I move—

I second.

Mr. Speaker, last might in the heat and emotion of debate, I made an unfortunate remark during the course of the attack made by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson); unfortunate in the sense that a Chief Whip is expected always to be friendly and charming, like this Chief Whip who is now saying courteously that he withdraws those words unreservedly. I said that I would break the hon. member’s neck if he repeated outside the House what he said last night. I now want to say that I have nothing against him and that I am sorry that I made that remark. I withdraw it because it did not befit me at all.

Mr. Speaker, when one listened to the trend of the debate in this House last night, it was wonderful to think how confused people can become despite all the advice they have at their disposal on all sides. When one thinks of this, one wonders how the country feels about legislation of this nature, and one wonders whether it is necessary to introduce legislation of this nature at this stage. What are we seeking in introducing this legislation? Mr. Speaker, I want to put these questions to the House: Are we seeking punitive measures aimed at communist activities or sabotage, or what are we seeking? If we are seeking more severe measures, why do we then not say so? Hon. members opposite will have the support of this House if they are seeking more severe measures … [Interjections.]

Order!

… they will have the support of this House if they are seeking more severe measures aimed at the activities of people who are endangering the individual, the people and the country. If a person—and it does not matter whether he is a communist or not—does these things, he is a saboteur in any case. If he endangers the lives of people, by for example blowing up bridges or derailing trains, or no matter what he does to endanger the lives of people, he deserves the death penalty.

How many wires did you cut in your time?

The hon. member who made that remark must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

If he is endangering the security or the administration of the State, then punish him. Is that what they are seeking in this Bill, or what are we seeking? Do we want a definition of sabotage? And if we want to give that definition, why then give a definition which lends itself to the type of interpretation which has aroused the whole country?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. Mr. Speaker, I am asking whether it has become necessary to introduce such legislation in this House, legislation which has not only caused agitation in the country but abroad as well. It has not only caused agitation in this country, but this Bill is once again giving the whole White world an opportunity to say that this Government only wants to create a police state in this country and that is the last straw. [Interjection.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I ask in all fairness: Is there no other way in which we can approach this matter? Can we not make the penalties as drastic as we wish, and if people must be punished for that type of action, hon. members will have the assistance of this side of the House. Can we not crystallize the definition of sabotage in a quite simple way, without giving a definition which is so wide that everyone feels their safety threatened, whether they sympathize with Communism or not, or whether they sympathize with saboteurs or not?

Mr. Speaker, in making this submission, it will be helpful to look back a little and see what happened in 1939-40.

Ah!

Yes, I hear hon. members saying: “Ah”. I also want to say this, and seeing that I want to compare that period with to-day, I must necessarily discuss the activities of the O.B., and I am now going to lift the lid. [Interjections.] In doing so, the hon. the Minister of Justice will know what I am talking about. [Interjections.] Perhaps the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) does not know what I am talking about.

If you do that, you will be a traitor.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw.

A large proportion of members sitting opposite, and also on their front benches, were members of the Ossewa brandwag; they were officers of the O.B., and if they were as proud of that as I was, they would not go to such lengths to level allegations at me that I was an O.B. General in 1939, because I am proud of it. I shall deal with that presently. I would not know whether the hon. member for Vereeniging a member of the O.B. I do not think so.

No, I was not.

If he had been a member, then he would never have got further than he will get in this House, and that is to be an ordinary private. I know the house of Mr. “Herfsblaar” Coetzee, in which the hon. member for Vereeniging grew up. I never knew a more God-fearing home. He was not brought up badly.

Order! I hope hon. members will confine themselves to the Bill and not start being personal.

I just want to say that I consider that this warning you have just given also applies to me. But I just want to tell the hon. member for Vereeniging, the member who made a plea here yesterday, together with many disparaging and bitter remarks, that if that is his idea of the will of the people and of bringing the White people together, then he will not be successful and he will split the people completely. He has made many distasteful allegations which I am not going to repeat. He has sown bitterness, and he then tried in a disparaging way to drive a wedge between members on this side by saying that some are good and some are not. It is so easy for us to do the same thing and it is so easy to say that we do not believe that all hon. members opposite support this measure wholeheartedly, this measure which has sown so much discord in the country, if there are other methods of achieving our objects. [Interjections.] I also heard the hon. member say that politics was a cruel thing. I accept that. The cruellest of all is the fact that he is in it. But I assume that if he is familiar with the cruelty of politics, then he certainly does not know the hearts of people. If he knew the hearts of people, he would not have spoken yesterday as he did here. He did his best to use the divisions existing amongst the White people of his country in order to drive them yet further apart and to antagonize them towards one another yet further. I still want to see the man who will rise here and say: This was a speech which brought the White peoples closer to one another, and in this way ensured that the White nation can continue to exist. I want to tell him that if this is his contribution to the building of a nation, we shall not build a White nation here. If the threat comes, the threat about which hon. members opposite speak so often and which the hon. the Minister of Defence has repeatedly mentioned, namely the Black danger which threatens from the North—a statement by the Minister of Defence which was partly repudiated here by his Leader at a later stage—when the day comes that the White people of this country will of necessity have to stand together, then there will not be a place for such vindictive people as he.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have said that as I want to make a comparison between the legislation the hon. the Minister of Justice has now introduced, then I must compare the period of 1939-40. Allow me just to say that during that period when the Ossewabrandwag was established—and there are people here who should know this as well as I; there are people here who held high positions in the O.B. and who know as well as I that the O.B. was established in 1939, immediately after the “Ossewatrek”, as the standard-bearer of the concept of unity amongst the Afrikaners. In October 1939 it was established under Ds. Kotze of Bloemfontein. I then joined. A year before the war the O.B. was the standard-bearer of the idealism of the White nation in South Africa. That was the time when I became a general in the O.B. and they cannot frighten me with this because I am proud of it. Nor must they think that they can frighten my party or the country by saying this. [Interjections.]

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

That is how the O.B. was established. In 1940-1 it continued with its activities. [Interjections.] I now want to compare that period with this period in which we are introducing this legislation. When the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché) opened the debate on that side of the House yesterday, he said that he was ashamed of the criticism of lawyers of the introduction of this Bill and its contents. There are also other legal opinions, and they are ashamed of the legal opinion of the hon. member. But I now put this challenge to the hon. the Minister of Justice. During recent months he has been eager to make use of the fact that we were colleagues at that time. He has repeatedly referred to the O.B. General, Moolman. I want to admit in all friendship that I am just as proud of the fact that I was an O.B. General at that time. I just want to issue this challenge to him, namely that he should reveal either here or anywhere else in public what prosecutions and convictions took place in the area which I controlled at that time, as against those which took place in the area he controlled. [Interjections.]

Order! I must ask the hon. member now to come back to the Bill because if he does not come back to the Bill, the debate will take quite a wrong turning.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address you on a point of order. The name of the hon. member who is addressing the House has been mentioned on various occasions in this debate with reference to this period of his life. I think that he now has every right to put his point of view.

I have given the hon. member that opportunity, and he must now come back to the Bill.

The first War Measures were published during the period 1939-44 as Act No. 13 of 1940, and as far as I know, it gave no description of “saboteurs” or that type of organization or activity, and least of all of the O.B. In October 1940 the former Leader of the Nationalist Party, the late Dr. Malan, issued a challenge to that organization, namely the O.B., to the effect that if they did not withdraw a circular, No. 1/41, the association between the O.B. and the Nationalist Party would be broken off.

I have asked the hon. member to come back to the Bill, and he is not complying with my ruling. I now ask him to come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to abide by your ruling. But I want to submit that if the O.B. organization of 1939-44 can be regarded as an organization which made itself guilty of sabotage, then I must make a comparison between this legislation and the legislation of those days, and I can hardly do so if I do not explain the establishment of the O.B.

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

Very well, Mr. Speaker, I shall submit myself to your ruling.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate you have allowed references to be made to this hon. member with reference to the time when he was a member of the O.B. This is the first opportunity he has had to defend himself. I submit to you that he is drawing a comparison between the War Regulations and the extent to which they combated sabotage, and the present Bill now before the House. I submit to you that he is making that comparison in order to defend himself against the charges which have been levelled at him during the debate. I ask you to permit him to continue.

I have given the hon. member enough opportunity to explain his position. The hon. member can refer to the matter in passing, but he is basing his whole speech on the matter and I cannot allow that.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the hon. member is not only replying to criticism from hon. members opposite, but he is trying to draw a comparison between the emergency regulations during the war period and the legislation now before us. The accusation made by hon. members opposite has been that we introduced more severe regulations than they are doing. He is only trying to explain the difference by showing what happened at that time.

Order! That has already been done on various occasions. The hon. member may proceed.

It was on 1 December 1941 that Minister Lawrence revealed a plot in Durban and forbade certain classes of public servants from belonging to the O.B. I am submitting that the O.B. was established in 1939, and that it was only on 1 December 1941 that the first state prohibition was issued, namely that certain public servants could not be members of that organization—it did not apply to ordinary citizens of the country. This was on 2 February 1942 …

Yes. but I cannot allow the hon. member to continue along those lines.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during the debate various allegations have been made, not only that the hon. member was a member of dangerous organizations such as the O.B., but the allegation has also been made that he committed sabotage.

No.

It has been done.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I think the comparison which the hon. member wants to draw is in order in the light of the allegation that an O.B. is once again being established in the Western Transvaal.

Order! The hon. member may proceed but I must ask him to come back to the Bill.

He must first take off the lid.

If the hon. member for Vereeniging makes another interjection I shall ask him to leave the Chamber.

I was not a member of this House, but on 2 February 1942 sabotage was discussed in this House for the first time. And I am now using the word “sabotage” because I want to come back to the definition thereof in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, does a person on the Gallery have the right to call out “Hear, hear”, audibly and unmistakably, when you have given a ruling in this House?

I shall deal with the matter.

On 2 February, 1942, the then Leader of the Opposition, Dr. Malan, read out a sworn affidavit in respect of certain sabotage committed by a citizen of this country. At that stage “sabotage” had not yet been defined as far as the War Measures were concerned. They then came with a definition of “sabotage”. It was provided—and I quote—that a person guilty of “murder or assault with the intention of causing serious bodily harm to persons, or deliberate damage, robbery, damage to property, the possession of explosives in contravention of the law, public violence, contravention of Section 37 which deals with the Railways and Harbours regulations, as amended, or theft, or an attempt to commit such an offence, or incitement to commit such an offence, or participation in a conspiracy to commit such an offence”, will be guilty of “a special offence” or of “sabotage”. We now ask ourselves whether if such a simple formula could be found during a time of war to deal with saboteurs, it is necessary to-day to have a lengthy definition such as we find in this Bill which has unfortunately been called the Sabotage Bill. Let us see what this Bill says. We first find a list of acts which will be regarded as sabotage and then Clause 21 (2) says: “No person shall be convicted of an offence under … ‘objectively regarded ’ …”. Then inter alia he must prove that he did not intend to cause financial loss to any person, or to cause feelings of hostility between the different sections of the population of the Republic. How widely can this definition be interpreted? “To cause, encourage or further feelings of hostility between different sections of the population of the Republic.” And if one cannot prove that one is innocent of all these things, one will be charged. Clause 21 (1) provides—

1. (a) the health or safety of the public;
2. (b) the maintenance of law and order;
3. (f) the free movement of any traffic on land …
4. (g) any property whether movable or immovable, of any other person or of the State.

On a point of order. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) usually sits over there on your right. Is he entitled to change his seat with the deliberate object of plaguing (verpes) the speaker?

Hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, but is it permissible?

It is not a point of order. The hon. member may proceed.

“… or incites another person … to tamper therewith … shall be guilty of the offence of sabotage subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), and liable on conviction to the penalties provided for by law for the offence …”. In all fairness I want to ask the Minister of Justice: he is a great and deep thinker with a brilliant brain. Can he not devise a shorter definition of “sabotage”? Does he not think that he can make the punitive provisions as severe as he likes and then obtain the support of the people and of this side of the House.

We have it.

If the newspaper reports are correct—I assume they are—then a deputation approached the hon. the Minister yesterday and, according to them, he was prepared to make certain concessions in the Bill. Can we not reach the stage where we know what those amendments are to be, so that these violent disputes can be resolved? Where is it taking us? Where are we going? Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the tolerance of the Government which was in power during the war period from 1939 to 1944 contributed greatly towards gaining the support of the people for the Government in the war effort. Many of South Africa’s sons whom we did not think would participate in the war eventually became “Rooi Lussies” and went to defend their country. It was the tolerance of the Government which brought this about. Then I want to put it in this way. [Interjection.]

Order!

I want to put it in this way. I want to ask whether the Government is so out of touch with the people that they do not know that we must gain friends for White civilization or else we cannot continue to exist? They want to force this Bill through with the assistance of hon. members opposite who know White civilization throughout the world just as well as I do. There are men who have travelled throughout the world, and they know what White civilization is saying about us, and they know how this last straw is going to shock confidence. I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Justice and, with this, I want to conclude.

Don’t. [Interjections.]

An unalloyed declaration of what sabotage is and a definition of the punishment will not only receive the support of the whole nation, but the Minister will gain the sympathy of the whole country’s population, even those parts of the population whose sympathy he cannot gain at the moment, and he will gain the sympathy of the rest of the White world. [Interjections.]

Order!

But this type of legislation can only gain for this country the animosity of a large section of the White population, and a large section of the non-White population, and help further to destroy us.

Mr. Speaker, I want to abide faithfully by your ruling, and not deal with the activities of the O.B., as you have ruled, but I want to remind the hon. member for East London (City) (Mr. Moolman) in all goodwill, that in future he will be known as the member who made his appearance in this Parliament, who objected to the statement that politics is cruel, and that he does not think that politics is the art of government. He will be known in history as the member who has the greatest achievements to his name in the field of romance, but who has failed the most miserably in the field of politics in South Africa. The hon. member has come here and he has said that we want to create an uproar in the country. I now want to tell him that, notwithstanding the fact that there are people who are creating an uproar in the country, leftist organizations, which he will certainly also condemn, certain parts of the Press, and certain individuals who are creating an atmosphere of bitter hostility against this Bill—to a certain extent people are creating suspicion and misrepresentation, and this is the atmosphere which they are creating—the hon. the Minister of Justice, whom that hon. member has described as a man with a brilliant brain, has explained in a calm and dignified way, the contents, objects and the background of this Bill so effectively, so informatively and so clearly that one can really see the Bill in the correct perspective, and not in the way the hon. member has done. What has the hon. member done in this House? Notwithstanding the excellent explanation of the hon. the Minister, whose intelligence he admires so greatly, what reaction have we had to this approach by the Minister of Justice? The hon. member says that this Bill is turning South Africa into a police state. Could one hear a more criminal (misdadige) remark in this Parliament?

The hon. member must not speak of “criminals” (misdadigers).

I said it was politically criminal. The hon. member has said that this is a police state, and the world regards a police state as the worst crime against the continued existence of civilization. [Interjections.] This is what we have had. What are hon. members doing? They only have one object, namely to destroy the effect of this Bill.

On a point of order, when the hon. member used the word “criminal " for the second time, he did not say “politically criminal”.

That hon. member is precisely one of those persons who wish to destroy the effect of this Bill, because he has said that we want to use the Bill even to hang children, but he should know that because they are opposing this Bill, they are hanging themselves and not young people. Nothing will do more to break the neck of the United Party than this obstinate opposition to this Bill.

On a point of order, I want to know whether, seeing that the hon. the Chief Whip has already apologized and withdrawn certain words, he is entitled to repeat them.

I should like to apologize if I have said something wrong.

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein …

He is probably the last man who should open his mouth.

If I have said anything wrong, I withdraw it because I want the co-operation of hon. members so that we can have a properly objective approach, and not the approach which many hon. members opposite have adopted. There are hon. members who have made certain remarks. There is the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) who says that this Bill “intimidates all the opponents of the Government and it should be called the Intimidation Bill Mrs. SUZMAN: That is correct.

The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) has said: “This Sabotage Bill is the most vicious of all measures showing singular neglect of our individual rights, meting out cruel punishment and leaving the stamp of the Nazi jackboot”. Is this an objective approach? Why are they adopting this approach? Why do they not discuss the Bill with a view to its background and its objects, so that the public outside can form a correct judgment? They only have one object, namely to destroy the effect of this essential measure, and to obstruct the effective combating of Communism in South Africa. But while the Minister of Justice has acted in so dignified a fashion and we have had this reaction from the United Party, what reaction have we had from outside? Organizations from outside have come and established contact with the Minister. I read in to-day’s newspaper—

After the Minister had given a clear explanation, just as he has given in this House to Mr. Scheepers and other delegates of the trade unions, Scheepers said—

And that is the Trade Union Council?

Yes, and after they had had an interview with the Minister, I read these significant words—

The Bill was discussed with them, and what did the secretary then say? He said—

This shows how they have established an atmosphere of hatred in order to obscure the contents of the Bill and so to befuddle the brains of hon. members opposite that they cannot form a correct understanding of the contents and the objects of this legislation. He says that after the Minister’s explanation he is quite satisfied that this Bill is not aimed at the trade unions. They further said—

That is what they secretary said and that is the reaction of the country outside.

But he was misled.

I now want to …

On a point of order, the hon. member who is now addressing the House has said that the trade union leaders discussed the Bill with the Minister and that when they left they were satisfied. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) then said they were misled. One can make no other inference than that he wishes to imply that the Minister misled them during the interview they had with him, and I think that is quite outside the rules.

Yes, but these are all matters which took place outside the House.

On a point of order, would I be in order if I were to say in this House that the hon. member for Germiston (District) had told lies outside, even if it is quite untrue to say so.

That is what has been said about me.

But these are two hypothetical problems.

But they are exactly the same. The hon. member for Germiston (District) has said that the hon. the Minister brought these people under a false impression.

No.

I should like to say …

Order! The hon. member cannot simply rise to address the House and he knows it. He can only rise on a point of order.

May I just say that the Leader of the House is making a point of order in respect of what the hon. member for Germiston (District) has said, and the hon. member is surely entitled to address you on that point.

May I rise on a point of order? The hon. the Leader of the House has said that I have said that the Minister did not act in good faith. That cannot be inferred from the words I have used. I said that it was quite clear that the delegation had been misled.

On a point of order, if the hon. member once again makes the remark that I misled these people, then I shall say that the hon. member is telling an untruth and he knows he is telling a lie.

Order! The hon. the Minister cannot say the hon. member knows it is untrue.

The Minister did not say so. He said that if the hon. member for Germiston (District) said again that he misled that deputation, then he would say what he has said.

The hon. member may proceed.

I do not want to do what other hon. members and even lawyers have done, and analyse certain clauses and then read into these clauses things which they really do not contain, in order to destroy the effect of the Bill. I would rather discuss the Bill against its background. The hon. member for South Coast has said that we must act in a responsible way, and that we must take all responsible elements together with us in our fight against the communists. If we want to see this Bill in its correct perspective, we must consider it against the background of racial struggle or racial peace. Here we have common ground because hon. members opposite say that they are also opposed to the communists and stand for law and order, and they support racial peace. I think there is one thing in respect of which all responsible Whites and even non-Whites are absolutely agreed, namely that we must do everything in our power to establish peaceful race relations between White and non-White because nothing can have a more deadly effect on South Africa than precisely racial tension and racial conflict which can result in a racial war. The racial struggle which hon. members opposite say they do not want will result in the undermining and the destruction of the self-preservation of the White man, and it will also cause the Black man to sink back into poverty and chaos. For this reason we must not only see this Bill against the background of racial struggle, but also of racial peace which means the preservation of the Christian White race. But it will also mean more. It will also mean that the Black man can be led in a proper way by his Christian White guardian along the road towards development, independence (selfstandigwording) and a better future. Hon. members say they desire that. We do not want racial struggle, but racial peace. Why do they not consider Bill against this background? This Bill is in fact aimed at ending the racial struggle and achieving racial peace and at neutralizing the saboteurs, these trained agitators, these leftist organizations and the communist Press who contribute to bringing about racial strife in South Africa—are hon. members opposed to our introducing a Bill to prevent this? This is precisely the praiseworthy object of this Bill, namely the elimination of racial conflict and eventually the establishment of racial peace in the interests of White and non-White. But they do not want to do that. They do not want to consider the Bill against this background, but what they will in fact do is what has been done by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) who is now in the lobby and is no longer in any danger. Mr. Speaker, you are looking at me significantly, but I have withdrawn my words unreservedly. [Laughter.] The hon. member has said that we are advocating a doctrine of self-preservation, and he has contrasted this with a doctrine of love. But I want to ask that hon. member: Is there not also a doctrine of hatred and destruction which atheistic Communism propagates? What right does he have to consider this Bill against a background of love in order to condemn the self-preservation of the White race which we advocate? Why does he not consider the Bill against the background of this problem? Why is atheistic Communism concentrating on the destruction of the Christian White race here on the southern tip of Africa? No, he is not doing that. This small White race consists of English- and Afrikaans-speaking people, and is the anchor of Western civilization and the Christian religion. On both sides of the House we are bearers of a cultural and spiritual inheritance which we call Western civilization, and that is why we form part of the Western European world, and that is why the communists are not only launching their attacks on Western Europe and on America, but are concentrating on South Africa as well. I therefore want to say that we differed from the hon. member for South Coast as regards our form of government, but when we established a Christian republic, they all swore allegiance to that republic because they saw in it the safeguarding of democracy and our fundamental rights and the combating of Communism. When I am discussing lofty concepts, and the hon. member interrupts me the expression on that hon. member’s face only annoys me. I repeat that we must consider this Bill against the background of the preservation and the safeguarding of the Christian White race and this means the safeguarding of our “way of life” about which they speak so often, our way of life, our direction in life, our Christian principles. Why do they not consider the Bill against this background, seeing that we are dealing with the saboteurs and the agitators? Do they not realize that the struggle in which we are engaged is not a struggle between political parties, but a struggle between two great irreconcilable ways of life, namely that of the communist atheist doctrine, which is in sharp contrast to our philosophy of life. Here we are introducing a Bill which will result in Communism being eradicated root and branch, and instead of their supporting us in order to safeguard the White race, that hon. member is distracting my attention and opposing the Bill in principle.

Order!

Yes, Mr. Speaker, you must call that hon. member to order, because if his policy were to be implemented, we would see the greatest possible disorder in South Africa. I now want to speak particularly to the hon. member for South Coast. He is a member who differs from us, but I am speaking on behalf of the whole House when I say that I know he has made a very important speech. He has said that we must try to take the non-Whites with us too when we fight Communism, and I therefore feel that I must discuss this Bill also against that background, namely that the communist technique is deliberately aimed at inciting the Black man and the non-White against the White man. Their devilish technique is to use the communist agitator whom we want to restrict by means of this Bill, and they do this with only one devilish object, namely, the incitement of a non-White front in order to destroy the Christian White nation and the establishment of a Bolshevist republic in South Africa. Now hon. members know that after all, and the hon. member for South Coast knows that after all. If they were to succeed in this terrible, violent revolution which will result in the realization of their great ideal, namely, the establishment of a communist dictatorship, will there be any question of democracy and the protection of fundamental rights in this country? Will there be such a thing as racial peace? I do not think anything will be left of our way of life. If they succeed in their devilish object, will anything remain of the pious talk of equality between White and non-White? Will we still hear of one man one vote, as the Liberal Party advocates? Will we still hear of a civilization test which the hon. member for Houghton advocates so loudly? Will we even hear of the National Union? No, there will be no question of it, because there is no question of it to-day, since they no longer even have a caucus. There will be no question of a federal Parliament in which White and non-White can peacefully discuss matters. There will be a rude disillusionment. There will be the subjection of the White race to a lawless, non-White violent Black régime. Yes, there will be a Black Bartholomew’s night for the Whites. Is that what hon. members want? This legislation must be seen against that background. And the Blacks must know that when that day comes and they think they have a Black Government, the last step will come, namely, a Bolshevist dictatorship. But I want to go a little further. The hon. member for South Coast has said that we must take the non-Whites with us. Do we not think the time has come in South Africa when we must listen to the voices of certain non-Whites who are also anti-communists, he has asked? I have gone into this matter. I want to mention two examples, and I want to ask hon. members who are the Christian White guardians of the Black man, who must lead them to development and independence, whether these non-Whites do not set an example to some Whites who to-day are cooperating with the Black Sash and these leftist organizations who wish to destroy this Bill? In 1937, Dr. Dube, a member of the Native Representative Council, said the following—

As long ago as 1937 a Native leader was pointing out the danger of this atheistic Communism and he mentioned by name the things with which the Minister wants to deal to-day, in terms of the provisions of this Bill. And what else did he say? What is the remedy? He said—

This Native said to the Whites: Come and help us. He wanted a remedy. He said the remedy was in the hands of the White guardian and here a Minister is suiting the action to the word, and he has drawn up a Bill which he wants to use in order to deal with this incitement, with these newspapers and these people who are inciting the Natives. We are the Christian White guardians, this is what has been said to us, and what attitude must we adopt towards them? Seeing that hon. members have referred to Bantu nationalism, I want to say quite clearly to-day that we must stand together precisely on this point because if there are Natives who are moving towards self-determination, who love what is their own, who are the champions of Bantu nationalism, we as Christian White guardians must merely direct that Bantu nationalism into the right channels. We must just not allow them to be used as a Trojan horse by the communists in this country in order to destroy the White man. I say that we must see this matter against that background, and that is what the Minister wishes to do here. He wishes to act against certain organizations with fine-sounding names which are doing this devilish work in order to use these Bantu nationalists to destroy White nationalism. No, we must direct Bantu nationalism and also White nationalism into sound channels because Communism is antinational. I therefore say that it was such a terrible slogan when the United Party said at the 1938 election: “Destroy nationalism.”

What about White nationalism?

No, we do not want to eradicate White nationalism because if we eradicate White nationalism, we shall eradicate the White race, and if we eradicate Bantu nationalism, we shall also eradicate the Black race, and that is precisely what Communism envisages. Mr. Speaker, do you think that the communists love Bantu nationalism? Let us analyse this for a moment against the background of what is happening in Africa. Are they so fond of Bantu nationalism here? Here they want to use Bantu nationalism in order to destroy the White race, in order to destroy our way of life, in order to overthrow the State and to create a new order. What are they doing in Africa? I shall tell the House. Allow me to read from the Transvaler a certain report which appeared in the London Sunday Times—

In Africa, where one has the big African states. Communism is therefore concentrating precisely on the destruction of nationalism because nationalism is not based on hatred but on love. But Communism is a doctrine of hatred and destruction. I therefore want to deal particularly with this point which hon. members opposite have used; on the one hand they say that the position is such that we need greater powers; on the other hand they say there is peace and that we do not need these powers. Mr. Speaker, why is it absolutely essential that in a time of peace, at a time when South Africa is experiencing a comparatively peaceful period, that we should relentlessly and without pause fight Communism tooth and nail? Why? Before I answer this question I want to remind the House of this: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred the other day to positive action and not merely negative action. It is precisely as a result of the combined positive and negative action of the National Party since it came into power in 1948 that South Africa to-day is the safest and best-run State on the whole continent of Africa. But what are the Opposition doing? They are grasping these apparently peaceful conditions as a fig leaf, as a pretence, in order to adopt a passive attitude towards Communism. That we cannot do. Communism is wily. Even in times of peace one must not trust it; one must be awake. As Gen. Smuts said, one must keep the weapons shining. One must have the trowel in one hand and the spear in the other. One must fight it tooth and nail. But in this time of peace do the Opposition want to fight it tooth and nail? Do they not know how wily Communism is? Do they not know that Communism is so clever, so cunning and so devilish in its tactics that it even uses the slogan of peace in the war against the Western democratic states and our way of life? Do they not know that? Communism is a devilish doctrine, so said Field-Marshal Smuts in the evening of his life. Communism is a spiritual disease; it is a cancer. If one does not eradicate it root and branch, if one does not pull up the whole growth by its roots, then it will so penetrate the entire State and the entire community that it can result in paralysis and in my opinion also the destruction of everything that is dear to us in our country. We must not allow ourselves to be soothed to sleep in time of peace. Communism is tough; it is obstinate. Communism always reminds me of the Greek legend of the multi-headed monster, which had the characteristic that if one chopped off one of its heads two or three others grew in its place. Communism is tough, and I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Justice has now come forward with this instrument for chopping off these heads so that we can combat Communism more effectively than we have been able to do in the past, no matter how well we did do so.

Communism takes on various guises. There is no other movement which takes on as many guises as the Communist Party and Communism. Even the United Party cannot keep up with them. When it suits them for practical reasons they take on all sorts of guises. Why do hon. members opposite not consider this Bill against the background of the tactics, the wiliness and the objects of unscrupulous Communism? The hon. the Minister is here amending the 1950, 1951 and 1954 Acts in order to close loopholes, which are perhaps due to the actions of an obstinate Opposition which has adopted a passive attitude towards the communists and opposed the legislation. These communists have discovered loopholes, and the Minister is now closing those loopholes. When I see the attitude adopted by the Opposition during this debate towards this Bill, then I am convinced of one thing—and here I want to address a few friendly words to hon. members opposite: Unscrupulous agitators, saboteurs outside, organizations which want to destroy the Christian way of life, certain individuals who are furthering Communism, are in ecstasy at the moment at the fact that not only outside but in the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa there are people who are putting up such a bitter and obstinate struggle against this most effective measure which we are introducing in order to combat atheistic Communism in South Africa. I think that the communists, the trouble-makers and the anti-social communistic underminers of the State are proposing one toast after the other to-night in vodka to the United Party, the Progressive Party and the other parties. This is their parliamentary front. I can already hear them calling out: “Long live the United Party” because that is the attitude they have adopted here. I want to make it quite clear to-day that I am pleased and grateful that at the moment there is a National Party in power, a National Party which has always consistently opposed Communism. Hon. members opposite challenged us last night and asked where we had taken action against Communism. I do not want to bore hon. members with quotations, but they can even go back to the 1937 congress of the National Party in the Cape; at that time there were no less than 10 motions aimed at Communism; we have always opposed Communism through warnings and through effective positive and negative action. We have consistently taken action and we have a clean anti-communist record. Since coming into power we have done everything in our ability to eradicate Communism. I just want to remind the House that on the eve of the 1948 election the secretary of the Communist Party in South Africa. Moses Kotane, appealed to his own supporters: “Comrades, White and Black, tomorrow is polling day. Vote for the United Party because if the Nationalist Party come into power they will eradicate Communism root and branch.” Mr. Speaker, that Native had a prophetic gift. We came into power, and since coming into power in 1948 we have introduced one measure after the other aimed at eradicating Communism root and branch from our fatherland. We have placed this anti-communistic legislation on the Statute Book; we have banned the Guardian and the Communist Party. There are so many examples which we can mention, but what have the United Party done? We have only had lip service from the United Party. I say that this is merely lip service, because here they have the opportunity to suit the action to the word, and instead of helping to combat Communism their only object is to reduce the effectiveness of this measure; to obstruct this measure. However, I do want to congratulate them as well; they have been consistent throughout; they are consistent in this weak-kneed attitude towards Communism. If their consistent attitude were to be implemented, if they had been in power, then Sam Kahn and Bunting would still sit there, then the Guardian would still have continued to spread the ideology of Communism amongst the Black people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this measure, because these trained agitators, these inciters, are appealing to all that is animal and low in mankind. White as well as non-White. If one listens on the Parade to trained agitators, then one sees that they do not appeal to what is fine and pure and noble. Oh no, the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) knows that these agitators take the platform under the guise of fundamental rights and freedom and they then let loose passions and desires which must eventually be translated into action and the destruction of the White man in our father land and everything which we have achieved. [Time limit.]

The fluency of the hon. the Chief Whip is a continual source of wonder and admiration to all members, I think, but this afternoon he has treated us to a very long lecture on the evils and the dangers of Communism. In doing so, of course, he is preaching to the converted. I have one fault to find with his very eloquent speech and that is that he made very little reference to the Bill: we are discussing. I know that the blood of the hon. the Chief Whip is liable to boil at a: somewhat low temperature sometimes, but I think I must take the risk of joining issue with him on two points. The first is that I think, lie goes entirely wrong in his premise that if one is opposed to Communism, it goes without saying that one is also bound to support: this Bill, and that opposition to Communism means, that without any thought or consideration one is bound blindly to give one’s approval to any measures whatever which anybody proposes to take in order to deal with Communism. That is a complete non sequiter and it is completely illogical. I should have thought that the hon. the Chief Whip, if he had thought about it, would have realized how wrong he was in his reasoning.

The second point on which I disagree with him is this: From his few references to this Bill I gather that he approves of it and that he thinks that the hon. the Minister is doing a great service to the country in introducing it in the form in which it stands now. There again I join issue with the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) because I think that it has been obvious from the start that this is a very bad Bill. I think there has been reference this afternoon to consultation between the Minister and certain trade organizations, as the result of which, according to the Chief Whip, the hon. member for Brits, the trade unions after having had time to consider the matter and hear the Minister’s views, have changed their ideas about the Bill. Well, Sir, if that is so one can only say that if the Government is so convinced of the rectitude and the equity of this Bill, it is a pity that they rushed it to such an extent in putting it before the country and bringing it into this House, because on their own argument, if they are right, if the country had had ample time to examine and consider the Bill, if this House had had more time to consider and examine the Bill, according to them there would have been a much larger measure of agreement than there is.

Is that your excuse?

Oh, it is that hon. member! I thought it was somebody else. We do not take any notice of his interruptions. Sir, not only has it been obvious from the beginning that this is a bad Bill but I think this debate has clearly demonstrated just how bad it is and how very weak is the case which the Government benches have put up in demanding support for it. There is a third point on which I join issue with the hon. member. He said that the Minister had introduced this Bill in a most reasonable explanatory way and in a manner which should convince anybody of the rightness of his case. I cannot agree with him. I thought that the introduction of this Bill was also very bad. The Minister’s introduction of the Bill to me was a very strange exhibition of sabre-rattling and tub-thumping and special pleading, and certainly did nothing to convince either me or anybody on this side of the House that the unrestricted powers which he is demanding are either necessary or, what is more, that they are likely to be successful in achieving his allegedly limited objectives. But one thing has become clear in this debate from the outset, and that is that we are rapidly nearing the stage when any person who opposes Government policies, particularly race policy, either verbally or in writing, is liable to be labelled as an agitator and once you are labelled as an agitator it is becoming more and more likely that you will be dubbed a communist and will fall under the scope of the Act and of this Bill when it has been passed.

What a bright speech from the bright member.

Mr. Speaker, we are continually getting examples of the sad mental arrogance which afflicts so many hon. members on the other side of the House, and that type of remark is just one of them. Sir, this Bill has been subjected, not as the Chief Whip says, to petty-fogging criticism from this side of the House; it is being subjected to objective and critical legal examination, an examination which shows perfectly clearly how far it goes beyond the objective which the Minister says he has in introducing this legislation. We have had no reasoned reply to that analysis from the other side of the House. Typical speeches from the other side of the House have been the speeches of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet), who treated us to another discourse on his two favourite subjects, the question of a police state and the iniquities of the English Press, and, of course, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), who, in his wholesale way, regards any opposition to this Bill as a form of agitation. Indeed, he went so far, by implication, as to suggest that the whole of this side of the House, in opposing this Bill, were siding with communists and saboteurs.

I did not say so; it was another speaker.

But, generally speaking, the attitude of hon. members opposite seems to be simply one of resignation. Their attitude seems to be that this country is in great danger, and in such a state of danger that there is no alternative to placing these almost dictatorial powers in the hands of the Minister, unrestricted by any parliamentary or other control at all. They seem to be satisfied to sit back and to thank the Minister and to hope for the best. If they had come forward and said that they did feel that there was an urgent necessity, that they did feel that the Government should be given any power they liked to deal with any particular emergency, and that the Government should have to report back to Parliament, which is the body which is giving them that power, then I think they might have had a case. But no, Sir, they just sit back and say: “Well, that is all there is to it; let us hope for the best; we trust the Minister to be a good Minister.” But none of them seems to think what a commentary this Bill is, taking the Minister’s statement at its face value, on 14 years of Nationalist Government. Armed with Acts which give the Government and this Minister power which is unheard of in any civilized country, except in times of national emergency, and then only as a temporary measure—in spite of that, they now find it necessary to come to the House to seek further powers enlarging the already almost unrestricted powers which the Government has to restrict and repress freedom of speech, association and movement, and creating a new omnibus crime which is so widely defined that, as far as I, a mere layman, can see, an ordinary burglar can fall under it and become liable to the death penalty. Now the hon. the Minister comes along and he says that, without these powers for which he is asking, he cannot carry out his duty of maintaining law and order. In other words, he admits that, since 1950, this Government, with all the powers which it has accumulated since 1950, has failed to quell and to kill the monster for which these powers were given. The hon. the Minister said that the country is peaceful, quiet and at rest. Having said that, he proceeds to give very cogent reasons which would seem to prove exactly the contrary. He says that there are Black agitators abroad, with headquarters in London, who are organizing upheavals in this country; he says that there are White agitators—at one stage he said “White communist agitators” and at another stage he said “White agitators”—here at home who have to be dealt with more severely; he says that communist cells are being formed throughout the country, and we have been told, not by this Minister in his last speech, but by Cabinet Ministers, that uprisings are planned in this country for 1963. In other words, if all these things are true, the country may be quiet, but how on earth can you say that it is at rest? If these things are true, beneath this quiet surface the country must be seething with unrest; you cannot have it both ways. The most the hon. the Minister can say is, in the classic phrase, that “order reigns in Warsaw”, if his case is correct, and I am not in a position to say whether he is right or wrong; I do not know. I am only saying that he is not consistent in what he did say in his speech. The Minister says that this Bill has no ulterior motives, that it is a simple measure to render communists harmless and to prevent sabotage. By “sabotage” I think he means violence aimed at upsetting the affairs of the country and possibly to upset the State. His followers accept that; they are agreed that the powers that he is asking for are wide, but they trust the Minister not to misuse them. I am not surprised that hon. members on the other side find themselves somewhat puzzled as to the position. Here they have one Minister telling them one day that the country is peaceful, quiet and at rest, and the very next day the Minister who sits next to him told us yesterday afternoon that we were fighting for our lives, so it is not surprising that hon. members on the other side, even that great brain, the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), are puzzled as to exactly what the position is.

You have no brains at all.

In any case, I cannot agree with hon. members on the other side on either count. I cannot agree that this Bill has no ulterior motives, and I cannot agree that we can be perfectly certain that the hon. the Minister will not make wrongful use of these powers. Let me tell the House why. The hon. the Minister at one time advocated publicly a policy which. I believe, was called Christian national socialism, which at that time was equated—I think equated by him—with Fascism in Italy and national socialism in Germany. I do not know whether he has changed his mind: I have never see any public statement by him saying that he no longer believes in that form of government, or I do not know whether he has simply gone underground, because it is not only communists who can go underground. Sir. In the second place I think you, Sir, were in the House when the Minister of Economic Affairs made his maiden speech in 1948. The theme of that traditionally non-controversial maiden speech was the conflict in South Africa between nationalism and liberalism. He said in that speech, which you will find in Hansard, vol. 64, col. 502—and I recommend that speech for light reading—that there was this conflict going on between liberalism and nationalism; that liberalism believed in the individual, with his so-called rights and liberties. He said on the one hand, nationalism believes that every person can only attain his highest freedom and fullest self-realization within the unit of the nation; on the other hand, liberalism (he said) believes in the sovereign right and freedom of the individual. He went on to say that the doctrine of liberalism, as he defined it, was almost the same as the ideal of Communism. Of course that made his speech reminiscent of a page out of “Mein Kampf”. But my point is that there in 1948 you had a statement, a declaration of faith, by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. I don’t know whether he has changed his views, but since then we have had in this House and in the country a steady stream of legislation regimenting people into units of the State, restricting the discretion of the courts, even access to the courts in some cases, taking powers out of the hands of Parliament and placing them in the hands of the Executive, that is the State. And I regard this Bill as almost, not quite (because there is further legislation on the Order Paper for this Session of the same pattern), as the culmination of a long-term plan of which notice was given in this House as long ago as 1948 by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

I regard this Bill as the culmination of a long-term plan. The Minister tells us that this is not panic legislation. He says it is a cool, calculated measure which he is obliged to introduce under the circumstances. I quite believe him when he says that it is a cool and calculated measure, but I don’t believe him when he says that he is obliged to introduce it under the present circumstances. I believe that this is a long-term plan to create—and this Bill is only a part of that plan of course—to create, under the guise of parliamentary democracy, the machinery for a complete totalitarian state (call it a police state if you like) in which everyone will be not a free man, but, what the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs called “a unit of a strictly regulated state”.

Have we not heard all that before?

It won’t do any harm to hear it again. If I thought that, by repeating it every day, it might finally convert the hon. the Minister to the errors and sins of his ways, I would be happy to do it. In other words, Sir, what is in view is a Christian national socialism, the counterpart of Fascism, and I oppose this Bill, first of all because I don’t think it is necessary for the proper administration of this country, and I don’t think it is necessary to maintain law and order. I believe the powers that the Government has got are so devastatingly wide at present that it should not need any further powers; and, secondly, I oppose this Bill because I believe it is part and parcel of a plan to destroy the so-called rights and liberties of man, which the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs referred to so contemptuously in his maiden speech, and because, above all, this Bill typifies a political philosophy which I loathe and detest, and which I believe in the long run will destroy our country if we go on the way they are going on at the present time.

I really expected that we would have a better and clearer contribution from the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), a front-bencher opposite, than we had from him this afternoon in connection with this legislation. The hon. member will forgive me if I do not try to reply to the various remarks he has made. I find it extremely difficult to follow him and at this stage I should therefore in the first place prefer to confine myself to the attitudes adopted by the various parties towards this measure. I think we have reached the stage where the attitudes of the various parties have more or less been crystallized, some clearly, others not quite so clearly. I now find it noticeable that during this debate, as in all important debates which have taken place in this House, there are only two clear notes to be heard, only two clear attitudes have been set out. The one is the attitude of the Government members, a clear attitude, to the effect that they are in favour of the measure because they believe that it is in the best interests of South Africa and that they are prepared to accept all its implications, that they are prepared to accept responsibility for it, and that they are prepared to defend it here and to defend it outside in the country, whether it be in the Transvaal, the Natal, the Cape or the Free State. During this debate that attitude has once again become clearly evident.

Then there is a second clear note which one hears during debates of this nature, namely the attitude adopted by the liberal minded, the attitude which is represented in this House by the Progressive Party, through their only member, the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). This hon. member has spoken just as clearly. To her this measure is reprehensible from A to Z and that is why she has moved the logical motion: “That the Bill be read this day six months.” The hon. member for Houghton, no matter how unacceptable her attitude may be to me, compels my respect and I think it compels respect in the country outside. She is prepared to put that attitude forward in this House and she is prepared to put it outside.

But what of the other two parties, what of the United Party and what of its powerful election ally, the National Union? Mr. Speaker, the attitudes of these two parties have been so similar during this debate that one could hardly put a pin between them. The speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) were identical. And it was not difficult for us to prophesy that this would happen because the attitude which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout adopts is determined by the ups and downs of the results of elections contested by the United Party and the Progressive Party. After the results at Musgrave and East London City became known, a child in politics could have prophesied exactly what attitude the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would adopt in this debate. And so it happened. And as that is the position, it is not necessary for me to devote any further attention to the attitude adopted by that party.

I therefore confine myself to the attitude adopted by the official Opposition during this debate. The attitude adopted by the Opposition is the old, well-tried one, which they always adopt in this type of debate. But if this is an old well-tried attitude, it is also an attitude which has always failed. It is the attitude: we are in favour of this matter, we agree, we feel that it has value, but … there are difficulties. There are difficulties and usually the difficulties are insuperable. This is precisely the same attitude as they have once again adopted on this occasion. This is the attitude which the official Opposition adopts in order to satisfy simultaneously their conservative supporters, or their supposedly conservative supporters, and their liberal supporters. This is the attitude which they adopt in order to satisfy their platteland supporters in the Free State, in the Transvaal and in the Cape on the one hand and at the same time to satisfy their Jingo supporters in Natal on the other hand. This is the attitude which they adopt in order to satisfy the conservative element in our country, and at the same time the Press which supports them and certain clergymen. This is the attitude which they adopt in order to further South Africa’s interests, and to satisfy their own conscience on the one hand and at the same time to try to gain the goodwill of the outside world. Mr. Speaker, this is also the attitude which the United Party adopts in order to satisfy their Mitchells of South Coast, Natal, and to satisfy at the same time their Copes, Suzmans, Jan Steylers and Ray Swarts as well. This is also the attitude which they have once again been obliged in this instance to adopt in order to satisfy their Tuckers on the one hand and at the same time their Cadmans on the other hand. I find it noticeable how it is always Zululand—if it is not Ray Swart, then it is the hon. Mr. Cadman who forces the United Party to adopt this attitude. I pity the hon. member for South Coast his Zululand members. This in the old well-tried attitude, but also the attitude which always fails. This is the attitude which is not “Yes and which is not “No” either. This is the attitude of “Ja-maar” (yes-but). This is the attitude which the United Party has adopted in this debate. But let us examine how the United Party has tried to put its attitude during this debate. They say that they are also very anxious to maintain law and order. They say that they are just as concerned and just as worried about the security of the State. The hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has said “the fight against Communism is not a one-party fight”. The hon. member for Zululand in turn says “We have as much, if not more, at stake than members on the Government side”. He goes further and says “The Opposition is against Communism and sabotage as much as the Government”. This sounds all very well and it looks as though this represents support. It is encouraging. But that is not all; this is not the whole of their attitude. The tail must still come, and unfortunately the tail on these occasions always swings the dog—and this is the tail of “but”. The official Opposition says: “Yes, we should like to maintain law and order and we are bitterly opposed to saboteurs and communists, but what about access to the courts?” And then they say again: “We are bitterly opposed to suboteurs, but what about the great powers which the Government already has?” And they say: “We are bitterly opposed to Communism, but what about the freedom of the individual?” They say: “We are just as opposed to Communism as you and stand by you in the struggle, but what about the preparatory examinations which are now being abolished?” They say: “What about the discretion of the courts?” They say: “What about children who may be affected?” “What about the wide definition of sabotage?” “What about an unscrupulous and incapable Attorney-General?” They say: “What about the onus, which we feel you are placing on the accused?” They say: “What about the extension of the regulations under the Public Safety Act to an area where there is not a state of emergency?” And they say: “What about the good name of South Africa?” And when they have reached this stage, Sir, and when they have put all the “buts”, then the measure has been completely emasculated and nothing is left. The hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) has made the same point. As the hon. the Minister of Information showed yesterday, this is an attitude which they adopt here, then they go outside and tell their conservative supporters: “We were also bitterly opposed to sabotage and we were also bitterly opposed to Communism, and we were prepared to give support, but …”. And then they turn to their liberal supporters and say: After all you saw how we fought.

