deny, but he did it by means of a secret enquiry behind that officer’s back. This is a set of circumstances which require the most careful and particular explanation not by a host of junior people, but by the Minister himself.

I have given you a full explanation. [Interjections].

You have not.

I gave you the reasons which every sensible person will understand.

It is very funny that no organ of the Press in this country and certainly nobody on this side of the House is satisfied with that explanation.

Not even his own Press.

Mr. R. M. CADMAN; Precisely, his own Press as well. The things the hon. the Minister has to tell us are what the alleged restrictions were.

You better ask the scandalmongers for those details.

You are the scandalmonger. You produced this story. The second thing which the hon. Minister must tell us is this: Was there a sworn statement which launched this investigation? Was there a sworn statement or not? If there was a sworn statement, what action is the hon. Minister going to take against the person who made it, because it was obviously false? When the hon. Minister dealt with this matter on the last occasion, he said in his own statement in justification of Gen. Joubert’s action that he would want to determine whom the man was who had lied and who had implicated Gen. Bester’s name in that way. Therefore, he said, it was essential for the Commissioner of Police to investigate what had happened here. We go along with the hon. the Minister there and that is why I say we want a clear statement from the hon. the Minister as to who made the statement upon oath, a statement which was false, and we want to know what action has been taken as a result of that false statement. This statement has not only acutely embarrassed the Government, but it has acutely embarrassed a senior and respected member of the hon. Minister’s own staff. Are we faced with the situation that the hon. Minister is prepared to stay quiet and to protect a perjurer who has come close to damaging the name of a senior policeman in his own department? If that is so, it is a scandalous state of affairs.

I said that in my statement. I said that the matter was still being investigated.

The hon. the Minister says that the matter is still being investigated. Why is it still being investigated? I hope the hon. Minister will tell us that.

I said so.

Why?

It is ridiculous anyway.

Your information is altogether incorrect. [Interjections.]

It is time that we should be told all the facts. I thought we had been given a full explanation according to the hon. the Minister.

Read my statement.

As far as I can see, on the facts there are only four people who could have brought this information as the hon. Minister says, “personally” to the Commissioner of Police, Gen. Joubert. It is alleged to have been given to the newspaper reporter apparently, according to what one reads in the Press, and the only time that Gen. Bester and this reporter were together was at a dinner party at the house of Mr. Gert Claassen, That is the only time they were together. Mr. Gert Claassen is a good member of the National Party. Only four people could have made that report: Mr. Claassen, or his wife or the other two guests who were present.

Were there only four people at the party?

Yes, according to the first statement. The hon. Minister knows the facts; do not ask me. That is what we want to hear from him. [Interjections.] What are the inferences which the public are entitled to draw from this? Firstly, if the Minister is protecting …

I am not protecting anybody.

… a person who has made a statement on oath, a statement which was false—in other words, a perjured statement—it might be an ex-office bearer of the National Party. It will be most regrettable if those inferences were to remain in the minds of the people of the country.

Another scandal story.

It is not a scandal story, but a legitimate inference they will draw from the known facts if the hon. Minister will not give us the full facts.

I see the hon. Minister of Agriculture has gone. I regret it, but nevertheless I shall have to deal with another matter concerning him. This Minister is a gentleman who, according to his own Press, ought to resign. I quote the headlines of Rapport: “Burger sê aan Uys, bedank.” However, we have here, and I have to deal with it very quickly, another case of what appears to be the habit of that hon. Minister, namely the habit of giving preferential treatment to important people. That is the way the facts appear unless we get an explanation from the hon. Minister concerned. We have here, curiously enough, some 5 600 acres of State land overlooking the land of Mr. Bell. I see that the hon. Leader of the House is making motions; I did not send a message to the hon. Minister of Agriculture because when I stood up he was sitting in his place. We have here 5 600 acres of State land overlooking the land of Mr. Bell which towards the end of 1962 was advertised as open to tender as sisal land to the public. The advertisement is important because it says specifically: “The lease of State-owned land at Duku Duku for the cultivation of sisal.” It makes no reference to any other crops, but says specifically “sisal”. Furthermore it says that the lease will be for a period of 20 years. A number of people in Zululand have read this advertisement which appeared widely in the Press. A great many of them took the view that this land was unsuited for sisal and consequently did not apply. Had they known that the land would subsequently be allowed for purposes other than sisal, many more would have applied for it. Despite the misgivings of some, many applied and they were given details of the conditions which the successful tenderer would have to comply with. Those conditions included some of the following. I am dealing with the Duku-Duku State land which was leased for the purpose of sisal cultivation. The lease was for 20 years according to the conditions given to those who tendered. The land was to be used exclusively for the production of sisal and for any other purpose directly connected with sisal. The successful tenderer was required to commence using the land for those purposes within one year of entering into the lease. This meant that the land had to be cleared within a year, which was a very considerable undertaking. As I will show, it was something which deterred many from applying when they saw the conditions of the lease. Finally, no part of the land could be let without the prior written permission of the Minister. My time is very short; so I shall have to concertina what I wish to say.

These conditions were received and studied by the local people. Because, as I say, only sisal, in terms of the advertisement and the conditions, could be grown, and because the conditions required that the land be commenced to be used for that purpose within one year, which meant that there was a colossal job of clearing bush for the successful tenderer, many people gave up the idea of tendering and did not go ahead with the scheme. I say in passing that this land is most suitable for sugar purposes. But the conditions of the lease as advertised, precluded sugar being grown on this property.

You have said this four times now.

Yes, and I will say it again because it is important. That hon. Minister is involved in it as well. Nothing further was known about this matter until it was discovered that the lease for this land had been awarded to an immigrant from Tanganyika, a certain Mr. Bassiliou. He was the successful tenderer. It struck many people as surprising that an immigrant from Tanganyika should receive a lease for 5 600 acres of State land and particularly when there were many South Africans in those parts who had for years grown sisal and were well experienced in the production of that crop. He commenced felling trees, which upset many nature conservationists. It is a most magnificent indigenous forest in a high-rainfall area. The matter was reported to me and I put certain questions on the Order Paper.

The first point I wish to make is that the lease, as granted to Mr. Bassiliou, is quite different from that which was advertised for the general public’s consumption; it was quite different. Despite the Department having told me in writing that it was for 20 years, it is in fact for 25 years. I now discover it from the answers which the hon. the Minister gave to the questions. The next point is that it is not limited to the growing of sisal. Cane has been planted on 240 acres, for which the hon. the Minister or his predecessor has granted a quota. Any other crops may now be grown which the Government will allow from time to time. Finally the conditions of the existing lease are that any land unsuitable for sisal—and there is plenty of it—can be used by the lessee at his discretion, which means that this man can grow any crops he likes.

A blank cheque.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Now, Sir, this reveals …

Order! Is the hon. member prepared to allow the hon. member to ask a question?

No, Sir, I am not prepared; I have not the time to answer any questions. This reveals a state of affairs in the Department of the hon. the Minister of which one has complained before. That is a wholly wrongful handling of State-owned land. It is a mishandling of it, to the disadvantage of the ordinary citizen of South Africa, to the disadvantage of the man who does not have access to high places. Now, Sir, what is the first principle that is wrong? You advertise land with very limited and severe terms so as to exclude the mass of people who would wish to apply. Then when you have chosen a certain individual as the right tenderer, you relax all those conditions and make the proposition more attractive than when the others were excluded. That is the first principle which is wrong. You let him grow, for example, a wide variety of crops, and extend the term of the lease. The point is that many others would have applied for this property had they known that sugar, for example, could be grown on it. But the story does not end there. There is a forfeiture clause in this lease which provides that if the terms of the lease are not complied with the Government can forfeit this lease. This man has now been there for ten years. Of these 5 600 acres he has not put 400 acres under sisal. The sisal he has grown has been allowed to revert to grass and bush.

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, before the suspension of business I was dealing with the question of this lease and I had made the point that it had been wrongly administered by the department of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture—I see that the hon. the Minister is no longer with us—not only in the respect that the terms as issued to the fortunate immigrant who obtained this lease, were materially different from those which were advertised when this piece of land was advertised for the people of South Africa to apply for, but having failed to comply with the conditions of the lease for a period of ten years, the current lessee, the immigrant from Tanganyika to whom I have referred, has not been required to forfeit his lease in terms of the forfeiture clause in question. He has not complied with the terms of the lease in the sense that he has not cleared the land in question within the stipulated time. He has not maintained his sisal production as he is required to do in terms of the lease. He has allowed it, indeed, to go back to veld and to thorn trees.

Why is he still there?

And here is the Minister?

One would have wondered, precisely what the hon. member for Durban Point says, why is this lessee still there? Before I answer that question, I want to point out that the farm in question is run today, not as a sisal farm, as it was indeed advertised to be, but it is run as a combination of a sugar farm, which it was never to be under the original advertisement, and as a banana farm.

The man with the golden banana! [Interjections.]

Indeed, who is the man with the golden banana? Not Mr. Bassiliou, the man who got the lease from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, but somebody else. Who is that person? A curious coincidence, as so often happens in these cases, comes into this one as well. The senior official of the hon. the Minister’s department principally concerned with the granting of this lease, was a gentleman by the name of Venter. [Interjections.]

Order!

Not the same Mr. Venter of the Agliotti case, but another Mr. Venter, a gentleman who was at one time the regional representative of the Department of Lands in Natal and who was subsequently drafted to Pretoria; when the Natal office was closed and who, I understand, at the time of the granting of this particular lease, was the Acting Secretary for Lands. [Interjections.] Mr. Venter, when he retired from the Department of Lands, where of the places in the world should he have chosen to build his house and spend his retirement? Not on the south coast of Natal, not here in the Cape, not in one of the suburbs of Pretoria, but on the very land which was granted to Mr. Bassiliou. [Interjections.] That is where he lives, so far as I know, to the present time. [Interjections.]

