Mr. Speaker, on Monday I raised a point of order in connection with an interjection by the hon. member for Carletonville, who, I thought, had said that the hon. member for Houghton had no right to talk in this House. He denied it. Sir, and I interjected: “That is untrue”. My attention has been drawn to Hansard, where he is reported as saying that she had no right to “sit” in this House. I withdraw my interjection.

I have to inform the House that on my attention being drawn to an article entitled “The Rate for the Job or How to make R10 650 (minimum) a year without really training” which appeared in the Sunday Tribune on 14th May, the Secretary to the House on my instructions wrote to the Editor of the paper informing him that I considered the tone of the article to be such that it cast reflections on especially the moral and ethical standards of members of Parliament and that it could be interpreted as constituting a contempt of Parliament in that it undermined the respect due to and the authority of Parliament as an institution.

The Editor was further informed that if a suitable apology and retraction of any remarks which could be construed as reflections on Parliament and its members was published in a prominent position in the Sunday Tribune, I would be prepared to recommend to the House that the matter should not be taken any further.

On 21st May, the Sunday Tribune published my letter in full together with an apology and explanation, but as I did not consider these to be adequate, I requested the Editor to call at my office.

After a full discussion of the matter, I received a further letter, dated 1st June, in which the Editor in my opinion apologized adequately and withdrew any possible reflections on Parliament and its members.

In accordance with the undertaking given in this letter, it was published prominently and in full in the Sunday Tribune of 4th June. In view of its terms, I feel that the matter need not be taken any further and I recommend accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) the hours of sitting on Monday, 12th June, shall be:
   • 2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.
   • 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.;
2. (2) on Tuesday, 13th June, business shall be suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.;
3. (3) on Wednesday, 14th June, business shall not be suspended at 6.30 p.m.; and
4. (4) on Tuesday, 13th June, and Wednesday, 14th June, the House shall only be adjourned upon its own resolution.

With the promised co-operation of the Opposition, I expect that we shall complete the business of this House on Tuesday evening at the latest. If it should then be necessary, we shall meet on Wednesday only to receive the messages from the Senate.

The business still to be disposed of before the adjournment of the House, comprises all the Orders of the Day up to and including Order of the Day No. 19. I know, Sir, that hon. members have undertaken to speak as little as possible, and if they keep to that promise, we shall definitely finish by Tuesday evening.

Mr. Speaker, this has been agreed amongst the Whips, and I think this is an all-time record. Normally we object to late sittings, and I hope it will not be necessary for us to sit late next week. I think this is largely due to the fact that the Minister, the Leader of the House, has been able to get his colleagues, the other Ministers, to collaborate and to introduce their legislation early. We have had no waste of time this year; there have been no early adjournments. At the beginning of the session the legislation was available to members for study. We have had nearly 106 Bills to consider this session. We hope that, as a result of the good example the Minister has set this year, we shall carry on in the same way next year and thus minimize night sittings, which are not in the interests of members or in the interests of good legislation.

A further matter I should like to raise relates to Select Committees. This year we have been able to achieve results in this House because we have referred more Bills to Select Committees. Members have had the opportunity of studying technical Bills in Select Committees, and of giving them their due consideration, thus saving the time of members in this House. I think this is an example worth following, although it does place an added burden on the individual members. Many members of this House have spent many hours on Select Committees, with no Press headlines and no special mention, but the work has been well done. We hope, as we have now trained the Minister to accept the excellent advice we have given him in the past to bring the legislation on early, that he in turn has passed that on to his colleagues. If he has done so, we shall see progress in future. We support the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member for Pinetown that I am always prepared to accept good advice, as long as it is in fact good. I must say, Sir, that the co-operation between the two sides of the House has been excellent this Session. I cannot wish for anything better. I am quite convinced that, if we receive the same co-operation in future, we shall be able to deal with every session of Parliament in the manner in which we have dealt with this one. We did a lot of work; we did it expeditiously; we had no undue delays; we had no obstruction and we had no trouble whatsoever. As the hon. member has said, we have passed quite a number of Bills. I also agree that sending Bills to Select Committees is an excellent thing. It gives members the opportunity of examining Bills in detail. When such Bills then come before the House, very little discussion takes place.

In all the years that I have been Leader of the House, we have always followed that procedure, as the hon. member knows! That is why I have always received the full co-operation of the hon. member for Pinetown and his predecessor. I can assure him that I appreciate the co-operation, and with further co-operation we should finish even before Tuesday night. It all depends on hon. members on that side because, after all, Sir, they are the members who talk so much. If they were really to constrain themselves and talk less, we might get finished on Monday night.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday evening I was expressing my deep disappointment about the conduct of the Opposition in connection with the student demonstrations and the Police action in that connection. We heard here about rough handling and “hamhandedness”. I am disappointed that we did not hear a single word of appreciation from the Opposition for the level-headed way in which the Police performed their duties under extremely serious provocation. I think the Opposition owes it to them, and I trust that one of their speakers will also decide to assure the Police of their thanks in these circumstances. Sir, while discussing the subject of youth, one cannot neglect to point out that in this day and age our youth are growing up under very difficult circumstances, They are faced with very difficult problems, and those who want to take a firm stand and adopt a certain standpoint must do so under extremely difficult circumstances.

Sir, it is surprising how many times we, as the National Party and the Government, are accused of indoctrination. If we perhaps give talks or lessons, at school or over the radio, dealing with the traditions of our people, with their religious background, it is said we are indoctrinating the young people. But I have never once heard the Opposition objecting to the way in which our young people are being indoctrinated by foreign elements, by Communists and other destructive agitators. They are apparently not very much concerned about that, because those people are playing right into their hands. Therefore I want to convey my thanks here today—and I am sure that I am doing this on behalf of the overall majority of the South African public—to the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet for their action in this country against the Communist henchmen, i.e. anarchists and terrorists, that want to paralyse the country.

Firstly I want to say a few words about the remarks the hon. member for Namaqualand made yesterday when he began his speech and said that the Afrikaners on this side of the House allow themselves to be used to discredit the Afrikaner. I first want to deal with that, and then I want to come back to the hon. member for Namaqualand. Sir, I want to link this up with the many remarks made by the hon. the Minister of Transport in connection with the same matter, i.e. that the Afrikaners on this side are “detribalized” (“ontstamde”) Afrikaners.

Serfontein says so.

I am surprised that a senior Minister like the hon. the Minister of Transport—whom we have told on numerous occasions from this side of the House that we have the utmost regard for him because not only is he a very senior member, but for the most part he acts in a very responsible way—was guilty here yesterday of such an allegation. If he had motivated his remark, stating that he had said it in the heat of the Brakpan struggle, it would have been another matter, but since he repeated this remark in the calm atmosphere of this House I cannot but express my surprise and disappointment. I asked myself why, in this House yesterday, the hon. member was guilty of stirring up hatred between the White races in this country, because what he did was nothing less than stirring up brotherly hatred between the Whites in this country. I ask myself why the hon. the Minister goes out of his way to belittle the English on this side. Does he not know that today tens of thousands of marriages take place between English-speaking people and Afrikaners, a process that is physically and biologically building up a South African nation here? Why does he go out of his way to belittle the English? And I ask myself why he goes out of his way to belittle the Afrikaners on this side? What does he gain by it? Does he not realize that as a senior statesman his utterances in this House can cause a much greater degree of estrangement between the Whites than even these student demonstrations? While I am now speaking of student demonstrations, which the hon. member for Namaqualand also referred to, I just want to say that the standpoint of this side of the House was clearly stated here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He made it clear that we do not condone the demonstrations, but …

“But.”

We are in favour of any group of people being allowed to express their views and to demonstrate as long as they do not contravene the provisions of the Act. We are also as strongly in favour of law and order being maintained under all circumstances. If demonstrations take place … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

If there are demonstrations, which are permitted by the Act, they ought not to be opposed by any section of the population subject to the fact that the demonstrations take place in an orderly fashion and that the provisions of the Act are not contravened. Under those circumstances a demonstration can serve as a safety valve. If there are people who go beyond the bounds of the Act, whether they be students or agitators or whatever …

Then give them a hiding.

…we must arrest them and bring them up before the courts, not give them a hiding, as the hon. member here behind me has just said. Sir, I also want to state clearly that the condemnation of the Police action is not aimed at Police.

At whom then?

It is aimed at a Minister who gave instructions for the Police to take such action. It is aimed at the Government and the Prime Minister who said here that the Police would take the same action if there were a repetition of this incident.

Yes?

Sir, compare the Police action last Friday with that on Monday. One can only have the utmost praise for the Police action on Monday here in front of the Cathedral. They conducted themselves with tact. Where they thought it necessary to arrest people, to bring them before the courts at a later stage, they did so. That is how the Act ought to be implemented. There was a world of difference between the Police action last Friday and that on Monday. Sir, I repeat that the very responsible Police Force in this country has to act under difficult circumstances when such demonstrations are in progress. We have the utmost respect for their actions, and the Police are not the people we are criticizing.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Can he explain to us why the United Party acts the way it did in Johannesburg, when Mr. Widman, United Party M.P.C., took exception to the presence of students wearing blazers at the polling booth, the legal venue for casting one’s vote, but the demonstrating students in Cape Town are protected by the U.P.?

Sir, it is not worth while replying to that question. In Oudtshoorn students were egged on by supporters of that side of the House to take action at the polling booths. We must not blame each other.

Sir, I should like to come back to the hon. the Minister of Transport. In his speech yesterday the hon. the Minister indicated that he is very concerned about national unity. I believe him; he has given evidence of this throughout his career. But why did he act the way he acted here yesterday? Why does he call Afrikaners on this side of the House detribalized Afrikaners? Are we not living in an era when there are so many internal threats, and threats from without, against the White race that we must close our ranks and take action as one united national group? As long as this hate campaign is being stirred up we cannot act as one united people. Sir, I should like to put it in these terms to the hon. the Minister and to everyone on the other side who makes such accusations: We on this side can stand up, without any difficulty, and say that there are just as many people on that side of the House who hate the English as there are people on this side that hate the Boers —in fact, many more. There are English haters on that side … [Interjection.]

Order!

There are, on the other hand, just as many people on that side of the House that never speak a word of English. I am actually entitled to say that there are many of them who refuse to speak English. I shall go further. There are many of them who cannot speak English properly. I want to go even further. I know of no member on this side of the House who cannot understand Afrikaans and I know of no member on this side of the House who cannot speak Afrikaans, no matter how broken the Afrikaans may be. [Interjections.]

Order!

But if an hon. member can speak both languages, and he can understand both languages, he is entitled to speak whatever language he wants to. There are lots of members on that side of the House who have never spoken a word of English in the 11 years I have been in this House. Must I now hold it against them that they are English-haters merely because they do not do so, as it is being held against the English here that they are Afrikaner-haters because they do not speak Afrikaans? What happens to our national unity? What happens to the linking up of the White races so that they can form a solid unit and protect themselves? I repeat that if we on this side of the House wanted to do so, and as responsible people we shall not do so, we would … [Interjections.] The accusations made by the hon. the Minister of Transport to the effect that on this side of the House the Afrikaners are “detribalized” I, as an Afrikaner, would like to reject with contempt. [Interjections.] I notice that the hon. member for Namaqualand is not present. I indicated that I wanted to come back to him. He made the remark that Afrikaners on this side of the House are being used to plough the Afrikaners under, and I reject that with contempt.

When is a person an Afrikaner?

I should like to come back to certain statements made yesterday by the hon. member for Namaqualand when he spoke of the Coloureds and parallel development. When I interrupted him and he told me: “Can there be anything more reasonable or more sensible than what the Government is doing in connection with the parallel development of the Coloureds.” The Minister of Coloured Affairs is not present at the moment, but this concerns the relations policy of the Government. I ask the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, as I did two years ago, whether he means parallel development to the very end, i.e. an eventual sovereign Parliament for the Coloureds? He replied: “Yes, if necessary.” I shall now ask any person, who wants to stand up on that side of the House, certain relevant questions in connection with the Coloured policy, this policy of the Government which is moulded on parallel development and which the hon. the Prime Minister said he did not have an answer for; our descendants must decide about it. Let me now ask this question. Is it parallel development up to a point where they will have a parliament on parallel lines to this one, to a point where they must decide about their own matters, so much so that they will make decisions about defence, transport, finance and foreign affairs? Does the parallel development go that far? Where does it stop? How far must their parallel development go? Must it only go as far as their perhaps having education and local affairs under them? Or is it parallel development that makes it possible for them to have the same development as the Whites in this country have, so that they also have a parliament with the same kind of powers this parliament has without an overall parliament? We want the answers to that. It is no use letting those aspects hang in the air and then saying: “Yes, parallel development up to a certain stage, and after that we don’t know any more.” The Government must spell this out for us so that we can see what it looks like and where it is heading. This brings me back to certain remarks of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. He accused this party of being in a political labyrinth and said there was a confusion of tongues, that this party had built a tower of Babel and that it was engaged in a “rethink”.

Yes.

I am glad hon. members are saying “yes”. I want to allege that if there is a party that needs a “rethink” it is the party on that side of the House. There is the party that needs a “rethink”. [Interjections.] When we come to Coloured Affairs we find the hon. member for Moorreesburg saying that there must be a Colouredstan.

Where do you get that from? Where did he say that?

Order!.

Then we come to the hon. member for Piketberg who wanted an extension of the Senate with Coloured representation in that Senate.

Where did he say that?

Then we come to the Minister of the Interior who morning noon and night propagates better relations between the Bantu and the Whites and a narrowing of the gap between salaries and wages for the White and non-White labourers. But then we go further than this and we come to the Minister of Labour who propagates evasions of the provisions of the Wage Act in connection with border areas and the salaries in border areas. If we now want to speak about a confusion of tongues and of a “rethink” we must look at that aspect of the situation. Where is the Government heading with this policy on all these matters? Then we come to the hon. the Minister’s statement of a multinational Bantu population.

May I put a question?

No. Then we come to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration’s old statement that the Bantu is a multi-national group. That is an old statement of the Minister. The White population, which is drawn from many national groups, is a White population. They are Frenchmen, Hollanders, Germans, English and many other races besides, but they are one population, the White population. But the Coloured population is also one population. They are drawn from so many backgrounds it isn’t true. They are also one population. When it comes to the Bantu there are many peoples, according to the Minister. Then he says we are still talking of a race policy. Of course we are talking about a race policy. There are many Bantu races. There are many races in the country, but there are not many Bantu peoples. I wonder whether I could have the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration’s attention? [Interjections.]

