Last night when this debate adjourned, I was about to say, having proved and given examples of what I do now say, that if this Bill is passed, Parliament will delegate to this Minister dangerously far-reaching and unchecked powers to make regulatory laws which will affect the lives and liberties of thousands of South Africans. The words will apply to him which were used by Byron when he described the powers given to the first-lieutenant of tyrant—

Sir, one of the main objectives of this Bill is to give to the Minister dictatorial powers to enforce “Apartheid”. In his mind, and in the thinking of this Government, anyone who opposes apartheid becomes a communist. And the Suppression of Communism Act defines “Communism” in such wide terms that it can take within its scope anyone who opposes this Government’s colour policies in a way to which this Government objects. I believe, as I have said, that one of the real purposes of this Bill is to enforce “Apartheid” more strongly; to keep people apart; to prevent contact between South Africans of different colour; to prevent normal consultation and exchange of ideas on every level, high and low. This Bill, Sir, is “baasskap-apartheid” at its ugly and most monstrous worst. Many of the laws I mentioned last night, many of the enactments I have criticized in the past, are “apartheid” laws. They are now followed by this most vicious of all Bills, which is said by the Minister of Justice to be justified because it is needed to combat the ever-present and ever-increasing threat of Communism to our country. After 14 years of misrule by this Government, after more than a decade of harsh and bullying laws, designed to control us …

Order! Did the hon. member say “bullying laws”?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw that term, and I say laws designed to dragoon and control the over-patient citizens of this country. The Government admits failure by demanding further powers and by declaring that the communist danger, which they promised to suppress with such vigour and such certainty, is greater than ever before, and needs now draconian laws and powers to hold it in check. Surely, the Prime Minister and his Government realize that in the “battle” that is taking place, in this “cold war” between the West and the East which has been mentioned …

On a point of order, may the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) refer to the speech of the hon. member for Wynberg as the speech of a saboteur?

There is nothing wrong with that.

The hon. member should withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Surely, the Prime Minister and this Government realize that in the cold war that is being waged between the Western Christian world and Communism, the Western world utterly spurns South Africa as an ally in its fight. The Western world (and I myself and other people on this side agree) considers that the harsh rule of “baasskap” Nationalism does more to encourage Communism than to prevent it. It creates new causes for Communism. Does not the hon. the Minister realize, does not the Prime Minister realize that the Western nations regard South Africa under this Government, as their greatest embarrassment in their battle to win Africa for the West? This Minister indignantly protests that he is a democrat. He says that his object in asking for these wide powers is in order to defend democracy. But there is nothing democratic in his actions. He says that the powers he takes are to ensure freedom and to protect democracy. Of course, what he means by democracy is “White Nationalist democracy”, which is a peculiar and unique kind of democracy confined to the minority of people in this country; a democracy which is unacceptable to the majority of our peoples and unacceptable to all right-thinking people in the Western world. In the General Laws Amendment Bill we have a typical dictator Bill. It has been called a “Sabotage” Bill by the Minister of Lands. This barbarous Bill is a “Sabotage” Bill only in the sense, I believe, that it will sabotage what is left of Western democracy. it will sabotage savagely the rule of law and the liberty of the subject. This Bill, to my mind—and that is why I oppose it with such vigour—shows a cynical disregard for elementary human rights. It is despotic in conception. It metes out punishments which are cruel and sadistic, bearing the stamp of the Nazi jack-boot. This Bill has, the Minister claims, as its divine motive “the safety of the State”.

I say, Sir, that no State is worth saving or preserving in which the importance of the individual, and the liberty of the individual, is ignored, and in which the rule of law is treated with public contempt. This Bill equates unimportant and trivial, though wrong or wilful actions, done perhaps by mischievous children, with acts of treason and gives to them extreme penalties. In my opinion, Sir, tyranny is by far the worst treason and despotism sits nowhere so secure as under the ensign of false freedom. The sooner despotism is consumed in flames the better. Perhaps real democracy for all of the people in our country, all of the time, will then arise, Phoenix-like, from the ashes. I believe that liberty cannot be subdivided and justice cannot be partial. If this Bill touches one person unjustly or unfairly, whether he be Black or Brown or White, it touches us all and rots everything. We cannot remain free in mind, or untroubled in conscience, or untouched by corruption if we willingly consent to shackle the mind or body of one free man unjustly, without a fair trial under just and acceptable laws administered by unbiased Judges, untrammelled by Executive interference. That, Sir, is my doctrine; that is what I believe in. We should never make it a crime for any South African of any race to fight for what he believes to be his rights, in the normal, democratic and constitutional way recognized as legitimate by civilized Western nations, with whom the Minister and his Government are so keen to identify themselves. I believe that if this Bill passes its second reading in this House in its present form, no one will be able to declare, honestly, that the Government has not attempted to clothe itself with all the powers and the trappings of a police state.

Before going on to examine some of the more mischievous clauses in this Bill I should like to make two points, one of which was very brilliantly made, in a slightly different way, by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman). My first contention is that the existing laws on our Statute Book are wide enough and flexible enough to deal with any crime, any crime at all, committed in South Africa, provided the administration of justice is efficient. It is unnecessary, I believe, to do what is done in this Bill. It is unnecessary to create new crimes, to re-name old crimes and to enlarge the already excessive powers which the Minister possesses. The new powers taken by the Minister are vastly greater than are necessary for the purposes he says he has in mind; unless the Minister has secret intentions, intentions which are more ominous than we think and wider than he will acknowledge. My second submission is that there is no one—and this is something we should remember when we pass this law—there is no vigorous opponent of this Government and its policy, there is no person whom he could not victimize if he cared to do so in terms of this Bill. There is no one, even if it be a child of 14 who mischievously lets off a fire-cracker under a ministerial tail, or an energetic, persistent and trenchant editor of a newspaper who continuously opposes and criticizes in a fearless way the colour policy of this Government or the doctrine of apartheid, who cannot be drawn into the net cast by this Bill. It may well be, if we are to believe what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) has said, that there is a present intention to curb the free Press in some drastic way. He has told us that it is about time the editors of the English-speaking newspapers were dealt with. Whether or not the Minister intends to deal with them under this Bill, I do not know. But he has the power to do so if he wants to. By a stroke of his pen he can confine an editor to what is practically solitary confinement in his home; he can prevent him from doing what he must do in the process of his work. In addition the Minister holds over the heads of intending new newspapers the threat of a ministerial fine of up to R20,000. In my opinion this Bill is one of the most evil, the most cynical, the most sadistic measures which has ever come before this honourable House.

Why don’t you leave the country?

Because it is my home and because I intend to stay here and help to chase this Government out of power. Sir, the appetite of this Government is quite unlimited. It demands uncontrolled authority over anybody who dares to oppose its policies with any strength whatsoever. This tendency is typical not only of the Nazi but the communist countries, this tendency to give to the Executive wide judicial powers and then to use the Judiciary itself as an instrument of executive authority. That is one of the dangers we should always be viligant to guard against in this Parliament.

Let us examine some of the evils which flow from some of the clauses of this Bill. I have been dealing with ministerial powers, their unnecessary violence and vastness and I will continue doing so, clause by clause.

You said that about Gen. Smuts too.

I said it until he agreed to my plan to curb Ministers’ powers. I think we can ignore that Minister, Sir. In terms of Clause 1, the Minister takes enlarged and uncontrolled powers to ban gatherings of any kind. He takes power to prevent any listed or named persons from attending any gathering, social or otherwise. The test of “common purpose” is dispensed with. Any gathering, in respect of which the Minister bans even one person from attending, comes within the increased scope of the newly worded Clause 1. Not only as regards gatherings, but as regards individuals the Minister takes the following wide powers. In terms of this clause the Minister can ban anyone from any function or gathering which he personally thinks is furthering the cause of Communism. He can ban any gathering of any sort whatsoever. It seems as if the Minister can decide whether or not his victim can mix socially and with whom, and whether he must remain at home in semi-solitary confinement. Clause 7 of this gives remarkable powers, even for this Minister, in connection with the prohibition of gatherings. In terms of Clause 7 (b) authority is given to the Minister which we should examine closely. I may be making a mistake—I hope the Minister will correct me if I am—but as this clause reads it means that the Minister can prohibit any gathering of any sort, anywhere if he thinks, if in his fallible opinion, the activities of one person or one organization may further the cause of Communism. Neither the person nor the organization is related in any way to the gathering which is prohibited. This clause, if it means what it says, entitles the Minister to ban any gathering anywhere for any reason or in fact, for no good reason at all. The prohibition of meetings and the attendance at meetings is also dealt with in Clause 19. It gives the Minister larger powers than he has had before to prohibit meetings. It gives him power to make general prohibition in place of the more limited powers previously possessed by magistrates to ban, ad hoc, a particular meeting in a particular area. This illustrates, Sir, the vast powers of the Minister. The fact is that he is determined to stop meetings on the Cape Town Parade and on the steps of the City Hall at Johannesburg. It is, apparently, only at those two places where he wants to prevent public meetings being held. Yet he takes unto himself vast powers to prohibit any meeting anywhere in any area, in perpetuity—for ever or for a day. Here, Sir, powers too wide for the stated purpose are taken as a matter of course by the Minister. Does the Minister not realize that if he tries to bottle up the expression of ideas, if he tries to bottle up criticism, if he tries to bottle up feelings of protest he is really dealing with explosive stuff. His way is not a safe or sensible way in which to deal with these problems. People must be allowed to protest and I am grieved to think that the City Council has seen fit to deny permission for the protest march which was requested and which was to have been made by responsible citizens of this city. This was done on the “advice of the police”. It is a dangerous practice to prevent responsible people from expressing their indignation in a constitutional and proper way, the way which all Western democracies approve. The police should be there to protect the right of people to march in orderly protest. If you prevent legitimate protest it will inevitably lead to eventual tumult and riot and to still more harsh laws to tackle situations which could be dealt with sensibly and reasonably and legally.

Now, Sir, I should like to say something about controlling newspapers. In Clause 5, amending Section 6 of the main Act the Minister takes power with a view to curbing the freedom of expression, of anti-Government newspapers and in particular newly registered publications. They can now be required to deposit up to R20,000 as a guarantee of good behaviour. But the Minister is the sole judge of what constitutes good behaviour and what is wrong. Under the Suppression of Communism Act, which is being amended, a newspaper can be banned if it professes to promote Communism or is published by an organization which has been declared to be unlawful, or which expresses the views of such an organization or gives information “the publication of which is calculated to further the achievement of any of the objects of Communism He seems to have adequate powers already. Now, if the Minister bans these newspapers they will forfeit their deposit. Indeed, Sir, the Minister has actually taken unto himself the power, at any time, to fine any new newspaper which in his opinion should be fined the sum of R20,000, without any appeal. It is a summary ministerial fine and it could be accompanied by an order committing the editor to house arrest, with which I will deal later. He hangs a sword of Damocles over every newspaper, which he hopes will not then dare to publish anything which runs contrary to ministerial opinion. He will not find it difficult to find reasons for banning any Opposition newspaper should he wish to do so.

I now wish to deal with the House-Arrest clause. Clause 8 of this Bill amends Section 10 of the Act. This clause is quite iniquitous. It gives the Minister power over an individual, over individual liberties, which no one should possess. He can restrain the liberty of any citizen at will and with no adequate check and with no proper restraint. Previously, the listed person could only be prohibited “from being within an area defined in a Notice”. In terms of this amending clause a listed person can be barred, first of all, “from being in an area defined”, second from “absenting himself from an area or place defined”, and third “from communicating with any person, receiving any visitor, or doing any act specified”. This clause gives the Minister powers so extensive that they outstrip one’s sense of decency. They can constitute a grave threat to the freedom, livelihood and happiness even of someone who wishes to be a law-abiding citizen. I repeat, Sir, that the Minister is taking excessive powers over persons and we must remember that these people are not criminals; they have not been convicted of any crime except that in the Minister’s opinion—and that opinion may be and probably will be arbitrarily formed—they should not be free to leave their homes except on conditions which the Minister himself can lay down. He can sentence a man to “House Arrest” who may merely have criticized this Government’s race policy too harshly, in the opinion of the Minister …

How ridiculous can you get?

How despotic can you get? He can do that to them if they criticize him or his colour policies very harshly, as I am doing in this debate, and as I will go on doing inside and outside of this House while I am free to do so. He can place that man, he can place me, he can place anyone, under perpetual house arrest and confine him to semi-solitary confinement. I presume that only his family who live in the house with him can see him and communicate with him. I doubt whether he can be visited by his lawyer. In any case what would be the use of being visited by his lawyer? He is beyond the law. There is no legal process that can free him from the Minister. The Minister has placed himself beyond the law and yet he does this in the name of democracy.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) calls this clause a “brain wave”. This was what he said in an interview with the Press—

This member of the Bar, this barrister, this potential Judge says that—

Surely the hon. member knows as the Minister knows, that it lies within the discretion of the Minister, this kindly Minister, this gentle Minister, if he feels like doing so, to prevent his victim from going to work, to prevent him from earning a living. The clause clearly says that his poor victim can be “prohibited from communicating with any person, or receiving any visitor, or performing any act specified …” Sir, this is a primitive idea of justice. My hon. Leader rightly called it “civil death”. If Nationalist supporters in this House do not object to clauses like this, I can only think that the perpetual battering at their consciences which they have received in over 14 years of Nationalist rule, has deprived them of the faculty of criticism, and, what is even more serious, has deprived them of the capacity for pity. Clause 8 fills me, Sir, with horror as well as sadness. It is unbelievable and intolerable that, in a civilized state, Parliament could even contemplate giving a fallible individual—and even Nationalist Ministers are fallible—such power over his fellow-men. It seems to me that the eventué of this Government is, in the cause of “apartheid”, in the cause of maintaining their idea of race superiority, if necessary to strangle the voice of justice, if necessary to prohibit all opposition, if necessary to kill the limited freedoms we now have. I believe sincerely, Sir. that freedom to speak, think, move and associate, within the framework of just and acceptable laws, is man’s most precious possession. I believe that freedom is the life of man. I believe that freedom has no colour. I believe that freedom means the same to any man in any language. I believe that freedom will not in the end bow down to any despot. I believe that freedom will only surrender to justice, to the rule of law, properly and publicly administered, by competent and incorruptible Judges. That, I believe, Sir, should be the doctrine of all Members of Parliament. That, I believe, should be the aim of all true democrats.

I should now like to deal further with the hon. and learned member for Port Elizabeth (North). He had something to say about “shifting the onus of proof There are several clauses in this Bill in which the onus of proof is moved to the accused—Clauses 9, 11, 18, 19 and 21. I am not going to deal with all of those but I want to deal with conceptions which exist in the minds of gentlemen over there about the onus of proof. We know, and the Minister knows, that publication in the Gazette of a notice of a banning or of a document constitutes an irrebuttable assumption of the victim’s knowledge of that prohibition. It is interesting to examine the views given in the Press statement by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) in relation to the onus. The Minister himself is quite unashamed about that transference of the onus. He makes the point that in some cases it is necessary. That is so. It is habitual in law that where a person, without compromising himself seriously, is in a position readily to prove a fact the onus should be thrown on to him to prove that fact. But the Minister himself goes even further and says that he is not shifting the onus in Clause 21, because his victim must first of all have committed a wilful and wrongful act. Even then, in addition, he has a chance of disproving his intentions in a number of ways which are contained in the second section of Clause 21. But this is what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) said in relation to the onus—and I think the House should bring their minds to bear on this statement, because it illustrates the curious legal conception of the hon. gentleman opposite. He does not quibble or excuse himself. This is what he says, in his outright way, about the change of onus. He should know better; he is a barrister of the Supreme Court. He says—

It seems to me, Sir, that his principle or should we call it dogma, is that where it is difficult to a convict a person of a crime (political or otherwise) the onus should be thrown upon the citizen accused to prove he is innocent. To me that is distasteful; to me it is very wrong, to me it is intolerable. I am certain that to think in this way reveals an attitude of mind which is the negation of justice. It does violence to the rule of law. Before I sit down may I say that it seems as if this Government is arming itself to fight against decency, democracy and freedom. May I borrow the words of the hon. the Minister of Finance which he used on a previous occasion: “This sort of thing” makes the word ‘democracy ’ a hissing noise in the ears of all decent men.”

I do not think the hon. member who has just sat down takes himself very seriously and it is, therefore, not my intention either to take him very seriously. He has revealed himself in this House as the member who harbours the most bitter hatred in his heart, not for the National Party, but hatred for the Afrikaner and also hatred for the White government in this country. I want to know from him how ridiculous you can get. He says this Government will place him under house arrest if he criticizes its race policy too harshly, as he has done. I want to give him the assurance that he is the last hon. member in this House who need worry that he will be placed under house arrest. The reason for that is that he is afraid to do anything dangerous. He lacks the courage to do anything dangerous. We know him as the member with the least political courage in this country. He said amongst others that “freedom knows no colour”. But he is nevertheless a member of a party which is prepared to withhold certain freedoms from people on the ground of colour, purely on the ground of colour. I almost laughed when the hon. member, who is known for his lack of political courage, said “This is my doctrine; this is what I believe in”. He does not believe in anything which does not suit him. The only thing he believes in is that which suits him at the moment. The only things he believes in are those things that will ensure to him his big house in Constantia and his seat in this House. He will not dare to believe in anything else. We know his record. We know that some years ago he went with the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) to the airport at Bloemfontein to tell his Leader, Sir de Villiers Graaff, that he did not agree with the policy adopted at their congress. We know him. He did not sign that statement, but he also went to the airport and if anybody does not want to believe me, ask the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). When they arrived in Cape Town he said he was not satisfied with that policy. He was in Cape Town at that time and those people who were dissatisfied with the policy were called by the Leader of the Opposition. He called Dr. Steytler to come and see him and Dr. Steytler had the courage of his convictions. The hon. member for Houghton had the courage of her convictions. But when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition called him and said to him: “You agree, or else …” he ran back like a pup with its tail between its legs. He need not be afraid that he will get into trouble because he lacks the courage to get into trouble. I want to say this to the hon. member that I have much more respect for the political courage of a man like Luthuli than I have for his political courage. Luthuli is at least willing to suffer a littler bit for his political convictions. This miserable hon. member is not even prepared to sacrifice his seat in Parliament …

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

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, and say this brave member, namely this “White knight in armour”. He will not accept anything which will cost him his seat in Parliament. I have more respect for Kgosana who is prepared to leave this country and go to plead for what he believes in. This hon. member is not prepared to cross the street for the sake of what he believes in. Then he says that anybody who opposes apartheid will be named by this Government as a communist. I will not do him the honour of calling him a communist. He lacks the courage to become a communist. He knows what he is saying here is nonsense and false. He knows that only an enemy of South Africa will say that this Government will call anybody who opposes apartheid a communist. I still want to say this to the hon. member and then I will leave him alone. I despise many members politically. But he is one member in this House in respect of whom my political contempt is turning into personal contempt. And that is because of his lack of courage, because of his superior attitude in this House and because of the absolutely repulsive attitude which he adopts here. I want to tell him that he is the most repulsive member in this House.

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

Very well, Mr. Speaker, then I say that he is not as pleasant as I would have liked him to be.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) who made a much better contribution to this debate. The hon. member made great play of this point in his speech that the Minister already possessed all the power he needed to ban communist meetings. He says that because the Minister already has that power he is now asking for additional power to prohibit other gatherings as well, that the Minister wants to prohibit gatherings other than communist gatherings. The hon. member for Zululand immediately tried to sow suspicion that the Minister was asking for this power in order to prohibit gatherings by constitutional opposition groups. I want to ask the hon. member whether that was the impression he tried to create? Of course, he lacks the courage to admit it. Of course the impression he tried to create was that this Government wanted to prohibit gatherings by the Opposition. The hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself for saying such a thing and he ought to be ashamed of himself for two reasons, firstly for being so unpatriotic as to state such an untruth about his own country, because he knows that that is not true …

Order! The hon. member cannot say that he knows it is not true.

The hon. member for Zululand knows that no meetings of the official Opposition are prohibited in this country. He knows that will not be done but he says nevertheless that it will be done. Then he comes to his own conclusions. I say he ought to be ashamed of himself for being so unpatriotic. Secondly he ought to be ashamed of his absolute stupidity. Does he think that the Government will prohibit any meetings of the Opposition? Does he think that the Government will ban the meetings of the Black Sash for example? Every time they make fools of themselves in Adderley Street and in the streets of Johannesburg we gain a few votes. Does he think the Government will ban any meetings of the Progressive Party? As miserable as the United Party is, it has already disposed of the Progressives. Does he think that it is the intention of the Government to ban any meetings of the United Party? We are as stupid as that because every time they hold a meeting we gain a few votes. Why should we ban them? I will tell the hon. member why these powers are necessary. The hon. member is quite correct. The Government has the necessary power at the moment to combat Communism; or let me put it perfectly correctly, the Government has the necessary power to combat blatant Communism. The object of this Bill is to combat patent Communism. Is the hon. member not aware of the fact that throughout the world the Communistic Party does not always function as a Communist Party, or with the blatant object of promoting Communism? Has he never heard of the Council for World Peace which has branches throughout the entire world? Has he never heard of the Committee for Pan-Africanism, which is nothing else but a communist organization? Has he never heard of the Committee for Afro-Asian Solidarity, which is a communist organization throughout Africa? That is the veiled Communism against which this Bill is aimed.