But, seeing that the Opposition has this vast number of buts, they will permit me too to have a few buts. They ask: “What about the onus?” Now I want to say: “But”, if you as an Opposition want to be reasonable, what then of the argument submitted by the hon. member for Smithsfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché) and the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) and by the Minister himself? But, why are they not believed and accepted? But if they do not want to accept those arguments, there still remains the “but” that the Opposition always has the right to move that subsection (2) of Clause 21 should be omitted. They know after all that the hon. the Minister has indicated that he will be quite prepared to accept such a proposal. It has been made clear that the onus is still on the State. The State must still as always prove that a wrongful act has been committed and that it was wilfully committed and that the person before the court is the person who committed that act. They now ask: “But, what of these great powers?” We are opposed to Communism and sabotage, they say, but the Minister already has such tremendous powers and you tell us that the country is quiet, calm and peaceful. But I now want to ask: But do hon. members not realize that it is precisely because of these great powers which the Minister has had and which his predecessors had and which have been taken since 1950, that South Africa is so peaceful and calm? Without these powers South Africa would have looked different to what she does to-day. I want to put a further “but”: But do hon. members then not realize that the Minister is in earnest, that the Minister has information and that the Minister considers it essential to take these powers in the light of information he has, and which the hon. the Opposition do not have? I say, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members say: “But, what about the discretion of the courts?” I now ask the hon. Opposition: But what is strange about prescribing a minimum penalty? The hon. member for Smithfield has shown so clearly that we have often prescribed a maximum penalty. And if we are allowed to prescribe a maximum penalty and no on has any objection and the courts accept it, what is strange about prescribing a minimum penalty? After all we are the legislative authority in this country. We must tell the judiciary what the laws of our land are. We must tell the judiciary in how serious a light we regard certain offences. We cannot evade our responsibilities in this way. They say: “But what about the poor children?” But I ask whether hon. members do not realize that a fire set alight by the hand of a child can bum just as vigorously as a fire set alight by the hand of an adult? But I also want to ask this: I shall be glad if hon. members will tell me how, if an age limit is to be laid down, the age of a Bantu child can be proved seeing that they seldom have a birth certificate? How do hon. members imagine the prosecutor is to prove that such a Bantu child has reached the relevant age? It is absolutely impossible in our country. We know the Bantu, the hon. member for South Coast knows the Bantu. If a Bantu child of 16, 17 or 18 is involved and the question of age is at issue, then it is the easiest thing in the world to call a few uncles or a grandmother who will confirm under oath that the child is younger than the relevant age. There is no way of providing it, and for this reason I believe that the Minister is obliged to omit an age limit. And he is still leaving the matter in the discretion of the court, if it is a child and the child was in-influenced to commit certain acts, not to impose the death penalty but to impose the lesser penalty. And in conclusion there is still the possibility of the penalty being commuted. Hon. members ask: But what about the extension of the regulations to an area where there is not a state of emergency? I now ask hon. members: What are we to do when we have the position such as we had in 1960 when there was a state of emergency in the Langa area and certain emergency regulations were issued, regulations relating to arrest, and the prohibition of publications, and one journalist after the other then slipped out of the Langa area and just went over the border to the magistrial district of Stellenbosch where they made statements to the Press, and no one could touch them? Do hon. members want the whole of Stellenbosch under such circumstances to be declared an emergency area?

But hon. members ask: What now of the good name of South Africa? I now want to ask hon. members whether they do not realize that one Sharpeville or one Langa can do South Africa’s good name far more harm than ten acts of sabotage? Do hon. members not realize that this measure has in fact been introduced to prevent Langas, Nyangas and Sharpevilles? If hon. members are so concerned about the good name of South Africa, they should give the Minister all the powers he asks. He and his staff will ensure that there will be no more Langas and Sharpevilles, and that South Africa’s good name abroad will be far better protected in this way than by withholding this sabotage legislation.

They ask: “But what of an unscrupulous Attorney-General?” I feel inclined to say to hon. members: But are you not ashamed of yourselves? Do hon. members not realize that our Attorneys-General are people of the highest integrity, are professional people of the highest integrity? Do they not realize that “the spoils system” does not apply in South Africa as it does in America? Our Attorneys-General are senior officials who are not under political pressure or influence, and I honestly do not believe that the Attorneys-General will be grateful to hon. members for the remarks they have made here. They ask us: “What about the preparatory examination?” They say they would also like to smother sabotage at birth, but now the preparatory examination is being abolished. What is so strange about saying that instead of having a preparatory examination, the trial should immediately take place in a Supreme Court? What is strange about this if we in fact want to ensure by these means that people do not escape one after the other during the bail period to Basutoland or Bechuanaland or Swaziland, and the next one hears of them is that they are in London and causing trouble? The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) is laughing, but it is a fact that the only way in which we can stop this properly is to take them to court immediately after arrest. That is the only way one can act. They ask: But what about the wide definition of “sabotage”? The hon. the Minister has made it quite clear, and he has not pulled any punches, that this is the only way in which it can be done if we wish to make the legislation effective. Here we are dealing with people who are trained to escape. And he has referred to the two safety valves which are being introduced. In the first place there is the Attorney-General who will act as a safeguard and in the second place there is the safety valve that a person can prove that it was not his intention to commit sabotage. What is really the difficulty facing hon. members?

So much has been said about the wide definition. The Minister of Transport has risen twice and asked the United Party: “What do you propose?” In every instance the reply has been that it is not their difficulty, but it is the Government’s task to draw up the definition. They are just prepared to criticize. This reminds me of the man who said: “I cannot lay an egg. but I can criticize it and I know whether it is bad.” That is more or less the attitude hon. members adopt. But our difficulty is that in this case an egg must be laid. It must be laid if we wish to ensure that there are not disturbances here in South Africa which will do South Africa tremendous harm. They ask: What about the access to the courts? What about the freedom of citizens? I particularly appreciate the way in which the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) in an authoritative way showed that if citizens in any country opposed the community, certain of the privileges of citizenship were taken from them. That is exactly what is being done here. But the freedom of the citizen and access to the courts are a difficult matter when one is dealing with sabotage and Communism. Then hon. members must realize that one is sitting at the same table with the devil and if one wishes to sit at the same table with the devil, one must have a very long spoon, and this legislation is such a long spoon. But what is more: It is a fact, and we make no secret of it, that if one wants to fight the devil, then one cannot keep to the Queensberry Rules. If one wants to fight the devil, one takes strong measures and one moves away from the normal conventional legislation. This is what we are doing here and we make no apology for doing so. I personally was trained in law and have also studied the principles of the rules of law but our justification is that here we are dealing with an enemy who will use the freedom which democracy offers him in order to destroy us and that democracy. For this reason I am prepared to support this Bill. And for this reason I want to thank the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet for the moral courage they have shown in introducing this legislation and defending it in this House. We shall defend it outside on every platform. I also want to congratulate the staff of the hon. the Minister who have assisted him by supplying information regarding the difficulties being experienced and the loopholes which must be closed, and his law advisers. I say, Mr. Speaker, that I honestly feel that if the hon. the Minister and his staff are armed with this measure, he and they will be able to keep matters quiet and peaceful in South Africa.

There are just two things which I want to ask the hon. the Minister. I have examined this measure and it seems to me that there is one matter which it does not cover. I often go out to Sea Point over De Waal Drive, and I find it noticeable how walls, public buildings and private property are being disfigured. I want to ask the Minister whether this measure covers that, or if the Minister is certain that this measure covers that type of case.

It is the writing on the wall.

Yes. I wanted to say that it was the writing on the wall. I want to say that if this measure does not cover it, then I ask the hon. the Minister that steps should be taken as soon as possible to clamp down on and eradicate this type of behaviour and this type of propaganda, incitement and disfigurement. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that a heavy penalty, an extremely heavy penalty, should be imposed for such an offence, and that we should do it in this way, namely the court should be given the power to suspend half the sentence if the walls are properly restored in public by the persons responsible. If the walls and buildings are properly restored, only half the imposed sentence will be served. But there is another question …

Legislation will be introduced.

I am glad to hear this from the hon. the Minister because I could not find such provision in this measure and it was something which worried me. But as regards the measure itself, I want to ask the hon. the Minister something else. I want to ask him to have the 1950, 1951 and 1954 measures—all the amendments—consolidated as soon as possible and to submit it to this House because it is simply impossible for the ordinary man to read this measure as it is before us to-day.

Mr. Speaker, having said these few words I want to ask the hon. the Opposition this. There will still be a number of speakers on the Opposition side. Do not let us approach the matter from a narrow party political point of view, do not let us see what this group of conservative voters on the platteland will say or what Durban, Port Elizabeth or East London or Cape Town will say, if we adopt this or that attitude. Let us adopt a clear and unequivocal attitude which will give guidance to the public outside. Thank you.

I do not intend to deal at length with the points made by the last speaker, except to say to the hon. member that it is completely unnecessary for him or for any hon. members on that side of the House to lecture members on this side on Communism or on sabotage. This side of the House is as opposed to Communism as hon. members opposite. And as far as sabotage is concerned they have shown us what sabotage means and we have learnt our lessons from them.

What do you mean?

What are you insinuating?

The hon. member for Cradock interrupts me …

On a point of order. The hon. member says that members on this side of the House have taught members on that side of the House how to commit sabotage. I think he should be asked to withdraw that.

Did the hon. member say that?

Mr. Speaker, I said that as far as sabotage was concerned members opposite had taught us what sabotage was. Members opposite have admitted that they were members of the Ossewabrandwag.

On a point of order, the hon. members insinuated, gave the impression, that if you wanted to know what sabotage was you could learn that from members on this side of the House. That is what it amounts to.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. I want to ask the hon. member for Cradock to stop interrupting me. There is only one aspect of the Bill which we need worry about and that is house arrest, only in his case it will not be house arrest but kraal arrest. I hope he will leave me alone from now on; I want to carry on with my speech.

I want to repeat what the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) said and that is that we oppose Communism. I venture to suggest that the Coloured people who we have the honour to represent in this House are as opposed to Communism as anybody else in the country. The Coloured people are peace-loving people …

More so than you are.

The hon. member must stop bleating. I cannot get on with my speech. The Coloured people are peace-loving and I do suggest to the House and the country that they will not at any time give trouble in regard to Communism or sabotage. I want to deal with the Coloured people before I deal with certain specific items in the Bill. Under this Bill, if the Coloured people believe that they are to be deprived of certain freedoms which they have hitherto enjoyed and they protest, they can be regarded as communists and they can be banned.

That is nonsense; where do you get that from?

If the hon. the Minister will assure me and the Coloured people that it is not the intention under this Bill to ban any of their leaders who will get onto a platform and protest against what they regard as certain denials of freedoms, such as the fact that they have been removed from the common roll, such as their removal from areas where they want to live, such as job reservation; if in those circumstances it is not the intention to ban or to silence opposition by the Coloured people against the denials of those freedoms, then I will accept his assurance, I will be quite happy about it.

I have seen a happy communist, but not a happy Coloured one.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) wants to give me the impression that this Bill is there for specific purposes only. I say this is a very wide Bill. While the hon. member may be proficient in medicine politically he is nothing but a chiropractor. I do not accept his interpretation of any legal Bills in this House. I know he is sincere but it is his lack of political knowledge that makes him believe that this Bill is not wide enough to embrace certain things which we believe it does embrace. Mr. Speaker, what is Communism? The hon. the Minister has not told us what Communism is.

It is defined in the Act.

I am talking to a man who understands law and not to the hon. member for Heilbron. I am directing my remarks to the hon. the Minister in a serious attempt to be constructive and not destructive.

The definition was accepted by this House in 1950.

I agree that the definition of Communism was accepted in 1950 by this House but it was in fact rejected, in my humble opinion, by the courts in the treason trial.

What nonsense.

I will prove it to the hon. the Minister. I want to say this that Communism as we understand it, as the average person in the street understands it, is not the Communism which was the gravamen of the charge in the treason trial. For that reason the people were discharged. That is why I ask the Minister, not in a sense of ridicule but in the sense of constructive criticism, what was the effect of the judgment in the treason trial in regard to Communism? Because the gravamen there was that those people, either individually or collectively, had joined an organization on the basis of the Lenin-Marx theory and the court rejected that. You will remember, Sir, that the professor who was called by the Government to give expert evidence, was completely nullified as a result of the devastating cross-examination by Mr. Maisel. I do believe that the Minister should for the sake of clarity define Communism. I am not satisfied with the present definition. If the Minister is satisfied he must say so. I do believe that that judgment has completely destroyed the existing definition of Communism in terms of the 1950 Act. That is the point I want to make. The Minister can tell me whether I am right or wrong. He can tell me if he intends to change it, or if he does not intend to change it, then I will be satisfied. But I do believe that in the application of banning orders the Minister has used Communism not as it is legally interpreted, not as it has been interpreted by the Judges in the treason trial, but as it is interpreted by the Minister and the Government.

And you call yourself a lawyer!

I hold no brief for Patrick Duncan. The Minister knows that politically I am violently opposed to him and against that which he stands for. But the Minister bans this man because, the Minister says, he encourages Communism, whereas in the minds of 99.9 per cent of the people, this man is as anti-communistic as the Minister.

How do you know? That statement has been made from time to time without any proof whatsoever.

Let me make my point to Minister.

You have no point.

I want to make this point that the man in the street believes that Patrick Duncan is not a communist.

But you are not a man in the street, you are a lawyer. You have made the assertion—now prove it.

If the Minister wants the references; for a Judge to ask the barrister to quote to him …

No, but he who avers must prove it.

I aver that if you asked 99.9 per cent of the people in the street whether they believe that Patrick Duncan is a communist they will all say “no”.

Because the Cape Times says he is not a communist.

I am not concerned with the Cape Times; the Cape Times does not interest me. It does not in any way influence me in regard to what I say in this House. I say that that man was banned because in the opinion of the Minister he furthered a Communism which only exists in the minds of the Minister and the Government. Nobody knows what this so-called Communism is and it certainly does not tally with the definition in the Act. I won’t take that point any further, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is high time that the Minister brought in a definition of Communism in conformity with the judgment in the treason trial and make Communism a little bit more understandable to the ordinary man in the street.

There is another aspect in this Bill which I want to deal with and in doing so I hope the Minister will accept that I want to be constructive and not destructive. I wish to deal with the juveniles which will fall under this Bill. If juveniles are charged under this Act they will have to appear before the Judge of the Supreme Court. I can find nothing in the Act which supersedes the Children’s Act as now amended. I can find nothing in the Act which supersedes the establishment of a children’s court and what it stands for and the procedure to be adopted when children are charged with any crime. The Minister will remember that the Act was amended in 1960.

Yes, I piloted it through this House.

Yes, I know, that is why I think the Minister should know something about it. All the Minister is doing in this Bill is to tell the Judges that they cannot sentence a juvenile in terms of certain sections of the Criminal Procedure Act. But the Minister does not in any way supersede the Children’s Act. I want to appeal to the Minister to amend this Bill in such a way that it will be very clear that any juvenile who is charged should be tried by the juvenile court in respect of these crimes under this Bill. If he is charged with murder to-day he is tried in the juvenile court. I do believe that where a juvenile is concerned we should continue to have a preparatory examination. You see, Sir, the position of a juvenile is very different from that of an adult. The law which deals with children who have committed crimes has been in existence for 25 years; it has stood the test of time. It has been found a good method of dealing with children. The Minister admitted that when he introduced the amending Bill in 1960. I remember what he said about it. I submit that we should not interfere with the established procedure of dealing with juveniles. If the Minister is anxious to punish a juvenile who is guilty of Communism or sabotage I say that the Minister must not allow his legal brain to be dominated by his political heart. As long as the Minister will allow his legal brain to be dominated by his political heart he will destroy a system in regard to juveniles which I believe is a good and sound system and a system which should not be interfered with. I say it is wrong for a child of tender age to have to stand before a Judge and then to be found not guilty. I am quite prepared to say that no child, White or Black, is going to commit these crimes unless he does so under coercion or unless he is forced to do so by somebody senior to him. I do not know much about the Bantu children.

Ask Miles Warren.

I do not want to ask him; actually we are very friendly but the Minister will understand. I am dealing with the people in the Cape Western Province. But even in respect of the Native territories I am not prepared to accept that a juvenile will deliberately sabotage or deliberately do anything contrary to the law unless he is coerced or is under some pressure from a senior. It is wrong for a juvenile to be gaoled, because he won’t be allowed bail; he won’t go to a house of correction, he won’t go to a place of safety he will be gaoled. Then he has to wait for his trial and if he is found not guilty—as he will be in nine cases out of ten because as I have said, he would have acted under the influence of somebody else—you can imagine what effect that will have on him, Sir. The whole purpose of the Children’s Act and the juvenile court is to try to make decent citizens of these juveniles and not criminals. I sincerely trust that the hon. the Minister will reconsider the vicious aspects of this Bill in regard to juveniles.

I now want to deal with Clause 6. The Minister may publish the list of persons which he has in his possession.

Or part of it.

Yes, or part of it. We had the experience during the last state of emergency that hundreds of people were put in gaol. I want to say to the Minister that he may do irreparable harm to certain people if he first publishes the list and then removes their names on good cause shown. I would rather see the reverse. The Bill says the Minister may publish the list and then on good cause shown he may remove a name from that list.

Not the list published; the one in my possession.

When the Minister publishes this list, is it his intention first to write to those people and draw their attention to it that their names will be published and that they must show good cause why their names should be removed. Will you remove their names before you publish it?

May I, with your permission, Sir, just explain to the hon. member. Under the 1950 Act a list was compiled of all members of the Communist Party. That list is with the Department. All this Bill says is that I may publish part of that list in the Gazette. In other words, an active communist’s name can be published in the Gazette, but it stands to reason that the other names will not be published; and I said that in my second reading speech.

That is so, Sir, and I thank the Minister for his explanation, but the point I want to make is this. Since the state of emergency some of them have undergone a change of heart.

I know and I want to take their names off.

How do you know that there has been a change of heart? How does the Minister know unless the Minister has followed them up and has had the Special Branch to follow them up …

Quite.

Then I will not go into the mechanics of how the Minister’s Department works, but it just shows how active the Special Branch has been.

Thank heaven for that.

I do not know about that; we will see about heaven later on. At this stage I am not prepared to thank heaven or even the Minister.

I am sorry the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) is not here. I am also sorry that there is a ban on him not to interrupt because he always used to give me a few points to go on with, and now he is not here.

Clause 21 (1) says—

shall be guilty of sabotage.

The State has to prove that the act was unlawful and wilful. … Do you concede that the onus is on the State to prove wilfulness and unlawfulness?

Only to have a prima facie case, I think.

The State has to prove wilfulness and unlawfulness.

I will answer the Minister. The Bill says “Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) any person who commits any wrongful and wilful act …”

And the State has to prove that.

I should imagine so, yes. Then the Minister goes on and says “objectively regarded”. And to me it seems quite wrong to word it this way. The crimes listed under 21 (1) are so wide that it can be decided by an official or a policeman that a crime has been committed. If a farmer throws a tin of Cooper’s dip in the furrow and kills some of the sheep which drink the water he can be arrested for sabotage.

If there is a stupid Attorney-General, yes.

The Minister must not draw me. One Judge has gone on leave because of his stupidity. The Minister must not draw me because I do not want to reflect.

You must not make reflections; it is unworthy of you.

I do not want to, but the Minister must not put words into my mouth, about the stupidity of the Attorneys-General. The Minister must know that no Attorney-General will act mala fide, but there will be a complaint that this man threw a tin of Cooper’s dip into the stream of water, and I want to know whether there is a prima facie case against that man. If there is no preparatory examination, no man who investigated the case …

Why do you say there is no preparatory examination? Read the clause. The clause says the Attorney-General may decide not to hold a preparatory examination. It is not compulsory not to hold a preparatory examination.

[Interjection.] I have read the Bill, and the Minister cannot get away from it that if a prima facie case is made out and there has to be an investigation and an arrest, this man has to prove his innocence.

That is absolute nonsense, you know.

Even the United Party knows that is nonsense.

The State must prove his guilt.

I have tried to point out to the Minister that the man who may have a valid excuse for throwing that dip into the stream will have to be arrested.

Not if he has a valid excuse.

Every man, where there is a prima facie case and a charge, will have to be arrested.

Where do you find that?

The Minister is a barrister and I am an attorney and I know how many people have been arrested on the mere statement of people, and after arrest they are let out on bail and there is an investigation and the Attorney-General may decline to prosecute. The point is that if there is a prima facie case of pollution of water, or there has been a shooting at electrical installations, that man must be arrested.

Where do you find that in the Bill?

You are not going to summons him. He will be guilty until he proves his innocence.

I am telling you that is nonsense. The Crown will have to prove his guilt.

The Crown will have to prove a prima facie case.

Sir, on a point of order, if it is a point of order, I want to ask whether we cannot give the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) an opportunity to prepare his speech and then allow him another opportunity to make it.

I will read the Bill and tell the Minister what is wrong with it tomorrow.

I will ask my Private Secretary to explain it to you.

I do not think this is funny at all. I want to tell the Minister that he is now, in the words of the hon. member for Houghton, being vengeful. He realizes what the position is, and I say that if the Minister is correct in saying that there is peace and quiet in the country, he is either misleading the House or he should tell us the true facts. I submit that no Government dare ask for such powers if all is peaceful, and I believe he should take the whole House into his confidence either at a secret session or by calling in the Leaders of the Opposition and disclose why he wants these powers, because no man in his sound and sober senses will want these drastic powers for a country where everything is peaceful and quiet.

Do you want my advice? Then buy shares if you can get them.

The only shares I think are good are sheep shears. I want to conclude on this note. If the Minister thinks that the country has been aroused as it has never been aroused before, and that this is done for no other reason than to embarrass the Government, the Minister does not have his finger on the pulse of the people. If the Minister thinks that members of the clergy and others will rise as one man in protest against this Bill …

Have they studied the Bill?

They have a worse Bill in Rhodesia.

I ask the Minister to tell us what he intends to do with this Bill, after the representations he had from the T.U.C. He should disclose to us the representations made by the Bar Council.

I definitely will, and you will be very surprised to hear it.

If the Bar Council can convince such a strong Minister of Justice, as he has been called—I think he has quite a good heart, but he is politically driven to it—if they can convince him of the injustice of the Bill and that South Africa will be the laughing stock of the world as the result of this legislation, and the Minister will water down this Bill in order to prevent internal disorder, I think he would have gone far and he might get support from quarters from which he does not expect it. But as the Bill stands now it can only be denounced as a Bill unworthy of South Africa.

Do me the favour of first reading it before you condemn it.

I know all about the Bill. The Minister must not try to be jocular and think that we are fools who do not understand what is behind it. [Interjections.] He must not think that we do not understand the gravity of the Bill. If I do not understand the Bill, does the Minister think that people outside will understand it?

But you have not even read it.

I have read it and the Minister is forcing me to use words which I do not want to use. This is nothing else, in my opinion, from what I have read of the Bill …

But a police state measure.

Yes. They speak about democracy in this country. I believe democracy is a dead duck in South Africa, and if it is not dead yet it is a dying duck, and that duck will be killed as surely as anything by this Bill and the lights of democracy will go out.

You are just a Donald Duck.

I do not know whether it is necessary to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett).

No, not at all!

He obviously has not read the Bill, and evidently, because he did not understand it himself, he gave bad advice to many of the people outside who are so opposed to the Bill. He asked what Communism was and referred to Patrick Duncan and said he was not a communist. I just want to refer him to the definition of Communism in the 1950 Act, where it is set out in sub-sec. (9). [Interjections.] Therefore it is not necessary to reply to him further.

I want to come back, however, to what the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) said yesterday. He attacked the Minister of Information, after the latter had spoken, and accused him of deliberately omitting to read a proviso contained in the Rhodesian Act. I just want to quote from his Hansard, and then I will return to it later. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said—

That is where he stopped reading the section. Now I allege that he in his turn deliberately stopped reading there and tried to make the Minister appear ridiculous, because that section continued as follows—

[Interjection.] He now wants to aver that this has nothing to do with the whole section, but it has much to do with the whole meaning of the proviso. It says here—

“Circumstances peculiar to the offender” are his age, his position in life, his health, etc., and those are excluded, but what must be taken into consideration are the “special circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence itself”. If that is not taken into consideration, then the penalty is “imprisonment for a period of not less than five years”.

But it can be less.

Yes, it can be less. Section 40 says—

That is what the hon. the Minister quoted. Now the proviso provides that if one throws a pumpkin without it resulting in a riot, the lesser sentence can be considered and the Judge can impose the lesser sentence, but not if it results, as is described in our Bill in Clause 21 (4), in causing general disruption, disturbance or disorder or to promote it. If one throws a tomato or a pumpkin in those circumstances one can be punished and receive a sentence of not less than five years. The hon. member tried to ridicule the hon. the Minister of Information, and I deplore it. [Laughter.] There is a saying that empty vessels make the most noise, and we have seen that here to-day.

One of the arguments against this Bill is that the Minister introduced it at a time when the country is calm and peaceful, and several speakers opposite said that it was not necessary to put that Bill on the Statute Book now. I ask myself why the country is to-day calm, quiet and peaceful. A country is only calm, quiet and peaceful if there is a good government in power, and fortunately it is the Nationalist Government which is in power. If it were the United Party, that would not have been the case. Why did they lose the election in 1948? They no longer cared for the ex-soldiers who had fought the war for them, that war which they are continually accusing us of not having participated in. After 1945 they forgot about those soldiers and did nothing for them. This Government took the necessary steps to help the ex-soldiers. But they also did nothing for the non-Whites, for the Bantu. No housing was provided for them, but this Government provided housing. Now they accuse us of being negrophilists. They did nothing for the Coloured either, except to exploit his vote.

What has this to do with the Bill?

I am pointing out that the country is quiet and peaceful, and that it is as a result of what was done by this Government for those people whom the United Party did not care for. They did nothing for those people, and that is why they lost the election.

But this legislation is necessary, not because there is peace and quiet in the country, but it has been put on the Statute Book because this Government has vision, something which the United Party never had and still does not have. I want to refer to the Australian Act. In 1950 an Act was put on the Statute Book in Australia called the Communist Party Dissolution Act. In 1950 the position in Australia was also peaceful and calm, and it still is today, and that Act still stands on the Statute Book there. What struck me about that Act is that they said—

We also say that we are passing this Act to maintain that position. Then we go further and say—

And then they state the provisions of the Act. Is it not peculiar that in Australia, where the population consists only of English-speaking persons and there is no National Party, such an Act was also passed, and for precisely the same reasons as in our case?

But I want to quote further. Various organizations are banned, and in Section 7 of that Act they say—

1. (a) become, continue to be, or perform any act as an officer or member of an unlawful association.

Then they continue, and in Section 9 they say that if a person continues to be a communist he can be punished. I first want to indicate what makes him a communist. They say—

i.e. that he is a communist—

That is, that such a person is a communist. When such a person has been declared to be a communist, he can go to court to show cause why he should not have been declared a communist, and the Act provides that when he petitions the court “the applicant shall begin”, i.e. the accused person. In our case it is said that we are shifting the onus, which is not true, but there the onus was shifted so that the person who has been named must go to court and he must prove that he is not a communist.

But what is also peculiar is that when such an application is heard, the notice published by the Governor-General in the Government Gazette is accepted as prima facie evidence that this person is such a person. How can he then controvert it? I have said that it is peculiar that the Australian Government also had to pass such legislation.

I want to come back, however, to our own Bill, and in regard to Clause 8 I just want to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister. The Minister explained to us that certain persons who are guilty of certain acts can be placed under house arrest, and he said that the person would then be granted time to go from his house to his work, and back from his work to his house, but that he would remain under house arrest until he goes to work again the next morning. But now I have this problem. What about the professional people, the advocates, attorneys and doctors? We find so many communists among them. Can this measure be applied to them? I believe that it should be improved so that it can be made applicable to them, too. Take, e.g., an attorney who is a communist and is concerned with subversive activities. He is in touch all day with his clients, who are birds of the same feather, and he can influence them when he is in touch with them, and the same applies to the doctor and the advocate. I should like to see the Minister devoting attention to such persons also, so that they may be dealt with. Then there is something I should like to have inserted in Clause 21. Say, for example, an attorney is allowed to attend to his business and he requires funds for subversive activities, and he arranges for one of his minions to steal money for party purposes, that should be regarded as sabotage. But it is not covered by the definition of “sabotage”. I should like the Minister to make provision for dealing with such persons also under the definition of “sabotage”.

I do not want to deal with the legal aspects of the various clauses here. We shall have sufficient opportunity for doing so in the Committee Stage. To-day, at the second reading, only the principle is relevant, and I support the principle of this Bill wholeheartedly. I cannot agree with the Opposition and with the people outside who make such a fuss and say that this Bill is so terrible. I have referred to the peace and quiet which prevails in the country, and I say that this Bill is necessary, even though that is the position. It is an unwise person who does not make arrangements for his future or his old age, and it is an unwise government which first waits until trouble arises and sabotage is committed before passing an Act. I want to refer to the fact that feelings are being swept up outside against this Bill, and I want to ask the United Party whether they agree with the persons who are inciting the people outside, and inter alia, with this report which appeared in the Rand Daily Mail of 18 May 1962, under the headline “Luthuli Calls for Black-White Protest”. I find that peculiar. We know Luthuli and we know how in the past the Opposition defended Luthuli when he was confined to a certain area. Here Luthuli writes from Durban—and I am glad that after the passing of this Bill he will no longer be able to do so, and I think that the United Party will be equally glad—

I find it significant that he now mentions his friends. The first is Dr. Jan Steytler and the second is Paramount Chief Sabata Dalinyeba of Tembuland, Transkei. The third is the Leader of the Opposition, Sir de Villiers Graaff. The fourth is the leader of the party of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), namely ex-Chief Justice H. A. Fagan. Then he also mentions the following—

But we know that the last-mentioned person definitely does not associate himself with those people, and that he now accepts this Bill. We know that Luthuli is the friend of these people, because I would not appeal to my enemies to support me; I appeal to my friends to stand by me. This report proves that these people all stand together and that all of them defend Communism. One cannot come to any other conclusion, because there are some of these people who are definitely pro-communist and against the Whites.

Much has been said in regard to the question of the onus in Clause 21. The former speaker, the hon. member for Boland, also addressed the Minister on the question of the onus of proof. I agree with the Minister that the onus is not shifted on to the accused, but that the position remains as it was in the past. The unlawful and deliberate act must still be proved. Clause 2 (2) is inserted as a defence, and if a person does not make himself guilty of the acts enumerated in Clause 21 (2), no Attorney-General will charge such a person with high treason. I wholly support this Bill, and I am glad the hon. the Minister has introduced it at this stage. This Bill is concerned with one matter only, and that is to prevent and to combat the activities of saboteurs and agitators and those who want to undermine the authority of the State. It does not concern the National Party; we need not be afraid of opposition. In the past we have always won the elections, and every time by an increased majority. This Bill deals only with agitators and those who undermine the authority of the State. Mr. Speaker, the penalty for murder is death. I am not afraid of the penalty imposed for murder, because I do not intend unlawfully taking the life of anyone. Why should any person then be afraid of this Bill if he does not intend committing the acts described in Clause 21 (1)? Why then be afraid? If a person does not intend committing those acts, then as far as he is concerned the position is as if this section is not contained in the Act. No, this Bill is only intended to prevent these crimes. It is better to place this measure on the Statute Book now than to wait until one day there is trouble in the country and then to introduce such legislation. I wholeheartedly support this Bill and I shall be glad if. the Minister will devote attention to the two points I mentioned and possibly move amendments in the Committee Stage.

I think that the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down rather typifies the approach of all hon. gentlemen who have spoken from that side of the House during this debate; at all costs avoid talking about the Bill; at all costs avoid any mention of the contents of the Bill; at all costs avoid the arguments which have been put up from this side of the House in relation to the Bill.

You cannot understand Afrikaans.

I can understand sufficient Afrikaans to appreciate that the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down amounted to thanking the Minister, to saying that everyone who is against this Bill is a communist and …

He never said that. That shows that you do not understand Afrikaans.

That is the clear implication of what he said. Thirdly, he tried to get the hon. the Minister of Information out of the soup, and let us face it: He really is in the soup after his performance here yesterday. He tried very hard to get him out of the soup, but unfortunately for the hon. member he cannot get him out of the soup so far as the Rhodesian legislation is concerned because the hon. the Minister of Information was absolutely wrong. The hon. member tried then to justify some of the provisions of this Bill. He did not specify them, he did not deal with them, but in an endeavour again to rescue the hon. the Minister of Information he referred to an Australian Statute.

I never did. I referred to the Rhodesian Statute.

Good Lord, Sir, I thought he referred to the Australian Suppression of Communism Act. Did the hon. member not do so?

Not in that connection.

The hon. member has remembered now what he did say.

On a point of personal explanation, I did refer to the Australian Statute but not when I was defending the Minister of Information. There I referred to the Rhodesian Act.

He does not understand Afrikaans.

Well, I withdraw that he was trying to get the Minister of Information out of the soup with that one; perhaps he was trying to get the Minister of Justice out of the soup. But, Sir, I believe that this is the law which was declared ultra vires by the Federal Commonwealth Court in Australia.

On what ground?

Ultra vires of the Constitution. On what other ground could it be ultra vires? The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) must appreciate, if he is going to come into this debate, that he must know something about what his friends have spoken about, and they have not spoken about the Bill. Sir, one of the most remarkable things about this Bill has been the manner in which everybody—and I do not exclude the Minister here—has avoided the contents of the Bill. The first indication that I saw of this being mentioned in Government circles was in Dagbreek en Sondagnuus, and that paper said that a Bill would be introduced which would define and prohibit sabotage and provide for other incidental matters.

What are you reading from?

I am reading from the Daily News of 10 May 1962. There is no reason to suppose that that is not correct. It would define sabotage and provide for other incidental matters”.

That was taken from the Bill itself; it is the long title.

Is that so? That is interesting, Sir. It says here that “the Minister said that the Bill would …” and then reference is made to the Suppression of Communism Act, the Criminal Procedure Act, the Public Safety Act, the Uunlawful Organizations Act. If they took that from the Bill, it is an extraordinary thing for them to say that the hon. the Minister said that the Bill “would” do something if they already had the Bill before them to have a look at. In that case one would usually cay that that is what the Bill provides for, not that the Bill would do something. This was before the Bill was published.

What about it?

What is the date of that cutting?

10 May 1962. Sir, the day this Bill was published, on Saturday, it was the headline in every newspaper; you would not find it in a little box like this in a paper like the Daily News which comes out in the evening. Do not let us be absurd; let us appreciate what our facts are. Sir, that is the impression that has been put out by the hon. gentleman, namely that it deals with sabotage. We find the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) saying that 95 per cent of White South Africa is in favour of this Bill.

Quite right.

95 or 90 per cent of South Africa is in favour of suppressing sabotage; that is quite right but that is not the same thing as saying that 90 per cent of South Africa is in favour of this Bill.

Then I want to deal with what the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser) said. He said the amendment to the Bill satisfies the Tuckers and the Cadmans. Of course, if it is the right approach it satisfies us all. The hon. member for Klerksdorp then said something which I do not accept. He again thanked the Minister, of course, for having the moral courage to bring in this Bill. The moral courage to do what? To hang children? The moral courage to lock up people without trial for 12 days, with no reasons, and no reasons given by the hon. the Minister when he introduced this Bill; he said that it was rather a useful sort of power. The moral courage to prohibit meetings, Sir? And to prohibit meetings which, as I shall demonstrate, have no connection whatsoever with Communism?

Then we come to the one gentleman who I thought would deal with the Bill, the one hon. member on the Government side who is a practising advocate, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Nel). I thought he would deal with the Bill, but he did not touch it. I am sorry he is not here at the moment. I told him that I was going to reply to him but unfortunately he had to go away. He quoted the English Malicious Damage to Property Act. It is a great pity that he did not get the Act itself, because if he had he would have found that it was passed over a hundred years ago. He would have found if he had paged through the Statute Book, that two Statutes before, they repealed a number of Acts which provided for hanging for stealing, for hanging for house-breaking, for hanging for burglary, and so on. He would have found that that Bill was passed in the same year as Parliament reluctantly gave up compulsory hangings for all trivial offences, and I think that is where this Bill belongs, so far as the penalties of this Bill are concerned, a hundred years ago. The sort of approach that they had in England then demonstrates precisely what this Bill gives to us here. But I am very sorry to say that the hon. gentleman misled the House. He either did so negligently or he did so deliberately. Because if he had read that Act he would have found that it said that when you are convicted, you are to be given certain sentences at the discretion of the court. The minimum sentence of three years was in the discretion of the court because the court could sentence him to a sentence not exceeding two years if it also imposed a sentence of hard labour or what we call it compulsory labour. Every sentence of imprisonment in our courts to-day is accompanied by compulsory labour. Sir, I am very sorry to be so disappointed by the one hon. learned gentleman whom I thought would deal with the Bill.

Then we had the hon. the Minister of Information. The hon. the Minister talked about the great harm that our speeches are going to do to South Africa overseas. Sir, he was guilty of the worst offence of that kind that I have yet seen in this House. He, as a Minister of the State gets up here and, in a sarcastic way, with guffaws from his followers, says: “Of course, this Rhodesian Bill is a very democratic Bill, because it applies in a colony under the British Crown.” Does he think that is going to help us at all? The hon. the Minister of Information said that law and order was the basis of democracy. What a wonderful thought! It is not the basis of it; it is the result of it. Law and order stems from the system of government you have, and you have law and order if you have government by consultation, not if you have government by coercion; and you have it where people are satisfied, not where people are terrified.

Before I come to the hon. the Minister of Justice, I want to deal with the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), and I want to say that it is a great pity that when so many pens are slanting on her every word, she should seek to blunt her attack on this Bill by attacking the United Party. One of the things she said was that we had started the process by supporting the Public Safety Act. I want to say that of course we supported the Public Safety Act, and we did so because it provided that if an occasion arose when there was rioting, disorder and arson and a state of emergency had to be declared, then, of course, the Government had to have the power to deal with the situation. The hon. member for Houghton forgets that that measure was passed in the first session of that year, and she sat in this House in the second session of that year as a United Party member.

Sir, the most scandalous thing that has been said here in this debate was said by the hon. the Minister in an interjection to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman). The hon. member for Zululand asked the hon. the Minister what is going to happen to people who are under house arrest; is a policeman going to stand outside their house all the time? The hon. the Minister said: “Wait and see.”

That is my reply to you, too.

If that is the hon. the Minister’s reply to me, I think it is a very shocking, sad reflection on the Minister’s attitude, not only to this Bill, but to the members of this House, to the institution of Parliament, that he can tell us that he is not going to tell us here what this Bill means and how it is going to be applied. He is going to get his men behind him to vote for him blindly as though all was well, and then he is going to do what he wants, and we can see what he does then. Scandalous, Sir. The hon. the Minister made great play of the cross-examination in the Transkei. Does he not appreciate that that cross-examination and that trial would not have been necessary if the system of Bantu Authorities had not itself been so abhorrent to the Bantu people?

Now you are talking utter rot.

The hon. the Minister says that if he does not take these powers we will pay the price as surely as the sun will rise. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if we take the powers without directing our attention at the same time to the root causes, then the price that we will pay will be a police state, because this thing will avalanche. If you do not deal with the root causes, and you have to take powers to deal with the situation, it will grow worse because you have not dealt with it at its source, and you will have to have more and more powers, and I am sure that hon. gentlemen over there will give it to him until they appreciate that it is too late. And then it will be too late.

Then, Sir, the hon. the Minister made one of the most remarkable statements in this debate. He says that the Bill does not deal with freedom of speech. A remarkable statement, Sir. What is the value of the freedom of speech without a gathering at which to speak? What is the point of a gathering if you cannot speak at it, except a social gathering, which was excluded in the original Act, and now the hon. the Minister wants to deal with that as well.

You can still go to prayer gatherings.

Sir, if I went to a prayer gathering I am sure one of my first prayers would be for the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). The hon. the Minister then said that Clause 4 deals with “misbruikers” only. And then he said, in relation to Clause 6, that he is going to publish the list in the Gazette now so that people would know who were listed communists; those were his words. Sir, the most remarkable thing of all this is that that list which is referred to does not only contain the names of members of unlawful organizations; it contains the names of members of organizations which are suspected by the Minister of being organizations which might be unlawful organizations. Merely on the suspicion of the Minister their names go on that list, and they might have been a member of such an organization 50 years or 30 years ago, it makes no difference. The hon. the Minister has been less than fair in putting forward this Bill to this House.

I want to deal with another one of the empty tin-cans which the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) left in this House after he had concluded his speech. The hon. member said that if the Attorney-General decides not to prosecute, then the Minister can do nothing about it. Let me lay this at rest immediately. If you look at Section 5 (4) of this Act you will see the following—

Then it goes on to say—

I hope that puts the matter at rest and I hope that when the hon. the Minister says, as he said, “Do you think the Attorney-General would be so stupid as to charge someone for a minor offence under this sabotage clause?” he will appreciate that it is not the Attorney-General who makes the decision; it is the Minister who makes it and if the Attorney-General makes a decision and he does not like it he simply reverses it. It is as simple as that. It is not a case of stupidity in any event; it is a question of motive; it is a question as to whether you want to put a man in the dock on trial for his life for a trivial offence and make him prove his innocence. It is a question of motive, it is a question of politics; it is not a question of exercising judicial discretion. And in any event whoever heard of one’s rights being determinable at the discretion of an official or at the discretion of the hon. the Minister?

When my hon. leader was dealing with the question of reproducing speeches, he mentioned that it can affect speeches in Parliament and proceedings in court. The hon. the Minister’s comment was “Don’t be childish I want to ask the hon. the Minister to have a look at that clause. There is no way of getting around this; it provides precisely what you may and may not do. It does not exclude anyone from doing anything; and as my hon. leader pointed out this being the later Act, if it does conflict with any former Act, it repeals that Act by implication to the extent to which it says something different. The extraordinary situation that you will now find, just to demonstrate how ludicrous some of the clauses are, is this: If a prohibited person defends someone in court no one can repeat what he said. You cannot take affidavits from a prohibited person because you are then reproducing such a statement. If a banned person is your client and you are in the legal profession, you cannot take a statement from him, and even the shorthand writer in court would commit an offence if he reproduced his statement.

The law is an ass, after all.

I want to point out one other thing to the hon. the Minister.

Is that man an advocate!

When my hon. leader dealt with the question of gatherings, he pointed out that the Minister in terms of the amendment in Clause 1 of this Bill, was taking the power even to ban social gatherings. The hon. the Minister’s retort was, “Oh, only social gatherings for certain purposes”—a very interesting remark if one looks at the Bill to see what those purposes are. The purposes for which “gathering” is to include a social gathering now, are all circumstances where the hon. the Minister can either ban a person from going to the meeting or ban the meeting itself. Why should he want it to be for any other purpose? It was an extraordinary remark for him to have made.

I first thought that there was a misprint in Clause 17 when I read it; I gave the hon. the Minister and the Government the benefit of the doubt, because as that clause stands now, if the Minister is satisfied that there is one person or one organization propagating Communism or that he thinks will propagate Communism, who is “connected with Communism” in terms of the wording here, then he can ban any kind of meeting anywhere in South Africa. This is a most extraordinary power completely unrelated to Communism. That is one of the worst clauses in this Bill, because the hon. the Minister does not have to apply his mind at all; he could act mala fide if he wanted to. The hon. the Minister can now ban anything at all, completely unrelated to Communism in terms of the Bill. The Minister has not denied it. He has not said that there is a misprint. He did indicate that there was a misprint so far as the minimum penalty of three years is concerned. I hoped that he will tell us that this was also a misprint, but I am afraid that he is not going to say so. Cannot the Minister indicate to us now whether there is a misprint? There is no reply. Very well, I think it is under this clause that the Minister hopes to ban all the meetings on the Parade. I am glad to see the hon. the Minister nod, because then it seems to me that my argument is confirmed, because the hon. the Minister cannot bona fide say that all meetings that will ever be held on the Parade in the future will, in his opinion, be likely to further the object of Communism. Obviously he cannot say that because he does not know who is going to meet. I am satisfied that I can say now that this clause gives the hon. the Minister the power to deal with all gatherings, to ban any gathering, whether it is connected with Communism or whether it is not.

And he can ban all meetings on the steps of the City Hall in Johannesburg.

Sir, how can the hon. the Minister do this? How can he possibly justify banning all meetings in a particular place?

In Rhodesia they have banned all meetings for two months.

But only for two months.

Sir, if I thought that the problems of this country were equated in any way to Rhodesia’s and this Government was in power in Rhodesia then, Sir, I promise you I would leave it.

Much has been said about the Rhodesian legislation, and much has been said about legislation during the war. I want to say this that the legislation during the war was such that the crime of sabotage under those war measures related to either explosives being used, or it related to the subversion of the state or the derailment of trains, something which is popularly known as sabotage”. Where do we find this here? But I want to say something else, that the whole approach even in wartime was quite different. Far from wanting to ban all gatherings in Johannesburg, in the place where the most people can gather, and in Cape Town in the only place where so many people can come together—far from doing that, under the wartime regulations there were provisions making it an offence with a minimum sentence for anyone to try and break up a lawful meeting. That was the approach of the then Government even in war time. The hon. the Minister is having difficulties controlling this country, controlling the legitimate grievances of a lot of people in this country, and the hon. the Minister is going to destroy now altogether any means that anyone might have to voice his grievances. My hon. Leader said that the Minister was sitting on the safety valve. The approach of the Minister reminded me of the old farmer who had a young wife and a young foreman. He came in one day and found them in compromizing circumstances on a couch. He did not know what to do and eventually found the solution: He destroyed the couch. That is precisely what this hon. Minister is doing. The hon. the Minister is not interested in the rights of citizens. The right of gathering is the most important of those rights because around it hinge all the other rights, the right of association, the rights of speech, and all the other freedoms which we normally associate with the individual.

Clause 8 was the clause the hon. Minister did not deal with. The contents of this clause which my hon. Leader referred to as giving him the power to inflict civil death, were not referred to by the hon. Minister.

Your Leader referred to all the clauses as civil death clauses.

The hon. the Minister did not refer to one of them, as far as I recollect, and under this clause the hon. the Minister can suspend habeas corpus, he can prevent people from seeing their legal advisers, something which happened during the emergency, I might say, Sir, and which I deprecated very much. He can stop people seeing their legal advisers under that clause. He can, under that clause, prevent people from having access to the courts. He can prevent them from doing any act. Will the hon. the Minister indicate to us what precisely he has in mind when the term is used “doing any act”? Is he going to prevent for instance people who practise the law from having clients of a certain race? He will have the power to do it under this clause. Will he do the same in the case of doctors? He is now given that power, Mr. Speaker. What the hon. the Minister and what hon. gentlemen over there don’t appreciate is that democracy, if I can give two equations, can be stated thus: “democracy equals the freedom of the individual”. If you don’t have real freedom of the individual, then you don’t have real democracy, and where you have complete absence of the freedom of the individual, you have an absence of democracy. Naturally the freedom of the individual has to be curtailed in certain ways, but it is that fine delicate balance that must be maintained, and this Government is in great danger of putting the balance so far over that we no longer can equat our personal freedoms to a democratic institution in which they are exercised. The hon. the Minister must give this House, and the hon. gentleman who sits on that side of the House, should demand from the hon. the Minister, that he should give the House an explanation as to why he brings in Clause 17, the 12 days detention clause. This is a serious matter, surely, that at the whim, at the instance of the Minister, or a senior official, a man can be detained without trial for 12 days at a time, which can go on and on. Surely that is a most serious matter that any man should be deprived of his liberty when he has not been convicted of any offence, that he can be kept in a police cell for twelve days at a time! Does that not worry the hon. gentleman who sits on the other side of the House.

Not at all.

There you have it. “Not at all”. I want to deal with another matter, and that is the question of the Gazette, of putting notices in the Gazette. I asked a question the other day, Sir, and it was obvious that in Durban, Bloemfontein and Windhoek, there are no depots of Government Gazettes. If you are not a subscriber, how on earth are you going to know whether you have not been banned yourself? In Cape Town it takes three days for a Gazette to come down. A lot can happen in three days: If you are banned, and you do something you should not do, you can then find yourself compelled to stay in prison for one year, because the courts won’t have any option, in the circumstances. Is the hon. Minister going to provide any alternative for the abolition of preparatory examinations? It is an extraordinary thing, Sir, to go to trial for your life and the first time that you know what the evidence is, is when the crown witnesses step into the witness-box. Is the hon. the Minister going to provide any alternative procedure? You see again that so far as juveniles are concerned, no longer can the courts suspend the sentence except from the end of a rope. This is what the hon. the Minister has had the moral courage to bring before us.

Let us look at the last clause, Clause 21. The hon. the Minister had what I think for a Minister of Justice was almost cheek to say that …

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I said “almost”. I am trying to find a word. The hon. the Minister had the audacity to suggest that the accused is lucky to have the ability under sub-clause (2) of Clause 21 to get out of this. To get out of what? If you accuse a man or a child of a criminal offence, you can now call it “sabotage” and put him in the witness-box and tell him, once you have put him in the dock and have arranged for a trivial offence, that if he does not go into the witness-box he will go to gaol for five years, and he might be hanged, once you have called it “sabotage”. That is what this amounts to. You accuse him of a trivial offence, and then you say: If you don’t go into the witness-box, you will go to gaol for five years. The court has not got any option, that has been taken away from them. In a nutshell that is what it amounts to. What a wonderful gift this is that hon. the Minister is giving to the accused.