Order!

My information is that the person who farms with bananas on the property is not Mr. Bassiliou, but Mr. Venter, the ex-member of the hon. the Minister’s department. [Interjections.] This may be a strange coincidence, but unless we get a satisfactory explanation from the hon. the Minister as to why this lease has been allowed to continue when almost every aspect of the conditions under which it was granted have been broken, the people in the area concerned are entitled to be suspicious.

Suspicious? Why? [Interjections.]

Suspicious for this reason … [Interjections.]

Order!

Suspicious because they believe that Mr. Bassiliou is waiting for the quotas in the sugar industry to be opened when he will apply for the greater part of this land to be granted a sugar quota, and if that happens, it is a public scandal. Who is the Minister who grants sugar quotas? The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. [Interjections.]

I do not grant them, you stupid.

The hon. the Minister has already granted a substantial quota to the Transvaal-Suikerkorporasie. Yes, he has already done it against the implacable opposition of the entire sugar industry.

You do not know what you are talking about. [Interjections.]

Order!

If the hon. the Minister has done it once against the interests of the industry and against the implacable opposition of the entire sugar industry, as he did in the Transvaal, he can do it again in respect of Mr. Bassiliou in Zululand. This is the fear. I say again that if that happens, it is again a public scandal.

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members not to start shouting again tonight. I am warning all hon. members that if this continues, I shall have to take other steps. This applies to both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the attack which the hon. member for Zululand has now made with reference to the leasing of land to which he referred, I want to say that many of these agreements of lease have been known to him for a very long time.

It has been known to you for a long time as well.

The fact remains that the hon. member wrote a letter to my predecessor as long ago as 1964. At the time Mr. Sauer was Minister of Lands, and the letter to him was dated 22nd July, 1964— eight years ago.

A skeleton out of the cupboard !

I quote from the letter—

As I have said, this letter was written on 22nd July, 1964. The hon. member subsequently received a reply from the then Minister.

I never got a reply from the Minister.

The reply was sent to him on 22nd August, 1964, and read as follows …

I had a reply from the Secretary for Lands.

Would the hon. member wait now so that I may finish my speech? I afforded him the opportunity to talk as long as he wished. The reply which the hon. member received, read as follows—

At that time it was Mr. Sauer—

Just say “Agliotti”. [Interjections.]

It is neither English nor Afrikaans.

Order!

The letter goes on to say—

This is an exchange between the Department of Lands and the Department of Forestry.

This is a letter from the Secretary, not from the Minister.

To continue—

This letter was written to the hon. member—

That is wrong.

You are making insinuations. We will get another Select Committee.

That does not worry me in the least.

The hon. member was informed as follows—

This is the information given to him in 1964—

This is a letter that was written to the hon. member by my predecessor in 1964, and tonight he feigns absolute ignorance here and pretends not to know that sugar cane may be planted on that property. This is once again a bit of gossip in which he is indulging. [Interjections.] We know him as a gossip-monger.

Order! It is unparliamentary to call an hon. member a “gossip-monger”. Who used the word?

The Minister.

Order!

I withdraw. The letter goes on to say—

Who signed that letter?

But what is the difference?

This letter was signed by the Acting Secretary for Agriculture, Mr. De Villiers, on the instructions of the Minister, who was Mr. Sauer at the time. Now the hon. member says here that he did not receive the letter. The hon. member wrote a letter in 1964; he says he did not receive a reply to it. He was a member of this House at the time; later on he was a member of the Other Place, and now it is 1972. Does he want to tell me that for eight years he was content with not having received a reply from the department? There is the answer, Mr. Speaker. But in order to indulge in gossip-mongering, he now raises the matter here.

It is a lie.

On a point of order, Sir, is it parliamentary for an hon. member on that side to say, “Dit is ’n leuen.”?

Order! I want to make an appeal to hon. members. I have only two ears, and I have to listen to the speaker who is making a speech. I cannot listen to everybody, and I cannot hear all the interjections. If hon. members do not respond to my appeal, I shall have to take other action.

Come on, Jimmy, stand up!

Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with it? I simply said in general that it was a lie.

I do not want any argument about it. The hon. member must withdraw it.

So-called lawyer.

I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will grant me an extension of time because of this delay. Sir, I shall outline the background to this whole situation once again, except for the letter which the hon. member received. Does he want to deny that he received the letter?

Of course I received the letter.

Why then did the hon. member deny it by saying that he had not received it? Why did the hon. member pretend not to have received the letter? Sir, I shall now proceed to outlining to the House the background to this whole matter. In 1962 public tenders were invited for the farm Dukuduku No. 14 866, in the district of Hlabisa, 2 407,0719 ha in extent. The purpose of this lease was to have sisal cultivated and processed on that property. A Ministerial committee decided in 1963, after they had appointed a committee consisting of officials to enquire into the whole matter, to lease the land on their recommendation to Mr. C. J. Bassiliou at a rental of R3 000 per annum for a term of 20 years …

That is not what you told me.

… the main object being, of course, to plant sisal on it. Sir, Mr. Bassiliou was decided upon as he possessed mature experience and sound knowledge of the sisal industry. He was an immigrant from the then Tanganyika, and while living there he owned all the necessary machinery and equipment. However, although Mr. Bassiliou was regarded as having enough capital for tackling a major undertaking of this nature, he did not have sufficient capital for purchasing out of his own pocket the land for this purpose as well. At that stage the object of the leasing of the property was to promote the sisal industry in the Republic, since, at that Stage, only three-eighths of the Republic’s requirements were produced locally and since there were threats of possible boycotts from countries abroad, and because we could not obtain jute from overseas. That was why the Cabinet decided at the time to give this encouragement to the production of sisal. The view was also taken that he could make a contribution by making available his experience and the knowledge he had gained in Tanganyika. In the initial stage, even before the date of the letter received by the hon. member, Mr. Bassiliou was informed that the land could only be used for the cultivation of sisal and related undertakings. At that stage, when the negotiations were taking place, i.e. during in the first half of 1964, matters had deteriorated to such an extent in Tanganyika that there were doubts as to whether Mr. Bassiliou would be able to transfer his heavy equipment and capital to this country. The lessee pointed out that he was experiencing problems in this regard. Hon. members know what the circumstances were at the time. He pointed out that the deforestation and the development of the land would require substantial capital expenditure.

He has done very little.

It was also a well-known fact that it would take several years before any income would be derived from the proposed newly planted sisal plantation. Under these circumstances Mr. Bassiliou requested permission in 1964 for cultivating in the interim certain other crops, including sugar, which would provide him with an income to live on as well as capital for the further development of the property. Mr. Bassiliou was also desirous of taking a certain Mr. Papanicolaou into the undertaking as a partner, since at that stage this person had been connected with a sisal undertaking for many years. That was in 1963. After consideration and recommendation by the then Land Board, it was approved on 14th May, 1964, that inter alia the lessee be permitted to take in one partner for the purpose of cultivating crops other than sisal, but that the department reserved the right to determine the nature and extent of such crops—to cultivate 97,1246 ha of sugar cane, subject to the department’s right to withdraw this permission at any time—and that the term of lease would commence on 1st February, 1964. An agreement of lease to the satisfaction of both parties was concluded on 22nd July, 1964, after the lessee had since 1st February, 1964, been engaged in carrying out the necessary deforestation. The hon. member for Zululand was also informed to this effect in the letter—the letter he put away for eight years in order to try to stir up a scandal in regard to this situation tonight. Subsequent to that no further representations were made by Mr. Cadman on this matter, but as a result of representations by other bodies and persons an amended agreement was concluded with the lessee during February, 1967, in terms of which 809 ha of the land on which part of the natural Dukuduku forest had been established, was withdrawn from the agreement of lease. The 809 ha which was involved originally, was subsequently withdrawn and in substitution of it 607 ha of land was placed at the disposal of the lessee. In other words, at that stage he received 200 ha less. The hon. member for South Coast will recall that at the time he still made representations for the preservation of the forests in that area. It was also agreed that, because the extent of the land had been reduced by 200 ha, the term of lease of 20 years would be extended by five years in order to compensate for the fact that less and poorer land had been offered in substitution. During 1965 another amendment was effected to the agreement of lease by mutual agreement, an amendment in terms of which the State, for a period of at least the first six years, surrendered its right to suspend the production of sugar at any time. The reason why we had to deviate from it, is that the mill to which the sugar was to be supplied, could not receive the sugar if the period were fixed at six years. They wanted a longer term in order to arrange their affairs. This agreement was made to enable the lessee to supply sugar cane for the purpose of acquiring additional working capital. During 1967 Mr. Bassiliou suddenly died in a car accident, and permission was granted to his partner, Mr. Papanicolaou, to take over at a compensation of R35 668,00 the interests of the estate in the lease, i.e. 55 per cent of it, which were not held by the latter but belonged to Bassiliou. As a result of various amendments to the agreement of lease, which was still to be registered pending the survey of the land, as well as the cessions that had taken place and the occurrence of certain other essential amendments, it was decided that a new contract of lease should rather be concluded with Mr. Papanicolaou. This step was then to serve to facilitate the registration of the new agreement. The following amendments were effected at the time: The description of the leased land was laid down in the new contract, the exchange of the 806 ha for the 607 ha. The date of commencement was changed from 1st February, 1968, and the term of lease was reduced to 21 years, since four years of the previous contract had already expired at the time. The term of lease was therefore reduced from the original 25 years to 21 years. The fixed period during which sugar could be cultivated was extended from six years to 12 years for the reason I mentioned, and also to provide the mills with security. A condition was added in terms of which the lessee was granted the right to cultivate other crops on land which was unsuitable for sisal, and also to utilize the pasture on the land. Now, Sir, at that stage an investigation was once again conducted on the farm in order to see how the new agreement was being implemented. Now you must appreciate, Sir, that it happened in the meantime that we had a complete over-production in the sisal industry in South Africa. It happened that these lessees could not get their machinery and implements from Tanganyika. It was essential for them to clear their land, and there was a tremendous drop in the price of sisal, so much so that the sisal industry finds itself in very great difficulties today. The investigation that was conducted towards the end of last year and the beginning of this year proved that the lessee had planted bananas on 24 ha. With the recent floods they had there, more than half of those 24 ha of bananas were flooded and destroyed. This is the good banana land to which the hon. member referred. The land on which the bananas were planted, is low-lying and hardly suitable for that kind of cultivation. Of the 97 ha of sugar cane that was planted, 15 ha failed because of drought conditions. 182 ha of sisal has been established. An area of 607 ha has been deforested and cleared and partially planted with sisal; at the moment sisal is being planted on the rest of this area.