We also have this legislation in order to get at another group and that group comprises, wittingly or unwittingly, the agents of Communism in South Africa. That group comprises those people who want to replace the White Government in South Africa by a Black Government by un-parliamentary and unconstitutional ways. That is the group which this Bill wants to get at, that group which wants to force the policy of one man one vote on to this country in an unconstitutional manner. I know they will immediately say that that means that the Liberal Party will also be banned. No, as long as the Liberal Party pleads for one man one vote in a constitutional way and tries to convince the electorate that the policy of one man one vote is the best policy for this country, nothing will happen to them. But when the Liberal Party goes to Pondoland and causes riots, arson and murder, with the object of promoting that policy, when those people enter the Bantu areas with the object of inciting the people to commit sabotage, in an attempt to paralyse the Government and to force the policy of one man one vote on to us in that way, in that event this Act will be used to bring them to book, to bring to book those people who are wittingly or unwittingly communists. But I do say that when a man such as Luthuli—I do not care whether or not he is a communist; he is described in the English Press as “that great Christian gentleman”; I do not care whether or not he is a “gentleman”—tries to force the policy of one man one vote on to us in an unconstitutional way, he is, as far as I am concerned, as great a communist as anybody in Russia. What does Luthuli want to do? By paralysing the industries, the mines and the Railways in this country he wants to force the policy of one man one vote on to the Republic of South Africa. I say that whether they are communists or not, they are serving the cause of Communism, they are serving the objects of Communism. The object of this Bill is to deal with those people who are not blatant communists, those people who may be communists unwittingly, the people who try to force a policy on to us in a way different from the ordinary parliamentary and constitutional way, a policy which must lead to the downfall of the White man. I say that to replace the White Government in South Africa by a Black Government in an unconstitutional manner is high treason. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) on the exposition which he gave us of this matter last night. The old definition of high treason is outmoded. It no longer applies in the modern world of to-day. To be guilty of high treason because you have sold military secrets to the enemy is something of the past, because that is no longer necessary in this cold war. I say that anybody who tries to force down the policy of one man one vote on to us in this country in an unconstitutional way, as some members of the Liberal Party want to do, such as Patrick Duncan, is guilty of high treason, and this law is intended for them. [Interjections] That is why all these loopholes which are used by the patent communist and the person who wants to force the policy of one man one vote on to us in an unparliamentary and unconstitutional way, have to be closed. That is why I wish to congratulate the Minister on having provided in this Bill that no more radio interviews, television interviews and Press interviews should be granted to people like Luthuli and Mandela. Sir, what a ridiculous situation did we have. The Minister finds it necessary to ban a person because he is undermining the constitution of the country and undermining the safety of the State in an unconstitutional way, and the moment he is banned that person receives more publicity in the English Press than he has ever had before. Because of the platform which he was given, because of the ridiculous situation that while he was banned Luthuli was allowed to communicate with the entire world for months and years, he was awarded the Nobel prize. I say the position was absolutely ridiculous and the Minister was quite right in rectifying it.

I wish to refer to an incident which is probably the most scandalous incident we have ever experienced in our history and that is the case of Mandela. When Mandela called out a three-day strike in order to paralyse the Republic at the time when we became a Republic he was a fugitive from the police. He wants to paralyse the country. He wants to stop the railways, the mines and the industries and he is a fugitive from the police. He cannot get to his people but every morning on the stroke of the clock he communicates with his people via the Rand Daily Mail and on Sunday he communicates with them via the Sunday Express. Those were the channels through which he supplied his people with information. The position is untenable and the time is more than overdue for the Minister to put a stop to this absolutely ridiculous situation.

Did they know where he was?

Of course they knew where he was but they lacked the patriotism to tell that to the police. But what can you expect of a newspaper like the Rand Daily Mail or like the Sunday Express, the most traitorous institutions we have ever had in this country?

I also wish to congratulate the Minister on putting an end to another childishness in this country and that is that a newspaper like New Age can be banned and appear the following day under another name. That is childishness. Surely this country is not a kindergarten. A newspaper which is a danger to the State gets banned by the Minister, and then they make a fool of the State by simply appearing the following day under a another name. I wish to congratulate the Minister for the ingenious way in which he has put a stop to this ridiculous situation. [Interjections.] No, the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) will in any case not deposit his R20,000; he will not even deposit 20,000c. The object of this Bill is to restrain the communist, the patent communist and those who serve Communism unwittingly, and no one else need fear anything under this Bill—not even the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). I gave him credit for more sense than that which he revealed in the ridiculous speech which he made yesterday. Nobody need fear anything as long as they do not wittingly or unwittingly serve the objects of Communism.

I do not know why the United Party is opposing this Bill because they are experts in the field of preventing certain people from coming into power in an unconstitutional way. I think of the days when we were at war, and they must not come and tell me there was a war on because I want to dispose of that argument. I think of the days of the Ossewa Brandwag when there was danger that certain persons would take over the government of the country in an unconstitutional way. What was the worst that could have happened during the war years? The worst that could have happened was that the Smuts Government would fall and that the Government of the country would be taken over by Hans van Rensburg, John Vorster and Jan Moolman. [Laughter.] But because the Government of the day said—and I fully agreed with them—they were not going to allow Hans van Rensburg and John Vorster and Jan Moolman to take over the Government of the country in an unconstitutional way, they armed themselves with draconic powers, with emergency regulations, if anything much worse than these measures. I say General Smuts did the right thing. No Prime Minister can allow people to take over the Government in an unconstitutional way and that was why he took those powers. Now that we are in danger of Luthuli, Mandela and Sebukwe taking over the Government we are not allowed to take these powers. No, what was good enough for Van Rensburg, Vorster and Moolman is not good enough for little innocents like Luthuli, Mandela and Sebukwe. Jan Moolman was far more dangerous than Luthuli. [Laughter.] Imagine, Sir, that the brave Field-Marshal Smuts was so frightened of a man like Moolman that he took all those extensive powers but we are not allowed to take similar power against people who are more dangerous

Mr. Speaker, I admit frankly that the United Party is in a difficult position. It is not easy for them—and quite rightly so—to give unnecessary powers to the Government, but the United Party have landed themselves in a mess, and I am sorry about that, because I want to make a frank admission to-day. The majority of the members of the United Party are not communists and are not in favour of Communism and want to combat it. The majority of their members are not in favour of sabotage and do not wish to have sabotage committed. That is why I cannot understand why they have deemed it necessary to oppose this Bill in principle. They could only have said: We accept the principle that extraordinary powers are required, particularly in the position in which South Africa finds herself, to combat Communism and sabotage, but we will discuss certain clauses in the Committee Stage. That would have been quite in order and the right attitude to adopt. Furthermore they could have said: We realize that extensive powers are necessary to combat this evil and we will try to criticize it as much as possible in the Committee Stage but heaven help the Minister if he abuses the extensive powers which he is seeking. Why didn’t they do that? They have had the experience in the past that the Government has taken vast powers but it has never on any occasion abused those powers. Had that happened they could have said: No, we cannot give you those powers because you have abused them in the past. Had the United Party done that they would have freed themselves from Communism and of Luthuli and of the traitorous English Press and of this unbelievable and hysterical campaign which is being conducted to besmirch South Africa. It should not have been difficult for them to do that, because that is how they feel in their heart of hearts. The attitude of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) testifies to that. He admitted yesterday that the Government should have vast powers to combat Communism and sabotage and that was why he told the Minister that he was not anxious to give those powers to the Minister because they were very vast. He then made this suggestion: Do not ask for these powers, but if ever you should have difficulty with communists or with saboteurs, take action against them, even if it is illegal and ask for indemnity the following year. He made it very clear that he would grant such idemnity. That is, also, of course, how General Smuts acted, but does he not realize that if the Minister acted in the way he suggested, the Minister would really be a dictator? Why did he say that to the Minister? He said that because he realized in the first place that those powers were necessary and in the second place because he believed that the Minister would not abuse those powers. If he believes that, what on earth made the United Party decide to oppose the principle of this Bill? What have they done now? By adopting that attitude the United Party have inextricably bound themselves to the English Press, to Centlivres, to Luthuli and to the Congress of Democrats.

And to the communists.

I want to make an admission and hon. members can abuse it if they so wish. It grieves me to the core to have to condemn a man like the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), or a man like the hon. member for Green Point (Major van der Byl), or a man like the hon. member for South Coast and the Leader of the Opposition, in the same breath as and of the same things of which I condemn the English Press and Luthuli and Patrick Duncan. I say that grieves me to the core because I know those are not their real sentiments. Politics are cruel, however, and they have landed themselves in that position and they have coupled themselves, by their actions, to those people, to the enemies of South Africa and the calumniators of South Africa. They will have to foot the bill unless they are prepared to change drastically and there is only one way in which they can change drastically. The Leader of the Opposition is the person who has landed them in this position and I do not say that he has done so because he wanted to do so but because of weakness, because he was not prepared to take the lead, because he allowed himself to be taken in tow by the English Press and the Leftists in South Africa. He will have to foot the bill for that. I want to say this to him: That was what broke Strauss and I trust the Leader of the Opposition will not be similarly humiliated. He will not extricate the United Party from the position in which they are tied to the Leftists unless he resigns as leader of that party. I want to make an appeal to the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) and the hon. member for South Coast. We know they do not belong to those Leftists. I want to make an appeal to them: Untie your party from those people and if you cannot untie your party from those people and if you cannot untie your party from those people untie yourselves from them. I am fully convinced that South Africa is in far too great a need of men like the hon. members for South Coast and Yeoville and even Point to stand by and to see them smother and to become politically emasculated in the company of traitors to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I would be failing in my duty if I did not say a few words about the role which certain English-speaking ecclesiastics have played in this agitation and campaign of besmirching the good name of South Africa. I do not find it easy to talk about ecclesiastics and to criticize them. I have in the past invoked the rancour of the United Party because I continually opposed Senator Conroy when he attacked the ecclesiastics and the church. It is not easy for me, therefore, to do so. But this Day of Prayer which has been called in connection with this Bill is making a mockery of the Church and of Religion.

It is hypocrisy.

I blame a few leaders of that Church for it. I know the majority of the leaders and the members of that Church do not agree with that but they have apparently been caught in a web from which they cannot extricate themselves, because they know that nothing will happen to any Anglican or Presbyterian or Jew or whoever it may be, if he does not serve the objects of Communism.

I think the time has arrived that the country be told who this so-called ex-Chief Justice Centlivres is. That man occupied a very high position, but he is scandalously abusing the fact that he was Chief Justice and when he speaks, he does not speak as an ex-Chief Justice of the Republic of South Africa. He has degenerated into a most irresponsible and cheap political agitator. I want to make this request to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) that whatever influence he may have with the hon. Senator Fagan, he should exercise that influence to prevent him in heaven’s name from going in the same direction. He will do himself no good and he will do South Africa no good.

I want to conclude by asking the Opposition whether they have ever really considered what a dangerous role they are playing? What is the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition? He says this Government should not make a law to eliminate sabotage and to bring to book people who are wittingly and unwittingly communists. The only thing the Government should do is to remove the causes for Communism. In other words, he is saying to the communists and to the saboteurs that there is indeed a reason why they act the way they do and why they are communists and saboteurs, and the reason is the misdeeds of this Government. It is the fault of the Government. It is the suppressive policy of the Government which encourages Communism and sabotage. They are creating a psychosis in the saboteur which makes him say to himself that he is not committing a crime; he is actually a patriot and a hero, because he is not committing an offence; all he is doing is to sacrifice himself on the altar in order to get rid of this cruel Hitler government. That was what the Leader of the Opposition said by implication. It amounts to this that sabotage is not a crime; it is merely an outflow of the policy of the Government. They are placing the communists and the saboteurs in a position where they can say: Let us commit sabotage, let us incite the people, let us build a mighty organization for ourselves, because every time the Government takes action against us we can depend on the official Opposition to object to such action and to fight our cause in Parliament. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition think that he is serving his country by doing that, or that he is serving his party by doing that? Does he not realize that it is costing him thousands of votes? Sir, I am as hard-boiled in politics as anybody else and I realize that there are many things which one can do in his position. You can say: Very well, let us stretch a point here and there, but surely he knows that it is not to the benefit of his party. Why does he allow his party to be instigated by these people who are open enemies of South Africa? He knows that there is more fertile ground for Communism on the Continent of Africa than in the Republic. The other people in Africa have more reason to revolt against their governments than the people here, but in spite of that he says to them: Become a communist and a saboteur because the Government is to blame. I want to say to the Minister that South Africa will praise him and this Government will safeguard South Africa against Communism, against the veiled Communism and against those who are wittingly or unwittingly communists, and against everyone who wishes to force a policy upon us in an un-parliamentary and unconstitutional way which must lead to the downfall of the White man. We will do that, preferably with the Opposition, but if they do not want it we will do it without them. I just want to say this to them. The choice lies with them. Let them continue to undermine and to besmirch the country in this way. We leave it to the people to sit in judgment over them and for their own sake I only wish that the anger of the people will not become too violent.

The hon. member who has just sat down has shown us one thing in his speech this afternoon and that is that if anybody has not read the Bill before the House, it is he, because the implications of his speech are that this Bill is simply to fight sabotage, to fight treason, to fight murder and nothing else. But if the hon. member would only study the clauses in this Bill, he would see that the real damage that this Bill is causing is not damage to saboteurs or damage to people who act treasonably against this country but damage to civil liberties in this country, damage to ordinary civil liberties enjoyed in every normal democratic country. But the hon. member has gone so far away from the concepts of normal democracy and normal democratic practices that it is impossible to argue with him on this score and I am not even going to try. According to him, any views, as long as they are reasonably close to the views which are held by the Government, are acceptable, and any views that differ to any degree from the views held by the Government are treasonable. To the hon. member the hallmark as to whether views are acceptable or not is whether they will win votes. I want to tell the hon. member that the hallmark of democracy is the ability to be able freely to express unpopular views. That, to my mind, is the hallmark of democracy. Sir there are other countries in the world which are suffering in this cold war against Communism, but I ask the hon. member to point to any single country, other than countries which clearly are communistic themselves, or countries like Spain and Portugal, which have laws which in any way approximate to the law which is being passed in this House to-day. There are no such laws. [Interjection.]

Order! I want to make an appeal to hon. members to give the hon. member an opportunity to deliver her speech. She cannot reply to the interjections of all hon. members.

The hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) last night read out something like 27 regulations which are in force in America, but none of those deals with the so-called offences with which this Bill deals and none of them defines sabotage in as wide a manner as this Bill does.

Sir, not only has the hon. member for Vereeniging completely lost all idea of democratic values but it seems to me that the whole of South Africa has suffered a constant erosion of democratic values. I want to illustrate this point by showing that in 1947 this country was able, through its law advisers and through its Department of External Affairs, to publish in the United Nations Handbook of that year an assessment of human rights in South Africa, and it was able, even in 1947 when there were certain laws on the Statute Book like the Native Administration Act and a certain number of discriminatory laws, to show that South Africa in general operated under the rule of law; that the normal concepts of freedom, as understood by all democratic countries, were in fact jealously guarded in this country, and it was able to insert in that Handbook a statement to the effect that not only were these normal freedoms considered fundamental but they were jealously guarded by the courts, “whose first and most sacred duty is to administer justice to those who seek it and not to preserve the peace of the country”. That, Sir, was in 1947. But what is more important is that in 1955, when this Government had already been in power for several years, the Government was still attempting at that stage to present a democratic front to the rest of the world; and if one looks at the official summary of that well-worn document, the Tomlinson Commission Report, one sees in one of the opening paragraphs, I think paragraph 27, a summary also of the fundamental freedoms that are enjoyed in South Africa. Amongst other things, the report told us that all individuals of all population groups are equal in the eyes of the law and receive equal protection from the law and that this implies that nobody can be illegally deprived of his liberty or held in slavery or be exposed to arbitrary arrest, detention or banishment. That was in 1955. The report went on further to tell us that the Bantu, like any other population group, were able to associate together and with other racial groups quite freely and what was quoted as an example of this freedom was the African National Congress and the Liberal Party, which the hon. member for Vereeniging has been so busy accusing of treasonable activities. In the general sense this Report said—

I do not want to comment on the obvious inaccuracy of that statement; even then it was inaccurate, but I suggest that after this week, when this Bill has been translated into law, an errata sheet be issued for the Tomlinson Commission Report. The point I want to make is that only seven years ago the Government was still trying to present a democratic façade to the rest of the world, and that is no longer the case to-day. The Government has become completely defiant in its authoritarianism, and the people of this country unfortunately have become punch-drunk as one invasion after another of civil liberties takes place. Sir, the Leader of the Opposition said when he moved his motion that his party had a good record in assisting the Government in certain measures. Sir, I do not think that the Opposition Party should be proud of that particular part of its record. It supported Acts like the Public Safety Act and the Whipping Bill, and the Banning Bill only two years ago. Sir, those were softening-up processes to get the electorate to accept the sort of thing that the Government have come forward with to-day. Those measures paved the way for this Bill and made it easier for the electorate of South Africa to accept measures which I say would not be tolerated by any truly democratic country anywhere else in the world.

They are trying to make up for it now.

I am very glad indeed that the Opposition is fighting this Bill. Sir, our political values have changed completely. Our whole tolerance threshold has been raised; we can stomach more and more in this country. It is not unusual these days to hear people referring to the late Dr. Malan as a Liberal and to the late Mr. Strydom as a moderate, and I dare say it won’t be very much longer before the present Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, will be referred to as a democrat in South Africa. I want to illustrate my point a little further. I want to compare the defiant attitude of this Minister of Justice when he introduced this Bill to the attitude of another Nationalist Minister of Justice when he introduced another very far-reaching measure into this House in 1953, the Public Safety Bill. At that time the Minister said that it was his fervent hope and that of the Government that it would never be necessary to apply the measure, that we would be able to maintain such a state of peace and good order in South Africa that it would never be necessary for any Minister or any Government to apply that measure. “I stress,” he said, “that is our desire.” Compare these words with the present Minister of Justice when he introduced this Bill. He was positively frothing at the mouth with eagerness to get on with the task; he could not wait to confine people, to ban publications, to ban people, to deal with people. He could not wait to get on with the job.

Not with people, with communists.

Yes, to deal with people because this Bill deals with far more than communists.

That is not so.

I will show the hon. member, who should know a little better, since he is supposed to be such a great legal pundit, that the various clauses in this Bill go very much further than dealing with communists. Sir, there was nothing shy or reticent about this Minister when he introduced this measure and in taking unto himself the vast powers, and nothing apologetic either—nothing like the Minister of Justice in 1953. In fact, I think he told the House at least six times that he did not wish to apologize for anything that he was doing. “Kragdadig” is far too weak a word ever to use about this Minister! He did not even bother really to give us any cogent reasons for introducing this measure; he brushed aside the main provisions; he said that this Bill was simply designed to deal with saboteurs. He left the rest to his Press, and the Nationalist Press, of course, did attempt to give further reasons, and the Vaderland, which I think was largely quoted by the hon. member for Edenvale, mentioned things such as the police having information about nationwide sabotage plots; that trained saboteurs were infiltrating into South Africa and that outside the country there were ill-intentioned people who were in communication with these people in South Africa. Well, as has been pointed out before in this House, and as was pointed out last night, our present criminal law deals perfectly adequately with any offences that could be committed by any of those people. We have a Treason Act; we have laws against sedition, we have laws against sabotage of all types, we have laws against public violence, and most important of all, we have ordinary criminal laws that cover malicious injury to property. These measures are on the Statute Book or they are common law and accepted criminal law. We also have an Explosives Act; we have an Arms and Ammunition Act; there are increased penalties laid down under the Criminal Law Amendment Act which allows all sorts of additional penalties to be imposed upon people who even protest against any law. Where is the need for this law? I will tell this House where the need is for this Bill. This Bill is being introduced for one reason and one reason only, and that is to intimidate the opponents of the Government. It is not a Sabotage Bill at all; that name is a misnomer. The name of this ugly little brain-child of the hon. the Minister of Justice should be the Intimidation Bill because that is its objective. The idea is to frighten the life out of anybody who disagrees with the Government on colour issues particularly. That is its aim and objective. The Minister assures us that he does not intend to use the wide powers which are conferred in this Bill; he says that he does not have to use them; that he does not desire to curb freedom of speech and it is not his intention to curb civil liberties. Sir, these assurances are no good to us at all as long as these powers are on the Statute Book. As long as the Minister has these powers and may use them, the assurances that he gives us that he does not intend to use them are of no use at all except to the hon. the Minister because he knows that they act as an intimidating factor to the Government’s political opponents. That is why the Government is introducing this Bill. It is a Bill which has an ominously similar effect, and even wording, to a decree which was issued in the Hitler days in Germany entitled The Protection of the People and the State, and which was described at the time by Hitler as a defensive measure against communist acts of violence endangering the state. [Interjection.] It may be old, Sir. but the hon. the Minister has not changed. He is exactly the same person that he was when he was supporting this type of régime. He is unrepentant; he has told us that time and again; he has not changed, and that is why I am entitled to use this argument against him. This decree which suspended the seven sections of the German Constitution which guaranteed individual and civil liberties and introduced, inter alia, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including the freedom of the Press, on the rights of assembly and association, and imposed the death sentence for a number of serious disturbances of the peace by armed persons—has a very ominous similarity. I want to mention that it was only a step thereafter to the passing of the famous Enabling Act of the Hitler régime, which gave Hitler absolute powers and conferred executive powers on him, instead of leaving them in the hands of the Reichstag. Sir, what was the title of this enabling Act? It had an interesting official title. It was called the Law for Removing the Distress of People and Reich. I have often wondered where the Government gets its remarkable facility for coining titles for the Bills that it introduces, such as the Abolition of Passes, which was, of course, an extension of the pass system, the Extension of University Education, which was a limiting factor on education and so on. I see now that this is also taken from the good old days of the German Reich. I am surprised that there was not a new title for this Bill. It should have been entitled the Bill to Promote Good Fellowship, or something of that nature. But exactly as the Minister of Justice has said to us, so did Hitler assure his people that the Government would make use of its powers only in so far as they were essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures, and we all know how good those assurances were. Sir, if this comparison is considered a little far-fetched, let us look at some of the provisions of the Bill. To me the worst clause of all is not the sabotage clause so much, although that is bad enough. The worst clause is Clause 8, and that is the clause which, of course, limits civil liberties and which the hon. the Minister has benignly described as his house-arrest clause under which, instead of detaining people in any place, he is simply going to say to such a person, “Remain at home with your family; go about your livelihood in the normal way instead of being detained”—a very benign clause indeed. It is quite true, Sir, that the hon. the Minister does have these powers under this clause, although why he should think that it is a benign clause I would not know because there is no trial, there is no time limit and it is a confining order. But nevertheless he does have these powers and he has very much more power than that. If the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) would read this Bill, he would see that Clause 8 also gives the hon. the Minister unlimited powers to restrain a person without trial or appeal, ranging from the mere confinement to an area, through this house-arrest clause, to outright imprisonment, whether in the gaol or in some place to confinement like a concentration camp. This clause gives the Minister absolute powers, the same sort of powers that were given to the absolute monarchs of France before the Revolution Clause 8 is what I would call the hon. the Minister’s lettres de cachet, which were used by the monarchs of Franch whereby a subject could be sentenced without trial, without an opportunity of defence, to imprisonment in a state prison or an ordinary gaol, could be confined in a convent or hospital, could be transported to the colonies—we do not have any—but relegation at any rate to a given place within the realm. That is the only difference that I can find between the lettres de cachet and Clause 8. These lettres de cachet served the absolute monarchs of France as a silent weapon against political adversaries or dangerous writers just as I maintain this Bill is going to serve this hon. Minister. There are other clauses, such as Clauses 1, 3 and 7 which give the hon. the Minister absolute power to ban any gathering whatever, whether they be for a common purpose or not or to restrain any person from attending any gathering, social or otherwise. I must say that I would like the hon. the Minister to explain something which he said in a Press interview, when he said that he did not intend to go ahead with legislation to give him the right to ban multi-racial meetings. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister was misquoted or not; I cannot see what he needs that legislation for because he has it there anyway, so whether he proceeds with legislation or not, he is taking the power to ban multi-racial meetings or meetings of any sort at any time and at any place. I suppose the hon. member over there will say that that is only aimed against communists too and that this is no infringement of normal civil rights in a democratic country.