Order!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Do you know why the hon. the Minister is so fond of speaking about the Bantu peoples? For the simple reason that he is afraid of ever mentioning that there are South Africans living in this country, Brown South Africans and Black South Africans. He is ashamed of mentioning it. He will not mention it. He is afraid of mentioning it. And it is a fact that those of us here in South Africa are White South Africans, Brown South Africans and Black South Africans, whether we want to know it or not. I am not speaking of the Afrikaners. I am speaking of the South Africans. I am not speaking of the Afrikaners or of the Boers; I am speaking of the South Africans as such.

What is stated in the Citizenship Act?

Supposing we were to reach the stage where we eventually accepted the hon. the Minister’s statement and his ideology of the creation of separate Bantustans. I want to acknowledge frankly that the time is fast approaching when we shall have to accept it. With every succeeding step further territorial authorities are being established with powers like those of the Transkei. It is merely a question of time. If the hon. the Minister does not do so, he is not keeping his promise. But if he does so, and one, two, three or more independent Bantustans are created, it will be an accomplished fact which this party will not be able to get away from and will have to accept. I also want to say that we shall have to accept it. But this does not affect the 7 500 000 Bantu who are at present living in the Republic. I have already said previously that according to calculations there will be 10 million Banut living in the Republic in 1980. There will not be the slightest possibility of their being shifted to the Bantustans. By the year 2000 there will be 20 million to 25 million Bantu in the Republic. What will the position of that group of people in the Republic be as far as our relations politics is concerned?

The hon. gentleman said yesterday that there is such a confusion of tongues in connection with the non-White bloc that we want to bring to Parliament—the 16 members—that we are now running away from that. It will be a long time before we are running away. That is the only method there is of giving representation to the many Bantu living in this country. That is the only method. But I want to go further. Within the scope of the Government’s policy of the establishment of separate Bantustans as such …

May I put a question to the hon. member?

Oh, Mr. Speaker, I have only 6 minutes left. Within the Government’s policy in connection with the establishment of Bantustans they have no safety valve for the millions of Bantu living in the Republic. They will sooner or later have to accept the policy of the United Party, i.e. that one is entitled to say to a person: Your country is actually out there, where I have created possibilities for you and where you can have representation. But if you are living here with me in the Republic, and your residence is of a permanent nature, I can create for you a possibility of representation in the supreme council as such, which will be a specific representation by Whites. The hon. the Minister must give some good thought to this for a moment.

The hon. the Minister went further and said: We want to give them more land, and there have now again been negotiations about what we want to allocate to them in the consolidation of the Bantustans. One must, of course, try to consolidate the areas as far as possible without interfering with the existing order. This is natural, and this side of the House has already asked many times that the areas be consolidated and that we should be told where the boundaries will be. But do it quickly, and do not say, like the hon. the Deputy Minister says, that it could take 15 years to consolidate the Ciskei. Get it finished with; say where the boundaries are and say that it will take two years.

You are talking nonsense now, Oom Jan.

This side of the House, in the person of the hon. member for Transkei, said that there is a possibility that we shall allocate more land to them. We have also said where. We said, did we not, that it would be next to the metropolitan areas where these people are. Our policy also contains the principle that they will have proprietary rights of the dwellings and the premises where they are living and that they can bring their families along. In terms of our policy we want to give that land to them. What is so strange in that? Does that signify a confusion of tongues?

You have so many policies; I do not blame you.

Oh, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister may stand up and speak at some stage or other; I would not interrupt him as many times as he is interrupting me. There is only one method of creating loyalty in the many people living here in South Africa, whom I regard as Black, Brown and White Afrikaners. and that is to give them proprietary rights here and to have them become a part of the country. That is the only method. This method being employed by the hon. the Minister, i.e. the shifting of national groups and people all over the country, causes the seed of disturbances to germinate. I wish the hon. the Minister would accompany me for once to Dimbaza and Mdantisane—not in his capacity as Minister and accompanied by his senior officials. I wish for once that he would just take a drive with Jan Moolman; I would then stop there. I want to show the hon. the Minister that without our saying a word— we can just sit there for a quarter of an hour in the car—there will be dozens of men who will ask us: “Master, do you not have any work for us?” The same goes for the other places. Only recently they flocked around me and asked if I did not have any work for them. I have already said in this House repeatedly that the people cannot come out on the rations they receive, because there are more of them living in the houses than are registered. The rations are not enough and they are going hungry. It is monstrous and inhuman to do that to people. As long as the Governments policy stays as it is and it continues to remove people here from the Western Cape and elsewhere and cram them into urban areas within the Bantustans, where they are without work and do not know what to do, there will be a breeding ground for Communism and insurrection. I cannot understand why the Government continues with such a policy, continuing to cram people into these areas. They go on saying in this House that there are no unemployed Bantu … Will the hon. member for Witbank please stop talking to the Minister? The Minister persists in giving the House the assurance that there are no unemployed Bantu. There are tens of thousands of them.

Where are they?

I do not have the time to go into that now. The reason for that is the fact that they are not allowed to work where there is work. The result of this is that our factories and industries work only eight hours a day, instead of 16 hours …

Oh!

There comes the Oh now! There is only one way we can eliminate this gap between exports and imports …

The statistics contradict you.

The statistics do not contradict me in so far as there are no factories working 16 or 24 hours per day in this country. Will the hon. the Minister tell me where they are? None of the thousands of industries we have work 16 hours per day. Go and have a look in Germany, Japan and America and see how many there are working 16 hours a day. See how many there are working 24 hours a day. How do they build up their exports so that they exceed their imports and how do they manage their advantageous trade balances? Specifically because they use this method to create additional exports by way of industrialization and the increase of their exports. Here an industry does not even have enough Whites to work one shift, let alone enough Whites to work two shifts. And what about the trained Bantu who can supplement the Whites in working two shifts? As long as this Government is in power this story of thousands of people who do not have work in this country will continue. And that is how long the famine in many of their ranks, the unbalanced inhabitation of the Republic and their story that there are many Bantu peoples, but only one White people, will continue. The fact remains that we shall have to make a plan. I want to tell hon. members opposite that apart from the campaign they had at Oudtshoorn, and apart from the lesser degree of success in the Brakpan election, which is very much of a temporary nature, the voting public will remember that the people on that side of the House are the ones stirring up this hate between the Whites year in and year out, even long after Brakpan. The electorate will remember that this side of the House presents the realization and the example for the cohabitation of Whites in this country; they will not always be voting for that side of the House, because their time has run out.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London City has just made the allegation here that in the homelands there are Bantu who are unemployed and cannot obtain work. I invite that hon. member—he asked the Minister to go for a drive with him and have a look— to come with me to the Western Transvaal where the farmers now have to harvest their crops and cannot get Bantu in the homelands because all the Bantu have been employed. These people now come along to the Minister to obtain permits to recruit labour in our neighbouring states because all the Bantu in the homelands have been employed. I invite that hon. member to come and have a look so that he may see for himself. The hon. member for East London City did his utmost this afternoon to indicate that there is not a confusion of tongues in the United Party. It is a pity the hon. member stopped talking about South Africanism and about Black and White South Africans so soon, because if he had gone on he would have announced a new United Party policy. The hon. member says there is not a confusion of tongues in the United Party. I now want to tell him that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout disagrees with the United Party on at least five points. He has support in the person of the hon. member for Von Brandis, and also in the person of the hon. member for Wynberg. I want to mention to the House the five points in respect of which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout disagrees with the United Party. At the United Party congress last year the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said—and we all know about this—that …

Were you there?

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member was there, and I am now asking him to tell us if what I am now going to say is true or untrue. At that United Party Congress the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that those who think that Bantu must be represented by Whites are living in a fool’s paradise. I am now asking the hon. member for Durban Point whether it is true that that hon. member said it. [Interjections.] I am asking the hon. member whether it is true—did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say it or did he not say it? [Interjections.] Various English-language newspapers, inter alia, the Cape Times of 18th September, 1971, stated that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had said it. The Cape Argus of the same day confirmed this. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that the United Party is living in a fool’s paradise if it thinks that it can have Bantu represented by Whites in this House. That is not all that he said at that congress. The United Party believes in White leadership for South Africa. But he, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, supported the resolution about separate freedoms at that congress.

That is untrue.

We all know that they agreed to a compromise there. That is the second point of disagreement between the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the United Party.

The third point, in respect of which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout disagrees with the United Party, is the federation question. They speak of a race federation, but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that a federation can be a federation of areas. He disagrees with them on that point. The hon. member for Von Brandis supported him. When the hon. member for Wynberg makes a similar noise she is “zipped”. I say that there is a confusion of tongues in the United Party.

The fourth point, in respect of which the United Party and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout disagree, is the development of the Bantu homelands. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says the Bantu homelands can develop to full independence. This is altogether in conflict with the United Party’s policy, and I want to quote to hon. members from the hon. member’s own article as it appeared in the Sunday Times. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout states—

Mr. Speaker …

Order!

—

Mr. Speaker, may I …

Sit down!

Order!

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District wants to ask a question.

Mr. Speaker, I have told him that he must sit down. [Interjections.]

Order! No, the hon. member does not want to answer a question. [Interjections.]

That is the fourth point in respect of which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout disagrees with the United Party. I now ask them why they are so excited. Why are they so rowdy? Am I now telling lies? [Interjections.] Why are the hon. members so boisterous? Why are they not laughing? [Interjections.]

Order! I am now going to put a stop to this disorder in the House. I am going to bring the first hon. member to book who makes another interjection in the House.

That is typical of the United Party. That is the confusion that reigns in their ranks. The way they are now going on, everyone is shouting out his own story.

There is a fifth point in respect of which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout disagrees with the United Party. This is in respect of the question of the political and geographic consolidation of the homelands. He states in his article that those homelands can be consolidated politically and geographically. In the Sunday Times of 28th May, 1972, he states—

That is what that hon. member states. When the report of the Select Committee on Bantu Affairs was brought up for discussion a week or two ago, the United Party voted against the consolidation of the Ciskei. I now want to put a fact to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is certified as being an honest man by the English Press. I watched the hon. member that day. He was here in the House, and when we voted on the Select Committee’s report about the consolidation of the Ciskei homeland he did not vote. I want to put it to him that he did not see his way clear to voting with his party. I want to ask him to stand up and to tell me whether I am right or wrong when I say that he could not square it with his conscience to vote with the United Party against the consolidation of the Ciskei. That is why he saw to it that he was not present here in this House when we voted on this matter. I am telling hon. members that there are five points in respect of which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout disagrees radically with his own party. If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not want to give an explantation, these hon. members who were so boisterous may do so. These are the five points. Then there are other points as well that I am not taking into account. The reason why this state of affairs prevails in the United Party is because there are two different groups of people in that party.

Three.

Perhaps there are more, but there are two as far as I can see. On the one hand there are verkrampte imperialists and on the other hand there are a lot of liberalists. Now this hon. member says that they do think. They cannot think hard, because the moment they think hard the people get a fright. They know that what they are thinking cannot be stated. That is why the United Party comes along and does what it has repeatedly done this Session. They do not ask themselves how they feel about a matter, because they know that their feelings differ. There is no unanimity. That is why they ask themselves what the voters would like. Then they announce a policy that is conservative, as the hon. member for Durban Point tried to intimate the other evening, i.e. that the United Party is a conservative party. It is clear that they announce it and then ask themselves how they are going to put it into effect. In implementing that policy they go to work in such a way that the liberalists in that party are the ones to win. The United Party’s history gives evidence of this; it is a characteristic of their personality. They cannot escape their split personality. They form an ambivalent organism, in reality a political hermaphrodite. I want to mention to hon. members quite a few points out of their history which will explain this to the hon. members.

It is an ugly thing, isn’t it!

It is a dangerous thing. On 21st September, 1912, Gen. Botha said the following about the race question in South Africa at Heidelberg. The newspaper report reads (translation)—

That was the United Party’s policy in 1912. The three most important aspects, which emerge clearly from this, are the following. Firstly, it is regional separation, to “segregate them and give them … self-government there”—in other words, secondly, political separation. Thirdly, it means giving them the right to self-determination. Sir, I am now telling you that that is the National Party’s policy. In other words, in 1912 the United Party began where the National Party has always been. That was in 1912; but what happened? Gen. Botha actively went ahead. He wanted to give effect to it and placed legislation on the Statute Book. Thus we obtained Act No. 27 of 1913, according to which land had to be purchased. He went further and appointed the Beaumont Commission to determine where more land should be purchased. In 1917 he came to Parliament to pilot a Bill through here that was to give effect to the Beaumont Commission’s report and according to which the Bantu were to obtain the franchise in their home areas. Then the liberalists in that party revolted. What happened then? Gen. Botha capitulated and in 1923 Gen. Smuts stated the following in the House of Assembly—

The problem then became so large, as far as he was concerned, as to be beyond human control. In the war years a deputation of the Afrikaans churches went to consult Gen. Smuts and Mr. Hofmeyr. They then told that deputation the following in respect of this urgent question (translation)—

Thus the United Party progressed from apartheid to a point where they had no policy. Where do we now stand? From no policy they progressed to where they are now with political integration and they say that the various national groups in South Africa must be represented in this Parliament. Then they want to carry out all kinds of consultation, etc., to eventually arrive at something which they themselves cannot yet recognize, but which is, in fact, going to be integration. Sir, I say that they have moved from apartheid, the policy of the National Party, which Gen Smuts and Gen. Botha began with in 1912, to integration—from the extreme right to the extreme left.

I want to give you another example. The United Party says they will apply influx control. But I am now telling you that the liberalists in that party will take care of that. To satisfy the conservatives there they will say they are going to apply influx control. Then they are going to apply it as they did, in fact, apply it while they ruled. In terms of the Natives (Urban Areas) Act of 1923 they had powers to implement influx control. They could deal with the unemployed Bantu in the urban areas and control influx. I now want to read to you what a United Party member said during those years about what it looked like when they implemented influx control. What was the comment of the then member for Losberg, a certain Mr. Wolmarans? On 28th May, 1945, he stood up in this House and said the following to the Minister:

Mr. Wolmarans continued:

This is a United Party man who is saying this:

That is what things are like when the United Party men rule:

He continued (volume 54, col. 8279)—

This is now typical of what happens when they rule. This was a United Party member of the House of Assembly speaking, and it was under United Party rule. He is telling his Minister: “We cannot go on any longer under this Government.” In other words, what this man was doing was telling the people: “Vote for the National Party if you want to get out of this situation.”