The sisal has been abandoned.

No, the fact of the matter is that there is an area of 607 ha which has been cleared, and this area is being cultivated and is still going to be cultivated. A portion of the 607 ha has been cultivated or is in the process of being cultivated.

Ask the officers of your department. They have seen it.

The lessee also had his problems. The cost of deforesting and clearing such an undertaking is tremendously high. In addition to this the lessee was continually faced with capital problems, because of the fact that they could not bring into this country their heavy capital equipment from Tanganyika, now Tanzania. The 607 ha were nevertheless cleared and deforested, and sisal cultivation has already been established on a large portion of that area, and, as I have said, they are engaged in planting more sisal. Owing to representations that have been received, a large portion of the land had to be withdrawn from leasing and other land, poorer in quality, had to be given in exchange. In other words, those 809 ha which had been withdrawn were replaced by 607 ha of land which was poorer in quality. The reason why this lessee was permitted to plant sugar cane, was that it had become clear that he would experience capital problems owing to circumstances which were quite beyond his control, and subsequently he was granted permission to put 97 ha under sugar cane cultivation. Initially this permission was granted on condition that it could be withdrawn at any time. However, a temporary concession of this nature still did not enable the lessee to obtain financial assistance. For this reason it was decided to permit him to cultivate sugar for a period of not less than six years. This period still did not meet the requirements of the mills and the sugar industry—not the Minister of Economic Affairs. As this body has to plan ahead and is therefore not favourably disposed to granting sugar quotas or financial assistance to persons allowed to cultivate sugar on a loose footing … In this regard I may just mention that in the course of the first five years the lessee had to invest R52 000 in order to get the sugar plantation going. For instance, he had to pay R40 000 for a share in the mills in order to qualify as a producer who may be a supplier to the Umfolozi Mills. Under these circumstances he was subsequently permitted to produce sugar for a period of at least 12 years. This whole matter of the leasing of the land and the reasons why it was leased, was discussed fully by the Cabinet; it was a Cabinet decision which was conveyed to the Cabinet by my predecessor. It was circumstances prevailing at the time which required South Africa to expand its sisal production. Here we had persons who were familiar with sisal production in East Africa and who were prepared to come here and to carry on with it subject to certain conditions relating to assistance. Circumstances proved that these people could not get their equipment and that their financial costs were higher than had been anticipated, and under these circumstances these concessions were made to them, i.e. to use the land for other purposes, subject to restrictions. In the meantime, as I have said, 800 ha of that land was withdrawn subsequent to representations made by the hon. member sitting over there, and he received less land for it and the contract of lease was adapted subject to those conditions. Now the hon. member says that one of the ex-officials of the department is living on that land at the moment. There are expensive houses on that land. The lessee may employ any person he wishes. The Oppenheimer Company employs many people who are in the Public Service. Has any person ever talked about it and said that in bygone days he did something of that nature from that organization? Why does the hon. member now try to cast a reflection of dishonesty, or whatever it may be, in regard to the leasing of this land? I pointedly want to ask the hon. member a question …

It is against your own regulations.

I pointedly want to ask the hon. member a question: If Mr. Papanicolaou’s name were Cadman, would the hon. member still have objected then? If his name were Cadman and he came from Kenya or Tanganyika and secured the higher purchase conditions under the same circumstances, would he still have objected then? No, then he would not have objected. This also forms part of the Boer-hate story to which my friend referred. The hon. member wants to discredit me, but unfortunately he missed the point because I was not responsible … [Interjections.] Unfortunately he made that mistake. Unfortunately he forgot that the transaction had occurred 10 or 12 years ago. Unfortunately he forgot that it was eight years ago that he had received a letter in which the situation was explained. Unfortunately he conveniently forgot all these things. The few amendments that were effected to the contract, had been envisaged by him in this letter at the time. Conveniently he forgot what was stated in the letter and pretended not to have received the letter.

[Inaudible.]

Conveniently he wants to suggest that he thought I did not have a letter, for he wants to pretend that I did not receive it. It so happens that I have it; that is the kind of politicking we get.

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he identifies himself with this situation.

It it absolutely unsatisfactory.

On a certain occasion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came here …

Ask for a Select Committee.

Yes.

You should ask for it.

Why must we ask for it?

On a previous occasion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to my incompetence as a Minister. It so happens that I have some affinity with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Because he usually looks fairly respectable. Now, it so happens that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I entered Parliament and started taking an interest in politics at more or less the same time. On many occasions our political careers followed parallel courses. More or less in 1946 we started taking an interest in politics. He says that I am incompetent. Now I want to assess him on the basis of our individual political careers. In those days he lost two safe seats for the U.P.

And subsequently ran away.

During the same period I captured two safe U.P. seats for the National Party. There were times when he made progress and times when I made progress. In 1956 he became the Leader of the Opposition, when he took over from Mr. Strauss. In 1958 I became Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. That was also part of Mr. Strauss’s work; once again a kind of parallel development. Ten years after he had taken over from Mr. Strauss, he sat here with 37 seats— after he had started with 63 which he had inherited from Mr. Strauss in this Parliament. [Interjections.] In 1958 I, too, took over from Mr. Strauss. I started with the division of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, and I was given the whole Department of Agriculture, as well as two other divisions of other departments which had been handled at the time by two other Ministers of those departments.

Compare his future with yours.

In other respects we also have something in common. Both of us have also broken records in politics. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition broke the record of having been Leader of the Opposition for a longer period than has ever been recorded in politics. I broke the record of having been Minister of Agriculture for the longest period … [Interjections.] This is another coincidence.

You are the only one to have an Agliotti case too.

You keep quiet! There is something else which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I have in common, namely that both of us are very loyal party men. Because he is such a good party man, he should like me to leave the Cabinet, for he imagines that it would suit him better if I were out of it. But because he is such a good party man, I must ask him to be so kind as not to resign as Leader of the United Party, for as long as he is there, he is a guarantee that the National Party will remain in power for all time. He has appealed to the Prime Minister to get rid of me, but now I want to make the appeal to Mr. Joel Mervis, director of the Sunday Times, that he should be so kind as to keep the Leader of the Opposition in office.

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. the Minister of Agriculture should have replied to the hon. member for Zululand, and because his reply was completely unsatisfactory, he thought the best tactics would be to act in a way that has characterised the entire debate thus far, i.e. to come along with lighting conductors. The hon. the Minister did not focus his attention on the relevant points raised by the hon. member for Zululand, but defended himself chiefly by offending the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Minister thought he was tremendously clever in telling the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that they entered politics more or less at the same time and that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had lost seats. The hon. the Minister had the safe False Bay seat, but the hon. the Prime Minister and his party in the Cape thought fit to take him from this safe seat and put him in the Senate where he represents the Coloureds. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture says that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not yet had any success, but as far as I can remember the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has never been asked to resign by any single newspaper in South Africa, much less his own newspapers. According to him this hon. Minister has now had 12 years of success in the Department of Agriculture, and during this time the farmers of South Africa have vanished from the rural areas one after another. During his period of office the Agliotti scandal occurred. At one stage the hon. the Minister—he was a director of Dagbreek at the time—was asked to resign. For example, Die Burger requested it. Why do they ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to resign? Because this afternoon and this evening he has again given us an example of how he does not have any thoughts of his own. He does not have his own interpretation of what is happening in his department. He simply had to quote what his department dictated the situation to be in connection with this case. The hon. gentleman is so out of touch with affairs in his own department that he must quote to us what happened. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions about this case. This land, which was originally State land and was leased to Mr. Bassiliou … Is that correct or not? In the first place I want to ask the hon. gentleman whether that request came before the Select Committee on State-owned Land—yes or no.

I told you that the Cabinet and my predecessor decided on that and that I had nothing to do with it.

The Cabinet decision is quite correct. But I want to ask that hon. gentleman whether it is not the procedure that any part of State-owned land which is either alienated, or handed over to anyone else, must not in the first place be approved or rejected by the Select Committee on State-owned Land.

[Inaudible.]

Then the hon. member may get his Deputy to answer the question. That is the first question I am asking him. Then I have a second question in connection with the gist of the hon. member for Zululand’s argument. When the land was initially advertised for leasing, was it to let for a certain purpose. I am now putting my question to the hon. the Minister and to the Deputy Minister who is going to reply to it: When Mr. Bassiliou died and the next lessee took over, was it not this department’s duty to re-advertise that land for leasing? In the meantime the whole purpose for which the land was to have been leased changed completely. In the second place, as the hon. member for Zululand said, certain requirements were laid down. He asked whether all those requirements were met.

You were not listening.

If the market price for sisal fell away completely, we are certainly entitled to ask what the next owner or lessee’s position will be in respect of this land. Must the original conditions laid down not apply again?