Just read line 15 there.

Again I repeat that it is no help to us for the Minister to tell us that he does not intend to exercise these powers to the fullest extent. I want to know from the hon. the Minister where are the limiting words in this measure? That is what we want. We do not want the hon. the Minister to take blanket powers and then to assure us that he does not wish to exercise those powers. We want limiting words, we want restrictions in this Bill; we cannot accept the assurances of the hon. the Minister.

What you want me to do is to exclude the communists.

I want the hon. the Minister not to come along with a Bill that covers all sorts of activities on the part of anybody who might be one of the Minister’s political opponents and then assure us that he is only going to use these powers against communists. That is what I want from the hon. the Minister.

People have asked us where the Government have abused their powers. They say that the Government had wide powers before and where have they abused them? I will give the hon. the Minister two examples; When he banned the Coloured Convention last year. Was that a communist organization; could he prove it? He certainly could not. I will give him another very unpopular example, and that is when he banned Patrick Duncan who is not a communist, under the Anti-Communist Act.

That is what you think.

That is what I think and that is what the whole world thinks. Everything that Patrick Duncan has ever said or written shows that he is one of the strongest anti-communists in this country; certainly he is also strongly anti-Government, and his views do not coincide with the views of the Government; they do not even happen to coincide with my own. But that is no reason to ban him as a communist. If the Government wants examples of an abuse of powers under that Act, there is an example. Then, Sir, there is Clause 5 with its restrictions on the freedom of the Press. I wonder if the Minister is even going to need a Censorship Bill after this—this, together with the Code published by the Press Union together with various other restrictions. In these circumstances it seems to me that it is hardly necessary even to have a Censorship Bill.

Finally I want to say a few words about the sabotage clause itself. The obvious objection, of course, is that the offence of sabotage is defined in such a wide manner that it covers all manner of petty offences. The other objection, of course, which has been mentioned before is this question of onus of proof. The onus of proof is not placed only on the accused but even on an accessory. Then, of course, the question of minimum punishment is also one of the objectionable features of this Bill. I want to point out that not only is the placing of the onus of proof on the accused abhorrent, but the actual onus of proving non-intention, that is, by proving all these cumulative elements in sub-section (2) is an impossible one. The hon. the Minister has mentioned this as a concession. It is no concession at all. He has placed an impossible onus on the accused in that he has to prove every single one of the elements of sub-section (2).

The hon. the Minister of Transport and other hon. members on that side have said, “Give us a better definition of sabotage I would say that the definition of “sabotage” given under the war regulations was certainly better than this one. The hon. member for Vereeniging was quite wrong when he said that the war regulations went much further than this Bill. They did no such thing, and in any case, of course, there is no comparison between measures introduced in war-time and measures introduced when everything is peaceful and quiet, as the hon. the Minister has mentioned. But in any case the war measures did not go nearly as far as this measure goes.

No, it only made the death sentence compulsory.

If actual sabotage was in fact committed together with violence and explosives and everything else that went with it—not the sort of thing that this Bill mentions such as going against the established order of the Government, trying to bring about an economic change or a social change. None of those things were defined as sabotage. The definition of sabotage was very limited. I have the definition here; it was much more limited.

Read it out.

The hon. the Minister also wants to hear it, he should know it but I will read it out to him. The Minister had to decide whether a person accused of committing a special crime should be indicted before a special High Court, and it then defined “special crime” as murder, assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, man-stealing, malicious injury to property, possession of explosives in contravention of the law, public violence, house-breaking, etc., and provision was only made for the compulsory death sentence in the case of murder or an attempt to commit murder or assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm or malicious injury to property and where the accused committed a crime by means of explosives; contravening sections of the Railways Act and where the accused intended to kill or seriously injure any person travelling on a railway train; murder or attempted murder other than by means of explosives and the accused committed the crime with the intention of hampering the Government in the prosecution of the war. The definition was far less extensive than the definition of sabotage in this Bill.

There are still two further paragraphs.

The Minister said only one thing in introducing this Bill with which I partially agree, and that is when he said that the reason why peace and quiet reigned in South Africa was because living standards had improved. Where I disagree with him, of course, is where he went on to say that this was purely because of the beneficial measures taken by this Government for the non-White people. Well, that statement must, of course, be disputed. The reason why living standards have improved is because the whole of South Africa has indeed had an industrial revolution over the last 20 years; people have moved from uneconomic activities in the rural areas into economic activities in the urban areas, despite everything the Government has done, and that is why living standards have improved. They have improved because economic factors are stronger than political factors. But, to take the Minister up on his own logic, he must surely realize that the way to ensure that there is peace and quiet in South Africa in future is to improve living standards—and there is plenty of room for improvement—and I go further: I think it is absolutely right to say that if the Government would take steps to remove those apartheid laws which are causing the greatest racial friction in this country and at the same time to set right the imbalance in social and economic conditions among the different racial groups in this country, then the danger of sabotage or certainly any pressing danger of sabotage, any danger of public violence, would diminish to practically a negligible point almost overnight. In 1960 when we opposed the banning of the A.N.C. and the P.A.C., when we opposed the Unlawful Organizations Bill, we said that as long as genuine grievances are ignored, so long will Communism flourish. If you remove grievances, Communism will be as masculated in South Africa as it is in countries like Great Britain. But that is not the way of this Government of course. Year after year it brings in more oppressive measures. That is its way, its unyielding granite-like front, its refusal to accept the fact that there are any genuine grievances. I would say that the Government has ploughed a very fertile field indeed for the very thing that it wishes to put down and that is Communism. Does this Government never learn any lesson from history? It has learned one thing, of course, and that is that if you cannot govern by consent you have to govern by coercion, but then it should learn another lesson from history and that is that government by coersion never lasts. The hon. the Minister must realize that if you ban non-violent organizations, violent organizations will take their place and that if you ban people they will go underground and become more dangerous to deal with, not less dangerous to deal with. But so the Government goes on banning people and publications and bringing in one repressive measure after the other until we have finally come to a stage in this country where the hon. the Minister feels that it is necessary, although he has given us no cogent reason for it, to introduce powers which virtually enable him to keep this country in a state of permanent emergency without a formal declaration thereof. This, of course, is in keeping with its own political philosophy. He said that it was an old story and he was annoyed that I mentioned it. But the Minister once told us—perhaps he has forgotten it—that he was utterly unrepentant about any of his past, and until very recently he said the same thing. I say that he is not only unrepentant, he is vengeful. He called the Progressive Party dangerous when he introduced this Bill.

Quite right.

Let me tell that hon. member and let me tell the Minister that the feelings are mutual. I believe that the hon. the Minister is a very dangerous man to be in a position of authority, because of his political philosophy, and I believe he is a particularly dangerous person to be in charge of the portfolio of Justice. He has not changed since he was a leading member of an organization whose pronounced aim was “to found a one-party authoritarian and disciplined state where people would not be allowed to say, write or do as they please to the detriment of the people and the Government”.

What about the hon. member on your right (Dr. Moolman)?

The hon. the Minister has not changed but that hon. member has changed. When the hon. the Minister called the Progressives dangerous, what did he mean by this? He did not mean that we were communists or potential saboteurs because he knows that we are not. He thinks we are dangerous for one reason only and that is because we are for multi-racialism and we are against racial discrimination. That is why he thinks we are dangerous and why any thinking members on that side, who do not just follow blindly, also think that we are dangerous, because to them any relationship across the colour line that is not a master-servant relationship is a dangerous relationship as far as they are concerned and a threat to the holy cow of apartheid. That is why the hon. the Minister says that we are dangerous. But I want to tell him that we are not worried about his threats and we are not going to be deflected from our present course; we will continue to preach what we believe to be the correct doctrine for this country. As I have said earlier, if these opinions are unpopular, it is the hallmark of democracy to be able to preach unpopular opinions, and if we are unpopular I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we may be unpopular in Government circles but we are in very good company otherwise, not the company of communists and saboteurs but the company of all moderate thinking people in this country and in the whole of the civilized world. Petty dictators have come and gone right throughout history: they strut on the stage, they utter words in shrill voices and then they leave the stage, their role is over. So it will be in South Africa. The future of this country will not be determined by a small group of racially obsessed White men. It will not be determined by them, despite the almost incredible capacity for self-deception that the Government has. So I say that this Bill is the final step in creating a camouflaged dictatorship in this country. It enables this Government to assume all the powers to a dictatorship behind the façade of democracy. I want to tell the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) who is not here, that whether this is a police state or not is academic; the point is that the Government have taken all the powers that are necessary to create this country into a police state simply by implementing the provisions of this Bill. It removes all the normal rights that an individual should enjoy and then in the discretion of the Minister an individual is allowed to go on enjoying those rights, subject to the pleasure of the Minister if at any time a person should happen to displease the hon. the Minister. This is the underlying doctrine of a totalitarian or a police state, a state in which the Special Branch will be the prosecutor and the Minister will be the Judge and where the defence case will simply not be heard at all. Those are the hallmarks of a totalitarian country, and that is why I regard this Bill as the most sinister ever introduced into this House, and because I believe that very strongly, I wish to move as an amendment—

If there were any more stringent parliamentary procedure by which I could register the opposition of myself and my party to this Bill, I would use it. But I move the most stringent opposition I can, and I hope sincerely that there is somebody in this House who has a sufficient feeling for democracy to second this amendment.

There being no seconder, the amendment dropped.

I listened to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and undoubtedly she did not develop the viciousness of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). But I would say this to her: The hon. member will remember that, when there was the compulsory removal of the Western Areas, a Bill came before this House and then she also made this sort of speech, telling us that this was the end of democracy. Here we were compulsorily moving people who had vested rights. And she kept on and on with members of the United Party of those days, who surrounded her. Mr. Cope, said to the Government: Blood is going to flow in the gutters because of this compulsory removal. This was their language when we said to them that this was going to be a good thing, that this was a terrible slum and that it would be removed and that there would be a wonderful township in its stead. To-day the hon. member will take pride in that township. She went and inspected that township, she gave a Press interview and she said she was amazed at the wonderful houses …

What about the freehold right I commented upon?

The hon. member knows that the Opposition was absolute, they would not agree to the basis of compulsory removal. And look, after all this extravagant condemnation, you have a wonderful township. Visitors come from overseas and we take them through the Meadowlands township. I remember how the hon. member for Yeoville of those days (Dr. Gluckman) in a speech, although he had opposed the removal, in a speech subsequently said what a wonderful thing this removal was. So the hon. member for Houghton must appreciate that we are not always going to take her so seriously because she makes that sort of speech time and time again. I will grant her this that she had the courage in her attack on the Bill to move the only amendment that is possible when you attack a Bill, and that is the amendment which is a flat rejection. I give her full credit for that, and I want to refer to that in a moment. But I think the hon. member misjudges the position. If she thinks in terms of what has taken place in South Africa under the legislation which she criticized all the time, under the Public Safety Act—let her tell us to what extent the Government has abused the powers under those Acts, to what extent the Government has become a totalitarian Government, in how far the country is run by Nazism. Will the hon. member really tell me that she believes that that has taken place in South Africa? Of course not, I know she does not. But the language used is part of a vicious campaign that is conducted not only in this country but also overseas.

Mr. Speaker, listen to the language that one has heard about this Bill, listen to how this Minister is criticized. We listened to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) saying in his speech that the Minister of Justice waved his fists in the air and frothed at the mouth. What sort of language is that, what sort of atmosphere does that create in this country?

I don’t want to read many cuttings, but I just want to give an example of what is said in South Africa, goes overseas and is used by our enemies. This is taken from the Cape Times of 15 May. It says ‘Bill gives licence for murder”. It comes from London and says—

And so it goes all the way. And then what is so shocking to me is that I see that even a Church, and my Church goes and drags itself into a measure of this sort. It says in the Argus of the 21st of this month—

And then the Dean of Pretoria said “an un-Christian Bill was introduced”. And now we hear that there is to be a day of prayer. Why this exaggeration? Why this atmosphere of viciousness that is brought about in South Africa?

Because it is a vicious Bill.

I want to show hon. members how vicious this Bill is supposed to be. Listen to the hon. member for Germiston (District), who, to his great credit, at the time when this atmosphere was being created in the country, gave an interview. Of course he did not find everything wonderful, but at any rate he tackled the legislation in an objective way. Certain points he raised I do not agree with, and points in respect of which I feel the Government can give an answer. But, at any rate, the hon. member tried to put it in its right perspective.

And then I listened to the speeches of the hon. members for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) and Zululand (Mr. Cadman) and I wonder how those people can make such speeches when the hon. member for Germiston (District) has criticism, yes, but does not condemn it as a Nazi measure, as an un-Christian Bill, as stated by the Church. He picks out clauses and applies himself to those clauses.

But I mentioned to you, Mr. Speaker, earlier on that the hon. member for Houghton had the courage to move the amendment that she did, because if you read Kilpin you will find this, that there are various forms of amendment to the second reading of a Bill. The first of these forms of amendment “is the only recognized way of killing a Bill, and that is ‘that this Bill should be read this day six months ’ And then there is a second form of amendment which gives reasons why the Bill should not now be read a second time. Kilpin says “It is a convenient way of temporarily disposing of a Bill without exposing the mover of the amendment and those who vote for it to the criticism that they oppose the Bill without adequate reasons”.

Would the hon. member allow me to put a question? If that is so, Mr. Speaker, why has this side constantly been attacked in respect of various reasoned amendments and been told that it was utter and all-out opposition to a Bill?

Mr. Speaker, whilst I was listening to the speeches which have come from the Opposition, I was wondering why the United Party had not moved the amendment that was moved by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), because they know the parliamentary practice and that, according to their speeches, that is the amendment that the House should have before it, not a reasoned amendment which (as Kilpin says) is “a convenient way of temporarily disposing of a Bill without exposing the mover of the amendment and those who vote for it to the criticism that they oppose the Bill without adequate reasons”. It is the old game of the United Party. They know the parliamentary procedure. The hon. Leader of the Opposition right from the beginning said that “sabotage was a misnomer in respect of the Bill”. He accused the Leader of the House of introducing “sabotage” as a name for the Bill. Of course that was not so. It is the name given to it by the English Press months ago. It was not this side of the House that gave it that name, but the English Press gave it that name and they declared it to be a “sabotage Bill”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that it was not a sabotage Bill. He said “We are prepared to fight Communism, we are prepared to fight sabotage He wanted to make that clear, but when you bring in a measure which is intended to fight Communism, and which is intended to fight sabotage, then of course there is no flat rejection by the official Opposition, but they come with a reasoned amendment so that they in future can say: We did not really object to the sabotage and communist part of of the Bill; we did not want those things to flourish; we really were anxious that the Government should do those things, and therefore you must not say that we opposed it. But when they come to another platform, they want to be able to say: No, we voted against the principle of this Bill at the second reading. That is the truth. The hon. member for Houghton was not satisfied with the amendment of the United Party. She wanted a flat rejection. But the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Zululand want to be able to create the atmosphere that they also wanted a flat rejection, but their party came with a reasoned amendment.

Mr. Speaker, if this Bill is so bad, if it has all these terrible features (according to the statements of hon. members opposite), then I want to discuss it with them, I want to discuss it particularly with the hon. member for Germiston (District) and the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl), who may not agree, but who’s criticism I am quite prepared to accept. Let us first of all look at this question of the onus on the accused. I want to read what the hon. member for Germiston (District) said in his interview—

Further on he said—

Now that can only refer to the sabotage section of this Bill. Will the hon. member now admit that as far as the acts of sabotage are concerned—I am not going into the details of the definition of “sabotage”—does he admit that the onus is on the State to find the accused guilty?

I will deal with that fully in my speech.

I don’t want to say that the hon. member won’t deal with it, but the hon. member made this as a statement, and it was pointed out to him that in sub-section (1) of Clause 21 the onus is on the State.

Correct.

Does the hon. member therefore admit that his statement here that the onus is placed on the accused to prove his innocence in the face of the death penalty was incorrect?

Read Section 2.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member want sub-section (2) to be removed?

Why don’t you make your speech instead of cross-examining?

The hon. member wishes to retain his professional right to do all the cross-examination. I want to ask hon. members, and I am not trying to use any catch phrases about it: The hon. member will remember the Select Committee in 1950 on the Unlawful Organizations Bill. He will remember that Mr. Strauss, the then Leader of the Opposition, brought in a Bill which he called the “Suppression of Communism Bill”. And let me read a clause in that, Clause 2—

The amazing thing is that this was introduced by Mr. Strauss, the then Leader of the Opposition, and what is perhaps more amazing is that the present Leader of the Opposition, Sir de Villiers Graaff was also a member of the Select Committee producing that Bill.

Why did you not let the Government take over that Bill?

No, I was pointing out that the hon. member for Germiston (District) said that the United Party would always fight for the principle that the onus should not be on an accused person to prove his innocence. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself was on the Select Committee and was a party to this Bill which said that a man would be deemed to be guilty unless he proved his innocence.

Did not the late Mr. Colin Steyn say in introducing …

Sir, I come to another point, but I can promise hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I will come back to this Bill. I want to point out to hon. members, however, that this terrible measure, this vicious measure, this thing that places the onus on the accused, is mild in comparison with the Rhodesian Act which also places the onus on the accused. Now I have not heard that the Church had meetings when the Rhodesian Law and Order Maintenance Bill was introduced. I have not heard of the churches organizing a day of prayer. I did not see anything about it in the newspapers! Listen to Section 33—

Listen to that! Where is the hon. member for Wynberg now who spoke about this terrible crime placing the onus on the individual? And while I am on this Bill that was introduced by Mr. Strauss, the Leader of the Opposition of those days, and of which the present Leader of the Opposition was an able member, let me come for a moment to the question of the death penalty. Here for Communism, “for the preaching of doctrines which aim at the establishment of a despotic form of government, which aims at the bringing about by unlawful acts the dislocation within the Union of the established principles of government”—that was the definition they gave, and for that under “high treason” the courts could impose the death penalty. Why then now, where here in certain exceptional cases the death penalty can apply, why now create the atmosphere that this is a most terrible Bill? Moreover in other countries of the Western World there is the death penalty for saboteurs, and I have never heard them have a day of prayer because of such a provision in the law.

Then there is the terrible aspect in this measure, in the sabotage section, in regard to the preparatory examination. I want to give the hon. member for Germiston (District) credit for his stand in this regard. He said—

The hon. member is right, but other hon. members on the other side have criticized this as a terrible breach of our judicial system, this preparatory examination which is withheld as a right from an individual. Let them look at the second clause of this measure that was brought in by Mr. Strauss—

They wanted to do away with that, and the hon. member rightly said that he saw no great objection to this change here.