Mr. Speaker, my time is almost up; I cannot go on giving you further examples, but it is clear that within the United Party we have those two groups. Not one of them can say what is really in his mind. They know that the National Party’s policy is the only policy that can be adopted in South Africa. Every time they formulate a policy they try to make the electorate believe that it is the same as the National Party’s policy, but they say that they would just implement it a little differently. Sir, that is specifically the point. Those people will carry out their policy so that the effect it has is completely opposite to the effect of the policy which this side of the House implements.

Mr. Speaker, one can probably not find a better description for the United Party’s conduct during the past session than did the Star of 31st August, 1971. In that issue it is stated—

There is probably no one who could give a better description of the Opposition. In the past week we again saw a display by the official Opposition, the hon. members on that side of the House, in which they stated: “You must do this, but …” However, they never told us exactly what they would do with these demonstrating students. When we were faced with a lot of students who rebelled against order and authority here in South Africa, the United Party was trying, on the one hand, to satisfy the conservative United Party supporters in the rural areas, but on the other hand they were also trying to keep the liberalists here in the cities, who still belong to their party, on their side. In this whole process the National Party stated its standpoint very clearly in respect of these people who rebel against order and authority in South Africa. Our Prime Minister, and all our party leaders, made our standpoint very clear. Sir, like other hon. members I also received telegrams from my constituency, and today I just want to mention a few of them to you. Here is one from the National Party District Council of Dibeng. It states (translation)—

The second comes from the District Council of the National Party in Brulpan. It states—

Then, Mr. Speaker, I want to quote you a telegram that I received from an immigrant, a certain Mr. Pavlakis. He states (translation)—

Sir, I could likewise quote you several of them today. The United Party very clearly tried—they also tried it in this debate—to woo these people who favour the Progressive Party at the moment. They are also trying to woo the other people in the rural areas. Then the United Party people are the ones who say that the youth of South Africa are on their side! I should like to refer to what is stated in the United Party’s booklet “You want it? We have it!” In connection with this policy of White leadership of an undivided South Africa, they state:

I should like to refer to an expert investigation instituted by Prof. Jannie Pieterse of the University of Pretoria. He drew up a report, and brought to light that 68,2 per cent of all young people in South Africa support the National Party; 18,4 per cent of them have no party ties, and only 8,1 per cent support the United Party; 2,8 per cent of them support the Progressive Party. We also find in this report of Prof. Pieterse, entitled “Jeug en Arbeid” (Youth and Work), and I quote from page 87 (translation)—

[Interjections.] Sir, I should like the United Party to listen to this. It is interesting to read further—

The United Party states, in connection with its policy of White leadership of an undivided South Africa: “The quality of leadership depends on education.” If I were a member of the United Party I would pray that no one in South Africa obtains higher education qualifications, because these figures, brought to light by this investigation, are damning as far as the United Party is concerned. These indications are a red light as far as the United Party is concerned. 3,2 per cent of young graduates support the United Party while 8,1 per cent support the Progressive Party. This investigation also brought to light that 74,2 per cent of the young graduates in South Africa support the National Party. In respect of young people with post-matriculation diplomas or certificates, 74,1 per cent support the National Party. In respect of young people with Std. IX and X qualifications, 67,4 per cent support the National Party.

Another interesting aspect which this investigation brought to light is that the percentage of young people supporting the National Party increases as they get older, i.e. become more sensible and responsible, while endorsement of the United Party decreases accordingly. That is why I am saying that the United Party men have, in this debate, fruitlessly tried to catch the votes of this group of demonstrating students of the University of Cape Town, those people who want to overthrow order and authority. They wooed them fruitlessly, because the details indicate to us that such people range themselves on the side of Mrs. Helen Suzman and her party. I also believe that the youth of South Africa will continue to reject the United Party because its policy is unrealistic and amounts to racial domination. According to its race federation policy the United Party wants to give 4 million Whites 166 representatives; to 2 million Coloureds it wants to give only 6 representatives in this House; 2 representatives in this House to half a million Indians and 8 representatives to the 15 million Bantu. At present the United Party’s policy spells White domination, which will eventually result in Black domination and the destruction of the White man here in South Africa. I shall indicate to you. Sir, why I am making this statement. When the Bantu and Coloured representation was terminated in this Parliament, the Coloureds had 4 representatives here and the Bantu had 3. Without any referendum taking place the U.P. now wants to give the Bantu eight Bantu representatives in the House of Assembly and six in the Other Place; to the Coloureds they want to give six Coloured representatives here and two in the Senate, without having held a referendum, which they are so fond of referring to. They say that the representation of these people will not be changed other than by a referendum, but they have already indicated that the Coloureds will be represented by their own people in this Parliament. We want to ask the United Party whether these six Coloureds, when they take their seats in the House of Assembly, can also become members of that party’s caucus, as Mr. Graham Eden, a previous representative of the Coloureds in this House of Assembly, was a member of the United Party caucus. I wonder whether the quotation of Major Van der Byl in the Cape Times of 7th February, 1962, is still the United Party’s attitude. He was asked whether, under United Party rule, a Coloured could be admitted to the Cabinet and whether he could become Prime Minister. Major Van der Byl said at the time—

Sir, such things the United Party men will say in Gardens, but in Kuruman they would not even tell the electorate that the Coloureds would be represented by Coloureds in Parliament. I want to challenge the hon. member for Walmer to come and say at Kuruman that they will give the Coloureds six Coloureds in the House of Assembly, because there the hon. member and his Party deny this.

But you are then saying it.

I am saying it for you but you are too afraid to come and say it in the rural areas.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.

May I pose a question?

Sir, I do not have the time to reply to a question from that hon. member. Sir, I am referred to the United Party booklet. “You want it? We have it!” in which they state that these six Coloured representatives will be either Whites or Coloureds, but at Kuruman they say they will be Whites. That is the two-faced policy, which we have recently had from the Opposition again, which is coming so clearly to the fore there. I want to tell the hon. member for Maitland that he is “on a trip” if he believes that the Coloureds would choose a White person to represent them in this Parliament. The United Party says that this representation of the non-Whites in this Parliament will only be changed by a referendum that will be held, but, as I have already indicated, they have already changed the number of representatives of the non-Whites in this Parliament from 4 and 3 to 8 and 6, without a referendum having been held. They are giving their leader full powers to formulate policy. They also state in their policy that these eight Bantu representatives will be Whites and that the Indian representatives will be two Whites, but they give the full say to their leader in formulating the policy, and I should like to quote to you from the Sunday Times of 4th November, 1971,—

At Calitzdorp during the Oudtshoorn by-election Mr. Marais Steyn was presented as the Deputy Leader of the United Party and the future Deputy Premier of South Africa and successor to Sir De Villiers Graaff. He has indicated, on certain occasions, that the Bantu will eventually be represented by their own people in this Parliament. Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has also been mentioned as a possible future leader of the United Party.

Who says he is a leader?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said—

In other words, since the United Party members have given full powers to their leader to change their policy, and since we have seen the standpoints of the hon. members for Yeoville and Bezuidenhout, we must accept that in future they will also allow the Bantu and the Indians to be represented by their own people in this Parliament if the United Party should come into power.

To the hon. member for Kuruman I just want to say that I have personally stated at a meeting in Kuruman that the Coloureds should be represented here by their own people, and that I was given a full motion of confidence at that public meeting. I should very much have liked to reply to all the points raised by the hon. member, and particularly to the points raised by the hon. member for Lichtenburg. To the hon. member for Lichtenburg I just want to say that I have already replied to most of his points here, and also outside the House. Almost every point that he mentioned was wrenched out of context. But, Sir, I do not on this occasion want to speak about myself. Serious things have happened in the country, and I should like to discuss them. Sir, very few South Africans will feel happy about the South Africa they see before them at the present moment. We are faced with student strikes and the expulsion of students; the closing of universities; with student demonstrations; with baton-charges by the Police; public protest meetings all over the country; the dispersal of people with tear-gas; and now a general prohibition on open-air meetings in the leading educational centres of our country. Concern, dissatisfaction and unrest is breaking out on a large scale all over the country, and to all these events the Government has only one mundane, simple reply, and that is that there are agitators and “Sinister forces” which are inciting these people, and that is the simple answer to what is happening. As the hon. the Prime Minister put it on Monday, “the students are simply puppets”; there are sinister forces behind them. He added—I quote him—that he will not hesitate to act against those forces, but he is hesitating.

Hear, hear!

Why is the hon. member shouting “hear, hear” now? The hon. the Prime Minister says that he has information, but why does he not root out those sinister forces he refers to; why does he not deal with them? Or is the hon. the Prime Minister simply evading the facts of the situation with words?-—for he has the power to deal with those so-called sinister forces. Why does he not do so? Sir, simply to attribute everything which happened to communist agitation is the greatest absurdity ever. It is in fact in China and Russia and the communist countries of the world where one finds the severest action against what they call the capitalistic liberalism. The fact of the matter is that there will always be agitation. To agitate is the essence of politics. But it is the task of the Government to ensure that genuine grievances which are being objected to, are not allowed to fester, but are eliminated as quickly as possible. But that is precisely what the Government is not doing.

What genuine grievances must be eliminated?

I am busy speaking; just give me a chance. That is precisely what the Government is not doing. Every time there is dissatisfaction and that dissatisfaction erupts, as has happened so many times before in the past, and has happened again now, and will happen again in the future, then it is simply the work of a lot of agitators, and the Government does nothing. We have seen this again in the speeches made here. Not one single attempt is being made to try to investigate and eliminate the underlying causes.

What underlying causes?

I shall furnish just one practical example: At the Indian University in Durban large-scale strikes have recently occurred. The rector, Prof. Fanie Olivier, said the following in a statement on the strikes which are in progress there—

Now surely it is fatal, if this is what the rector says, to dismiss the matter by saying that it is merely a group of agitators who are stirring up artificial grievances among these people. Why do they not listen to the leader of the Indians whom they themselves appointed, Mr. Rajab; the man whom they appointed as Chairman of the Indian Council and who has told the Government in the clearest terms what is troubling the Indians and what is troubling the students? He recently issued a sharp warning to the Government and said that dissatisfaction is welling up among the Indians over the callous way in which the Group Areas Act is being applied, the cruel disruption which this frequently causes, and the fact that a South African who is an Indian may not even undertake an ordinary journey from one province to another without having to obtain a permit from a magistrate. Sir, in every country of the world one finds that the students, who are the intelligentsia of a nation, are the people who feel the problems of their nation most acutely. Does the Government really think that it can educate people, as it is doing at all the different non-White universities, to become leaders of their community, and that those leaders must then have the mentality of slaves and must be satisfied to see their people being humiliated and restricted in a hundred and one different ways? I say that unless the Government investigates each case thoroughly and ascertains to what extent disturbances and dissatisfaction at the universities are the result of …

May I ask a question?

No, I do not have the time. He talks of genuine grievances which can be eliminated. My argument is that there are genuine grievances which can be eliminated.

It is a disgrace.

If this is not done, a desolate time of chronic rebelliousness among the students, and particularly among the studying non-White youth, lies ahead for us.

Mention those grievances.

Not one speaker on the opposite side has put himself out to see whether there are any genuine grievances which trouble these people. I have just mentioned a few of these grievances. I mentioned the case of the Indians. If you are an Indian, and you achieve the status of a student and become a leader of your community, would you be satisfied with the way in which the Indians in South Africa are being treated? I would not, believe me. Why should they? But the Government is doing nothing to find a solution for dissatisfactions, which can be eliminated. They merely put the blame on a small group of agitators every time, and then sit back until all the situations develop into chronic disturbances in South Africa.

You are an agitator.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it …

I do not mind what the hon. member says. To what extent does the same apply to the young people at the English-language universities? I do not have the time to go into the whole matter of our English universities and institutions, but there is one important aspect I want to submit to the Government, in calmness, and I hope I have calmness here, for I am in earnest over this one aspect which I should like to bring to the attention of the Government. In the first place it so happens that one finds the most irritability among White students at the English-language universities. There is acute dissatisfaction among English institutions and English churches and among English clerics and among the English-speaking public in general. There is no doubt whatsoever that the majority of students at the non-White universities, in fact most Coloured, Indian and Black leaders of South Africa, have sympathy with the feelings of the English institutions. I am simply mentioning the facts, and shall then come to what I want to suggest. In this lies, to my mind, the danger of countrywide tensions in future. In the second place it so happens that the entire effective governmental power in South Africa is in the hands of one language group, the Afrikaans-speaking South African, the Afrikaans-speaking persons who support the National Party. I am simply stating the facts. The Government, the Cabinet, the Public Service, the Police Service, most administrative bodies, control boards, the National Education Council, the Publications Board, in particular, are not only controlled but dominated by Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners, Afrikaners who support the National Party. I am not dealing now with the reasons why this is the case. I am simply stating the facts as they are, first. Between these two things I have mentioned, in the first place the irritability in English circles and, in the second place, complete Afrikaner control on the other hand, there is a connection, whether we want to admit it or not. However unwilling we may be to admit it, it is time we faced up to it.

It is the will of the voters.

No, it is not the voters who appointed the Publications Board in its present form … [Interjections.] Very well, then, say it if you wish. I am not dealing now with the causes of the situation. I am saying that there is a connection between the two, and I shall indicate what the essence of the problem is. Control is one thing, but domination is something else again. Afrikaner nationalism is accepted as a perfectly natural thing. No reasonable person can have any objection to it. But the impression is beginning to gain ground among the English, individuals and organizations, that Afrikaner Nationalism is changing into a form of Afrikaner imperialism, and that the Afrikaner, through the National Party, is using its political position of power to force its own attitudes, tastes and ideas on all other groups and institutions with different ideas and traditions. I do not like to generalize. However, English-speaking persons have very frequently been accused by some of their own people and newspapers of being insufficiently active in the political sphere. Let me say that we have had that experience in the United Party. In general it is true that the English-speaking person does not have the same taste for active politics which the Afrikaner has. But there are certain traditions in his British background which he feels exceptionally strongly about, and in regard to which he reacts very quickly. These include …

This is not Britain.

But good heavens, we have not manufactured or found all our traditions here either, as if out of the blue. Every nation has a back ground. The South African English-speaking people have developed traditions here which are peculiarly English traditions. I shall mention two. The English-speaking person, rightly or wrongly has a very strong feeling for civil freedoms, and for the autonomy of his universities. He has in general a philosophy of life which is further from the authoritarian concept and closer to the liberal concept than that of the average Afrikaner.

That is only when he holds the position of power.

That is why it affects us.

The hon. member for Waterkloof must give the hon. member a chance.