Then we come to these words “objectively regarded”. That is what he has got to prove. When he is forced into the witness-box, then he has got to prove that “objectively regarded” he did not have any of those intentions mentioned in sub-clause (2). Does the hon. the Minister appreciate what “objectively regarded” means? It does not mean that it proves that he had the intention. It does not mean that he proves that in fact he had the intention. It means, and I quote from a well-known case—

It amounts to this that whether he did or did not honestly believe, did not honestly intend something, if the Judge feels that he, in the position of the accused, would have felt differently, or he sitting up in his lofty tower unconnected with this, would think that if he were doing what the accused was doing, he would have a different intention, then he will be convicted. In other words he can be convicted without having the required intention.

I have only a few more minutes. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he is the Minister of Justice. I want to remind him that if he brings in provisions like Clause 21, he brings in a provision which is an inquisition, not a trial in any sense of the word in a court of law as we have always known it in this country. But he is not the Minister of inquisition, he is the Minister of Justice, and I hope the hon. the Minister will remember that. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he has created a very good impression amongst the legal profession because he has gone away from the ways of his predecessors and he has promised to see the profession right, and the profession appreciates that very much. But I don’t think it helps very much for the hon. the Minister now to tie completely the hands of the profession and the hands of the Bench when he introduced a new crime like that.

Do you know that the Bar Council does not support you one iota?

I could not care whether the Bar Council supports me or does not support me. I know that what we stand for is right. And that is what matters. And I think I have produced sufficient arguments to indicate why this thing is heinous. Does the hon. the Minister suggest that the General Council of the Bar is in agreement with this measure?

The Bar Council is supporting the principles in this Bill.

What principles? What is the principle in this Bill?

I will tell you.

I find it very edifying to know that the hon. the Minister is going to tell us. My only regret is that he did not tell us when he introduced the Bill. I only hope that he will tell us when he replies to the debate.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) must learn once and for all that he no longer makes an impression in this House with his feigned indignation, that he makes still less of an impression on us when he comes with his feigned legal knowledge. He usually enters this House with a book under his arm and he seldom sits here without having a legal book on his bench. He has built up a whole library around his bench, but I do not see him really making much use of it. If he made use of it, he would surely talk more sense than the nonsense he has spoken here this afternoon. By the same token I say that his impetuous, impudent behaviour no longer makes any impression on this House, and least of all his feigned knowledge. Inter alia he made the following nonsensical statement this afternoon: This Bill will even make a criminal of a shorthand writer who takes evidence from a named person in court. That is nonsense. It is not even necessary to answer it because any lawyer will regard it as nonsense. Even the lawyers on his own side have said that this is really the worse nonsense they have ever heard. I do not think the House will expect me to reply. He has also made the nonsensical statement that an advocate will not be able to take a statement from a named person when he defends him. Surely he does not expect one to answer this nonsensical argument either. I think it is below the dignity of anyone with a little legal knowledge to answer such arguments. The hon. member says that all foreign legislation dealing with this matter “is related to sabotage” and acts dangerous to the State. The same supposedly applies to the War Regulations but not to this legislation. But it seems really as though the hon. member has never read this Bill, because it is after all clear from Clause 21 that we are only dealing with acts which are dangerous to the State and not with other acts.

The hon. member has referred to Clause 8 and said that the hon. the Minister never mentioned Clause 8, but that his hon. Leader mentioned Clause 8. I wrote down what the hon. the Minister said about Clause 8. He specifically mentioned Clause 8 (a) and Clause 8 (b), and he said that Clause 8 (b) gave the Minister the opportunity to issue a warning. He mentioned that clause specifically, but the hon. member states that the Minister “did not refer to Clause 8”. We had to listen to such nonsense, to such ridiculous arguments for 40 minutes. The hon. member has said for example, with great indignation, that a man can be detained for 12 days and that he cannot be granted bail. Does the hon. member not know that the conditions with which we are dealing here represent a state of emergency? Does he not know that when acts dangerous to the State are committed in certain countries, those countries have legislation which does not allow bail at all? Does the hon. member not know that? Let him please use the legal books he has around him a little, and let him use his commonsense a little, and then he will realize this. He says for example that he, coming from Durban—I did not think that all the people in Durban are stupid, but if I am to believe him then all the people in Durban are stupid, because the hon. member has tried to tell us that people living in Durban do not get the Government Gazette, and has asked: How will they know that someone is a named person? Does he not know that under the Act every named person is notified personally by letter by the Minister that he has been named under the Act? Does he not know that the Government Gazette and this particular clause only relate to the list of persons who have been named and not to personal, individual cases? Has he not read the Bill? I do not want to waste any more time on the hon. member because I do not think it is worth wasting one’s energy on such a person. I think it is high time that the hon. member should abandon this pompousness of his and that he should learn Afrikaans so that he can understand what hon. members on this side of the House are saying—then he may learn something. He has continually referred to hon. members on this side of the House and said “they don’t seem to appreciate”. I want to tell him that we on this side of the House have a better understanding of the position than he has, and it is high time that he should use his commonsense and that he should not come forward with his pompousness and feigned wordly wisdom. He is no longer in the “Other Place”; nor is he any longer in the warm place, but if he continues like this he will soon finish up in the warm place here. He thinks that because the English Press, the English newspapers, allow him to write a few articles, he is a terribly “bright boy”. Allow me to tell him that we do not regard him as a “bright boy”. We think he is a big fool (gek).

Order! The hon. member must not be so personal.

Then I withdraw it and I say that he is a political duck-tail.

Order! The hon. member withdraws an expression and then he uses an expression which he must withdraw as well.

Then I withdraw it, and I say that he is a clown.

The hon. member must withdraw those expressions unreservedly.

Then I withdraw them unreservedly. I do not want to waste any more of my time on the hon. member.

This debate has been going on for some days and during the course of this debate much has been said about the fact that this measure is of a drastic nature, that the individual is being deprived of his liberties, that South Africa is becoming a police state. And much more. But during this whole debate in the course of which so much has been said about the failings of the Bill, very little attention has been given to the actual principles embodied in this Bill. I think it is therefore advisable that I should once again deal with the actual principles of this Bill. This Bill embodies three principles. The first is the restriction of the freedom of movement of persons who are communists.

Where is that said?

The next principle is the withdrawing of propaganda media from those persons who are communists. The third is the principle of the punishing of acts committed by saboteurs.

The first two principles relating to persons who are communists, are in my submission part of our preventative law. Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between preventative law and punitive law. There are apparently hon. members who do not appreciate the difference between these two types of law, because they have spoken at great length about the “rule of law” as though the rule of law must always apply and as though the rule of law is the all important thing. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) already showed yesterday that no-one can really give a definition of this rule of law and that “the rule of law is an unruly horse”. It suits itself to the person using it and acquires the meaning which he attaches to it. I now want to refer to a decision given by Lord Atkinson in 1917 in the case of Rex v. Halliday which went to the House of Lords on appeal and in which he said—

I am quoting this because we are always being accused of not upholding the so-called “rule of law”. The attitude is adopted that we must first make each act punishable. We must not take preventative action against a person who may commit such an action. One must first define the act and make it punishable, but one may not take preventative measures. I am now quoting this decision to show clearly that this is something which is well-known in British Law. Lord Atkinson for instance gave as an example a case which he took from the year 1360, and he gave a whole series of examples of this type of “preventative justice Regarding the principle he said—

This is the law of England, the mother of the so-called “rule of law” and hon. members persist in making a fuss about the liberties of the individual as though that is the supreme law in all cases, a law which is even above the law of the State. That is why they are making such a fuss about a police state. If they would remember that there is a preventative law and that it has existed for centuries in Roman Dutch Law as well, as English Law, and that it is a well-known principle in both legal systems, they would not need to make such a fuss about this legislation.

In this regard the Opposition are also opposed to two principles of the measure. They say in the first place that the restriction of the freedom of movement of persons who are communists is a terrible thing. They argue as though this principle is of general application. In their arguments they have spoken as though this legislation will affect every person on the street. Mr. Speaker, my submission is that that is not the position, that this legislation will not affect every person on the street. It does not affect every citizen of South Africa. It affects the communists solely and exclusively. I want to try to show that this is in fact the position. It has this limited effect in that it will only affect the communists or persons who further objects of Communism.

In the Minister’s opinion.

Yes, when the Minister considers that a person is furthering the objects of Communism. He can therefore not take any citizen and say: “You are now a communist.” He must have reason for thinking that he is furthering Communism, and in terms of the decisions of our courts such a person can ask for the reasons why he has been named and the Minister must give him the reasons. He must also hear the other side before he takes such a decision. We have already had various decisions in our courts on this point. Let us turn to Clause 8. It says—

In other words, it refers to listed and named communists. And then the clause goes on to say—

and then we have the paragraph which deals with the furthering of the objects of Communism. Then only can he be placed under house arrest. This clause therefore does not affect, as is being claimed, every citizen in the country. That is not the position at all. We can also turn to Clause 7. This gives the Minister the right to prohibit a gathering. At the end of that clause the following unequivocal requirement is also laid down—

During the debate I asked the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) to give us just one case where the Act has been used in the past to deal with someone who is not a communist or who was not furthering Communism. She then gave two cases. She mentioned the case of the banning of the Coloured Peoples Convention. In the first place that Convention was banned under the Riotous Assemblies Act. That is the case she has mentioned. The second case she has mentioned is that of Patrick Duncan. Patrick Duncan does not call himself a communist, but have you ever met a communist who says he is a communist? As I know the communist, he will never admit that he is a communist. What has Patrick Duncan done? He has said that he is a liberal and he says that he is bitterly opposed to Communism.

Mr. Speaker, to link up with what I was saying before the supper adjournment, I just want to repeat that I said that this Bill contained three principles. Two of these are of a preventative nature and the third is of a punitive nature. The first two which are of a preventative nature, are only aimed at communists, as I have said. And I can now tell the House that I have examined every clause in this Bill, and there is not one clause which does not relate to the communists only. I have asked hon. members opposite to give me an example of where the Suppression of Communism Act has been applied to a person who is not a communist. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) then mentioned the case of Patrick Duncan. I should now like to read from the Act what is the definition of a communist. The Act defines a communist as follows—

We all know that Patrick Duncan has not admitted that he is a communist. He therefore does not fall under the first category. But he is certainly a person who is furthering the objects of Communism. He is apparently the editor or owner of a newspaper, and in that newspaper he is outbidding the communists. He is outbidding them in this sense that he is telling the non-Whites that we must get rid of our present constitutional system, even if violence must be used. That is one of the objects of Communism, namely to get rid of the present system of government by means of violence. He is therefore outbidding the communists and for that reason he is also a person who is a danger to the State, and that is why he can be named under this Act as a person who is furthering Communism.

To come back to the measure now before us, I have said that there is not one provision which does not relate to communists alone, or persons who are furthering the objects of Communism. I want to point out that Communism is even defined in the American legislation which deals with this matter. One of the things which they say the communists do—

And then they say that this leads to “control of the people who fear terrorism and brutality”. That is the description contained in the American legislation. I now find it most tragic that while we are dealing with a measure which only relates to Communism and people who wish to achieve the objects of Communism in South Africa, there are people in our country who can even hold prayer meetings for guidance against the measure we are discussing here. Allow me to read to the House a report which appeared in the Cape Argus last night. This is what one of the clergymen has said—

And this is about 100 yards from here—

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what words the priest has used which can be a “serious offence” but I do know that he was grossly misleading that congregation. He went on—

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a mockery of religion for a man to be able to tell such lies from the pulpit. It was the Dean of Cape Town who made these statements. A priest who went on to the pulpit and told such falsehoods. We are here dealing with Communism, with people who negate religion. I say it is a mockery of religion for a clergyman to express himself in this way. If he had a religion. It would perhaps only be the communists who would deprive him of that religion. There is still freedom for every citizen of South Africa. But the communist will be deprived of his freedom. There is still freedom of speech in South Africa. But the communist will be deprived of his freedom of speech. There is also freedom of movement for every citizen in South Africa, but the communist is being deprived of his freedom of movement. [Interjections.]

I now come to the next characteristic of this preventative law—of the two principles which are of a preventative nature. It is that preventative law can never be applied by the courts, but must always be applied administratively. I now want to read once again from the American legislation because America is held up to us as the country which is the greatest and best democracy in the Western world. What is being done in America in order to meet a similar position? I read the following—

he must then place that organization on the list. It then goes on to say that the Attorney-General “will institute a full and complete investigation”. It is the Attorney-General who does this. It is not the House of Representatives or the courts who do so, but an administrative person, the “Attorney-General”. Every time the “Attorney-General” is emphasized. The next paragraph says: “If, upon an investigation referred to in Clause 1, the Attorney-General determines that the organization is a communist political organization.” According to the same Act, the Attorney-General then issues the order that a person is a communist, or he declares the particular organization to be a communist organization. But throughout this Act reference is continually made to the “Attorney-General that is to say the administrative person who takes the necessary action. It is very interesting that they have the same system as us, that the Attorney-General, that is to say the administration or the Department of Justice must keep a list of organizations and a list of communists. They then say further that the Attorney-General must demand a proper account of all the moneys received by such an organization. Then “in the case of communist political organizations the name and last known address of each individual. This is exactly what the Minister is asking in this legislation. And then “it shall be the duty of each organization registered … to file with the Attorney-General …”. And then the forms are prescribed, but this is done by the Attorney-General. These provisions cover the actions of such organizations and their members. We find this theme running throughout this United States legislation. I am only mentioning this, Mr. Speaker, to show that this type of legislation can only be applied administratively, and it is being applied administratively by the greatest democracy we have and which is also the best democracy, according to hon. members opposite.

Then this argument has also been submitted, namely the criticism that this measure is of such a drastic nature. Taking the late Gen. Smuts’ definition of Communism as a basis, I maintain that any measure which aims at Communism must be of a drastic nature. Allow me just to read what Gen. Smuts has said about Communism—

In the light of these words of Gen. Smuts, I maintain that one cannot take any other action against Communism than drastic action because Communism claims to be innocent while it is actually very dangerous; it always presents itself under the guise of democracy. Acts which are normally minor offences acquire a completely different meaning and content when they are committed in the name of Communism. Allow me to illustrate this allegation with reference to Clause 21. Let us assume that a person damages an electric wire. If it is a normal offence, such a person can be charged under the ordinary town regulations. Or say a person blocks a road: then in the case of an ordinary offence action can be taken under the Road Ordinance. Or if he damages water pipes, he can be charged under the town regulations but if he does so in order to further Communism, this act acquires a different content and meaning. They always act under an innocent guise, while the act has a very much deeper meaning. I therefore say, Mr. Speaker, that this measure must be drastic, because we are here dealing with people who are dangerous to the State.

I then come to the third principle, namely that embodied in the sabotage clause, that is to say Clause 21. Here sabotage is now being defined for the first time as a substantive offence. I say for the first time because even in time of war the definition which applied was not that of an offence of sabotage. These were other ordinary offences with heavier penalties made applicable to them. The definition of offences against the State, such as high treason, sedition, riot and public violence date from as long ago as the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. Our definition of the offences of high treason, of violence, of sedition and of public disturbance are so obsolete that we cannot take effective action against this modern technique of the communists. A new offence must be created so that we can counter their technique. I even want to urge the hon. the Minister that he should codify all these offences against the State and have them properly defined anew next year, with a view to the development which has taken place since the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. Seeing that the Minister is now trying to define sabotage as a new substantive offence, I want to point out that I spoke to a German friend yesterday in this building. He has just come from Germany: I asked him: How do you act in these cases against Communism? He then said that after the last war they drew up new legislation, and introduced a new definition, and that they took drastic action and that they acted administratively. In this regard we have had the criticism with reference to the definition of this offence that it is too wide and comprehensive. I now want to deal with this criticism, particularly as regards the onus, which according to hon. members opposite has been transferred to the accused. This Clause 21 consists of two parts. Sub-section (1) defines the offence. Then we have sub-section (2) which gives the accused a certain defence. It is quite wrong to speak of the onus being placed on the accused in this case. Seeing that the offence is defined in sub-section (1), the State has to prove everything; the State has to prove that the acts were committed; the State has to prove those acts were committed wrongfully. The State has to prove that such acts were committed wilfully. The State has to prove that the act has had the consequences dangerous to the State which are prohibited. The State must prove all this. The State must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no doubt about that. But we then come to the provisions of sub-section (2) which hon. members regard as transferring the onus to the accused. That is not the position at all. Sub-section (2) provides the accused with a special defence. When an accused is charged ordinarly with an offence, he can plead and submit the normal defence that he did not commit the offence or that he did not do so wilfully or wrongfully. But in this particular case he is being given a special defence, just as he has a special defence in the case of what we call autrofois acquit or autrofois convict; that is to say, that he has already been accused before of that offence and that he has been found not guilty or guilty. He pleads that as a special defence. So in this case this sub-section (2) gives the accused a special defence. That is what it is and this is not a case where a new onus has been placed on the accused. It gives him a special defence which he does not have in the case of an ordinary offence. The hon. members of the Opposition should be grateful to the Minister for giving the accused this special defence. He did not need to do so. He could have said: This is the offence and the State can prove it. But he has given the accused a special defence, something for which they should really be grateful, if they are so concerned about the fate of the accused in these particular matters. If they are not satisfied with that, let them ask the Minister to withdraw this special defence. This the hon. the Minister will surely do with the greatest of pleasure.

There is another aspect of Clause 21 which I want to emphasize, namely that the weapon used by Communism is never the open, hot war, as the late General Smuts correctly remarked. The aspect of this measure which I went to emphasize is that we are taking action against the fifth columnists, the saboteurs. I want to say at once that all saboteurs are not communists. Nor do we allege that in this legislation. Nowhere is it alleged that every one who is a saboteur is a communist. This particular clause does not say either that one has to be a communist before one is a saboteur and before one can be charged Every saboteur can be brought to court, but we know that most saboteurs are precisely the communists. The Opposition maintain that they have urged throughout that communists should be taken to Court. I want to quote what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has said in respect of this matter. He has said—

I now say that one of the activities of the communist—not all his other activities but one of them—for which he can be arraigned before the courts—is sabotage, and how strongly should the hon. Opposition not advocate this measure, because it is in fact carrying out that part of their policy, because part of the activities of the communist are now being made liable to punishment in the courts, and he can now be taken to court and punished by the court itself. I do not say that the Government subscribes completely to the standpoint of the Opposition because, as I have said, preventative law can only be implemented by administrative measures.

I want to deal with two other minor matters. The first is that a charge of sabotage can only be instituted on the authority of or by the Attorney-General himself. The point which this legislation makes and which differs from our ordinary law is this. The Attorney-General has a general authority to charge persons in accordance with his discretion. He can act in any case as he wishes, and any person who acts on his behalf has a general authority. In accordance with that general authority he can act in any case as he thinks fit. But in this particular case the public prosecutor can only act if he has a special authority. That is the difference between the existing law and what is envisaged under this legislation. There must be a special authority in terms of which the Attorney-General or his representative can act. This is being done as a further special protection of the accused. It is to give the accused further protection and no one else, and it is also a fact for which the Opposition should be grateful, if they are concerned about the position of the accused. The other point is that there will be no preparatory examination. That is of course not the position. This Bill does not contain such a provision, but hon. members have adopted the attitude that there will be no preparatory examinations in cases of sabotage. The Attorney-General can order that there should be a preparatory examination; otherwise there will not be one. But it is not eliminated. It still remains part of the procedure which should be followed.

As regards sabotage, the offence which is now being created, I want to deal with the special defence to which I have already referred. This special defence is represented by the fact that the person has already been found guilty of an offence. He has committed the offence, but his special defence is simply that he did not commit that offence with the intention that it should be dangerous to the State. That is the whole meaning of that second provision and if he can prove this, he can be found guilty of a lesser offence, but not by that court. He cannot be punished by that court for a lesser offence. He must be charged again in the ordinary courts and then he can be punished. To say that this is legislation which will result in innocent children being hanged, is simply going too far and is simply being said to arouse feelings. The saboteurs who are used are mostly immature persons, boys who are impetuous and we know that youth is impetuous. It will be the boy of from 14 to 18 years of age who will be used for these purposes, and one cannot say that they cannot be sentenced to death because then they will be used as instruments for sabotage purposes without being liable to the death penalty. The death penalty must also be applicable to them in order to be effective.

I want to conclude by saying that I am very sorry about the behaviour of the Opposition. In past weeks and months there has been an atmosphere in this House which had been quite different to that of other years, an atmosphere under which a measure of friendship had grown up between the two sides of the House once again. But since this measure has been discussed, and as a result of the agitation which has been launched in an irresponsible fashion, they have not rendered us a service in this House and least of all the country outside. We are seeing all the consequences and I attributed this solely to the irresponsible behaviour of the Opposition. I hold the Opposition responsible for every blow struck outside this House because of their irresponsible behaviour here.

Just before I call upon the next speaker, I should like to point out to hon. members that this is the fourth day of the debate on this matter. We have now had a wide discussion on both sides, and we have covered a very wide field. I now expect hon. members to confine themselves to the Bill.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) gave us a full display of his legal learning in replying to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). Sir, I have always regretted that I did not have the legal training of a lawyer, but having heard the hon. member for Heilbron I thank God that I am not a lawyer, I go further. I thank merciful Providence that he is not my legal adviser. [Interjections.] After the brilliant speech of the hon. member for Durban (North), we had the hon. member for Heilbron to answer him, and that brought a picture to my mind.

May I ask a question.

No, I am not answering questions at the moment and break my trend of thought. It brought the picture to my mind; after the Lord Mayor’s Show—the dustcart. Sir, he mentioned Mr. Patrick Duncan, whom I think is a foolish young man with a chip on his shoulder. I disagree with his views and everything he stands for, but I have known him all his life. His wife was the daughter of one of my oldest friends, in my undergraduate days. She was married at my home and I gave her away at her marriage. So I know the whole family, and if there is one thing which Patrick Duncan is not, it is a Communist; he is strongly anti-Communist, but all the steps that have been taken against him are based on the Suppression of Communism Act. That shows the dangers of giving powers to Ministers such as this. What is to prevent him from declaring anybody as a Communist, including me? When he replies to the debate, I want to ask him what I have to do to prove that I am not a Communist if he wants to deem me a communist to-morrow? Then the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) said the reason why the returned soldiers voted against us in 1948 was because we did nothing for them on their return. I was Divisional Chairman of the Civilian Reemployment Board which was created by Gen. Smuts very early in the war to put ex-servicemen smoothly back into civil life, and as such I saw all the plans made by all the other Allied Governments, and in no single case did any other Government do as much as we did for our ex-servicemen. In fact, we spent R120,000,000 on them.

Order! What has this got to do with the Bill?

I am replying to the hon. member for Prinshof.

But several other speakers have replied to him.

With submission, Sir, not on this subject. The point is that if these statements are made, surely I must be allowed to reply to them. But I will drop the matter. I want to reply to what was said by the Minister, and I think you will agree, Sir, if I do so that I am on the Bill. I want to make this statement because I do not think anybody else has done so. The hon. Minister gratuitously dragged Judge Fagan’s name into the debate and said that we distrusted them. Of course this is untrue. On 2 September 1939, Judge Fagan stood by Gen. Hertzog and fought Gen. Smuts tooth and nail in regard to the war. During the whole time he was in the House he fought us, but the moment he went out of politics in 1943, who appointed him a Judge? General Smuts and the United Party Government. But I want to go further. I, as Minister of Native Affairs in those days, recommended to General Smuts that he be appointed Chairman of what came to be called the Fagan Commission, and we had such confidence in him that we, the United Party, accepted a large portion of the recommendations of that Commission as our Native policy. [Interjections.] Great play was made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. I. A. F. Nel) about meetings in Hyde Park. He told us that such meetings had to have the permission of the King, as it was his park. Of course nobody had ever had to get permission to hold a meeting in Hyde Park, and what a great safety valve it is! I remember as a young man being impressed when there was a republican on a soapbox and was telling the crowd that they must march to Buckingham Palace to chuck the King out. When he finished his speech and the people were milling around, the policeman on point duty said: “Those who are for marching to Buckingham Palace, please form up on the left and go out at Hyde Park corner gate and along Constitution Hill.” Of course, had it happened to-day under this Minister, we would have called out the police, the army, the navy, the air force and the local fire brigade plus the Salvation Army for good measure to keep order.

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

I am replying to points that were made in this debate by hon. members opposite.

Order! I hope the hon. member is going to obey my ruling.

I am going to obey you, Sir, but the point is this; I prepared myself to reply to statements made here which are untrue, and therefore I think I am justified in putting the record straight, but I will obey you and I will drop the subject. Sir, the clauses of this Bill have been fully thrashed out by the lawyers on our side. They have pointed out all the evils and the points we think are unjust and the things we object to have been exposed; and our objections have been ventilated in full, and it is all on record. As I said before, I am no lawyer, so I will not attempt to deal with the legal arguments, because that would merely be repetitious. I want to deal with the psychological side and the effect it can have on the people in this country. I want to probe the effects this Bill will have on the country; the fears, hatreds and resentments this Bill will create on the one hand; and the increases of arrogance, intransigence of contempt for their views of others it will create. My view is that the evil of frustration resentment and feeling of being compelled to bow their head in face of force it will create is just as bad for the people living and working together in the country as is the desire to hold down by force the legitimate opinions of others. [Interjections.] No, I cannot answer questions, because I have only a limited time and I do not want to lose the thread of my argument. Moreover, I do not want to hurt the feelings of that hon. member by giving a crashing reply to the bird-brained questions he is likely to put up to me. Sir, those hon. members who have read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, as I have done twice, will realize the terrible results that unbridled power can have on men who wield it as this Bill gives this Minister. It shows how their basic characters can deteriorate, so that eventually they think that the only right is might. Men who started as quite humane individuals slowly lost all sense of right and wrong through the increase of powers put into their hands. Sir, I will not repeat Lord Acton’s remark about power because it has become a cliché; but the fact is that it is as true to-day as it was when Lord Acton, made that statement years ago. The wielding of great power over others affects character, and it turns quite reasonable people into bullies. Sir, all of us in this House loathe slavery, but my objection to slavery is not so much the way the slave was treated in many cases, but the disastrous effect it had on the character of the master of those slaves who had such power over human beings. It often destroyed his character.

But Communism is slavery.

My objection to this Bill is that it gives unnecessary and absolute power to one man, and secondly the impact it will be on public opinion abroad once this Bill is put into force. Sir, this Bill plays straight into the hands of our enemies. It will be misreported and misrepresented and distorted, and there is no means of controverting it because basically that is what the Bill is. We cannot afford to create more enemies or to go without friends, or to lose the few friends we still have. Great powerful countries like Russia and America, or smaller powers like Britain and France, cannot do without allies or friends, so how can we hope to do so, and this Bill plays straight into the hands of our enemies.

On a point of order, the hon. member is making a lot of wild statements, and I would like to know on what clause he is speaking.

I am pointing out the general bad effect of this Bill on the country as a whole, which I think I am entitled to do in a second reading debate. The hon. gentleman is so frightened that he asks me foolish questions like this to divert me. In the autumn of my life I have only one real love and pride, and that is South Africa, and anyone who besmirches the name of South Africa, as this Bill does, will be opposed to me. I used to go abroad on holiday every two years—Now I haven’t been out of Africa for eight years, and why? Because if I get overseas I find that I have to defend this Government. I am prepared to criticize the Government here, but I will not do it there amongst strangers, and when I am overseas I find myself talking like a damn Nat. and I object to that most strongly. [Laughter.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word damned.

I am sorry, but I said damn not damned and in colloquial English to-day that word is almost a term of endearment. Now, I know that in this House I am looked upon by hon. members opposite as “’n verdwaalde Afrikaner”, and during the war was called a “Hans Khaki”, but when I go to England I am called “anti-British”. But the world is beginning to understand the difficulties of South Africa. The behaviour in certain states to the north of us has started to swing public opinion in our favour. For the first time South Africa is starting to come up for air. A short time ago reasonable people overseas had begun to understand our unique problems. But every single time that happens, this lack of understanding of world opinion on the part of hon. members opposite, coupled with the crass stupidity of this Government, leads them to commit some foolish action, and once more it plays straight into the hands of our enemies. Sir, if ever there was a saboteur in South Africa, it is the Government because they sabotage the name of South Africa abroad. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it and I say they are doing a great disservice to South Africa.

On a point of order, I just want to know whether I cannot make interjections again now, seeing that everybody else is doing so.

Carry on, I like interjections. What is much worse is that this Government by its actions plays straight into the hands of our enemies abroad, including the communists. It creates the soil for the seeds of Communism to germinate on and that is why I say it is rendering the country a disservice. In heaven’s name let the government give this country a chance now. Forget party politics for a short while and do something for South Africa to see whether we can restore our good name abroad. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) should at least sometimes try to maintain order in this House. (Laughter.)

Sir, he tries very hard. It is almost impossible not to have sympathy with that hon. member, because he keeps his mouth open all the time. Now, every Nationalist Minister of Justice seems to have the urge to play the strong man. Does he not realize that this extrovert desire to create the image of Mr. Tough Guy is a sure indication of a deep-seated inferiority complex? People who are sure of themselves are not always trying to pose as tough guys. The man and the Government which is sure of itself does not always have to tell the world and its supporters: “Look at me; Here is granite. Behold and tremble.” For heaven’s sake, leave that to the might-mouse characters, and not to Ministers in the Republic. This Bill is an example, in my opinion, of this attitude of showing everybody where they get off. This exhibitionism seems to affect every Minister of Justice in turn. I know of one who is a very kindly, Christian gentleman at heart, but a photograph was taken of him with the cat-o’-nine-tails in his hand, and that unfortunate picture went right round the world, not only the communist world but the civilized world.

Who sent it overseas?

Presumably the photographer. [Interjections.] The next Minister of Justice with jutting chin passed a Bill to keep people in gaol for 12 days without trial. Now we have a new attempt to create the image of the big bad wolf. I will huff and puff and blow you all to blazes; and even elevate children of 12 years of age to the scaffold. I repeat, for the love of Mike, give South Africa a break now. Let the dust settle in this country and abroad before kicking up more dust. We were told that the country is tranquil. I accept that entirely, but is tranquillity, like colour, merely skin deep? Or is this tranquillity the tranquillity of the graves. By taking the drastic powers we see in this Bill, why disturb that tranquillity, and why not let the dust settle? What impression does it give the world outside when, if the country is tranquil, we have to pass a Bill like this? What distresses me about this Government is that day by day it besmirches our good name by drastic legislation like this.

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

With all respect I am showing the effect this Bill will have on world opinion. This Government is always aping Dr. Nkrumah in his legislation and I don’t like that gentleman nor his government’s policy. Dr. Nkrumah locked up his Opposition, but let us be fair. Here, unlike Ghana, the Opposition has the right of free speech and to criticize the Government of the day. At least we are in Parliament and not in Roeland Street Gaol at present, which happens to be in my constituency, but one never knows what the next Minister of Justice may do to inflate his ego by posing as the tough guy.

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

If I cannot show what this Bill is doing to the country, and what it will lead to, what can I speak about on the second reading?

At least the hon. member cannot talk about what the next Minister of Justice will do. He must obey my ruling.

Does not the House realize that if this Bill is passed, the next Minister of Justice may profit by this example and do even worse?

Order! The hon. member must obey my ruling now.

Very well Sir. This Bill is designed to make everyone realize that they must watch their step, and it puts fear into the hearts of everyone. You can make people conform physically, but not mentally, and that is the danger, because for every action there is an equal reaction. Sir, the Minister can take a bull by the horns, but can he hold it down all night or forever? Sooner or later he must direct his attention to something else, and then the bull will get its chance. That is the position to-day. I was going to make another point, but in obedience to your ruling, Sir, I will drop it. As a member of the late Government of General Smuts during the war, I saw something about sabotage.

From Moolman?

Much more dangerous conditions existed then than exist to-day. The Minister tells us that the country is tranquil. No one would suggest that it was tranquil in those days. In fact, there was turmoil and danger. Both psychological and physical sabotage was committed, things like Afrikaans newspapers telling the public about bloodstained uniforms arriving by the trainload; that Smuts was keeping casualties away from the next-of-kin and yet they now say that the English Press is sabotaging the country but was the Nationalist Press not creating alarm and despondency amongst soldiers’ relatives? What happened in those days? The lives of our leaders and our soldiers were endangered. When Gen. Smuts had to go North, we cabinet Ministers asked him not even to tell us, for security reasons, when he was going, but next day Zeesen broadcast the hour and date of his departure. But with all that we never did anything as drastic as is being done in this Bill to handle sabotage. We even had leaders of the Opposition in those days asking Hitler to give them their Republic, but with all this danger and turmoil in time of war we kept our heads, whereas this Government has made it clear that they are losing theirs. Even in time of peace they lose their heads and panic. They remind me of this old song “cold feet I knew besides the Shalimar”. Under our emergency regulations in the last war, certain penalties were specified for certain offences, but people knew exactly what they would be tried for and what would happen to them if they did certain things, and the crown in those days had to prove that a man was guilty, and in spite of all the stringent laws we had not a single man executed, but then we had a strong Government which kept its head and did not panic or lose their heads. Sir, the Minister has tried to strike fear into the heart of the public by telling them about the horrors of Communism, and therefore Communism must get short shrift. Sir, he knows that we on this side of the House abhor and loathe Communism. We hate the Communist agitator just as much as we want sabotage dealt with ruthlessly.

Now I want to end where I started. We hate Communism and what it stands for. We have been in the forefront against Communism in peace-time, and we will be in the forefront against Communism when the hot war starts, if any communists try to tackle South Africa, but our hatred of Communism is only equalled by our love for South Africa, and we do not want to see any legislation such as this go through to give South Africa a bad name. There are legal minds on this side of the House which have shown quite clearly that the Government has all the powers at the moment to deal adequately with Communism and sabotage. Then what is the necessity for this Bill? It is part the legislation of this Government which has driven Communism underground, and to a large extent it is the Government’s policy which has prepared the ground on which the seed of Communism has germinated and grown. Should Communism ever rule the world, and over-run South Africa, the few Communists that the hon. the Minister has on his list might get the Order of Lenin, Fourth Class; but the Order of Lenin, First Class, will go to the Government because they have provided the medium on which the foul germ of Communism can breed and flourish. In short there opposite sit the people who by their policies have caused Communism to flourish and therefore they are saboteurs of South Africa.

The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) who has just sat down, has as it were closed his eyes and has hit out wildly left and right. If I should try to answer what he has said, then I am afraid you would reprimand me, Mr. Speaker, because I would then not be speaking on the subject under discussion. I should just like to put a question to the hon. member regarding one allegation he has made. The hon. member has said: “The Government has all the necessary powers at its disposal to deal with sabotage and Communism effectively”. Is that correct? Did the hon. member say that the powers that we have available to-day can deal effectively with Communism and saboteurs?

Yes.

Then I want to ask the hon. member whether he is completely satisfied with the powers we have to-day for combating Communism and saboteurs?

Yes.

Very well, the hon. member is satisfied with them, but he has consistently opposed those powers from the outset. In 1950, when these powers were requested, that hon. member and members opposite opposed the powers which were asked, with all the means at their disposal. Later when the Act was amended from time to time they did exactly the same and to-night they are doing so again.

He also made exactly the same speech.

Mr. Speaker, what attention can the country and the people outside pay to hon. members such as the hon. member over there who opposed the granting of all these powers and to-night state unequivocally that they are satisfied with those powers.

I said there were adequate powers.

The hon. member must not try to escape. He first said that the powers were available. I then asked the hon. member whether he was satisfied with the powers and he replied that he was satisfied. He is now satisfied with the laws enacted by the National Party Government, but whenever the National Party Government asks for powers of this nature, he is not satisfied. He has just told us: Let the dust settle; give the country a chance to settle down. That is why he is sitting on that side of the House, because he does not want to tackle the problems of the country. That is the very reason why hon. members lost the election in 1948 and since then have always gone backwards, namely because they do not want to face the problems of the country; they want the dust to settle and they do not want to do anything to meet these problems.

I should like to comment more specifically at a later stage on what hon. members have said here, particularly as regards the legal problems. For the moment I think it is as well, in reading this Bill, that we should see it against the background of Communism, because this whole Bill is intended to counter Communism. This Bill has 22 clauses, and apart from Clause 21 the others deal more or less exclusively with Communism. Although Clause 21 deals specifically with sabotage, it is after all clear to us on this side of the House as well as to hon. members opposite, judging by the opinions they have expressed about Communism, that even in the case of sabotage we expect in the light of circumstances that it will be very closely linked with Communism. For this reason it will be as well if for a moment we analyse Communism and our attitude as well as their attitude towards it, and then thereafter ask whether it is necessary and desirable to give the Minister and the Government special powers to meet this threatening danger. We know that the world struggle over human rights, and the right of self-determination was actually aimed at colonialism, but this cry and this struggle against colonialism have given Communism and Russia a wonderful opportunity to extend their ideology. Particularly in Africa it has developed into a competition between the East and the West, and the circumstances prevailing in Africa particularly to a large extent favour Russia with her ideology. In Africa, with her immature peoples, there is a fertile field for that ideology. It is the easiest prey for Communism to be found anywhere in the world, and in the same way here in South Africa where we have a large number of politically undeveloped people, we find that the soil is very fertile for the spreading of that theory. I must admit that the theoretic doctrine of Communism does not have so great an attraction for the Natives of Africa, but what is in their favour is the fact that they flourish where chaos can be created, and it is the easiest thing in the world to create confusion and chaos amongst the undeveloped peoples. It is for this reason that we in the first place must prevent them being given the opportunity to create confusion and chaos because this is part of the tactics of the Communist. In South Africa the struggle of Communism is not so much aimed at the apartheid policy of the Government of South Africa. Oh no, Communism is aimed at the White man in South Africa, as well as elsewhere in Africa, As a result one would have expected the West to be inclined to defend the White man in Africa, particularly seeing that there is such a numerical disparity, but unfortunately we do not find that to be the position. We do not find this because there is a competition in Africa, for political and economic reasons, and hon. members must realize that we are in the position to-day that we must face this danger alone. As a result of world circumstances we cannot expect much assistance from other countries in the world in our struggle against Communism. We must realize that we in South Africa in effect stand alone against that danger, and it is for this reason that the time has come when we should rather throw off the political yoke for a while and judge objectively and decide what is best and what we must do to meet this danger. Communist propaganda is being spread recklessly throughout the world, and they are thereby removing all racial distinctions and identity, they are bringing about revolution and by so doing establishing a world state. The undeveloped peoples of the world and particularly of Africa, as I have said, are excellent prey for Communism, and we stand alone in this struggle. The United Party, the Opposition, have on occasion expressed themselves very strongly against Communism. The hon. member who has just spoken has expressed himself just as strongly again to-night, but his predecessors particularly did so as well. They are opposed in principle to Communism; they have told us that on various occasions. The hon. member for Green Point has said: We hate Communism; we despise the communists as much as anyone else. But how can we reconcile this attitude of theirs with the attitude which they have adopted in this House towards this Bill?

Lip service.

They rise here and say: “We are opposed to the communists”, but when we tell them: “Come and be our brothers in arms and let us co-operate to fight that danger”, they refuse to do so. Hon. members opposite know what developments there have been in this country hitherto, and they must know that the people of South Africa want this legislation. If that were not so, the Government would not have become ever stronger since 1950 and have gone from strength to strength. They must realize to-night that they have had a card hung around their necks, to the effect that they have fought in support of Communism in South Africa. That is the only inference that can be made outside from the attitude adopted by members on that side of the House. That card will be hung around their necks; it is ready to be hung around their necks. Who are their comrades; who are the people for whom they are fighting to-day? These are the friends, the supporters and the advocates of Communism. That is why I can understand that the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) originally wanted to act differently to the way he is now acting.

Are you finished with me now?

You are finished and your Party is finished as well.

In the past the United Party said that we were going too far. They said that we were violating human rights and that we were destroying democracy. I now want to put this question to-night: Let us assume that there is a measure of truth in that allegation which they have levelled at us, namely that human rights are being violated and that democracy is being destroyed. Then I want to ask them whether for the sake of this old doctrine we must see South Africa or any other country of the world being undermined and subverted by elements who know no rules and whom we simply cannot fight by using these old doctrines of which they are now speaking? If one is going to fight a man who knows no rules, then one cannot use kid gloves. One cannot fight with bare fists against a man who is prepared to hit one with a chopper. That is the position in which we find ourselves to-day as regards the communists. These people have no conscience; they know no rules by which they fight and we must so arrange matters that we can fight and that we will have the best chance of winning against this dangerous enemy. Their previous leader, the late General Smuts, expressed himself strongly against Communism. I once again want to refer hon. members to what a member of their party has said, just to show how strongly they feel about Communism. It is precisely for this reason that I cannot reconcile what they say with what they are doing. I want to refer them to what was said in this House by the hon. Senator Jordan, the previous member for Rondebosch, in 1950. He said—

I have no fault to find with this statement; I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Senator. But I assume that hon. members opposite also associate themselves with these remarks, and if they do so, they cannot adopt the attitude to-night which they have adopted this whole week. According to the remarks made by the hon. Senator Communism is actually equivalent to high treason. Their actions are not in line with their statements. I have said that a communist has no conscience and knows no rules. We must find means whereby we can fight effectively against this type of vicious underhand method which we find to-day amongst the ranks of Communism, not only in South Africa, but throughout the world. Hon. members have spoken of human rights. Human rights? Is it right to grant a communist human rights? He has no claim to human rights. A communist in South Africa must be destroyed at the outset; it does not matter what methods are used, no matter how barbaric my methods, as long as I succeed in smothering Communism in South Africa at birth. I grant him no human rights, and I am prepared to fight him without rules.

I should like to discuss the most important clause, namely the sabotage clause, as hon. members have named it. I am referring to Clause 21. We have had a great deal of discussion in this House on that clause, and I should now like to submit a legal argument; I particularly want the hon. member for Germiston (District) to listen to this. I am certain that he will comment on it. I have an idea that he and I speak more or less the same language when we discuss these matters. I should like to take a great deal further the argument which the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) raised here for the first time, namely that the allegation which has been made in this House hitherto to the effect that the onus is being shifted under Clause 21 is completely incorrect in the popular sense of the word. Hon. members may interpret it is this way, but according to the normal interpretation of the removal of the onus it is not correct. I should like to try to prove this submission. Under sub-section (1) of Clause 21 the Crown has to prove that an act has been committed which endangers the safety of the State or of the public—there are a series of sub-sections—or law and order, to put it briefly. In the first place the State has to prove that an act has been committed. In the second place the State has to prove that a wrongful or an unlawful act has been committed, and in the third place the State has to prove that that act was committed wilfully. This act must be equivalent to an attempt to damage those things which are referred to in sub-section (1). I should like to make it quite clear, and I should like hon. members to repudiate my submission if they are able to do so. After sub-section (1) has been complied with, there is an offence per se, namely that after the State has proved that an act has been committed, that it was a wrongful act and that it was committed wilfully, then it is an offence. Sub-section (1) does not provide, as is done in normal circumstances, that anything will be accepted as being for the accused to repudiate. I should like to refer briefly to sections which make provision for the transferring of the onus in the popular sense of the word. Section 9 of Act 10 of 1940 dealing with fisheries provides—

In other words, if such circumstances are found to exist, then the other circumstances are accepted as being proved, and then there is an onus on the accused to refute this assumption. In sub-section (1) of Clause 21 nothing is assumed at all. The proving of all the essential requirements of an offence rests on the shoulders of the State and there is nothing which is simply accepted. I want to give another example of the ordinary method of shifting the onus. We find this in Section 170 of the Water Act. Here it says—

“Any person who without lawful right or authority”. It is essential that this act should be committed without lawful right or authority, but it is stated specifically that the State need not prove this; the State accepts that the person concerned does not have any lawful right or authority, and it rests on the accused to prove that he does in fact have such lawful right or authority. Mr. Speaker, sabotage, as defined in Clause I and which, as I have said, is an offence per se, an offence in the sense for which provision is made in the Rhodesian legislation—damaging property, arson, etc., etc.—has a peculiar characteristic. We know that here we are providing for a very serious offence. We realize that the offence for which we are making provision and which differs from the offences to which reference is made in the Rhodesian law, which hon. members apparently prefer, has a peculiar characteristic; it has this characteristic that there is a psychological intention in the mind of the accused to harm the State, to create disorder or public disorder. The person who commits the act has a particular psychological characteristic. Apart from this, we want to make it a serious offence, and that is why we are introducing sub-section (2) which actually gives the accused an opportunity when he is charged under subsection (1) to get out of his difficulties more easily than he could otherwise have done. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition hit the nail on the head very well. He said: “The minimum penalty of five years and the possibility of the death sentence for doing certain acts which might be of minor importance in the absence of specific motives, and embarrassing the accused by placing the onus on him to prove the absence of that specific motive …” I think that I am quoting more or less correctly what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. I read the last sentence again: “And embarrassing the accused by placing the onus on him to prove the absence of that special motive.” But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows after all full well that in no criminal offence is it the responsibility of the State to prove motive. He now wants to create the impression by the allegation he has made that a responsibility rests on the State to prove motive; now the State is not doing so and the State is placing the onus on the accused to prove the absence of motive. I think the lawyers in this House are aware of the circumstances, but just for the sake of other hon. members, I want to read what Gardiner and Lansdown have to say about motive—

I want to tell hon. members that if they read sub-section (2) of Clause 21, they will see that that is exactly what is meant there. In sub-section (2) provision is made, as the Leader of the Opposition has correctly said, for the motive, for the object which was in the mind of the accused. I read further—

In other words, it does not matter to the court what the motive underlying the act was. Here it is being made clear that it is not necessary for the State to prove motive. If it was an unlawful act, if the man did not have the right to commit that act and if it is proved that he did in fact commit it, and that it was he who did so, he is guilty of an offence. What his object was, has nothing to do with the whole matter. It is quite wrong to say that here we have a transferring of the onus from the State to the accused. As I have said, in sub-section (2) of Clause 21 the motives which may possibly be envisaged and also the motives which must be present for the purposes of sabotage, which we want to regard as a very important offence, are set out clearly. As we see sabotage, it is very clearly related to high treason. If hon. members will look for example at the definition of high treason they will find that high treason is defined as follows—

I think hon. members will agree with me that sabotage, in the sense that we see it and in the sense for which we are making provision, is very closely related to high treason, particularly when one keeps in mind the state of mind of the accused or the psychological background in the mind of the accused, with reference to sub-section (2). It is for this reason that we regard sabotage as a serious offence. Hon. members opposite have raised very strong objections to the fact that there is supposedly a transferring of the onus. I assume that by this they mean that the onus should have rested on the State to prove what was actually the motive or the intention of the accused. But what did hon. members want to do in 1950? They were prepared to regard any communistic action as high treason in 1950. They were prepared to go further; they were prepared to say: We place the entire onus on the accused. Now hon. members come and they make a terrible fuss because in the first instance there is supposedly such a removal of the onus and that it is such a terrible thing to do. May I just read to hon. members what Senator Jordan said at that time—

Here he is referring to a communist. This is what they said in 1950—

This is the old story which they sold in 1950. This is the old record which is being played once again to-night, the same old record. But let us leave that. I do not want to enlarge on that. I think there is sufficient proof in this country that democracy has not been interfered with in the least since 1950, but that the 1950 Act had only one object, namely to protect them as well as us against the danger of Communism. That was why I read this extract, and I now want to read a little more from the speech by Col. Jordan—

and now hon. members must listen—

These were the proposals made by hon. members opposite in 1950. How can hon. members expect us and the country to take any notice of them? In 1950 they wanted to regard Communism as high treason and to place all the onus on the accused. Now they are coming and making a big fuss.

May I ask the hon. member a question? I want to ask the hon. member whether it is not the position that in the legislation which the United Party proposed on the Select Committee at that time, in 1950, the suppression of “Communism” was in fact carefully defined.

That may be so, but that has nothing to do with my argument at the moment. I repeat, and I want to refute this idea once and for all: Sub-section (1) provides for an offence of sabotage and subsection (2) of Clause 21 does not embody a removal of the onus; it is merely an opportunity which is being given because we realize that this must be regarded as a serious offence and because we realize that it is subject to heavy penalties. That is why we want to make special provision so that innocent people will not be found guilty. For this purpose sub-section (2) is being inserted in the legislation and further provision is being made in Clause 21. I therefore say that the onus to prove absence of motive only must be seen as a safeguard for the accused.