And let us next come to the minimum sentence. The hon. member there let himself go, and I am afraid he was very wrong there. He said—

It is now one year and five years—

Mr. Speaker, admittedly a minimum sentence is an unusual thing. It has already been laid down in certain Acts in South Africa, but let me refer hon. members again to Rhodesia. After all Rhodesia is a very democratic country, under the British Crown, a very democratic country, and I will read to you Section 48 of the Rhodesian Law and Order (Maintenance) Act of 1960—

1. (a) in a case where the setting fire to a motor vehicle is concerned, impose a sentence of not less than five years’ imprisonment;
2. (b) in a case where the setting fire to a building is concerned, impose a sentence of not less than five years’ imprisonment;

I can go on and quote: Malicious injury to property, a minimum of five years’ imprisonment; intimidation, minimum three years; boycotting, two years; explosives, ten years. I am quoting minimum sentences. And just listen to this, Section 40 (e)—

You may not throw a tomato. That is an article, and if you throw an article at anything else but a motor vehicle, such as an aircraft or a person, then there is a heavy penalty.

What is the minimum sentence in that case?

What I am telling the hon. member is that this attitude of hon. members, these vicious attacks are giving ammunition to the enemies of South Africa, whereas in Rhodesia when the same things are done, nothing is said about it. I could go on in this way. I could cite minimum sentences in many countries, but only South Africa is the blackguard in the world. Why? Why is this atmosphere being created? Why do we find this atmosphere in the world, what is the cause? The cause that it is created internally in South Africa. I want to say this to hon. members that they need not accept the clauses in every detail, but I cannot understand them opposing the principle of this Bill, the principle to hold down Communism where we are fighting a cold war, the principle to chase away saboteurs and to penalize sabotage which has already taken place in South Africa. I listened to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). I thought he had a case when he said that juveniles could be found guilty under this law. But I want to put this to the hon. member. He knows how the communists work. He knows that they first use women as the spearhead if they think women can get away with it. And then they use children to do sabotage. I had a talk with a man from Germany the other day and he told me that those were the facts; those were the things they used; they used children because they thought children would evade the penalties of the sabotage legislation.

So we have to supply the children!

The children will get a minimum of five years under this measure and a maximum of the death penalty. But the judgment is in the hands of the Judge, not in the hands of the Minister of Justice. Not in the hands of the hon. member for South Coast or in the hands of the Minister of Justice, that will be in the hands of the Judge.

May I ask a question? Have you read Clause 21 which says that a Judge may not take the age of the person into account? He must punish him as though he was an adult.

I gave the hon. member credit for having raised the point about juveniles. If a juvenile committed a crime which was punishable by death under this measure, he would be sentenced to death by a Judge.

Exactly.

Does that justify him voting against the second reading of this Bill?

Absolutely.

There are certain procedures in this House, Sir, in regard to a Bill. The hon. member knows that is not a principle of the Bill. He can try to amend that in the Committee Stage if he wants to. It is no use their shouting to the tree-tops that children can be hanged under this measure. I am admitting what is in this Bill. If sentenced to death, the ordinary processes of the law in regard to the death penalty apply. The Judge has the right to commend that this person should not be sentenced to death. He can send it to the Executive Council through the Minister of Justice. He is not hanged necessarily. [Interjections.] I know hon. members are perturbed about this exaggeration, and I do not blame them.

Let us take the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. If you take the basis of his amendment and you tie it up with the atmosphere which is prevailing in this House, I say it is a shocking thing that this atmosphere prevails. I am not saying it has been created by the Leader of the Opposition. I will say this for him, Sir, that he has never made what I will call an abusive speech in this House. He may be completely wrong in my opinion, but he is not an abusive person. Circumstances are such to-day that he knows that the security of South Africa depends on drastic measures. He also knows that sabotage is raising its head. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) asked why they should oppose measures against sabotage, because they would also suffer if sabotage spread throughout the country. But, Sir, he knows the responsibility for maintaining law and order is on the Government, and it needs a strong Government to take strong action. He will sit under the umbrella of that protection when this Bill goes through. The steps which will be taken will be to prevent his farm being set alight. He will enjoy that protection, but he will criticize it the way he has done in this House.

I say South Africa, whether you like it or not—and I know the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) agrees with me, because I have seen some of his letters to the Press—is a bastion here in the south. It is the biggest industrial unit in Africa. It is the one place the communists are trying to break into. Whatever else they do, they want to break into South Africa. If you close one door they find another one. This newspaper New Era flagrantly sets out on its front page all the different names it has had. It has had six or seven names. When steps are taken to discontinue a communist newspaper like that, we are accused of attacking the freedom of the Press. Have you ever heard such nonsense, Sir? I say this that, unless we in South Africa can come together and find a better basis on which to handle matters like this than the present basis, we will not succeed in stamping out Communism. I am not saying a man is a communist when he attacks this Bill, but I say the rest of the world condemns us. And in that process of condemnation it is not only you or I who will suffer, but all of us. What we are trying to uphold in this country is Western democracy. We are trying to uphold civilization, and we are attacked from all sides. We expect to be attacked by people who are communists, but it is shocking when we are so viciously attacked by people whom I say are not communists, people whom I regard as South Africans and people who should be the friends of the Government when it tries to maintain law and order. The hon. member for Green Point will know the troubles which Gen. Smuts had in his days. He declared martial law.

Gen. Smuts did not make the country stink in the nostrils of the whole world.

I am saying to the hon. member that he knows that Gen. Smuts had to take drastic steps to maintain law and order. And he had the courage to take them. He and his Government may have fallen because of that, but he took them to maintain law and order, because law and order is the basis of Western democracy. I say to my hon. friends opposite, whether they like me as a friend, or not, that the time has come when we must put an end to this sort of atmosphere, when we must stop creating the viciousness which is taking place now. A measure such as this has gone through the Rhodesian Parliament without nay difficulty. I ask why should there be such an outcry against South Africa?

May I ask a question? Is there any mention in the Rhodesian legislation of the crime of sabotage?

The hon. member is a very clever lawyer, but can I give the hon. member some advice? He was not here when I was first speaking. I think the hon. member will do himself a lot of good if he apologized to the hon. the Minister for having stated that “he raised his fist in the air and frothed at the mouth”. I think he should do that first. Hon. members quoted detailed extracts from the Bill. They will find all sorts of legal quibbles to try to break down the sound arguments advanced by this side of the House. They are quibbling all over the place; I am not interested. They can quibble in the Committee Stage. But I know this: that if we on this side of the House have to face up to it alone, we will face up to it alone, but there must be many members on that side of the House who will be feeling very ashamed of themselves.

It is unusual for a Minister piloting a Bill to call in the aid of one of his ministerial colleagues. I think that the hon. the Minister of Justice will doubtless regret the choice of an assistant in this case. We have listened to the Minister of Information, the man whose word is expected to present to the world a true picture of South Africa, the man responsible for the reputation of this country and for the standing of South Africa in the eyes of the world, the man whose propaganda is expected to be believed outside South Africa. I want to say, Sir, at once that the hon. the Minister of Information has made a false statement to this House this afternoon. I have here the Rhodesian Bill which he quoted as justification for the measure before the House at the moment. The hon. the Minister quoted from Section 42 of that measure.

Section 40.

He started with Section 40, then he quoted 41 and he quoted 42.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I never quoted Section 42.

It is strange that he used the words in Section 42. But let us take it their way, Sir. The hon. the Minister quoted Section 40 and quoted a minimum sentence of not less than five years and not more than 20 years! I say the Minister deliberately stopped at that point because he knew that the next sentence states “Provided that if the court is of the opinion that there are special circumstances in the case which justify a lesser penalty, it shall endorse those special circumstances on the record of the case and may impose a lesser penalty”. The hon. the Minister said that the sentence for throwing a tomato at a motor-car was a minimum of five years and not more than 20 years. The next sentence lays down that the court may impose a lesser penalty. Is that the sort of information we are going to get from the Minister? Let me go on, Sir. He said that throwing a tomato was one of the offences for which …

He never mentioned a tomato.

It sounded very much like tomato. It may have been some other vegetable. The Act states clearly that “it must be an article or thing likely to cause damage or injury”. The hon. Minister omitted that. He omitted the fact that there could be a lesser sentence. He then quoted other offences. In regard to the next offence he said there was a minimum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years. I deny that: Mr. Speaker, it is not true. [Interjections.] The hon. Minister quoted specific minimum sentences and I challenge him to produce those minimum sentences. He either misread it, Mr. Speaker, or he cannot read, because it says quite clearly “… liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years”. That is Section 41. He specifically quoted Section 42 in regard to explosives and firearms. He now denies that he quoted Section 42. I challenge the Minister to check his Hansard and see whether he referred to the use of explosives.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation. The hon. member says I quoted Section 42 and I did not quote it. I did talk about firearms.

Mr. Speaker, Clause 42 deals with firearms and explosives. The Minister did not quote it but he referred to a minimum sentence. Again I deny it; I say that was a false claim; there is no minimum sentence in regard to the use of firearms. The sentence is imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years. And the hon. the Minister expects us to regard him as the show-front of South Africa, of the new democratic Nationalist Party Government. He says there was no uproar in Rhodesia when this Bill was passed and then he gives this House and through this House the people of South Africa, false information. But it did not stop there, Sir. He quoted the minority Bill submitted by the United Party and he said that the onus was on the accused to prove his innocence. The hon. Minister ought to know that it does not, that that Bill specifically defines the offence of Communism. In Section 1 (a) (b) and (c) the offence of Communism is defined in detail.

What has that to do with the onus.

My hon. friend, the member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), would not understand it if I explain it to him. I am dealing with the Minister of Information who claimed that there was an onus on the accused to prove his innocence. It reads perfectly clearly. “Any person, who, or organization which on or after the date of the commencement of this Act propagates the principle or promotes the spread of Communism shall be deemed to be guilty of High Treason.” It lays down exactly what he must do. what he must propagate. In other words the State must prove that he has committed an offence which is clearly laid down by definition in this draft Bill.

[Inaudible.]

He has his voice back.

Order! I appeal to the hon. member for Heilbron …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, all the remarks that are made in this corner of the House are not made by me.

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the squeaks which I hear coming from that corner sound familiar, and I often recognize the voice of the hon. member for Heilbron amongst them. To continue, Sir. The hon. the Minister of Information stood up here in defence of a Bill and he quoted facts which are not true. Then he expects that his Government has the right to object when it is attacked or when it is misunderstood. Obviously this Government will be misunderstood when the world and the people of South Africa and beyond our borders find that that is the way they are informed on facts by the Minister of Information, the person whose task it is to give accurate information, yet that is the sort of information he gives the House in this debate. He has not dealt with the Bill, he has objected to the protests against this Bill. Why? It was not the people who protested who introduced this Bill. It was the Government who introduced this Bill.

I want to say that this Government has at the moment powers which it is in fact using to deal with the offences which it now tries to cover in this measure. I have here the latest report of the Commissioner of the South African Police for 1960. In that he records 151,000 reported cases of offences against the State; 141,264 people were prosecuted and 93,819 were convicted. Then it goes on to define the specific cases: Public Safety Act and regulations: 1,392 prosecutions. Promoting racial hostility between Europeans and non-Europeans: seven, convictions six. Sedition: 25, convictions 21. Treason: one, convictions one. Suppression of Communism: 15, convictions three. In other words, all these offences are in respect of which the Government claims to require additional powers to deal with, are recorded in the records of the Department of Justice; these offences which the Minister says he cannot control. He not only can control them, he is controlling them at the moment. Here is the proof of the convictions which he has obtained. Twelve years ago when his predecessor introduced the original Suppression of Communism Act he stated that they were going to wipe out Communism. That was going to be the end of Communism. That was the Bill which was going to eliminate it. The Minister now comes to this House and admits that after 12 years they have failed to carry out what they intended to do. They have failed miserably, Sir, because if they had not failed they would not come back to this House looking for even greater powers.

You do not know what is going on.

The hon. member need not worry. He will not be locked up under this Bill for blowing up any synagogues. This is to deal with the enemies of the Government not to deal with its friends. We on this side of the House never have blown up synagogues or cut wires.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. After five years of the application of the original anti-communist legislation the Chief of Police stated that they were well on top. In dealing with the communists he said—

That was in 1957. That was said by Major-Gen. C. J. Rademeyer, Commissioner of Police. In 1957 the Minister’s own Commissioner of Police said they had no platform or audience and they were about to be stamped out. What has happened over the last five years? Not only has the Minister’s own legislation proved ineffective but the situation is so serious that the Minister must take what is nothing more nor less than totalitarian powers. And these powers are totalitarian; whatever the excuse may be, they are totalitarian powers.

The reason why I did not want to allow the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) to ask me a question was because of the shocking attitude which he adopted, namely that to attack this Bill was to support Communism. Yes, and he nods his head. Let me quote to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark and to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) what the same Commissioner of Police said five years ago. He said—

The years 1946 and 1947 were under United Party Government and those were the best years in the history of the suppression of Communism in South Africa. It was this side of the House as the Government of South Africa which succeeded in the suppression of Communism. And it is this Government which has failed.

What about the Springbok Legion?

I will tell the hon. the Chief Whip about the Springbok Legion. He must have a sixth sense, Mr. Speaker, because I have Hansard here, Vol. 55, col. 1406—I quote:

And this same Minister of Information was on his hindlegs in a few moments and he said—(col. 1463)

Then there was a further interjection and the hon. Minister continued—

May I interpret my quotation and ask the hon. the Minister of Information whether he has not addressed the crowds from the steps of the City Hall of Johannesburg? Does he deny it? The hon. the Minister of Information has addressed the people of Johannesburg from the City Hall steps. Does the hon. Minister deny it?

What is wrong with that?

I will tell the hon. the Minister what is wrong with that in a moment. Let us just look a little further at what he is proud to be. The hon. the Minister of Information was not only proud to be on the platform because he says—

This Minister has spoken from the platform of the Johannesburg City Hall, with a communist, and brags about it. He says he was proud of it. Now he asks me what is wrong with it! His present party members do not seem to think that there is nothing wrong with it. Let us see what this Minister’s predecessor thought about it. The Minister of Justice said in 1950 (Hansard, Vol. 73, col. 8920)—

That was the former Minister of Justice speaking about an organization to which the hon. The Minister of Information is so proud to belong! The organization which he supported with the communists.

Can I ask a question?

No. I have not finished yet. After the Minister of Justice had said that, the Minister of Information said (col. 9430)—

He then goes on to defend the Springbok Legion as being anti-communistic. This is how he concludes (col. 9432)—

He contended later (col. 9433)—

Now, Mr. Speaker, where do we stand? The Minister of Information is going to inform the world that there is no harm in this measure, that this is an innocent little administrative measure with no harm in it. But here, in his own words, is his reaction to what the Bill does, because this Bill inter alia will prevent him from speaking from the steps of the City Hall in Johannesburg. He will no longer be able to stand on those steps and wave his arms at the crowd and say that the lights of freedom are going out. He will no longer be able to stand arm-in-arm with the communists to defend civilization and democracy, because this Bill will prevent him, and there are others on that side of the House. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker), who is not here now, also did not agree with this measure, because when the original Act was passed he had this to say after a very bitter attack on the Minister of Economic Affairs:

That is the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, who will vote for this measure which contains the power which he claims would destroy every vestige of democratic rights in South Africa. Those are the views of a Government Minister and a front-bencher of the Government. Have they the right or the nerve to complain when the people of South Africa object to this measure before us?

Which people?

I and every member on this side of the House, and every thinking South African. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) feels secure at the moment because he is on the Government side, but he has changed his views so often before and he may do so again. He has been on this side and on that side and he may find himself put out of that party. Will he then feel so secure?

Absolutely.

Will he feel happy with a measure which can ban him without trial and without recourse to the courts, which can prevent him from holding a meeting? The hon. member is hiding behind the security of being a Government member.

Do you want to take a bet?

No, the last bet the hon. member took he has not paid.

Order! I think it is time the hon. member came back to the Bill.

Come back to the Bill and stop lying.

On a point of order …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it and say he must not be so untruthful.

I would remind the hon. member of a certain occasion involving 1,000 cigarettes. But I want to deal with a few provisions which no hon. member opposite has yet tried to justify. This Bill has been dubbed the “Sabotage Bill”, but I would sooner call it the “Children’s Hanging Bill”, because to my mind that is the most shocking provision in it, which takes away the protection granted to the children of South Africa who have been protected throughout our history by the law. This Bill removes those provisions, and this is what has not yet been dealt with. It enables any child who with a catapult or an air-gun should damage an insulator on an electric light pole … [Interjections.] It is not what those members thing the Bill is; it is what the Bill says. It is not what the Minister promises to do with the Bill, but what he is able to do. If members had not interjected I would have completed my sentence, which is that he could then have been charged with interfering with the distribution of electric power, and then he would have to prove all of ten things. A child of 14 or 16 would then have to prove that in striking that insulator on a power line he was not motivated by ten different motives—all ten, not one of them—and one of them is that he was not intending to cause any bodily injury or seriously to endanger the safety of any person. If he is shooting with a gun, he could quite easily endanger the bodily safety of a person, but he would have to prove that he had no intention of doing so. The hon. members squeal as soon as you point out what this Bill really does, and then they wonder at the objection to the Bill because they have created in their own minds a pretty vision of a benevolent Minister of Justice who is taking a gun but will only shoot at communists with it. He is taking a weapon and they are satisfied that he will only use it to deal with Communism. But when you create a weapon of this nature you have a weapon which can deal with anyone at whom it is aimed, and it is only the whim or the wish of the Minister which will determine who will become the victim of this measure.

Does the Minister prosecute?

The Minister can act in the place of the Attorney-General. [Interjections.] But there are other provisions.

Can the Minister tell the Judge what to do?

In Clause 8, if the name of any person appears on the list or the Minister is satisfied that any person furthers the objects of Communism, he can be placed under house arrest. The Minister in his introduction said that this measure was aimed at people who are on the banned list, but the Bill does not say that. It says quite clearly that if the Minister is satisfied that someone is furthering the objects of Communism, he can be put under house arrest. And if he listens to any of those hon. members who make such a noise at their public meetings, he would have more than enough grounds to exercise this power against them. [Interjections.] Sir, it is tragic to see the complete disregard and the contempt which hon. members opposite have for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people. It is a tragic sight to see human beings so dragged down by fear that they are prepared to surrender their birthright and their freedom at the whim and the wish of one individual Minister. [Laughter.] Those hon. members may laugh now, but I remember the days when it was this side of the House whose Government was being sabotaged and which had to deal with the blowing up of post offices and railway lines, and they laughed then and gave passively or indirectly their moral blessings to those actions against the Government, but now that the tables are reversed and they have to fight just a tiny percentage of the danger and the trouble which this side of the House faced then, they produce this measure to blow up the whole basis of the freedom of the individual.

You had better be careful. There is an O.B. General right behind you.

I would sooner have one repentent person on my side than 105 people who are blinded to the realities of what they are doing with this measure. If any one of those members now says; I realize my mistake, he would be welcomed provided he is genuine, and not like the hon. member for Vereeniging because he believes what I believe in regard to this Bill.

One can go on from clause to clause. In Clause 7 the Minister could prohibit the holding of a multi-racial Church service, because it gives him the power to prohibit the assembly of any such gathering. He has stated that it is his deliberate intention to prevent all multi-racial gatherings. Under this clause, without any semblance or suspicion of Communism, the Minister could ban a multi-racial Church service. Then the Minister of Information takes the Church amiss because they are concerned that this may interfere with their rights. The Minister says of course he will not do that, but he may be here to-day and gone to-morrow, or he may change his mind. It gives the Minister the power to ban any gathering including a Church service if he so wishes. Hon. members sit back calmly and jeer at the Opposition because they oppose a Bill which can interfere with the freedom of religion in this country. That clause states that the Minister may prohibit the assembly of any gathering. The Minister says no meeting may be held on the City Hall steps. That will prevent the Minister of Information from holding meetings there, and he can prevent meetings being held on the Parade. He can ban any gathering of any sort in South Africa if he wishes. He is using the courts to administer warnings to people in regard to political actions. [Interjection.] He is making it possible for any person innocently to repeat a statement made by a banned person, thereby committing a crime. Hansard would be half as thick if it were not for the quotations of Government members over the last few years from the mouths of banned persons. The hon. members for Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark spend half their speeches on what this person or that person said, banned persons. The Minister himself did it. Any person who innocently or otherwise repeats the words of a banned person will now be guilty of an offence. I myself on many platforms quoted Albert Luthuli as one of the dangers which must be faced when dealing with the Progressive Party. [Laughter.] When he supported the Progressive Party, as I believe he still does, I used his statements as an example of what would happen to South Africa under a Progressive Party Government. The Minister is now making it impossible for us to tell the people the danger of supporting certain policies. He is making it impossible for us to defend democracy and to attack Communism, because to attack Communism you must quote the words or the writings of communists. [Interjection.] No one will in future be able to quote the words of any banned person to prove to the audience how dangerous he is. [interjections.] The Minister makes it impossible in future for any speaker to point out the dangers of Communism because any person is prohibited from repeating what any banned person has said. In future, where the public was able to gauge a man by what he stood for, to-day the Government will make a martyr of that man because he can be banned or placed under house arrest and no one will know the words or the actions of that man which led to his arrest because it will be a crime for any newspaper to report the details of what he advocated. So people will be banned and placed under house arrest and the people of South Africa will be forbidden the knowledge of the reason for that action. Can the Minister deny it? If any newspaper should report a seditious speech, which is the foundation for the banning of a person, that paper will be committing an offence. So all that will be known by the people is that this person has been banned, but they will not know why. The Minister will create a web of fear and suspicion by this particular clause alone. I agree that incitement should not be reproduced freely and that there must be restrictions, but you cannot allow people to sweep up revolution against the State. It is obvious. We had to deal with it. We had to deal with the Minister himself on one occasion, and with other members and their supporters when we were in Government. The Government must ensure the security and safety of the State, but not with a measure like this which creates an unqualified and unlimited dictatorship because all that the Minister has to do is to have the suspicion that a man is a communist.