When he feels that the Government is interfering excessively with the nature and character of, for example, English universities and their autonomous traditions, he reacts swiftly. It annoys the English-speaking person when world-famous English literary works, works which can be read in every English-language country in the world are banned here, and that this is done by a body such as the Publications Board, which is controlled overwhelmingly by Afrikaansspeaking persons and which supports the ideas of the National Party. Time does not allow me to make a further analysis of this matter. I come into contact with enough people in the English-speaking world to know that they are beginning to say and think that the country is governed by the Afrikaner as if the Afrikaans outlook is all that counts in this country. The issue here is not the official recognition of the English language. On that score the Government has never made any mistake that I know of. It is very precise on that point. The issue is cultural rights. The impression which is gaining ground among English-speaking persons—and, once again I am simply stating the facts—is that the Afrikaner, through the National Party, wants to force his tastes, views and ideas on the other cultural groups. Every time an English literary work, or a well-known English film, which can be read and seen everywhere in the English-speaking world, is banned here, or if a statue is removed because certain Afrikaans-speaking persons insisted on this being done, it strengthens the feelings among English-speaking persons that the country is being governed as if the wishes of the Afrikaans-speaking sector are all that counts. In my opinion this is a very unfortunate, but also a dangerous development, and it is for that reason that I am bringing it to the attention of the Government here. Yesterday, in my absence, mention was made here by the hon. member for Virginia of Gen. Hertzog’s famous two-stream statement. At the time Gen. Hertzog was accused of wanting to divide White South Africans artificially. That was not true. All that Gen. Hertzog did was to emphasize that we are dealing with two cultural identities, namely the Afrikaans and the English, that each was entitled to its own culture and to cherish its own traditions. However, he never stopped saying that there should be mutual recognition and sympathy for one another’s culture and traditions. The logical outcome of that is: Whoever has the political power in South Africa in his hands, he does not have the right to govern the country as if the other person’s views and traditions need not count. The Government will have to take a fresh look at the way in which it is governing the country if it wants to ensure the harmony for which the hon. the Leader of the House pleaded yesterday. I have never yet encountered an English-speaking person who meddled with the peculiarly Afrikaans character which universities such as Stellenbosch and Potchefstroom have. Nor would we tolerate it.

They had better not.

As a Government of Afrikaans-speaking persons the Government will have to display greater patience with the more liberal traditions which are peculiar to the English universities, and particularly when it comes to the English culture, English education, and English literature. Then it ought not to be left mainly to Afrikaans-speaking persons, who are party-politically orientated, to take the principal decisions in that regard. The Government should take care that Afrikaner nationalism is not converted into Afrikaner imperialism. It will do none of us any good. It ought to go back and consider again the full significance and the full implications of Gen. Hertzog’s two-stream ideal which was described by C. M. van den Heever as “the greatest idea Gen. Her zog bequeathed to South Africa”. [Interjections.]

Order!

As far as student activities are concerned, I hope that the Government will get done with the foolish story that the taxpayers are contributing to the studies of students and that they should, for that reason, be good little children and not dabble in politics. That is utter nonsense. The taxpayers do not consist only of Nationalists. The money which is received is not the property of the Government. Everyone pays taxes; it belongs to all sectors of the population. Where could one have hoped to find students who participated to a greater extent in party-politics and who were more active at Stellenbosch than the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Community Development and I? Where is there a political party in South Africa which uses and ropes in school children, university students and training college students for political demonstrations to a greater extent than the National Party? [Interjections.] This happened again recently on a large scale at Oudtshoom and Brakpan, and I have no objection to that. I rope in young people in my constituency on as large a scale as possible; I do not fight without the youth. Nor do I object if the National Party uses university students to demonstrate for apartheid. What I do object to is that the Government is applying a double standard. They encourage schoolchildren and university students to demonstrate in public for apartheid and for the National Party; to hold processions and demonstrate. They have no objection to that, but the Police are sent in when students who think differently demonstrate in public against apartheid. Is that democracy? It is as much democracy as there is a man in the moon. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must keep quiet now so that the hon. member can make his speech.

I listened here … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Prinshof must contain himself.

I listened here to the explanation given by the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Police of the events last Friday. I listened to what they said, and most of what they said was not relevant. What are the ascertainable facts, the facts which any person can ascertain? In the first place, there was a group of students from the University of Cape Town who were demonstrating on church property. It was a lawful demonstration; they had the permission of the church authorities to stand on the steps of the church and hold their demonstrations there. Whether or not we like their political views, it falls within the law that they may hold their views they have, and which they gave expression to on the placards there. Through the use of a loud-hailer a technical contravention was then committed.

Oh, a technical contravention?

There was jostling and pushing …

Order! A moment ago I made an appeal to the hon. member for Prinshof; would he please comply with it now?

He is wasting my time. Mr. Speaker, as a result of that an entire division of armed police, with batons, were sent in, and they charged down on unarmed students and hit out right and left. This is one of the most reprehensible episodes in the entire history of that Government. What was even worse, however, was this; According to the statement of the officer in charge—the hon. the Minister of Police confirmed it here —the order he issued was: “Clear the steps!” Please note, “Clear the steps!”; but when the steps had been cleared and the students had fled into the church, why did the police pursue them into the cathedral? The order had been to clear the steps. Why are some of them assaulted in the church and dragged back to the steps, if the purpose was to clear the steps? Why were students in the streets, away from the steps, held on to by their clothes and beaten? The photographs are there. Here is a photograph in Die Ékirger. I saw a man, away from the step being held and beaten. Why were manner of the public literally assaulted, long after the steps had been cleared? I myself saw how a young man, simply because he displayed sympathy for the students coming out of the church, was attacked from behind with a baton and pushed up the street for 30 paces while being beaten from behind with the baton as far as he went. At the same moment—I have been given permission to use his name—Dr. Pieter van Biljon, editor of the Medical Journal saw how a kneeling girl was hit from behind by a policeman with a baton—long after the steps had been cleared. This was war, ordinary war on the citizens of Cape Town. It was a punitive expedition. Disorder was created by the people who have to maintain order in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Police gave himself away. On Monday he said in this House, and it forms part of the record: “We wanted to beat the students”.

What were you doing there? [Interjections.]

Order!

This is what makes the matters so serious. Look, let us clear up this matter now. In a democratic country it is an imperative requirement that the police should be politically impartial. They must protect all people, also those who are opposed to the party-politics of the governing party. But here we had political partiality, and their feelings got the better of them. It is clear to me that there is something seriously wrong with the ideological training of our police recruits, and that they are not being taught to distinguish between the interests of the State and the interests and the policy of the party in power. This is a matter to which we shall have to give more attention.

In a statement after the event the hon. the Prime Minister stated quite clearly that he “will maintain law and order in South Africa, regardless of the person”. But this does not seem to be the case from his speech. He did not utter a single word of disapproval relating to the misdemeanours committed by certain policemen. He gave no assurance that it would not happen again. On the contrary; he came here and said that they should do the same thing again. Is this the example a Prime Minister should set the people and the country? He offered no word of apology to members of the public who had been assaulted. He gave no indication that the people who had been assaulted would be compensated—which he ought to have done. He gave no indication that the guilty ones would be disciplined.

In conclusion I want to say that the least we on this side of the House expected from the Prime Minister was that he would tender an apology on behalf of the Government to the Anglican Church for the way in which the cathedral was unnecessarily desecrated. [Interjections.]

Never!

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I am astounded to hear this from these people. My tradition as Afrikaner is that we do not desecrate churches and synagogues. This is not part of Afrikaner tradition. [Interjections.] The Prime Minister is a man of the church, he is an Afrikaner, and I tell him that both as a man of the church and as Afrikaner he ought to tender an apology to the Anglican Church for the desecration of the Cathedral last Friday. I say that it is not yet too late. He can still do so.

What if the church becomes a political forum?

Have you never yet heard a political speech in a church? [Interjections.] That member was not here. The order was to clear the steps. There was no justification for entering the church and going in there to beat people inside the church. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. members do not pay heed now, I am going to take strict action.

I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that it is still not too late for him as a man of the church and as Afrikaner to offer an apology for the desecration of a church. If he does not do so …

Why do members of the congregation not object to their church being misused.

Order! The hon. member for Koedoespoort must contain himself.

…we can only deplore it and regard it as tragic that such a man should be in charge of affairs in South Africa at such a time as the present.

Mr. Speaker, if there was ever an occasion on which the dilemma of the United Party and its own frustrations was demonstrated, it was the speech of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat now, and the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Durban Point. I shall deal with the statement I have just made now, but I cannot but say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, right at the outset, that he emerged here today in a way I never expected of him. It undermined the respect I still have for him as politician. In the first place, I want to say to the hon. member, and I hope that he is going to listen to me now, that he stated at the end of his speech that there had been no apologies from the hon. the Minister of Police for the actions of the Police against members of the public who were injured in the crowds. All of us sitting here heard the hon. the Minister say that it was a pity that some members of the public were injured in the crowd, where one was unable to make out who was who. He apologized for that.

Not the Prime Minister.

Now I ask the hon. member with what motive he makes such a statement here, since he knows what the circumstances were which prevailed there. The hon. member also referred to the desecration of the church. His hon. Leader is sitting next to him, who said in a more responsible speech the other day that under those circumstances it was a case of when is property private property. I want to go further.

How did the Torch Commando not storm the Groote Kerk?

Yes, here the hon. member is reminding me how the Torch Commando, which supported that side of the House, damaged the property of the Groote Kerk in the early ’fifties by flattening the railings in their charge to Parliament.

Did you apologize at the time? [Interjections.]

I want to say that it is an evil day for South Africa, and I said the same thing a year ago in a motion, when churches, specifically the World Council of Churches, associate themselves with the terrorist movement in the world. We are now witnessing evil movements in our country in that people who want to disturb law and order, sheltered behind the pillars and behind the doors of the church for their evil business. The hon. member spoke as an Afrikaner today and asked how the English-speaking sector must feel about these things. I am not English-speaking, but I have many English-speaking friends, and I do not think that any decent English-speaking South African will put up with the sanctity of his church being violated by people smoking cigarettes in its precincts and getting up to all kinds of things there. This they do in the name of the Almighty. I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether there was not an occasion, in the days of Christ himself, when the Temple was desecrated by moneychangers and by dealers in pigeons, and He Himself had to drive them out with a whip. I read that a leader of the Church, of the Christian Institute, said here at a meeting in Cape Town—or perhaps I am wrong; perhaps it was one of the clergymen of the Cathedral itself—that he believed that this Cathedral will always be there at the service of politics.

The Rev. King.

Yes, it was he, indeed. No. this is what we are dealing with, and I cannot understand why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout went to these extremes today to make such utterances.

It was merely holy Japie today.

This remark which he made, that it was nothing but war on the citizens of Cape Town …

Surely that is absurd.

Sir, I walked among the citizens of Cape Town here for a full hour on Monday afternoon, and I heard the remarks of those citizens. They were there out of curiosity. I received telephone calls and conducted personal conversations with English-speaking friends. One of them told me—

He also told me—

Let us get this matter into its correct perspective. The hon. member said it was war on the citizens of Cape Town. I have always had respect for the hon. member; he expresses a standpoint which differs from mine, but he is at least responsible. But, Sir, surely this is not responsible language. Surely this is the language of incitement. I can well imagine, when the flood of student disturbances was unleashed over Western Europe a few years ago on the instigation of Danny the Red, that there would also be persons …

Red Japie, man.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! The hon. member who said that, must withdraw it.

“Red Japie”, Sir?

Yes. The reflection is there. The hon. member must withdraw it.

May one no longer say a person is “red”?

Order! Is the hon. member going to withdraw it?

Make it “pink” Japie.

Very well, Sir, I withdraw it.

The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, I can image that on that occasion, during the activities of Danny the Red in Western Europe, when he converted some of the largest cities in the world into what was virtually complete chaos, there were also Press organs and that there were also elements who used the language which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout used here this afternoon. This was then “total war on the citizens” in those cities. This afternoon I had lunch with a voter of mine who returned a day or so ago from Paris. He told me that the police are still standing at the university there after all these years—he saw it last week—to ensure that these things for which Danny the Red was responsible, do not happen again. Why did the hon. member have to choose the course of this extremely unresponsible language?

But, Sir, I said at the outset that the debate reveals to me the dilemma of the United Party, the frustration which emerges in the difference between the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Durban Point. I shall quote it to you. Read his speech, from which his frustration is clearly apparent. They stand at opposite poles. But now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, in an attempt to make himself acceptable to the English-speaking section of that party, tried this afternoon to be a second Prof. Jan Loubser. He went just a little further. Prof. Jan Loubser. in his speech, was simply trying to verify the Afrikaner. The hon. member went further this afternoon and interpreted the English-speaking sector of our community, but in a very incorrect way. But look how he interprets the Afrikaans-speaking section as against the English-speaking section. He said—

I am pleased to hear the hon. member still saying that—

That is the same as what Jan Loubser said.

Hear, hear!

There an hon. member is saying “hear, hear!” But from the hon. member for Durban Point we have to hear, day after day, and also from other hon. members on that side, that we are, in contrast to imperialism, dividing up the country because we do not want to begrudge any nation and any people its own existence.

Mr. Speaker, where, in the actions of this Government or of responsible Afrikaans-speaking leaders, is there the element of Afrikaner imperialism, or of forcing our will upon the other language groups? There is no possibility of that. What we say is this: We believe that the Afrikaansspeaking section of the population, which has from its earliest days been forced by circumstances to make its own plans and to work out its own approaches according to which it must deal with the situations in Africa, has a special contribution to make to the situation in our country. That we are trying to do. But, Sir, I reject with contempt what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, an Afrikaans-speaking person, said today, namely that the Afrikaner is degenerating, in his efforts to attain his ideals, into Afrikaner imperialism.

I did not say that; you did not listen.

There is no group in this country which gives greater recognition in fact to nationalism, the culture and everything pertaining to other kinds of people. That is why I say that I feel ashamed as Afrikaner at the way in which that hon. member this afternoon tried to gain access to a section of the English-speaking population, particularly when I take into consideration what he said in this same House in 1953. On 5th February, 1953, the hon. member said (Hansard, vol. 81, col. 704)—

This he was saying even then. But, Sir, the hon. member went further in the course of that same speech and referred to that publication of the United Party by the name of “Verkiesingcnuus”. He quoted from that and said (col. 705)—

It contains a copy of placards which were posted up throughout South Africa and what did those placards say? “Wipe out Nationalism.” Not “Wipe out the Nationalist Party”.

This the hon. member said himself and he continued—

The hon. member quoted this himself in this House. He went on to say—

But what did the hon. member try to do here this afternoon? He was back with what he had condemned, only in modem language. He tried to hold up that image of Nationalism and the National Party.

By whom was that chapter written?