But I should like to refer to further subsections of Clause 21. In Clause 21 there is provision that there will not be a preparatory examination. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has referred to the fact that there will not be a preparatory examination, and he has raised very serious objections to this. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that we are now depriving the accused of the right to know in advance what the charge is and what the details of the charge against him are. But with respect to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I want to say that that is certainly not the object of a preparatory examination. The object of a preparatory examination is not to give the accused an opportunity to better prepare his case. The object of a preparatory examination is inter alia the following as can once again be seen from Gardiner and Lansdown—

This is one of the objects of a preparatory examination.

But he can also be discharged.

Of course, but that comes later. I read further—

That is the object of a preparatory examination, and the fact that the accused derives any benefit from it is merely incidental; it just happens to be so. It is a privilege, not a right, which the accused has. But I should like to agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that this is a very important point, and I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that I realize that in the case of a preparatory examination there are great advantages to the accused because the accused then gets all the evidence that will be led against him later in the higher court and that when the matter is referred directly to the higher court, he does not have the opportunity to obtain these details. Later in Clause 21, that is to say in sub-section (3) (e), provision is made that the procedure of the magistrates’ courts will be applicable in the case of a trial in the Supreme Court without a preparatory examination. I think I can say without hesitation that it is the desire of all of us, and certainly the desire of the Minister as well, that we do not want to punish innocent people. I should like to see—this can perhaps be done administratively—that better provision should be made and better opportunities created to acquaint the accused with the actual charge. In the case of a magistrate’s court hearing, as it will be in terms of this clause, a charge is made and the defence is entitled to ask for certain details, but it has been our experience that the details are often very meagre, and not nearly as complete as the position in civil cases. As a result of the fact that there will be no preparatory examination, I am aware of the fact that the accused can be harmed thereby. This is not a right which he can claim; it is merely incidentally so, and I think it would be a good thing if perhaps administrative provision could be made for the accused to obtain more information regarding the factual position in respect of the charge facing him.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is his idea that he should be given facts or that he should only obtain information regarding what the charge is?

No, I do not think that we can think of the evidence being made available to him. But I think that what we can try to do is to place him in the same position, in the same circumstances as one finds in a civil case, in other words, where one can obtain more details regarding the factual allegations. But in any case, in civil cases we are after all not entitled to evidence; we can only ask the other side for the factual position.

I want to conclude and in conclusion I want to say that the circumstances which we are creating here differ completely from those for which provision is made in the Rhodesian legislation. We are doing more or less the same thing in a different way, but I make bold to say that the way in which we are doing it here, although it is perhaps a long definition of an offence, is far more effective than what has been done in Rhodesia. In Rhodesia they are also trying to make sabotage an offence and to punish it accordingly, but sabotage is connected with an ordinary offence for which a man can be fined 5s. or £1 or £5, and a heavy penalty is imposed on that offence. We do not want to do that. We want to distinguish between sabotage where the particular psychological characteristic is present from the ordinary offence when the same type of offence is committed. I think that this will be far more effective than the Rhodesian legislation and I think that for this reason we can be grateful for this legislation.

I think the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) should have considered the attitude of the United Party since 1948 in greater detail before making the speech which he has just made. It must be quite obvious to any impartial listener that the hon. member on the one hand made out a case in his own mind for saying that the United Party is not against Communism, and then on the other hand he made out a case to indicate that what the United Party wanted to do was more severe than what the Government does. I think the hon. member has got to make up his mind. Those who have been in this House since 1948 and before that will know full well—and I think if we want anybody to give evidence in that regard, I could call on the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) who was a member of the Opposition in those days, and he also said during this debate, that he is perfectly satisfied that there is nobody in the Opposition benches who is in favour of Communism. So it is quite clear that a lot of what the hon. member for Ceres had to say was intended for those outside. It was not a serious contribution, for no one could take the hon. member for Ceres seriously if he intended to convey in a serious way that the Opposition of the day is in favour of Communism.

Have you changed your mind? You don’t say now what you said in 1950?

The hon. Minister of Information has also changed his mind. That is why he is on that side of the House. Is it a crime to change one’s mind? I was in the Labour Party, and now I am in the United Party.

Still labouring.

If we are not going to get people to change their minds, this Government will be in power for ever and ever. I am saying that there is nobody who can seriously say that any member of the present Opposition is in favour of Communism, and I am quite certain that the hon. the Minister who is in charge of this Bill will agree with that.

Why don’t you support the Bill then?

Now we come to the question of what is in this Bill, that has nothing whatsoever to do with Communism. Let us deal with that for a moment. The hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) dealt earlier on with an article which appeared in this morning’s Press dealing with the trade union movement and a delegation which saw the Minister. I am going to reply to that presently, but before I do so, I think it is important that we should consider those thousands and thousands of workers in South Africa who are not communists, but who can fall foul of Clause 21, the sabotage clause. They have nothing whatsoever to do with Communism, but they can fall foul of this clause. I think it is well that this case should be put. I only regret that I am not a lawyer. It is quite possible that some of the points that I am going to make the Minister will be able to destroy from a legal point of view, but I want to put it to the hon. the Minister also that there are thousands and thousands of workers in South Africa who are not lawyers and their problem is to know whether they are doing right or wrong in supporting their trade union if that trade union were to indicate that it is desirable to have a strike.

The workers know exactly where they stand. You are just talking to the gallery.

The workers do not know exactly where they stand. I do now know what authority the hon. the Minister has for making that statement.

Are you disappointed?

For the benefit of the hon. the Minister who has interjected, I want to say that the Minister is not the only one who had an interview with those people. I also had an opportunity of talking to them, after they had seen the Minister, and I will deal with the contention that he has the support of these people presently. Don’t let us be misled by what has appeared in the Press, and don’t let the hon. the Minister believe that because he has spoken to some leaders whom this Government were very much prepared to condemn I think only recently, because then the hon. Deputy Minister of Labour said “Who are these people?” when they objected to the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The Deputy Minister then said that one need not take any notice of them. These are the same people referred to by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Brits. So don’t let the Minister of Justice indicate that he knows what all the workers in the Republic think in regard to their future activities in terms of this Bill. I want to make that quite clear. It is not what the hon. the Minister has promised the trade union movement that I am concerned about, but what is in this Bill.

They are not concerned about it at all.

Why did they come to see the hon. the Minister if they are not concerned about this Bill? Did they come down here to see whether he was in a healthy enough position to deal with this Bill?

Why did they come to see you?

They came to see me because I asked them. You see, Mr. Speaker, I have made the claim time and again that I am in touch with the workers of South Africa.

Apparently you were not very successful.

You see, I did not go to the Press to make a statement about what happened after I have seen them.

You see, Mr. Speaker, I want to put the case to the Minister step by step because I do not wish to create a wrong impression, and I think that the fact that the Deputy Minister of Labour is here is going to be of assistance too. I am only sorry that the Minister of Transport is not here because he comes into this thing as well. I want to try and put the case to the Minister so that the Minister when he replies can indicate quite clearly and exactly what it is that he had in mind when he introduced Clause 21. The first thing is that I think we have got to do—we have got no option—is to go through some processes that happens in ordinary everyday trade unionism when there has been a request for an increase in wages—I take that as an example. I think, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to develop that point because it is important in relation to Clause 21 of this Bill. The first thing that happens, and here the workers come into the picture, is that they have got to be members of the trade union movement, they have to be present at a branch meeting where they ask their delegates to put forward a resolution to an annual conference for an increase in their wages. Now I relate this to something which must be fresh in the memory of all members of this House. As recently as two months ago there was what I referred to as a strike by members of the artisan group in the South African Railways. Those artisans had met and had put forward a normal request for an improvement in their grading and wages. This had gone to their conference and from their conference it had gone to the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport had turned down their request, and they then had received from their workers the necessary mandate to take further action.

Now that strike is something that is defined in the Industrial Conciliation Act, and I want to read this portion so that hon. members will realize that when you think in terms of the sabotage clause and you think in terms of what a strike means there are points of similarity. So you will get to understand why I say that the workers will not be in a position to know whether they are doing right or doing wrong if they are in future, as this Bill is now, asked to take part, to give their support to a strike action. The definition of a “strike” reads this way—

1. (a) the refusal or failure by them to continue to work (whether the discontinuance is complete or partial) or to resume their work or to accept re-employment or to comply with the terms or conditions of employment applicable to them, or the retardation by them of the progress of work, or the obstruction by them of work; or
2. (b) the breach or termination by them of their contracts of employment,

   if—

   1. (i) that refusal, failure, retardation, obstruction, breach or termination is in pursuance of any combination, agreement or understanding between them, whether expressed or not; and
   2. (ii) the purpose of that refusal, failure, retardation, obstruction, breach or termination is to induce or compel any person by whom they or any other persons are or have been employed—
      1. (aa) to agree to or to comply with any demands or proposals concerning terms or conditions of employment or other matters made by or on behalf of them or any other person who are or have been employed; or
      2. (bb) to refrain from giving effect to any intention to change terms or conditions of employment, or if such a change has been made, to restore the terms of conditions to those which existed before the change was made;

that is the definition of “strike” and I think the hon. the Minister will agree that with that very wide definition of what a “strike” is, if we have got to a point that negotiations have broken down with the employers and strike action has taken place (and here I want to refer the hon. the Minister to what was said by the hon. Minister of Transport in relation to the activities which in terms of this definition of “strike” were being conducted by the artisans) in the form of their go-slow strike, or work to manual strike. The Minister of Transport said that he was satisfied that those workers were guilty of an illegal act, that in terms of existing laws they were acting unlawfully. Then we come to the Bill before us now and we find in Clause 21—“any person who commits any wrongful and wilful act … Now I want to say at once that I do not know what legal provision the hon. the Minister of Transport had in mind when he said that the existing laws do make it impossible for transport workers to strike. The point I want to make is simply that the Minister of Transport considered that that strike or the threat of strike by railwaymen was an illegal act. That was his contention in terms of the existing laws. Therefore, if that is so—and it is for the Minister of Transport to convince the Minister of Justice of the ground for his allegations, which I assume are well-founded—then in terms of this Clause 21 any person or persons “who commit any wrongful and wilful act” can fall under this Bill. Because it would be a wrongful and wilful act if they took strike action knowing it to be wrong. The Minister of Transport says that it would be an illegal act. Now they take that action in furtherance of their claims for an improvement in wages or whatever it may be. What happens then? They may in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act be found guilty of some crime or other. They may be guilty of breaching the provisions of that Act. But now this Bill goes a step further and, as I understand it—I am speaking subject to correction—the strike action that has been decided upon by these members acting in the belief that their action is not illegal, that they are entitled to strike, acting on that belief, then coming to this Bill, where are we? But perhaps I should first deal further with the Industrial Conciliation Act and put the position as it would appear to any person who reads the Act as I have done. The “work to manual” was the name given to the “go-slow strike” which was instituted, and in the Industrial Conciliation Act we get these words “the retardation of the progress of work”, if “the purpose of such retardation is to induce or compel …” the Minister to agree to an increase in wages. That is what they have done. And when I turn to Clause 21, I find—

Do you know what you are accusing the workers of there? That they are potential saboteurs.

I am not accusing anyone. If that is the effect of this Bill, then that is what I wanted the Minister to say, and that is what I want the workers to know. That is precisely what I am getting at. That person will be guilty of sabotage unless he can prove, “objectively regarded”, that such strike action was not committed with the intent to cause or promote general dislocation, disturbance or disorder. Now what happened in regard to that go-slow strike, or that “work to manual”? Was there not general dislocation? Was there no disturbance? Was there not disorder? What have we got then? We have got these people who believed in terms of the existing law, as far as they were concerned, that although the Minister of Transport said that they were committing an illegal act, they thought they were entitled to strike action. Now under this Bill such people can be found guilty of sabotage.

If its and ands were pots and pans!

If that is the position, are we not entitled to oppose Clause 21?

The T.U.C. knows and the workers know that this Bill has nothing to do with trade union activities.

Where does it say so in this Bill?

The main Act of 1950.

Mr. Speaker, the question of Communism has nothing to do with Clause 21. Where do you find Clause 21 referring to the principal Act? It has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I made the point that this Clause 21 has nothing whatsoever to do with the Suppression of Communism Act, and the Minister will agree with me.

You are trying to stir up trouble where there is no trouble.

I want to avoid trouble. If I can show to the hon. the Minister that this Clause 21 can be interpreted as making an ordinary strike action, whether legal or illegal, an act of sabotage …

I am telling you that you are talking nonsense!

The hon. the Minister will have the opportunity when he replies to this debate to deal with that point, but he will also have the opportunity to tell us why he told the trade union representatives that he was prepared to include an amendment to exclude the trade union movement from this mischief of this Clause 21.

To protect them against the propaganda from people like you.

You see, Mr. Speaker, I do not want the trade union movement to be protected against myself; I do not want them to be protected against anyone. I want them to be protected by the law, not what the Minister thinks the law means, not the assurances which the Minister gives to them. I say that the law should make it abundantly clear that the ordinary, normal trade union activities of trade unions in the Republic will not fall foul of sabotage. I want to ask the Minister another question. In terms of Clause 21 when does an illegal strike become sabotage? The Minister may say it can never happen, that you can have an illegal or a legal strike which can bring about all of the things which Clause 21 deals with and that will not be sabotage. I hope that before the Minister replies to this debate, one of his colleagues will get up and say what the amendment is which the Minister is going to introduce at the Committee stage to safeguard the interests of the trade union movement, so that we will have an opportunity before the second reading is passed of understanding what the Minister is getting at. Why can’t we go a step further and say to the Minister: Withdraw this Bill so that we will know what you have in mind in regard to the trade union movement before you ask us to vote for the second reading. I think that is a reasonable proposition.

You are trying to save your skin.

From what?

From the people outside who have to vote.

Because the people outside believe that this side of the House is in favour of Communism?

No.

Of course not. You see, Sir, the hon. the Minister is trying to intimidate; he is trying to frighten the Opposition into supporting a Bill which he knows is a danger to the trade union movement. His colleague, the Minister of Labour, has intervened and asked him to do something to reassure them and to make it positively clear that the trade union movement is not going to be affected by Clause 21. [Interjections.] They did not see the Minister of Labour.

He was in Europe at the time.

They did not see the Minister of Labour but they were told by this Minister that the Minister of Labour had seen him and that he had decided that such a simple amendment could be introduced to protect the trade union movement. Is that so or not?

I said the Deputy Minister and I had discussed this matter.

Whether it is the Minister of Labour or the Deputy Minister of Labour, the Department of Labour was consulted.

Will you support this Bill if that amendment is introduced?

Let the Minister of Information tell me what this proposed amendment is. I will take the matter a step further. According to the information which I received from the trade union representatives, the Minister said that he was prepared—but he did not really think it was necessary—to introduce an amendment which would put the position of the trade union movement clear and beyond all doubt.

That was exactly what I said.

That was what the Minister told them. But what is the Minister going to do about those trade unions which have been taken under the wing of the Trade Union Council? You see, Sir, we have had an appeal from the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) supported by the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) that it should be the objective of this Government and of this Opposition to get as many of the non-Europeans, the Bantu particularly, to come on to our side in this fight against Communism. I think I can say that is the wish of the Minister also that he would like to see as many Bantu supporting the Government and the Opposition in this fight against Communism. I ask the Minister this straightforward question: Does he want the Bantu generally to support us in our fight against Communism?

Of course.

Now the Minister will know that at a recent conference the T.U.C. decided that in the interests of the trade union movement and to enable them to give a helping hand to the Bantu trade unions who are not recognized in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, of getting properly organized and accepting a responsible part in the trade union movement, they would allow them to affiliate with their organization. I want to ask the Minister this: If he gives complete protection to the trade union movement by excluding all those which are registered in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, will he also exclude the Bantu trade unions which are affiliated to the T.U.C.? I say to him, Sir, that he will put the T.U.C. in an impossible position if they have to report that they were able to secure their own protection but they could not secure the protection of those Bantu trade unions which are affiliated to them. If the Minister is serious and if he wishes to combat Communism then he should do everything he possibly can to give as many of the Bantu trade unions as possible on to our side in our fight against Communism. That should be his objective. I say to him that it will not be sufficient to introduce an amendment which will safeguard all the registered trade unions in terms of the I.C. Act. Because as the Minister knows no Bantu trade union can be registered in terms of the I.C. Act. If his amendment will have the effect of protecting the existing registered trade unions in terms of the I.C. Act but offers no protection to those Bantu trade unions which are endeavouring to further the Western way of life in South Africa, he is asking for trouble because he will be drawing no distinction between Bantu trade unions that are endeavouring to achieve what we all try to achieve in terms of the trade union movement and that is peace and negotiation rather than disruption. He will be drawing no distinction between those trade unions and those who come under the domination of communists and that type of person. There must be a distinction. The Minister has referred to bona fide trade unions. I am not an authority on the question of existing Bantu trade unions, but I know from what I have been told that there are genuine Bantu trade union movements.

Are you referring to the South Africa Trade Union Congress?

No, I am referring to the Trade Union Council of South Africa. The representatives saw the Minister yesterday. They have opened their doors to allow Bantu trade unions to affiliate with them. If the Minister expects the Trade Union Council to trust him the Minister must be prepared to trust the Trade Union Council and know that they will not allow a Bantu trade union to affiliate with them unless they were satisfied that that particular union was not under the control of any communists at all.

Don’t you think it is peculiar that we talked for an hour and we did not talk about the things you are talking about now?

I spent a very short time with them. They did tell me that the Minister was prepared to look after their interests, to look after the interests of those unions which were registered in terms of the Act. I said to them: What are you going to do about the trade unions which you have allowed to affiliate with your organization?

You tried to persuade them to withdraw their support.

I do not know what the Minister of Social Welfare is trying to indicate. I am making a serious attempt to try to get the Minister to realize that this particular Clause 21 …

And I am accusing you of having tried to get them to change their mind.

No, nothing of the sort. I wanted to know what the trade union movement thought about this Bill. And I asked them. They told me almost exactly what you saw in the Press this morning.

Then you tried to get them to change their mind.

They did not tell me that they had told the Minister that they would support the Bill. But they did tell me that the Minister told them quite clearly that the Minister has told them that when he framed this Bill he hadn’t a thought about the trade union movement in his mind. I am prepared to believe that.

That was exactly what I told them.

Because I believed that I say to the Minister that now that his attention has been drawn to the fact that there is a trade union movement in the Republic, is he satisfied that this Bill will not do them any harm in the normal sense of the word? The Minister must admit that in agreeing to put forward an amendment to safeguard the trade union movement, this visit of the trade union movement to him has been successful in what it tried to achieve.

Quite. But you are trying to undo that.

I am not trying to do that. I am trying to indicate that we would be foolish to support this Clause 21, without the amendment which the Minister has indicated he is prepared to put into it.

Will you deny that you tried to persuade them that they were wrong in supporting this Bill?

I did not attempt …

You did not succeed.

My objective was to find out from them what their interpretation of this Bill was as it is. Their interpretation of this Bill as it is was that it was a dangerous Bill and dangerous to the trade union movement. They were hoping to tell me that the Minister had agreed and that he was prepared to introduce an amendment to safeguard the trade union movement.

And you tried to persuade them that they were wrong.

I did nothing of the sort, Mr. Speaker. You see, Sir, this Minister has never had the opportunity of dealing with people who are truthful. That is the position. I am quite prepared for the Minister to ask those two representatives, that is the President and the General Secretary, whether I made any attempt whatsoever to persuade them not to support this Bill. I made no such attempt whatsoever. I will go so far as to say this, that in the past I have gone out of my way to assist this Minister’s colleague to avoid trouble in this country. I have interceded on behalf of the trade union movement and have succeeded in avoiding trouble. I am not one of those who are out to create trouble. I am as keen as anyone else to prevent it. And the way to prevent trouble is to draw the attention of the Minister to Clause 21 as it is in this Bill, not as he has it in his mind now to amend it. When we vote against this Bill we will be voting against this clause as it stands at the moment, not as it will be after the amendment by the Minister. It is no use the Minister of Information shaking his head. He knows very well that when this Bill is put to us at the second reading we are voting for or against the clauses as they are.

You will be voting on the principle of the Bill.

Well, shall we take all the clauses out and vote for the principle? Is that what the hon. Minister of Information is suggesting? We must remove all the clauses and we can then vote on the long title. That will be nonsense.

The amendment can only be moved in the Committee Stage.

This Bill should be withdrawn and another one introduced with the amendment in it. The hon. Minister cannot get away from the fact that when we vote on the second reading of this Bill we will be voting for the Bill as printed.

You will be voting for the principle.

I want to go a step further, the principles of the amending clauses with which I have not gealt with are not supported by this side of the House. The Minister of Information must not forget that. I want to make this quite clear to the hon. the Minister that the members on his own side who support this Bill as it is and then agree to the amendment which the Minister is going to introduce, will be admitting that we were perfectly in order in opposing this Bill as the clause is worded at the moment. This Minister must also know that. What will be the position, Sir, if the amendment which this Minister seeks to introduce is in conflict with the principle of the Bill? You will disallow that amendment and what will our position be then? The Minister will have no option but to withdraw the Bill and we will have to start de novo. We want to know where we stand on this issue.

Is that the only difficulty you have?

I have many other difficulties, Sir. One of the greatest is trying to get this Minister to understand and to believe that I am sincere in what I am saying here tonight. But he is not prepared to accept that. He thinks that I am trying to hoodwink him in some way or to mislead this House in some way. That is not the case. I say the test of my sincerity is in the fact that the Minister has indicated that Clause 21, as it is, is a danger to the trade union movement. That is why I say to him: Is it fair to this Opposition that he should introduce an amendment at the Committee Stage rather than tell us what it is now? Withdraw the Bill, reintroduce it as he wants to amend it at the Committee Stage.

Can I ask a question?

I did not interrupt you when you were speaking. As far as I am concerned, this is a most serious matter. I have spent a considerable number of years of my life in the trade union movement. I have been responsible for advising go-slow strikes. And I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the trade union movement is our very strongest weapon in the fight against Communism which our country has got.

I know that.

If the Minister knows that why should he accuse me of trying to mislead that trade union? What will be the object? There can be no object. The trade union movement will not support this Bill if the Minister does not amend it.

What did they say in their statement?

They said in their statement that the Minister has told them that he was going to amend this Bill.

And if I don’t, they will still support it; that was what they said.

They said that it was quite clear that when the Minister framed this Bill he had no intention of curbing the activities of the trade union movement.

If I do not move the amendment—which I will move—they will still support the Bill.

This Minister was able to persuade the trade union movement that this clause as it is was not a danger to them. That is his opinion. But of what use is the Minister’s opinion when this has to be dealt with by a Judge; when the Judge says: “I find that, according to the wording here, what has been done by the Public Prosecutor is in order.” The Minister’s opinion will count for nothing. The Minister’s assurance will count for nothing.

Did you tell the trade union that?

No, I did not. You see, Sir, this Minister is doing his level best to try to get me to admit to something which I did not do. What is his purpose? It may be that he is trying to prove that I am a communist too. Unfortunately for this Minister I have a very clean record. And I think that the hon. member for De Aar (Colesberg) (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter) will be able to support me if I asked him to go and give evidence in that regard, although from a party political point of view he will not admit it now.

I want to make this appeal to this Minister to treat the Opposition fairly and squarely, to withdraw this Bill, introduce the amendments which he has promised to introduce and then see what happens.

Will you then vote for it?

Let me examine the Bill with the amendments and I will give the Minister a reply then. I understand also, although I have not had an opportunity of getting firsthand information, that the Bar Council has also been able to persuade the Minister to introduce certain amendments. I do not know whether that is correct or not. But if it is correct why should we not have the benefit of that information before we vote for this Bill? If we want to proceed with our democracy in the correct manner we have to start right here in this House. We want to introduce Bills which mean what they say and if they do not mean what they say then we have got to amend them in the proper place and at the proper time. [Time limit.]

During this debate we have now had very clear proof that the United Party without wishing to do so have now become one of the main advocates of Communism. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this was not originally their intention. They thought matters would take a different course. But they have gradually landed themselves in this position. One of the clearest proofs is in fact the egg-dance performed by the previous speaker with which he tried by some manner of means to escape and to adopt such an attitude that they could justify themselves in the eyes of the world and eventually be accepted as people who are not really communistically inclined.

This Bill with which we are dealing here is aimed at all sabotage, as one of the previous speakers has also indicated. Sabotage wishes to undermine all the authority of the State, and to do this it wishes to damage and destroy all existing institutions in order eventually to reach the stage where it can undermine the State itself.

On a point of order, the hon. member says the Opposition is communistically inclined. I should like to have your ruling. Mr. Speaker, on whether he may say that.

I think hon. members should be more careful what they call one another. I am not condemning the word, but I would prefer the hon. member not to use it.

As I have said, this Bill is aimed at all sabotage. We know there is no source of sabotage which is so threatening and organized on such a great and comprehensive scale as world Communism which is trying to gain control over the whole world and South Africa as well and is trying to undermine the authority of the State. When one is dealing with Communism, then one can understand why it is becoming such a tremendous threat, such a tremendous source of sabotage, because the communist does not care what he does. His whole nature is to commit sabotage. I shall read here from what Dr. Schwarz has said. He is the executive director of the Christian anti-communist movement and as an authority on Communism he gave evidence before the Committee on un-American Activities. On that occasion he revealed the true character of Communism when he said inter alia the following—

He went on and further defined this doctrine by referring to its moral looseness and said—

That is the real character of Communism. I therefore say that this Communism is also one of the most important sources of sabotage which one can envisage because its whole essence is nothing but an attempt at large-scale sabotage in order to achieve its objects of world domination. When we go further, we can say that one can almost not understand why it is that clergymen—I am not even referring to the United Party—and churches can be so short-sighted as to give their blessing to that movement, by holding protest meetings, arranging prayer meetings, singing hymns and holding big demonstrations at this time when this Bill is before us, as though there is a tremendous threat to our freedom of conscience. Allow me to say, Mr. Speaker, that when we learn to know Communism, then we can say in the first place that Communism is completely unscrupulous. As these quotations which I have read to the House show, they have no moral standards. Furthermore Communism has no moral code. For the communist there is only one principle and that is that the end justifies the means. Because it adopts this basic premise, Communism will lend itself to the worst forms of sabotage and it will justify itself before the tribunal of its own conscience because is suits it to do so. If it can undermine the State, if it can harm the State with all the institutions we have here which must protect our citizens and further their welfare, then it would like to do so and as far as the communists are concerned, it is simply a question that they are justified in doing so because the end justifies the means. That is why we can understand that the greatest threat to all our possessions comes from this quarter. It is this movement which represents the greatest threat to the human values, to the citizens of this State. The South African Psychological Society recently drew up a very interesting paper which dealt with the diabolical means used by the communists to change the personality of a person by using their so-called “brainwashing” system whereby they can destroy those things which are sacred to the individual, and give him a completely new character. This is a tremendous threat with which we are dealing. This a movement which does not hesitate to use old people or young people, important or insignificant people, as long as it can achieve its objects. When we deal with the immoral code of the communists, then we can understand why this is the position, because its whol philosophy of life is purely materialistic. Dr. Schwarz whom I have quoted stated this very clearly. He said—

Here we have a clear exposition of the materialistic philosophy of life which underlies this movement which is committing sabotage on such a large scale in our country. If we continue, then we can say that this movement, if it is so materialistically inclined, can naturally not uphold any spiritual values; then it cannot have any spiritual values; because it is the great enemy of all idealism; whether it be in the educational or political field or in any other field, Communism would oppose ideals. We can therefore say that this movement is the greatest enemy of all the spiritual values which any State regards as valuable. It is precisely all these values which the sabotage process must first destroy. They must first sabotage the spiritual values before they can sabotage the State because the State rests on these values. It is the foundations on which it is based; it is the principles by which an orderly community is maintained. Once one has undermined these spiritual values of the State, then it is very easy to give the State the final death blow by means of a large-scale sabotage campaign. The most important things will already have been destroyed.

For this reason it is also possible to understand why there are people who are trying to undermine the spiritual resources of the State. A deep study which scientists have made of the methods of sabotage used by the communists has revealed that the first object on which they concentrate is the promotion of moral decline; in other words, they first try to destroy those things which the churches are always protecting. And it is not always the communists themselves who take the lead, but wherever they can encourage a movement which can result in moral decline, they do not hesitate to do so. They do their utmost to initiate and to encourage such a movement because if they can undermine the morality of a State they have after all gained control over one of the most important sources of strength namely, the discipline which places inhibitions on mankind and which would prevent him from doing harm to the property of others. This is what they want to undermine and destroy. Another method used by the communists is to undermine all forms of social and family discipline. They achieve this object through the use of key men in the right places who make it their aim to further this type of undermining. That is why we know that the communist attaches very little value to the intimate domestic life, and that it is their object to undermine the family ties in this country as well, because if they can destroy the family then the State can be sabotaged far more easily. All literature written by non-communistic sceptics is encouraged and praised by the communist key men. Any work which is published, is praised, so long as it is just written by a non-communist sceptic who is sceptical towards the State and is moving in the direction of subversion. In this way every movement which is critical or sceptical what is conservative, is encouraged. All anti-colonial and pro-coloured movements are encouraged by the communists. We also find that they try to undermine all sources of spiritual life in the community. The main source of spiritual life in any Christian community is after all the Christian Church. That is why I am surprised that at this time the spiritual leaders are acting in so unwise a fashion. The movement which we want to combat by means of this Bill is precisely the movement which is attacking this bulwark of spiritual values. This movement is also aimed at the Church and at all forms of religion. Prof. Schwarz from whose article I have already quoted has also said that of the laws of Communism—

We can therefore say that this movement is undermining one of the most important spiritual institutions in the community. Over the ruins which they wish to create in this way, they want to strike at the State by sabotage and this they can then also do effectively. They do not believe in the Bible. They reject the Church as an institution and they do not attach any value to the message of the Church. Every Church, and every church building, must be destroyed. This we saw during the disturbances we had a year ago namely that church buildings and school buildings were the first to be destroyed. Churches and schools are institutions which cultivate and propagate spiritual values and that is why they must be destroyed. That is why it is their object to destroy these buildings.

In this morning’s newspaper we read about a crowd of more than 6,000 people who participated in a procession in Johannesburg. It is said that they sung spiritual songs and prayed. But I doubt whether there was a truly Christian element in that crowd and I shall tell the House why I doubt it. It is not the nature of the Church to protest in such a way. As a matter of fact, it is foreign to the Christian Church as I know it. If hon. members will read the Pretoria News for Monday they will see that it contains a photograph of St. Alban’s Cathedral in Pretoria while a prayer meeting was taking place. This prayer meeting was arranged in order to protest and to pray against this legislation. But when one examines the mighty cathedral and one counts the people one can see on the photograph, one can come to no other conclusion but that there were only 40 or 50 people in that great cathedral. Why? Because the majority in the Christian Church disapprove and are opposed to these protests. The conscience of the Christian Church is most sensitive as regards a matter which threatens the Church and its message. I maintain that if there were really any danger in this legislation to the Church, the Christian Church would not have hesitated to call upon its resources as a whole. They would have held one great and powerful demonstration, but not on the streets of Johannesburg, but here outside this Parliament. And nowhere would they have a more sympathetic reception that here. This Government has repeatedly shown that it will do its duty as regards the mission of the Church and will do nothing which will harm the Church and its message in any way. When we examine the so-called crowd of 6,000, we can in the first place eliminate the hangers-on. Then the communists can be removed, and we shall find that the crowd will become ever smaller until eventually we shall only have a small group who are prejudiced because they cannot think for themselves. They must first be led by so-called clergymen who often under the guise of religion propagate one of the most dangerous movements in this world. It is these clergymen who are misleading their street followers.

There is only one test which we can use and that is the Christian test which is embodied in the text “A tree is judged by its fruits”. During the past 12 years this Government has proved that it is the guardian of all these things which are sacred to the Church and other institutions in the community and to the community itself. The Government has proved this. The fruit has been yielded because order has been maintained. It has been our endeavour to allow everyone in this multiracial community of ours to come to his rights. The Government has kept to the highest moral yardstick of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. We therefore say that it is deplorable that attempts are being made by a small group of dangerous clergymen to mislead the people and to incite them to hold protests and that they are doing so under the guise of a religious protest.

Communism is a philosophy of lies. It reveals itself through its propaganda; it has its key men, and it is active everywhere. It is also this type of propaganda which we are seeing in the streets to-day as well as in the newspapers and elsewhere. Everywhere we hear the echo of this propaganda which has as its eventual object sabotage of an unprecedented kind. Communism is a cowardly movement. It does not mind misusing our youth. We have heard many protests from hon. members opposite in this regard. It has been alleged that under this legislation young people of 14 or 16 years of age will be hanged, or this or that will be done to them. As a matter of fact, every possibility has been conjured up. I now want to tell them that the right-minded young person is someone who has sufficient character not to allow himself to be misused by these elements. And we believe this is true of the overwhelming majority of the youth of our country. Furthermore it is precisely the inexperienced person who will be protected by this legislation. He will no longer be able to make himself available for misuse by the communists because then he will be punished. If he as a young person has sufficient intelligence to implement the plans of Communism, then he deserves nothing better than to be dealt with in the proposed manner. Young people after all are not let loose to-day if they commit offences, and if we do not close this loophole as well, then I can give the House the assurance that it is precisely the young people whom the communists will seek out. It is the young person whom the communist will use to destroy churches and schools and to sabotage the State on a large scale. We therefore applaud the fact that the young person is also being brought under this legislation so that he can realize his duty.

I have said that Communism is a cowardly movement. It is not prepared to show its true colours, but is very fond of hiding under another name. That is why it changes its name whenever it suits its purposes to do so. That is why we are also glad that this legislation is flexible enough so that action can be taken against all the various nuances of communist propaganda which will still be seen in this country if legislation is not adopted aimed at restricting it. We can give the world outside and the spiritual guardians of the people, the assurance that this legislation will not restrict freedom. It is not aimed at freedom, but at lawlessness which wants to undermine and sabotage the State. I think that the United Party already bitterly regret to-night the attitude which they have adopted from the outset. Nevertheless I believe that the United Party are also opposed to Communism, but why then are they acting in this way? They are acting in this way because they are afraid that if they do not do so the Progressive Party and the Liberal Party will gain the support of those people who are marching in the streets and going around with torches. It is with this fact in mind that the United Party have realized that they are after all the official Opposition. That is why all protests must go through the United Party as representing the correct channel. They do not want anyone else to outdo them and it is for that reason that they find themselves in such a difficult position to-night. The future will show that the United Party by resorting to this type of action have done themselves more harm than anything they have done in the past.

We have reached a very sad state of affairs under this Government, when the hon. member for Kimberley (South) can make an un-Christian attack on this side of the House and declare us to be the champions of Communism. At the outset I should like to say that this General Laws Amendment Bill is a Godless piece of legislation. The Bill which is before us here to-night, is a Godless piece of legislation and that despite everything which the hon. member for Kimberley (South) has said. Perhaps he did not read the Bill. As a matter of fact, that appears to be the case because had he read it, he would have realized that under it he himself could be declared a communist. Clause 8 of the Bill, for instance, makes a man a communist when he advocates any of the objects of Communism. I know that he and the communists are at one as regards the respect of the laws of animal husbandry. So even on a simple issue such as that, he might become a communist and be declared as such under this legislation. Another possibility is and one which the hon. member did not seem to be aware of, is the possibility of he himself being guilty of sabotage. There are provisions in this Bill which I doubt whether the hon. member will be able to escape all his life. Clause 21, for instance, stipulates that—

Last year, Sir, my car was badly damaged by another member of Parliament. He did not even report it. But I am certain that under this Bill he would have been guilty of and committed to prison for five years without the judge having any option in the matter. Whatever the hon. member said about the punishment which people who are guilty of communistic acts merits, may I am sure also be applied to himself if the regulations are carried out as envisaged here. As a matter of fact, any innocent person may merit prosecution under this Bill. Does the hon. member for Kimberley (South), who is Christian, really advocate a measure of this nature? Even a murderer, I think, elicits sympathy in the hearts of members of Parliament, and any who advocate such severe punishment to those who commits sabotage and other acts in terms of this Bill, I think also un-Christian. The hon. member is also un-Christian when he accuses those who take part in public processions as being un-Christian.

I, for my part, think that the numerous public protests which this Bill has called forth, is against despotism and highlight the extent to which the people cherish freedom. I hope that members on the Government side will respect that. This Bill is not only an anti-sabotage Bill, but it is also an intimidation measure. As such it will never be permanently tolerated by the people. Our war measures were temporary measures whilst this Bill is a permanent piece of legislation. I have no doubt that this Bill, when placed on the Statute Book, will be the writing on the wall for the Nationalist Party. When the Government tampers with the liberty of the people, then it is looking for trouble. Just the mention of the Statue of Liberty in America stirs our deepest sentiments. The history of our people has been one of a fight for freedom as opposed to despotism. Our entire history has been a succession of fights and stuggles against despotism. That can be said of the earliest Dutch pioneers. They were the first to fight against despotism. I hope that we have not come back now to the days of Adam Tas in this country, but when one looks at this legislation it makes one shudder. Then we have the French Huguenots. [Interjections.] Unfortunately the hon. member for Cradock cannot claim Huguenot descent; so I do not expect him to know what the Huguenots suffered and sacrificed, and of their great achievements in this country. That all came to pass as a result of their fight for freedom and liberty. Such can also be said of the 1820-settlers. They have had a similar history and so have the Voortrekkers, and the Republics. These made the greatest sacrifices for individual liberty and freedom of speech, expression and from interference in their lives by despots. We know what was gained for liberty by those struggles. We know also what the outcome was of restrictions. One of the great fruits of restriction which we have in this country to-day is the Afrikaans language. The people fought against the repression of their language and so the Afrikaans language was born. That is an example we should all remember, and be thankful for.

I think it is unreasonable for members on the Government side to try and compare this Bill with war time legislation or with legislation which applies in countries like Rhodesia.

I did not mention the word “war”.

Perhaps the hon. member can then be exonerated from that accusation. But is he then insinuating that the Nationalist Party and the Fifth Columnists were wrong at that time because they opposed that legislation? I too say that the definition of sabotage is too wide. The regulation of the jurisdiction of our courts is undemocratic. In this debate, I think there has been a tragic incapacity on the part of members on the Government side to understand the Opposition’s point of view. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) even went so far as to accuse us of being the champions of Communism. They cannot understand protests; they cannot comprehend the meaning of protest meetings because they do not regard them as democratic demonstrations. Instead, they view public opposition as sabotaging propaganda. Freedom of expression is threatened even when freedom of expression does not endanger the safety of others. This Bill regiments. It is designed to regiment our way of life and I am afraid that this Government by passing this measure, may be guilty of incitement as well.

Order! The hon. member is going too far now. He should withdraw those words.

I do so, Sir. I agree that it is rather a too drastic incrimination to make in respect of this Government. You see, Mr. Speaker, this Government is a Government of don’ts. They are great on this—do not do that, do not do this, etc. I am quite sure that the Minister was not reared in a family where his parents always insisted on don’ts, otherwise he would not have introduced a measure of this nature. No Government can expect restrictive legislation like this to endure. I do hope, therefore, that when we come to the Committee Stage of this Bill, the Minister will see his way clear to amend the Bill so as to enable him to administer it, because I doubt whether he can administer it as it is now framed. I am pleased to see from the Press that there are indications that he will agree to certain amendments and introduce some himself, if not here then in the Other Place.

Will you vote for it if it is amended?

If the hon. the Minister will amend this Bill in accordance with my desires then I will vote for it.

But you have not yet told me what your desires are?

Well, I can criticize some of the clauses of the Bill in order to satisfy the Minister. I know that we will be able to discuss the details of the various clauses during the Committee Stage. Then we will have our real clash with the Minister, i.e. when we go through the Bill clause by clause. At the present moment I do not want to be involved in the wilderness of powers which the Minister is seeking by means of this Bill as a whole.

So you have a wilderness of desires!

There is a wilderness of powers encompassed within this Bill. The Minister might even find it difficult to explain what “gathering” means in terms of Clause 4. I notice that a magistrate will also have power to say what is a legitimate gathering, but then only on instructions from the Minister. Why magistrates are being brought into the Bill, therefore, I do not know. I am also nervous in regard to the provisions relating to the registration of newspapers. I am nervous of damage which might be done thereby to the expression of public opinion. I have not yet found the Government unable to deal with papers having an undermining influence or being communistically inclined. As a matter of fact, the Government has succeeded in the past to close down on quite a number of such newspapers. We have great respect for freedom of speech and expression. We know that Lord Charles Somerset tried to suppress freedom of expression and freedom of speech. But what happened to him as a result of that? It brought about his downfall. That is what can happen with this Minister also and I should like to warn him about it. He should be very careful how he restricts public expression of opinion. After all, it is only the newspapers which can really reflect public opinion. If they do not comply with his requirements, I am sure the Minister already has all the powers necessary to enable him to shut down any paper guilty of communistic propaganda or of propagating sabotage in any way whatever. You know, Mr. Speaker, under this Bill, as I read it, even a meeting of the Nationalist Party could be disallowed.

That might be a very good thing.

Yes, it might be a very good thing. There are powers in the Bill under which the Nationalist Party could be forbidden to hold meetings. I am quite sure that would be a very good thing, and perhaps the Minister will do it if in the Committee Stage we impress upon him the advantages of closing down some of the meetings of the Nationalist Party. Perhaps he will then consent to use some of the powers granted to him in Clause 7. That is why I told the hon. the Minister that if he would amend the Bill to please me, I certainly would accept the Bill for myself. The Minister did not ask me to speak for the Party. He asked me whether I would accept it. I cannot speak for the Party. Each member has his own opinion, but the hon. Minister honoured me by asking me whether I would accept this measure if he amends certain clauses in the Bill. But, Mr. Speaker, I am not so opposed to the Nationalist Party that I would like to close down any of their meetings. However vociferous the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) is and however hard he hits, I respect him and I enjoy his contributions in this House. I would be the last person to ban a meeting at which the hon. member for Brits was to be the chief speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think only in the Committee Stage can we thresh out what the term “communist” means and what is indicated by the “objects of Communism”. For instance, the hon. member for Kimberley (South) may be guilty of communistic activities because some of his principles and objects in life may coincide with the principles and objects of Communism. It is presently stated here “any of the objects of Communism”. Surely one of the objects of Communism would not be to convert the hon. Minister of Lands to Communism.

Do you know what Communism is?

Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell me.

No, I am asking you.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I know exactly what a communist is. I have read many books on Communism. I have read Karl Marx and books by authorities associated with his ideology.

One day you will find out what it is.

Yes, but surely the Minister of Lands is not accusing me of advocating Communism?

No, I did not say that.

The hon. member for Kimberley (South) would attack me as agitating for Communism because I am criticizing this more or less simple Bill—a simple Bill, but which is so involved that it would take a great deal of explanation by the hon. Minister to tell us in the Committee Stage how it would be applied. Take the powers the hon. the Minister sought in regard to serving a notice on a named person. The Bill empowers the Minister to publish in the Government Gazette that such notice has been served, and when that is published in the Gazette it is accepted as legal, even though the person concerned may not even subscribe to the Government Gazette. I think the Minister of Lands will have to read the Government Gazette more frequently now than he reads the Burger, because one does not know what may be published in the Gazette. I think the Government Printer and the Government are going to have large profits from the increased sale of the Gazette, because almost everyone will now have to buy the Gazette. [Interjections.] Hon. members will find out from the Bill and from the explanatory memorandum, which has watered down the intentions of this Bill very considerably. Nevertheless it is stated in the explanatory memorandum that the Minister may publish in the Gazette that notice has been given to a person, and by virtue of publication in the Gazette it then becomes a legal notice to that person. Publication means that a notice has been served on the person concerned. Now I defy the hon. the Minister to carry that out. I have enough respect for our judiciary to declare that. I defy the hon. Minister to prosecute any person under this particular provision of the Bill. It is a fact that the Minister knows this provision. exists I think this provision is quite absurd, that from the date of publication—that is before the individual can even purchase the Gazette—he will be regarded as having been notified. That is actually stated in the Bill. The individual can then commit an offence without even knowing that his name has been listed. That is provided for in this Bill. A man can commit an offence and be guilty without knowing that his name has been gazetted. As I have said before, how many members on the other side read the Gazette? I have also pointed out that we have a clause in regard to Communism that anyone who commits an act which causes damage to a car or anything of that nature, and is declared guilty of sabotage, is subject to five years imprisonment.

Speaking in general, Mr. Speaker, I have read this Bill, I have tried to study it and I have read it more meticuously than members on the opposite side, and yet I have been accused of not knowing its terms. The more I read it the more difficult I find this legislation to understand, and also more unreasonable. You know, Mr. Speaker, we always regard law as common sense. When people say to me: You know you can be declared guilty even if you are ignorant of the law, than I have replied to them: Well, if you are ignorant of the law, just use your common sense.

The law is an ass.

When this Bill is passed I agree with the hon. member that the law is an ass. When this Bill is passed I would not be able to say that law is common sense. I have never felt a greater urge to rise in this House and speak against a measure than I felt in regard to this Bill. I think it my duty to do everything possible to oppose this Bill to the utmost. I know the Minister will force it through the House with his big majority, but I do hope he will be reasonable and accept amendments to make this legislation a measure which we South Africans will not be ashamed of.

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) has said that under this legislation any innocent person can be prosecuted. The same speeches as hon. members of the Opposition have made to-night were also made in 1950 when the Suppression of Communism Act was passed by this House. Mr. Speaker, is not the very object of this legislation precisely to protect the general public against the agitators, the communists and the people who sabotage, and to deal with them? According to the argument of the hon. member for Albany the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) is being accused of being un-Christian because he supports this legislation. If we must be called unchristian because we want to protect the general public, then the hon. member for Albany must do so. Then he went on to say that this Bill “will never be tolerated by the people”. The 1950 Act has now been tolerated for 12 years by the public of this country, and the same will apply to this legislation. But I shall come back to that later. Furthermore the hon. member says that he does not like demonstrations being banned. I want to ask him whether he liked the demonstrations which were held at Langa and Sharpeville, whether he would like to see similar demonstrations held once again in South Africa. I ask him whether he wants to see Gkosana marching through the streets of Cape Town again.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks with reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. Van der Byl) to-day. He has said that during the past 18 months there have been signs of improvement, that there was a new attitude towards South Africa and an improved understanding of South Africa in the world. I want to agree with him in that regard, and I want to ask him why it is that a new attitude is developing towards South Africa in the world, and why the world is beginning to understand South Africa and her problems? Is the main reason not precisely the fact that there is a good Government in power? Is the main reason not that this Government is one of the few in the world which has expressed itself as being unequivocally opposed to Communism and has closed the Russian embassy in this country? Is it not the determination of this Government to deal with people who try to disturb law and order in this country; and is it not the determination of this Government to put them in their place, which has created confidence in this country?

Mr. Speaker, the behaviour of this responsible Government in our country has resulted in investors and people throughout the world having the utmost confidence in South Africa. I want to say further that the world to-day sees that the racial policy of the Government of the day is also fair to all the racial groups. The world is beginning to realize that to-day, and that is why the world is beginning to adopt a new attitude towards us.

The hon. member for Green Point has further said that in England he had to defend our policy. I then said: “Hear, hear” because I have found many English-speaking people in my own constituency who have told me how uninformed the people in England are regarding conditions in South Africa. I have found in the case of many of these English-speaking people that although they are United Party supporters they have defended South Africa.

I do as well.

The hon. member says he does so as well. It is a fine thing when that is done. But what is the cause of this distorted picture of South Africa which we find abroad? It is the English Press which is responsible for this. Publicity is given to anything which can do South Africa harm overseas. The representatives of the Press think of their own pockets. I ask the House at whose expense they are doing so? They are trying to fill their own pockets at the expense of our fatherland, South Africa; the price is the good name of South Africa, and there Press representatives do not care what they say about our country. If they can be pulled up, I personally will appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that many United Party members sitting in this House are also opposed to the actions and false reports spread by the English Press. But the time has come when they will have to show positively that they are opposed to it. I am also certain that the United Party, since the start of this debate, have bitterly regretted the fact that they have agitated against the legislation. One only hopes that the time will come when they will see how wrong they are in the attitude they have adopted here.