Would the hon. member be so kind as to quote just one instance of where the Suppression of Communism Act was abused in the last 12 years?

The hon. member must have been fast asleep when that question was asked by his own Minister, and the answer is quite simple. Who knows who has been dealt with under this Act? Who knows who is not lingering in some prison? One of the provisions of this Bill will make it public knowledge, but if the hon. member uses as an excuse for his powers the fact that they have not been abused before then he is using a very shallow argument, because you might as well say that a man has a loaded gun in his hand and because he has not pulled the trigger yet therefore it is quite safe. It is as good as charging a person for having the means of doing something and saying that he has not used those means or instrument and therefore the instrument itself is not dangerous. But this Bill makes the possession of firearms and explosives an offence. According to the hon. members’ argument, if a man has not yet used those things, there is no harm in it, and it shows how innocent he is. Here the Minister not only has some explosives, but he is adding to them. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, I am really ashamed to think that a South African could use the language which the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has used here to-day and that under these difficult circumstances and in the present world position he could rise here and say that he would like to rename this Bill the “Children’s Hanging Bill”. I shall come back to that presently when I discuss the United Party’s role as regards the outside world. I say that it is a deplorable attitude which the hon. member has adopted here to-day, knowing that the overseas newspapers are sitting like vultures waiting to use what the United Party say about the Government’s policy.

A nation can only be content when the Government of the day ensures that the following steps are taken: that the security, freedom, possessions and spiritual values of all law-abiding persons are preserved and protected. Every Government worth its salt must take this fact into account and it must be priority No. 1. For this reason I was so thankful when the hon. the Minister said in his speech that he regarded the security of the nation and the security of the law-abiding individual as priority No. 1. For this reason it is also true that a feeling of security, of safety and content is a prerequisite for sound and good government and management. Because the National Party Government is deeply under this impression, the hon. the Minister has introduced this Bill. This Bill therefore has a clear object, namely to protect and to develop the security of the nation, its freedom, its possessions and its spiritual values. But when one protects, one must also restrict those against whom one wishes to protect the nation; otherwise that protection is worthless. If someone else’s cattle are always eating one’s crops, it is pointless merely chasing those cattle away; because to-night they will once again creep through the wire. To stop such cattle so that they do not do greater damage, this stock which have started to creep through the wires, one must impound them and that is what the Minister wishes to do. He wishes to impound these communists and agitators who are always harming South Africa’s security and freedom. He does not merely want to chase them away, because they will come back again. He wants to get rid of them, and that is the object of this Bill.

I think it has now become necessary to direct attention to a few aspects which have become very clear during this debate. It is quite clear to anyone who has listened to the speeches of the Opposition that they are in very great difficulties. In the first place the Opposition knows that the people of South Africa have wanted this legislation for a very long time past. Wherever one goes in the country, one is asked: Why does the Government not take action to restrict to activities of these people? Yes, even United Party supporters ask this question, and there are hon. members opposite who are as bitterly opposed to the communists as we are. I am thinking for example of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). He is not an advocate of Communism. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) feels the same way.

All members here feel like that.

No, the hon. member must not get his party into further difficulties. I say they know the people want this, and many of them feel in their hearts just as we do and they feel the necessity for the adoption of this legislation. I say they are in difficulties. Knowing this, knowing that in their ranks are people who incline very much towards the party of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), they are in difficulties. We know it. We know that the hon. members for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) and Constantia (Mr. Waterson) thinks like this, and I am not so sure about the hon. members who recently entered the House, nor am I certain whether they too do not desire that the day should come when they will end the solitude of the hon. member for Houghton. That is the difficulty in which the United Party finds itself, and they also know that if they vote for this legislation, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) and his colleague in the Other Place will not join the United Party. They would like to support this legislation, but they dare not do so because then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and his colleague will not join them. Then the liberal element in their party will destroy the solitude of the hon. member for Houghton. To get out of this difficulty, they have chosen a deplorable and despicable course which will and has already caused South Africa great harm, particularly as a result of what the hon. member for Point has said to-day. The Opposition knows that this Bill has been introduced to combat agitators and the communists. The Minister has said that the law-abiding person will not even realize that this Bill is on the Statute Book, and that is so. It is being introduced to protect the law-abiding person and to restrict the communist, but the Opposition cannot admit this because they must find a loophole in order to get out of their difficulties. Now they are saying, and this is quite clear from the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, that this Bill is aimed at the freedom of the individual. They do not mention the communist; no, it is aimed at the freedom of the individual, freedom of speech, freedom of the Press and the political opposition. That is what they want the people to believe. Mr. Speaker, these statements go abroad and the people abroad do not have the provisions of the Bill before them so that they can form their own judgment. What is dished up to them are the irresponsible statements by the United Party. They are being made to believe that this is a Bill which will result in children being hanged. That is what they are going to read: “The Children’s Hanging Bill”. They do not have the Bill so that they can form their own judgment; no, they read abroad that this is a Bill which will restrict the individual, the innocent person, which will restrict the Press, which will restrict freedom of speech, which will restrict freedom of movement. This is what the outside world will read; they do not have the Bill, and the United Party surely knows that the overseas newspapers do not receive their reports from the National Party newspapers.

That is a good thing.

There the hon. member is confirming exactly what I am alleging. According to the hon. member it is a good thing that they get their reports from the English Press and the English correspondents. And what do they report? They report that this is a Bill which will result in children being hanged; this is the name which the United Party has given it and the hon. member says that this is a good thing. I have now put my finger on their weak spot, because the hon. member by that remark has admitted that the outside world gets its reports from the English Press; the English Press reports everything they say.

Must they report what appears in your newspapers?

One can really not blame the outside world for believing all these things which are said here because they are not there to judge. They only publish what the United Party says via the English Press.

I now first want to reply to two allegations which have been made here, namely that the National Party Government is responsible for South Africa’s bad name overseas; it is not what the United Party says and what is reported abroad, but it is this Government’s legislation which is responsible for South Africa’s bad name overseas. That is the one accusation. The other is that we are furthering Communism by such legislation. The hon. member for Durban (Point) has repeated that we have made no progress with our legislation aimed at combating Communism; when the United Party was in power it was the guarantee that Communism would be combated. Yes, in what way were they a guarantee? They blessed Communism. When the late Dr. Malan warned General Smuts that they would place the Russian colossus astride Europe and the world, they laughed.

They said he was seeing ghosts.

When they received the police report on Communism in South Africa they did not take action; it was this Government which acted; they did nothing, and now the hon. member for Durban (Point) wants to convince us that they were the guarantee against Communism. They were their allies.

They sat with their arms around the necks of the communists.

Let us see what the position is as regards combating Communism. The hon. member for Durban (Point) has said that the United Party when it was in power constituted the guarantee against communist expansion. In 1938 it was the National Party Opposition which introduced a motion in the House of Assembly asking that no immigrants should be allowed into South Africa if they were communists or advocated the communists’ policy. What was the United Party’s attitude at that time? They rejected that motion. Where was the guarantee at that time against Communism? In 1942 the National Opposition moved that a Select Committee should be appointed to investigate communist activities in South Africa. The United Party rejected it. In 1943 the National Party proposed that active steps should be taken to combat Communism; the United Party also rejected this motion. In 1950, when the Suppression of Communism Act was before the House, 71 Nationalists voted for the measure and 47 United Party members voted against it. When the principal Act was improved in 1951, the whole United Party voted against it, and on the discussion of the Report of a Select Committee on the suppression of Communism, the United Party front voted against the following finding of the Committee—

Referring to Kahn and Carneson—

When Sam Kahn said he was a communist and when Carneson said: “I shall never deviate from advocating this doctrine " it was the United Party which said: “You are not communists—not at all.” This is what the late Dr. Colin Steyn moved in the House of Assembly—

Where now is the United Party’s guarantee against Communism? The hon. member for Hillbrow said the following—

And he adopted the communist attitude—

Where now is the guarantee against Communism? And what is the communist attitude; how do they regard this attitude of the United Party? I want to say quite specifically—I think I can prove this as well—that the communists and agitators in South Africa see in the United Party as a result of its actions a party which is preparing the road to success in this country for them. I want to remind the Opposition of something else. The hon. member for Durban (Point) has quoted here what the hon. the Minister of Information has supposedly said in Johannesburg. These separate statements by individual persons do not mean anything to me; I ask myself: What is the policy of the party to which that person belongs; what is the basic policy of the party to which a person who made that remark belongs? I now want to refer to a person who to his death was a member of the United Party. He appeared on the steps of the Johannesburg City Hall together with Solly Sacks, a communist who was forbidden to hold meetings and he said—

Surely that is Sarel Tighy?

Yes. No, do not name individual persons to me. Rather ask me what the policy was of the party to which the hon. the Minister of Information belonged when he made that remark. The basic policy of the party was not to take action against Communism; they have proved that.

That is why he could never remain in such a party.

Then he was a member of the United Party.

Let us now see what the communists think of the United Party. In the Guardian, the following appeared: An appeal by Moses Kotane, Secretary-General of the South African Communist Party. It appeared on 20 May 1948—

Why? I have said that they regard the United Party as the party which is preparing the way for them; that is why the communists advised their supporters to vote for the United Party. Three weeks before the general election, the following appeared in the Guardian—

They welcomed this recommendation of the communists that their supporters should vote for the United Party; that is why the hon. member over there is saying “Hear, hear”. In other words, I must accept that the United Party welcomes the support of the communists. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) must never again take it amiss when I say, not that the United Party is an ally of the communists, but that the communists regard the United Party as their ally.

The United Party are the pioneers.

Here the communists said quite clearly: Vote United Party, and the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) says: “Hear, hear.” But seeing that that remark comes from a member who does not carry much weight, I do not want to infer that the United Party is an ally of the communists. I say that hon. members opposite must never again say here that under these circumstances we are furthering Communism by legislation such as this Bill now before the House.

I now come to the second allegation. The United Party accuses this side of the House of being the cause of the bad name which we have abroad. I just want to give a few examples. The United Party’s undermining and subversion of the spiritual values, the traditions, the liberties, the freedom of movement and freedom of speech of the majority of the population of this country started with the last war. During that war they did not merely inquire who wanted to commit sabotage; oh no, an army of traps and spies and snoopers was established. These were not trained people; we called them the “Khakiriders They simply took Tom, Dick and Harry from the streets in order to earn a few pounds and they had to go and listen and snoop and smell out.

The gang of skunks (muishondbende).

I have here a list of “waarheidsridders” (truth riders) and a list of honourable people who were spied upon, who were charged and who were interned in Vryheid and Paul Pietersburg alone.

I do not want to reveal their names; I do not want to sow dissession. But I have the list here and I obtained it from the United Party itself. Mr. Speaker, you should see who they appointed as “waarheidsridders”, people who had to go and snoop and listen and spy on honourable people, and you should see how they did it, how the United Party took note of what they said, and how they interned people without trial on the basis of those untruths. Now they come and criticize the hon. the Minister here when he wants to restrict troublemakers and communists who want to bring about the downfall of the whole nation; now suddenly it is the worst crime one can think of. But they went and recruited every Tom, Dick and Harry and paid them to spy and to snoop on honourable people. I say this is scandalous, and I can therefore understand the hon. the Leader of the Opposition saying that they have had a great deal of experience of sabotage and of restricting people.

Order! The hon. member must not wander too far from the Bill.

I should like to abide by your ruling, but they are accusing the Minister and this Government of simply wanting to imprison people, of wanting to place them under house arrest. I want to prove that when they were in power they did not introduce proper legislation into this House; they simply appointed anyone and said: Act as a spy, give us the information and we shall intern those people. Seeing that they did this, how can they reproach this Minister when he comes to this House in a proper way and wishes to avoid the danger and to ask this House’s approval for this measure being placed on the Statute Book? I say they are responsible for the fact that we have this bad name abroad; it is not due to the legislation of this Government, as they repeatedly allege. This agitation started just after the war broke out. I want to mention these things because I want to prove that they did not merely keep everything which they had collected in such a dishonest way here in South Africa and give it to the police; they did not only give it to the Prime Minister; they sent it abroad to the four corners of the world.

But the question is: Did you or did you not commit sabotage?

I reject that question with the contempt it deserves. Where has the hon. member seen the Nationalist Party committing sabotage? Where did he see the hon. members for Vryheid and Paul Pietersburg committing sabotage? At night people snooped at their windows to see whether they could not find something. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to allow myself to be distracted.

He was one of the “muishondbende”.

Order!

Just after the outbreak of war, they started with the leaders of the Afrikaner people, and this is what they said of General Hertzog, just because he voted against the war—and he had been their leader for many years—

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

I turn now to an overseas newspaper which reports exactly what is said here in South Africa, and I want to show that this paper obtains its information from here. That is what I want to prove.

Zeesen also said that it obtained its information from the Nationalist Party.

You know that is untrue.

I am now going to quote what has appeared in the Natal Mercury and I am then going to quote from this overseas newspaper to show that it used practically the identical words—

They then go on to say how the poor people are being oppressed and that they will ensure that the people of the Protectorates never fall under the dictatorship of this Government. I happened to be in the Scandinavian countries just after that and there was then a wave of rage and vilification against South Africa, first in London and then in the Scandinavian countries. Inter alia the following appeared in the Göteborgs-Tidningen—

One must read this leading article of the Mercury and one then finds that exactly the same spirit is reflected in this paper in its leading article. I objected, and after a long dispute with the Editor, the News Editor and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of that paper, I was eventually given permission to write three articles in it. But what did the paper say? Here we have the proof. In a footnote, after my last article the Editor (and I am now translating freely) said—

There you have proof. I gave them all the information—how we were trying to help the non-Whites to advance, what our aims were, and their reaction was simply: Yes, this is an interesting picture which you have set out, but we prefer to believe the telegrams which we receive from your fatherland.

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

The United Party and hon. members opposite have held up the so-called dangers of this legislation to the people, and they say inter alia that we are furthering Communism and giving South Africa a bad name abroad. They have said once again during this debate that we are the cause of South Africa’s bad name abroad. Mr. Speaker, let us now prick this bubble once and for all. They have always said that the steps which they took were “to prevent the hampering of the war effort”. I now want to prove that not only during the war years but thereafter, in time of peace they vilified South Africa in a scandalous fasion throughout the world by sending quarterly documents abroad. I say that we must prick this bubble once and for all. Hon. members opposite are always saying that it is the National Government which is besmirching South Africa’s name abroad. Mr. Speaker, I should like to have this on record.

Order! I hope that the hon. member will now come back to the Bill.

What I am now going to say relates to the communists and the attitude of the main parties towards Communism. I just want to sketch the background. When the United Party was in power, it did everything in its power to link the National Party Opposition in an alliance with Communism; they said so as well. They did everything in their power to do so, and do hon. members know what they used to do so to achieve this object? The Prime Minister appointed a person in the intelligence section of the army; he used the intelligence section of the army, on the orders of Mr. Louis Esselen, to collect these documents and to send them abroad. Inter alia it is stated in one of these documents that the communist candidates and our candidates had entered into an alliance for the coming election, and this they sent to the far corners of the world. I can read these documents to them. Now they come and say that we are furthering Communism by our legislation; that we are besmirching the name of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, one’s hair stands on end when one sees what the intelligence section of the army on the orders of General Smuts and Louis Esselen, sent abroad, because the officer says specifically that it was done on their instructions. They spied on the Afrikaans churches and everything which smelt of Afrikaans; they sent the most deplorable untruths abroad every three months. And then they want to know to-day why South Africa has such a bad name abroad. There are the people who are responsible for that bad name.

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

In that case I shall leave the matter for a later occasion. I just want to say hon. members must stop trying to bluff the people; they must stop making these irresponsible statements such as those made by the hon. member for Durban Point to-day, namely that he wishes to rename this Bill the “Children’s Hanging Bill”. What is he gaining by doing so? He knows after all that this is not the intention of the legislation. It can only do South Africa harm; and I want to say this to the hon. member for North East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst): His calling was to defend his fatherland; that was his vocation, his calling. I want to ask him not to throw overboard the spirit in which he was trained and that calling and to place South Africa into danger instead of defending it. He must not make a speech here and say that they are waiting for a shock from abroad to unseat this Government. What did he mean by that? We shall never hold it against them if they criticize this Government, but let them then criticize the Government on its merits. Do not make statements which are not true; do not say that this is a Bill in terms of which we shall hang children. It can do them no good and it can do South Africa no good and I just want to give them this warning: If we must go under—I do not think we shall—if we must go under in this world in which we live, in which everyone is suffering from a sickly post-war psychosis, then the hon. member will not be spared. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) will not be spared, nor will the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). They will not be asked to what party they belong. They will be asked: “What is the colour of your skin? And we need the hon. members. The hon. the Minister needs them to help him to combat Communism, the dangerous enemy of the Western world to-day, and the agitators who are doing so much harm in our country and who are causing so much bad blood. Help us to combat these things. If the Government makes mistakes, the Government will be the first to accept sound and constructive criticism from hon. members opposite.

In our country we have a Parliament in which there are no members who are communists, or semi-communists or even fellow-travellers of Communism. Our Parliament is unanimously opposed to the ideals of Communism. To tell the truth, if the Government Party is anti-communistic, then the Opposition Parties have even more cogent reasons for being so; for if Communism were ever to have any success in South Africa, now or in the future, it will be the big farmer and the industrialists and the men of commerce and the mining interests of our country that will be hardest hit; and it is a cold fact of politics (I mention it only as such and not in any other spirit) that the Opposition parties in Parliament are much more representative of the majority of these interests than the Party on the Government side. So nobody has such a substantial interest in effective resistance to the forces of Communism and the maintenance of good order in the country as the very persons I have mentioned and from whom the Opposition derives such a large part of its political strength. So, the principle of the fight against Communism, and together with that the maintenance of order in the country, is above all difference in our Parliament; and in dealing with the Bill now before us, a debate on the principle and on the desirability of a fight against Communism, in my view is completely irrelevant. What is relevant in this debate, is the question, in the first place whether anybody has reason to trust the Government with the unbridled powers it is asking here; in the second place, what the real motives of the Government are with this Bill; and thirdly, whether the totalitarian powers the Government wishes to take unto itself in this manner, can be reconciled in any degree with the democratic order which we should like to see preserved for ourselves and for our country. I should like to reply to the last question first, and I think it is time that we should have clarity on what the real reason is why we in this House are so unanimous in our disapproval of the system for which Communism stands. Are we not unanimously opposed to Communism because the true democrat is opposed to arbitrary government and to the malpractices that always flow from a concentration of unreasonable powers in the hand of the people who govern a country? Are we not really opposed to Communism because of its sickly enslavement to dogma and the manner in which they regiment every walk of life and make it subordinate to the requirements of their ideology? Is it not precisely as a result of their negation of the dignity of man and in general, their control of everything in the country by dictate from above, that we are against Communism? Are these not precisely the things in Communism that we despise and combat? But if that is so, where do we ourselves then stand in our country if we ourselves build up a structure that wants to put every branch of life in a strait-jacket of hard ideology, and to have everything controlled and dictated from above? And if we year after year go further along the road of arbitrary government, as now again? At every Session more and more authoritarian powers are placed in the hands of ordinary politicians. I must say quite honestly that I cannot see how the totalitarian powers the hon. the Minister is asking for here, can be reconciled with our fight against the excesses of Communism. The powers asked for here certainly cannot be reconciled in any respect with the basic principles of democracy. I do not think it can be refuted that during the past number of years we have moved further and further away from various things that are basic to the structure of a democratic state, and the question this Parliament ought to ask itself is how much further we should permit this process to go on. What for instance is left to-day of important principles such as the inviolability of a man’s home, and the privacy of a man’s social life. What is left of an important democratic principle such as a man’s protection against arbitrary arrest and detention, and of his right of appeal to the Courts at all times and in everything? I mention only a few principles that have already been demolished, and hon. members opposite might please tell me how many of the basic principles of democracy will still remain inviolate in our country after the Bill now before us? For some of the most important principles of democracy are affected more profoundly by this Bill than ever before: The ordinary right of association, the traditional freedom of publication, the protection a man ought to have that steps will not be taken against him merely on the suspicion of a politician; and protection against excessive penalties for minor offences. All these principles, and others that have been dealt with in this debate, the very principles that distinguish the Western civilization from the primitive, are being profoundly affected in this Bill. The fact is that it is becoming more and more difficult for ordinary people to determine in the eyes of the State what is right or wrong, because right or wrong depend in a host of spheres completely on the wish of the Minister. The will of the Minister is being substituted to a greater and greater extent for the ordinary Law. It is disturbing to think that after all the struggles mankind has gone through to get away from arbitrary government, and to achieve the summit of democratic freedom, we are now with open eyes retracing our steps to the point where the struggle originally began.

Ask the electorate.

Yes, 95 per cent of the electorate in Germany did not know what they were doing and gave Hitler all the powers, and to-day you will not find one German who will admit that Hitler was right. The electorate frequently are wrong. The majority is not always right. That is why no Opposition that is worthy of the name of an opposition, and which accepts democracy as a living principle can accept a Bill of this nature. It is true there are a few groups to the left of democracy that also oppose the Bill for their own reasons; but in the same way there are Fascist groups to the right of democracy that welcome and support the Bill for their own reasons. But that does not justify anybody placing all groups on the one side or on the other side in the same category. The important thing is that the democratic forces in our country have the very clearest duty to oppose this Bill for their own reasons and with all their might.