It was written by your party. The hon. member went further, in the course of the same speech, and said (col. 708)—

But this afternoon the hon. member depicts an image here, in order to gain access to a section of the English-speaking community, of the Afrikaner as if he is an imperialist. I say the hon. member did this because he is engaged in an internal struggle against the imperialism which still exists in that party. Now he is projecting this on to the National Party.

Sir, I want to come to another matter. A few weeks ago Pres. Nixon paid a visit to Peking and Moscow. By means of the contacts between the three most important capital cities in the world, treaties were signed and talks held which create the impression that peace in the world is assured; the big powers are not going to make war on one another. But is it not ironic, that precisely while this is happening, various forms of revolutionary warfare, of subversion and terrorism, swept through the world like a tidal wave? During these times we in this country have not only experienced the onslaughts of terrorists on our borders; we have also experienced the onslaughts of terrorism in the air. One of our aircraft was hijacked. During that same time three people from Japan, whose Government dissociated itself completely with such matters as this, opened up with machine-guns on innocent people at the airport of Tel Aviv. At the same time bombs were thrown in West Germany, and during the same time the kidnapping of diplomats, of businessmen, and so on, is continuing. Does it not give us food for thought that although an umbrella is being opened up over the world by way of contact between capital cities, as if there is peace at the highest level, subversion in the variety of forms in which it appears, is increasing? It is as if the nations of the world are powerless against it.

Sir, I am not a person who looks for a communist behind every bush, but what I am going to say here this afternoon I am not saying on my own authority either. I am saying it on the authority of an institution such as the Institute for Strategic Studies in Britain, and its counterpart in Washington. They describe as forms of revolutionary warfare not alone terrorism in the form of murderous gangs, and terrorism in the air and at sea, and the kidnapping of people, but also spiritual terrorism, the abuse of churches, as was done here, and the abuse of church organizations in making funds available to murder-gangs. They also mention the emergence of student violence throughout the world, and this brings me back to the point I want to make in regard to the situation here in this country. As I have said, I do not see a communist lurking behind every bush. But if a person is interested in the security of his country, he would be blind if he does not see a clear pattern to what is happening now, and what happened three to four years ago in Western Europe. What happened there, Sir? One man by the name of Danny, the Red, hurried from one city to another, from one university to another, and organized small militant minority groups and looked for alleged grievances.

I want to return to that, with reference to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said a moment ago about genuine grievances here and there in Western at universities in South Africa. I want to concede that there may perhaps have been grievances here and there in Western Europe, but the matter was extended past those grievances, for associated with those student disturbances there were very soon people who had nothing to do with universities, people who in fact had never seen a university before, and what was the result? The result was that there was chaos in Western Europe, that cities were almost set ablaze and that important universities virtually lost their prestige, their ability to teach and undertake research work.

I have mentioned here before what a retired professor of political history at the free University of Berlin told me. He said: “The best thing I can tell you about my university which was established to replace the famous old Humboldt University, which disappeared beyond the Wall, is the fact that I have nothing more to do with it, that I retired as a professor.” But that is not all he told me. Four years ago he was in South Africa and he then told me: “You must be grateful for the sense of responsibility of your students in South Africa.” He added: “If the day comes when this begins to raise its head, you must know from the experience in Western Europe that you must act before it is too late.” The hon. member for Bezuidenhout came here this afternoon and blamed the Government for doing nothing to eliminate the genuine grievances; that the grievances in fact have been allowed to fester, and have not been removed. That is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is now saying.

But, Sir, did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout look into what the grievances are and what the motivation is in the minds of those who are behind these things which are now happening at the different universities? Sir, I have here in my hand one of the pamphlets which was distributed by the student council of the University of Cape Town, in which the following is stated—

Does the United Party agree with that?

Sir, if there are differences, what is the reply of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to this: Must one give in to this by allowing demonstrations which could result in violence? The pamphlet goes on to state—

That’s it.

An hon. member on that side says: “That’s it.” Mr. Speaker, do you know that the same group of student leaders who organized these demonstrations last week went around to high schools— they who accuse us of Nationalist indocrination—and distributed pamphlets there among young schoolchildren? Before I come to what is stated in the pamphlets, I just want to say this: I was not hatched out under a turkey and I do not allow myself to be bluffed …

An ostrich.

Yes, I readily grant the hon member that. Perhaps he would liked to have been hatched out under an ostrich. Sir, I do not allow myself to be bluffed by the sage advice of Mr. Budlender who, chronologically, is a sixth year student at the University of Cape Town but, academically, a first year student; I do not allow myself to be bluffed by his sage advice and his accusations of indoctrination, for my information—and this was conveyed to me by a parent of a young man who is studying at the University of Cape Town—is that in the first 14 days the initiation at that university consists, not of the ordinary traditional student initiation which most of us went through and enjoyed, but of indoctrination of the worst degree. For that reason you see who was in the forefront. Did you see Mr. Budlender when the loud-hailer was used in the street, or did you see a first-year student, behind whom he was hiding? Who are sent to the Stellenbosch hotels to hold teach-ins for senior students? First year students from the University of Cape Town, after the process of indoctrination they had to go through.

And Suzman was one of the speakers.

Yes, the hon. member is quite correct The hon. member for Houghton is one of the speakers who appears regularly at the indoctrination there. And not only but at Stellenbosch—I have it here in my hand—a pamphlet is published which is also teeming with untruths, just like this pamphlet which was distributed at the schools, a pamphlet which was drawn up by a paid organizer of the Progressive Party, with the support of the hon. member for Houghton, and it is teeming with untruths. Now I want to say this to the Progressive Party, and then I want to say to the hon. member for Durban Point, those are their frustrations. He spoke of frustrations in his speech the other day, and asked why there are such people because they are helping the National Party. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that they are definitely not on our side. They are the people whose frustrations are looking for an outlet because they cannot find satisfaction in the leadership on that side of the House. It is in fact their own children; these are people from their own homes. They cannot find satisfaction in the policy of that side of the House, and that is why they find an outlet in things of this kind, in the indoctrination of young students and, to exonerate themselves they go to schools and distribute pamphlets to young school-children which are teeming with untruths, like this one as well. This is one of the grievances which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke about.

He is referring to Christian national education and Youth Preparedness …

Then he goes on to say—

This is an old thing which has nothing to do with the National Party, dating from the year 1942—

But these things are not even contained in that document. This is an open distortion of the truth, and it is being swallowed. This is an attempt at indoctrination in schools in its worst form. This great campaign is being waged against the programme of youth preparedness. What is the object of youth preparedness? It is to make our young people aware of their country, which will not maintain itself and remain standing on its own feet, but which needs the muscle-power and the brain-power of every young person to protect it. That is why what is envisaged in this programme is to my mind in complete agreement with the views of a man who has far greater insight than we do, or most of us do, Mr. Anthony Harrigan, a well-known American writer, who gave a lecture here in 1969 to the Institute of International Affairs, and said the following (translation)—

From that source it is supported, but here the truth is distorted and a process is set in motion which presents this side of the House, the Afrikaans-speaking people specifically, as neo-nazis and fascists. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout came very close to that this afternoon in the way in which he presented us. The hon. member for Durban Point as well was speaking the other day and he said that we are not Nazis but then he began to tell about what has happened in Germany and Austria and those countries, and subtlely he tried to create the impression, precisely the same as these demonstrators and inciters from the University of Cape Town who implied that this was an authoritarian Government which was tending towards the same things the Nazis did.

I warned you!

Mr Speaker, I have already said to the hon member that we were not hatched out under turkeys. They have taken fright at the frustrations among the young people from their own ranks who are not satisfied by the policy offered by that side of the House. Now their own frustration lies therein that they do not know how to deal with a situation such as this. Responsible students, from the university which I represent and other universities, will not lend themselves to things like this which happened here because they believe in law and order. Students at those universities are not concerned either about the ban which has been imposed for the coming week or so on open-air demonstrations. They do not need them, nor will they allow themselves to be influenced by the first year teach-inners from other universities to act in this way. If there was ever a time that the people of South Africa were grateful for a Government which can maintain law and order and meet the needs of all in this country then it is in these times which we are now going through.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Stellenbosch has used up half an hour of the time of the House. All I can say to him in reply is that he should read the leading articles which have appeared in the last two issues of his own newspaper, the official mouthpiece of the Nationalist Party in the Cape, Die Burger. Those two leading articles put this whole question in perspective. I commend to the hon. member for Stellenbosch that he should read his own newspaper before he comes here to waste the time of the House with the nonsense which he has spoken during the last half-hour.

It was made clear by us on this side of the House that we are not in favour of this type of street democracy …

But?

… but—they are very nervous of that “but”—my leader and the hon. member for Durban North in particular, together with other members of this House, have put certain pertinent questions to Ministers on that side of the House which have as yet not been answered. These questions were put on Monday afternoon, and they still remain unanswered. These questions were: Why was the “betoging” allowed to continue for so long; why force was used, and whether it was necessary that so much force should be used; why was no warning given; who were the thugs in plain clothes, unidentified and with no identification; and what about the police with no numbers? We have had 11 hours of debate since those questions were asked, but we have not had one answer to them. Why does the hon. member for Stellenbosch come here and waste our time talking about these things?

He knows that the pamphlets he referred to have been rejected by us on this side of the House. They were rejected by my leader on Monday afternoon. But now, on Wednesday afternoon, he comes again with the story about the pamphlets. But I want to leave him as I have other very important matters to discuss in this House as well.

But before I come to these, I am very glad to see that the hon. the Minister of Justice is in his seat. I sincerely hope that we are going to hear from him this afternoon.

What for?

The hon. the Minister asks “what for?” I believe that the hon. the Minister owes this House an explanation of the wholesale banning order which he has made. The hon. the Minister of Justice in his statement says that he has good reasons which warrant this action. Well, Sir, we can accept that. But I do believe that this hon. Minister owes this House a statement of those good reasons …

What for?

…so that this House can also be aware of the reasons which require such a drastic step in this country. I am glad he is here. Perhaps we will hear from him a little later and perhaps he will do us the courtesy of advising us of the reasons for this drastic step that he has taken.

It was said a little earlier that the chickens of the Nationalist Party’s policy have come home to roost. I want to speak this afternoon of chickens. I want to speak about the iniquitous scandal which has developed in the poultry industry in South Africa. I am very sorry to see that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is not here. The Deputy Minister is here, but that is not enough. A request was made especially that the Minister of Agriculture should be here because I will make certain allegations against him and against the administration of his department this afternoon. I am constrained to go ahead, and to register my protest at the fact that he is not here to answer the charges which I will lay this afternoon. I am going back to the 25th April, 1969, when in this House the hon. the Deputy Minister introduced a Bill, the Animal Diseases and Parasites Amendment Bill, and said, and I quote from Hansard (vol. 26, col. 4796):

The hon. the Deputy Minister went further:

In col. 4797 he said the following:

As a result of this Bill certain action was taken by the hon. the Minister, but unfortunately he failed in his actions. On the 21st August, 1970, we had a further Animal Diseases and Parasites Amendment Bill before this House, which on this occasion was introduced by the Minister himself. I quote him from Hansard (vol. 29, col. 2362) as follows:

The hon. the Deputy Minister and those members on that side who were aware of the circumstances here, will know that this whole matter was the subject of extreme criticism, because of the extreme powers which we gave the hon. the Minister at the time he made that statement and, because the hon. the Minister made the case that it was necessary for him to have these extreme powers to handle this tremendous threat to the livestock industry in this country. This afternoon I want to ask the hon. the Minister, why has he not exercised those powers? Sir, from the evidence I have brought you have heard that he was aware of the smuggling. Questions have been put to the hon. the Minister in this House and he has named the people who have smuggled poultry into this country. But, also as a result of questions, we find that the hon. the Minister did not use the powers he asked this House for. Instead of that he came to an agreement with the smugglers, and he has allowed them to continue to farm with this smuggled produce, to the detriment of the poultry industry in this country in two ways. Firstly, because of the diseases which have been introduced by that poultry, and secondly, because of the harm he has done to other breeders of poultry in this country, who have been unable to face the unfair competition from these types of birds. We in this House are aware that the poultry business in this country has become a multi-million rand enterprise and that many people have spent many millions of rands developing here in this country top-quality birds, birds which can hold their own with most of the breeds in the world. But through the lack of initiative of this Minister and through his failure to exercise the powers which we gave him he has allowed these unscrupulous smugglers to put some of them out of business because of the birds they had. Is this right? Is it right especially in the light of the fact that the Minister gave us to understand that he was asking for these powers, particularly the power whereby the premises will be deemed to be a quarantine station, so that he could take control, in the name of the Republic of South Africa, of the smuggled stock and make it available to the poultry industry in this country, and thereby to break the monopoly which has been created by the smuggling and thereby to give all the people of South Africa the benefit of these breeds? These breeds were developed in the United States of America. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave a reply to a question—that is not in question at all—that these breeds were developed in the United States of America and which were found on farms in the Transvaal—I will name them a little later—on which, on the admission of the hon. the Minister, there was no evidence whatsoever of modern scientific breeding equipment or facilities. But it goes further than that. When the questions were put, why did the hon. the Minister try to hide the facts? Why did we not get straight answers to straight questions? Why did we have to keep coming with other questions before we could get somewhere close to the truth? I do not believe—this is one charge that I lay at the feet of the hon. the Minister today—that we have yet got the whole truth despite the questions that have been asked. I do not believe that we have all the answers to all the questions that we have asked.

You seem to know the truth.