You were not listening.

Of course I was listening properly. The hon. member for Zululand stated the position very clearly. If the members of the public were originally aware of the purpose for which this land would have been used, there would not only have been one or two people interested in this land. In this respect the hon. the Deputy Minister must completely satisfy the House. That is our argument against the hon. the Minister of Agriculture.

I gave the reasons why it was changed.

The hon. the Minister said he gave all the reasons why it was changed. If the reasons changed, this House is surely entitled to know why it was not advertised again. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the replies the hon. the Minister gave are completely unsatisfactory. The hon. the Minister must give us a much better answer than he has given us to date.

Tell him more of your Land Bank stories.

I should like to come back to the hon. the Minister of Defence, who in this debate followed the example of several other members by intimating to this side that there is hate and contempt …

Not in your case; you are only a lackey.

And that is the great soldier on that side speaking. The hon. gentleman has now seen fit to begin again with the old story that on this side there is contempt and hate for the Afrikaner. Actually, the hon. the Minister of Defence is not angry at the Opposition; actually, he is not angry at the so-called elements on this side that hate the Afrikaner, but do you know, Sir, who he is angry at? He is actually angry at the Oudtshoorn electorate. The hon. gentleman knows that the Oudtshoorn electorate is not interested in the tales of hate of the hon. the Minister; they are really interested in the bread and butter questions of South Africa. After 24 years this Government has now shown us that they are not able to solve the question facing the South African people and that is why the hon. gentleman has only one answer, and that is to tell the Afrikaner that his position, his culture and his language are in danger. Sir, the reason why that hon. Minister adopts such an attitude is a simple one. He does it because he does not have an answer for the questions South Africa is faced with today. When the Oudtshoorn election is past, that hon. member and his companions will be laughing up their sleeves at the sentimental susceptibility of the Afrikaner, because they are playing a game here. They are playing a game to exploit the Afrikaner’s sentiment and his emotions for their political purposes. Up to a certain stage they achieved success in those endeavours, but the hon. the Minister and his companions on that side are completely out of touch with the modern, young Afrikaner of today who firstly wants to be a South African rather than an Afrikaner. He does not need to ask me whether that is the case; he only has to look at the surveys conducted by Rapport during the past fourteen days. Let him look at the surveys conducted in Pretoria. Let him look at the surveys conducted in Stellenbosch.

Only Graaff enjoys your jokes.

What does one find there? There one finds that the Afrikaner would like to be a South African in the first instance. These are the signs that hon. member reads completely incorrectly. He is now seeking the people, who hate the Afrikaner, on this side of the House. Sir, as an Afrikaans-speaking person on this side of the House I challenge that hon. Minister to name any member on this side of the House, and I want to go so far as to say that I challenge him to name any English-speaking United Party member, who is outside this House, who hates and despises the Afrikaner. I issued this challenge to that hon. Minister and told him to mention names and addresses. That was done fourteen days ago; today he had a chance to speak in this House and up to now that hon. Minister, who is so plucky, so courageous, with or without his trousers, has not done so yet. I challenged him to give us the names and addresses of those people, but he cannot do so. [Interjections.] I shall give the hon. the Minister examples of organizations who do not despise the English-speaking of Afrikaans-speaking individuals on this side of the House. But I shall give him examples of how Afrikaners on his side are despised by his own people. I can take that hon. Minister as an example.

May I ask a question? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member is asking whether he may put a question.

No, definitely not. This hon. Minister is the leader of the National Party in the Cape. He says that on this side there are Englishspeaking elements who hate the Afrikaner, who do not like him, who discriminate against him. I now want to tell the hon. the Minister that it has always been a tradition in the Cape Province that the Leader of the National Party is the Chancellor of the University of Stellenbosch, which is the cradle of Nationalism, the cradle of Afrikanerdom. The Chancellor of the University of Stellenbosch has always been the leader of the National Party in the Cape. But after Dr. Dönges’s death, this hon. Minister became the Leader of the National Party in the Cape. Why is that hon. gentleman not also Chancellor of the University of Stellenbosch?

I was not a Stellenbosch student.

Now the hon. the Minister says he is not from Stellenbosch. I said it was a tradition that the leader of the National Party in the Cape should be Chancellor of the University of Stellenbosch. Why was that hon. gentleman discriminated against? Where is a better example of discrimination from the Afrikaners?

May I ask a question?

No, Sir. I am asking the hon. the Minister whether the member for Uitenhage, for example, is a member of the Broederbond.

No, I am not.

I am asking the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North …

I am!

Oh you! It seems to me they are no longer good enough. I ask the hon. member for Malmesbury, is he a member of the Broederbond? [Interjections.] I could mention dozens of members in this House who are not members of the Broederbond.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, definitely not.

The hon. member asked me a question, and I want to ask him one. I just want to ask him what he did with his wife’s farm?

I take much better care of my wife’s farm, I take much better care of my own farm, than that hon. member has taken of his. I ask the hon. members for Uitenhage, Malmesbury and Port Elizabeth North—they say there are elements here discriminating against the Afrikaner—who is discriminating against them? No-one but the Broederbond, which is under the protective wing of hon. gentlemen on that side of the House. They are the last to be able to say that the Afrikaner is being discriminated against.

May I ask a question?

No.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member looks just like Senator Conroy.

Order, order!

They are the last who can speak of discrimination against the Afrikaner before they have been able to eliminate the discrimination that takes place by means of the organization they have taken under their wing. [Interjections.]

Order!

What can I say on this side of the House? I can say there is not a single English-speaking person—and that hon. Minister surely does not have more and better knowledge and experience of the English-speaking people than we on this side of the House have— who discriminates against the Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa. [Interjections.] Much less a single English-speaking person on this side of the House who despises and hates the Afrikaner. But all that hon. Minister is doing—he knows what is going on in Oudtshoorn …

I know very well.

He knows that the H.N.P. propaganda is shaking the National Party to its very foundations. He knows that the electorate of Oudtshoorn see in the H.N.P. the old 1948 model of the National Party. [Interjections.] Because in those people they see a reflection of what the National Party really was and what it is. That is why that hon. gentleman is angry. But if he is not angry, he goes much further …

He wants to emulate them.

Do you know what that hon. Minister said today? He said they react so …

I say you and Albert Hertzog are comrades.

Give me a chance, man! By way of an interjection the hon. the Minister said here, when asked why they are so hot-tempered, “because they have now grown tired of the United Party’s gossip-mongering and defamation”.

Of course.

And you are the big gossip-monger.

His main purpose was not to point out to the people that the United Party is opposed to the Afrikaner. No, the reason why he acted in that way was that he believes the United Party is defaming and gossiping about them.

We just want to unmask you. We just want to pluck the masks from your faces!

The point is this : If he thinks they are being defamed by the United Party, he surely has a way out. Why do you not make a case, man, If you have the courage of your convictions?

You run to court.

If you are being defamed outside by the United Party or by individual members, why are you not prepared to make a court case? It is not the United Party that gossips about them or defames them. No, it is their own people who are gossiping about them, and now this is being laid at the United Party’s door. It is not Hoofstad, as quoted by Rapport, which stated a few weeks ago that there are certain elements in the National Party that exploit their position for personal gain? Was that said by the United Party? [Interjections.] It was said by your own newspaper. However, he says the United Party is guilty of defamation and gossip-mongering.

Whom do you mean?

If he has the courage of his convictions …

If you have the courage, say who.

If he and his Prime Minister had the courage of their convictions, they would ask for a commission of inquiry into that report in Hoofstad.

What accusation?

I am not making the accusation. It is the hon. the Minister’s own Press. That hon. Minister says it is the United Party which is doing this. Is it the United Party’s Press which, a few years ago now, stated that M.P.s who have directorships or shares in companies …

Such as who?

… who have tenders and do work for the State …

You are a gossip-monger.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. the Minister of Defence entitled to brand the hon. member for Newton Park as a “gossipmonger”?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is casting reflections upon hon. members of this side of the House. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on a point of order? [Interjections.] May I address you on a point of personal explanation? The hon. member, in his speech, is …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. the Minister entitled to address you before you have given your ruling on the point which has been raised by the hon. member for Yeoville? You did not permit the hon. member for Musgrave to do that this afternoon.

Is that not a reflection on the Chair?

No, Sir, I am not reflecting.

It is a reflection. The hon. member is reflecting on the Chair. He must withdraw it.

I was addressing you on a point of order. I was directing your attention to …

No, the hon. member is reflecting on the Chair.

If it is a reflection, I withdraw it.

If the hon. the Minister called the hon. member a gossipmonger, he must first withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, with the utmost respect …

Withdraw it!

I do not allow myself to be stampeded by such people. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to address you, Sir. The point I want to make is that the hon. member cast reflections on members of this House.

Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. On a point of order, he hon. member cast reflections on members of this side of the House.

But that is not a point of order.

I ask for your ruling on whether the hon. member is entitled to insult members of this House. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when the hon. the Minister says that members of this side of the House cast reflections on members, is that not a reflection on the Chair? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you did order the hon. the Minister to withdraw a remark, but he has not yet done so. [Interjections.]

I will withdraw the remark. Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. the Minister has not yet obeyed your ruling. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister was addressing me on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when the point was raised by the hon. member for Green Point, the hon. the Minister of Defence said : “I will not”. [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.] Order ! [Interjections.]

Are you and your “Army” now going to dig a trench at Riviersonderend?

I did not leave one wife for another as you did. [Interjections.]

Order! I now want to warn both the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. the Minister of Defence. This is the last warning I am giving them. The hon. member for Newton Park may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make … [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member for Newton Park referred to the Afrikaner sentiment and emotions which we are supposedly exploiting, with reference to the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Defence. The hon. member is making a very big mistake. The hon. the Minister of Defence has every right, just as I and every Afrikaans-speaking person in South Africa has the right, to wonder whether we will ever again, if the Opposition should come into power, hear a Budget presented in Afrikaans here again. A reply must be furnished to that question.