Mr. Speaker, has the time not come in South Africa and in the world for us to realize that we are living in different times. We are living in a world in which a revolution is taking place to-day. Many changes have come about in the world. We have had many new discoveries in the world. There have been developments in the economic and political fields, and the world must also adjust itself to the new problems which have arisen. Similarly there are new problems facing us in respect of legislation aimed at maintaining law and order in a country. It has been found that the old methods of combating disorder are inadequate and for that reason it is necessary that new measures be taken to deal adequately with the offences being committed to-day. We must have new measures to deal effectively in the future with these offences which cannot be combated to-day. But when a Government introduces legislation, it does not do so lightly. It must be able to render account to the voters of the country. If we are doing such a tremendous injustice as the United Party Opposition are claiming, then we shall after all fall into disfavour with the public, the people who elected this Government. Then I think the United Party will be glad that we have done such a foolish thing. But this Government is responsible for order and the security of our country. It is responsible for the maintenance of order in this country, but, Mr. Speaker, it is also responsible for the security of every race in this country, not only of the Whites but other racial groups as well. When I say that, I am thinking of a document which I have received to-day from the Transvaal Indian Congress. It is an impudent and insolent document which has been sent to me, and inter alia they say—

And then, inter alia, they say—

Who signed it?

It is signed by Nathie and Naidoo. They say that this Bill will affect them greatly. Are these people who wrote this letter then saboteurs? Because the legislation which is being introduced, is not aimed at a specific group of people. The legislation is being introduced in order to deal with saboteurs. If they say that this Bill will affect them greatly, and are thereby implying that they are saboteurs, then I hope that they will in fact be dealt with effectively. One is surprised that people can be so irresponsible, when one thinks of the fact that a few years ago the Zulus in Durban beat them with knobkieries, and this Government then protected them in a very responsible way. It is the Government’s duty to protect every citizen of this country, and it will continue to do so in future as well.

But, Mr. Speaker, the legislation which we are adopting is being described as fascistic and totalitarian, and it is said that we are turning this country into a police state. Let them say that. But this Government, with all the measures it has taken, is regarded by the voters as the Government which has done best for South Africa, and the voters have shown this unequivocally on every occasion at the polling booths. It is a pity that the United Party have adopted the attitude here which they have adopted, and have not listened to the wise counsel which some of their supporters have given, not to oppose the legislation but only to oppose certain of the clauses. But, Mr. Speaker, the political intuition of the United Party suits us. If they continue with the type of speech certain of their members are making here, then it costs them a few thousand votes every time such a speech is made, and those people will vote for the National Party when we hold another election. It is the position that the liberal element within the United Party has once again triumphed. Speeches have been made by hon. members of the Opposition, inter alia, by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell), which create the impression that all the people in South Africa are bound in chains. That is the picture which is being sent abroad by the English Press. Another hon. member has said that this is the “Childrens’ Hanging Bill”. These ideas are unfortunately being sent abroad. We know that they have appeared in the Press overseas.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) has said: “But after all they are a bunch of traitors.”

Did the hon. member for Ventersdorp say that?

Mr. Speaker, when I said that, I was thinking of all the people outside.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has dealt with the hon. member for Wynberg. Last year the hon. member said here: “Nats almost preparing for civil war.” Allow me first to point this out. Last year under the leadership of communists and agitators a big conference was held in Pietermaritzburg. This conference was held by the so-called All-in African people. At that meeting they demanded that a national conviction should be held in this country to be attended by chosen representatives, on a basis of equality, of all races and colours in this country, and that this conference should be held before 31 May. They further demanded that that convention should have sovereign powers. At that conference they would draw up a multi-racial constitution. The implications were that the present Government, which has been elected in a legal manner, should surrender, because this multi-racial constitution which would have been drawn up by the national convention, would obviously have been dominated by the Bantu of this country because they are in the majority. When it was demanded of this Government that it should surrender, what was the attitude of the United Party in this regard? I want to refer to what the hon. member for Wynberg said in this regard. He said—

Who spoke like that?

Mr. Speaker, this is what the hon. member for Wynberg said on 4 May 1961, in Claremont, according to the Cape Times. This conference which was held in Pietermaritzburg under the leadership of a group of agitators and which demanded that the Government of the day should surrender, was described by a front bencher of the United Party as making a very peaceful request to the Government and it is further described as a very constitutional request. He subscribes to it entirely. Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that there are also people on that side of the House who are so irresponsible as to make such statements. With such irresponsible submissions as he has made will he really welcome the destruction of the White man here on the southern tip of Africa? And then the Leader of the Opposition tells us that the federal plan is the solution. Mr. Speaker, where does the federal plan come into the picture when his front benchers advocate that this Government should surrender when they support such action, and when they want us to have a multi-racial constitution and to accept one man one vote? Where does his federation then come into the picture? There will be no federation because the Bantu will govern the country.

The Opposition have made various allegations which I should like to refute briefly. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that the Government is admitting by this legislation that it cannot govern without taking the most extreme action. It is not necessary to prove, as the Minister has already done, that at the moment unusual circumstances exist. He has pointed out that on 15 December sabotage was committed at eight places on the same day and at the same time; that one of the witnesses in connection with these incidents has disappeared. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that this legislation is being introduced because at the moment there is no machinery to deal effectively with such acts, and the Department of Justice feels that there should be legislation so that the saboteurs can be dealt with rapidly and effectively? That is the reason why this legislation has been introduced, and I maintain that if it is the position that witnesses are simply disappearing and that sabotage has been committed at eight places on the same night on an organized basis, then we must be careful because we are playing with fire if we do not take the situation into account and if we do not take positive steps to deal with it and to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Furthermore, the Opposition have said that this legislation is trying to combat Communism by negative means. They say that the Government is trying to combat Communism in a negative way. Where is there better proof than this very legislation that we want to combat Communism by positive means? All the measures we have taken in the past have been positively aimed at eradicating Communism. They contend that Communism should be thoroughly investigated. Have we not combated Communism by the most effective means under the régime of the National Party Government? The Opposition have alleged that the standard of living of our people is so low that Communism will flourish precisely in our country. Is it not true that the standard of living of our people, of all the races of our country, is higher and better than it has ever been under any previous Government? It is precisely as a result of the economic measures taken by this Government that South Africa to-day offers the least fertile soil for Communism anywhere in Africa. We are combating it. We are making it difficult for the communist to live and to exist here. That is why I welcome so whole-heartedly this measure which the Minister has now introduced in order to combat the communists. We are not dealing here with an enemy which one can tackle with bare hands. It must be hit hard, and this is the only way to do so. The allegation has been made that we call Black nationalism Communism. How far from the truth is that not? Is it not the position that we allow and grant every national group the right to live in this country and that we are offering the Bantu in their homelands the opportunity to develop and to be able to hold responsible positions? It is quite untrue to allege that we say that Black nationalism is Communism.

Furthermore attacks have been made on our judiciary, on the Judges who are supposedly incapable of hearing these cases, and the Attorney-General who is “unscrupulous”. Suddenly our courts are now incapable of doing the work which they have been doing all these years. I want to express my full confidence in the judiciary of this country. Opposition members have said that we are now restricting the freedom of the individual. That is devoid of all truth. Is it not precisely the position that we wish to protect 99.9 per cent of the public, and wish to take action precisely against that .01 per cent who are saboteurs? We are opposed to violence. We do not want to see it develop in this country, and the actions of this Government have created full confidence in South Africa. It is for this reason that the outside world is expressing confidence in South Africa, namely because positive steps are being taken to eradicate Communism. When Meadowlands and other large housing schemes were erected for the Bantu, the greatest possible agitation was set afoot, and it was said that the worst possible injustice was being done to those people and that the rights of the individual were being interfered with. The Press of the world were called to take photographs in order to show the world this great injustice, but what are those people saying to-day? They all admit to-day that this was the greatest effort made by this Government to do something good as regards the housing of the non-Whites.

This legislation is being introduced precisely to close the loopholes in the present legislation. Once we have adopted this Bill, I want to say that if there are still loopholes, the Minister must submit the matter to this House as soon as possible so that we can close them, so that we can deal with the Communists. We do not want to see a repetition in this country of Sharpeville and Langa. We want to see peace. That is why I hold it against the Opposition that they are opposing a Bill which envisages peace. They prefer to have a position such as that which prevailed at Langa and Sharpeville.

Do not say such a thing.

The hon. member says that I must not say such a thing, but if they oppose this legislation, then it must show the world that they are opposed to the combating of Communism. When Sam Kahn who said he was a communist was removed from the House, they were opposed to that as well. What else can the public outside say except that they are trying to further Communism; it is actions that count. The communistic danger is very great and we are making matters as difficult for it as possible, but it is to be found throughout the world, and its object is the overthrow of governments by violence. This Government has been elected by legal and proper means, and I am not in favour of a Government being overthrown by violence. If there are signs of unrest and of attempts to overthrow the Government by violence, strong action must be taken. Communism does not recognize any God or any law. If one joins the communist party, one may not have any religion. That is why it is so important that we in this country, seeing that we believe in freedom of religion, should restrict these people who do not want to allow any religion here. The communists want to control and dominate the whole world. The policy of the communist is deplorable and repulsive, and we cannot take strong enough action to combat and to eradicate them. They are trying to implement their policy by eloquently advocating peaceful co-existence. In Africa they have made the word “colonialism” an epithet, and everything bad is linked with it. In this way they are trying to gain ground. Since 1917 32,000 Russian orthodox churches and 20,000 mosques have been destroyed in Russia. Religion has been destroyed there, and that is why we must eradicate the communists root and branch. We cannot allow them to continue sabotaging us under our very noses. As long as this Government is in power, it will not allow such irresponsible acts to be committed under its nose in order to further Communism. We shall not hesitate to pass legislation aimed at eradicating Communism root and branch.

I listened most carefully to the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Niemand) wandering from the Indians in Durban to the churches destroyed in Russia and the convention that was held in Pietermaritzburg, with some abuse of the hon. member for Wynberg, and the only subject he left alone was this Bill we are discussing. It was the same with the speaker just before him, the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Mr. W. L. D. M. Venter). He preached a sermon about the evils of Communism, but he never touched on the Bill. I took some notes of what he said. I do not want to allude to the legal people here, because they have been dealt with. I can only say that even an ordinary layman like me could see that their speeches were wide off the mark. Then there was the speech of the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter). He started off most beautifully by telling us that politics was the art of government and he went on to compliment the Minister on the wonderful exposition he gave in his second reading speech, but the hon. Minister had also left the Bill severely alone. In reply to the questions we put to him, the Minister said that we must wait and see, leaving us with the impression that he had not read the Bill.

Tell us something about the Bill yourself and leave the other members alone.

I will come to the Bill. The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser) said, “Hierdie wetsontwerp wyk af van die konvensionele wetgewing”, and ended up by asking for consolidation of all these laws because he said it was “impossible for the ordinary man to follow these laws”. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller), who has had a legal training, said that legislation of this nature must be introduced even though the “method adopted was barbaric”. Having listened to all this, I start wondering, particularly when I remember that one hon. member said that this Bill was “Buigsaam genoeg”. The hon. member for Pietersburg spoke about saboteurs and agitators and everything else except the Bill. Now I as an ordinary layman will try to look at the Bill. [Laughter.] Sir, that is an expression used in a court of law, but if the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) is so ignorant as not to know it, I will call myself a laywoman. I find that the short title calls this Bill The General Law Amendment Bill, but when I look at the long title it says it amends the Suppression of Communism Act of 1950. Before I read anything further, I remember that that particular Act was amended in 1951, in 1954, 1956 and 1961, and we also had the Public Safety Act and the Riotous Assemblies Act, and most of them were amended, too.

What is wrong with that?

What is wrong is that none of the hon. members opposite know what it is all about. That is why their speeches never touched on the Bill. Then I come to Clause I of the Bill, which bans social meetings and organizations, and social meetings and ad hoc meetings can now be banned whereas previously under the old Act it had to be proved that there was a common purpose before these meetings could be banned. In other words, this gives much wider powers. I come to Clause 2. [Interjection.] Does the hon. member for Standerton expect me to teach him everything? He has shown his ignorance so often in this House that I would hate him to ask me to define every single word in the clause. I am going to touch on the points on which I desire to touch and I will not be taught by anyone. [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister of Information got such a dressing-down in the House last night that I would be quiet if I were in his shoes. In Clause 2 an organization can be banned that has been established for the purpose of carrying directly or indirectly on the activities of an unlawful organization. This goes so wide that one wonders what will escape the banning. Then in Clause 3 the Minister can prohibit any particular gathering. This is where one begins to see what the Leader of the Opposition called the “civil death” that could be administered. Clause 4 says that any group of persons can be listed as well as an individual, and that is why the trade unions were concerned for their safety. But the point I wish to make in regard to these four clauses is that this Bill is so involved, so web like that the ordinary man or woman cannot understand it, and they would not know what is lawful or unlawful. As I go into the Bill further, I will confess to you, Sir, that I do not know, and I am sure the ordinary person who has had no legal training will not know, what is lawful or unlawful, and we are dealing with ordinary men and women. I will come presently to the fact of how much explanation the ordinary man and woman can expect because I must take into consideration that the lawyers here on the Government side do not even know.

Lawyers are liars.

You should know.

I know of one lawyer who was proved a liar last night. When I say that this law is so wide that the ordinary person does not know whether he will fall under it, then I think of the next clause, Clause 5, which deals with the banning of newspapers, and then I think of the simple way in which Rhodesia dealt with this difficulty. I do not wish to say that newspapers should never be banned, or that there are no newspapers which have been banned but which appeared under a different name the next day, but we should look at what Rhodesia did. The Southern Rhodesian law says that “if a banning order is served on a newspaper it will have effect on all subsequent issues of such publications, and not only in respect of any publication under that name, but also with respect to any publication under any other name if the publishing thereof is in any respect a continuation of the publication which was banned”.

Really, Sannie, we can all read too!

You can only spell. Then we come to Clause 6, the famous clause in which the list can be published in the Gazette and any name appearing in any extract from such list can be published. Now I want to come to a point which has not been touched on before, and that is that the Government Gazette will become in this country and under this Government a best-seller. I wonder how many ordinary people have access to the Government Gazette. I know that the legal offices and the magistrates’ courts get it, and you can buy it in some bookshops in Cape Town, but in the whole of Natal you cannot buy it, and if you want it you have to write to the Government Printer in Pretoria. But there are provisions in this Bill which make a banning legal as from the date of publication, and even if you write for it to Pretoria it may take a week before you get it, if I know the Department of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs at all.

I want to ask the hon. member whether a person has to order the Government Gazette from Pretoria to know whether he has committed sabotage or not.

That is not the point. I will prove later that this Bill is so wide that you can do a great many things which are not sabotage and still fall into the net of this Bill. Most of the things mentioned here have nothing to do with sabotage. In Clause 10 a new offence is created where a person changes his address and fails to notify the police. Later on it says, in another clause, that a person must afford proof of having notified his change of address. A person now has to notify his change of address and furnish proof that he has done so. I say that the ordinary person may go to the post office and write a letter to say that he has changed his address, and register the letter and he gets a registration slip as proof of having notified his change of address. But if that person lands in court he will find that he has no proof, because that little slip is only proof of a letter having been posted, and knowing the Department of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs as I do, it could have been lost or mislaid, and sometimes it only turns up two or three months afterwards, and sometimes never at all. In Clause 10 (e) it is an offence to publish or disseminate any speech of a banned person. I want to know what happens to those Members of Parliament who are continually quoting these things. Is Parliament exempt from this clause? What ordinary member of the public knows anything about this? How many members over there are clear in their own minds as to whether Parliament is really exempt? How many of them have thought about it? I am sure they have not even read the clause and they do not have a clue. Even if it is true that Parliament is exempt, our constituents will be sure that we are not exempt and they will sit there waiting, some of them with glee, for their Member of Parliament to get into trouble. That raises another question. Who is going to nab those hon. members who say the wrong things in this House? Will Mr. Speaker keep a list of the sayings they have quoted, and is the Serjeant-at-Arms going to arrest them? This Bill is so nebulous that it is simply not true, and that is the trouble. You cannot quote the things said by a person who has been banned. I understood the Minister to say that he will not publish the complete lists of banned persons, but if the Minister publishes the complete list of banned people, it means that people will have to get those Government Gazettes and study and memorize those names. I had a most interesting experience to-day. I got a cutting from the Rand Daily Mail of 22 May, in which there is an article written by Mr. Patrick Duncan, and he talks about this Bill and says that one of the formidable powers given to the Government by the Bill is to place any of its opponents, if it chooses, under house arrest and to forbid them to say anything for publication. And he goes on to say that therefore he issues A warning to people like Sir de Villiers Graaff, Dr. D’s and Mr. Paul Sauer. He says it is known that they are not neo-Nazis, but if they permit a law like this to go (through, their fate will be similar to that of the German Nazis 20 years ago. What is even more interesting is that I find even to-day’s Burger quoting Mr. Patrick Duncan. [Interjections.] I think this is the first time the Minister of Information has scored a point in this House and I must congratulate him, but I am afraid it will be a long time before he scores a point again. The Burger writes a whole leading article about Mr. Patrick Duncan—

Midnight

So they go on, but they write a whole leading article about Mr. Patrick Duncan. Sir, this shows how easily one can put one’s foot into it. This shows how easily the Government’s own organ, their party political paper, is going to put its foot into it. But this brings me to something else. This clause says—

It will mean that hon. members on the other side will no longer be able to quote ex-Senator S. M. Pettersen. I was in the Provincial Council with Senator S. M. Pettersen and he got up and proudly announced that he was a communist Hon. members opposite put this communist in the Senate afterwards but from now on they dare not quote any of his speeches in the Senate because of the fact that he was a communist. But, Sir, what is going to happen to the booksellers; what is going to happen to ordinary publications? Who is going to do the reading to find out that something was not quoted of a person who ten years ago was, or ten years from now, will become a communist? You see how difficult it is. Sir. You see how difficult it is going to be for the ordinary person who has a library to make sure that they do not have in their possession a book which contains something that may fall foul of this law, in case they should lend that book to some other person.

Doomsday!

The hon. member for Standerton is doing me the honour of reading the Bill for the first time now. Clause 8 (a) (iii) says—

It refers to promoting the objects of Communism. What does that mean to the ordinary person? Let me take an example. One of the Government members drives along the road; he sees a man lying on the side of the road, injured by another car, bleeding and seriously injured. Out of the kindness of his heart he stops his car—and I must admit that such members on that side will be few and far between—he takes this person in his car to the nearest hospital and so saves his life. But unbeknown to the hon. member this was a communist, and in doing this he has promoted the objects of Communism. [Interjections.] Sir, I am putting this in words of one syllable which the ordinary person outside, the people in the gallery, the people in the constituencies, will understand. This is the ordinary language that the ordinary person who has had no legal training will understand. Take another example. Let us assume that I visit a home or an orphanage and in that home or orphanage there is a child who is the child of a communist. I then make a contribution to that home. Would I then be furthering the achievement of the objects of Communism by my donation? Sir, you see how stupid this can become?

No, only you are stupid.

I quite accept that I may be stupid, but let me tell the hon. member that in that case all the White people in South Africa outside of this Parliament are going to be stupid with me. because this is the way in which they are going to look at this Bill. [Interjection.]

Try to show some dignity!

Sir, I have dealt with the question of notifying changes of address, and I have dealt with the booksellers. But I now come to the things that I may not do and the things that the Crown or the State has to do The State has to do all or certain things set out in Clause 21 before you can be found guilty. It sets out what the State has to prove. The state has to prove that I committed a wrongful and wilful act, and then the clause sets out the various things that have to be proved by the State. There are seven things which the State has to prove. But then I turn to Clause 21 (2), and there I find the things that I have to prove. I find that there are ten of these things, ten things that I have to prove before I can prove that I am not guilty. Amongst those things are—

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) referred to a motor-car of his that was damaged here outside Parliament. If I had damaged that car and if there had been a person inside the car and the Minister felt so inclined he could say that I was guilty of an act against State because paragraph (g) goes on to say “to cause substantial financial loss to any person or to the State,” not only to the State but to “any person”. Sir, so I could go on and I find these things more nebulous as I read further. Paragraph (j) says—

Might that mean when I am being rude to the hon. the Minister of Information, which he deserves, that I am embarrassing the State?

No, he is the embarrassment to the State.

Before I close my final argument, I want to touch upon two things which have been said here. It was said by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller), I think, that in the Bill which we put before Parliament in the minority report, we put the onus on the accused. Let me quote that clause—

And then he could be hanged.

That is the clause that has been quoted here, but the position is not as the hon. member said. Under this clause the defence is subjective. The person so accused can go into the witness-box and say, “It was not my intention to do anything against the State”. It is subjective. The accused must declare what his ideas were and what his objects were when he committed certain acts, and the accused is the only person who knows what he intended to do. If he explains what he intended to do, the Judge will naturally accept his explanation But in this new Bill the whole thing is regarded objectively; it is the other way round; it is what the Judge thinks that person had in his mind when he did this, that or the other thing. The Judge would say to himself, “What would I do if I were in the place of the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze)”, who is behaving so badly; “would I behave as he behaves or would I behave myself a little better?” It is for the Judge to judge; it is an objective judgment. It is said here that the indictment shall allege that he or it has propagated the principles or promoted the spread of Communism. Those are the words that are used. But what do these words mean?—

This is an active act which had to be proved against the accused—

So again it was a positive thing. But, Sir, there is another accusation laid at the door of the United Party, and that is that in our War Measures Act we also made the death penalty compulsory for a person under the age of 18 years if he did certain things.

Never!

The clause reads—

What was Section 214 of the Criminal Procedure Act? It laid down the ordinary criminal procedure to be followed in the case of a juvenile. You see, Sir, how different the true story is.

I come back to the position of the layman under this Bill. As I have said, very few members on the other side, according to my judgment, have read this Bill. The few lawyers who have read it have been at logger-heads, as I have just proved. The ordinary man and the ordinary woman have to get their legal information from the legal people of South Africa. We have a population of more than 3,000,000 Whites, apart from the millions of non-Whites, but I am referring to the White people now. In 1957—these are the latest figures that I could find—there were 391 practising advocates and 3,230 attorneys, making a total of 3,626 lawyers who have to disseminate all this intricate knowledge contained in this measure to the laymen in this country, and, as I have pointed out, it is even beyond the grasp of the ordinary Nationalist member over there. These 3,626 lawyers have to desseminate a knowledge of what is contained in this Bill to 3,500,000 White people in this country, not to mention the non-White population. Sir, the hon. the Minister, when we put questions to him from this side, kept on saying “Wait and see”, and I think it is clear from that that the hon. the Minister himself has not read the Bill very carefully. It was perfectly clear to-night when the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) was speaking that he had not consulted the Minister of Labour about this Bill, but it was also very clear indeed when the members of the Bar Council came down to see him. According to their statement which appears in to-night’s paper, it is very clear indeed that the Minister misunderstood the position. I say again that this is a piece of legislation which the ordinary layman will not understand. They do not know when and where and how it is going to draw them into its net and I say it is a thoroughly undesirable piece of legislation.

I would just like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that certain members have now come in here and told me right at the outset that I am in trouble. [Interjections.] If I do not understand the Bill, then it is due to their making so much noise that I was unable to hear when the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) was speaking. She talked from yesterday until to-day—she has that distinction—and nobody understood either what she said or what the point was that she was trying to make. But one thing she cannot accuse me of is my not having read the Bill, because even if I had not, at least I heard it here, because she read out the Bill, clause by clause, without succeeding in throwing any light on the subject. She also pointed out something else to us. I do not believe it will be necessary, after this long debate, for us further to consider the Bill in Committee, because the hon. member for Drakensberg has already fully dealt with the whole matter in Committee, clause by clause.

What is your point?

I am aware that those people who now interrupt me come from a place where they are no longer able to understand any point.

What is your point?

This is the point: the hon. member will not understand it if there is a point.

At the moment there is peace and tranquillity in South Africa, even if there is a commotion in the Assembly on that side of the House, and one wonders: Why then this Bill?

That point has already been put a hundred times.

That is what we keep asking all the time in this debate.

The question that arises in the mind of every normal, sober-minded person is: Why this Bill?

The United Party are not sober-minded.

The hon. the Minister himself told us the reason why there is peace and tranquillity in South Africa.

Without the help of the United Party.

Because, in the first place, the communists in South Africa do not like peace and tranquillity …

And why is there peace and tranquillity?

No, I do not say that that is the reason They thrive on unrest and discord.

But the Minister said there was peace and tranquillity?

They thrive on unrest and discord, and because such conditions do not exist, they want to bring them about and create those conditions, and that is why it is necessary to place a Bill like this on the Statute Book. But it is not the communists alone who desire a state of unrest and discord. Here in South Africa the United Party also does not want peace and tranquillity. They are all afraid that the National Party will manage to entrench itself even more firmly than at present. They fear that apartheid is solving our racial problems in South Africa and creating a state of peaceful coexistence here.

What clause is that?

Order! The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) must give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

They are afraid that the non-Whites are increasingly beginning to realize that. They are afraid, too, that the United Nations and the outside world are also coming to realize that, with apartheid, we are achieving peaceful co-existence in this country as far as the Whites and non-Whites are concerned. There is at present a UN Committee in South Africa, and it is an announcement recently made by the chairman of the UN Committee that is making hon. members on that side so uneasy. The chairman of that Committee said, according to a report which appeared in to-day’s Rand Daily Mail—

On a point of order, last night you ruled that I should come back to the Bill, and the hon. member is now busy here with irrelevant matters.

Order! The hon. member may continue.

The hon. members on that side are now afraid that I am exposing them. I say it is this announcement made by the UN Committee’s chairman that is making them so uneasy and so desperate, because the Opposition know that they will never be able to get into power with the support of the people here in South Africa, and they have always hoped that some miracle at UN would bring them into power here. That is why they are so afraid when there is peace and tranquillity in South Africa But they fear something else as well; they know that this Bill we are dealing with is an anti-communistic measure, and they are afraid that the Nationalist Government will be aclaimed by the West for introducing such legislation. That is why they look for something sinister behind this Bill. The hon. members for Zululand (Mr. Cadman), Wynberg (Mr. Russell) and Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) all insinuated that this measure was not directed at our bringing the communists to book, but was aimed at our political opponents. Why should we employ such devious means in order to overcome our political opponents? We have long since settled accounts with our political opponents in South Africa. They have suffered one defeat after another since 1948, each time with a greater and more overwhelming majority. Despite that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) said that we do not rule “by consent”, but that we achieved these victories “by coercion”. Never has there been so much “consent” behind a ruling party in South Africa as there is behind this Nationalist Government. We have to-day 105 members in this House, and the laws we pass are framed with the knowledge and with the blessing of the people of South Africa, and that applies to this Bill as well. We have completely crushed the Opposition; the United Party is finished; the Progressive Party is as stillborn a party as the National Union. The hon. member for Houghton also said, inter alia, that this measure should be called “The Intimidation law” Let me tell her this: You cannot intimidate any person or party that is already dead. We find no pleasure in kicking a dead dog. This Bill is not aimed at our political opponents, as alleged by that side of the House. It is directed solely at those who by unconstitutional methods seek to take over the government of South Africa, those who intend using unconstitutional means in committing sabotage and in paralysing South Africa so as to able to get into power. In other words, this Bill is aimed solely at the communists and their ilk, their confederates. Our opponents know that very well; they need only refer to the Act of 1950, to the debate of 1950; they need only consider all the prognostications they made at that time, and ask themselves how many of those predictions came true, in order to convince themselves that not one of those things came about, and just as they talked nonsense at that time, so have they done nothing else in this debate but talk nonsense. The whole agitation against this measure is nothing else but a blind; it has absolutely nothing to do with the Bill. The rallies and the protest marches are in the first place merely intended as demonstrations to give the UNO Committee presently in South Africa the impression that things are in a very bad way in South Africa under the Nationalist Government. That is what they have up their sleeve with this agitation. It is a party-political agitation to stir up the outside world against South Africa through the medium of our visitors who are here as representatives of UN. It is being waged, amongst others, by political agitators in sacerdotal dress who do not hestitate to desecrate prayer and the House of God to achieve their ends.

Disgraceful.

They are nothing else but political agitators in clerical garb. They are nothing else but supporters of the hon. members sitting on that side.

It is an absolute disgrace.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I am not ashamed of the truth. This agitation is, in the second place, a race between the old, dead United Party horse and the anaemic little Progressive Party foal in an effort to gain the support of the liberal elements in South Africa.

On a point of order, is the word “gevrekte” parliamentary?

You are again afraid he is talking about you.

I use the figure of speech of a horse, and the word “vrek” applies to a horse; one does not talk of a horse “dying”. I repeat, it is nothing else but a race between the two to see which will have the privilege of being the official Opposition. They know they will never get into power, but it is an attempt on the part of the Progressive Party to steal a march on the United Party, and the United Party will not allow it. So now they trot along together and run behind as long as the horse holds out. Who is busy at the moment leading the freedom rallies? There is Jan Steytler in Johannesburg, there is Ray Swart in Durban, there is a progressive here and a progressive there, and the old United Party horse tries to run along behind. It is only an attempt on the part of the United Party to instil a little life into the old horse which does not want to trot any more.

It is not a horse, it is just an old nag. *

Now they want to see which can run better and which can use the most venomous and abusive language, and which can most vehemently curse the Government, and in the process all manner of irresponsible things are said, and unbridled language is used against the Government. They do not care what happens to the country.

On a point of order, is an hon. member on that side of the House allowed to accuse an hon. member on this side of the House of being a communist?

Did one of the hon. members say that? Then he must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

I say that they are trying to steal a march on each other and they do not care what happens to South Africa. Just take note of the irresponsible things that are being said in this debate. I would like to refer to what the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) said. He said: “This Bill shows a complete disregard for the individual rights of the people and it metes out punishment which bears the stamp of the Nazi jackboot” And the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), whom I must call honourable just because the Rules of the House demand it: “I call it ‘The Hanging of Children’s Bill And then the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman): “This is a Nazi Bill. It is designed to camouflage dictatorship behind a façade of democracy Those are the expressions they use, a Nazi state, a police state. They had a lot to say about democracy. We are now creating a police state. This Bill of ours is one which only dictators would introduce. But not one of those hon. members had the courage, when the hon. member for Houghton rose to move the only amendment which really gives expression to opposition against the Bill, to second that amendment. But they contend that this Bill will destroy democracy. Yet not one of them had the courage to stand up to second the amendment. And then they pose as the great apostles of democracy! When the Opposition talks about democracy, to them it simply means the right of the Opposition to rule over the Government. Then that is democracy in South Africa. That is all that they understand by democracy. As long as the Opposition is the United Party, and the Government is the National Party, they will continue to play that game. But we contemptuously reject that attitude of theirs. We say we shall govern according to the mandate given by the people of South Africa; we shall govern here and make such laws as the people have instructed us to make, and we shall not ask the Opposition whether we have the right to make those laws. We shall continue to carry out the will of the people.

Mr. Speaker, here comes the “gevrekte Verenigde Party That is the choice expression we have just heard from the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk). The hon. member for Boksburg has put the 64,000 dollar question: “Waarom hierdie wetsontwerp? And in the course of my remarks I wish to discuss that question and I intend to give the hon. member for Boksburg a reply to that question. The hon. member thinks we are afraid that the West will accept this South African Government. Well, I hope they will. I think of the words of Mr. Winston Churchill “Let us go forward together”. If we can find a road that will take us to the West, to acceptance by the powers of the West, I shall be very glad indeed. Now I don’t think that the hon. member after he has praised this Bill should tell us that he is a confirmed democrat, because a democrat could certainly not praise a Bill of this kind.

I enter this debate, Mr. Speaker, as a layman with a feeling of trepidation, and I feel also with some becoming modesty. I am not a learned legal man; I am a layman; and I think I am justified in protesting to the hon. the Minister for introducing the Bill in the manner he has introduced it. The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has expressed the difficulty that all laymen have in following this Bill. It is a series of amending Bills. It is a lawyer’s holiday. I think the very least the hon. the Minister could have done was to have given us a separate Bill on Sabotage, and then perhaps the other amending clauses could have remained together. That is my first complaint. I tried very hard to understand the details of this Bill, its implications, and to make a study of it.

On a point of order, Sir, there is so much noise that I simply can’t hear what the hon. member is saying.

I want to ask hon. members on the cross-benches over there to give the hon. member a chance to deliver his speech. I myself find it very difficult to follow the hon. member.

I have tried to make a study of the Bill by reading the speech of the hon. the Minister when he introduced the Bill and by reading the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I think those two speeches give one an opportunity to understand what it is all about. Mr. Speaker, I know it is very difficult for you to control this debate because there is a tendency amongst us all to drift away from the clauses and the strictly legal side of the Bill, but I was very encouraged this afternoon in listening to the speech of the hon. Chief Whip of the Government side, because in a 40-minute speech he never came within sight of the Bill. Not only did he not discuss the clauses of the Bill, but he never came near the principle of the Bill.

Order! The hon. member is reflecting on the Chair. He should withdraw that remark.

I will withdraw that, Sir. Then I can only say that he did not know what he was talking about. And if I may proceed further on the same lines, Mr. Speaker, I was also encouraged by the speech I heard this afternoon, a very fine speech, by the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser). The speech by the hon. member for Klerksdorp dwelt on the different policies and different outlooks of the two parties, the Government Party and the Opposition Party. He said that we were a party of “Maars” “Buts”. He said that we had to please the Mitchells. In our speeches we pleased both of the Mitchells. He said that the United Party had difficulty in satisfying its members in the urban areas and its members in the rural areas. I have not noticed that in this debate. Whatever the complaints may have been in the past, I have not noticed it to-day. I should like to say to the hon. member for Klerksdorp that he himself in this debate was able to tell us that he could praise this Bill. I say that the Government party has been trying to reconcile in this debate two points of view, the one mentioned by the hon. member for Boksburg, the democratic outlook, and the other the authoritarian outlook, the totalitarian outlook, call it what you will—“authoritarian” is the word I like. It is obviously an authoritarian Bill, and they have been trying to reconcile these two points of view. Well, Sir, I wish to say that I am conditioned in understanding the implications of this Bill. I have been reading two very interesting books. We have been referred to what the United Party said during the war years. I am taking an authority who was well-informed, and I want to quote, perhaps at some length, from what he had to say, because from this I get the background I want. It is first-hand evidence. I am quoting from Dr. D. F. Malan “Afrikaner Volkseenheid”, and I quote from Chapter 31 “Vreemde Ideologieë”—

I have allowed the hon. member to quote extensively, but he should now return to the Bill.

Sir, I am going to quote the background to the Bill, which I think is necessary for a proper understanding.

Order! The hon. member must be very brief then.

Sir, I shall not be more than a few minutes—

I am only going to give one of these—

That was the aim, to destroy the parliamentary system, to destroy democracy that the hon. member for Boksburg has been praising, the democracy that has been preached by hon. members opposite. It is on that basis that the Nationalist Party has gone forward, on the basis of destroying democracy.

What utter nonsense!

I have seen it in this House. I remember Dr. Malan sitting on this front bench, the Hindenburg of the Nationalist Party. He was the man who gave the tone in those days. He was the model of respectability, followed by a more extreme Prime Minister, Mr. Strijdom. His policy was not democracy in any form.

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

Sir, I am not spending more time in discussing the background than did the hon. member for Klerksdorp this afternoon. But I am returning to the Bill.

Do you know that Steyn-Vorster died before the last war?

I am quoting Dr. Malan. I don’t know who Steyn-Vorster was.

You are insinuating that that refers to me.

No, I am saying that that was the basis on which the Nationalist Party has gone forward, and now we are coming to the climax. That is not my only conditioning, Mr. Speaker. I have been reading this wonderful book “The Rise and Fall of the Third German Reich”. Now I am not going to say that this is a Nazi Bill, but I do say that we are moving perilously in the same direction. We are moving forward from one totalitarian Bill to another. If we go back to the 1950 Bill, the Communist Bill, and compare it with what we have to-day, we find we have moved a very, very long way indeed. Mr. Speaker, I want to put this question honestly to my friends on the other side: Is it true that the criticism we have made of this Bill, reveals, as one of the best papers in this country, the Burger, seems to imply in its articles, that it does not matter whether these are protests or not, that it will all blow away. Nobody will be concerned about it; they will accept it as the system in South Africa; and that this is merely a temporary movement?

Of course it is.

Let us see if that is so. Have we not sufficient laws at present to maintain law and order and carry out the policy of this Government? Do we need stronger laws than the laws under which we have put in gaol a man of the calibre of Peter Brown? Now I do not know Peter Brown personally, but I have read speeches by him. He is a member of the Liberal Party and he was imprisoned for about three months last year. If the Government had power to do that without any trial, they have very great powers without these additional powers. Then there was Professor Matthews, who had been a professor of a university. He was also imprisoned for a very long period. I know the Government felt that anybody who expressed liberal views should be put in gaol.

Nonsense!

They declared a state of emergency and these people were imprisoned. The Government had power to do it. I come to another case: Why have we refused a passport to Alan Paton? Why did we do that? We gave a passport to Mr. Luthuli.

What has that to do with the Bill?

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member entitled to go on in this strain without reference to the Bill? I am prepared to sit here till to-morrow morning, but then the hon. member should discuss the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am replying to the speeches I heard this afternoon.

That is not true.

Hon. members have maintained that the powers existing now are insufficient to maintain law and order, and I say that the powers the Government has had have been sufficient.

I am coming to the next point. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) said that everybody in South Africa, non-Whites and English-speaking people as well, welcomed the Bill. I don’t know what authority he has for saying that. You may find a handful of English-speaking people who welcome this Bill. I can assure you that the people I meet, the people I know, do not welcome this Bill.

I now come to one or two of the clauses of the Bill. I want to point out that it is a Bill on certain principles, communist principles. In this debate when we find that speeches become difficult, we say “come back to the Bill”. That means that we have to discuss the clauses, which we should discuss in Committee. That is what it amounts to. What I have been saying and what hon. members here have been discussing are the background and the reasons for the Bill. That is in order at the second reading. I want to deal with Clause 5, which I think is a most unfortunate one. It is the clause dealing with newspapers. I think this clause is ill-advised. The Bill says that a newspaper must pay a deposit of not more than R20,000 to the Minister of the Interior before being registered. This means that the hon. the Minister can ask any newspaper to deposit R20,000 and make a free loan to the Government.

Any newspaper?

Any new one being published.

Why did you not say so?

Any new paper coming on the market. I think that provision is most inadvisable, because to-day we find men in public life, from the Prime Minister downwards who are directors of newspaper companies. I don’t think this provision is in accordance with the principles of justice. Justice must be seen to be done, and if a Minister within his discretion can discriminate between newspapers, I think the provision is grossly unfair.

Yes, I am next and I will give him hell!

On a point of order, may the hon. member for Wolmaransstad say “Ek sal die agb. lid hel gee?”

If the hon. member said so, he should withdraw that.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to do so.

Those remarks don’t worry me. I don’t take much notice of irresponsible talk. I want to repeat that I think it is grossly unfair to give any Minister that power. It means that he must discriminate. He must say “I do not like that paper. I will exercise my judgment, without any trial, and that paper will forfeit the amount of their deposit.

If it is a communist paper.

That may be, but you may have another Minister who may say that another paper which is not communistic but may be a United Party paper, or any other paper, should forfeit its deposit. Now I understood the Minister to say that they could not take a case to court. I think the amount of R20,000 is exorbitant.

That is the maximum.

Yes, and it is within the Minister’s discretion to say how much. That is what I object to. It should not be within his discretion. I think the Minister should not have the right to say: This paper should close down and I am going to confiscate the amount of their deposit. I think it is discriminating between the various kinds of newspapers and I don’t think any Minister should have that power.

You know that it is confined to communistic papers.

I don’t know that at all.

It is in the Bill.

But what is the interpretation of Communism to-day? It says “any of the aims of Communism”. Now there are people who have been communists and who regarded the communist movement as a socialist movement as preached by Karl Marx in the 19th century. I think they were wrong, but there are people who would hold that point of view, and it is unreasonable for any member, like the hon. member for Standerton, to impute motives to people. I say that there are many people to-day who say “I am labeled a communist, but I have never had a communist outlook”. I will give you one example, Patrick Duncan. Patrick Duncan a communist?

Do you hold a brief for the communists?

I am not holding a brief for anybody, but we know that it is the last thing in the world of politics to describe Patrick Duncan as a communist. You may say that he can be described as a negrophilist. You may say that he supports African nationalism. That is possible. I cannot subscribe to the view that any man who is a nationalist is a communist, and I think the hon. the Minister is confusing the two. No, I think that R20,000 should come out of the Bill. It should never have been in the Bill. That is one clause. I am now, what they call, coming back to the Bill. I come to Clause 1. Like all the others it describes gatherings. It says “any gathering, concourse or procession”… except in such cases as the Minister or a magistrate may expressly authorize at any time. In other words it introduces more authority for the Minister. He feels that he has not got sufficient authority at present. I think he has more than sufficient at present to carry on. We come to another clause. This time it is Clause 3, “prohibition to attend any particular gathering …” except in such cases as may be expressly authorized by the Minister. Again, the authority rests with the Minister to say what can be published, where the man can hold a meeting, etc. Too much power vests in the Minister without any appeal. Now I come to Clause 7. “The Minister may prohibit the assembly as defined in the Riotous Assemblies Act except in such cases as he may specify or authorize or a gathering of a particular nature if he is satisfied that the activities of any person or organization is furthering or may further the achievement of any of the aims of Communism.” Surely, Sir, that is too vague. Surely the Minister should not have the power to say: “This meeting you are going to have or this gathering or whatever you are going to do, may further the aims of Communism.” He does not know. It may; there is that possibility. I do not think that power should ever be placed in the hands of any man, least of all the Minister.

Are you quoting from the pamphlet of the communists?

I am quoting from my notes and the Bill. I want to say that if there is to be any hope for us in South Africa, if we are to make any attempt to deal with the difficult situation here to-day, we cannot possibly deal with it by giving increased powers every year, or every two or three years to the Minister. We can deal with the situation in this country to-day by calling out the troops, calling out the police. There comes an end to that. There has come an end to that in every democratic State. We are after all only 20 per cent of the population. We cannot go on doing this forever and the 20 per cent of the population are not united on this question. Half of the White people of this country do not agree with what the Government is doing. Hon. members on my left tell me that the people are agreed. They agreed in Germany—Thyssen agreed, Krupp agreed, big businessmen and big industrialists agreed but they regretted it. They found afterwards that they had agreed to a party that seized power and reduced them to servants of the State instead of being independent people as they had been. I do not think there is any doubt as to what should happen to this Bill. I think the agitation in the country is completely justified. I do not know why hon. members and their newspapers try to intimidate people who are associated with these protest movements. Surely people still have the right to protest; surely the Black Sash has the right to protest? Why not? Is it not a free country? Why should a gang of hooligans in Johannesburg be permitted to break up these people’s demonstrations? I think it is a disgrace to this country, and I think it is a disgrace to any Government that permits it. There was a war to end a war. What we will have some day will be a law to end laws. It will not be necessary to have a Bill then. The Minister is getting nearer and nearer to a dictatorship. That was how it came about in Germany. This is how it is coming about in our country. The steps which are being taken here were also taken in Germany: firstly increased power, then big industrialists faced with intimidation, then people were forbidden to demonstrate in any way. Hon. members say that some of the English-speaking people agree with them! Ninety per cent of the Germans followed Hitler! They followed Hitler to the grave he had dug for them. That was the end. This Government is going along the same path. It has not reached the same end yet. Unless they retrace their steps, they will land this country in the same difficulty. Hon. members know that. Where in the world are we accepted? When they vote at UNO, we get one vote.

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

I have tried very hard to reply to the speeches, Sir, which we have had from the other side. I have told them what I think about this Bill and if there is anything further you wish me to tell you about it, I will tell you in the Committee Stage.

Of all the offensive (gemeenste) speeches which we have heard from hon. members hitherto, we have now heard the most offensive from the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore).

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “gemeenste” (offensive).

Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to have your ruling on this point.

Order! I have already given my ruling.

Out of respect for the Chair I shall withdraw the word “offensive” and I shall say that of all the deplorable speeches we have heard from members opposite, the most deplorable has come from the hon. member for Kensington. An ex-inspector of education! Mr. Speaker, when we have such inspectors of education, can we be surprised at the fact that to-day we have a duck-tail element in the House of Assembly of which we have an example at the moment here on the front benches.

Order! The hon. member may not refer to hon. members as “ducktails”.

Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to anyone as a “ducktail”. I said can we be surprised …

Order! The hon. member has referred to hon. members of the Opposition as “ducktails”.

Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw the word “ducktail”. If I had the necessary vocabulary, I would have described it with something lower than “ducktail”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unreservedly. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may an hon. member say another hon. member is drunk?

Order! Did the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) say the hon. member is drunk?

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon. member must not only withdraw it, he must apologize as well.

I apologize, Sir.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) has not yet withdrawn those words.

I have asked the hon. member to withdraw those words.

I withdraw what was not permissible and unparliamentary.

On a point of order, when the hon. member withdrew those words, he added that if his vocabulary permitted it, he would have described it with something lower.

The hon. member must withdraw unreservedly.

I have withdrawn unreservedly and unfortunately my parliamentary vocabulary does not allow me to say anything else. I have tried to say that the hon. member for Kensington has not done this House, this young State, the Republic of South Africa and his party any service by the speech he made here. The hon. member for Kensington has said that he has read the speeches by the hon. the Minister of Justice who introduced this Bill, as well as the reply by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to that speech. He has also referred to the speech which the Chief Whip made here and he has referred to the speech by the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser). In his speech he made an admission the implications of which I do not think he realizes. When he … Mr. Speaker, I shall continue when these hon. members who are deliberately sitting here in order to cause a disturbance and who are making remarks out loud to the effect that “he is going to have trouble”…

Order! I shall maintain order. The hon. member may proceed.

When the hon. member for Kensington referred to the speech by the hon. member for Klerksdorp and referred to the fact that the hon. member for Klerksdorp had said “they try to please the Mitchells, both Mitchells”, it was an admission by the hon. member for Kensington. Now we know what happened, what preceded the introduction of this Bill in the caucus of the United Party. (Laughter). Mr. Speaker, when one has been in the politics for long enough, one knows exactly what that hollow laugh means and what it reveals. That hollow laugh merely reveals that what I have just said is absolutely true. Now we know the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) on the one hand and the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) have adopted two different points of view.

That is nonsense.

We know politics. I have hit home. Unfortunately for the United Party, and particularly for the Afrikaans-speaking and also for the conservative-minded English-speaking people of this country, and very unfortunately for the United Party as an organization, the Cadman idea, the Zululand idea, prevailed by a small majority.

That is nonsense.

No, Sir, I am not talking nonsense. I warn the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), for whom I have the highest respect personally as well as for his political knowledge, that they have taken an incorrect decision. The hon. member for Kensington made a speech to-night which showed the difference between the two Mitchells.

Nonsense.

The hon. member will not deny it with his hand on his heart—as he is fond of saying.

I shall.

The hon. member will not do that; without violating his conscience he cannot do so. The hon. member for Kensington has referred here “to what the United Party said during the war years”. Allow me to tell the hon. member for Kensington that he must be careful before he makes these remarks in this House. There are people here who remember, not only what the United Party said during the war years but what the United Party did during those years. [Interjections.]

There are people who have had bitter experience of what was done during the war years. There are people who were forced to sign the Red Oath or lose their jobs and live in poverty. This is what was done during the war years.

Because there was sabotage.

On a point of order, may the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) say that these members committed sabotage?

I said nothing.

The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) said it.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Sea Point has accused hon. members on this side of committing sabotage.

Not one of the hon. members who are sitting here.