The hon. member says that I seem to know the truth. I know quite a bit, but I do not know it all and I believe the hon. the Minister does know it all, but he has not taken the necessary steps. On 26th May I asked the hon. the Minister of Agriculture whether cases of illegal importation had come to his notice. The answer was “yes”. I asked whether he had taken any action against these persons and the answer was again “yes”. When I asked what the action was and against whom, I was referred to the Department of Customs and Excise and the South African Police from whom details should be obtained. Then I asked further questions about whether permission had been granted to any persons or organization to continue to farm with such stock, as well as whether it was made known to the public and to other poultry farmers that the department was aware of this illegal entry of the stock. I also asked whether other poultry farmers were invited to obtain such stock from the department in terms of the undertaking which the Minister himself had given us in the previous debate. I further asked whether permission has been refused to any persons or organizations to farm with such stock. The answer to all these questions was:

We further asked the hon. the Minister whether the intercepted poultry breeding material referred to in his statement of 26th May is being used for propagation purposes. Does this House know what the answer was? It was: “No.” That was on 30th May, this year. On the 26th May we also put the following question to the hon. the Minister:

His answer was:

In answer to the question in which districts they were used, he said:

When we asked him where they were developed, when they were introduced into South Africa and by whom they were introduced, the answer was that it was unknown. These questions were put on the 26th May. On 30th May, in reply to the question on what circumstances or evidence does he base his presumption that the parent strains of poultry used for crossing for the production of the various hybrid chickens which I have mentioned, are presumed to be present, the hon. the Minister replied that the presumption is based on the presence of parent strains which were similar to the parent strains of poultry used for crossing for the production of hybrid chickens mentioned. Then he gives the names of the farms which were Delta hatchery, Rock Farms, Anderson Chick Sales and Heatherdale. This is where he said that there was no evidence of scientific breeding. He was asked in each case in which countries the parent strains were first developed and where the hybrid was first produced. The answer was that presumably the parent strains were first developed in the United States and that the hybrid was first produced in the United States. On 30th May we further asked him whether any farmers were farming with smuggled parent strains of poultry used for crossing for the production of hybrid chickens known as Eagle, Falcon, ACS 72 and Rocket. The answer was “Unknown”. To the question whether it was made known to the public that these strains were being farmed with, the answer was “No”. To the question whether other poultry farmers have been able to obtain such stock for breeding and other purposes, the answer was “Unknown”. To the question on whether he will make a statement, the answer was “No”. The hon. the Minister conceded the presence of these strains in South Africa, of these hybrid chickens. When he said that it was not known whether they were existing in this country, surely he must know what is going on in the poultry industry, or does he not? I am very sorry that the hon. the Minister is not here. I must really express my regret …

You have said that three times now.

… because it is no good the hon. the Deputy Minister answering this. I do not believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister is involved in this at all. I say this because I know that the agreement with the smugglers was made by the Minister himself and that is why we asked for him to be present. He made an agreement with these smugglers. He should have been here from the beginning. Here …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to say that an agreement was made with smugglers?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I want to show the House an advert which has been circulating in this country for years. It is advertising the following strains of chickens: “Rocket—Rhode Island Red crossed with Barred Rock and Falcon—White Leghorn crossed with Rhode Island Red.” Yet the hon. Minister in reply to the question said that he does not know whether they existed in this country. Look at them in this advert. It goes further and reads that at the sixth random sample test which was carried out in 1970-’71 by the Minister’s department at the Glen Agricultural College a certain strain came out tops. What strain came out tops? The first, the second and the third places were taken by Rocket. The hon. Minister says that he does not know Whether they exist in the Republic. How can he say such a thing? This is one of the reasons why I say that there is a lot more to the story than has appeared from the answers which the hon. Minister has given us in reply to questions. One further question that we put to the hon. the Minister was whether a request for an investigation into the poultry industry has been brought to his notice and whether he will appoint a commission to investigate the industry. The answer was: “Yes, I am aware of the request for the commission of inquiry,” and “No, I will not appoint a commission to investigate the industry.” Why will he not appoint a commission? What is being hidden? Big money is being made and lost by people in this respect. One of the most iniquitous things is the fact that these chickens are being produced on a franchise, a franchise from the United States of America whereby some person is enriching himself to the extent of R1-00 for every 104 chickens which are hatched. When you think that the South African public consumed over 50 million broilers during the last year, this comes to an awful lot of money. That only refers to broilers, apart from the other more than 10 million registered laying birds which exist in the Republic and apart from the millions of unregistered birds which exist in the Republic. This gives you some idea of the immensity of the amount of money involved in this racket which is being perpetrated and which is hiding behind an agreement signed by that hon. Minister of Agriculture.

Where is he?

In the Senate.

I asked the hon. Minister whether any action was taken against any persons or organizations in this regard and he referred me to the Department of Customs and Excise and the South African Police. I put a similar question to the hon. Minister of Police and his reply was in the affirmative and he said that he had taken action at the request of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services against certain people. The Police assisted the officials of that Department in the investigation of alleged illegal importation or smuggling of poultry stock and eggs. Why could the hon. the Minister of Agriculture not answer the question? Then his officials took action in terms of Act 13 of 1956. The Police merely acted as the agents; but it was his department that took the action. But no, Sir, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture could not give us the answer. I put a subsequent question to the hon. the Minister reading—

The answer was—

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: How long were the inspectors of his department on those farms? Not how many days, weeks or months, but for how many years were they on those farms? Then the hon. the Minister of Agriculture can give us an answer such as this! I know that his officials were there for years, not just for months, and that they first went to these farms on 27th August, 1969, and that the farms were owned by the companies Heatherdale, Anderson, Van Rhyn, Valeview, Blaauwberg, Strathaven, Gramelt and Dundarach. They found various strains there. I asked the hon. the Minister further what strains were found when they first went on to the farms. The answer was—

These were the strains. But I further asked what other strains there were or what strains were present when the hon. the Minister’s officials were withdrawn from those farms, years later. The answer there was “Unknown”. But the hon. the Minister knows that when he first went on to those farms, there were only Rocket producers available and that when his inspectors were finally withdrawn, all four strains were present. In other words, these other strains were introduced while his inspectors were supervising that farm. Let me go further. I asked another question reading—

The reply of the hon. the Minister was—

That date is significant. I will come back to it in a minute. The reply further reads—

In other words, it was an admission by the farmers that they had smuggled stock—

What right had that hon. Minister to make such an agreement with such a firm, that he would withdraw the seizures and the quarantine, for which he had come to this House and asked for special legislation?—

Sir, I know that there were other conditions to this agreement, but the hon. the Minister did not divulge them in reply to the question. One of those was an agreement indemnifying a certain person who would have been the chief witness for the State, had this matter come to court. I do not say this ill-advisedly; because, after a series of supplementary questions to the hon. the Deputy Minister, I asked—

Why was this House not given that answer when the original answer to the question was given? Why is the department or the Minister hiding the facts from this House, and from the people of South Africa? This is why I repeat the call which has been made by 28 senior veterinarians in this country, for a commission of inquiry into the poultry industry.

Rainbow Chickens?

No, not Rainbow Chickens. But I go further. As I have said, this date, 25th June, 1971, is important, because that is the date, according to the reply which the hon. the Deputy Minister gave me, on which this agreement was made. I have here a letter dated 11th July, 1971. some 17 days later, signed by the hon. the Deputy Minister, addressed to a firm of attorneys, asking that witness, who had been indemnified in terms of an agreement on 26th June, to sign an affidavit. What for, Sir? What does the department still require from this gentleman? Having signed an agreement and having come to an agreement with these smugglers whereby they would not be prosecuted, they still require an affidavit from this prime witness. Why? Mr. Speaker, this whole thing stinks.

A “fowl” smell.

Yes, it has a “fowl” smell, as my hon. friend says. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department owe the poultry industry in this country, which has developed into a tremendous enterprise, an explanation. Our South African poultry breeders—and I refer to South Africans, not these smugglers, half of whom are immigrants who have come into this country—have developed an industry which is supplying the people of South Africa with the cheapest form of protein available. I want to say that poultry meat today is half the price it was 15 years ago, and I challenge anybody to show me any other commodity which is half the price it was 15 years ago. That, Sir, is only because of the efficiency of our own poultry producers in this country. I believe that this Deputy Minister and his department owe that industry some protection, protection against unscrupulous people such as these—and I use the Minister’s own words when I refer to “unscrupulous people”—who have done this for their own gain. So I repeat the demand for a commission of inquiry into the poultry industry.

But in addition there are certain questions which the hon. the Deputy Minister must answer. Will he reopen the case? Is there anything in this agreement with Anderson Chick Sales, and the others, whereby he will not reopen the case? Because in terms of the law as it stand today, with the amendment which we passed in this House in 1970, the Minister can still act against them in respect of all progeny, let alone the parent stock only. Will he now take action? Will he take the advice of the judge who heard the last case and bring this matter to open court, and let us have the truth? What is he going to do to protect the breeders who have been ruined through the negligence of the State, because they have not been able to compete against this sort of competition? Why, after we passed Act 46 of 1970, was the department afraid to use it? The hon. the Deputy Minister said, in a supplementary reply, that if they had acted, 50 per cent of the broiler chickens in South Africa would have dried up. Mr. Sneaker, he knows that that was not right, because …

Order!

I beg your pardon, Sir; I did not mean it that way.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir, The hon. the Deputy Minister should have known that in terms of the amendment which we passed in 1969, the department could have continued to breed with these birds. They could still have been available to the people of South Africa and to the poultry producers, the broiler farmers and others. That was a puerile excuse. Furthermore, at the time when he took these additional powers in 1970, he was already aware of the fact, so he cannot now hide behind the fact that it would have taken 50 per cent of the broiler birds in the country out of production if he had proceeded with the action.

In conclusion I must refer to the other point, and that is the question of the diseases which have been introduced by these birds. The hon. the Deputy Minister is aware that certain diseases have been introduced. He is also aware that more virulent strains of diseases which we had in this country have been introduced. I call as evidence the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister when he introduced the amendment Bill in 1969. He said that the outbreak of Newcastle disease here in the Western Cape in 1968 was directly attributable to smuggled stock. But again they have failed to act, and we have this dreadful scourge of Newcastle disease sweeping through the Republic today. In the words of the Deputy State Veterinarian in Pietermaritzburg, this latest strain of Newcastle disease discovered in Umlaas Road and Cato Ridge last week is far more virulent than any we have ever had in this country before. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister certain that this has not been introduced by this smuggled stock? [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I have decided I am definitely not going to get cross, because if someone tells you that your Minister has entered into an agreement with smugglers, one does not want to descend to that level and in that case one is not prepared to become excited. I have a clear conscience when it comes to the lot of wild, unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the hon. member at the Ministry in respect of the handling of this poultry industry. The hon. member said the Minister was not here and I was not good enough to reply to him. I know he is superior to me; he is much better informed as far as these matters are concerned. Unfortunately my mother taught me not to insult people, and it is no fault of mine that this is not the case as far as he is concerned. I just want to say that this entire matter is not concerned with the poultry industry; it concerns a certain Prof. Douglas Coles. The United Party did not place those questions on the Order Paper, Sir, Prof. Douglas Coles put those questions for them. The whole Act was initiated by the hon. member for South Coast initially approaching me and saying that Prof. Coles was heading for bankruptcy because he had to compete with people who had smuggled chickens into the country. We established that that was in fact the case, and the Opposition was good enough to help us pilot that Act through all its stages in Parliament. We immediately took Anderson Chick Sales to court. In reply to the questions I mentioned it cost us R130 000. We lost the first case on the audi alteram partem rule. We went back again and the law advisers told us: Take a different course of action. But in the meantime all those Heatherdale and Anderson Chick Sales farms were under quarantine and were being looked after by veterinary surgeons whose services were badly required throughout the country. Their salaries alone cost us more than a R¼ million in that period, and we lost the case again on the basis of various legal aspects. We were advised at the time that if we were to do what the hon. member for South Coast had requested and what Prof. Coles had requested at that stage, i.e. to take action and destroy those chickens, it would have meant that 50 per cent of our country’s 50 million broilers would have been killed off. and the broiler is the food of the poor man. We said we could not afford it. I said time and again in my replies that we were aware of the fact that chickens and eggs were being smuggled, but that we had no hold on this industry. For example, we caught a man with a portable radio at Jan Smuts Airport; the batteries had been removed and replaced by six hen’s eggs. How is one able to exercise control over such an industry? We are faced with an accomplished fact; what must we do? But now the hon. member has requested a commission of inquiry. What nonsense and what a waste of time to request a commission of inquiry while we have been consulting directly with the poultry industry, the South African Poultry Organization, throughout and have asked them what we should do. I do not want to reply to those questions put by him, Sir, I merely want to say this to you: There are a few of his friends who are going to get hurt, but he is the last person to talk about monopolistic conditions. He and all the members of the United Party opposed us when we said that a person may not increase his stock of laying hens by more than 10 000 per year. Who is talking about monopolistic conditions now? His friends, the Tongaat Sugar Company, wanted to add a quarter of a million hens to their production in one year. They opposed this Act, and now he says we are playing into the hands of monopolies.

Where have you ever heard such nonsense before? When we were negotiating with the Poultry Association, we told them: We accept that we cannot stop smuggling, and now we are going to allow, even if it were to be under franchise, companies to bring chickens into the country under permit, irrespective of whether they have been bred in America or in France or in any country, on condition that the birds are kept under quarantine at Onderstepoort. If they are free of disease, the department may retain 10 per cent or a certain number of those chickens and distribute them amongst small farmers—I do not think the hon. member is aware of this arrangement—and the remainder he may use to increase his broilers. Sir, the small farmer is protected every time, but now the hon. member has come forward here and said that we are monopolistic. He spoke of 26 or 28 outstanding veterinary surgeons who had made a request. All this appeared in the Farmers Weekly. In all respect, Sir, they were not 28 outstanding veterinary surgeons; they were all old retired veterinary surgeons who were in our department previously but who are no longer in our service. Look at their ages. They are older than the hon. member for South Coast, and that is really old. Sir, if I have to reply to this type of allegation, then I say …

Who is getting cross now?

I am not getting cross, but if my conscience is clear, the hon. member may put lists and lists of further questions; because these are old wive’s tales; he hears the one story here and the other there. A few personalities are concerned here. I am sorry Prof. Douglas Coles went bankrupt, but whose fault is that? Sir, listen to how the hon. member contradicted himself. He said we owed the poultry industry and the broiler industry a debt of gratitude for being sufficiently efficient to bring about a reduction in their price, while the industry itself tells us: “Allow us to import chickens from abroad, because the weight increase of the foreign chickens is much more rapid than that of the locally bred chickens.” Can you see how the hon. member contradicted himself? Sir, as far as this chicken story is concerned, I want to say frankly to the hon. member that we are not prepared to appoint a commission of inquiry. We shall only do so if the South African Poultry Association, a recognized organization of organized agriculture of our country, requests the appointment of a commission of inquiry. If they request it. I shall do so at any time, but we shall not appoint a commission of inquiry if a member of the United Party such as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District requests us to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to return to the discussion in regard to the student matters, except to accentuate something here which to my mind should in fact be accentuated in this House, and that is the attitude adopted by those students who are not involved in the demonstration, the vast majority of students who neither concern themselves with this kind of activity, who are quietly continuing with their studies, nor seek a confrontation with the bearers of authority in the community: students who, moreover, do not allow themselves to be taken advantage of by others standing far behind the scenes, but who very soberly reflect and debate on national issues where this is appropriate and where it belongs. May I just add that I think the method which is followed by some students and which has led to confrontation with the Police, is a very naïve one, a very naïve, over-simplified method which does not fit in with people who want to pass for the intelligentsia of the country. One does not conduct a debate with oversimplified slogans and by standing on the steps of cathedrals and churches.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to devote the rest of my speech to another matter, and that is to react to an accusation levelled by the Opposition, namely that the National Party is supposedly saddled with an outmoded 19th century ideology, that the policy of separate development, the policy of the development of separate nationhoods and peoples, is supposedly an obsolete ideology.