Absolute nonsense!

The aspirant Minister of Finance on that side has never made a speech in Afrikaans in this House. Sir, my nation and my fellow Afrikaans-speakers refuse to listen to a Budget speech here which is presented in one language only. That is what is at issue here. Are we playing on the motions of the Afrikaner when we say that his language rights should be protected, just as the language rights of the English-speaking persons should also be protected—50 / 50, not one horse, one rabbit, as the Opposition wants it? That is what is at issue here. To my mind the clearest evidence that hon. members on that side are in fact exploiting matters of this kind, is the following: Why has the hon. member for Newton Park never yet levelled the accusation at this side of the House that we are a lot of Free Masons? Do you want clearer evidence than that? Why should they always be picking on the Broederbond, an Afrikaans organization, while Freemasonry is never dragged in by the hair here? For various reasons, Sir. This is because the Broederbond is a purely Afrikaans organization, and secondly, because I think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. member for Yeoville are members of the Freemasonry movement.

That is untrue.

The hon. members for Newton Park and Yeoville cannot openly deny that they are members of the Freemasons.

Are you a freemason (bokryer), Marais?

Once a miner, always a miner.

This is merely a matter of donkey-riding; it is not goatriding.

Sir, the hon. member says that we on this side of the House are indulging in gossip-mongering, but what happened here this evening? Do you want a clearer example of blatant gossip-mongering than the story about the piece of land leased to Bassiliou?

What does Rapport say?

It says you are a Boer-hater.

The hon. member is sowing a seed here which is picked up by the hostile English-language Press for the purpose of sowing unrest among the voters, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition realizes that the voters are not prepared to accept its colour policy. Sir, I also speak to members of the United Party, and they tell me that the Opposition simply does not have an acceptable image for them.

I do not recognize you tonight.

We are having an enjoyable, clean political discussion tonight. The time for beating about the bush is past.

Rinderpest politics.

Since yesterday there has been an entirely different spirit in this House. We are beginning to realize to an increasing extent that we have allowed the gossip-mongering and the disparagement of the Opposition side to continue for too long. The time has now come to speak the word of truth in this House. Sir, we have remained calm.

[Inaudible.]

Open your mouth when you speak.

Order! I am making an appeal to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District.

He is a Boer-hater.

Order!

Sir, what are the tactics of the Opposition? They only have one method which may perhaps cause the reins of government to pass into their hands, and that is by continually referring to Agliotti and by repeatedly disparaging a leader in front of his people by means of negative gossip.

They caught you out.

If I think of the Agliotti case, where one was dealing with dishonesty, then I say to the hon. members on that side that this thing is going to boomerang on them. When this Agliotti case is settled in court, they will sing an entirely different song. They may make a little political capital out of it for the present, but in the long run they do not have a snowball’s chance of succeeding. Mr. Speaker, I have been trying all my life to be positive, but what happens here today?

Who started it?

The debate has degenerated into gossip-mongering.

You started it.

What did the hon. member for Zululand do? The hon. the Minister told him under what circumstances the lease had been granted.

You know that everything I said was true.

Why not ask for a Select Committee?

You ask for a Select Committee.

It is not necessary. We shall give the hon. member a Select Committee if he asks for one. Twelve years ago, when sisal was a completely unknown product which had to be boosted because South Africa had a shortage of sisal, a contract was drawn up and tenders were called for, for the sole purpose of sisal production. What happened then? Here we had a man, down from Tanganyika, a man who had all the knowhow, all the capital and all the machinery. All the departments were consulted and eventually, after long consideration, it was decided, for the sake of the industry, to give this man the lease. After a while it was realized that there was no future for sisal production and the lease was in due course changed. The hon. member for Newton Park aspires to become Deputy Minister of Agriculture one day …

He will be Minister.

… and he comes along here and says today that all State-owned land which is leased, is referred to the Select Committee on State-owned Land. Have you ever heard such an absurdity? In other words the Select Committee will have to be a full-time body, for we lease land every day. The hon. member does not understand the mechanics of the Department of Agriculture. The hon. member says that the land was advertised in any case, and he asked why we did not advertise it again. The hon. the Minister told him emphatically that Bassiliou had a partner, Papanicolaou. Bassiliou had an accident; Papanicolaou then came along and said that he would pay R35 000 into the estate of Bassiliou to enable him to take over the entire contract, with a few amendments, because he could no longer make a success of sisal production. Is there anything wrong with that? The contract was then revised. The hon. member would like to spread a little gossip in regard to the fact that Venter is now living in that House. He told it here with acclamation; you could see that he was enjoying himself to the tips of his toes, but he will not get anywhere with this story, Sir. [Interjection.] We are now talking about gossipmongering; hon. members on that side say that we gossip. What happened here this evening? The hon. member wants to know why Venter is on that land. Venter was an official of the Department of Agriculture.

Then he retired. Papanicolaou then asked whether the house that Bassiliou had built before his death could be sub-let, because the house was standing empty. Permission to do this was granted, and then it was discovered that he was an official. When the matter was investigated further, the department decided that Venter could just as well continue staying there, because he was no longer in the service of the department. What is Venter today? That the hon. member will not tell us. He is today a manager of the farm for Papanicolaou at R200 per month, and he says that he will vacate that house at any time if necessary, and that he will leave the farm. That is what Venter is prepared to do.

That is what they want him to do because his name is Venter.

That is correct.

There was a Bell as well.

There was also a Moolman, a Gen. Moolman.

We are talking about gossip-mongering now. Let us consider an example of gossip-mongering. The hon. member for Newton Park said that they fought the Brakpan election on bread and butter issues.

I did not say that, but it is nevertheless correct.

When the hon. member is in Graaff-Reinet he tells the farmers there—you are talking about gossip-mongering now—that if the United Party should ever come into power, they will, under the stock withdrawal scheme, give a man between five and six morgen per sheep, and he will be obliged to withdraw 75 per cent of his sheep, but he will also be obliged to remain on the land. In other words, if he had 400 sheep and he withdraws 300, he will have to look after 100 sheep for the rest of his life. But what happened in Brakpan? In the Brakpan Advertiser a few days before the election a report appeared under banner headlines “Julius Civin exposes the mutton scandal”. In that report it was stated that the Government had introduced the withdrawal scheme for the sake of the Karroo farmer, and took R150 million of the taxpayers money in order to get a higher mutton price. The United Party members of the House of Assembly walked through the streets of Brakpan peddling this story.

Disgraceful!

Is that bread and butter politics? It is gossip-mongering. But now I want to say this. The hon. members become tremendously upset when we discuss a matter such as language. I am profoundly shocked to see that they were so upset because we discussed the matter of our language here today.

You want to bluff the Afrikaner.

We are not bluffing the Afrikaner; just as we are not bluffing any Englishman. Wherever I come, I cannot but speak the truth and say to the Englishman: My friend, your language will be protected; you must respect mine because I respect yours. But then it is not gossip-mongering either when I refer to the past and to the deeds of this Opposition when we come to that most important of matters, patriotism. What has their attitude been since 1948 in regard to only a few matters I want to mention, such as industrial development in this country? What was your standpoint when we said, prior to 1948, that we wanted to make South Africa an industrial country; we must introduce a steel industry? I quoted extracts from Hansard dealing with what your attitude was to the establishment of Sasol. We are going to lay these things at their door. I say one thing. After these discussions in this House I am firmly convinced that this National Party, with its honest policy, tells a man in a straightforward manner without gossiping what it wants to say.

Your English is not all that good either.

Sir, I have on numerous occasions spoken English in this House when introducing legislation. With all my legislation I spoke in both languages. But let us reach an agreement now. I shall make 50 per cent of my speeches in English, if each of the members on that side give the same undertaking to speak 50 per cent Afrikaans. [Interjections.]

Order! Order! The hon. member for Hillbrow! The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

We heard that “break down, make level, rouse up” is the tendency throughout the world today. That is the tactics the Opposition is adopting. I have one comfort, that while we do not have such a powerful English-language Press, my fellow-farmers come to me and say: “The mere fact that the Sunday Times wants to disparage Minister Uys every Sunday, shows us that he is on the right road; as long as the Sunday Times continues to thrash him he must know that he is right, but beware of the day the Sunday Times begins to praise him; then he must know that he is wrong.” I say that even if the whole world should turn against us, if we pursue our policy honestly, without cheating anyone, it is as certain as twice two is four that you are done for, and you will sit in the Opposition benches for the rest of your lives.

Before I go further, there is a personal matter I should like to put straight. I think it gives us an indication of how hon. members opposite and senior Ministers handle certain matters. Yesterday in this debate the hon. the Minister of Community Development thought fit to abuse me for, inter alia, having slandered South Africa’s name overseas. In order to motivate this—and I am quoting an extract from his Hansard of yesterday—he said the following:

I have taken this from Hansard and I am going to quote his exact words to hon. members : “We no longer have a single freedom left”.

Then I asked him by way of interjection to give the reference. The hon. the Minister replied—

Sir, you will see that the hon. the Minister repeated three times that I had allegedly said that we in South Africa no longer had a single freedom left. I now ask leave to quote what I really said. At that stage I tried to draw up a balance sheet of what we had lost and of what we had gained, and I am going to quote from my own Hansard now. I said—

[Interjections.]

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. the Minister of Health entitled to accuse the hon. member of not reading correctly?

Order! What did the hon. the Minister say?

I said he was not reading correctly.