That brings me to what I regard as the real motives of the Government behind this Bill. I do not doubt for one moment that the Government is serious with action against people who are communists. I have already said that in that regard Parliament is unanimous in its views on the question of the fight against Communism. I should like to add to that in my view the freedom of democracy does not include freedom to destroy that freedom, and because the Communists openly notify us that they wish to destroy that freedom, and that they stand for domination, in their case the domination of the proletariat, I cannot appreciate what justification a communist has for claiming the privileges of democracy for himself, and so as a democrat I am in favour of a communist as a communist being dealt with severely and restricted. But for that purpose Parliament 14 years ago already gave the Government the most effective powers, and the Government has fared well with them—I pay them the compliment that they have fared well with it. They know it is so, and they are boasting about it on the political platform. They have closed the Russian Consulate and it has severed direct contact with the source of Communism. It has unseated all communists in our legislative bodies. It has listed every one of them. It has driven away all their leaders. All the clever and cunning leaders of the communist party in South Africa, Sam Kahn, Solly Sachs, as well as the most important Black leaders, have decamped. Their organizations have been banned. All their private and public activities have been drastically restricted; we have a clever and well informed and vigilant division of the Police Force that are on their tracks continually. There are even listed leaders of the communist party that in recent years have changed their views, and the hon. the Minister was the one who referred to that on the floor of the House when he said that he was now making arrangements to have the names of certain people removed from the list. In view of all I have mentioned here, in view of all these steps over a period of 14 years, the Minister comes along with the naive explanation that he now requires greater sole powers, and that he has to infringe our democratic order still more because these people have now got their second wind. With reference to this one should expect, I suppose, that whenever the Government comes along to seek absolute powers for itself on matters, the Minister will come and tell us about a third breath, which I suppose will be the most dangerous because he will be able to construe it as the stage of extreme desperation.

The hon. the Minister tried to relate this second breath to communist attempts in the rest of Africa. I am the last man to underestimate the slyness of Communism, but it is an acknowledged fact that Communism has not made any progress in Africa that is worth mentioning, particularly because it finds itself stopped nearly all over by the colossal power of Islam and the forces of nationalism. In more than one country in Africa, the communist party has been prohibited and banned, and in various other countries it hardly exists. In some areas, such as Guinea, after a semblance of success it in fact retrogressed, and the Africa Institute, which is subsidized by the Government to the extent of R26,000 annually to do research on Africa affairs, recently confirmed this finding in its reports.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister is a good debater and he is possibly one of the most successful speakers in this House, but I think he tried to bite off hopelessly too much when he came and told us that they are back virtually to where they began 14 years ago, and when he fired his very best big guns against the reborn communist party of South Africa and the fresh menace that it’s second breath has now created. Even if it were true, does the Minister suggest that he requires more powers to combat their second breath than the Government needed to knock out their first breath? We maintain that the Government has more than enough powers, that it has more than enough dangerous powers to combat communist activities in South Africa effectively. It has sufficient negative powers. Where the Government has a deficiency, is in respect of positive action, the removal of legitimate grievances, the unfairnesses in the administration of the country, which are playing into the hands of the agitators unnecessarily. That is the field that is indicated to which the Government should now devote its attention. No, Mr. Speaker, the Government does wish to fight Communism, and it has the power to do so, and nobody is against it retaining and exercising those powers. It has done so for 14 years. The real motive behind the Bill is that it wishes to go further, and because it wishes to go further, it requires further powers. It knows that a situation is developing against those aspects of its racial policy that is inequitable and causing friction and humiliating human dignity, and it knows that this state of affairs is developing among Western supporters in the country and among people whose whole conviction is in direct conflict with Communism. And in order to get at these people and to place the damper on them, it wants the far reaching powers it has come to ask us here. I repeat it has sufficient powers to combat Communism effectively. These powers are intended to go further.

Order! That point has already been made by every speaker who has participated in this debate. The hon. member should raise new points.

I believe it will go as far as it could dare to go at any point of time. But the Government cannot say these things openly, and that is why it has come with a recipe that is as old as politics itself. Everywhere in the world where governments wish to take absolute despotic powers, they apply the tactics of the horrible scapegoat. Russia did so with capitalism, Ghana did so with colonialism, Germany did so, during the time of Hitler, with Communism and they included everything that was Jewish. In the name of fight against these scapegoats, they take more and more totalitarian powers. It is a technique that more or less always succeeds in politics, because the public are disillusioned only some time later. And that is obviously the technique the Minister and the Government are applying in this case. The communists have got their second wind, and it gives him the political opening to take powers that he can apply much more widely and which I believe are indeed intended to be applied far more extensively. Of course the Minister will say that he will not abuse these powers. I do not expect him to say anything else. What Minister will ever indicate beforehand that he is going to adhere to the letter of the law, but is going to go beyond the spirit and the intention of the law? I want to say candidly that I personally do not believe for one moment that the Government is going to use the powers it is asking for here, for action against communists only. As the Bill stands, it is a powerful piece of intimidation against every individual and every institution that dares to oppose the policy of the Government in a political struggle. But surely we have also had experience of the application of such measures before. The Suppression of Communism Act has been used time and again as a means of getting at people who are embarrassing opponents of the Government, but who are not communists.

Mention an instance.

Let the Minister Table a list of listed communists, and next to that a list of people who are not communists but who have been subjected to restraint in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act, and let us see then. Let me mention the example of the Convention that certain Coloured Organizations wished to hold in the Cape a year or two ago. They published their agenda a long time before. They were as far away from Communism as any congress of the National Party. Their items on the agenda for the Convention did not differ from the normal controversial political problems that are usually discussed at the Congress of the National Party, yet they were prohibited and banned in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act.

The Riotous Assemblies Act.

No, the charge against them in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act was subsequently dismissed by the Court. The memory of the public is short. But in this way instances may be quoted to show that the Government has used and is using powers far more extensively than for the suppression of Communism. The method normally adopted in bannings and restraints, is that it is said that a man is furthering one of the objectives of Communism. But if we were to adopt that criterion, then nobody on that side of the House is innocent, for republicanism, anti-monarchism, is also one of the bases of Communism. Therefore, if a man may be prosecuted on one point that is regarded by a Minister as in accordance with one of the objects of Communism, where do you end up? The Government’s actions have already gone much further than action against Communism only, and after this Bill opponents who are not communists will be dealt with on a still wider scale. The indication of that is found nowhere better than in the spirit many speakers on the Government side here and on the platform outside are evincing. We know what they understand under Communism. The Minister himself in the course of his introductory speech a few times referred to this side of the House as sympathizers with the communists. While the Minister was speaking, there were members who called out that the worst communists are on the editorial staffs of the English newspapers. We know what the Government means when it refers to communists. There sits the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) who said that even people who fight apartheid ought to be subjected to restraint in the same way as the communists. So I say that the attitude of the Government, its conception of what is Communism, its administration of laws according to the powers it already possesses, does not instil the slightest faith that it will not go further than to take action against real Communism.

I oppose this Bill because the Government has more than enough effective powers to combat Communism; because the powers it is seeking are in direct conflict with the order of a democratic state; because I believe that it wants these powers to go further than merely to deal with communists; because I as a democrat am not willing to voluntarily give any government the powers this Government wishes to take unto itself; and because in the light of our experience of the actions of the Government, we do not believe that the Government will not abuse the powers it is seeking.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has asked: Which fundamental principles remain unimpaired? He referred to the right of association, but the right of association will continue to remain, only not for the communists. He says the right of publication is being restricted. There will still always be the right to publish, save for communist papers. The hon. member comes along and says that this is a drastic and dictatorial measure, but in 1950 he voted for the Suppression of Communism Act, and in 1951 the Act was amended and the hon. member voted for that also. In 1954 it was amended once again, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout once again voted for it. Now all of a sudden, now that he holds a United Party seat, he does not want to take the next logical step. It is very clear to me that the reason why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has made this speech here this afternoon, was indicated by the reporter for the Eastern Province Herald on Monday, 21 May, yesterday. In that they mention the reason why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made this speech here this afternoon. It is said there that the United Party and the National Union wish to amalgamate, and he (the reporter) says—

And now the correspondent proceeds—

That is the reason why the hon. member has now made this speech. I am very sure that within a month or two the National Union and the United Party will be consolidated. I think I shall leave the hon. member there. I am convinced that the Leader of the Opposition will welcome him within the ranks of the United Party.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is not here, but he said here that the United Party suppressed Communism when they were still in power. Mr. Speaker, when were they in power? In the first place from 1933-9. Communism at that time was still only in its very beginnings in South Africa. Thereafter from 1941-5 the United Party chose to side with Russia. They were in the war together. In what way was Communism suppressed during that period in fact? From 1941-5 they sat at the same table with their friend Josef Stalin.

But the United Party themselves are in great trouble here apparently, for it was quoted here only in connection with the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) but I notice here that in the Evening Post they also confirm it.

Do you then read English newspapers?

I am mentioning the English newspapers that support the hon. members, and I think I am quite entitled to quote a newspaper that supports the party. This is what they say—

And then they proceed—

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

When we adjourned I was dealing with the split in the ranks of the United Party in regard to this Bill. I was quoting in that regard from the Evening Post, and should like to continue now. The paper wrote—

We do not know who it is. It may be the hon. member for Simonstown or the hon. member for Wynberg. The article continues as follows:

That is Vause Raw!

I have tried to find out who the member of Natal is that feels that way about it, but I could not except that he may be either the hon. member for Durban (Point) or the hon. member for Drakensberg or the hon. member for Natal South Coast. It must be one of those three. One of the other arguments raised here, is that this Bill will have a tremendous effect upon our economic position overseas because, so it is said, this Bill will be wrongly interpreted overseas. In the Cape Argus of this evening there appears a report from the Financial Times in London that reads as follows—

This is what the Financial Times says, and that after discussing and dealing with this legislation. Frequent reference has also been made here to the rule of law. In fact, I think it was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who started it. A further insinuation made in this connection is that of a Nazi state and a police state. I want to deal with the point made in connection with the rule of law straight away, and do so with reference to Sir Ivor Jennings, Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, in his book English Constitutional Law, the latest edition of which appeared in 1959. He writes as follows:

This is what he says on page 43 of his aforementioned book. On page 60 he says—

That is what he understands by the rule of law, namely that it is imprecise, or an unruly horse.

Don’t you believe in the rule of law?

Surely rule of law is applied in every country although with variations. In England, for instance, it does not find pure application. There people cannot go and hold meetings just as they like.

What about Hyde Park?

I am very glad the hon. member has mentioned Hyde Park, for I had intended to refer to it at a later stage in my speech. I have here a book entitled “Current Legal Problems, 1949,” in which there appears an article entitled “The right of public meeting”. One of the sub-divisions of this article appears under the heading “Meetings in Hyde Park” and the following appears therein—

I should like to point out also that the right to permit the holding of meetings in Hyde Park is not vested in the Minister of Justice in England, but in an official, namely—

But no meetings have been prohibited as yet.

But that is not the point. What is relevant is that such right exists through the favour of the Crown, that is to say, a power similar to the power of the Minister of Justice in South Africa.

Is the right to indicate a place for holding a meeting not in any event vested in the owner of the property concerned?

It is not so here, for here the word “Crown” is used, in other words, State, as we would use it in South Africa. But let us at the same time see what the position is with regard to Trafalgar Square. The document from which I have quoted, contains the following in this regard—

It has also been said here that the Government has had 12 years in which to carry out this law. However, 12 years is a very long time when you are dealing with a dynamic organization such as Communism. Just take a look at the history of Stalin and Russia. Stalin came into power in Russia in 1924. Twelve years later, that is to say, 1936, Russia was not yet regarded as a danger to the world. The country that was regarded as a danger at that stage was Nazi Germany. Russia was only regarded as a danger to the world in 1948, that is to say, another 12 years later. Within 12 years therefore the world situation had altered completely. From 1950 to 1962 the position of Communism in South Africa and elsewhere has altered completely. We have the cold war for instance. In the Parliamentary Library there is a very good book I should like to recommend to the hon. member for Durban (Point). The title of this book is very interesting, namely “The War Called Peace”. That is what we have in the Western world at the present time.

It has also been said here that the courts of law are being excluded by this Bill. But a court of law means absolutely nothing to a communist. For him it is just a forum, a place where he can preach his principles and ideals. All he uses the Court for is to show the world that he is a martyr. Do hon. members then mean that in a country where Communism has come into power, there will be courts such as we know here in South Africa? What we do get are “people’s courts” as in Hungary where a high clergyman had to confess that he had committed certain unlawful acts against the State. That is the kind of court we get in communist countries. The hon. member for Yeoville recently, in fact on 18 May this year, wrote an article in the Cape Argus in which he said, inter alia—

Is it not the same position to-day? Are we not doing to-day exactly the same thing General Smuts did at that time? For are we not being threatened to-day firstly by communists who fled the country and now threaten us from outside, and secondly by communists and their fellow travellers who are still in the country?

Can the two situations really be compared?

Things that can happen under Communism cannot be compared with things as they were in 1943, because under Communism things will be much worse than anything that existed at that time. The hon. member for Yeoville then went further—and this also was the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely—

But is it not also sabotage when a stone is placed on the railway line with the object of derailing the train? And is it not sabotage also when a rail is removed in order to derail a train? And yet in this case explosives are not used. The Opposition also argued that the definition of sabotage is too wide. Indeed, the one says it is too wide, whereas another says it is too vague. Advocate Molteno, e.g. expressed the view in the Argus that—

The hon. member for Germiston (District) again asserts that the definition is extremely wide. There is a great difference between vague and extremely wide. But if they regard it as extremely wide, then I should like to refer them gladly to a certain Act in England, viz. the Malicious Damage Act. If another name has to be found for sabotage, it is malicious damage. That Act is still in force to-day. If hon. members will refer to that Act, they will see that 50 different things are classified under this heading. For instance, it begins with setting fire to a church or chapel, to sending letters threatening to burn, or destroy houses, buildings, ships, etc. In regard to rioters demolishing church buildings for which a penalty of penal servitude for life is prescribed. The hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to the poor little children who will be hanged, but throughout this Malicious Damage Act reference is made to a male under the age of 16 years, that may be punished with or without whipping. This provision was inserted because in England they realize that youths may be used by rioters. In not one of the 50 sections of the Act, is that provision omitted. But I should like to go still further in this connection, and come to the question of the maximum and minimum penalty. I have gathered information myself on the position in Belgium with regard to arson. When arson is committed in Belgium on ships, boats, buildings and other things, the penalty is from 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment. When forests, etc., are set alight, the penalty is from 10 to 15 years’ imprisonment, and when arson takes place at night, the penalty is imprisonment with forced labour for life. In imposing a sentence the Court has no discretion. I could quote other laws also, but do not wish to do so at the moment. Yesterday the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Gay) made a speech here. I was shocked by what he said in that speech. He referred to the question of the onus of proof, and said that the accused must prove conclusively that he is innocent. That is quite untrue, however. Irrespective of where the onus lies in such a case, surely it is completely wrong. The onus does not rest on the State. All the State has to do is to prove that the accused is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, and not “beyond all doubt”. When the onus of proof is on the accused, he has to discharge it only on a balance of probabilities—a preponderance of probabilities. The hon. member for Peninsula ought to have known that, yet he came here and said that the accused must prove conclusively. It is completely wrong.

Hon. members opposite also said that in future there can no longer be any social gatherings, and that a person will no longer be able to attend a social gathering. In this connection I should like to refer them to the case of Rex v. Kahn which was decided in 1955. As regards this case, there was no doubt that Mr. Kahn attended a little party that evening, although the police could not prove what kind of party it was. The Court found, however, that it was a social gathering and it is for that reason that the hon. the Minister makes special exceptions in respect of certain gatherings. The party at which Mr. Sam Kahn was present that night was a party where he addressed those present on political matters. However, they said it was a social gathering and so the police could not do anything else, with the result that the Court had to accept that it was a social gathering. That is why the hon. the Minister had to make an exception in this regard in this Bill. The hon. member for Peninsula also said that the definition of sabotage is too wide. He referred to America, inter alia, and said that there are three different groups, namely enemy agents, agents and irresponsible persons. As irresponsible persons he mentions people who—

Is that an irresponsible person now? Surely he is nothing but a saboteur. To what ignorance and lack of understanding can he then be subject? I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister does not make a distinction on the basis of these three groups. When your country is in danger, and when you have to fight Communism, there is no law that can be sufficiently drastic for it. After this Bill is passed, I shall not be surprised if the communists after a year or two come along with new tactics, and we shall then have to tighten the screw still more. But I am sure that if we have to tighten the screw somewhat, we shall have the public on our side, in the same way as we have their support for this Bill to-day.

One thing that amuses me, Mr. Speaker, is the attitude of the Nationalist Party to the Press. That attitude is typified by the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel). The Nationalist Party is quite prepared to make use of the English Press—as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) did with the East London Herald—when they can make quotations from that Press in order to further their own cause. But when the English Press criticizes the actions and policies of the Government, then that Press is accused of being irresponsible and damaging to the good name of the country overseas.

This Government has come to Parliament every year and obtained more and more powers for its Ministers and civil servants, powers which are usually beyond the control of the courts, and can be exercised by Ministers and civil servants without there being any possibility of interference by the courts. And, it must be remembered, these powers are powers which, when applied, restrict the lives and liberties of the people in one way or another. This year the Government has come to this House with a shocking and vicious measure in terms of which extensive and extreme powers are being vested in the Government. I believe that no Government would take such drastic and extensive powers unless it doubted its ability to administer the State without them. Therefore this Bill is a clear indication that the policies of this Government are provoking hostility and unrest in the country. Instead of going to the root of the trouble and instead of adopting policies which, instead of provoking hostilities and unrest, will promote peace and goodwill in the country, the Government once again resorts to its usual practice of seeking repressive powers.

Order! That point has already been made.

These measures are always introduced with some plausible excuse for their need. So this year the Government is seeking these powers under the guise and pretext of curbing sabotage. It has already been made perfectly clear from this side of the House that we on this side of the House are as much against Communism and sabotage as is any member on that side of the House. I know that this has already been said before, but as there seems to be doubt in the minds of hon. members opposite on this score, I want to mention it once again. It has been suggested by member after member on that side of the House, including the Minister of Information, that we are, in fact, supporting communists and saboteurs by not supporting this Bill. For that, they say, we will be condemned by the voters. But this type of propaganda will not succeed because the voters are perfectly clear in their minds as to our attitude to this Bill. They appreciate that we do not oppose this Bill because we support communists and saboteurs, but because we believe that the powers which the Government already has, are adequate and more than adequate to deal with the two evils, i.e. Communism and sabotage. As a matter of fact, the hon. the Minister has already stated that he had been able to keep the country calm, quiet and peaceful, despite the acts of sabotage of which he has spoken and which he said were not isolated acts, but organized sabotage. This and the fact that the Government was able to quell the unrest in the Transkei, prove that the powers the Government already possess are sufficient to deal with the two evils in question. [Interjections.] When I hear all this noise which comes from hon. members on the opposite side, I begin to wonder whether this noise is not made in order to quieten their consciences. In any event, I was saying that the laws of this land were adequate to deal with all acts which could be classed as acts of sabotage. Every possible offence is covered by existing laws and so also is sabotage. That is proved by the fact that the Minister was able to cope adequately with the organized sabotage he spoke about. He has been able to bring the perpetrators of those crimes to justice, to charge them and to get them sentenced. And the fact is that all this was done in terms of existing laws But if the hon. the Minister, despite this fact, still desires to create the specific crime of sabotage, there can be no objection thereto provided, however, the crime is so defined that it will not bring under its scope, offences which by no stretch of the imagination can be classed as acts of sabotage as it is generally recognized. The Minister’s excuse, however, for defining sabotage in such fantastically wide terms, is that he is obliged to cast his net wide in order to ensure that his measure is effective and closes all the loopholes. So, in order to convict all those guilty of sabotage, he casts his net so wide that it will bring in many who, although guilty of minor crimes, are not guilty of the serious crime of sabotage. I suggest that such an attitude is a particularly callous one, especially on the part of a man who is a Minister of Justice, a man, therefore, whose duty it is to administer the laws not viciously but in a just way. Nor is this callousness reduced by the fact that the Attorney-General will decide whether to prosecute or not. I say that because the Minister is in a position to reverse every decision of the Attorney-General. In any event, it is not correct to say that it is necessary to define sabotage in such wide terms in order to make it effective and to close all loopholes. As that side of the House, and particularly the hon. the Minister himself, well know, there were during the last war many acts of sabotage in this country. Many of these acts were of a serious nature and yet the United Party Government was able to control the situation. This was done by means of a law in which the offences are all defined, are all of a serious nature, and are so defined as to make it impossible for a person guilty of a lesser offence to be charged with the more serious offence of sabotage. That is the distinction between the War Measures, No. 13 of 1942, and the proposed Bill. It has been suggested by speakers opposite that the War Measures were more drastic because in some cases the death sentence was compulsory. That is so, but the point is that the death sentence was compulsory only in respect of certain very serious crimes, which were stated in clear terms, and in respect of the balance of the provisions of this war measure the death sentence was not compulsory … But where it differs from the sabotage clause, which is before us, Clause 21, is that every specific crime in the War Measures is a serious one and is clearly defined, so that there is no possibility under that legislation for minor crimes which are not in any way related to sabotage or to the security of the State, to come under the net of sabotage.