The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I have said the hon. member for Kensington must be very careful before he makes remarks of that nature. We are here in a House of Assembly as the chosen representatives of the people—both the members on the Government side as well as the members on the Opposition side. He must be careful because we do not only remember what the United Party said during the war years, but what the United Party did during the war years. Now in discussing this Bill we should rather not uncover the laws of the United Party. The hon. member has quoted from a book by the late Dr. D. F. Malan. The hon. member made that quotation out of a very small extract of a book which had no relation whatsoever to the whole spirit of that book, not only because it suited his political purpose to-night, but also because in the heart of that hon. member and in the heart of the party to which he belongs they despise the whole way of life and thinking, the life and struggle of Dr. D. F. Malan. He has tried to show that the National Party is based and founded on what he has quoted. No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kensington is wrong in his quotation and in his thinking. He has always been wrong; that is why he is sitting where he sits. The National Party is based on the foundation which was laid by the late General J. B. M. Hertzog at De Wild in 1912 when he said “South Africa first”. This immediately brings me to this Bill which is based on the principle of “South Africa first”. Not only the welfare of the Nationally-inclined or the Afrikaans-speaking section, but of the White and the non-White, the Coloured and the Indian, of all racial groups in South Africa, is put first in this Bill.

It is a pity that you did not believe that when you supported Hitler.

Mr. Speaker, I am so tired of this story “that you backed Hitler” that I cannot listen to it any longer. That hon. member must not forget that during the war years to which we are referring he was an ally of Stalin. During those years his leader said: “I shall follow Stalin to the very gates of Hell”. Does he remember that during those years they blessed the weapons of Stalin? Does he remember that Colin Steyn who sat on his side, became the patron of The Friends of the Soviet Union of Russia? The hon. member must not forget that. Now he must keep quiet because I do not want to reproach him.

The hon. member has referred disparagingly to the provision in the Bill that R20,000 must be deposited by a newspaper which may possibly spread communist propaganda. He has said that this is actually a deposit with the Government. By those remarks he has become the patron of the Press which wishes to spread Communism in South Africa. I want to thank the hon. the Minister of Justice for having the courage of his convictions and introducing this Bill. In doing so, I do so without the least hesitation, in all humility on behalf of all peace-loving citizens of the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] Yes, I am very pleased to speak on behalf of every peace-loving citizen; unlike the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan); he speaks on behalf of a different section of the population. I have no hesitation in thanking the hon. the Minister of Justice on behalf of every peace-loving citizen of our young State for having the courage of his convictions and introducing this Bill into the House.

Is this what you told the children on the lorry?

The hon. member must forgive me. I shall spare him by not telling him that story, by not telling him the story used by the United Party candidate in Wolmaransstad, because if he has any shame or self-respect, his eyes would pop out of his head from shame at that story. The hon. member should rather put his finger in his mouth before he talks about that.

This Bill which the hon. the Minister has submitted to the House for adoption is aimed precisely at and envisages exactly the opposite of the accusations the Opposition are unjustifiably levelling at him.

You promised to give me hell.

The hon. member is too dense or too old, or both, or he is under the influence of his friends sitting here in the Gallery; I do not know which. He was talking to them. I say that this Bill has exactly the opposite object to that which the Opposition are accusing the Minister of having in mind. This Bill is aimed at protecting democracy in South Africa against the revolutionary movement which we are seeing to-day in the world. There are the patrons of the revolutionary concept in South Africa, the United Party.

May I ask a question?

Sir, if a person does not approach the matter soberly, then it is not my fault; then he is under the influence of something else. Jack Basson is not alone, Mr. Speaker, nor is it he who is speaking.

Order! The hon. member must refer to the hon. member for Sea Point in the proper fashion.

Then I repeat, Sir, and I say that the hon. member for Sea Point is not alone in making these remarks, and I do not reply to his friend. I say that this Bill has been introduced precisely to protect democracy. I have levelled the accusation at the Opposition as they sit there that they have become the patrons of the revolutionary concept, the concept of Communism, the concept of the saboteur in South Africa. And do you know, Mr. Speaker, in what company the United Party find themselves? You must look at this pamphlet which have been distributed by the children of darkness in recent nights. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I live at the moment in the constituency of that hon. member but I am very thankful that I am not responsible for his election. Here we have an appeal, Sir, and the Opposition have acceded to this appeal: “Resist, unite to resist Vorster and his Bill now.” They are united with these elements. This is the company in which the United Party find themselves. Now the hon. members for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) and Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan)—he is at his best when he holds a meeting for 24 people at Leeudoornstad—must listen. Hon. members must not be surprised by the reception which they will in fact receive on the platteland as a result of the attitude they have adopted here. [Interjections.] I have had the privilege of meeting the hon. member for Durban (Point) at Klerksdorp and discussing similar legislation.

Was that when you spoke of unborn children?

No, then I did not speak of the unborn generations to which this hon. member refers disparagingly but at that time we discussed the franchise for the Indians, and that gave the present member for Klerksdorp a seat in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal.

Concentration camps!

That is a sore point, Sir. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the United Party have become the patron of the revolutionary concept in South Africa while this Bill is seeking the protection of democracy. I repeat that every peace-loving citizen of the Republic of South Africa will actually be grateful to the Minister of Justice for the timeous introduction of this Bill. Here we are dealing with this contradiction that members of the Opposition are rising one after the other and saying that in principle they support this Bill; they say that they are also opposed to Communism and that they are opposed to sabotage and saboteurs in South Africa. But they are putting up this tremendous fight in the House of Assembly against this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may the hon. member for Sea Point make such a noise that I cannot hear the hon. member for Wolmaransstad?

Order, order!

A major objection which hon. members opposite have raised to this Bill has been that the hon. the Minister is being given excessive powers. I want to state to-night as a fact that every peace-loving citizen of the Republic is prepared to give the hon. the Minister of Justice all the powers he needs to ensure and preserve peace and security in South Africa. No one has any objection to that …

May I ask a question.

If my friend was alone he could have asked the question, but now his friend is going to put the question and I do not feel like answering it. When he approaches matters calmly and objectively, he can put a question to me but not in the condition in which he finds himself now. I say that these are the objections which have been raised against this Bill. This Bill has been introduced … [Interjections.]

Order! I must now ask the hon. member for Sea Point not to make so many interjections.

On a point of order, Sir …

That is not a point of order. The hon. member must resume his seat.

This Bill is being introduced because since the National Party took office in 1948, legislative measures have already been adopted in order to combat Communism and revolutionary ideas in South Africa but despite that fact, cunning elements in South Africa are always looking for loopholes. Do you know, Sir, I want to say to-night that while we are holding this debate in the House of Assembly, the supreme legislative organ of South Africa, dark forces outside this House are already seeking loopholes in this measure in order to further Communism in South Africa. That is the company in which the United Party find themselves as a result of the attitude they have adopted during this debate, that is to say they find themselves in the company of dark forces which are continually seeking loopholes, and not with the object of under-mining the National Party, but to undermine destroy and vilify the country in which we all live. It is reckless of the Opposition and of these forces which are working in South Africa.

That is irresponsible and untrue.

Mr. Speaker, either the member must become sober or leave the Chamber, but it is impossible for me to go on as long as he carries on in this way.

The hon. member must not refer in such a way to another hon. member.

If that is not permissible, Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw it, but I am being interrupted so much that I do not get a chance to put my case. I was pointing out that dark forces were working in this country and that they were concentrating on seeking loopholes in every Act passed by this Government, and that the Opposition find themselves in the company of those forces. I now want to ask the Opposition whether, while the position in South Africa is what it is to-day, they are prepared to make a statement to-night that if they come into power they will repeal this legislation? I put the question to the hon. member for Durban Point. Will he reply to this question on behalf of the Opposition? Will he say whether they will be prepared to repeal this Act?

We are always prepared to combat sabotage and to use all possible methods.

That is a very interesting reply because this Bill has been introduced with the very object of combating sabotage! This Bill holds not threat for democracy; nor for the peace-loving citizens of South Africa. It is being introduced with the exclusive object of restricting sabotage. But the Bill is being fought by the Opposition day and night. My question is whether the Opposition will repeal this Bill if they come into power.

Now they are not answering.

Yes, now they are not answering. Nevertheless a great noise is being made while a member on this side of the House is making a speech. When, however, a pertinent question is put, there is no reply.

When I speak I shall be quite prepared to answer that question.

I wonder whether the hon. member for Germiston (District) will be speaking for the whole caucus or for only half of it. But the hon. member’s reply is also interesting. In the days when the Suppression of Communism Act was introduced, the United Party said that they were prepared simply to shoot a communist or to hang him. But I do not think the Opposition would know a communist if they saw him. At that time there was someone in this House who was known as a communist. Over there the hon. Mr. Sam Kahn sat.

But he was never a member of our party.

That is so, but what is interesting is that hon. members opposite protected him at that time.

Where did Pettersen sit?

I am now discussing Sam Kahn who sat on the other side of the House. When the Suppression of Communism Act was introduced, the Opposition said that he was not a communist, but just simply a Cape liberal. Sam Kahn then rose and said he was a communist. The United Party however, refused to regard him as such. I therefore, say that the Opposition would not recognize a communist if they saw one, at any rate not until he had done South Africa so much harm and damage that it could no longer be remedied. We are here dealing with a very serious matter. We are giving South Africa legislation with which to clamp down on Communism, to clamp down on saboteurs, to combat the hostile Press which is spreading poison amongst those population groups in South Africa who have not yet reached full maturity, and to put an end to this position. But while the National Party is giving South Africa this protective measure, the Opposition are affording protection to these elements which I have mentioned.

That is untrue.

If that is untrue, why then have we been holding this debate for days on end? If the hon. member is not stupid, he should know that they are protecting a revolutionary school of thought in South Africa. This Bill is aimed at protecting democracy in South Africa. The people therefore thank the Minister of introducing this measure and they will support him.

At the outset I should like to repudiate the statement which the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) made, and to tell him that there has been no disunity within the United Party in so far as our amendment and our attack on this Bill are concerned. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) in his own inimitable and colourful way, merely associated the names of the two Mitchells, only for the sake of rhetorical effect. It has, however, been used by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, as well as by the Burger, for the purpose of showing that there is disunity in the United Party as regards its attitude to this measure. There is, however, no such disunity at all. We stand 100 per cent united, and the hon. member for Germiston (District), the hon. member for South Coast and others whose names have been mentioned, are completely united in their attitude to this Bill, and which is also the attitude of the United Party as a whole.

The same thing was said before you kicked out the Progressives!

The hon. member for Standerton interjected whilst the hon. member for Kensington was speaking, and said that he, the hon. member for Kensington, was holding a brief for the communists.

I say that again.

I wonder whether the hon. member for Standerton can tell me who used the following words—

Are these not words coming from someone who holds a brief for the communists?

No, but only from one who wanted to make a lot of business!

Can the hon. member for Standerton tell me who used these words? They were used by the Administrator of the Transvaal, the hon. Mr. H. F. Odendaal. Did the hon. member for Kensington say anything as damaging as this?

He said worse.

This Bill, like a dangerous rattlesnake, has its sting in its tail.

The rattlesnake has no sting in the tail; he just rattles it!

The hon. the Minister of Information is the last one to talk about rattlesnakes. The country is still going to pay for the sting which he has given it. If this Bill was really meant to do what it should do, and what hon. members on the other side say it does, i.e. to fight sabotage, is the hon. the Minister of Justice then prepared to tell us that he would have brought in a Bill dealing solely with sabotage as such, so that we could discuss the question of sabotage only? Why does he camouflage this Bill in the way he does by bringing in 20 other clauses as a facade?

Do I understand you correctly when I say that you are prepared to vote for a Bill against sabotage but not against Communism?

No, I did not say that. I said that if the hon. Minister brought in a Bill which dealt with sabotage …

Then you will vote for it?

… as we understand it, and not with all the Bill’s deprivations of freedoms. We could then have discussed the demerits of sabotage as such.

You too are holding a brief for the communists!

Does the hon. member for Standerton want to place me in the same category as the hon. the Administrator of the Transvaal? What the hon. member for Standerton wants to do is to murder the conscience of South Africa. He wants to prevent us on this side of the House and people outside from saying what we like to say, and do what we like to do within the terms of the laws of this country. Why, Sir, has there been this spontaneous opposition to this Bill?

Spontaneous!

Yes, it is absolutely spontaneous. Can hon. members name me one member of this Party who has organized public opposition to this Bill? Can any one say that the United Party has built up opposition, such as can be seen outside this building, against this Bill? Nobody can! The protests have come voluntarily and spontaneously from the people themselves. And that is so because the people feel strongly on this matter, and realize that if the Nationalist Party is given the opportunity to get away with this Bill without opposition, they are apprehensive of what lies ahead of them for the future. People are beginning to get scared to speak openly and frankly in public!

Who?

The people. No sooner are we confronted with this Bill which is full of restrictions and intimidations, then the hon. the Minister announces that he will bring in another Bill this Session to deal with defacing of public buildings. So one Bill follows upon the other! What is this “threat” which is always clutching at the throat of the public of South Africa, that Bill after Bill has to be brought in?

We have had that argument for 14 years!

What is more, this Bill has been introduced at an untimely stage, and solely for the purpose of boosting the morale of the voters, whose support is waning heavily in so far as apartheid is concerned. The more the hon. the Minister of Community Development and of Housing hears this, the more he will realize that the public has become aware of the debt the Nationalist Party owes them. Now it comes forward with a threat of Communism. The Minister of Justice said that the country was calm and peaceful, and that there was nothing to worry about.

Your leader said that too!

What did the hon. the Minister of Justice then do? After saying that, he went on to build up a panic mentality in the minds of the people, trying to justify the immediate introduction of this Bill. Hon. members opposite cannot deny that that is the purpose of this Bill. The Minister wants the best of both worlds; because on the one hand he says that the country is calm and peaceful, but then goes on to build up a state of fear in the minds of the public. This Bill has been brought in, in order to embarrass the United Party, because the Government thought the United Party would be afraid to face the moral issues involved in the Bill. The Government thought that the United Party would worry only about the possible loss of political support. It has, therefore, come as a shock to them to see that we are taking a stand on what we regard as being morally right, on what is in the interests of the country and its people. Posterity will prove how correct the stand of the United Party has been. The conception of this Bill is morally wrong, and what is morally wrong can never be politically right. That is why we are not prepared to support it.

It has been shown right throughout history that Communism only succeeds where poverty exists. On the other hand, there is no Communism where people are prosperous and happy. If we have to judge the state of our people in terms of this Bill, then we would have to judge them as being an unhappy people, living in an unhappy land. Instead of bringing in legislation of this nature, why not bring in legislation which will have the effect of cementing the two White sections of the people? Why do they not bring in legislation to do away with single-medium education in this country?

The hon. member is going too far away from the Bill now.

The timing of this Bill, Sir, has been most unfortunate. If there was any consideration for the welfare of South Africa in the mind of the Government, it would not have brought this Bill in at a time when two members of UNO are visiting this country! Our intention is to give them a good and favourable image of South Africa, but is this the way in which that can be achieved? On the contrary, we indicate to them that we are divided; we show to them people in protest marches. No, Sir, the timing has been entirely incorrect like it is with about every measure this Government introduces, thereby giving South Africa a bad name in the outside world. What is the ultimate effect of this Bill going to be? Its effect will be that it will drive movements such as those the Minister is endeavouring to combat, underground and then we will not know, as we did in the past, what is going on. Has the hon. Minister ever listened to the crowd in Hyde Park in London? I believe he has. Has he noticed that the people of Great Britain, or any other visitor for that matter, enjoy absolute freedom of speech to express themselves in whatever manner they choose? They can even attack the principle of the Crown! But why are they allowed to do that? The Government allows that for one reason only, namely to give the people an opportunity of expressing their views in public so that the Government can know what the people think. We can in future never be in that position under the terms of this Bill.

We speak here of opposing Communism and the principle of Socialism. May I remind hon. members that it was no other than the hon. the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who introduced two motions into this House not so long ago, in which the principle of Socialism was supported in so far as its application to the gold mines and banks were concerned.

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

I only wanted to show, Mr. Speaker, how close the thinking of some members opposite were to Socialism and to Communism. A further instance of that is that the hon. member for Vereeniging who, in his student days, stood as a communist candidate at the Stellenbosch University? Let him deny that.

But he is not here to do that.

Then let any member on that side deny it.

No, he did not. Now you must apologize and withdraw the allegation.

I have as little reason to withdraw that as the S.A.B.C. is likely to make a withdrawal of a statement it made last night or this morning concerning the interview which the Law Council had with the Minister of Justice. The S.A.B.C. stated that the Law Council at its interview with the Minister indicated that it would support the Bill. This statement has, however, now been denied by the chairman of the Law Council. Will the hon. the Minister also ask the S.A.B.C. to withdraw the statement, and to make an apology to the Law Council? If we are going to get the non-Europeans of this country on our side to work with us, as hon. members on the other side have said is happening, it is necessary that we give some positive indication to them that we do want them on our side, and not on the side of the communists. We have to create a Bantu nationalism in this country that will be prepared to work with White nationalism. If we are not going to work up a sincere Bantu nationalism, as opposed to Bantu racialism, then we are indeed in for bad times. The warning we want to sound, Sir, is that the authoritarian powers which the Government is taking under this Bill, are going to have no other effect than to work up racialism of the Bantu against the White people of this country. That is something which we must avoid at all costs. We must also avoid a lack of confidence in the thinking of the Bantu, thereby helping them to drift to Islamism instead of keeping them within the fold of the Christian churches. Unless there is a better approach by the White people, we are going to find that the Bantu will drift away to Islam.

The hon. member for Vereeniging said that “the Government had all the powers to combat Communism which appeared in the open”, and that this Bill was necessary for one reason only, namely in order to fight Communism which had gone underground. The Government is taking extreme powers to combat something which they cannot contain in the open.

You do not want the Government to go “underground”, do you?

There will then be hope for this country! The wide scope and interpretation of the misdeeds listed in this Bill is the main reason why we on this side feel that it is unnecessary to bring in severe and contentious legislation of this nature at this particular stage. Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Minister maintains and is honest in his convictions, that freedom of speech is not destroyed in this Bill, then why did he go so far and immediately ban meetings on the Parade at Cape Town and on the steps of the City Hall in Johannesburg? The two statements are irreconcilable. Either there is freedom, and it is not necessary to ban meetings, or there is no freedom and you have to ban meetings. You cannot have it both ways. Is it a coincidence that the hon. Minister has only singled out those two cities in the Republic that are controlled by the United Party? Is it not significant, Sir, that he should just single out those two towns, in advance of the legislation being accepted?

And what about Port Elizabeth, East London and Durban; are they not controlled by the United Party?

In the last day or two, we have seen that the hon. the Minister of Immigration has appointed a number of agents. I do not know the correct designation of the people who are going to represent his Department in countries throughout the world. However, they are immigration agents. He has appointed these people in order to bring immigrants to this country. Sir, could the timing of these two events be less fortunate, that when you want immigrants to come from overseas you are introducing at the very moment a Bill of this nature which is being publicized throughout the world, and which is having an adverse effect on any possibility of encouraging immigration to this country.

We do not want communists as immigrants.

You don’t want any immigrants. We must remember that Australia has a White population of ten million …

The hon. member must come closer to the Bill now.

Sir, I am dealing with the last clause of our amendment. Australia got ten million people in half the time in which the Union got a population of only three million. Three times as many immigrants are brought into Australia in one month, as we are bringing into South Africa in one year. That is due to the loss of confidence which has been brought about in this country as a result of legislation of this nature.

What about the powers the Minister already has, and which I maintain, and we on this side maintained throughout this debate and tried to convince the Minister, are great enough and wide enough to control and to contain any dangers of Communism in this country? If we had the position that this was legislation of a temporary nature to deal with an emergency at the moment, and if we thought that legislation of this nature had to be made available to the Minister, then it might have been understandable. But this is now to become a permanent feature of our legislation, and it is going to be enforced in terms of this Bill. It is no good the Minister of Justice telling us that he will administer it in a reasonable way. I believe he will, as long as he is Minister of Justice.

Order! That point has been made over and over again.

I do not think other hon. members know the Minister of Justice as well as I do, and that is why I thought it was necessary to emphasize what I said, but at the same time to tell him that whoever may succeed him…

I have already told the hon. member that that point has been made time and time again.

Sir, I have advanced as many arguments as I feel are necessary to hope that they will have some effect on the hon. the Minister and members on the other side, to convince them that this legislation is not necessary at this stage, and that it is not going to redound to the credit of South Africa. I do hope that in the Committee Stage it will be amended to such an extent that it will meet the requirements of the Republic of South Africa, who are protesting throughout the country against the viciousness of this unsatisfactory measure.

It was interesting to see how hon. members opposite tried during the past two days to pretend that they are opposed to Communism and that they are opposed to sabotage. Now I should like to say at once that hon. members opposite have never yet tried to fight Communism; they have never been opposed to it; they have always been opposed to all legislation from this side whereby we wished to combat Communism. They have always been on the side of the communists in the past, and whatever they have done was calculated to try to further Communism. Now I see that the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) over there sits glaring at me, but if he will listen to me, I shall tell him a little of the history of his own party. When the Suppression of Communism Act was before this House in 1950, the attitude of the present hon. Leader of the Opposition was that it was not necessary to combat Communism. Now I should like to quote from a speech he made in this House. He said this in the House in 1950—

And then the hon. Leader continues—

Then the hon. Leader goes further and in fact used an attitude that an overseas newspaper in Canada adopted as the basis for the attitude of his party. He quoted it to the House and says—

Just what they are saying to-day. They are saying to-day also that the laws we have on our Statute Book already are good enough and we need not pass further laws. Then he continues and says—

And then I read that when this Act was before the House, the following persons voted against the second reading. That is to say, they voted against the principle of the Suppression of Communism Bill. I find the following names of persons who are still sitting on the opposite side: Mr. Gay, Sir de Villiers Graaff, Mr. Higgerty, Hopewell, Mitchell, S. J. M. Steyn, Maj. van der Byl, Mr. Warren and Mr. Waterson. That was the attitude of the Party opposite at that time. But, Mr. Speaker, when the Report of the Select Committee on the Suppression of Communism Bill was before this House, Dr. C. F. Steyn, a frontbencher of the United Party, had this to say—

In other words, the attitude is that we should allow the communists because we must not embarrass our communist allies overseas. And then Dr. Steyn moved an amendment—

In this case the Select Committee had decided on the future of Mr. Kahn and Mr. Carneson, and here is an amendment proposed by the Opposition that no action should be taken to restrict these two arch-communists in South Africa.

But, Mr. Speaker, I shall return to the time when they were still in power and governed the country. At that time they not only pampered the communists, but as fast as the communists were rounded up by the police, they were being released from prison by the Minister of Justice and the United Party of that time. Now I should like to quote from the book “Time longer than Rope” by Edward Roux. He writes as follows on Dr. Steyn’s antics at that time—

They were permitted at that time to sabotage the laws of the land. He proceeds—

Even Moses Kotane, Mr. Speaker, was released by Dr. Colin Steyn of the United Party Government of the time, to continue his subversive activities in South Africa. He proceeds—

In 1951, when the Suppression of Communism Act was amended in this House, the then Minister of Justice explained how Sam Kahn was busy evading the provisions of the Act. The hon. Minister at the time said this—

Now I should like to adopt the view that hon. members opposite now also are making objections, and are putting up all kinds of trivial arguments, which are really also calculated to give the communists an opportunity in their great pattern to continue their delaying tactics. For a portion of this legislation before us seeks, indeed, to close the loopholes. But to this Mr. Lawrence said this—

That is why, he says, he is opposed to that Act. Thus members opposite continued their offensive during those years also. Dr. Colin Steyn of the time had the following to say when that matter was before Parliament—

In other words, Mr. Speaker, they have always adopted the attitude that if a communist can secure representation here and can state his case here, he should be protected. In this connection I should also like to quote what was said further by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). He said the following in this debate—

He goes further and says—

Now we should remember that the man who said this shortly afterwards voted against the same Act and voted against this communist being subjected to restraint. He continues—

In other words, the United Party conceded that he was a communist.

Then he says—

Mr. Speaker, having read these things to you, I think we can legitimately say here that hon. members opposite in the past not only assisted Communism here, but that they have always secretly in their hearts been in favour of Communism. They need no longer get up in this House and try to create the impression that they are opposed to Communism, and that they are against all forms of sabotage also. I should like now to proceed to the next point. If we were to listen to what hon. members opposite have said during the past two days in this debate, then we have to come to the involuntary conclusion that the saboteur is a person who in fact should be protected, and to whom a very great injustice is done when he is brought to book. They have carried on here to show how violent this Act is, how in-just the law is, and how inequitable it is as against the persons the Act is dealing with. But if we take the Bill itself, we might perhaps take another look at Clause 21, to see with whom we are dealing. For they are the people who are regarded by hon. members opposite as the people who are being treated so unjustly and unfairly in a democratic country. If we look at Clause 21, we see that sabotage is an act that is committed by any person, and which is intentionally and unlawfully committed against the health and safety of the public. Sabotage means the sabotaging of law and order. Sabotage, in terms of this Bill, means that the water supplies of the country are polluted and contaminated and that the lives on persons, White and non-White, are endangered. Sabotage means that power stations may be blown up, bridges may be destroyed, hospitals may be blown up, that radio communications may be destroyed, that property of the State may be destroyed and damaged in all kinds of ways. These are the acts that, according to hon. members opposite, should not be restrained by law. If hon. members opposite are opposed to this legislation, the consequence of their attitude is that they are giving protection to all persons who commit these types of acts. The only conclusion we can draw is that if a person commits these acts, they are not against him, they do not wish to do anything to stop him doing so, and they will not permit the Government to protect lives and property against those acts that are committed. In other words then, they are in favour of the commission of these acts without the guilty party being brought to book. But hon. members opposite say they are opposed to Communism. I have already indicated that we do not believe they are against Communism. They have never been against Communism, but because it suits them, they are now indicating that they are opposed to Communism and sabotage. If then they are against Communism, one can accept, if they are opposed to this legislation, that they say that existing legislation is adequate to cope with sabotage. Let us now concede that existing legislation is adequate to combat sabotage and that therefore they will differentiate, in regard to this Bill before us, between the clauses containing new provisions and the provisions containing the old provisions. For, Mr. Speaker, in this Bill there definitely are new clauses that are being introduced because we regard them as necessary to give the Government an opportunity to combat sabotage thoroughly. But we should remember that a part of this Bill really seeks to amend existing legislation. Hon. members opposite have told us that existing legislation is adequate to combat sabotage. But now it has in practice become quite clear that there are certain loopholes, that there are certain opportunities for the communists to evade this legislation. And, as with all legislation, it is only when it is applied in practice that it is discovered what weak spots there are in the law. So all laws have originated from a small law that is continually amended. For people who have to deal with this law, and who are affected by this law, are persons who do all in their power and who with the best advice at their disposal, thoroughly examine legislation to see how they can discover the loopholes in it. For that reason we have to accept that this Suppression of Communism Act of 1950 also is one that contains its defects. If hon. members opposite were to say now that they are opposed to Communism and sabotage, and that they are in favour of the application of existing legislation, and that they now wish to be the foster-parents with us for existing legislation, then surely I am entitled also to draw the inference that hon. members will agree that this part of the Bill that does not contain new provisions, but is merely overhauling the old provisions, will be supported by them. Surely then we have the right to expect hon. members opposite also to be fair, in order to overhaul a law, which as they say we should use and which is good enough, in so far as there may be defects in it. If hon. members are not prepared to help us in regard to all the points where we desire to overhaul existing legislation, we may draw the legitimate inference that they refuse to permit us to use any legislation whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, let us now examine the Bill itself, and then we find it deals with the following matters. In the first instance there is an extension of powers. According to this Bill a person who has been charged under the Act and convicted, has to report to the police. Secondly: Such a person may not change his employment without reporting to the police. Thirdly: His statements may not be published by anybody. Fourthly: It gives the power to restrict throwers of bombs; to restrict their movements. Fifthly: Sabotage is defined in this Bill for the first time. Those, Mr. Speaker, are then in the first instance the main provisions that comprise the new provisions of this Bill. But in the second instance this Bill contains a number of provisions which, as I have said, hon. members opposite surely will not mind supporting, for they are the people who have said that existing legislation is adequate, and they are satisfied that existing legislation be used. But this existing legislation that has to be applied, as they say, contains certain defects and loopholes. Hon. members opposite surely will not mind weaknesses being removed from this Act which they wish to use. Will the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher), who is now sitting and staring at me so, reply to this question and say whether he agrees?

I shall speak.

The hon. member need only give an indication. Are you prepared to overhaul existing legislation which you say you want to keep and use?

It is your Act.

Are you prepared to do so? Mr. Speaker, I could have known that no hon. members opposite will accept no new legislation trying to rectify the defects in the old legislation which they so keenly want. They do not intend to do so—not the new provisions, nor the overhauling of the old provisions.

I have already told the House that this Bill now before us, inter alia, also seeks to overhaul existing legislation, and now I should like to take the Bill itself and page through it from the beginning. [Interjections.] Clause 1 deals with the holding of gatherings. It concerns the abuse of meetings. It has also been stated by the hon. the Minister here, that when the old Act was passed, gatherings were defined with a view to making it comprehensive enough to stop communists from abusing gatherings. I say the meaning that should be added to the Act is the meaning that it should be comprehensive enough to stop a communist from attending a gathering. But the matter was tested and in Rex v. Kahn the Judges attached a further meaning to the intention of the Act. The court limited the meaning of the Act, namely that the gathering, or the people attending a gathering, should have a common purpose, and they interpreted it as being a gathering where people meet to achieve something with a common purpose. With this new connotation that has been added to Section 1, the operation of the Act was rendered impossible, for it is very clear that if this connotation is given to the Act, there is hardly a gathering a communist cannot attend. Indeed, from the evidence in this case, it was very clear that Mr. Brian Bunting, a person who was excluded, continued his subversive activities, and I should like to read from the law report—

It is very clear that when they were prohibited from holding a gathering under this Act, they began to hold house parties in order to continue their subversive activities. The invitation they issued read as follows:

Then the evidence continues that on this occasion they in fact abused this so-called dance party in order to hold a meeting. What this Bill seeks to do is to prevent people from evading the law, and Clause 1 provides that a gathering includes all gatherings that persons who are listed may not attend. [Interjections.] Because the definition of a gathering is therefore rectified in Clause 1, it is possible under Clause 3 to provide that nobody may attend a gathering if he is a listed communist, and it is put beyond all doubt. Now I should like to tell hon. members this. While they also wish to be foster-parents to the Act to combat sabotage and Communism, are they then prepared to support this Bill? For if they are not prepared to do so, they are intentionally supporting the idea that a communist should be able to find a loophole under Clause 1.

Can it not be combated now?

The hon. member asks a very stupid question. I have said the Act intends that it should be combated, but in practice gatherings are construed in such a way that it is causing difficulty, and do you know, Sir, who the judges were who gave this judgment? Two of the judges who gave this judgment were Judge Fagan and Judge Centlivres. No one knows where it comes from too. But that is not all. Permit me to refer to Clause 2. There it is provided that unlawful gatherings of organizations will be combated. This clause deals with the declaring unlawful of communist organizations. The old Act gives the State President the power to declare organizations unlawful. In order to do that, there has to be an extensive inquiry, and it may continue for months, and then a report must be made to the Minister. From the very nature of things it takes time, and it does not merely take time in the normal way, but the inquiry normally lasts a long time because you are dealing with a client who wants to delay the inquiry as much as possible. In practice then it does come about that the communist organization in the course of this inquiry, pops up in another form. The Minister has mentioned an example of what has happened in Rhodesia that if a party is banned, it continues to exist under another name. But now the State President may declare an organization unlawful if he is satisfied that it is merely the continuation of an organization that has already been banned. You will understand, Sir, that if the law says that an organization may be declared unlawful after such a lengthy inquiry, it is the easiest thing in the world for the same persons to pop up immediately thereafter in the form of another organization. We have the same example here. Communists who have been listed, are continuing their activities under the guise of the Congress of Democrats. Now I once again ask hon. members opposite, while they are adopting the attitude that the old laws are adequate, I say here we simply have an overhaul of the old legislation to close a loophole, are they now prepared to help us overhaul those old laws? No, hon. members will vote against the Bill, for they have never intended helping to combat Communism effectively.

The same goes for Clause 4. That also is an overhaul of existing legislation. It deals with the prohibition of listed persons from being officials of organizations. The notices have to be served directly on the persons. It is the practice of these people to belong to a large number of organizations. Now you will appreciate that if the persons belong to a whole series of organizations—and we know it is part of the tactics of Communism not to have only one organization but many of them—I say there are many of those organizations that are being caressed by those hon. members opposite. They belong to a large number of organizations and that means that a list will have to be compiled and has to be served on the persons, and if there are a couple of hundred, it means that much administrative work has to be done to serve all the notices. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Sea Point must please keep quiet now.

So it means that the listed persons now will receive their notices in the Government Gazette, and should it happen that that person is prohibited from being an official of a series of these organizations, it means that if further organizations emerge, it will no longer be necessary to search for all of them and serve notices upon them. It is enough only to publish the names in the Gazette. I do not call this clause a new principle either, but an administrative overhaul. Even this clause, to which no reasonable person can object, will not be supported by those hon. members.

Clause 5 deals with the appearance of newspapers under new names. In terms of the Newspaper and Imprint Act, which is being amended here, a newspaper proprietor may register a whole series of names, and if it were to happen that he is prohibited from publishing a newspaper under one name, as in the case of the Guardian, he can easily use another name tomorrow. Now two things are being done here. In the first place, a deposit is required from all suspect persons. The Minister of Justice is not the person who in the first place will be dealing with the registration of newspapers, but the Minister of the Interior will be, but he shall have to consult the Minister of Justice, and in all cases where there is reason to believe that a newspaper will have to be banned, the Minister may require a deposit. I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), who expressed his appreciation to the Minister for the neat manner in which he uses this deterrent. The only objection I personally have, is that I should like to see the Minister not stopping him at a first conviction, but requiring a further deposit of R20,000, and he could as well let it run to R100,000, so that if the money is to be confiscated, it will be well worth while. But that is only my view. In any event this clause should serve as an adequate deterrent to prevent any person with suspicious motives from beginning the publication of a newspaper. But what is important, is that the Minister forces these newspaper proprietors who register a number of names, to publish forthwith, otherwise the reserve newspaper names will lapse after 30 days.

So we can go on with all the clauses. It was not really my intention to explain the clauses, for the Minister has already done so and it can also be done at the Committee Stage. But the point I wish to make is that this Act in the first place contains an overhaul of the existing laws, and secondly it introduces certain new ideas. Now my point is this: I can understand when those hon. members tell me that they do not want any new legislation, and that they will stand or fall by the old legislation. But if they stand by the old legislation, and also wish to appropriate it, this side is entitled at least to hear from them whether they will support this portion of the legislation we want to overhaul, but I know they will not do so. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) has followed the same theme that we have heard for the last two days—Communism and references to Mr. Kahn. Like other speakers opposite, he got very close to saying that we on this side defend Communism. The position is that I do not think the Government really understands what Communism actually is. [Interjections.] When we decide not to support this Bill, it is not because we are defending Communism. We do not defend Communism, but we defend the rights of the individual, and that is in terms of our amendment.

What did you do to Harry Lawrence?

The position is that we are determined to ensure the maintenance of law and order, and why we oppose this Bill is that it affects the rights of the individual. The hon. member for Boksburg said that all the protest marches we hear about outside and all the uproar that is going on at present was brought on by political agitators, but what about all the services held in churches? When people go to the churches they go to pray that the Government will be guided along the right path. It is also said that the uproar is intended to impress the members of the UN Committee, but I am quite sure that the agitation going on outside is not intended to impress them, but I am just wondering what they are thinking of it. [Interjections.] A Bill of this nature, introduced into this House, coupled with the statements by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Defence increasing the size of our army, what impression does that create in the outside world? What is happening in this country? Are we living in a state of perpetual emergency? This Bill, we are told, is aimed at Communism, but this Bill can be aimed at anyone, and at all the political parties. The Minister has the power under this Bill to suppress any organization and to stop any meeting under the guise of Communism. The Coloured people recently tried to get together to air their views, but they were refused permission to hold that meeting under the Suppression of Communism Act, and they were forced to hold their meeting elsewhere. That gives you an idea of what can really happen. The Minister has already told us that when the Bill becomes law it is his intention to stop meetings on the Parade and on the steps of the City Hall in Johannesburg. It has also been asked what the U.P. has done to combat Communism. I say that the U.P. has always believed in the freedom of the individual, and under this Bill it is possible surreptitiously to have a person named as a communist. They then lose their liberty. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) spoke about the effect on the trade unions. I wonder whether hon. members really know what effect this Bill will have on trade unions? Our trade unions have been free from Communism, but they have always had the fear of intimidation. They never know when the police will walk into their offices and search through their records and their homes, and they may be detained as well, and can be held for 12 days without any reason being given. The hon. member for Heilbron has told us about the anti-Communist laws in America. If the Minister really wants to combat Communism, why does he not adopt the method they have in the U.S.A. and set up a tribunal, and summons suspected persons to appear in front of that tribunal, take evidence with the right to cross-examine, and if they are guilty take action against them. In America these hearings are televised and millions of people can actually witness the examination of suspected communists. But here a person is named and he has no right of appeal. He can only write to the Minister. They cannot go to court about it. I appeal to the Minister of Justice that if he wants to suppress Communism, let us go the right way about it and let us deal with the matter through the courts, where these people can be examined under oath. [Interjections.] The House treats this matter lightly. Members opposite treat it as a joke, but it is a matter of grave concern to the country. The public outside are not stirred up by agitators. The public outside returned every one of us to this House, and are not happy with the position in this country to-day.

Oh, do you want another election?

What you see outside is the stirring up of the conscience of the public, and you cannot ignore it and you cannot keep it down, not even under this Bill. They will have their say. You will stop them on the City Hall steps and on the Parade, but they will still have their say. We on this side are not here to defend Communism, but to defend the rights of the individual, and people of all parties. In terms of this Bill, it could be said that a person who propounds the theory of one man one vote, is stirring up the feelings in the country and might be declared a communist, and it would be possible under this Bill to ban a party like the Progressive Party or the Liberal Party, and if we are in power, under this Bill we could decide that the Nationalist Party was a danger to the country and we could ban it. We must consider this matter very seriously.

I would also like to refer to the timing of this Bill. The Minister gave notice of it on Friday, the 11th, and it was published on the Saturday, and 12 days afterwards we had it in front of this House. That is a very short time. If the Minister is sincere in his attempt to combat Communism and to have the support of this side of the House, one would have thought that he would have published the Bill a month or six weeks earlier and then referred it to a Select Committee; if the Government is sincere in the amendments they are making they should be sincere enough to say that their Bill bears the closest examination, and refer it to a Select Committee, let the people who want to give evidence come forward. We have had the Law Society and the trade unions approaching the Government, and other bodies as well. But the public in general should have the full right to come to the Government and state their views. When the rights of the individual are to be affected, the Government of the day should give that individual every opportunity to put his views; we have the necessary machinery here and the Government should use it. The Government has not given due notice of this Bill so that the public could be consulted. One wonders why? What is the background of this Bill? Is this measure designed to bolster up the machinery for the coming election in the Transkeian Territory? Is it to get the machinery ready for the day when the Bantu have been put on the rolls and a general election is held there? Is it to control the position where three or four candidates may come forward, wishing to address meetings in the various Native townships? Is this Bill going to be used against those individuals? I think the hon. the Minister should tell us.

Then I come to the sabotage clause. [Interjection.] I thought that would arouse the interest of hon. members. They have been very interested in this clause. Sir, hon. members from this side of the House have pointed out the dangers of this particular clause and its very wide scope. We say here in our amendment that this Bill deprives citizens of the protection of the courts, that it creates a new crime and defines it so widely that it can endanger the lives and liberties of people who are innocent of any intention to subvert the State. The Minister in charge of the Bill has admitted indirectly that it is possible he might amend this particular clause. I personally do not think that there has been any real sabotage in this country. At any rate, the Minister has not told us anything about it. We have had a few people trying to destroy post offices, but we know of an occasion when we had real sabotage in this country. There was a time when we saw the cutting of telephone lines, attempts to wreck trains, the blowing up of post offices, the molesting of soldiers who were going back to camp, etc.

But you have one of those members on your own side now.

This clause, as I say, is very wide in its scope; it can affect everybody in this country of ours. Furthermore, it is possible for a youngster of 15 or 16 to be sent to the gallows for committing an offence under this particular Bill. [Laughter.] Hon. members laugh but I do not think they realize the real seriousness of the position. I would say to the Minister in charge of the Bill that the way to cure Communism is not by force. I wish the Government would learn from what has happened in the rest of the world, what has happened in North Africa and in Cyprus. You can never cure anything by force. What the Government should do is to alter their present policies, because that is where the real trouble lies. Guns and bayonets cure nothing. What the Government has to do to eradicate Communism is to improve the standard of living of the people. It is like a disease, and medical people will tell you that if you want to cure disease give the people better housing and better living conditions. That is the way in which you cure people who become ill because of overcrowded and bad conditions. Why do you not have Communism in the United States to the extent that you have it in the rest of the world? You find in Italy to-day, where Communism was rife, that because of the rise in the standard of living Communism is on its way out. That is the only way in which you can deal with Communism.

Is your contention that we should not have a law against Communism?

No, I agree that we should have a law against Communism but it should be against Communism and it should not be a law that can affect the freedom of every individual. The law should never be used to affect the freedom of the individual who is not guilty of Communism. The only way in which you can find out whether a person is guilty of Communism is to bring him before a proper tribunal where he can be thoroughly cross-examined. If you find that he is guilty, then deal with him, but do not simply name a person as a communist without giving him the right of appeal. Sir, we can learn in this country of ours from the United States. The Western nations realize which way Africa is going to-day, and how do you think they are going to keep Communism out of Africa? Not by sending in troops. They are going to send in food; they are going to try to raise the standard of living of the African people. That is the way they are going to do it. If we do not do that, then you will have the biggest Communist State in the world on this Continent of ours. All over the world, wherever Communism has penetrated into a country, the only cure has been to raise the people’s standard of living and to improve conditions; to give people freedom; but the moment you enact laws such as this Bill you simply breed Communism. This Bill is nothing else but first-class fertilizer for Communism. I would appeal to the Minister and to this House to treat this Bill with all the seriousness that it deserves. It affects the lives of people who have no say. [Interjection.] It is all very well for the hon. member to murmur but he himself may find himself in that position one day, where he will have no say in the government of the country and where he will have no court to appeal to, where he could be detained for 12 days and could do nothing about it. They would not even have to explain why they have detained him.

This side of the House will vote against any measure that affects the freedom of the individual without the right to a proper trial and that is why we oppose this Bill.

The hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) pointed out to the other side of the House in a very nice way that here they have an opportunity to say precisely what their attitude is in respect of the combating of Communism in general. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) had a golden opportunity therefore to tell this House precisely how he views the existing legislation to combat Communism, but instead of doing so he asked us “What is Communism?” In the first place it is perfectly clear from his speech that he does not know how this legislation will function and, secondly, that he is not familiar with the underlying principles of the Communist Party. In the third place the hon. member also indicated to us that he had certain objections to the way in which Communism was being combated at present. He suggests—and I think he was speaking on behalf of his party—that where a person is suspected of communist activities the inquiry which is instituted should be shown on television so that the public can see how the accused person is interrogated. I do not think I misunderstood the hon. member. There is only one inference that can be drawn from that, and that is that that side of the House wants to treat these people as gently as possible; that they have no real intention of coping with this evil in all seriousness. But the hon. member for Salt River went on to ask what the outside world would say about this legislation. He once again indulged in the scaremongering to which we have become so accustomed. But we want to set the hon. member’s mind completely at rest: Whatever is said in the outside world, there will always be thinking persons abroad who will realize that South Africa has a Government which does not hesitate to take powers to protect the security of this southern tip of Africa. The hon. member also indicated that he would have preferred this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee first before being discussed in this House. But they had that opportunity in 1950, and did they make use of it then? No, they did not make proper use of it. What right has the hon. member to ask for that opportunity again to-day? The hon. member goes on to allege that there has been no sabotage here. It seems to me that the hon. member is not familiar with what precisely is happening here, or else he probably does not regard it as a serious matter, and if that is so, then we are entitled to draw the logical conclusion that the hon. member does not deprecate it, because why should he deprecate something if in his opinion it is not serious? No, now that the hon. member has spoken it is clearer to us than ever before what the intention of the United Party is in respect of the combating of Communism. Sir, I shall reply later on in the course of my speech to the other questions put by him. In the first place I want to say that it is the duty of this Government to govern this country. The electorate placed the responsibility of governing this country and of passing legislation and of amending legislation to adapt it to the needs of this country, upon the shoulders of this Government. I want to give the electorate the assurance that we are going to fulfil those expectations. This Government has an obligation to discharge, and whatever happens as far as the Opposition is concerned, we on this side will continue to carry out the mandate of the electorate down to the last detail. It is perfectly clear—and it has become even clearer in the course of this debate—that the Opposition accepts no co-responsibility. Surely it is only to be expected that a decent Opposition, which presents itself to the electorate as the alternative Government, will accept co-responsibility in respect of matters of national importance. But that is by no means the case. The fact of the matter is that this Government accepts that responsibility, and it is necessary therefore to provide the necessary machinery to maintain effective government in this country; and that is why we have a measure here before us which has been introduced and explained to us by the hon. the Minister of Justice. The hon. the Minister has told us that there are certain problems which have to be dealt with and that the existing legislation is not effective to cope with those problems. He has told us that the two main issues which form the contents of this Bill and that we have to take into account here are that we must combat Communism and, in conjunction with that, acts of sabotage.

Let us make a brief analysis of the character of the Communist Party and its doctrines. What methods are used by the Communist Party to achieve its aims? Secondly, what proof is there that there are certain activities going on to achieve these aims within the Republic? In order to indicate this briefly it is necessary to quote a few paragraphs from the Constitution of the Communist Party from the “Communist Manifesto”—

In those cases where the aforementioned methods do not work effectively, or where the time is not entirely ripe perhaps, which is perhaps the case here in the Republic, it goes on to say—

Then it goes on to say in a further paragraph what the Party’s aims are in respect of states where the colonial system applies (and the Republic is regarded as one of those states)—

There we have the basic ideas which are also in evidence in this country. But the modus operandi of the Communist Party is the formation of various “front organizations”. When Lenin’s Bolshevists experienced opposition in undermining the government, he said—

As time went on this statement came to form the basis for the subversion of the authority of the State by the communists and strongly came to the fore after World War II with the formation of Front Organizations. This proposition was confirmed once again when the following appeared in the influential communist newspaper Trud on 4 November 1950—

In the Republic of South Africa these tactics have been employed on a large scale through infiltration into existing organizations and the formation of new Front Organizations, the most well-known of which are (1) the South African Peace Council, which is affiliated with the World Peace Council; (2) the South African Congress of Trade Unions, which is affiliated with the World Federation of Trade Unions, (3) Society for Peace and Friendship with Soviet Union, and (4) South African Congress of Democrats, and others. An analysis of the activities of these Front Organizations in the Republic and in the rest of the world reveal, firstly, that Front Organizations are organizations which are called into being to serve as instruments for the Communist Party, but here in the Republic that fact is concealed. Secondly, they are Front Organizations in this sense that their true objects and aims are concealed behind the mask of social ideas which are usually acceptable to most “Progressives In the third place their real object is to promote Soviet Communism in various ways. Their main task is to spread propaganda. Lastly, these Front Organizations are the recruiting agencies for the Communist Party, and they serve as a cloak for people who are secretly communists and as cloaks for the party itself where it has been banned. I do not think there is any doubt that those signs of infiltration and of concealment within various organizations and of the discord which is sown there, are very clearly discernible here in the Republic. I want to try to prove therefore that in those circumstances it has become essential, and that this is the opportune moment, to introduce this Bill. In the first place then the aim of Communism is to overthrow the existing order. After all, it is a well-known fact that one of the methods used by Communism is to break down the existing order. We recently had the much-discussed treason trial in South Africa. All the evidence that was given there indicated that there had been an organized attempt to take over the Government of this country. In the second place we had this encouragement of lawlessness. It was alleged that Bantu leaders who are communist-inspired had launched a campaign to induce the Bantu to bum their reference books. There we had evidence of lawlessness, which constituted a challenge to the Government. In the third place, we have this insistence on a share in the government of our country. Enormous pressure is being brought to bear upon us from outside by Whites and non-Whites to accept the concept of “one man one vote”. Furthermore, we have had these organized explosions. The hon. the Minister of Justice made it perfectly clear to us recently that those explosions were not just casual explosions; it was not a question of a few isolated individuals deciding, because of their hostility towards or their dissatisfaction with the State, that they would damage certain properties. It was a carefully planned organization; it was planned by some person who had the necessary technical knowledge and who trained other persons to take a hand in those explosions. It is also clear to us, because of the fact that those explosions took place in various centres and at the same time throughout the country, that it was in fact carefully organized. Just recently, for example, we had the attacks which were made here in Cape Town; we had the alleged bomb planting at the Roeland Street Gaol; we had the cases of arson in the Cape Town City Hall; a little while ago we had the blowing up of the power station at Port Elizabeth. Those are incidents which we cannot ignore. But apart from that, Mr. Speaker, I also want to give you a picture of what is happening beyond our borders. Just look at the chaos that prevails at present in the northern states which are our neighbours and in the North-Africa states. Is it not this same pattern which is already rearing its head to a lesser extent in this country that has completely gained the upper-hand in those states? Bearing this in mind, when we see all these things happening around us—and I cannot believe that the Opposition does not notice it, and we are entitled therefore to say that they do notice it just as we do but that as far as they are concerned, according to the hon. member for Salt River, it is not very serious, it is not “real sabotage we can simply close our eyes to it. That is why we say that they are not in earnest. I think we are entitled to put this question to them: At what stage would the Opposition like the Minister to come forward with this measure? At what stage would they want the Minister to take adequate powers to combat this sabotage and these other deeds which I have outlined here and which, as I have shown, are clearly linked up with the communist doctrine? No, we get no reply. We are told in vague terms that the existing legislation is sufficient to cope with the situation. Let us look at the Bill before us. The Opposition contends that its terms are far too wide, that it is altogether unreasonable, that it will place a stigma on our country, and that we will experience various disadvantages because of this so-called drastic legislation. No, that is not the position. The hon. the Minister has stated in the clearest possible terms that the existing legislation is not adequate to enable us to deal with those persons who take steps against our country in the way that I have just indicated. Those forces of evil must be broken.