I now want to read out what I really said—

[Interjections.] Sir, surely there is a fundamental difference between what the hon. the Minister quoted and what I really said. He was not using his memory. He said he was quoting from Hansard. But surely that is not what is recorded there. And, Sir, he is a responsible Minister. How can we believe him, how can the country believe him, if he cannot even put a simple matter such as this properly? I just want to say this : If the hon. the Minister has any courage, he will rectify this matter at the first opportunity, otherwise we shall know how to treat him.

But you are repeating it now.

If we on this side needed any indication or were looking for any proof of the fact that the Government really is in trouble, yesterday and today gave us not only sufficient but also tragic proof of it. If the Government is in trouble, when it has its back to the wall, when it is on the defensive, the reaction is always characteristic. The first thing that happens is that a smoke-screen has to be put up to conceal their vulnerability, and we have seen how this is done. Secondly, the storm-troops must be sent in; we know all of them. Usually they are those who make the most noise and the least positive contributions. What are their tactics then? After all, we have seen over the years what they are. In the first place it is the “Black peril”. This cloak of “verligtheid” which some of them wear so uneasily is simply discarded overnight. In the second place the Anglo-Boer War is fought all over again.

Yes, we are still going to.

If one listens to these debates in this House, to the contributions which have come from that side, it is tragic to note that over the last quarter of a century some members have not moved one step forward.

A good deal backwards.

We all talk of the beautiful ideal of national unity; this beautiful ideal must now be sacrificed for the sake of a few hundred votes in Oudtshoorn. They will probably succeed there, but what a price do we not have to pay for that. The question of White relations is put back years again. What is so ironical, is that they are the people who kicked out Albert Hertzog because of these very matters. But Albert Hertzog’s spirit is still here. They may as well bring him back tomorrow, because he would feel at home on that side.

The hon. the Minister of Labour, who is not here this evening, is a man who holds two senior portfolios. Both those portfolios make heavy demands on him. He is the Chief Information Officer of the National Party. I hear he is the man who is going to kick the Prime Minister out of his position.

Now you are talking rubbish.

The hon. the Minister of Labour also spoke here yesterday, and what he said was not just said in the heat of the moment. What he said was premeditated, because he had comprehensive notes and he followed them throughout. What a spectacle it was! What sort of information can he give his own party? Surely our future is dark if this is his approach. This “verligtheid” of which we have heard so much, no longer exists. In the past two days it has disappeared. What we saw here, was a representation of blatant racialism as we have probably never had before.

Absolute nonsense!

I think there is only one ray of light, and that is that the people outside are no longer going to believe it. Our people outside have progressed.

Who are your people outside?

I just want to say I cannot accept that all the hon. members sitting over there associate themselves with the sort of argument we heard from that hon. Minister.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Mr. Speaker.

I should like to know what you are saying.

I just want to say that the people in our country have great problems. Great dangers are threatening us. The flames are rising higher and higher. The people of South Africa expect statesmanship of us, but what have they got over the past two days? The sort of argument which has come from that side! Sir, I expect that there will be a reaction. It will surprise many hon. members opposite to see what sort of reaction is going to come.

I am not going to react now to what the hon. the Deputy Minister said, because he is not here. Therefore I shall just forget about him. It is clear that what happened is this : Anyone who has any insight can see that matters have very suddenly started going wrong for South Africa. Our economic position is weaker than it has been in years. Hence the act of despair of trying to recall Mr. Haak. In the outside world powerful forces are ranging themselves against us.

And you are encouraging them.

Locally there is a new militancy among our non-White groups which is alarming. If we disregard these early warnings, we shall still rue it. The one ray of light is that there is a new flexibility in our political situation. This is not only reflected in election results, but throughout the country there are people who are talking and feeling this way. Now we again have the characteristic reaction of the governing party. The small enlightened group insists that the Government should have surveys in depth conducted in order to find out what has gone wrong. But the larger group, which is in charge, says: “No, it is not necessary.” The Government must merely spruce up the economy a bit before the next election; it must merely grant salary increases again; it must merely scare the people further with terrorists and communists; it must merely try to mobilize Afrikaner sentiment again and beat the tribal drums as they have done in the past two days, and then a miracle will happen and the picture of 1966 will repeat itself. But, Sir, this is a dangerous approach, because it estranges us from reality and leaves completely unsolved the major problems which the entire population wants solved.

I want to tell the Government that we have also had surveys conducted. Normally I would not convey the results of these surveys to them, but because it is in the national interest I shall do so. The voters of South Africa are indisputably turning their backs on the Government. This is not only because of the Government’s inability to combat inflation, it is not only because of the maladministration, which has almost become proverbial now; it is not only because of the arrogance of those in power; it is also because their so-called policy, their so-called programme of principles—the positive part of it—is collapsing and its negative part is landing us in ever-increasing difficulties. It is true that our people are put off by cases such as those of Marendaz and Agliotti, because to them these are symbolic of a malady which lies much deeper. It is also true that our people are no longer prepared to chase after phantoms and to set off on a mad hunt for the end of the rainbow. This is the change. A new realism is discernible among the voters of South Africa. They are not interested in policy alone, but also in the practicability of a policy. In addition, the voters feel instinctively that adjustments must be made today, but they also know that this Government is not able to make such adjustments, because any substantial adjustment will clash with their basic political dogma. What is worse is that a credibility gap has arisen, because the voters no longer believe the Government. Recently Die Burger expressed it like this: Die Burger said that the people no longer believed that the Government was serious about its policy; they no longer believed that what was being said was going to be done, could be done or would be done. A credibility gap has arisen. [Interjections.] Surely the hon. the Minister has already made his speech. If he can get another turn, he may speak again.

I am not making a speech; I am merely putting a question to you.

Order! What hon. member said “Shut your chatterbox” (Hou jou kekkelbek)?

I did, Mr. Speaker.

Is that a dignified expression? The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Because of these factors there is a new interest today in the views and standpoints of this side of the House. It is for this reason that I should like to indicate the differences in approach between that side of the House and this side of the House today. These differences cover the wide spectrum of our national attitude, but because so much has been said on the other hand about the race problem, I should like to start with that.

In the first place it must be noted that we do not come to the people of South Africa with a slogan or with a war-cry. Apartheid is such a war-cry. It has been in existence for a quarter of a century already, but there is very little which can give a positive indication of what has been achieved. It is like a massive cardboard castle which is crumbling now. Recently one of their own newspapers in the Transvaal launched a competition in which it invited its readers to give a definition of apartheid. It reported that it received hundreds of entries, but it also received hundreds of definitions. Apartheid is one of those concepts which can mean all things to all people. Up to a certain point this was an advantage, but now that our people are expecting action, it has become a disadvantage. We do not come to the people of South Africa with a dogma either. We are not handicapped by a dogma. We are in the favourable position that we will be able to tackle first problems first. The first thing we shall do will be to reduce the race tensions in South Africa, to desensitize the situation in order then to lay the foundations, in consultation with others concerned in the matter, for long-term and peaceful co-existence. We do not come with a dogma. We look at the realities of the South African situation. What is the reality of our race situation today? I should like to summarize it as follows. In the first place South Africa is a pluralistic society in which quite a number of different groups may be distinguished on different levels of development.

You are on the lowest level.

In the second place there is the White group with its exceptional level of development in the cultural, economic and political spheres, which is exceeded in number by the non-White group. In the third place, while opportunities should be created for meaningful political participation for all groups, the White group, which has the political power, demands that the survival of Western values and standards should be guaranteed. In the fourth place our economic progress in South Africa is based on the contributions made by the Whites as well as the non-Whites. We have one economic system, and its fragmentation will lead to our total economic downfall. In the fifth place, since pressure from outside is building up against us, it is essential that the breeding grounds for communism such as poverty, ignorance and the denial of fundamental human rights be removed. We must create the situation where all the inhabitants of this country will resist the foreign intruder. There should be a common loyalty towards our country of birth.

If we accept this, how then do we approach this situation in the face of these fundamental realities of South Africa? Since we have to deal with various groups such as is the case here, there are three levels where people have contact with one another and where conflict may arise. The first is the social or cultural level. Here we accept that every community in South Africa has the right to its own identity. In addition, we accept that separation as a principle may be helpful if it is established in order to eliminate hitches and points of friction. Then I also want to say immediately that separation merely for the purpose of separating as a dogma, as a doctrinal obsession, becomes a point of friction in itself. This is what has happened here. A great deal is said about apartheid and petty apartheid. I do not know how helpful those terms are to us. I like using the term “unnecessary apartheid”. We can give hundreds of examples of unnecessary apartheid.

Mention them.

Not only does it lead to bitterness in South Africa, but it has also made us the outcast of the entire civilized world. As far as this point is concerned, our approach is that where separation is necessary for the continued existence of a particular community, we shall regard it as just. Where it can be seen as a symbol of suppression and where it may harm the goodwill which has been built up among the races over the years, we shall remove it from the Statutes relentlessly. In the second place we accept the principle of personal or local choice. Why should exactly the same treatment be meted out to all? As we see the position in respect of social and cultural matters, groups and persons will have the right to decide for themselves how to act towards their fellow-citizens.

The second level on which we have contact with one another is the economic one. In this regard we immediately accept the inter-dependence of all our groups. As Prof. Tomlinson said, we have only one economic system. We do not have a White economy, a Brown economy and a number of Black economies. We do not have White money, Brown money and Black money in this country. Therefore there is an economic foundation which we must all serve. Furthermore, we are opposed to the Government’s “poor but White” philosophy. We realize that the poorer we become the less we shall be able to assert ourselves.