Then there is the Rhodesian Act, the American Act, and the Act to which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) referred, namely the Malicious Damage to Property Act. I do not wish to go into details because those Acts have been referred to already, but the point I wish to make is that all these Acts deal with sabotage by referring to specific, serious crimes which comprised acts of sabotage, and they defined them clearly in such a way that it was not possible for any person to come into the net of sabotage who was guilty of some minor offence.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No. The other point made is that in those Acts also the onus of proof was on the accused, but the difference between those Acts, namely, the Rhodesian Act the American Act and the Malicious Damage to Property Act. and the present Sabotage Bill, is that in none of those Acts was the accused required to discharge this very heavy onus of proving about eight or nine very difficult matters in order to escape conviction; so that the onus which was on the accused in these other Acts is an entirely different one from the onus placed on the accused in Clause 21 of this Bill. It is just nonsense to argue that the conditions are the same.

You are sabotaging your own speech.

I suggest that it is perfectly clear that if the Government wanted an adequate and reasonable way of defining sabotage, in such a way that it would not be objectionable to this side of the House, they could easily have done that by reference to these various Acts I have referred to. One wonders why they did not, and I believe that the only reason is that the Government has become obsessed with the mania of giving more and more powers to Ministers and civil servants, and in this way to govern beyond the control of the courts. This approach to government is not the approach of a democratic Government; it is the approach of a despotic Government; it is the approach of a totalitarian Government. [Interjections.]

The next point I wish to deal with is the point made by the hon. the Minister which has been taken up by one or two of the members on that side of the House, namely, that this Bill has nothing to do with the rule of law. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) referred to what Sir Ivor Jennings had to say about the rule of law and he referred to the passage where Sir Ivor Jennings points out that this principle must be used with caution. What I believe one must bear in mind in relation to this principle of the rule of law is that it has a colloquial meaning which is not always the strict, legal meaning, and it is in connection with that colloquial meaning that Sir Ivor Jennings made those remarks. The principle of the rule of law, as we use it, is that no person is punishable or can be made to suffer in body or property except for a distinct breach of the law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land. It must be a breach of the law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land. It is in relation to that definition that we use the principle. This is the recognized definition given by the constitutional lawyer, Bryce. In the light of that definition, I would like to examine certain of the principles which are contained in this Bill.

The first principle I wish to refer to is the clause dealing with house arrest, Clause 8. The point has been made about this clause that it refers only to communists and cannot apply to anyone who is not a communist. I would point out that in the first two lines the Minister is given powers to deal with persons whose names appear on the list which is in the custody of the officer referred to in Clause 8. That list can and may include persons who in fact are not communists, persons who were communists many years ago but have repented and can no longer be classed at communists. That list is made up of members of organizations which the Minister suspected of being unlawful organizations. Furthermore, if one comes to sub-paragraph (2), one sees that the Minister is able to exercise the powers given to him in this so-called “house arrest” clause in respect of persons who are likely to advocate, advise, defend or encourage the achievement of any such object, i.e., the objects of Communism.

Is your argument that this is a breach of the rule of law.

No. I merey refer to this in the course of developing my argument as to why that clause is a breach of the rule of law. A person who is likely to advocate or to encourage the objects of Communism is obviously one who has not yet done so and therefore is not a communist, but those are the people who can be dealt with under this clause. So, in my submission, it is quite incorrect to say that only persons who are communists will be hit by this clause. I mention this in passing, in reply to some of the arguments advanced by that side of the House. My reason for saying that this clause is a negation of the principle of the rule of law is because under this clause the Minister can confine any person to a house for an indefinite period. He can prohibit that person from communicating with any other person and from receiving any visitors or performing any act which the Minister specifies, and he can do all that without recourse to the courts and in such a way that the person concerned can do nothing about it. He cannot obtain any redress from the court and he cannot prove that it was unreasonable or that there was no justification for confining him to house arrest. There are many other clauses in this Bill which are a negation of the principle of the rule of law. There is, for example, Clause 17, which is an extension of the so-called “twelve-day detention Bill”. In other words, in terms of that extension the Minister will be able to detain a person in gaol for a maximum of 12 days without recourse to the courts. Then there is Clause 16, under which the Minister will be able, if there is a state of emergency in one area, to apply the regulations to other areas. To the extent that those regulations are applied to other areas where there is no state of emergency, to that extent they are quite clearly a derogation from the ordinary principles of the rule of law because of the effects which such a state of emergency have in the areas in which they are proclaimed and because of the effects which those regulations have in the extended area where they are made to apply.

Then, under the Bill, the Minister is entitled to ban all gatherings, but still he says that this Bill has nothing to do with the freedom of speech. In fact, the Minister has said already that he intends to ban all meetings on the Parade in Cape Town and on the Johannesburg City Hall steps. To that extent freedom of speech has been curtailed. Because at those two places no persons will be able to assemble and to address public meetings. There can be no justification for that, under the guise of controlling Communism, because the Minister is well aware that several legitimate political meetings are held at these places, and if he wants to ban specific meetings in those places he already has those powers. So I believe that one cannot avoid the conclusion that these two are the first steps along the road to banning all meetings at various other places in this country. If that were not so, why then does the Minister not say specifically in this Bill that he bans all meetings at these two places only, instead of taking the power to ban gatherings at any place in the country? The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) referred to the position in regard to Hyde Park and Trafalgar Square, and says that justiposition is that there is a very clear distinction between the two situations. The holding of ties the attitude of the Government. But the meetings at Hyde Park is through the favour of the Crown, because Hyde Park belongs to the Crown, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect that the owner of property will control the meetings held on his property. The same principle applies to Trafalgar Square. The body to which that square belongs decides whether meetings shall be held there or not. But what the Minister is doing is to ban all meetings on property which does not belong to the Government. The distinction is a perfectly clear one, and there is not a comparable situation at all. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) dealt with the question of the onus in relation to Clause 21 (2), the sabotage clause, and he said that the onus which was on the accused would be discharged on the balance of probability, and not conclusively, as has been stated. That is probably correct, but the point is this, even an onus which has to be discharged on the balance of probability is a very severe onus when one has regard to the very difficult matters which the accused has to prove under sub-clause (2). One cannot just brush this aside as if it were unimportant and a minor matter. This is a very severe onus, and it is a more severe onus than that in any of the Acts to which the hon. members on that side have referred in support of their contentions, because in none of those Acts is an accused person required to prove even half the matters which have to be proved in this clause, let alone the eight or nine matters which are required to be proved here. Therefore, I am compelled to repeat what I said previously in a speech which was quoted by the hon. the Minister and by the hon. member for Smithfield, namely that I believe that this is a vicious Bill, and I will, therefore, oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, one can see that the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie), who has just spoken, is a new member in this House. He still has a good deal to learn. I cannot help saying that while he was speaking—I understood he is an advocate—he made one think of the Gamat who was being defended by an advocate and who interrupted the proceedings to say to his advocate, “Sit down, you are getting me convicted now ". [Interjections.] I can quite appreciate the sentiments of the hon. member for Musgrave, because his outlook is not that of a United Party member; it is that of a Progressive Party member. He was a member of the Progressive Party until just recently.

He was an executive committee member.

Let me analyse the hon. member’s speech. He said that his main objection to this measure was the fact that the Minister was taking extensive powers without any right of recourse to the courts for accused persons, but in spite of that he devoted three-quarters of his speech to the clause which says that the Minister cannot do a single thing without the intervention of the courts. In terms of Clause 21 it is only the court that can find a person guilty, not the Minister, and the hon. member’s main attack was directed against Clause 21. If the hon. member sees such dangers in this measure, then I cannot understand why he concentrates on the very clause under which the Minister has no powers at all to exercise. He referred to the other powers that the Minister has. Basically the other powers which the Minister is taking under this measure are powers given to him under the Anti-Communist Act of 1950. This measure merely closes certain loopholes, and the hon. member must understand that perfectly clearly. There is not a single new principle contained in this Bill. On the contrary, matters are being facilitated for the communists. Their names can now be removed from the list if they show that they are no longer communists. It will now be possible to place a communist under house-arrest whereas he would probably have been banished to some remote district under the old Act. But the hon. member says that the United Party believes that the existing powers are sufficient for the Minister to maintain law and order in this country. There he contradicts his provincial leader, the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell).

Is the hon. member willing to reply to a question? If the statement which the hon. member has just made is correct, why has the Government been neglecting its duty for quite a number of years?

I made no statement; I simply repeated the statement made by that hon. member. His submission is that the United Party believes that the existing powers under other laws are sufficient for the Minister to maintain law and order, and yesterday we were told by the hon. member for South Coast that if the Minister needs extra powers he should exercise them and then come along afterwards and ask for indemnity, as Gen. Smuts used to do. I know of three occasions on which Gen. Smuts did that, in 1914 and in 1922 and after Bulhoek in 1923—and that is only as far as I know. No, the hon. member and his leader must settle this issue between themselves as to whether or not the Minister has sufficient powers. But I want to say to him that it is much more harmful to come along to Parliament afterwards with an indemnity Bill than to take the necessary powers in advance and to see to it that these things do not spread. The hon. member also says that the Minister may veto the decisions of the Attorneys-General, and that is why the Minister is asking for these dictatorial powers. But the Minister cannot veto the decision of the Attorney-General if the Attorney-General says that he is not going to prosecute. He knows that the Minister can only veto the Attorney-General’s decision if the Attorney-General says that he is going to prosecute. That is what has always happened in practice. And let me also say to the hon. member that it has never happened under the National Party Government that the Attorneys-General have been told what to do; that was only done by United Party Ministers. The hon. member made a very great mistake in drawing comparisons between the maintenance of law and order by the United Party and by this Government. Every step that this Government wants to take with a view to maintaining law and order is first authorized by Act of Parliament, but that course was not followed by the United Party. They promulgated emergency regulations which never came before Parliament, and under those emergency regulations they could do whatever they liked. Now he talks about these terrible powers which are being taken by the Minister.

The hon. member also says that he wants the rule of law to be maintained in this country, and that the rule of law is not maintained if the decisions are not made by the courts. I wonder if Col. Truter was a symbol of the rule of law during the war—and not only he but quite a few others whom I can think of. I just want to say that the first law is the law of self-preservation; that is the supreme law, and if the rule of law, in the sense in which he uses the term, stands in the way of self-preservation, then the rule of self-preservation must triumph. Let me say here that it seems to me that the Minister of Justice of Rhodesia, which is not even a fully sovereign country, has much more extensive powers than the powers which the Minister seeks to take unto himself in this legislation. This morning only there appeared a report in the newspapers to the effect that in Southern Rhodesia—and it must be remembered that this is four months before the general election there—The Minister of Justice, by proclamation, has forbidden all gatherings there, with the exception of “sporting, cultural, religious or similar meetings held for non-political purposes". For the next two months therefore the only gatherings which will be permitted in Rhodesia will be meetings held for these purposes. It is specifically mentioned that gatherings of that kind will be excluded. If he wished to do so he could also have included them. Our Minister is not asking for these powers. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what the position would be in South Africa if four months before a general election a Minister of Justice in this country came along and forbade every political meeting for the next two months? Rhodesia has gone much further than we have ever gone or probably ever will go. In Rhodesia magistrates may forbid all meetings in their districts for a period of three months, and in fact they did so recently in certain places. As I say, it seems to me that here the Minister is taking considerably less power for himself than his counterpart has done in Rhodesia. But we have this difficulty in South Africa that the United Party tries to present itself as the protector of free speech and free thought, and adopting that attitude, as they do, they will oppose everything that is in the interests of this country, whether the public wants it or not. I want to remind hon. members of what Jaap Perk said many years ago: “De ware vrijheid luistert na de wetten” (True freedom means obedience to laws). Here we find that the official Opposition in South Africa adopts an attitude which is tantamount to nothing but a condonation of the infringement of laws.

Nonsense!

The hon. member may say that it is nonsense, but that is the only inference that one can draw from the attitude that they are adopting here—and I want to prove that. The hon. member who has just made that interjection is co-responsible for it because at that time he was a Senator. In 1950 the Anti-Communist Act was passed in this House, and in 1950 Mr. Strauss introduced another measure here, which was also an anti-communist law and in which he wanted adherence to Communism to be declared an act of high treason, but in 1952 this House decided to conduct an investigation under the Act to see whether Mr. Sam Kahn should retain his seat in this House or not, because the Act specifically states that if a person is a communist he cannot be a member of this House. That case came before a Select Committee which submitted a lengthy report. I want to read out the admissions that were made at the time by Mr. Sam Kahn. He said that he was a communist and he went on to say—

That was after the passing of the Suppression of Communism Act. The following question was put to him—

In reply to a later question he said—

In other words, he believes in Russian Communism; he wants to see it introduced in South Africa. And in the Select Committee the United Party representatives refused to vote for clauses in which it was recommended that he be expelled from this House. When the late Mr. G. P. Steyn, the chairman of the Select Committee, moved in this House that the report be adopted and that Sam Kahn be expelled from this House, we had a debate lasting two or three days and the whole of the United Party voted that Sam Kahn should remain a member of this House, entirely in conflict with the Anti-Communism Act, which was the prevailing law in South Africa.

We know that the communists are entirely against law and order. They can only benefit when there is chaos. They want to destroy what we call the South African way of life. Hon. members of the Opposition are very fond of using that expression. Not only do the communists want to destroy statutory laws and the common law, but they also want to destroy your spiritual possessions, the standards on which your philosophy is based. They can achieve no success until they succeed in destroying these things. They want to destroy your culture and your religion. That is why it was made an offence in 1950 to be a communist in South Africa. To be a communist here is a crime in itself and there are certain penalties attached to it. Here we have a measure now which is going to impose penalties on a person not because he is a communist but because he wants to commit other unlawful acts to promote what has been declared unlawful, namely the propagation of Communism. In other words, it is a double crime. My hon. friends of the Opposition now come along and seek to protect those persons. We are not only dealing here with people who refuse to obey the law but people who want to commit further contraventions of the law by promoting this crime. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter because if you allow people to promote Communism, then you allow them to go to innocent people and persuade them to become communists, and in persuading a person to become a communist they persuade him to become a criminal because in terms of our Act it is a crime to be a communist. But once again, just as they did in 1950 and in 1952, the Opposition acts as their protector—even the Leader of the Opposition. I am disappointed in the attitude that he adopted in his speech towards this measure.

Sir, we have been in power for 14 years. During this period we have had the spectacle here time and again, in every major debate that has been conducted here with regard to the maintenance of our way of life and our freedom and our Western civilization in South Africa, that we have been opposed tooth and nail by the United Party, and after everyone of those fights the United Party has emerged as a weaker party outside this House than they were before. The reason is very simple, Mr. Speaker. The “volkswil” (will of the people) and the United Party are moving further and further apart. Take this measure, for example. At least 90 per cent of the voters of South Africa want nothing to do with Communism. At least 90 per cent of the voters of South Africa want Communism to be exterminated root and branch. At least 90 per cent of the voters of South Africa want the Minister to take the necessary powers to exterminate Communism once and for all in South Africa. In spite of that, however, the United Party opposes this measure on the pretext that these powers are too wide. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that once this measure has been placed on the Statute Book we will again find that the National Party will have gained quite a few thousand votes and that the United Party will have lost quite a few thousand votes.

Is that the reason for this legislation?

No, that is not reason for this legislation, because I believe in having an Opposition which is capable of being an alternative Government, and this Opposition never can be. The weakness in South African political situation to-day is that we no longer have an alternative Government. The Opposition is dead and it is wiping itself out more and more by continually moving away from the will of the people instead of moving closer to it. [Interjections.] Let hon. members opposite make as many interjections as they like. In everyone of these debates we have had this scaremongering. They try to make the world believe that every measure introduced by the Government is such a terrible one; they try to frighten the people. Instead of that, however, the people become frightened of the Opposition and join our ranks. Because an Opposition that opposes what the people want in the way in which this Opposition does, must lose support, as they have in fact lost support during the past 14 years. In saying this, I want to except the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell).

The hon. member for South Coast made a very reasonable speech here. He candidly admitted in his speech that there was a great danger facing South Africa. He was at least realistic, Mr. Speaker. He is at least aware of the powerful forces in Africa which are continually uttering threats as to what they are going to do here. He realizes that it is necessary for these powers to be taken. But I am sorry to say that I have no sympathy for the attitude adopted by other hon. members on the other side.

I want to come now to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman). He is a young member in this House; this is his first Session. But he has the audacity to come and accuse the Minister of dishonesty. The hon. member says that the hon. the Minister has certain motives in introducing this legislation. We have nothing to hide, Sir; we are not the United Party. That hon. member sympathizes with this legislation but he dare not say so because he has been gagged. The hon. member for Zululand also tried to frighten the people by saying that this measure was aimed against certain people when he knows that we have no intention of using it against them. What he said was nothing but scaremongering; he was simply making use of every little trick of the trade that he knew as an advocate. Let me say to the hon. member—and I do not want to be cattish—that there may be a handful of voters in Zululand who would believe this sort of story, but those Zululand voters who do believe him have never made our acquaintance. Once they have made our acquaintance they will no longer believe him either. He must not come here and try to make us believe all sorts of things; he must not try to make us believe that white is black; we do not believe it. He is a young member, Mr. Speaker, and I think with advice and guidance he will become a valuable member of this House. But it looks as though his own party did not give him the necessary guidance when he came here the first day. I want to remind him that he is only one out of 160 members. And as I know the members of this House, I do not believe that intellectually anyone of the remaining 159 members need take second place to him. He must not come along with the type of argument therefore that he advanced in connection with this measure. If he behaves here as though he is the morning star that is just coming up, he may find that he will retain just the first half of his surname. The hon. member must realize that this Parliament is a cruel taskmaster. I want to advise him to be a little moderate and to make sure that he has a good case particularly if he wants to attack a Minister. He must not come here with false accusations against the Minister and pretend that the Minister is taking the law into his own hands and that he is going to do all sorts of sinister things under this measure.

Let me deal with the United Party’s argument that the Minister is going too far. I cannot agree with them. I cannot agree with them, Mr. Speaker, because what does this measure say? It says that for certain offences which promote Communism the penalties will be equivalent to the penalty for high treason. That is the main issue about which all the members of the United Party made such a great song. Sir, I wanted to read out the quotation which the hon. the Minister of Information read out this afternoon, but unfortunately he stole a march on me. But Mr. Strauss himself moved here on behalf of the United Party that adherence to Communism should be treated as a crime and that it should be classified as high treason.

Through the courts.

Yes, through the courts. Nothing can be done under Clause 21 except through the courts—and that does not mean a magistrate’s court. That is why this hon. member shed such tears this afternoon; he was under the impression that the Minister could do all these things. He now realizes that he was entirely wrong.

Finally, let me just emphasize this one point: The penalties which are provided in Clause 21 are not imposed upon a person because he is a communist; they are imposed because, over and above the fact that he is a communist, he commits certain further offences by promoting Communism in the various ways enumerated in this clause. I want to say this to the United Party: I think the time is overdue for at least the members of the Right Wing to come to their senses and to adopt the attitude that the time has come when they should stop drifting further and further away from what the people of South Africa want. I want to emphasize the fact that at least 90 per cent of White South Africa wants this measure, and I think 90 per cent or very nearly 90 per cent of the non-Whites also want it and solidly stand behind this Government. I know Mr. Speaker, that when one goes about in one’s constituency one comes across numerous United Party supporters who say to one, “I cannot agree with their policy but I am traditionally a United Party supporter; I simply vote for them and hope for the best.” But to-day there are fewer and fewer of those people; they are dying out and their children are National Party supporters. The United Party has only one hope and that is to become Nationalist and then South Africa will be saved.

I was interested in listening to-night to the hon. member for Pretoria-Central (Mr. van den Heever). As a Nationalist, he came along with a new theory to-night. We on this side of the House always believed that the highest ideal of mankind was to be found in the Ten Commandments. When the greatest Teacher and the greatest Ruler of all time was asked what the greatest law of all was, His reply was: Honour your God and love your neighbour as yourself. To-night we have to hear from that hon. member that this Government has discovered a new and better philosophy. They say the greatest law of all is the law of self-preservation, the law of the jungle.

He did not say that.

I say the hon. member for Pretoria-Central held up the law of the jungle as the highest ideal of his Government. The pattern of this measure is now becoming clear. We have here a Bill which tries to do two things. Firstly, it makes the penalties for sabotage heavier. It does several other things. It, e.g., gives powers to the hon. the Minister which have absolutely nothing to do with sabotage. What is the object of this? The object is that they know that the people of South Africa do not like sabotage. An attempt is now being made here to try to stifle the conscience of the Opposition. They think that the U.P. will, with a view to catching votes, support this impossible Bill. They now want to go throughout the country and tell the people: We had a sabotage Bill and the U.P. opposed it and therefore they are in favour of sabotage. That is their plan. [Interjections.] You see, Sir, all the paid organizers are already saying yes. We know they will do so. The people will sooner or later discover that this is a deliberate trick and that the paid organizers have already received their instructions. Let me say this immediately. No party is more strongly opposed to sabotage than the United Party. We, together with the National Party and the Government, listen with the same disapproval to people like Michael Scott and others who besmirch the good name of South Africa and its Government by telling untruths. Let me just read a small extract to show what sort of propaganda is being sent out into the world against South Africa. Although this is perhaps not sabotage in the ordinary sense of the word, in my opinion it is still a kind of sabotage. Just listen to this—

May I ask a question?

Order! The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) wants to ask a question.

No, Sir; he is half mad.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. He is not half mad.

Order! The hon. member must immediately withdraw the words unconditionally.

I withdraw them, Sir. Then the pamphlet continues—

May I put a question to you?