May I put a question?

That hon. member is incapable of putting any question that will be a contribution to this debate; I should prefer therefore not to reply to his questions. [Interjection.] When the hon. member has finished blowing off steam we can carry on again. Just as it becomes necessary from time to time to amend legislation in order to adapt it to changed circumstances, so it also becomes necessary on the negative side. Sir, these lawbreakers, whose activities we want to combat, make a careful study of the existing legislation and they regulate matters in such a way that they succeed in circumventing the law. That is why it is absolutely essential to effect the necessary amendments so that we can cope with the changed situation that faces us to-day. We say therefore that these powers which are being taken by the Minister are absolutely essential.

But let me deal briefly with the so-called cruel powers which the Minister is taking here. And I want to look at this matter as a layman in an entirely practical way. The hon. member said a moment ago that we need legal advice in order to be able to understand this matter. I as a layman can understand it. I want to put it to you, Sir, that the Minister can take various steps against law-breakers and alleged communists. In the first place, when the Minister has reason to believe that a person is guilty of a contravention or that he is behaving in a suspicious way, the Minister has the right under this legislation to cause a warning to be issued to him through a magistrate, who is authorized to do so in terms of the provisions of this measure. We say that such a warning is no precedent in our legislation. The position is that where it became clear to the police in the implementation of the old Liquor Act that a person was contravening the Act, a warning was issued to him and if he did not heed the warning he was prosecuted. Our experience was that that warning served a very useful purpose. That provision in this Bill is one that must be welcomed therefore. When such a person refuses to heed the warning then, of course, it is necessary for the Minister, on good grounds, to take further steps.

Order! Hon. members must not converse so loudly; I can hardly understand what the hon. member is saying.

When such a lawbreaker refuses to heed the warning which has been issued to him in terms of this measure, the Minister has the right to name such a person and once he has been named steps will be taken against him. The third step then is to place restrictions on the actions of such a person. The fourth is that if such a person refuses to heed the warning, he can be confined to a certain area, and eventually he can be confined to a certain place under certain very strict conditions. I see no cruelty in it. As a matter of fact, in the case of persons who may eventually get away from these foreign influences …

On a point of order, may I ask whether it is in order for hon. members opposite to carry on a continuous conversation in such a way that we cannot hear what the speaker is saying? May I say that I think it is in the interests of order in this House that that conversation should cease.

Order! I want to ask hon. members once again not to converse so loudly. I am going to take more stringent steps from now onwards.

I submit that no innocent person is going to suffer because of the powers which the Minister proposes to take here. I am thinking now of the steps which are within his own discretion, not those cases which are referred to the courts. We say therefore that hon. members are completely wide of the mark when they contend that innocent people will have to suffer as the result of the passing of this measure.

The impression is created on the other side of the House that the Minister will be able to name any person he likes or to confine him to a certain place or to restrict his movements. But surely that is not the position. Hon. members ought to know that the Minister must have reasonable grounds for his belief and he can only have reasonable grounds when evidence is placed before him. We also know that there are people in the Police Force who give special attention to these matters from day to day. These are people who for years have made a study of these particular offences in this country, and I find it strange that hon. members on the other side should refer in such a derogatory way to the powers and the sense of responsibility of the police, who will place their information at the disposal of the Minister. Then there is also a further provision; we know that any person who is named or who feels that he is being inconvenienced, illegitimately, may go to the courts in terms of the existing legislation and require the Minister to produce the necessary proof in those cases where he has been given the right to take such steps against him. There is no question of the Minister’s being able to do just what he pleases. That is the impression which is being created by the other side of the House, and it is an entirely erroneous impression. We maintain that the Minister can and will only act on reliable evidence which is placed at his disposal by the police.

In the last place let me come to the so-called sabotage clause—I refer to Clause 21—and the discretionary power vested in the courts. There is absolutely nothing that can be left out of the existing definition. We find that one member on the other side says that it is too wide while the other says that he cannot understand it. Surely that is inconsistent.

Order! Hon. members must not converse so loudly. I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) not to speak so loudly.

The aim of the communist, in the first place, is to concentrate on private property. That is why it is necessary to make provision in the definition for the protection of private property, because as soon as he can interfere with private property, he starts his process of disruption and agitation against the State. In that way he can undermine the State and, as I have already indicated, systematically begin to exercise control over the State, if not in this way then by force.

As far as the penal provisions are concerned, it has been admitted that for treason and sabotage the maximum penalty is the death sentence. But that does not mean to say that that penalty will be imposed in every case. We have had numerous cases of high treason, and the death sentence has actually been imposed in very few of those cases. There is a minimum penalty. But this is an indication as to how strongly we feel about this matter; we want to make it clear that a person must not be able to get away easily with a light sentence. But hon. members on the other side are the last people who should talk about maximum and minimum penalties. We submit that in terms of the emergency regulations the death sentence was obligatory in cases of high treason. There it was provided that the court shall impose the death penalty, but in terms of the present legislation the court may do so. There is no question therefore of limiting the discretion of the courts. The Opposition comes along with the old story that there was a war on when their emergency regulations were in force. That is a hackneyed argument and it has been replied to effectively by hon. members on this side who have pointed out that some years after the conclusion of peace there were still people in the internment camps and that people were still being tried in terms of the emergency regulations after the war.

The United Party is perfectly entitled to take a stand in respect of this matter; that is a right that we do not want to deny them for a moment and one that we would like to retain in a democratic country. The United Party is also entitled in this struggle to choose their own weapons and to choose their own comrades in arms. One knows a tree by its fruit, and the individual is judged by his friends. In the same way the United Party will be judged by its friends, and because that is so, it will be recorded in the annals of the history of our country that when the National Party and this Government were involved in a life-and-death struggle against the feared doctrine of Communism, the most formidable enemy of democracy, the United Party tried to obstruct the Government. These powers are being asked for timeously by the Minister and they will be given to him. With those powers at our disposal we shall succeed in retaining for those who come after us the heritage left to us by our forefathers.

The hon. member for Groblersdal (Mr. M. J. H. Bekker) has made a very fine political speech. I think that, as far as this Bill is concerned, the political implications, from the Government’s point of view, are regarded by him as being of much more importance than the actual contents of this Bill. The hon. member for Groblersdal concluded by saying that it would be recorded in the annals of the political history of South Africa that, when this Government sought to combat sabotage and Communism in South Africa, the United Party was not prepared to assist the Government. One of the other hon. members said that we, the United Party, were complaining that this legislation was very wide in its terms. But is that not an admission which the Minister himself made in the course of his speech? He himself admitted that Clause 21 particularly was very wide in its terms. We say that this legislation is not necessary in order to combat sabotage in South Africa. Let me read out to the hon. member for Groblersdal what his own Minister said—

That is what the Minister himself said when he introduced this Bill. In other words, the Minister admitted that it was possible to combat sabotage under the laws which already appear on our Statute Book. The hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) has again gone back to 1950 to indicate what the attitude of the United Party was in those days. But let me read out to the hon. member the motion which was moved by the United Party in this House at that time, in 1950, when the Suppression of Communism Bill was under discussion. In 1950 Mr. Strauss moved as an amendment—

Why did the hon. member not quote that? That is the amendment which the United Party moved at that time. But let me read out what a prominent member of the United Party said in that debate. This was on 14 June 1950 (Hansard, Col. 9008)—

And then he goes on to make the accusation that the United Party stands for equality between White and Black. And then he says this (Col. 9009)—

This is the point—

This was said in 1950 by the then hon. member for Gardens, the present member for Beaufort West (Dr. Jonker). The attitude of the United Party at that time could be put in no better words.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Why does he quote my speech in English when I have never made a speech in English in this House?

I can, of course, also read out his speech in Afrikaans, but that is what the hon. member said. The hon. member for Soutpansberg wants to know from me and from this side what our policy is in respect of Communism. Here he has it in the words of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. We still adhere to that policy, but the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was so afraid of the black list which was kept by hon. members on the Government side that he himself crossed the floor of the House so that his name could be deleted from that list.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member not suggesting indirectly now that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort is a communist?

Now that he has read out what the then hon. member for Gardens said, may I ask the hon. member whether he realizes how much nonsense a United Party member can talk!

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort is the answer himself, because he has not denied the words that he used here, nor has he denied the wisdom of what he said. But the hon. member for Soutpansberg then proceeded to read out to us the names of all those who had voted against the second reading in 1950. He did not add, however, that on 15 June 1950, when the division took place, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) and the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Waring) also voted with us.

Order! What is the hon. member really trying to prove?

That these two hon. members who are criticizing us most to-day because of our attitude also voted against this legislation in 1950.

The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

On a point of order, we are dealing here with a Bill to amend the regulations dealing with Communism. The hon. member is proving to this House that members on the Government side, a Minister and a frontbencher, were opposed to these limited powers to take steps against Communism. This Bill is extending those powers, and I submit that the hon. member is entitled to show that members who were opposed to those restricted powers cannot honestly vote to-day in favour of extended powers.

May I ask the hon. member what the difference is between what the hon. member said when he was a United Party supporter, an opinion which he subsequently changed, and what was said by Gen. Smuts when he blessed the arms of communist Russia?

They are not comparable cases at all. All it does prove is that the party which has been consistent in its attitude in respect of Communism sits on this side of the House, with the exception of the hon. member for Beaufort West and the hon. the Minister of Information.

But, in the course of this debate, another matter has been touched upon, which, I think, cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed. I want to come back to what the hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) said in the course of this debate. He says that communists are infiltrating into the ranks of the United Party. I want to put this question to the hon. member: If the position is that communists are infiltrating into the ranks of the United Party, have they been so unsuccessful then in combating Communism that there are communists sitting in this House to-day? And if there has been no such infiltration, then the hon. member was talking arrant nonsense. The hon. the Minister must tell us whether he agrees with the hon. member for Edenvale, and then we want to know who the members on this side of the House are who are regarded by the Minister or his party as communists. And if this legislation is not intended to deal with us, but only with communists, then surely I was right in saying, as I did at the beginning, that this legislation is nothing but political propaganda. Has this legislation not been introduced to distract attention from the Government’s policy of Bantustans?

That is a lie.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member entitled to say “that is a lie”?

I should like to explain in what context I meant it.

If the hon. member said that, then he must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

I want to point out that the hon. the Minister himself said that there were ways and means in South Africa of combating sabotage.

It still remains one.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

The hon. the Minister said in his speech that there were ways and means of combating sabotage in South Africa. If that is so, and it is not their intention to put this side of the House behind bars, for whom are these very wide powers intended then? If they are not intended for us, then this legislation can only be designed to make political propaganda outside, and the question that then arises is why that propaganda is being made to-day. Why is an attempt being made to keep together the ranks of the Nationalist Party? We had an election only last year and the Government was returned to Parliament with a big majority. Why is this legislation being introduced then? There must be some political reason for it, and the obvious political reason is that the hon. the Minister and his party are using this legislation to distract attention from the implications and the complications that will arise from their Bantustan policy. They have been asked repeatedly, a question which has been repeated by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore): “Why this legislation?” Why this legislation when they already have powers at their disposal to act? But we have not had a single reply to that question. I have read through the hon. the Minister’s speech. He told us of the difficulties that they had in the Transkei; he referred to Attorney Swarts. But I thought that we were soon going to be rid of these people. This legislation is not intended for them therefore. After all, they are going to become independent states.

Then I come to Clause 21, “Any person who commits any wrongful and wilful act whereby he …” and then there follows a series of seven points. The Minister says that the following ten points in sub-clause (2) are designed to give an accused a better opportunity to defend himself, but I do not believe that that is the position.

Do you suggest that they be deleted?

I believe that this clause of the hon. the Minister’s opens the door much wider. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to listen to this: “(e) To further or encourage the achievement of any political aim, including the bringing about of any social or economic change in the Republic.” To further or encourage. In other words, if a person asks for a change in our political system (and has the Minister not done this himself in the past?) he can be charged under this Bill. The Minister’s own party did so in the past. I have before me “The Road to a New South Africa”, which the Nationalist Party issued in 1948, and in which they asked for large-scale changes in South Africa. Let me read it out to the Minister—

That was their own policy in 1948. Listen to this, Mr. Speaker—

The worst form of socialism. Listen to this—

That is what they said in 1948. Listen to point No. 1 of their aims—

That is also a political aim—

Listen to this: “Full pay …”

On a point of order, Sir, what has that to do with the Bill?

It is only an hon. member who lacks imagination who cannot realize that the matters which I am mentioning here do relate to this Bill. Can the hon. member give me a different definition of “to further or to encourage”, which are the words used in this Bill?

He must commit an offence to achieve that aim.

The hon. the Minister himself admitted in his speech that there were many offences which, technically speaking, could be regarded as abotage. The Minister now says that he must commit an offence in order to achieve that purpose. I know that. He must commit an offence against the State. Reference is made here to “the maintenance of law and order”. Let us assume that a serious disturbance takes place in a Native area and that just prior to that a person had been advocating a change in the form of government—which we ought to have—could he not be dealt with then under this clause? Is he not asking for a change in “the political system”? Or is he not asking for changed conditions? We were told in this House by the hon. the Minister of Community Development earlier this year that any member who asked that the Coloureds be put back on the common roll would be harming the relations between White and Black. And here it is stated “to cause, encourage or to promote hostility between the various population groups of the Republic. Surely then the Sabra people are also encouraging hostility between White and Black when they talk about giving direct representation to the Coloureds in Parliament, or when the Burger says that they are not against it. I have shown the Minister now how widely this clause is framed. In their 1948 policy they wanted to go even further.

This is not a debate on a motion of no-confidence. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. member whether it is an offence under this Bill to appear on a platform in the City Hall of Johannesburg together with a communist?

I can quite believe that, particularly if in addition to that the person concerned is a member of the Springbok Legion. In 1948 the Nationalist Party made the following proposal—

They were advocating a change. That is precisely the point that I want to make to the hon. the Minister. Is there any member in this House who can say that he has never sinned against one of the ten points which are mentioned in Clause 21 (1)? Neither the hon. the Minister nor the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare can say that. After all. he has also advocated changes, has he not? At some time or other we have all advocated changes in the political system. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration is to-day advocating the establishment of independent states in South Africa. Surely that would bring about a change in our social structure. In other words, in making provision for these ten points in this Bill, this Government is preventing legitimate criticism of the Government. The hon. the Minister himself says that this clause is very wide; he says that he needs these powers. But does the hon. the Minister realize how far his clause goes? As the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has said, the layman will not be able to understand this type of clause, and the outcome of it will be that the legitimate criticism, which this Government deserves, will not be levelled against it.

Nonsense.

The hon. the Minister says that this is nonsense; will he delete these provisions?

The Attorney-General first has to order a prosecution.

The other day the hon. the Minister introduced a Bill in this House in connection with the protection of animals. Let me say this to the hon. the Minister: If the Railways, for example, allow a certain product such as slaughter-stock to accumulate by not transporting it, they may make themselves guilty of “embarrassing the administration of the affairs of the State”. That is how ridiculous this Bill is. If a little boy take his air-gun and smashes an insulator on an electric standard he may be guilty of sabotage.

Nonsense.

If that is not so, then I want to know this from the Minister: What is this offence that a person may commit and which, technically speaking, as the hon. the Minister himself has said, will amount to sabotage if it is not the sort of example that I have mentioned here?

Are you really so stupid or are you just pretending to be?

I am not discussing the hon. the Minister; I am discussing his Bill. Let me tell the Minister that I do not doubt his intelligence, but when I see how this legislation has been drafted, then I do doubt his intelligence; he is not as clever then as he pretends to be. Or, Mr. Speaker, perhaps he is even cleverer than he pretends to be. He would like the United Party to refuse to support this legislation, because if the United Party votes against this legislation the hon. the Minister and his friends will be able to go from platform to platform again and accuse the United Party of being in favour of Communism and of sabotage. I am not even talking about the hon. the Chief Whip. He will be in such a hurry to get to his constituency and to tell his constituents what the horrible United Party has done again that he will not even be able to wait until this Session is over. He will tell them, with tears in his eyes, of the difficulties facing South Africa and he will say to his constituents, “Can you believe that Graaff and his men refused to support us?”

All they have to do to make a perfect monkey out of you is to tie a tail on to you.

The object of this legislation is to go and make political propaganda in the country. That is the reason why they have come forward with this measure. We on this side of the House are prepared to state our attitude to the electorate. We shall give the public our reasons. There is no United Party supporter or leader in the country who was prepared to believe, when we voted against the Suppression of Communism Bill, that the United Party was in favour of Communism. Of course they will not fall for these political tactics on the part of hon. members on the other side. No, as an Opposition we have to adopt a responsible attitude, and that is the attitude that we are adopting. Our attitude is to protect the freedom, the basic rights and the individual freedoms of the individual. That is the best guarantee of creating the best impression of your country abroad. Has the hon. the Minister considered what sort of impression he is creating with this legislation? He tells us that everything in the garden is rosy, that this is a country of peace; he says, “You must buy shares”. That is the advice which he gave the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). Sir, it is not the propaganda that is being made about this Bill that is harming this country; it is the clauses of this Bill which give the wrong image of South Africa. The hon. the Minister is not interested in that, however. No, he is interested in this little bit of political ammunition which will keep the Nationalist Party busy during the recess. That is the only thing in which he is interested. The hon. the Minister and his Government are not in the least interested in whether we can improve South Africa’s reputation overseas, he is not interested whether he is increasing our prestige or not, in whether we can attract more capital to South Africa or whether this will make more friends for us. This is one of the last nails in the coffin of the good name of South Africa overseas. This is the sort of thing that is exploited against us; it is not the English-language Press in South Africa which is deliberately harming South Africa’s reputation overseas. How can anybody make mischief against South Africa unless he is able to quote this example? And yet the Minister tells us that he is preserving peace in South Africa.

I do not believe that this legislation will do this country any good. What it will do is to prevent anybody who has legitimate criticism from voicing that criticism. No, those good South Africans are to be prevented from offering criticism. [Interjections.] This sort of legislation is designed to deter them. And it will deter people, that I know. That is what the Minister and his Government want to achieve; they want to prevent people from criticizing this Government too much. They want to seal the lips of the Anton Ruperts and of the Sabra people, who are good South Africans. That is what they are after. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the sense of irresponsibility of the two points—that of Sea Point and Durban (Point). When the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was speaking, a fear fell away from us. When we heard there was going to be a night sitting, we were afraid that we would be without a clown that could cheer up the sitting for us. But the hon. member has fortunately filled that vacancy in his speech. His whole approach in respect of the legislation itself was a complete misunderstanding. As a result of that all his arguments of course are a total misconception. The hon. member is afraid that this legislation will be bad propaganda for South Africa overseas. He must forget that. He should remember that we here on the southern tip of Africa are the only bastion of the Christian and the Western civilization. The more strongly therefore we deal with Communism here on the southern tip, the better we shall secure this southern tip of Africa against Communism, and how better will be the light in which the Western countries will regard us. I should like to remind the hon. member of an article Mr. Phillip Crowe recently wrote in the U.S. News and World Report. This is what the hon. gentleman wrote—

It is very clear that some of our friends—and I believe Mr. Phillip Crowe is one of our friends—take our strong actions here against Communism for the very purpose of defending our cause and to make our cause stronger in what surely is the strongest power in the world to-day, namely, the United States of America. That applies for all the Western countries.

Even before this legislation was introduced, before the contents of it were known, an atmosphere was created by a section of the Press in this country to arouse opposition to this legislation. Who is it that first lodged this protest? We find it is those bodies, such as the Liberal Party, the Progressive Party, the Black Sash, South African Congress of Democrats and a large part of the Press. We miss one organization, but we hope it will be resuscitated again. Mr. Albie Sachs last night at Sea Point expressed the hope that the Torch Commando will be revived in a greater and a stronger form, for he says—

I really would like to invite that friend to revive this Torch Commando again. I almost want to give a guarantee on behalf of the Minister that we shall permit the Torch Commando to go on unmolested. These leftist organizations that started this movement of protest against this legislation, also used this opportunity to launch an attack on the policy of apartheid of the Government. They forget that it is this very apartheid policy that has made the National Party and the Government strong. It is this very apartheid policy which is being accepted by the electorate to an increasing degree. It is this very apartheid policy of the Government which is also being accepted to an increasing extent by the non-Whites and the Bantu as the solution to their own problems. They see in that policy the means whereby they will be able to live peacefully together with the Whites in South Africa.

Why did you not ask for a mandate?

It has been proved time and time again that the hon. the Prime Minister and all the National Party speakers asked the electorate for that mandate before that election, and it was granted with a greater majority than ever before. That proof has been given, and I cannot go into it again. Now who are these protesting groups? Of course the Liberal Party is a party that advocates complete equality in this country. The Progressive Party is very close to that, but here and there there is a qualification of education, etc., but in the final result they are aiming at the same object. The Black Sash and the African Congress of Democrats are completely leftist organizations. We find also that the Press assisting in this protest is the organ of the leftist organizations and the leftist organizations again are the henchmen of that Press. It is a peculiar thing that all these organizations that have piloted this protest against this legislation, consider that a policy of equality will be the best method of combating the communistic menace, a policy of making concessions. Those are the very organizations all of which are steering in the direction of the overthrow of the existing order in South Africa. Those are the very organizations that wish to bring about a revolution in South Africa whether constitutionally or unconstitutionally. They wish to establish a state of affairs where the Whites will be the political minority in this country, where the White, as the political minority, will have no rights. He will simply have no say in the affairs of this country. Surely that is obvious. We know all these organizations as the sworn friends and the champions of these enemies of the existing political order in South Africa. Those are the organizations and those are the people who are the henchmen of Communism in South Africa. We know that Communism seeks to achieve its object in a sly and covert manner. Who then are those persons? Permit me to mention only a few of them—and remember they are people who are being defended by that side of the House, and are being praised by them as being great anticommunists. People like Patrick Duncan, Albert Luthuli, Nelson Mandela, etc. Who are they? Let me tell you. At the time of the treason trial this very Luthuli—the great hero of freedom of hon. members opposite—used the following words—

Mr. Luthuli of course was the President-General of the A.N.C. at the time, an organization which, before it was banned, was known for striving to achieve the objects of Communism. The organization had exactly the same objects that the Communist Party had. We know also that this Mr. Luthuli was sentenced by the Court to a fine of R200 or six months’ imprisonment, suspended for three years, because he burnt his identity book in the campaign of passive resistance to incite the Bantu to disobedience. That now is the hero of freedom and the great friend of hon. members opposite.

What has the fact that he burnt his pass to do with Communism?

Is that hon. member satisfied with the action of Luthuli then? Is he satisfied? Does he approve of it?

I did not refer to that.

That hon. member is now running away from the point of view of his own party. There are members opposite who are conservative. We know them to be such. But they do not realize that they are only the bait that has to catch the crawfish. They simply serve as bait to bring as many conservatives as possible into their camp, and to keep them there. But let me come to Nelson Mandela now. Who is he? Hon. members will possibly recall the conference that was held at Pietermaritzburg last year, when total equality was demanded. It was also demanded then that a national convention be held. Mandela was the leader of this conference. He is the man who made the demands; he is the man who was a fugitive.

These organizations have become the political homes of those people who had to get out of the banned Communist Party. They could not go anywhere else than to find a home in these organizations. What is the Congress of Democrats—that is to say, one of these organizations? It is the organization that takes the lead in all these resistance movements. Luthuli very naïvely denied that this organization had become the substitute for the Communist Party. I have here an article that appeared in the Burger last year, and which sheds an interesting light on the history of this organization. The article is as follows—

i.e. the mouthpiece of the Congress of Democrats—

Now who are these people who participated in this movement? They are the South African Indian Congress, the South African Coloured People’s Congress, the South African Congress of Democrats, the South African Congress of Trade Unions and the A.N.C. until it was banned. There were leftist organizations that were organizing protest movements and strikes with a view to overthrowing peace and order in South Africa. They are the people. Does the hon. member for North-East Rand approve of the deeds of those people? Are the objects of these organizations not the same as those aimed at by the Communist Party? They are actually nothing but a continuation of the Communist Party. These organizations are doing everything that the Communist Party wished to do and also did before it was banned. Therefore they are nothing but the faithful tools of the Communist Party.

We also find that the Press from time to time gave the greatest publicity to these activities. For instance, Luthuli was represented as a great hero, and that as a result of the manner in which he was presented by the English Press to the public and to the world, that is to say, as the great hero and the peacemaker, he received the Nobel prize. But what was always suppressed was the subversive role he had played in South Africa. It was always suppressed that he undertook activities here in this country that were nothing but communist activities.

He is not a communist.

He may not be one, but he does their work though. While he is now doing the work of the communists, do we simply have to let him remain at large although he is not a communist as such? Must we also laud him as the great apostle of peace? Can hon. members opposite then not see what tremendous harm these agitators are doing South Africa both internally and externally?

Will you say that Patrick Duncan is a communist?

He himself denies that he is a communist, yet he is doing their work. We find from time to time that messages appear in certain Johannesburg English newspapers from Mandela, and that while he is engaged on his diabolical underground work. While he was a fugitive from the police, certain English newspapers placed themselves at his disposal, and through them he then published his messages. Can we allow that? Can we permit these undermining activities to be continued? It is not the National Party only that alleges that the Communist Party uses so-called innocent organizations and persons who are not communists, to propagate and achieve its objects. In the Cape Argus of 14 April 1960 there appeared an article written by the military correspondent of the Argus. The heading was “Kremlin’s No. 3 plan”, and he had the following to say inter alia—

That is what the military correspondent of the Argus said. So he is also seeing these things. That is precisely how we see it also. So he sees the same dangers in the methods of Communism that we see. But where we are now combating those methods, we find that our Opposition here are fighting it vigorously. It is very clear that Communism is a dangerous and unscrupulous enemy of South Africa. But let us ask ourselves what is the role of the United Party in this picture? We have found that protests have been set going in this country. The United Party did not have any part of that. They rather left it to the Liberal Party and to the Progressive Party, who in their turn try to foment dissatisfaction in an artificial manner. The Black Sash also is being used to parade, and to stand at attention at the flame of freedom, as they call it. The United Party stayed behind and did not participate in that. They have done nothing at all. Why not? Because there are a large number of supporters in that party who disapprove of these protest movements. But they then acted as the parliamentary front of these leftist organizations and they are now playing that role. Why do they do so? Because they have been forced to do so, and that for various reasons. Many of the ladies standing outside this building are members of the United Party. So they cannot participate outside, but they have to state their case inside; here they have to act as their parliamentary front for it is their supporters standing outside. The United Party dare not accept this legislation because by doing so they may drive their own supporters into the arms of the Progressive Party, and the Progressive Party is sitting waiting with open arms for these people. So why ate the Progressive Party waning? Because the leftist elements see an opportunity to achieve their objects within the United Party, although it might take longer. But there are other reasons too why the United Party has to play the role of the parliamentary front of the leftist organizations. There is a nucleus of leftists in that party. Yesterday for instance we listened to a speech by the hon. member for Wynberg. We have already listened to several speeches by the hon. member for Wynberg in which the national convention to which I have previously referred was praised as a harmless movement to whose requests attention should be given. But there is a leftist group in the United Party itself and therefore they may not drive away those people. They are caught in the trap of their own deeds. They have to pay lip service to their supporters outside that are conservatively disposed. Where is the strength and potential of the United Party. From where can they get their reinforcements? Surely not from the National Party, for everything the National Party stands for is against the principles of the United Party. So the United Party can derive its strength only from the leftists in the country. They can only try to canvass support from the Progressive Party, from the Liberal Party, from the Congress of Democrats, and other leftist organizations that are the greatest enemies of the National Party, and not only of the National Party, but of South Africa. That then also accounts for the actions of hon. members opposite in regard to this Bill. We find that Mr. Cope, in an article in the Cape Times, has put the policy of the Progressive Party, namely that this Bill is an evil thing and must not be passed. In the place of that he put racial co-operation, racial integration and confluence, in other words, the granting of more rights to the non-Whites in South Africa. That is therefore his solution for the communist menace in South Africa. The hon. member for Durban (North) a week later in the same column stated the policy of the United Party. In that column he at the same time objected that Mr. Cope had attacked them. What is the solution of the United Party as seen by the hon. member for Durban (North)? Both parties see a danger in the “baasskap apartheid” of the National Party. The hon. member for Durban (North) suggests that the urban Bantu should receive greater political rights. In other words, it is exactly the same solution that the Progressive Party offers. If you do that, they say, you will ward off the communist danger.

Do hon. members of the United Party and of the Progressive think they will satisfy the agitators with this solution? Surely they know that these agitators want something else, and that is not even equality but non-White “baasskap”. Surely that is very clear. Surely they can see what is happening in other parts of Africa. They can see surely how the policy of concessions is operating there. Even if the optimistic members of the party opposite believe that that is the solution to our problems, their party will disappear sooner than they themselves think.

When I listened to the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Sadie) and heard what his approach was to democratic rights, I remembered that Oscar Wilde also had a shot at describing democracy. Had that gentleman been here to read this Bill and to listen to the comments on it from members opposite, he surely would have adapted his description in the following way. He would then have described democracy as being—

So many references to past records have been made and produced that I am sure I will be permitted to quote a past record as well in order to bring the problem, with which we are ostensibly concerned, into its proper perspective. I want to quote from the findings of a Judicial Commission which was appointed in 1922 to inquire into the civil riots and disturbances which took place on the Rand during that time. At the head of what was regarded as an armed uprising in this country was a Council of Action. The findings of the commission were these—

I quote this in order to bring the problem with which we are dealing into a proper perspective, and I need not say what side of the House formed the Government of that day. I should like to come back now to the position as we find it in the Bill which is before us. From the long title of the Bill, it is quite obvious that it is designed to add to and to amplify five major Acts of Parliament—all measures of a contentious nature, all passed or revised and amended during the lifetime of the present Government and all giving the executive wide and arbitrary powers to curb the freedom of the individual and to control the activities of the community at any given time, regardless of whether the country is in a state of emergency or whether it is in a state of quietness, calm and peace as the hon. the Minister himself has described it. An unanswerable case has been made from this side of the House, that these five Acts as well as at least three others, give the Government more than ample power to prohibit seditious gatherings, to secure the safety of the State and to punish anyone who might be engaged in any type of subversive activities—real, potential or even remotely potential. If the Government is unable to maintain law and order and to secure the safety of the State armed with all that mass of legislative power, then its duty, in my opinion, is perfectly clear. The duty of the Government under those circumstances is not to come to Parliament for still more powers but simply to move out and to stay out, before the destiny which they fear overtakes us.

But instead of taking that courageous step, the Government comes to Parliament once more with another measure which has been described as a “vicious” measure. It certainly is a measure born of political fear and racial intolerance. I listened to the hon. Minister, when he introduced this Bill, very carefully. He chose to lay great stress on what he called “communist plotting”, either here in our midst or elsewhere, against South Africa. I need not comment on the evidence which he placed before us, because so much of it came from Press communications and Press information which the hon. the Minister himself scorned. But I say that I do fear his judgment in the matter. I say this because he chose to couple together in one category and almost in one breath the names which he mentioned, and secondly because he chose to couple this wide and vague definition of sabotage with an equally wide and vague definition of Communism. Any lawyer knows that the road to political justice is a hazardous one for the client and a slippery one for the lawyers. That is an aspect of the Bill with which I will deal later. I also fear this hon. Minister’s judgment in the matter for other reasons: Having listened to the contributions by members opposite, little doubt can be left in anybody’s mind that it is not so much the safety of the State as it is the safety of the Government which is the real purpose of this Bill. Finally, Sir, I am also reminded of the now notorious Treason Trial and the Government’s vain efforts to establish a communist plot at that time. It was not because the Government did not have enough power or enough time or enough money that it failed as badly as it did. I have the authority of the court to say that it failed because the Government did not have the evidence, and it never had a case of communist plotting. Therefore, Sir, before I come to deal with the general ambit of the Bill itself, I want to make one additional point. To have a proper perspective or proper sense of proportion is at any time one of the most valuable gifts a man, or a government, can possess. For this Government to have possessed a proper sense of proportion at this time, would have been a rare gift indeed and could easily have changed the history of this country. Because with such a sense of proportion this Government would have known how to govern and how to meet opposition in political affairs in such a way as to avoid such subversive or revolutionary situations arising, as it fears is going to be the case. It is because this Government has become mortally afraid of criticism or opposition of almost any kind, that it is now quite willing to forfeit the benefits that would accrue from a moderate and conciliatory approach to racial matters. By closing the door to representation of the masses in this Parliament, the Government also closed the door to lawful criticism, and therefore it is now obliged to treat virtually all criticism as being either anti-government or subversive or revolutionary. That is the reason why we have this stringent legislation before us to-day.

Sir, admittedly it has been South Africa’s fate to record in its relatively short history a number of revolutionary situations, but one important lesson which is to be learnt from the past is this: Always a proper sense of proportion has prevailed in those responsible at the time for the conduct of the affairs of the country. If this hon. Minister would cast his mind back to the 1940s, he will know what I mean, for he knows that because in the past we have always had in our public life men with a sense of proportion, no rigidity of arbitrary rule, no severity of punishment to restrain political excesses or even political disruptions endured for any lengthy period. Such measures have always in the past been a passing phase in the conduct of our affairs and in the administration of justice in this country. Moreover, Sir, the hon. gentleman also knows that never before has such rigidity and severity obtained and been used, except in exceptional circumstances when there have been acts of rebellion, civil disruptions, or in times of war. And those rigid rules have always ended at the first opportunity after the emergency for which they had been created, had ended. But it is obvious that that sense of proportion is no longer to prevail and that rigidity of rule is now to appear not only permanently on our Statute Book. But it is to appear at a time which this hon. gentleman himself has called quiet and calm, but which members on his side of the House have rather described as being a “hot peace” and “hot calm”. I cannot describe it any other way. That seems to me to be the substitute for “cold war”. It is the only variant I can see to “cold war”. But the tragedy is that these restrictions, this rigidity of rule and the restrictions on the exercise of judicial discretion, are now being perpetuated instead of being there merely as temporary measures. I therefore ask this question: Can anyone still doubt that we are here concerned with a régime in which the rigidity of rule and the strong hand of authority are seen as a necessary and indispensable political virtues? Whether I agree with it or not, that is the reason why a leading newspaper in this country recently described the framing of this Bill and its introduction into this House as this Minister’s “fantastic bid for power”,

But be that as it may, the tragedy of the occasion is that in presenting this Bill to Parliament, this Minister has demonstrated that he is prepared to cast a sense of proportion out of the window; and still more tragically I feel he is prepared even to cast a sense of justice out of the window.

It has been stressed, and I need not deal with it again, that not only are the provisions of this Bill drastic, even drastic in the extreme, but they are also an admission of failure on the part of this Government to provide this country with good government, sound government and safe government, clothed as it is with the extraordinary powers it has. This Bill is to my mind a demonstration by the Government of strength because of that failure, and to appease its followers. It also accounts for why the hon. the Minister was at some pains at a Press interview to say that the Bill was designed to close loopholes in existing legislation. It is quite true that the Minister reduced that during the debate here, by claiming that it was no more than the plugging of holes in an empty powder-keg. But I say that it a very lame excuse indeed to ask Parliament for additional arbitrary powers to restrain freedom without trial, to curb the Press and to tamper with the independence of the courts of law. Although this Bill has been introduced by the Minister of Justice, I think we must face the fact that it has very little to do with the principles of justice. As has been illustrated by this side of the House, it has very much to do with arbitrary and even capricious executive powers. It also creates a new political offence called sabotage.

The subtle distinction which the hon. Minister tried to draw in a recent debate between a political offence and an offence of a political character really cuts no ice. He knows it, and I think it was a subtle distinction he tried to draw for the moment, because it is only a distinction without anw difference at all. All you need to do in this Bill, Sir, is to scratch any provisions of the Bill and you will find a political offence, an offence which hon. members opposite have convinced me is an offence more because it is against the Government than because it is against the State. It seems to me, therefore, that even the Minister is out of date with his quotation. It is not a question of the safety of the State, but of the safety of the Government, being now the highest law of the land. The reason for that is not far to seek. We are dealing here with a party which puts its own safety first and foremost and which regards the police and even the courts as instruments to secure the safety of the Government.

At a recent Press interview the hon. the Minister chose to say that the wide powers he was taking in this Bill “are essential for the maintenance of order and democracy”. What a travesty this makes of the maintenance of order when the Bill itself ignores the courts and even hamstrings them. And what a strange sort of democracy this is which has to be maintained by despotism, coercion and political justice, rather than by the principles of natural justice. I say, Sir, that lawyers know that the road to political justice is a very hazardous one for the client and certainly a very slippery one for the lawyer. In this Bill are fully a dozen new executive powers. There are some which have been mentioned by members on this side of the House, which not only restrain the freedom of the individual without trial, but also penalizes him without any sort of trial and without even giving him an opportunity to defend himself. There is also a further provision which is a drastic one, namely that it makes an arbitrary confiscation of private property possible, without any form of recourse to the courts. Those points have already been made, Mr. Speaker, and I do not wish to enlarge on them. Therefore, in view of all this, it may sound rather pointless and even pious on my part and in this climate to speak up for the principles of justice and to maintain, firstly, that no one. not even the Government, can be a Judge in his own cause; and secondly, that everyone is presumed innocent until proved guilty in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of law.

Let me be quite emphatic about the matter: To me the principles of justice are eternal in every circumstance, even in the circumstances in which we try to deal with them in this House to-day. To me it is therefore monstrous that at a time which the Minister himself describes as being quiet, calm and peaceful, anyone entrusted with the portfolio of Justice should be clothed with powers drastic enough to detain a person capriciously and arbitrarily for an indefinite period, or maybe even for the rest of his days. I say, therefore, that it is wrong for this Minister to have powers imposed upon him of a type so drastic that he can bring about either house detention or other detention, and that he can also include in that order a prohibition “against communicating with any person or receiving any visitors or performing any act”. Sir, I say it is monstrous to have those powers without any limitation at all as to period! This is simply to return to the cruelties of the former century. You see, Sir, nowhere in these provisions is there any limitation as to time. Not only is there no appeal to a court of law, but there is not even any provision for executive review of the situation. I know the hon. Minister will tell me that he imposes these restrictions for a period—say five years. But he is not obliged to do that. He might do that out of a sense of justice, but he is not obliged to do it, and that is something that did not even prevail during wartime. The hon. the Minister might criticize what happened during the war, but he knows perfectly well that tribunals were set up, of review and appeal, in cases of that nature.

Do you call that a tribunal?

The Minister asks me whether I call that a tribunal. We were then in a state of war. Does he call this human—in a state of peace—with no provision at all as to period, no provision for judicial review and not even executive review? It is true the Minister has taken powers in the Bill to remove people’s names from the list. It is an arbitrary and capricious power. It is not one that any authority will or can see in the light of day at any time. Those are capricious powers, to which I hope the Minister will give consideration in his reply. Let me further illustrate by means of a further quotation from the past, how far back we have gone into a former century. A great South African, writing in 1880. which, according to him, was also a period for a moderate and a conciliatory course to be followed in human affairs in South Africa, and in which there was also a great lesson to be learned from the past, had this to say—

And then he goes on to make this rather telling statement—

I am quoting the words, Sir, of John X. Merriman from the “Merriman Papers”, which are recorded by the Van Riebeeck Society in Vol. 41. Seeing that these are quotations from John X. Merriman, may I suggest that somebody on the Government side should suggest to the John X. Merriman Branch of the Nationalist Party in Johannesburg that this would be a very apt quotation to include in its next edition of the South African Patriot. Sir, substitute current names for those I have mentioned—I do not want to add them—and a truer analysis of the present situation could not be found.

Therefore, when considering this Bill, I want to make it perfectly clear that to condemn the measure is not to support Communism or sabotage or subversive activities in any way. I say that because the simple facts are these: If this Government had the courage to confess its errors, there would be no need for a Bill of this nature. [Interjections.] Sir, that is a very clear indication of the point I have already made, of what the political virtues are in the régime as we see it to-day. We on this side of the House have repeatedly made it clear that we stand for the maintenance of law and order. But any effort such as this to enforce order regardless of elementary justice is entirely a different matter. The point has been made by hon. members, but I think it needs to be made again, that no community will give support to agitating, to intimidation, to violence or to destruction of property, unless there exists some real grievance which needs to be remedied. What is needed in South Africa to-day are wise political concessions from above if we are to avoid revolution from below. It has also been stated that it is not the harsh arm of the law or severity of punishment which is the remedy for just grievances. As I said at the outset, it is good government and a proper sense of proportion that avoid revolutionary situations from developing for their own ends. Therefore, I would ask the Minister and his Government to give heed to history in that regard instead of asking Parliament to add to the tangled mass of statutory political offences already on the Statute Book.

That brings me to that part of the Bill which purports (and I quote from the long title) “to define and prohibit sabotage”. The dictionary meaning of the word “define” is “to state the precise nature of the thing or the precise meaning of the word”. This clause, of course, does neither. It prescribes what is called an offence of sabotage in the vaguest possible terms. Not only does it open the door to delators—that is to those persons who, to suit their own ends, give information to the Government in secret—but it places even the most law-abiding citizen in jeopardy. I say that firstly because it contains this mass of verbiage which completely befogs the interpretation of the clause and leaves the ordinary man quite helpless.

To work one’s way through, I am almost tempted to say to hack one’s way through this forest of words calls for more than a team of lawyers. It also calls for a team of lumberjacks as far as I can see. [Interjections.] I think we will need both teams to reach what is a correct interpretation. Even the hon. the Minister has failed in his interpretation of this clause. I say that even a simple trespass on to someone’s land can involve the unwitting trespasser in a charge of sabotage. I use this example purposely because the Minister laid great stress on the words “wrongful and wilful” in Clause 21. In fact, he waxed almost dramatic in the way he described how a person, before he came to the court, would have evidence so clear and so strong against him as to leave the impression that the fellow would even be found guilty before he got into court. For that reason the Minister considered sub-clause (2) to be a beneficial concession to the accused. But I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that his own interpretation is correct. The crime in Clause 21 falls roughly under three heads. The first is any person who commits any wrongful or wilful act whereby he injures, damages, etc., any of the various things which are enumerated in the first part of the clause. The second is any person who is associated with such an act, and I concede it must be done wrongfully and wilfully, either by aiding or conspiring or abetting, etc. The third head under which a person can be convicted is this: Any person who, in contravention of any law, possesses any explosives, firearms or weapons, or enters upon or is on any land…. In other words “wilful” does not qualify any such contravention at all. The wrongful aspect is no more than a contravention of a statutory provision, and wilfulness has nothing to do with that last part of the offence of sabotage. That is why I purposely used the instance I have mentioned, that even to trespass on someone’s land can involve the unwitting trespasser in a charge of sabotage. I know it will not happen, but one uses the example to test the law. I have used it hear to test the Minister’s interpretation and I hope he will look at it, because if I am wrong he knows I will concede it. But I think Homer himself has nodded there.

You have the same in the Official Secrets Act.

I am not concerned with the Official Secrets Act; I am concerned with a bit of drastic legislation which is being put through this House and which I must criticize. I am not going to justify it on any other ground than that it is justified for the reasons the hon. the Minister himself advanced in the House.

In both cases the principle is the same.

The Minister even waxed dramatic about this word “wilful”, but “wilful” has no part at all in the last provision of this clause. That is the only reading I can give to this clause as it now stands. I know the answer will come that it will not happen. But that is not good enough. It must not happen, but it would by monstrous if it could remotely happen because of the kind of legislation passed by this House. I am reminded that it is said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance on the part of the lawmaker. It seems to me this is a case where vigilance is very necessary. The other point which was made was that the Attorney-General would never prosecute in such circumstances. That I think is an invasion by the lawmaker into the domain of the courts, because it seems to me quite tragic that the Minister should try to make a virtue of the Attorney-General doing his duty. I have trust in that officer and I know he will do his duty. He will be concerned here with a capital charge, and it matters not whether the law provides that he shall himself deal with the matter or not, he knows his duty. But do not let us make a virtue of his duty and say that because he will do his duty we can frame the legislation in this clumsy way. I say the law-maker is invading the domain of the courts, since the courts are the guardians of the law.

If the principle is so unsound, why did you not raise it under the Official Secrets Act?

Two wrongs do not make a right. Perhaps I was wrong, but that does not justify my not raising it now. If that is the case under the Official Secrets Act, does it put this position right? Of course it does not. That is a fatuous argument to use.

You only object to a principle when it does not suit you.

It does not suit me at all. I raised the matter because the principles of justice are concerned.

Why did you not raise it under the Official Secrets Act? You were in Parliament at the time.

You did not bring it to our notice, and may I ask why you did not do that? Why did you not stress the importance of this?

What happened to the eternal vigilance?

It failed, but it failed on that side of the House as much as or more than on this side. Two wrongs do not make a right. The other aspect where this is also an invasion by the law-maker into the domain of the court is the provision which deals with juveniles. It invades the domain of the courts in this way, that it has always been a principle of our law that the courts have special duties in regard to minors. Now I would not have brought the discussions the Minister has had with the Bar Council into this debate except for the fact that the Minister himself mentioned it, but I hope the Minister will tell the House the nature of the representations made to him, and the nature of the concessions he agreed to consider. The Bar Council would naturally have dealt with this purely from the legal aspect and not from the political aspect.

I appreciate the fact that they approached it in that manner.