If we continue with this “poor but White” philosophy, we shall all end up as poor Whites. To us the most important factor in the economic sphere is to raise the standard of living of all our population groups. Consequently we shall abolish any measures existing at present which place an artificial ceiling on the economic development of certain groups. The White man’s protection lies in his better training and as long as we have a growing economy, there is no danger. Then there is no danger, because at present we need four non-Whites to create one employment opportunity for one White. It will be said that this means economic integration. We do not see it as such. It is economic co-operation. It is the whole basis of our existence at present, and will have to continue as it is.

In the third place we come to the political level. In this regard our standpoint is that where one has such a heterogeneous community such as we have in South Africa, the federal system is the only constitutional model which makes it possible to have decentralization of political participation, but which nevertheless also ensures co-ordination of political activity on the highest level. Every time we say this, we find an absolute obsession with the franchise on the opposite side of this House. All they ask is who is going to vote, where they are going to vote and how they are going to vote. Development is not based purely on the franchise, and this is the very point which they lose sight of. Under the federal system one is not concerned with the counting of heads. It is under the unitary system that one has to count heads. Under the federal system one has 101 checks and balances, and here I can give many examples which have nothing to do with votes. However, let us start with the franchise. The franchise is exercised on three levels.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Oh no, sit down now, man. The first level we have to deal with is the local one.

He is only criticizing the National Party as you said your Press should do.

In the first place the franchise is exercised on the local level and here, I think, we do not have any great difficulty, because on the local level every community must have the right to establish its own locally elected council which may deal with its own local matters. The second level is the regional or communal level. Here too the problem is not such a major one, because the Whites already have their regional council in the form of the provincial councils. We shall not only retain them, but also strengthen them. The Coloureds and the Indians have their communal councils. These already exist. We differ with the Government in the sense that we shall make them fully elected bodies. We shall grant them powers, real powers, in regard to matters in which they are intimately concerned. Then we differ with the government about the urban Bantu, the detribalized Bantu. They do not accept them as a permanent group. Apparently they will disappear in some or other miraculous way. We accept them as a reality. Consequently we shall recognize this reality by giving them their own communal council on the same basis as those of the Coloureds and the Indians and by giving them the right to buy their own houses in their own residential area.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Oh no, sit down, man. Then we come to the homelands. Our standpoint is that the Bantu homelands are cultural, economic and political growth-points for certain ethnic groups. But having said that, I also say that we regard their economic development as of far greater priority than their political development at this stage. We have to deal with impoverished areas here. In the economic sense they are economic depression areas. We support Prof. Tomlinson’s finding, i.e. that their economic carrying capacity should be raised and that this can be done only by means of controlled private White capital investment in these areas. As far as their political envelopment is concerned, we grant them the greatest possible degree of self-government, but we do not regard it as being in their interests nor in the interests of the greater South African whole that they become fully independent and may break away from South Africa. When we say this, we are told that we are verkramp, but you know, Sir, the greatest liberalist in the world is probably Bertrand Russell. Bertrand Russell expressed himself as follows about this matter …

You are one of the greatest liberalists.

Bertrand Russell expressed himself as follows about this matter—

This is the standpoint we accept. But on the opposite side such a fuss is always made about the right of self-determination. These Bantu uniits, we are told, must have the right of self-determination. But self-determination is an indivisible concept. You cannot tell them you may have self-determination only in your own area and on your own. If you accept the right of self-determination, you must also accept that they have the right to insist that they should have their political rights here in White South Africa. If you do not accept this, you are making a farce of the entire concept of self-determination.

In the third place, one has the national level. All we have said is that as long as these areas, regions or communities constitutionally form part of South Africa, they should have representation in this supreme authority. This is elementary fairness. But we have also said that we shall create the machinery to consult with all the other population groups for the full development of our federal system. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I have always regarded myself as a businessman. When I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Hillbrow, I felt that I could make R1 million if I could buy him at the price I think he is worth and sell him at the price he thinks he is worth. I am not impressed with the tremor in his voice and the oratory of the hon. member for Hillbrow. I have been in this House for many years and I am not impressed with this showmanship. I want to get down to tintacks with the hon. members on that side of the House.

Why don’t you speak Afrikaans?

Sir, let me put certain things to hon. members opposite that I know about. From the year 1948 I was a member of the United Party until the hon. the Minister of Community Development and I were kicked out.

Thank God for that!

Sir, the amazing thing is that in election after election after 1948, they suffered one reverse after another, and in 1966 there was that well-known debacle. And then what happened? The leading people in that Party, the English-language Press that supports them, and the Brains Trust consisting of people like the hon. member for Hillbrow got together and held an inquiry in depth into the reasons for the United Party’s failure, and what did they come up with? They decided on a certain line of attack to defeat the National Party.

Peeping again.

The first thing that was pointed out to them was their own un-South Africanism. After all, Sir, people have not forgotten their attitude about the flag, the Anthem and the Republic.

And the war.

They have not forgotten that the Leader of the Opposition marched into Pietermaritzburg, with the Union Jack draped all over the City Hall, with everybody standing up while they played “God Save The King”. Sir, South Africans have not forgotten that, but hon. members opposite want to forget it. The advice they got was that they must forget about their dirty past. I want to speak to the hon. member for South Coast, and I want to read out a few things that he said about the South African Republic. The idea of the Republic was to get away from the idea of the monarchy. What did the Leader of the Opposition do? He made it a Party issue He said that the United Party was going to fight the Republic tooth and nail. But listen what the hon. member for South Coast said. I quote from the Cape Times of 11th February, 1961.

That was before the Republic then.

Yes, before the Republic. He said—

That was said by the United Party provincial leader in Natal. The report goes on to say—

But, of course, “I did not say so.” Then the report goes on to say—

Union Jacks were draped over the balconies. Other banners read:

And then what happened? This is what we find right at the end of this report—

I think it was then later changed to “March, march, march!” That was that Party’s attitude towards the South African Republic. [Interjections]. That was the atmosphere in which they approached the question of the flag and the Anthem in South Africa and the Republic. Is it any wonder that people who sit behind this great party, the United Party, said to them : “For heaven’s sake, stop this un-South African attitude of yours.”

They could not.

That was one bit of advice they gave them. [Interjections.] I think I should tell a little story about the United Party. I think I should tell them what happened. You know, they first kicked me out. Then Abraham Jonker got up and said: “But if there is no place in the United Party for a conservative English-speaking South African, is there a place for an Afrikaansspeaking South African?”, so they said: “Get the hell out of here” [Interjections.] And then poor old Blaar …

I was even a liberal South African but they told me also to “get the hell out of here”.

He came up the passage and said that he was going to call for a special caucus meeting so that Abraham and I could come back to the party for national unity. They called a special caucus meeting, but before Blaar could say a word, they kicked him out too. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether you could ask the hon. the Minister please to address you. I cannot hear a word he is saying.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I know those tactics too. If it hurts then they interrupt the member addressing the House.

This is the line that was followed then. No wonder the Party’s supporters said: “For heaven’s sake, do not be un-South African any more.” What was the next thing? They said : “Look here, whenever the National Party does anything which is good for South Africa …”

Like what?

… then you must not say that it is good; you must say that it is United Party policy.” We have heard this here all along: “This is our policy; that is our policy.” [Interjections.] Then it was decided to plug the grievance vote. Of course, we know they have been plugging the grievance vote. They were told to plug the grievance vote, and they were even told: “In doing that, don’t be too fussy; you must not only plug the grievance vote and pull votes from the National Party, but try to create a split in the National Party.” Hon. members opposite protest when we talk about their associations with the H.N.P. I want to read something from the Rand Daily Mail of 7th November, 1969. It is only a short quotation—

They take the part of the H.N.P. which says that there should be only one official language in South Africa, namely Afrikaans. My language, English, must not be an official language. But members of the United Party go and shake hands with Dr. Hertzog and Jaap Marais. [Interjections.] And then the other thing was to consolidate the English-speaking vote, as they had it in the past. They said: “You know, this breaking away of Trollip, Waring and Shearer and these people has taken place, and we must now consolidate the English-speaking vote.” Then they talk about national unity! They are determined to prevent national unity on the side of the National Party. That is their plan; they want to rule this country with all the English-speaking people and a section of the Afrikaners, and they want to rule it according to the directions they receive from the bosses of the party.

Are you reading your speech?

I want to tell the hon. member that I never at any stage said that I represent the English-speaking people in the National Party; I have said I am an English-speaking Nationalist. [Interjections.] Hon. members can sneer and laugh but you see, Sir, this is the whole performance you have witnessed this afternoon. You must understand that you must not take them seriously. Do you think that this atmosphere that has been created really means anything? It means nothing at all. [Interjections.] Sir, I wonder whether I may make my speech. I do not have much time left. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I cannot even hear myself, and that is very bad indeed.

Order!

[Inaudible.]

Order ! If the hon. member for Durban North does not obey the Chair, I shall ask him to leave the Chamber.

I am terribly sorry, Sir; I did not hear you address me.

Mr. Speaker, they say they believe in national unity.

Do you?

Let me ask them what their attitude was towards Mr. Trollip and myself when we became Cabinet Ministers in this Government. They sneered and they jeered and expressed nothing but ridicule. The only national unity they want is on their side of the House, under their direction. I remember so well how their Press conducted themselves at this time. I have never seen anything more disgusting … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member for Carletonville entitled to refer to this side of the House as a “bunch of traitors”?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the context in which I said it was that they were traitors towards those people who came over to our party … [Interjections.] … but I withdraw it.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, this is the extent to which they went. It was said to me by party organizers at meetings which I addressed: “You are a traitor; the National Party bought you.”

Who were they?

Sir, I want to tell that hon member for Kensington that he is the biggest “boerehater” in the country. [Interjections.] He was on the Rand Daily Mail and he was as vicious as anybody could ever be against the Afrikaner.

You are talking nonsense.

I was busy telling about the Press and the scandalous way in which …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to say that the Minister is a “renegade”?

Which hon. member said that?