No, I am not replying to questions. Then this pamphlet which was sent out into the world continues to say—

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member for Sea Point an opportunity to make his speech.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that you are dealing with those organized paid agents of the Nationalist Party. …

Order! The hon. member may not call hon. members “paid agents”.

They are hon. members, Sir, but they still remain paid officials of that party. This pamphlet continues. …

May I ask a question?

Sir, if ever you have seen organized sabotage. …

Order! The hon. member may not say that.

On a point of order, may the hon. member for Sea Point say we are committing organized sabotage?

Order! The hon. member may continue.

I say, Sir, that this pamphlet says the following—

Did a communist write that?

No. Do you know who wrote it? It was a candidate of the Nationalist Party. This is the election pamphlet of a Nationalist Party candidate who opposed Mrs. Ballinger in an attempt to become a member of this House. So I can continue. If it comes from Michael Scott or from a member of the Progressive Party or of the Liberal Party, they cry out to high heaven, and it is said that he is a saboteur or an agitator, but when it is the voice of the Jacobs there, but the hand of those Esaus, it is nothing else but patriotism. You see, Sir, we on this side of the House have the right to despise sabotage We have the right to do it because we have often been the victims of sabotage. Sabotage is regarded by hon. members opposite as being the lowest form of political activity. To go around in the dark of night and to blow up post offices and bridges is not the work of a man. [Interjections.] You see, Sir, hon. members opposite are now beginning to defend saboteurs. Why? There are people with guilty consciences amongst them. Is there, perhaps, somebody here who has committed sabotage? We know what sabotage in this country has done to us. We remember the occasion when an attempt was made to blow up a train full of soldiers at Lyttleton. We know of four persons in South Africa who are dead and buried, political murders, and by whom were they murdered? Dr. Malan says in his book that he knows who killed Lotz. Those people should not talk so glibly about sabotage. An eternal shame rests on their past. We, the Smuts Government, had to hire Natives—the Black men of whom they are now afraid—to guard bridges, so that they would not blow them up. That is how they dragged the honour of the White man through the mire.

On a point of order, the hon. member says that they had to appoint Natives to guard bridges against members on this side of the House who wanted to commit sabotage. I want him to withdraw those words.

The United Party had to hire people because the Opposition of that time wanted to commit sabotage. That is the truth, and neither the Chief Whip nor any other member can stifle the truth. You can stifle your consciences, but not the truth.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to make the insinuation against hon. members of this House who were then in opposition that they wanted to blow up bridges?

Did the hon. member for Sea Point refer to hon. members on the Government side?

I did not refer to particular members.

You referred to the then Opposition.

I have enough witnesses, and I will later call a number of those witnesses.

On a point of order, there are many hon. members here who sat in the Opposition benches during the war years. I was one of them. That hon. member is accusing us of having been saboteurs. I will break his neck if he says that outside this House.

I did not in the least have the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) in mind. Of course he knows his own past much better than I do. There were also members of the Opposition in the old days, of the old South African Party Government, who rebelled. I have respect for them, because a man who rebels at least has a weapon in his hand and stands up to his enemy, who also has a weapon in his hand. But for a saboteur this side of the House has absolutely no respect. But then he should be a saboteur, a real saboteur, and not like what we got from the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) this afternoon, who in his eloquence, inter alia, said, by implication that Judge Centlivres is a saboteur.

An agitator, not a saboteur.

You are talking nonsense.

I understood him to mean saboteur. My hon. friend here, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) still said that it was a shame to defame an ex-Chief Justice in that way.

May I ask the hon. member a reasonable question?

No. This organized obstruction will not divert me from my course, Sir. Abusive language was used in regard to Judge Centlivres, of which I disapprove. Let me say this at once: I do not agree with his politics, I think he is on the wrong track completely. Perhaps I do not even agree with his methods, but I do not think it behoves an hon. member of this House to drag the name of a Chief Justice through the mire in this way. We in South Africa should take care not to get into the habit of sabotaging our great men every time in anticipation. General Botha, the first Prime Minister of South Africa, the Commander-in-Chief of the Boer Forces, went to his grave and was reviled by the Nationalist Party as a traitor. In his turn General Smuts—perhaps he was too great; they could not destroy him—was reviled as a traitor to the Afrikaner people. The founder of the Nationalist Party, General Hertzog, lies forgotten in his grave, reviled as a traitor.

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

I am dealing with the Bill, Sir. Before one decides who is a traitor and a saboteur or an agitator, one should not introduce Bills such as this. Then describe precisely what a saboteur or an agitator is. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché, Jnr.) said to-day that the United Party does not mind what happens to South Africa; they are only interested in their own party. Then the hon. member for Vereeniging immediately thereafter said the United Party is stupid, they are trying to oppose the Bill in a hypocritical way …

May I ask a question?

Order! The hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) must stop playing the fool.

In all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we should not have a Sabotage Act in this House. The hon. member for Smithfield says the United Party is not interested in South Africa; we only look to the interests of our party. And then the next speaker, the hon. member for Vereeniging, says that the United Party will lose thousands of votes by their course of action here, because they do not look after the interests of the United Party. Let me say this to hon. members: The behaviour of the United Party is not determined by the amount of support or criticism it receives, but only by what is the right thing for South Africa. We will not be frightened or allow ourselves to be intimidated. We will only be guided by our conscience and our sense of right and justice. Here we have an admission of sabotage which is so wide that it almost reminds one of the Zulu word “fanagalo”—it can mean anything. Contraventions which will make the normal person laugh are now classed as high treason; contraventions like the tearing down of posters. And who has not yet torn down posters? The hon. the Minister of Community Development tore down every one of my posters in 1942. That would be sabotage to-day! Just in order to pacify him, I will tell him that when his posters were torn down the next day, I was responsible for it. That would now be regarded as sabotage, with a minimum term of imprisonment of five years. If a person illegally trespasses on the property of someone else and it is proved that he did so with a political motive, he will be guilty of sabotage. This definition is so wide that I wonder whether the Government did not have Anton Rupert in mind, because if one endangers the health of the nation by encouraging cigarette smoking, and one can prove that it is done with a political motive, one can land in trouble. The hon. member for Parow is so fond of putting off the lights in halls. If he does so again, he will go to prison for five years. Additional powers are being given to the Minister here, but the Minister says we are not a police state. I do not believe it is the Minister’s object to create a police state, but let him tell us what the difference is between a police state and the powers he is taking under this Bill. He may perhaps say that he does not intend making use of those powers and that he is therefore not forming a police state, but he takes certain powers which are normally found in a police state.

If I were your mother, I would have drowned you at birth.

If that hon. member were my mother, I would have liked to be drowned, and if he were my father I would have wished that I had never been born.

Mr. Speaker, what makes one afraid is inter alia the utterances of the type of person such as the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) who came along here and said that the Minister has all the powers he requires to combat overt Communism but says he, the Minister requires these powers against covert Communism. My trouble is that I do not know what covert Communism is. Covert Communism can mean only one thing, that where the Minister cannot prove, or where he has listened to tell-tale stories, where he has suspicions he can now act without the need to prove that a person is a communist. I should like to say this to the hon. the Minister: We on this side of the House will help him, and I am sure of that, if he says he requires greater powers to combat sabotage. Then I refer to sabotage as it is usually understood under the word sabotage, where explosives are used, where the lives of people are endangered etc. But he must please not expect any member on this side of the House to support him against this type of sabotage, and give him the powers asked by him. To us on this side of the House Communism is not something new, our fight with Communism has already gone on a long time. Long before that hon. Minister ever dreamed of becoming a Minister, ever dreamed of coming to Parliament. You see, to-day the United Party is being dubbed throughout the country as being communistically inclined. Let me give hon. members a little of the political history of South Africa. Have they forgotten that in 1919 already the National Party adopted a pro-communist attitude. On 14 December 1919, the then Leader of the National Party and also their deputy leader in the Cape made speeches in favour of Communism. So for instance you find that on 14 December the Leader of the National Party said at Carnarvon—

On a subsequent occasion Dr. Malan said this

Then we fought Communism. But subsequently there was another episode in the history of South Africa. In 1922 there was a communist revolt, I do not say the causes were communist only, but very definitely the strike in Johannesburg in 1922 was supported by the communists and the Leader, Mr. Bill Andrews, was in fact subsequently called a communist by a former Minister of Justice, and if you will refer to the reports of the riots of that time, you will also see the letters that were written by another communist, where he wrote “fraternal greetings, jou ewigdurende Rooi Vriend, laat die rooi vlag wapper” and that kind of thing. And that person who wrote that letter and against whom we had to take steps, and take the powers that this Minister is now taking, that person who was a champion of Communism—and you will find all this in the report of the commission of inquiry—was subsequently made a Nat Senator by this Government, viz. Senator Petterson. We also know very well that the so-called Dr. Moll Commission that at the time collected bacon and meat and beans for that communist section of the strikers, was financed by the National Party of the time. You see therefore that throughout, even during the time when this Government wanted to introduce legislation to make Communism a crime, it was this side of the House, as was rightly said by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) who said: Just prove that a man is a communist, bring him before the Court and we are willing to impose the severest punishment one can give him, upon him; convict him of high treason then and give him the death sentence. That was our attitude. But you see that this opportunistic National Party now suddenly discovered that they also are anti-communistic now. Since when? I challenge any member of the National Party side to show me any speech by one of their leaders, or any article that appeared in one of their papers against Communism when Hitler and Stalin were allies before Hitler attacked Stalin. One single article in the Burger. Afterwards, when the split came between Hitler and Stalin, they put their greatest love first and again sided with the Nazis.

And then you flung your arms around Joseph Stalin’s neck.

We had our difficulties in 1914, in 1922, in 1939. That is why I now say to the Minister that he should not listen, if he has been misled, to the hon. member for Vereeniging who tells him that he should take these powers to combat covert Communism. You see, we have experience of the type of difficulty one can get when you listen to other people’s tales. The Minister I understand was in another place as a result of tell-tale stories, and he was in trouble. I do not want to talk about that now, but will tell you later of the other trouble I was in. You see, Mr. Speaker, one should be careful if you lend your ears to stories in detecting so-called covert Communism. During the War a statement was made by the then Leader of the National Party saying that the internments that were taking place in South Africa, the Nationalist that were being sent to the gaols and the internments innocently, was the work of the Ossewa-Brandwag. They were the ones who run to the Minister of Justice with malicious gossip, and the Minister should not lend his ears to it. I do not know whether it has been so. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can correct me. Was that the reason why people were interned? Here the hon. member for Vereeniging comes along and says that the United Party should not talk about these great additional powers the Minister is now taking, at all, for we are experts in suppression and the deprivation of rights under our war experience. That may be so, but then again there are other people in this House who are experts in respect of sabotage. You see, you find people who come along with malicious and sometimes fatuous stories of all kinds of people. While I have been a member of this House, at least one person on this Press Gallery has experienced what it means when people become panic-stricken and walk around with gossip. During the riots here at Langa and those places, the day there was the march to the city, I saw in this House how scared those National Party members were. I saw them shivering like reeds in the wind, and I walked down here and I wanted to bet everyone of them that this Government would not last a month longer; it would be out. I may say here that half the members of the Cabinet were unwilling to accept my bet.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill now.

They refused to accept the bets.

Order! The hon. member must obey my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to show, if you will permit me to do so, how I got into trouble and very nearly landed up in gaol as a result of tell-tales.

It has been ruled out of order.

Is that not contempt of the Chair? Mr. Speaker, I was saying here that this Bill makes provision that the Minister may on suspicion sentence a man to so-called house arrest, not on facts that the man should come and allege and prove before him. Whenever he has reason to believe that any person is furthering the cause of Communism, he has the right to take enormous steps against him without taking him to Court. I have pointed out the danger of that business, and that is why I said that in the same way that the Minister himself got into trouble, perhaps on rumours, perhaps on untrue rumours, so also I was in trouble too because of untrue rumours, and I want to tell you how easily it can happen, particularly when political motives are involved. That day, after Langa, when I wished to make those bets here …

Order! Now the hon. member is going too far.

Well, then I shall not tell you about it, but the truth of the matter is that I was informed subsequently by a decent member of the National Party, that after the Monday when Dr. Verwoerd was shot, it was decided in the National Party caucus that I should be interrogated by the Police, and they sent special police from Pretoria.

Order! That is quite irrelevant to this Bill.

On a point of order, the hon. gentleman is trying to show that what has happened to him is precisely what may happen under this legislation. That is what the hon. gentleman is trying to show.

I do not know what the hon. member is trying to show.

Mr. Speaker, just before your arrival I said that under Clause 7 exactly the same thing can happen that happened to me, and I tried to show that it happened to me, and I fail to see how it can be out of order, but if you rule that I may not tell it, I of course submit to your ruling. But I should like you to permit me to show that what happened to me, may precisely happen under Clause 7. May I do so?

I should like to see the hon. member returning to the Bill.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Under Clause 7 the hon. the Minister has the power to act in these very circumstances, and I have had experience of it, and I know what it means to a person and how fed-up and angry he is when such action is taken. In my case the National Party caucus decided that the Commissioner of Police should come down from Pretoria and come and interrogate me here. Why? There was nothing in the whole business. Not only I, but a member of the Press also said that the Government would not last a month longer. And I now want to almost bet this Government, all of them, that they will not last three months longer if they carry on the way they have been doing now.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Mr. Speaker, before you resumed the Chair there was an organized attempt at sabotage here …

Order! The hon. member may not say that.

Subversion then, not sabotage. With great respect, Mr. Speaker …

Order! The hon. member can’t cast reflections upon other hon. members all round.

I am not casting reflections, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker on a point of explanation …

Order! The hon. member may only address the Chair on a point of order.

Then on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Look, it is a very serious matter that the hon. member accuses the National Party of having laid a charge against him.

Order! That is not a point of order.

As you have just said that I may not refer to it, it will in all fairness to the Government be right that I should say that the case against me was so ridiculous …

Order! The hon. member says that I have ruled that he may not refer to that, yet he reverts to it every time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the Government …

I should just like to say that the hon. member is back to the same thing again.

I leave it at that. As I may not refer to the instance, I just want to say that it is a dangerous precedent the Government is creating now to convict people on hearsay stories. During the last war people were sent to gaol, and they were sent to concentration camps, also as a result of hearsay stories. I also nearly went to gaol as a result of hearsay stories, although I really may not say so; but I should like now to refer to one case where the wrong person was interned, and six months later only we found that it was the wrong person, and I want to save the Minister from finding himself in the same difficulty. I repeat that if the Minister comes here and says that he requires more power to take action against genuine saboteurs, I believe that this whole side of the House, and even the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) also, will help to give the Minister those powers.

Speak for yourself.

But with what arguments does the Minister come here? He says i.a. that he requires the powers because to his knowledge White agitators were behind the murders in the Transkei. If that is so, what is wrong with his Police? Why does he not apprehend those people and bring them before the Courts? I have not yet heard him say that he has brought them before the Courts, but that he did not have the power to go further with them. He has not caught them yet, and his first job now is to catch the people. I think we have to face the facts. You see it will not pay the Government to accuse us on this side of the House of encouraging saboteurs and sabotage; our record is very clear. In our country we have already sentenced to death two people for sabotage they committed during the war. And what is the record of the other side of the House? They had not yet been in power six months when they said: Saboteurs, you have committed sabotage, for the benefit of Nazism; here are the keys, get out, free and have parties. Surely that is history. And Robey Leibbrandt got a licence on top of that. I say again, if the Minister wants to rectify certain matters, if he will show his bona fides by coming along with a Bill against sabotage (as we understand sabotage in the world) he will not find us unwilling to help him to get a thorough Act against sabotage in the Statute Book. But when he comes here with sabotage that is defined in such a manner that it can include anything, when it is the Fanagalo kind of sabotage, we shall not support him. I have wondered what is at the back of the Bill. Here the Minister comes along now and says that a newspaper should deposit R20,000. In principle that is good. I have nothing against it. If the contraventions are committed, if what the Minister says is committed, and I assume it is being committed, I say it is good. But why should the Minister and he alone decide that the R20,000 shall be confiscated? Let him rise and say that he is willing to send such a case to the Court. Let not he alone, but let the Court decide. Then we shall say yes. Does the hon. the Minister not appreciate then that there may be read into this clause that the Minister eventually will have the power to control all newspapers? [Time limit].

When you think of the frivolous tone of the speech, or rather the noise, which the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) has just made, it gives you cause for concern in this country, Sir. I simply cannot understand how hon. members opposite can have the temerity to display such frivolity while the Black Sash are standing outside in the cold and in the dark, defying everything, and while prayer meetings are held outside against this legislation. And here we have the hon. member for Sea Point carrying on in such a way that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) nearly choked with laughter. It appeared at one stage as though even the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) wanted to burst out laughing. I think the time has arrived for hon. members opposite to be a little serious about this matter. We have already been debating this legislation for two days and what have we had from the other side? Nothing but frivolous remarks about this legislation. They try to create the impression that they are serious as far as this legislation is concerned and inside this House we get the sort of speech which we have just had from the hon. member for Sea Point, a speech which really makes you feel ashamed on behalf of the member and on behalf of the House. We are living in a difficult world, we are living in difficult times and I do not think it behoves us in this highest forum of the land to display the frivolity which the hon. member has revealed throughout his speech. We are living in a world in which all the forces are actively trying to bring democracy to a fall, a world in which the entire Western world is struggling against Communism and in which they are faced with total destruction by the communists. Every country has started a fight against Communism, every Western country; there you have Britain, there you have France and there you have America. We are facing a danger which is so great that no country dare ignore it and the United Party comes forward and tries to find diversion in this sort of frivolity. No, we are living in such difficult times in the world to-day that the struggle between democracy and Communism is a struggle on which the future of the entire world depends. It is a struggle which is being continued everywhere to-day at UNO, it is a struggle which was let loose in Cuba, in Laos and in Korea, in all those places …

And Angola, where you were born.

The hon. member has not yet shed his frivolity. The struggle which is being waged in the world to-day is in respect of one crucial question only, and that is the question of Communism, because everybody realizes, and every Westtern power realizes that if they lose this struggle against Communism, they lose their very existence. We in South Africa to some extent have the solution which will ensure that victory lies in the hands of the Western powers. As the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has pointed out we should be serious as far as Africa is concerned because what the communists are doing here is to try to palm in Africa for the communists. The land lies fallow here in Africa. All the Western countries are concentrating on Africa because they know that the final battle against Communism will be fought in Africa. But when we try to take stern measures against Communism hon. members opposite try to steer us off our course with their frivolity. I maintain that of all countries in the Western world to-day the future of Western civilization lies in the hand of South Africa, because South Africa, by virtue of the position she occupies at the southern tip of Africa holds the key of the door to Africa and because Africa is the area in which the final battle between Communism and democracy will be fought. The moment Communism conquers Africa, they will be able to start their onslaught against the Western world. They will then have the natural resources at their disposal to make that onslaught. They know, however, that they first have to conquer Africa before they can make that onslaught. Here we are dealing with legislation to strengthen ourselves and to bring stability to Western civilization in South Africa and to retain it, and then hon. members opposite advance these arguments which give you cause for concern, Sir. Do hon. members opposite know what will happen in South Africa if Communism is victorious? Are they serious about this matter? I can tell them this that if it does happen that Communism triumphs, we will not be the only people who will be affected, but hon. members opposite as well. Communism is a danger to-day which not only we appreciate, but every person who thinks about the future appreciates, the danger of Communism no matter where he is. What is the real danger of Communism? This is what André Vishinky says about Communism in his book The Law of the Soviet State and to me this is the core of it—

In other words, Communism ignores all laws. It believes in a democracy which is based on the masses, the proletariat, the illiterate masses and I maintain that if Communism constitutes a danger to other Western countries, then Communism is a greater danger here in Africa where we have such a great mass of illiterate people, people who are susceptible to the doctrine of Communism. The time has arrived for us to be serious about this matter, but while we are waging this life and death struggle, the United Party is trying to place one stumbling block after the other in our way and to thwart our efforts. And then the hon. member for Sea Point has the temerity to say that the United Party are the champions of democracy against Communism.

Hear, hear!

I want to quote from Hansard to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) what one of the members opposite, of the Opposition, said about the United Party in connection with the United Party’s role in the struggle against Communism. I want to quote nobody less than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) who has entered into an alliance with the United Party. I can do no better than to quote this speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout verbatim in order to illustrate and to explain the game which the United Party is playing with Communism. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said this (Hansard Vol. 81, 6 February 1953)—

He was a member of the National Party at the time—

Then he continues and says—

I think he had hon. members opposite in mind when he said that. He said this to them—

That was their idea of democracy!

It is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who is saying that about them—

That was what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said and he is the person who has entered an alliance with the United Party. He then continues—

I want the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) to listen to this. He says—

I quote further from the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is also shuddering at what the National Party is doing. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows the United Party. He is prepared to enter into alliance with them, and I believe he is biding his time and will again join the United Party when the opportunity presents itself, when the Progressives have succumbed to the United Party. He then continues and says this about the United Party—

He then quotes from that and shows in this speech that this United Party took fright of Nazism at a time when Germany lay in ruins. I wonder how frightened they will be when they have to start a struggle against an ideology such as Communism? That is why I say you cannot depend on those hon. members. They are like the wind that blows. Nobody knows them better than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, because he used to be a member of the United Party. He then joined the National Party for some inspiration and returned to them. He knows them through and through and that was the testimonial he gave them. I notice that the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) looks a little worried about the situation. Here we see the United Party in their nakedness, as one of their own members sees them and then the hon. member for Sea Point and others come here and pretend to be the high priests of democracy.