For South Africa as it is today.

I want to come to that. I shall honour the hon. member for Pinelands later on with a reference to his interjection. Sir, this would supposedly amount to nationalism or separate nationhood being an outmoded ideology. This would supposedly, especially from the point of view of economists, not correspond with the demands of a modern economy or with the situation created by the Industrial Revolution, namely the economic inter-independence of peoples and individuals. In the light of this inter-independence of peoples and individuals, it is supposed to be inappropriate to speak of national existence and political sovereignty and peoples being separated by boundaries. It is claimed— and here I am going back into the history to a certain extent—that after the dissolution of the large community of the Roman Empire, the Western peoples lived in small, more or less autonomous communities for more than 1 000 years. Those small communities were self-sufficient to a large extent. But then the great Industrial Revolution came along and the economic seclusion of those national communities was forced open and they were made interdependent through a division of labour. This is the point on which the major emphasis is laid, namely the division of labour. And this interdependence of the various communities is now being used as an argument in an attempt to prove that there is little or no place for nationalism in the modern, so-called “great society”. I want to suggest—and I shall substantiate it—that it is in fact the United Party which is to my mind saddled with the remnants of an outmoded ideology, also dating back to the 19th century. The 19th century was not only the century of the rise of nationalism, but also the mother of the laissez-faire liberalism, the free trade liberalism, with the attendant evils. Mr. Speaker, it is that ideology which did not only bring a great deal of misery to the masses, but also created a proletariat and was directly responsible for the rise of socialism and communism, and this is not a statement I have made up myself; any student of political philosophy will confirm it.

Let me take a few random examples from history: In his Wealth of Nations Adam Smith teaches the lesson of free trade and that all ties and restrictions, especially on the part of the State, should be abolished if all people are to share most effectively in the commodities of life which all of them are helping to produce. This is what was said by Adam Smith in 1776; it is rather far back, but his views found an echo in the 19th century, and the remnants of that philosophy are echoed in the United Party’s pronouncements in politics. Ostensibly there should be no protection, but free competition, for all people are equal. Jeremy Bentham, in turn, applies this laissez-faire liberalism to the political sphere in his maxim—

I find an echo of that in the events of the last few days: “Law and government are necessary evils; the lesser thereof, the better.” Now, this ushered in the period of free trade and laissez-faire. The object of the laissez-faire slogan was the breaking down of the resistance of autonomous and self-contained communities, the removal of all import control and obstacles to free production and free trade in all parts of the world. It was the slogan of that time. It was to give the major impetus to the Industrial Revolution. What does an expert such as Walter Lippmann say in his book The Good Society about this ideology and the fruit it bore in the 19th century—and that fruit is still hanging in the 20th century as well—

And this did happen—

This is Walter Lippmann in his assessment of liberalism and free trade liberalism, which finds its echo in politics as well. He said—

This is what some friends want, the congregation of large masses in the cities— “Let them come, we shall create opportunities”—

What Lippmann wants to say here, is that the laissez-faire trade liberalism with its dogma of equality and free competition never overcame a fundamental inequality. That inequality perpetuated itself in a class grouping, which turned into the class struggle, and here I can quote Prof. Andrew Murray of Cape Town.

To go a little further, as far back as 1848 Disraeli described this economic discord amongst the population in his social novel entitled Sybil, subtitled “The Two Nations”, to indicate the inequality. In that novel he pointed out the inequality that was brought on by this liberalist free trade policy. But I should like you to listen to a pronouncement of J. S. Furnivall, who furnishes a description of the cruelty of the laissez-faire policy in the Netherlands East Indies, where the point at issue was not only the free trade and the free play of the economy, but where the community reaped the fruits of it. He said (translation)—

Rather quote Graaff.

I feel sorry for the hon. member if he cannot understand this. Perhaps he does not move on that level. This is the point I want to make: There one has a great 19th century ideology and its destructive effects on a community wanting the free play of the economy without having regard to the values, the traditions and the ties of a particular community. To many this brought great wealth, but to others it brought poverty and being trod upon and especially social, cultural and religious disruption.

But whilst the laissez-faire as an unacceptable policy has served its purpose in practice, has nationalism also served its purpose in the world? Is the National Party Government in South Africa the only Government which is following a policy of political and social separation in a pattern of economic interdependence? Hon. members opposite would very much like to make out that South Africa is out of step with the rest of the world. Sir, if nationalism is a real factor in South Africa, then it is also a real factor in America, in England, in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in Black Africa, in Europe and in Asia. I want to mention a few examples. Let me first put it this way, namely that if the awareness of differences and the refusal of the one to be dominated by the other— and that is what we are concerned with in South Africa: a refusal of the one to be dominated by the other—amount to racism, then racism is displayed far and wide and deep, too, in the rest of the world. Let me merely mention what is happening in America, the country which so frequently points out to us how out of step we are, in regard to their own immigration laws, the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, to show what discrimination is applied in respect of certain population elements and certain members of nationalities from elsewhere in the world—

And what does this look like in practice? This is the great America, the great society! 25 000 Germans are admitted, 65 000 from Britain, the huge number of 3 200 from the whole of Africa and the huge number of 3 290 from the whole of Asia. These are the numbers that are admitted to America according to that quota. Then Prof. Van den Haag says—

Let us take a look at the position of the Negroes in America, of whom they say that they have 30 per cent non-Negro blood in them, the Negroes who only account for 11 per cent of the population, the Negroes who no longer have a West African culture but have become Americanized, the Negroes in respect of whom compulsory integration is applied in America. That 11 per cent is as far from being accepted socially as has ever been the case in history before, and one finds evidence to the effect that in the North there are even worse forms of discrimination and segregation than has ever been the case in history before. I shall read to you, Sir, a quotation of what was said by an American, a sociologist—

“Ethnocentrism,” what does that mean?

The hon. member may look it up in a dictionary but if I can be of any assistance to the hon. member, “ethno-centrism” refers to thinking from within the framework of the inner circle of a specific ethnic group. He said—

This is simply what I tried to say in my first speech in this House.

As far as England is concerned, one also finds an influx of non-White immigrants there, but the “British way of life” lays down certain qualifications in respect of the admission of people to Britain. There is a thick report which the Institute of Race Relations recently made available on “Colour and Citizenship,” and in which it is indicated how people of a different colour simply are the object of discrimination, even in the British way of life. The same thing applies in Canada, but I am going to pass it by. But, after all, it is being said now that we are saddled with a 19th century obsolete philosophy, the separate development of peoples. What happened in regard to the separation between India and Pakistan, when people were afforded the opportunity of living together on territory of their own, where they would not rub shoulders with one another all day? Eight million people changed their addresses and were sorted out in order to prevent friction. And in Israel, at the time of the establishment of a homeland for the Tews, 800 000 Arabs left the territory, and I do not think all of them did so voluntarily. If I understand the matter correctly, the Arabs were actually forced to have number-plates of their own. I am merely mentioning this to hon. members so that they should not point a finger at the National Party as people who are race or people-conscious. This is the case all over the world, and this is the case in the United Party with the emphasis they place on the diversity within the population. The only thing is simply that they do not want to carry through the implications of this diversity to their logical conclusion when it comes to relations among the population groups in South Africa. To state my point fully, I want to take a country such as Yugoslavia, which, after all, is a homogeneous country with a homogeneous population. Under communist control there are 20 million people in six republics, but they are members of five different peoples with four religions and they speak three languages.

But in one country.

But, for all that, as the hon. member for Orange Grove ought to know. Tito experienced very great difficulty with nationalism and the expressions of nationalism by these people under the central control of a communist state. Take Switzerland, the country which ought to be an example of co-existence among the various cantons. One has the problem of the French-speaking section in the Jura area who want to secede from the German-speaking section in another canton within the Swiss federation. This merely confirms once again a South African phenomenon which has to be handled by the National Party. Let us take Belgium. For 140 years Belgium lived under an individualistic constitution. In Belgium they have French-speaking and Flemish-speaking people who, as far as their citizenship is concerned, are simply Belgians. Those people changed their constitution after 140 years so that the rights—not only cultural rights in general but even economic rights—of the Flemish-speaking section in that country might be safeguarded and constitutionally entrenched as against those of the Fench-speaking section.

They are all represented in their Federal Parliament.

That hon. member ought to know, too, that there are in addition three separate cantons which are situated towards the German side, namely Eupen, Malmédy and St. Vith, which have their own language.

Under a federal state.

Yes, under a federal state. These friends are talking about a federal state. Have they already forgotten the words of their own leader in 1959, when he said—more or less the following idea—that in the long run it was the numbers that turned the scale. The same thought was expressed by Dr. Verwoerd in connection with the agitation for bringing Coloureds into this House. He said in the long run one created friction and would to an increasing extent have a cold civil war between those groups because each group would want its interests to be represented here to the maximum and would want to play them off against those of the other. This we want to and will also prevent.

Let us take the example of Cyprus. Cyprus experienced dramas in its struggle for coexistence. For more than two years the bloody incidents on Cyprus poisoned the political life of Europe. On more than one occasion these incidents almost led to international intervention and a general war. On 11th October, 1964. a charter was adopted in terms of which the rights of minorities were guaranteed. Autonomy was granted to all minorities in regard to education, cultural life, religion, status of persons, and so forth. What does Prof. Lamberty say in this regard?

In one state.

The answer is contained in the quotation which I shall now give the hon. member for Orange Grove. He said—

And that is a word used by a Flemish author.

If in those countries, this led to those countries recognizing the principle of apartheid, how much the more will this not be the case in a country such as South Africa where the Whites are well in the minority. Here where they are numerically fewer than the two Bantu peoples, it is essential for a policy of apartheid to be followed, one of coexistence, autonomous coexistence, the Whites and the various non-White peoples side by side with them.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Waterberg. I want to tell him in all amity that there is a place for speeches and a place for lectures. Here in Parliament we debate. As far as I was able to follow the lecture given by the hon. friend, I want to draw his attention in the first place to a fact which he did not mention. This is that the last time an attempt was made in South Africa to apply apartheid with independent States for White and non-White was in the first half of the 19th century—by the liberal government of Great Britain. That was when it separated the Cape Colony and Kaffraria in such a drastic way that for years the area between the Kei and the Fish Rivers was no man’s land. No one was allowed to inhabit it. This worked so beautifully that there was one war after another between the colonists and the inhabitants of that area. It was strongly advocated by the liberalist Dr. Philip, and it was only when a conservative thinker such as Sir George Grey came and saw the foolishness of the attempt to separate what could not be separated, and sent White magistrates to administer that area that peace was achieved in South Africa. The other point in his speech which struck me particularly was the fact that towards the end of his speech he quoted one country after another where there were problems with multiracialism. It is true that in every one of the examples which he mentioned the races got autonomy. They got it within the same political context, however, in the form of a federation. This was the case in Cyprus and Belgium and in many other countries. No attempt was made there to cut the state to pieces as is advocated by the policy of the Nationalist Party. So I want to thank the hon. member with all my heart. We shall read that speech again, because we were given many weapons with which further to promote the federal idea of the United Party.

†Mr. Speaker, I think this is an opportunity to take the debate we have had so far into quick review. It is interesting that whereas the country was expecting this Parliament, in this last major political and financial debate of the session, to deal with some of the outstanding problems that we face in this country, events compelled us to spend a large amount of our time on immediate events taking place quite close to us outside this House. I think that since we discussed this matter two days ago in full, something has appeared of which this House should take not. While on Friday the South African Police, obviously on the instructions of the Government, or certainly in carrying out the policy of this Government, acted strongly, so strongly that a revulsion of feeling swept throughout the country against the highhanded action that the Government instigated on that occasion, we have had since, as a result of public reaction against the Government’s policy, larger gatherings in Cape Town and in other cities of South Africa where apparently the police did not listen to the Prime Minister, who said on Friday that whenever it was necessary the same methods would be used in future. On Monday, and again thereafter, they used standard and orthodox police methods, methods that my hon. leader recommended in his speech and in which he was supported by other people. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the difference between orthodox Police action and politically inspired Police action, as was indicated by the Minister of Police in his speech during this debate, by reading reports of what happened from the Nationalist Party’s own Press. For my purpose, I have taken Die Transvaler, because it is a Transvaal newspaper carrying eye-witness reports of what happened here in Cape Town and in other cities. Let me read the House an eye-witness description in Die Transvaler of events in Johannesburg on Monday, as reported in yesterday’s Die Transvaler. The heading was, “Wits-optog het stad ontwrig”.

You rejoice at it.

On the contrary, I rejoice that South Africa has a Police Force which, if given the chance, can act in this responsible manner … [Interjections.] The eye-witness report reads as follows—

Then I read on—

That is what happened in Johannesburg. There were none of the unhappy scenes that we saw in Cape Town on Friday.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to answer questions. In the same newspaper I read how matters were handled in Cape Town on Monday. It reads as follows—

The report further says—

*I can go on in this way. It was responsible behaviour and a tremendous contrast with the events of Friday. It was the Police of South Africa as we know them. They are responsible people.

†Mr. Speaker, I ask myself: Why this contrast between what happened on Friday and what happened on Monday? Looking at what happened on Monday, I want to assume for argument’s sake that the students who gathered on the Cathedral steps were committing an offence.

Japie says they were right.

I say that I want to assume it for argument’s sake. The questions put by my hon. leader the day before yesterday have not been answered, despite the whole series of speeches that came from the opposite side of the House. One question was: Why was the gathering on the steps allowed to continue so long?