The hon. member for Florida.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Old powder puff!

The Sunday Times also decended to a low level. They did not refer to me but to two other English-speaking people. I want to quote exactly what they said when Prof. Horwood became a Senator and Mr. Trollip resigned. They said: “A Horwood follow a Trollip in the Cabinet.” That, of course, is cricket! They accept that sort of thing, because it was one of the newspapers that support that side of the House.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, you cannot.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, surely no one should be allowed to mutilate one of the official languages.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The other thing revealed by the enquiry was “karaktermoord”, they must carry on with that campaign. I also mentioned previously that it was said by U.P. supporters that I was bought by the National Party. I also know that in my constituency my opponent, Mr. Delport …

It was a bad buy.

… had to put a public apology in the Cape Times and Die Burger and pay me R1 000 out of court for damages for defamation.

Order! Who said it was a “bad buy”?

I did.

What does the hon. member mean by that? What does the hon. member insinuate by saying that?

He said he was bought and I said that it was a bad buy.

What does the hon. member mean by saying that he was a bad buy? He must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister himself said that he was bought.

No, he did not.

Then I withdraw it.

They talk about national unity between the Afrikaans-speaking …

You must have been a “loss leader”.

Order! I am warning the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District for the last time.

They talk about national unity between the English- and Afrikaans-speaking people, but look at the way they behaved about Mr. Howard Odell. The hon. member for Orange Grove was very disappointed because I put Mr. Odell on the tourist advisory committee. He was very disappointed and even wanted to know what salary was paid to members of the advisory committee. He was also very disappointed when he was told that they got no salary, that they do the job purely on S. & T., on the usual committee allowance.

You refused to tell me what his qualifications were.

The hon. member attacked him because he was an English-speaking person who became a Nationalist. I now want to take the example of somebody who is not in the political field. I find the hon. member for East London North a very fair-minded person in this House, but he wrote a disgraceful letter. I regard him as a fair-minded person; and I do not blame him, but the poison put into him by the people in that party and that organization. I do not want to read the letter, but a portion of a leading article in the Natal Mercury, not a supporter of the Government, about it. I do not want to read much of it, only the following:

May I ask a question?

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to answer a question of that hon. member. And do you know to whom this letter was written? It was written to a rich elderly man, Mr. Stanley Murphy of Durban. I say: There are racialists. [Interjections.] I have a photostat of the letter. I especially did not take a typed copy. The letter is dated the 16th September, 1963.

Mistakes and all.

Mistakes and all. I will give it to anybody who wants to read it; I have no intention of reading it. There is all this talk of national unity. The national unity they want is only national unity which they themselves control entirely, with a minority of Afrikaans-speaking people supporting them. I remember what the hon. member for King William’s Town indicated while I was in the House, but I know the Afrikaner better than he does although he is Afrikaans speaking. The Afrikaner is not prepared to give up what one may call his “volks”-consciousness. He is not prepared to give it up. That hon. member, however, is prepared to give it up. The Nationalist Afrikaners are not, and I am not prepared to give up my “volks”-consciousness as an English-speaking Nationalist. That is the basis of real nationl unity.

Mr. Speaker, this is as I think Parliament should be. This is as I like Parliament. Parliament is a place with an old tradition and it is to a very large extent a tradition which we borrowed from the British Parliament. One of the traditions of Parliament is that a member is not allowed to read his speech, and there is of course a very good reason for it.

*One must speak from one’s heart and express one’s feelings. If one does so, one is interpreting the sentiments of the people for Parliament.

And if one does so one is swimming in the sea at Sea Point.

I shall come to Marendaz and that Minister. He will find out that Diesels will not carry him one single yard except to his undoing and ruination. He may just as well keep quiet. That hon. Minister’s way of conducting a debate will cause me to call for the appointment of a Select Committee in terms of the rules of the House to investigate his conduct with Marendaz. If he is an honourable man, which I take him to be, he will get up and he himself will call for such a Committee to clear his name which has been besmirched by himself and his conduct.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal explanation …

Mr. Speaker, as far as I know the rules of this House, which were correctly interpreted on a previous occasion by the Leader of the House, I make a charge …

Did the hon. member cast a reflection on the hon. the Minister?

I cast no reflection. I said that if a reflection was cast, the rules of the House provided that that hon. member … Mr. Speaker, may I proceed?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it was reported in the Sunday Times that this case would go to court. The judge will pronounce judgment and afterwards that hon. member will have sufficient time to apologize to me properly.

Mr. Speaker, as far as I know the rules of this House— and I think the hon. the Leader of the House will agree with me—if one feels that one’s character has been …

Order! If the hon. member wants to make a charge against the hon. the Minister he must do so by way of a substantive motion.

I am not making any charge. I say that if that hon. …

If the case is sub judice, it may not be discussed.

I am not discussing anything, Mr. Speaker. I say that if that hon. Minister …

Yes, but the hon. member must drop the matter.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, if it is going to court, let it go to court. I just want to say that Parliament is interesting now. We are back at the stage shortly after the Boer War and those hon. members …

Hear, hear!

Do you see, Mr. Speaker, you hear “hear, hear!” Do you know from whom one hears “hear, hear!”? One hears it from all those persons whose parents refused to fight on the side of the Boers. All the people who refused to fight against the English would now like to seize the opportunity to fight against the English for once. We who come from families who have already fought against the English, need not fight the battle all over again.

Now, let me start with the hon. the Minister who has just sat down. He was very funny; he said nothing; he was simply very funny. I have come to the conclusion that the old Boers certainly had a nice language, i.e. Afrikaans. It seems to me that hon. member was appointed as Minister only for the “sports”. He has nothing to do; he was simply appointed for the “sports”. Small wonder that a certain person, a certain Mrs. Waring, wrote the following in Rapport of 5th Maarch (translation)—

I take it that they are also bored with the Minister. She went on to say—

Would hon. members believe it; would hon. members believe that the people and the wives of Cabinet Ministers are so bored with them that they write such things? What does ex-Minisetr P. K. le Roux say? He says that the sports policy in particular is causing worry. I do not want to occupy myself with things of that kind. I was deeply hurt when I saw the conduct of Government members on the matter of national unity. I had hoped and believed we were completely past the stage where there could be any difference about national unity. I had believed that every member of this Government desired national unity just as I do and just as the hon. the Minister of Community Development did when he was still in the United Party with me. I had believed that we could continue to heal the breach of the past; I had believed that a new day had dawned under this Prime Minister. I had believed, as the Leader of this House did when he was in the United Party, that we should forget the ugly things of the past and that we should march forward in order to build a new, stronger and sounder South Africa, consisting of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people, with two languages and perhaps with two cultures, but with one mutual allegiance to South Africa. That was what I had hoped. As an Afrikaansspeaking Afrikaner, I want to associate myself once again with what was said in the days of yore, i.e. that the Englishman in this country must cast off his Englishness just as the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner must cast off his Afrikaansness. Jointly we must be forged together into one South African nationalism to ensure the welfare of the children of all of us.

Then you are nothing.

I am an Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner. I have a great deal of respect for that Minister. I do not think he will be so presumptious as to believe that he is a better South African than I am. I do not think that he believes that.

On that basis you are nothing.

I cannot believe in supremacy (baasskap) and in Afrikaner supremacy. Neither can I believe in English supremacy, but I can believe in co-operation and in one common allegiance to one common country, South Africa. If people may be called upon to die for one common country, as was done during the last war, they may also be called upon to be loyal to one common country, as we in the United Party are doing here this evening. Furthermore, if we did not have the support of the National Party during the last war, let us at least get the support of the National Party now. They are the Government now. Let them accept our support now in pledging a common allegiance to South Africa. Whether the party in power is that party or this one, in the near future we shall need everyone who wants to swear allegiance to South Africa. It does not befit the Government to talk as they did here today and to abuse people and to hurt them deeply in their hearts, their souls and their being. That is not right. It does not befit us, and we do not achieve anything whatsoever by doing so. What do we want to achieve? Do we want to win an Oudtshoorn election? I think any Government or any Opposition can win or lose an election without dragging in matters of this kind. What is the point of it? The Bible tells us: “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” We must not hurt the soul of the Afrikaner in the process of trying to catch a small number of votes only— the votes of people who can still be incited by the sentiment of the Boer War or by racial hatred. I have always believed, and I still do today, that any party which appeals to the two basest and meanest emotions in man, i.e. hate and fear, will not get very far. It may win, but the country which it is to govern, will lose. It will be of no use to us if that side or this one wins and if South Africa loses. Let South Africa win. What is a political party? Political parties come and go, but South Africa remains for all times. Should this not be the approach of anyone calling himself a South African?

Not the Nationalists.

No, I believe the Nationalists as well. I believe there are thousands of Nationalists in this country who love South Africa more than they do the National Party. Just go back in the history of the National Party. In every time of crisis this National Party emerged badly from that crisis. Mention one election to me which was won by this National Party in a time of crisis. They have never won an election in a time of crisis. The National Party strongly reminds me of a small poem by Langenhoven, who lived down Oudtshoorn way, in which he said (translation)—

No, Sir, these are not nice little recitations, these are truths.

Was 1948 not a time of crisis?

No, it was not a time of crisis. The crisis was past. The people were released from the gaols. The enemy had been shot dead and crushed. Peace prevailed once more. There were no crises. In 1943 there was a crisis. In 1933 there was a crisis. In 1939 there was a crisis. Where were they then?

I do not want to go too far into the past of the whole business. I just want to say this: I listened very attentively to the arguments used here today as well as yesterday. I listened to the way in which accusations were levelled, almost after the style of beating the old racial drum. If we on this side of the House were to take over the Government one day, it would result in a Black South Africa and the future of our children would be in peril once more.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.