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have experience of young people. I was one myself at the University of Cape Town. I say that if you put 200 students in a confined space like the Cathedral steps with nothing to do except to excite one another, and they are faced by policemen, tempted to seek a confrontation with the policemen, you are looking for trouble. The hon. member for Houghton referred to a previous demonstration by students on those steps that lasted an hour and was peaceful. If, after an hour, the Police had used their authority under the Riotous Assemblies Act and had warned those students to disperse after they had done their “thing”, after they had achieved what they wanted to, the incidents on Friday would never have happened. The second question is: Why was Police action prolonged after the need for force had ended, after the meeting had been dispersed? There is eye-witness account after eye-witness account of the continued use of force by the Police. I can find only one answer. That answer I find in the speech of the hon. the Minister of Police in this House the day before yesterday. He said most distinctly when he was asked why the students were beaten up—

As I said by way of interjection on that occasion—the Minister did not react to that interjection—this means that our Police were used not as a force to maintain law and order, but as a punitive force, as a force to mete out punishment against people found guilty by executive action. I want to say that if we want to play with fire in South Africa, we should use our well-disciplined Police Force, who will do what is expected of them, in this way. Then, indeed, we are looking for serious trouble. Let us remember one thing about the South African Police. There is not one of us, not even the students who demonstrate the way they do, who does not sleep peacefully in his home at night—because the South African Police are maintaining peace and order. It should be the duty of the Prime Minister and his Government above all other people to see that the Police Force of South Africa is respected and is used in a manner that will continue to earn for it the respect which it so richly deserves from the public. I say, and I say it without any fear of contradiction, that if the actions of Friday are to be repeated because the Government „wil mense slaan, want hulle het ’n aksie teen hulle”, we are going to create a situation in South Africa where the Police will be hated and where their task of maintaining law and order in South Africa will be made infinitely more difficult than it is today. I think that the Government should be warned and that the nation should note that this Government, i which has shown itself to be unfit to govern South Africa in so many repsects, is now also becoming a danger to law and order in South Africa because of its misconception of the functions of the South African Police. I want to read something else. There was another eye-witness of the events on Monday, and that was Mr. Piet Beukes, the former editor of Die Landstem. He is an experienced journalist and this is what he had to say talking about Monday—

*We on this side of the House take off our hats to such a man, and we are glad that he was not misled by the statement of the Prime Minister that he wanted to see the things which happened on Friday happen again and again whenever it was necessary. [Interjections.] I just want to say that I am glad that the Police Force of South Africa shows more responsibility than the Prime Minister of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

If it is necessary, they will do their duty.

The fact that the hon. the Prime Minister wants to tell me now that the violence which we saw on Friday was necessary in order to punish a small group of students …

It was necessary.

… with a loud-hailer, confirms what I have already said, that the Government and this Prime Minister in particular are unfit to govern South Africa because of a lack of judgment. What is the Government doing by acting in this way? [Interjections.]

Order!

†They start playing into the hands of the extremists amongst the students. After the events on Friday, rejoicing went up from that small group of extremists who are trying to misuse the student body of South Africa. My hon. leader quoted it on Monday. He quoted the speech by one of these young men where he was gloating with joy that as a result of the actions which took place on Friday, public opinion was veering into sympathy with the actions of some of these students. Why must the Government of South Africa assist these agitators by making them martyrs and by giving the impression to the public that they are suffering injustices from law and order? I think the nation should be warned that as a result of the action of this Government, people who may have sinister intentions towards South Africa, and especially towards the body of students of South Africa, are being assisted in their nefarious practices by the extremism and lack of control of the Government. That should be said. We are aware of extreme elements amongst the students of South Africa. They are at work amongst students all over the world. They are people, like Prof. Marcuse of California, who have a theory that the time is past that the Communists can expect the workers of the world to unite against our free democratic system, because the workers prosper too much under our system. Marcuse says that there are other elements in the population today who are frustrated. Then he mentions minorities, such as national minorities. I suppose they would include statutory minorities, such as we have in South Africa as well. He mentions students because students under our way of life, our system of life, have their dependence on others prolonged much longer than is normal. People under our system who want to be educated, are dependent upon others up to the age of 22, 23 or 24 before they can become independent individuals in their own right, because they have to be prepared for life at the expense of the community. In nature, a young male and young female at that stage are in the prime of their life, playing an important part in the defence and life of the community. But these people are not allowed their natural outlets, and the communists and other people who want to destroy our way of life, know this, and they seek to exploit the students. The Government is not appreciating this. The Government, by indulging in extravagances, as it did on Friday, is assisting the people who want to misuse our students in South Africa.

We on this side of the House certainly pay tribute to the great majority of the students of South Africa, responsible men and women, taking their preparation for life seriously, grateful to the community for making it possible for them to enjoy higher education. I think they, their parents, and the university institutions should be warned that they must not be misled by the follies of our Government into not appreciating the dangers that face them. I must commend to them all the statement made by Dr. Marius Barnard yesterday here in Cape Town, when he drew their attention to the fact that if this Government is not to their liking—and there they have the sympathy of 80 per cent of the population of South Africa—the answer is not to seek revolution, not to seek “change” by extra-democratic and extra-parliamentary methods, but to join the political party of their choice and to help change public opinion so that it can be exercised at the ballot box where it belongs. I can only say one thing: I hope the Government has now learnt its lesson by the contrast between Friday, and Monday and Tuesday, and that we will never see a repetition of the excesses that marred the good life and the face of South Africa last Friday, because the Minister of Police said “hv het ’n aksie teen die studente en hy wil hulle slaan”.

You know that is untrue.

Order! The hon. the Minister may not say that. He must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. but it is untrue.

Mr. Speaker, it is not untrue; here is my witness—the Minister’s Hansard. I have read it; I shall read it again—

Start right at the beginning.

The Minister can squirm as much as he likes—he is on record and I leave him to history … [Interjections.]

Order!

You are running away from the truth.

Mr. Speaker, now I am looking at the rest of the debate. I am trying to find a speech of importance that was made …

Only yours.

No, Sir, I do not say that; my speech is not made yet. I think, for example, of the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who said that the United Party was confused about its race policies. I have never heard bigger nonsense than that; but I am not going to argue it; I am going to put it to the test, a very simple test. If we are confused about our policy, how come that we are confident enough about our policy to allow 16 representatives of our non-Whites in this House, without fearing that they would make it impossible for us to govern ever again? And how does it come about that the Government opposite, who are so confident that they have a clear-cut solution to the Problems of South Africa, which everybody must support whether they are consulted or not, tell us through the mouth of the Prime Minister that if we allow non-White representatives in this House, even though they are only one-tenth of the total …

No, representatives of the non-Whites.

He has already said it.

… Coloureds and representatives of the other non-Whites in this House, even if they are only one-tenth of the representatives in this House, then the National Party will never govern again. Which party has confidence in its policy? I do not think any Prime Minister has ever publicly admitted that he cannot hope to get the support of the people in terms of his policy, as this Prime Minister did when he made this admission that his policies are so rejected by the people they affect, that if he allows them a minimum of representation in this House, it will be the end of his Government for all time. Sir, if ever there were people who were confused and out of touch with reality and truth, it is hon. members opposite, under the leadership of the Prime Minister who can make a confession like that.

Then there was a speech by the hon. the Minister of Transport on national unity; he was obviously trying to talk away the speech he made at Brakpan, obviously seeming to intend to apologize for the actions of the hon. the Minister of Defence in the speech that he made here during the Budget debate. But, Sir, his speech ended in confusion; it ended in a lot of loose ends that had no connection. We on this side of the House would like to put it on record that if we want national unity in South Africa we must live national unity. National unity must be visible; it must be manifest in our organizations, in our being together, in our common activities and, above all, national unity must be evidenced in the respect that we have for a man’s right to use his own language. And, Sir, that is our objection to the attitude of the Nationalist Party during the Oudtshoorn and Brakpan by-elections. This attitude of racism had a temporary success at Oudtshoorn, but already in Brakpan we saw the revulsion of the people developing against this extremism. What was the charge of the hon. the Minister of Defence? It was an attack upon members on this side because they spoke their own language in this House, and for that reason they were “Boerehaters”.

That is not true.

Sir, he was followed by Die Transvaler, which published a list of names of members on this side of the House who were unilingual, who could not speak Afrikaans. That list included name after name of men who are fully bilingual, men like my hon. friend, the member for Walmer, whose grandfather was on the personal bodyguard of Paul Kruger during the Boer War and who speaks Afrikaans, perhaps not as eloquently but certainly more correctly than the Prime Minister himself; but he had to be listed by the Nationalist Party as unilingual, in order to stir up feeling between Afrikaans- and English-speaking, as being unilingual, disrespectful towards Afrikaans and a Boerehater. Sir, I hope that one day next session I will have the opportunity of making a few positive suggestions to the hon. the Prime Minister as to how he can prove that national unity to him is not only a matter of faith at its best, or lip service at the worst, but also something which he is willing to live out in his private and in his public life. Then, Sir, I just want to say this because time is getting short. There was something unreal about this debate in that we did not have sufficient opportunity at the end of the session to emphasize once more the greatest need for South Africa, if we are to survive as a civilized community and if we are to experience peace amongst the races in this country. Here I find that there are voices —lone voices as yet, but growing voices— on the other side of the House who support the United Party in its view that we need greater material resources soon in order to make it possible for us to find solutions to our problems. I think it is tragic and most shortsighted that there are hon. members of this House who accuse us and, for example, the Minister of the Interior, who support us by implication at least, that we are materialists; that we are only interested in things of the body and not of the spirit. I want to admit. Sir, that we regard material strength as of vital importance to the survival of South Africa. My hon. leader has on more than once occasion stated that we have to go faster than we are going today: that we cannot be satisfied to be No. 18 in the list of nations if you have regard to the gross national product of the nations of the world. We have to grow faster; we have to have more resources and more strength; we have to have the money to do justice to all the people, whichever policy we carry out. Even if we are to go completely loony and carry out to its logical conclusion the policy propounded by the Government, we will need money to carry it out; we will need resources to carry it out; we will need educated men and women to carry it out; we will need the wherewithal fuels to carry it out. At the moment we are not achieving what is required in order to be able to meet the problems of South Africa. Sir, if we take our living standards and look at our per capita income as a nation, we find that in the years from 1958 to 1968, our gross domestic income grew by 5,1 per cent a year, but at the same time our population increased by 2,5 per cent a year, so that the net increase in our income per capita was only 2,6 per cent. But in the case of the countries which form part of the European Economic Community, their net income, calculated in the same way, was growing at the rate of 4½ per cent per annum; they were surpassing South Africa; they were moving further ahead of South Africa; some of them were overtaking us and some of them were moving further ahead of us. I want to say, in support of the attitude of this side of the House, that we have to do better if we want to survive in this part of Africa. We have to do much better. We have to do better, and in order to do better we need certain things; we need immigrants, and we will not continue to get immigrants if our standard of living falls below that of Europe to which we look for immigrants. People very seldom move from a more well-to-do community to a poorer community. We will have to make better use of our own human resources. We shall have to spend more money on education. We shall have to remove some of the artificial barriers that prevent our people from making the contribution to our progress of which they may be capable. We should follow the example of Germany, which after the war had to absorb 12 million immigrants from Eastern Europe. Germany did not look upon those immigrants as a problem; Germany looked upon their arrival as an opportunity to train them and to make them work for the progress of the German people until today Germany has the highest standard of living in Western Europe. Sir, we can look at Japan with 100 million semi-illiterate people at the end of the war. Today Japan is second only to the United States of America because it is spending two or three times as much as we do on the education of its people. Sir, we can look to Israel, a small state with a small population, maintaining itself against a whole hostile sub-continent, because it relies upon the skills of its people and the high educational standards of its people. Sir, you must remember what Senator Norwood said before he became a politician. He warned us that we were spending only 3 per cent of our national income on education, while the countries of Western Europe were spending 41 per cent and Russia a bit more than 7 per cent. Sir, these are the things to which we should be attending. We should take steps to move our labour from less productive activities to more productive activities. This again is one of the reasons for the success of Germany, Japan and a country like Italy. But we do not do that, Sir; we put up barriers against it. Two-thirds of our Bantu people are still engaged in agriculture, many of them on a subsistence basis in peasant activities; they should not be given more land on which to suffer poverty, but we should use our resources to create industrial opportunities for them. We would then be doing what is wise and in the interests of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for one to say much more about this excited tirade delivered by the hon. member for Yeoville in respect of student matters, except to repeat the basic statement that the students themselves chose the place where the occurrences took place, and, furthermore, that the attack on the students came after an officer had been attacked; that they started acting in an unlawful way at the time so that the Police were fully justified to act as they did. I think we can leave the matter at that. We may perhaps just add that it is the attitude, as the hon. the Prime Minister put it, that if the students were to act as they did last Friday, the Police would deal with them in the same way again. We accept this, and if somebody was perhaps injured, he has his basic and logical rights. Sir, is it not very significant and strange that only two weeks ago we listened here to the praises of the Police being sung for their competency when the Police Vote was under discussion in this Budget debate? A wonderful song of praise was sung about the qualities and actions of the Police in the past year. It was even requested to have medals struck for certain members of the Police Force. Now one asks oneself: Why this sudden change of attitude? Why, after such a wonderful song of praise, such as the one we heard, and after the Police had been bedecked in laurel branches, was this sudden attack made on the Police? The reply which involuntarily comes to mind is that the United Party is realizing that it is losing leftist votes, and now it must curry favour with this side as well. That is the whole intention. They must make an attempt to draw some of the votes from the Progressive Party because they realize there is a swing to that side.

I just want to deal briefly with this matter: It is in fact obvious to all right-minded people that when a party prides itself on being the alternative Government, one would expect that party to want to pit its policy against that of the Government on every occasion it has. This advice was also given to the United Party by the Star in 1969 prior to their union congress, in the following words—

But on 19th April, during the debate on the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Prime Minister again created a golden opportunity for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to state the policy of the United Party in regard to their federal idea. The following question was put pointedly to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not only by the hon. the Prime Minister, but also by the hon. the Minister of Transport: What are your ideas? What will the composition of the federal Parliament be? To this the hon. the Leader of the Opposition replied—

Mr. Speaker, John Citizen is at least entitled to know what the Leader of the United Party’s ideas are on this matter.

Then there were three by-elections in which the United Party had the opportunity of pitting its policy against that of the National Party, but what did we have in Brakpan? Yesterday we heard from my friend, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, how the United Party had avoided dealing with its policy there. In Brakpan we had this type of thing from the hon. member for Yeoville (translation)—

And then this as well—

And then this audacious statement—

Disgraceful!

There is also the sneering reference to the “deep Platteland”—

We consulted the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary for the meaning of “sophistication”, and I do not think that what is meant by the “areas of sophistication” has the meaning mentioned in the Oxford Dictionary, because there we find: “Sophistication: the process of investing with specious fallacies or misleading by means of these falsifications”. I think the meaning which should be attached to this word “sophistication” is “refinement, breeding, decency”. In other words, the less decent one is, the more inclined one would be to vote for the National Party. I hope the voters of South Africa will take cognizance of that. Then, the most priceless of all. is that in the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill in February, the hon. member for Yeoville again launched a similar tirade in respect of the pamphlet distributed by the National Party and which is sub judice at present—I do not want to go into the merits of that pamphlet. He said—