Yes this is a matter where I say there is an invasion of the domain of the court, and an invasion of their domain as well, because the legal profession, too, are the guardians of the law and the custodians of the principles of justice. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to their representations. And I am reminded of this, that on two occasions in the past this Minister, on reconsideration, has let his sense of justice prevail. He did that in regard to the Children’s Bill about two years ago, and also in regard to another Bill. When I speak to the Minister in this way, I speak to him not merely as man to man, but as one who has the interests of the administration of justice at heart as much as he has. I therefore ask him to reconsider both these provisions, the provision in regard to preparatory examinations, which places an unnecessary and onerous burden on the official … [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) began with the statement that the existing laws are adequate to combat Communism, but then he immediately went further to mention the instance of the treason trial which, as he put it, was a failure, and according to him was a failure because a proper case had not been made out. But by that he really only underlined that that very trial again proved and emphasized that our laws are not adapted in these modern times to the methods devised by Communism in order to achieve its objects. We find that admission also from none other than the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) when he wrote—

I read that in the Cape Times of Monday, the 14th. No less a person than he has admitted that we are dealing with new developments and new methods of a world movement for which new measures have to be taken to combat it effectively. That is why I should like to say this to the Opposition, that they have given me the impression and convinced me that they have convinced themselves fully that they have made out a good case, that they virtually congratulate one another with their sound arguments. But I wish to say to them that the electorate outside, the people of South Africa, will not permit themselves to be misled by the smokescreen of juridical arguments and all kinds of trivialities we have had here. The people outside make a very simple summary of this discussion that is going on here, and that is that the Assembly is now discussing a law to combat Communism and that the United Party and the entire Opposition are acting as opponents of that law, in other words, are acting as the champions and mouthpieces of Communism. That is the conclusion of the man in the street from the discussions here, and history has taught us that the man in the street has a very sound judgment, and in the long run it will appear that his sound judgment was correct in this matter too. I can say that even hon. members opposite are oppressed by the realization that they have sided with Communism, for the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) has already asked: Why are you shooting at us? He pointedly asked: Does the Minister have us in mind, to apply the law to us? Well, I must say the hon. member has gone to sleep now fortunately, but he did not really give us the impression that he was quite compos mentis. But in his irresponsible rambling he did say that, and thereby he intimated that they are feeling that they now are so near to those people that they really are afraid that the law may also be applied to them. That is the impression this discussion leaves, and when the newspapers have stopped writing and the processions have come to a halt, this impression will continue, that the Assembly in the Republic of South Africa dwelt for a week on a law that was aimed at putting into operation more drastic measures to combat Communism, and the United Party opposed those measures. As always in the past, they were the people who were on the wrong side at every positive step, every step forward on the road of South Africa, on every occasion when determined and forceful action had to be taken against the enemy of South Africa. We have established a Republic in South Africa, and what lives in our thoughts and in the thoughts and the memories of the electorate, is that the United Party opposed that loftiest milestone in the history of South Africa, and I think hon. members opposite have already bitterly regretted that their party, under the leadership of their leader, ever decided to adopt that point of view. We have come to another very important Government measure, namely the measure that gives independence and freedom and eventual self-government to the Transkei, and those hon. members again told the world that they are not going to accord to the Bantu of the Transkei that right to govern themselves. think they were sorry afterwards, for they not only revealed themselves to the Bantu, but to the world also. And now, in our fight with the communists, in our honest attempts to combat this mighty world menace and to safeguard South Africa timeously against the forces of Communism, they are once again the most vigorous opponents of this measure. And so history will record it against them, that they have opposed and fought this measure for the cause of Communism. For what else does it amount to? The hon. member for Germiston (District) and the Leader of the Opposition stated it thus: We are opposed to Communism and sabotage. They admit it is a good law, and then they came along with all kinds of juridical arguments to divert attention from me principle of the Bill, from the essence of the Bill, and I say to them that South Africa will not forget their actions in this respect, even if we were not to remind South Africa of it again.

Much has been done during recent years in the Western world to understand the essence of Communism, its objects and modes of operations, and to take steps to combat Communism. From various sides many works appeared and reports have been brought out, and I wish to mention only a few of those things that have been written about Communism. I am thinking of Chambers’ summary of Communism and its objects. He says—

And that is exactly what Communism is. For Communism the war continues, and in this phase of world history they are continuing the war under the guise of peace. To produce another witness, there is a report that has been produced in America by the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and they have said this in connection with the work and the activities of Communism—

And that is the problem of the West, and it is the blindness of hon. members opposite, that they cannot see that Communism’s fight for world conquest continues, in spite of the fact that there is no large-scale military action. And so Communism conquered Cuba, and so Communism is to-night engaged in getting more countries in the East under its domination. That war is going on inexorably, and Communism does not intend to have itself deterred by people who are scared and faint-hearted. Indeed, this is precisely what researchers have found, that Communism can only be stopped where governments of countries have the courage to take drastic steps. Communism could never succeed in conquering Turkey, in spite of the fact that Turkey lies at the gateway to Russia. But the Turks are armed to the teeth. They have committed themselves to the struggle against Communism, at all costs and to the last drop of blood. That is why Communism is no match for Turkey. There are other parts of the world that can be conquered more easily, and that is where the governments and the leaders of the countries are asleep. We are in fact in the middle of the Third World War. Communism has arrived at the realization that it can conquer the world much more easily when the world is asleep. And it is clear that in South Africa they have also progressed a good deal, and I should like to say why that is so.

The communists have gained ground in South Africa because they have persuaded many influential people to say there is peace, and have moved many influential people to declare themselves willing to conclude an alliance with them and to say there is no serious menace. We see it in these times in the actions of a great number of church leaders in South Africa. As recently as this week, Tuesday, there was a conference of representatives of six Christian Churches in South Africa, the Roman Catholics, the Anglicans, the Congregationalists, the Methodists, the Baptists and also the Presbyterians—yes, to my regret, the Presbyterians also, for they are people who have always shown a sense of reality. Those people passed a resolution in regard to this Sabotage Bill and they condemn it because that Bill “contains an implied principle that evil should be overcome by evil”. That is their serious objection. They cannot approve this Bill, for we are vanquishing evil with evil. Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing I have always been surprised at, then it is the inconsistency of these English ecclesiasts. It is a fine idea they are stating, that a person should not try to conquer evil with evil. The Bible’s idea is that you should conquer evil with good. I am prepared to agree with them that you should not conquer evil with evil, but I ask myself where were those people and where were their protests in the days when Britain and South Africa were allies to conquer Nazism? Where were their protests at that time, and where were their principles at that time? No, there was nothing then. When you embrace Communism to fight Nazism, you do not hold conferences. Then it is a different matter. But when the Government of the Republic of South Africa takes action against communists with a fairly drastic Bill, and strong measures against sabotage, they say no, now the matter is serious, for they are fighting evil with evil and that is un-Christian. One may ask the question: Where were those people’s protests in Rhodesia, where all their churches were represented, when Rhodesia passed a sabotage Act which is more drastic than this one?

It has been shown that it is not so.

It has not been mentioned here and no proof has been adduced that it is not so. It has been shown only that those measures are more drastic than the one before us now. Sir, recently there was sabotage in South Africa, and if we were to give them a chance, there will be more. The fact I wish to stress is the tremendous inconsistency of people who expect us to look to them and that South Africa should accept their guidance. But we cannot accept their guidance for their basic premise is wrong. For there are other principles they disregard without more ado. There is the principle that the sword has been given to the authorities, and that it is their task and duty to maintain order and peace in a country. That is a Biblical principle too, that it is the responsibility of the State to see to it that the person and the property of the citizen and the country are protected. What becomes of that principle if we give the communists in our country carte blanche to simply take all possible means to overthrow the existing order and destroy that which has been built up and achieved through the years, and even to destroy the basic things, religion and the cultural possessions of the nation, and to lead and to bind to slavery? When one looks at the actions of these English church leaders, you are not surprised that somebody has to rise in the House and express his disappointment that some of those people are representatives of his church. But I am convinced that those people may represent themselves, but certainly not all the members of the churches on whose behalf they are trying to speak.

Then we wish to say to those ecclesiasts who are so quick to talk when South Africa is concerned, and when it comes to action by the Government, which is a National Government, that we know them from our history, and that they really are ecclesiasts that are being driven by a political motive and not by religious motives. They take the lead in an anti-Government demonstration because it is a National Government, and they are trying to justify their actions with so-called Biblical principles. That is why we reject that pious exhibition as that of people who wish to engage in politics under the guise of religion, as has been done so frequently in our history.

Such as van der Kemp and Phillips.

I say Communism has made much progress in South Africa because they were able to succeed in using responsible people, Christians, as henchmen to do their dirty work—Christians who are paving the way for Communism that eventually ousts and destroys Christianity. [Interjections.] Yes, I know it hurts, and that is why the hon. member wants to stifle it by saying it is nonsense, but judging from what we have heard there are many people over there who are incapable of distinguishing between sense and nonsense.

I have said that Communism has not only succeeded in tricking certain Chritian leaders into joining their campaign and into using them to pave the way for them, but they have also harnessed responsible politicians in South Africa to serve and defend their cause. It has been asked from that side why the Government tries to combat Communism with negative measures only. But that is not so. If we look back over the past years, and note the enormous housing programme that has been carried out for our less-privileged people, non-White as well as White, was it not a positive measure to clean up the slum areas, the breeding grounds of Communism? Has a tremendous lot not been achieved in this respect? Is it not a person such as Mr. Carpio, the representative of UNO, who said that: Why are thousands of such houses not being built in a city such as New York? Let hon. members opposite get up and tell us that was a negative measure. It is a positive act of faith and evidence of the Christian attitude to life of the Whites in South Africa, and that includes hon. members opposite, that we are granting those people more than just the slum, the pondokkies and the tin huts, and that we provide them with proper housing which creates better living room and better domestic conditions, where there may be happiness and peace and rest for them also. There is another positive step the Government has already taken. I am thinking of the development of the Bantu homelands and the self-government for the Transkei. Is that not a brilliant, positive step? Hon. members opposite want to suggest that we are scared of Black nationalism. We have never been afraid of nationalism, for we ourselves are Nationalist, and we are no more scared of Bantu nationalism than of our own nationalism. [Interjections.] When I look at those hon. members, I may ask them: Where has your SAP-ism led you, for see what you look like, and look where you are standing to-day, on the side of the communist as his champion.

Shame!

I am not saying the hon. members are communists but their whole argument is in favour of the protection of Communism. The Government must not take these measures. What does it all amount to? They can ask that of any man outside. They can ask the little newspaper vendor outside and he will tell them. It is the inference he will draw. [Interjections.] There is only one conclusion one can draw, and that is the correct one, and hon. members opposite will not be able to free themselves of that. But I say the Government has taken positive steps to combat Communism in South Africa and prevent it, and I am convinced that as the Bantu homelands develop, and as self-government in the Transkei and in other Bantu homelands develops, Communism will fade among the Bantu, for it is a positive measure that will definitely exterminate Communism. This Bill is another measure. It is a drastic measure, but experience has taught us that you cannot tackle Communism with velvet gloves. Communism is fighting a fierce battle with no other morality than the morality of war, and they will use every weapon. They will use good, well-meaning Christians as agents and henchmen to further their cause. They will use Bantu nationalists if they can. They will harness all possible aggrieved people to further their cause, until they are in a position to take over the Government, and then they will govern South Africa according to the pattern of Communism. This is the point I should like to make to the House, that the communists have progressed far in South Africa, in the sense that they have taken so many responsible and even Christian leaders with them and persuaded them to act as champions for them, although it may be indirectly, and that they can even harness the United Party, for they do not have a parliamentary representative: but they have succeeded in binding the United Party as it were hands and feet to serve their cause.

Then we are guilty under this Act.

The hon. member should search his own heart, and if he has a clear conscience he need not have any sense of guilt. Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has reminded me very much of a certain Jewish Crown Prince in these days. That Crown Prince had to face certain proposals to reform taxation on the occasion of his succession to the throne. When the matter came before him, he first consulted his elders and they spoke very nicely to him and said to him: “Look, the matter is serious and you have to be very careful what you do.” He did not feel quite satisfied because he was desirous of doing something great. So he went to consult his young people, his friends. He asked them: “What do you say I should do?” Their advice to him was this: If you wish to make a name for yourself, you have to hit hard, you must climb in, you must not flinch, you must not have yourself intimidated by the elders; show that you are a man.” He then showed that he was a man and the next day ten of the 12 parts of his kingdom deserted him. It seems to me that is how it is with the United Party now; this is how it has gone with them during the past week. They consulted the elders, and the advice of the elders was: “Careful, please”. The young men were then consulted and they said: “Climb in; act now”. I am afraid the consequences for the crown prince of the United Party will be as disastrous as that for the Crown Prince of Israel. He will lose ten of the 12 parts of his kingdom. We do not know how many of those parts will go to the Progressives, but I think a considerable part will come to the National Party.

There is another question I should like to ask hon. members opposite, and that is: What do you think is the reaction of industrialists in South Africa in relation to this attitude of the United Party? Here I am thinking of people who are members of the United Party, people who risked their money to support the United Party, people who invested millions of pounds in South Africa in factories and all kinds of industries, people who can lose everything by sabotage and violence from militant Communism.

On a point of order, how can an hon. member who is fast asleep combat Communism?

The question to me is what is the judgment of those people who have invested their money and possesions in South Africa, in its factories and in its industries; what is their judgment on the action of the United Party? I think they will draw only one inference and that is: Thank the Lord the United Party is not the Government of the day, and that there is very little hope that they will ever again come into power.

If ever a case was made for opposing this Bill, it was made by the hon. member who has just spoken. His unwarranted and unbridled attack on the English-speaking churches does him no credit. When one has regard to his previous occupation I think he should be ashamed of himself. How does he expect we are ever going to get peace in this country if that kind of language is used?

What kind of language are they using?

I take it that the Minister is thoroughly satisfied with the innuendos and the remarks made by the hon. member.

I endorse every word he said.

Against the English-speaking churches?

Not against the English-speaking churches. Do not generalize.

The Minister said that he endorsed every word the hon. member has said against the English-speaking churches, and that is a disgraceful support.

The exceptional cases. Do not generalize.

Sir, the hon. member over there who has been called to order so often is an exceptional case for a Senior Whip. I think everyone will agree that it is the duty of the Government to keep order, and when order seems likely to collapse extraordinary steps must be taken to preserve order. But that does not justify the enactment of legislation which treats the ordinary every-day life as one unending crisis. That is the position that we are expected to accept here, that every day is one of unending crises. If the situation is so grave that this harsh legislation is necessary, then we are living in a state of perpetual crisis. The hon. member who has just spoken has condemned the English-speaking churches and has said specifically that they are influenced by the communists. That is a shocking allegation to make.

The communists are proud of them and of you as well.

If that is the view of the Minister, then let us look at the powers that we are giving the Minister in Clause 1 of the Bill. In Clause 1 a “gathering” means any gathering, concourse or procession, and it includes a gathering of people, whether they have a common purpose or not, and under that clause the Minister has full power to ban any church service if a person whom he has banned as a communist attends that church service. The attack of the hon. member who has just sat down on the English-speaking churches gives full weight to the anxiety of the English-speaking churches in this country who are perturbed lest the steps taken against the communists will be taken against all those who do not think as the Government does. That attitude has been evidenced by speaker after speaker in the course of this debate. Speaker after speaker has suggested that anyone who does not support the Nationalist Party is a communist or communist-inspired or communist-inclined. That is the implication of the interjection made by the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) just now. He has left the Chamber now but he made that interjection. When irresponsible statements are made by irresponsible members on the Government side and those statements are not repudiated by the responsible Minister, can one be surprised at the anxiety of the responsible church bodies, who are wondering when their turn is going to come next?

You will get a full reply from the Minister, and you will get a good beating too.

We have not heard his full reply; we heard a very inadequate introductory speech which skated over many clauses of the Bill.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, one can always tell when an attack on this Government is having some effect because one gets continual interruptions from the Chief Whip. My criticism must be effective because we are having a running commentary from him. In a moment I suppose the hon. member will be jumping up on a point of order, taking exception to something that is being said.

Parliament is still functioning.

Yes, Parliament is still functioning because all the Government wants is a facade of Parliament. They do not want Parliament to function in a proper democratic spirit; they just want a facade of Parliament; they just want an Opposition that will put up no more than a token resistance. They do not want any criticism of this Bill, and as soon as any criticism gets to the roots of the matter then the Chief Whip either jumps up or we have references to saboteurs, communists and so on.

You are too touchy for a Senior Whip.

Have you got a guilty conscience?

Sir, I do not intend to reply to that interjection. I have not seen any evidence of conscience on the part of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) since I have been in this House.

You have a guilty conscience.

One of the difficult parts of this measure as far as administration is concerned, deals with the way in which a person can be sentenced to a minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. A notice may appear in the Gazette with regard to the banning of a certain book. As hon. members know, the circulation of the Gazette is very small indeed. A book may be banned and a notice to that effect may appear in the Gazette; the accused person is not aware of the fact that that book has been banned, and yet he can be sent to gaol. The other day a question was put to the Minister of the Interior asking how many copies of the weekly Government Gazette and each weekly Government Gazette Extraordinary were printed and approximately what percentage of copies were distributed. The reply was that the number of copies printed weekly in the case of the Government Gazette was 13,000 and 15,600 in the case of the Government Gazette Extraordinary. When one considers the population of this country, one realizes the small circulation of the Government Gazette. Many innocent people may be caught under this Act for distributing a book which has been banned without their knowledge because they have not seen the Gazette. This measure makes life hard for booksellers and publishers. If they unwittingly publish a book which contains an extract from a speech made 20 years ago by a banned person they commit an offence. A person quoting a speech made 20 years ago may commit an offence under this measure. Sir, that has nothing to do with politics; it has nothing to do with sabotage. A member may quote in this House, with the approval of the Speaker, from a banned book, but if that same member later on quotes from Hansard a reference to a banned book, he could make himself guilty of an offence under this measure.

He would be guilty of propagating Communism.

I think it is high time that responsible members on the Government side paid serious attention to our opposition to this Bill. The powers provided for in this measure are far too wide to be given to any Government or to any Minister. How can we expect every publisher to follow every Gazette and to examine every list of banned books to make sure that books published by him will not contain any quotation from a book which has been banned? I submit that that is wholly unreasonable and wholly undesirable. Sir, we have heard accusations from the other side of the House that the United Party is supporting the communists in opposing this Bill. To make such an accusation is to trifle with the sincerity and with the integrity of members on this side of the House. Under this Bill, if you are banned under Clause 2, you cannot make representations to be taken off the list. The recipient of a notice under Clause 4, which inserts a new Section 5 ter, cannot apply to the Minister to be taken off the list. As I say, this measure provides for powers which are far too wide and it is quite unjust …

You are hopeless.

Sir, one expects insults, one expects abuse, one expects any kind of conduct in this House. The hon. the Chief Whip of the Government Party has told us that Parliament is still functioning, that this is still a democracy. Sir, if insults can be hurled across the floor of the House, if we have the kind of behaviour that we have seen in the course of this debate …

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say that? That is a reflection on the Chair.

The hon. member may proceed.

The dignity of Parliament depends on the behaviour of every individual member, and I say that for all sides of the House. When personal insults are thrown across the floor of this House in the course of a debate which is taking place under pressure over a long period, and when one is faced with a running commentary when one tries to state one’s case, it is clear evidence that the members making the commentary have no respect whatsoever for the Chair.

This is like a Sunday School in comparison with other debates that we have had here.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) talked about Sunday Schools; it is a long time since he knew anything about Sunday School, and he has fallen from grace a great deal since those days. Under Clause 4 the Minister may prohibit persons from becoming office-bearers or members of perfectly innocent organizations. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quite rightly referred to this Bill as Civil Death. A person may be banned from any organization; he may be sentenced virtually to a living death. He can be confined to his house and deprived of the right to join any organization and of the right to be an office-bearer in any organization.

What has that to do with this Bill?

If the hon. member, instead of making a stupid interjection like that, were to read the relevant clause he would find out that that is exactly what the Bill provides for. That is provided for in Clause 2.

Please tell us about the purpose of that organization; that is what you are omitting.

Clause 2 (b) provides for the insertion of the following paragraph—

(e) that any organization carries on or has been established for the purpose of carrying on directly or indirectly any of the activities Of an unlawful organization.

“Unlawful.”

Yes, but the point is that he may be prohibited from joining any organization. People who are office-bearers of such an organization can be prohibited from becoming office-bearers of any organization whatsoever, even office-bearers of lawful organizations.

No.

They can be banned. I believe the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché) is putting the Chief Whip right now.

If he is a communist

It is no good the Chief Whip trying to get out of the difficulty in that way. He makes an interjection and he is proved wrong; he is then put right by the hon. member for Smithfield and then he tries to clear himself by making further interjections. When we come to Clause 5 we find that the Minister has the right to discriminate in favour of a journal which favours the Government and against a journal which opposes the Government by requiring the latter to make a deposit. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the Minister may even ban existing papers, but new newspapers are liable to this deposit or this fine. Sir, when one has regard to the interest of Government members and to the interest of members of the Cabinet in newspapers, is it surprising that people outside are perturbed, because any paper which does not support the Government’s point of view may be banned. It is quite clear from interjections that we have heard in this debate that anyone who opposes the Nationalist Party is an enemy, that anyone who opposes this Bill is a communist or a protector of communists. That has been said time after time in the course of this debate. It has been made abundantly clear by way of interjections and in the course of speeches in this debate that the attitude of the Government side is that anyone who speaks against this Bill is a protector of communists.

You are talking a lot of rubbish.

It was indicated by the hon. member for Karas and by the previous speaker that anyone who opposes this Bill is a protector of communists. Newspapers can be suppressed by the Government on the ground that they do not support the Government. Those are the powers which are given under this Bill.

Communistic newspapers.

The Chief Whip of the Government Party has not read the Bill.

We will come to the Committee Stage.

Yes, I hope the hon. member will take part in the debate in the Committee Stage. It is quite clear that the Minister has the power to ban any newspaper which he in his discretion thinks should be banned. The Chief Whip suggests that it must have something to do with communists. That is not stated in the Bill.

Of course it is.

No, the Minister can ban any paper which he wishes to ban, and he need not give any reason whatsoever. His decision and his decision only is final.

You are misrepresenting the position. I will put you right in the Committee Stage.

No, I have not misrepresented the position at any stage.

I think you are deliberately misrepresenting the position.

On a point of order, is the hon. the Minister entitled to say that the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) is deliberately mispresenting—after that Minister’s record?

He is quite entitled to say so.

Order! Did the hon. the Minister say that the hon. member was deliberately misrepresenting the position?

Yes, I did say so in view of what is stated in the clause.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, but it is stated in the Bill.

In fairness, why does the hon. member not quote the whole of the clause?

If what the Minister has just said is evidence of how he subscribes to the rules of Parliament, then I shudder to think how he will subscribe to the rules under this Bill.

I still say it is in the Bill.

Sir, I will wait for the Minister to convince us in the Committee Stage that he has not got the power to ban any newspaper if in his opinion the paper should be banned.

Why do you not read Clause 4?

He has not got the courage.

It is quite clear to me that this Bill … [Interjection.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to proceed with his speech.

But we cannot hear him.

He has the wrong notes.

Clause 7 of the Bill gives the Minister power …

No, read Clause 4.

… to prohibit gatherings or types or classes of gatherings if he is satisfied that the activities of one person or one organization are furthering or may further the objects of Communism. As it stands, under this clause, the Minister can prohibit any gathering at all because he is already satisfied that there is a person in the Republic whom he thinks is promoting the object of Communism. It depends entirely on the Minister’s opinion. What we are concerned about in this Bill is that the courts are excluded under most of the provisions of this Bill and where the courts are excluded it is for the Minister to express his opinion and there is no appeal against that opinion. This Bill virtually gives dictatorial powers to the Minister; it virtually gives him life and death powers, and we are completely justified therefore in opposing this Bill. There is no protection in the courts against the decision of the Minister. The Minister is all-powerful in this matter. Our objections are not based solely upon the provisions of the Bill as such but what is behind the provisions of this Bill, namely that the Minister virtually has despotic powers. This Minister has despotic powers. He and he alone can decide. Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, we are not prepared to support this Bill. We are not prepared to give this Minister unbridled powers, not only this Minister personally, but any Minister on the Government side, and for that matter I would not give any Minister in any Parliament powers as far-reaching as these, as extensive as these. It is totally unsound to give to any Minister virtually the power of life and death over individuals, without reference to the courts, powers to ban meetings, powers to prohibit the publication of papers, powers to close down newspapers, powers to fix arbitrarily what those newspapers shall pay and where to deposit those amounts, having regard to the interests which members of the Cabinet have in the newspaper world, powers to ban gatherings of all sorts, communist and non-communist gatherings, powers to define persons, no matter what their associations, as persons have communist leanings, powers to ban church meetings and church gatherings, powers to take little children of 14 and 15 years of age and treat them the same as adults. Any Bill which goes as far as that and gives such wide and arbitrary powers to a Minister is of such a nature that it can only be repudiated by all responsible citizens in this country.

I have seldom heard anything represented in a more distorted way than this morning. The hon. member deliberately tried to represent that there were things in this Bill which are not there.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir, and I say that the hon. member stupidly represented things in the wrong light. Just imagine, Sir, he tells us that this Bill gives the Minister the right to decide on life and death, this Bill gives the Minister the right to ban churches, to ban school gatherings, to ban all gatherings.

It is true.

These two members in front of me shout “It is true”. That is the kind of story which they want to spread in the world outside and which they want to spread on the platteland. Why was the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) scared to read Clause 4 when we asked him to do so? Here it says clearly—

Read Clause 7.

Order! The hon. members for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) and Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) have on several occasions deliberately hindered speakers and they are continually making interjections. I am warning them finally.

Where the Minister can indeed take action is, in the first place in the case of persons who appear on the list and, in the second place, in the case of persons and officials of an organization which has already been declared an unlawful organization. The hon. member conveniently forgets to tell us that so that they will have fresh propaganda to spread in the world outside. They will say “This Minister wishes to act like a dictator and a despot in South Africa”. I deprecate the fact that they distort and misrepresent the position.

Read Clause 7.

I repeat that such action is reprehensible. Secondly, the hon. member knows that it is not the Minister who will impose the sentence. The courts are specifically recognized. The courts alone decide what the penalty will be, not the Minister. But the way in which the hon. member for Pinetown represented the position you would think that the Minister had the right to decide on life or death simply by decree. The hon. member says that Parliament is no longer a Parliament when members hurl personal insults about. Where was the hon. member when the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) made himself guilty last night of indulging in the worst form of personal insults and personal untruths imaginable in this Parliament? No, the hon. member should not put up that defence. The hon. member for Pinetown says in this House that the Minister can ban any organization, but he omits to refer to the crucial point in this clause. He conveniently omits to mention the motive of that organization, the reason why that organization has been established, namely, that the organization has been established with the object of acting illegally. I maintain that the communists use various methods and we must bear that in mind. They employ the method of organizing strikes, of sowing chaos, the method of sowing suspicion, they spread untruths in order to sow agitation and discontent. Those are the methods which the communists employ and when you ban Communism those communists and communist elements look for public agents, public agents which wittingly and unwittingly assist them, public agents which they can use in a veiled way. That is what we should guard against. Those public agents are abused. As I have said certain organizations allow themselves to be used by Communism, some knowingly and others unknowingly. I wish to give examples to show how that has already been going on in South Africa for a long time. I really wish to say that not only should we congratulate the Minister on this Bill but I want to know why these provisions were not introduced years ago in the Suppression of Communism Act? The reason is, of course, that Communism, as an ideology, is continually looking for loopholes in all the legislation in all those countries where Communism is being suppressed. Hence you have to introduce amending legislation to strangle Communism from time to time because they employ methods which have proved successful throughout the world to find loopholes. I want to say to hon. members of the Opposition that they cannot talk with us when it comes to Communism. They complain about our saying that because they do not support this legislation they want to protect Communism and sabotage. But in essence that is true. Was it not that party who said “No, you are not a communist”, when somebody got up in this House and said “I am a communist”? What right have they, therefore, to talk to us about Communism? They refuse to admit that a person is a communist even when he publicly declares himself to be one. In order to create the impression in the world outside that they were against Communism they came along and said: “If we pass a law against Communism we will hang somebody or shoot him who makes himself guilty of Communism.” But when somebody admits that he is a communist, they say to him “No, you are not a communist, continue with your agitation, continue besmirching this country, continue with your efforts to sabotage and to undermine it”. That is the crux of the matter. It is the United Party who is continually acting in that negative way. Knowing that the voters of South Africa expect Communism to be suppressed, knowing that the voters of South Africa demand it of this Parliament to maintain and to protect our democratic form of government they want to make the world outside and South Africa believe that they are opposed to Communism and sabotage. But just as they said to that person at the time: “No, you are not a communist” they are carrying on in the same way and, as was quoted only a few days ago, the Whip of the United Party said “We can no longer overthrow this Government by employing democratic means, we must negotiate it from outside in another way. There must be a shock.” That shock is the shock of sabotage, the revolutionary shock which the communists are employing throughout the world. When we passed the Suppression of Communism Act we already knew that speechs were made like the following extract which I want to quote from one of them—.

The time has arrived for the non-Whites to enter Parliament and to say to the members of the Herrenvolk “Out, scoundrels”.

That was said in 1948 by Bonar Richards on 30 March at Woodstock. Because we had that sort of agitation the Government of the day decided that it was necessary to pass legislation against Communism, but that kind of agitation went underground and those kind of agitators found public agents. I wish to give you an example, Sir. I have here an election manifesto of the Liberal Party and I wish to quote one example from it to indicate what public agents are used. There is a photograph of a person on horseback with a whip in his hand supervising a number of men cultivating the soil. Those men are Natives. Then you have the following sentence—

This article, communistically inspired, is sent into the world as an example of labour conditions in South Africa. This photo is similar to those taken by people like Margaret Burke White of young Native girls behind barbed wire, a barbed wire fence which was erected to safeguard them and to prevent them from running into the road and from being killed by motor-cars on the main roads, and those photos are then used as representing barbed wire camps in South Africa in order to suppress the people of South Africa. I maintain that that is a communist method of creating agitation which is still being employed in South Africa since the Suppression of Communism Act has been in operation. It is a communist method of creating agitation in order to incite the world against South Africa and to oppose us in every possible sort of way. It is Communism which is practiced in this country and used in the world outside for that purpose. I repeat that that has been happening since we have passed the Suppression of Communism Act. You see that in a newspaper like Time and others. Those are the same people who plead for freedom in South Africa, who print and publish whatever they want to and then the United Party puts up this pious fight and protects that sort of action. In this fight which they are putting up this party wants to make it possible for all agitators in South Africa and in the world outside, to continue with their communistic propaganda in the Press and to continue with this propaganda by means of Press reports and statements to the Press as those by Luthuli when he is under house arrest in a certain area. In putting up this fight that party wants to make it impossible for us to suppress Communism properly. They want all of them to use all those methods. I am justified in asking whether the United Party is not one of those public agents which are used by the communists. Here I have a notice inviting the public to come and to listen to two people. It says “Have you heard what what we have to say? whether you have heard it or not you will have the opportunity of listening to our national president, Sailor Malan, who, together with Sir de Villiers Graaff of the United Party, will address a meeting at 7.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 June.” They are coupled together and they are introduced from the same platform as two big leaders. These same people, this same Torch Commando, are again agitating. These same people have sent a circular letter into the country together with certain brochures and I want to read the circular letter of 13 May 1952—

Those are the same people who are invited to appear on the platform with Sir de Villiers Graaff, the Leader of the Opposition. I received the brochure in which the “day of protest” is announced. Let us see how Communism is coupled with that. I just want to give you a few examples, Sir. They start with the following—

That was 11 years ago.

I continue—

The hon. member says that was 11 years ago. That was why I said at the beginning of my speech that had we known 11 years ago what methods the communists used we would immediately have incorporated all these clauses in the Suppression of Communism Act so as to prevent Communism, after it had been suppressed, from suddenly using public agents in a veiled manner.

May I ask the hon. member a question? If we had all that difficulty 11 years ago, why did the hon. Minister wait such a long time before introducing these amendments?

We have waited for such a long period because you do not come forward with entire legislation when the first loopholes are discovered. Let us honestly admit that this is a drastic Bill. Your legislation is drastic only to the extent that the agitation piles up and increases. What did these people want to do? I am again quoting—

In other words, South Africa as a whole, Coloureds, Indians and Bantu, together with the Torch Commando and together with the United Party are called upon to break and to ignore the laws. The first method employed by Communism is to ignore laws, to represent laws which Parliament has passed in a democratic way, as illegal, unreasonable and unjust laws. That is not all they do. The grossest lies are spread in the course of this agitation campaign. Just listen to this—

Hear, hear!

The hon. member who shouts “hear, hear” to express his approval, passed those laws with us, didn’t he, or his party passed various of those laws together with us. These pamphlets were sent to White and non-White in South Africa and a number of laws referred to were made even before the National Party came into power, without those Asiatics and those Bantu having had a say in this Parliament.

If that is not sabotage, I do not know what is.

The hon. member is quite correct. The worst form of agitation which you can have in South Africa is to suggest that your own laws which you yourself have helped to place on the Statute Book are unreasonable and unjust and undemocratic. In other words, hon. members of the United Party have for 11 years been co-responsible of sabotaging the laws of South Africa by means of agitation. I think the time has arrived that a stop be put to that. Let me give an example. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) is not here at the moment, but I give this example—

The Bantu regard cattle as their wealth and here they are being told that their wealth is being stolen from them in South Africa. If that is not sabotaging human relations, if that is not sabotaging discipline, if that is not sabotaging the respect which the Bantu have always had for the honesty of the White man, if that is not sabotaging the soil conservation methods which are applied, then I do not know what sabotage is.

I said at the beginning of my speech that Communism not only indulged in agitation but in lies as well. Listen to this, Sir—

A pamphlet is sent round the country and distributed among 9,000,000 Bantu and in it they are told that these laws are only directed against them and not against the White. Is there one law in South Africa which differentiates between White and non-White when action is taken under it? There is not such a law. The law dealing with theft, the law dealing with murder, the law dealing with rape, the law dealing with assault, all those laws are applied irrespective of the colour of the person. They are applicable to everyone in our country. But in causing this agitation the United Party together with their allies find it convenient to try to make them believe that these laws are not for the White man, that the White man can do just as he pleased, in order to sow this seething, smouldering dissatisfaction. They are only for the Bantu. That is sabotage of human relations in its worst form.

I can go on giving one example after the other. I repeat that Sailor Malan and Sir de Villiers Graaff were invited together to address the meeting; and it was the Torch Commando who recommended this D-day. In this same pamphlet they say this—

I repeat that after the Suppression of Communism Act had been passed. Communism, in keeping with its clever world-wide practice, surreptitiously looked for public agents to continue to sow chaos, to continue to propagate their ideology; Communism is founded on the principle of overthrowing governments by way of revolution, and if ever there has been a veiled attempt to overthrow South African democracy and the South African Government in a revolutionary way, it is this sort of propaganda, these sort of reprehensible lies which are spread throughout the country. This same organization distributed a second pamphlet called “Action Stations I want you to note how subtly this pamphlet is worded, Sir. The following is the sort of thing which will be prohibited under this Bill—

Then they say this—

The United Democratic Front brought those three together. What does the United Democratic Front ask these three to do? And the United Party are guilty of having done that. It asks this—

The Democratic Front brought this piebald crowd together in order to overthrow this Government and in which way, Sir? Listen to the way. This is the sort of pamphlet which hon. members wish to be continued to be spread in South Africa. They say this—

We are represented as fascists and how?—

What do they say further?—

How must they do that?—

They are calling upon South Africa to strike in order to paralyse this country completely. We have seen from the history of this country that the Sharpevilles and the Langas are born from such propaganda encouraging strikes, from those propaganda methods. That propaganda to encourage strikes which the United Party is spreading under the wing of the Democratic United Front has led to murder and death. From that propaganda which encourages strikes the bombs are born which are thrown into city halls and other places. I repeat that if the United Party does not know it, the time has arrived for them to wake up. They should realize that they are one of the public agents which Communism is using in South Africa. This whole fight which they are putting up against this Bill definitely proves that they are one of those public agents. A few moments ago the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) said that if this Bill were passed it would no longer be possible to distribute this type of pamphlet in the country, it would no longer be possible to quote it. Do hon. members of the Opposition still wish this sort of propaganda, this kind of untruths and this type of lies to be sent out into the country under their veiled protection, veiled under their wing? That is what those hon. members are doing. It cannot be refuted that the United Party is coupled to that Democratic Front. It cannot be refuted that the United Party is guilty of it that they are protecting that kind of agitation. They dare not say that they are not responsible for Sharpeville; they dare not say that they are not responsible for Langa. If you listen to the kind of hysterical speech which we had from the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) who said “We will march if we lose the referendum” I ask once again: Is this not agitation which can develop into ordinary sabotage?

On a point of order, I wonder whether the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) is entitled to suggest that the United Party is responsible for Langa.

Here it says it very clearly. Langa is the result of this propaganda which has been spread in South Africa with the blessings of the United Party. Langa and Sharpeville are the results of the propaganda which has been spread by the front into which the United Party has been drawn. I have proved chapter and verse how the United Party because of the propaganda material which they used at the last election, are forged into a firm unit to overthrow this Government. If they cannot do so on the strength of votes then in some other way. Has any member of the United Party ever risen to his feet and dissociated himself from the Democratic Front? Has any member of the United Party ever risen to his feet and dissociated himself from the irresponsibilities of the Black Sash? Oh no. One of them is sitting here because she wore the black flower here, inside this Parliament. The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). Her memory is very short. Has she forgotten how she sat here with the black rose?

It is untrue and you know it.

Is the hon. member entitled to say it is untrue and he knows it?

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I said it was untrue and he knew it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Then I say it is untrue.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “and he knows it”.

I withdraw them. Sir.

I say very definitely that the United Party is inextricably tied to all these agitators and Black Sashers and Torch Commandos—and to the Luthulis. Have hon. members forgotten how we warned the Leader of the Opposition to return because the United Party was on the point of electing Luthuli as their leader? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. member an opportunity of making his speech. I want to ask the hon. member for Wakkerstroom to moderate his language.

Mr. Speaker, I am using the most euphemistic language possible.

Hon. members have spoken about the Press. The hon. member for Pinetown said that because certain Ministers were directors of Afrikaans newspaper companies, that was reason to believe that those newspapers which did not represent the viewpoint of the Cabinet and that of the Minister would be banned under this legislation. That was what the hon. member for Pinetown said a few minutes ago. I want to ask this: Must we allow such articles as we find in the Natal Mercury to appear in the press? Listen to what they say—

Here you find a leading article in the Natal Mercury in which they say that the Parliament has violated the machinery of Parliament, that there is no longer such a thing as democracy.

Not this Parliament, the Government.

Parliament, of course—

Had the extremists been clever enough the whole of Parliament would have joined them in doing that. The entire world is being told in a leading article in the Natal Mercury that democracy is dead in South Africa. The extremists were clever enough to take the entire Parliament in tow and to convert this democratic Parliament into a dictatorship. [Time limit.]

There has been one thought running through my mind the whole night: That it takes all sorts to make a world. For example, it takes the sort of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) who has spent 40 valuable minutes denigrating the official Opposition in this House of Assembly of the Republic of South Africa. That is one sort of human being that we have. He has been aided and abetted by unceasing and incessant attacks by fellow-citizens of the Republic of South Africa. On the other hand, another citizen of another Republic, the Republic of the United States of America, has been in orbit round the earth and has probably already successfully completed a very important mission, which may be of great service to humanity. There you have the difference between heaven and earth. I would like the hon. member for Wakkerstroom to ponder this—that it may be possible—although barely possible?—that a gentleman by the name of Malcolm Scott Carpenter has yesterday rendered a greater service to humanity than the hon. member for Wakkerstroom. It may be arguable, but I would like him to think about it. To the extent that I thought I could reply to his speech, I intended to take notes. And quite honestly, Sir, I sat here with my pencil poised, but I failed to take a single note—although I am perfectly wide awake; because what he said—and I say this without any reflection on the Chair—has been said literally ad nauseam in my hearing. The reply has been given over and over again to the allegation that the United Party consists of a bunch of communists. The only thing that still has to be done forthrightly, without any reservation, is to point a finger straight at every individual member here and to say “You are a communist” or “You are not a communist Except for that, Sir, everything has been thrown at us, by everyone, from the Minister downwards or upwards, depending on how you want to move. If that is true, if we are all a lot of communists, then I think the assurance which we have given in the past …

May I ask you a question?

You may, I have a lot of time.

I should like to ask the hon. member this: He says from the Minister downwards everything that he been said on this side of the House has been degrading, etc. How does he compare that with what has been said by his side of the House? Are they a lot of angels on that side?

I did not say that, Sir. I will answer that question. I will be very fair. We on this side may have made allegations against the Government and the Nationalist Party, but we have not even hinted at the fact that any member on that side is a communist. But you have spent four days on it, just stopping short of the straightforward allegation “You are a communist”. If we resent it, you must forgive us.

May I ask a question?

No, you may not. I am sorry, Sir, I should have welcomed you, but I did not know you had arrived. Now, Sir, there is in this rather difficult situation one very faint ray of hope, as I see it. I may have misconstrued the position completely, but I found that ray of hope in the original statement which the hon. Minister made when he introduced the second reading of this Bill. The statement which I regard as the ray of hope came when he said this: “This Bill is not a panic measure; it is a reasoned, cool and calculated measure which I would have preferred not to introduce.” I stress “which I would have preferred not to introduce”, and therefore, I think that somewhere deep down in the Minister’s conscience there is a certain reluctance about this very Bill which he had to introduce, unless he said that with his tongue in his cheek. But if he said it in all seriousness—and he appeared to be serious—then there is just the outside chance that the Minister says in effect, “If I could see another approach to this problem, another way of settling this issue, of eliminating this difficulty, I would have preferred to take it”. He may still be of that opinion, Sir. Therefore I take the liberty—and I say this with very great deference—to show him that there is in fact another way, another course which has been chartered for him by very important and eminent people in the public life of South Africa. To begin with I will give him one example.

Don’t quote me Centlivres.

Mr. Speaker, knowing the “affection” with which the hon. the Minister regards the former Chief Justice, I will not annoy him by quoting that gentleman. Some years ago there was a measure called the Aliens Affairs Bill introduced in this House of Assembly. It was introduced by the then Minister of Justice. I am not going to read the text of the Bill. In moving that the Bill be read a second time, the Minister at the time, said this—

The essence of the Bill was that a commission should be appointed to inquire into the merit or otherwise of deporting any aliens, not citizens of South Africa, but any aliens, after a world war which up to this day has been and is still regarded as the greatest war in the history of the world. And therefore, Sir, I think the hon. the Minister of Justice will agree that in those circumstances, that Bill pales into insignificance by comparison with a measure which he himself has admitted is drastic. Now, Sir, I want to tell him about what was said in connection with that Bill.

Was that the time you wanted to deport the Germans?

Sir, at that time I was not in Parliament. Unfortunately I was otherwise engaged. I did not want to deport anybody. The properly constituted Parliament of South Africa, of the Union, the State, wanted to do certain things. The hon. the Minister has, in effect, said over and over again—if I close my eyes I can still hear him say it—“I take as my text: ‘the safety of the State is the highest law.’” I remember that. The Minister must remember that he set the tone for the entire argument of the Government side when he said—and it was repeated almost like a parrot-cry—“the safety of the State is the highest law”. Don’t let him try to suggest that the United Party dealt with this matter in a special way. They thought at the time that the safety of the State was the highest law, and so they had to introduce a Bill.

Was that the time you deported the Germans?

I want to quote this speech and the hon. the Minister apparently does not want me to come to that. Out of respect for him, I have lent him three minutes of my time. That is all it amounts to. Now about that Bill: this is part of the speech which was made in this House—

Who said that?

I wish he was here; Dr. Dönges, an eminent man. A man who has risen very high in the public life of South Africa. I will be the first to admit that. He is a man who is a very experienced lawyer, a State Advocate.

You wanted to send them to Germany to starve.

Don’t give me that red herring. I have already stated there was a certain job of work which the State had to do, so it introduced a Bill. This particular Bill pales into insignificance in regard to its provisions when compared with the Bill which the present Minister introduced the other day. Now this was what Dr. Dönges said (Hansard, 10 June 1946, Col. 9820)—

Then there was an interjection—

The gentleman should have said “whom”, but he said “imitate who?” and then Dr. Dönges said—

He was not finished with this Bill, Sir. He made another speech in this connection which I would again like the hon. the Minister of Justice to take to heart. He said (col. 10216)—

How true those words are this morning, Sir. I could not have written a better speech myself. I never write them, but I can make a reasonably good speech. He says—

This was quoted the other day by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if I remember correctly—

And, Sir, I will add he even becomes the Mikado, if you know that particular Gilbert and Sullivan opera. There is a lot more; of course I cannot read the whole speech. [Interjections.] This is a very good speech; you must listen to this. I heard a lot worse made in this House during the course of this night. Then Dr. Dönges went on—

I do not want to digress, but we have had contemptuous references from hon. members of the Government to the rule of law. We are always complaining about the rule of law, they say; now listen to Dr. Dönges—

And guess what he says here—

There is a lot more that I could quote. But this is enough at this stage to convince the Minister of Justice that there are other ways of looking at the Bill than the way in which he looks at the Bill which he hopes will solve a certain problem which we have in South Africa. Surely if what I have said, and what others have said before me or may say after me, does not commend itself to the hon. the Minister, somebody who stands high in his regard, politically and otherwise, might have something good to say to influence his decision as to whether or not he will press this Bill to its logical conclusion. There is still time. It is no use, Sir, trying to convince anybody outside this House that, whenever anybody objects to legislation like this, he is a communist. Because, if that is true, then the hon. the Minister of Finance in his day was a communist. If it is true of us to-day—let us understand this very clearly—it was equally true of the then hon. member of the House of Assembly, now the Minister of Finance. You cannot lightly dismiss such things as the right of the individual to appeal to the courts. You cannot scorn the rule of law. I am not a lawyer. Sir; I am only a sea-lawyer. The lawyer sits over there, and he knows better than I the importance of the rule of law.

What are you pleading for?

I am pleading for this Bill to be withdrawn. If I have not made that clear enough, then surely the speech which I have quoted has made it clear enough. But apparently one member of this House is still unconvinced. I want to read this for his special benefit. This was a very long speech by Dr. Dönges; a brilliant speech, if I may take the liberty of saying so. He says this—

It is—

i.e. the Government—

Why don’t you make your own speech?

I don’t have to make a better speech than this; I would like to make as good a one—

Sir, there is a lot more which I am going to leave until I am interrupted by the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke). In the very last stage of his speech he ended with this sentence—

If I had been the member of Kensington, I would have said “and so say all of us!” There is a great deal to be said for Omar Khayyam. Many members have already quoted him in this House and they will therefore remember the lines—

The moving finger writes on the walls of Sea Point!

In the continuation of the lines quoted above, he says—

Well, all I can say is, that applies also to Hansard, because nothing can “lure back or cancel half a line” of what is written there. It may be that the moving finger is only a revolving tape, but whatever is enshrined in Hansard is there for all time. Newcomers like myself can then come here to read it, and ponder over it. I have another speech here which was delivered in connection with a fairly innocuous measure. But first of all I should like to refer to the Government Gazette of 4 February 1941 (No. 20 of 1941) subsequently referred to as the Emergency Regulations and, in fact, called the National Security Regulations. There are 54 of these regulations dealing with matters such as subversive statements and their definition; the circulation of subversive statements; unlawful associations; interference with lawful gatherings … I wonder whether the hon. the Minister modelled his clause in this Bill on this regulation. As a matter of fact, there is a suspicious similarity. These regulations further deal with “prohibition of unauthorized drilling”—and I wonder what the hon. Minister knows about unauthorized drilling! I come now to the penalties attached to an offence under these regulations. Once again I should like to ask hon. members to note the similarity and at the same time the words of difference between these provisions and those in the Bill with which we are dealing now. At any rate, the penalties attached to all those things I have mentioned were laid down in regulation No. 41 whereof paragraph (1) reads—

A magistrate’s court is empowered to impose these prescribed penalties. Penalties connected with the use of explosives were—

It will be noted that a term of imprisonment of only five years was prescribed, and that there was no mention of hanging! What is more, an explosion caused by the discharge of a firearm or by the setting off of fireworks was excluded from this regulation. I should like the hon. the Minister to take note of that, namely that in 1941, when you let off fireworks or even fired a pistol, you were not deemed to have caused an explosion. But what is going to happen under this Bill if you fire a firearm or set off fireworks in 1962?

But was there not a war on in 1941?

That hon. member is perfactly right. There was a war on, but I would not have dreamt of making mention of that because the moment I did that, hon. members opposite would have accused us of always talking about the war! Then they want to know what the subject under discussion has to do with it. Now, let me return to my Hansard record. These regulations, which were innocuous compared with the present Bill, were greeted with a great deal of indignation, and in the course of a debate of a no-confidence motion, i.e. on 5 February 1941, a certain gentleman who has risen to an important position in this land, namely the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is recorded as having said the following (Col. 2250) after there had been an outburst of “laughter

Now, is that not dreadful? One could not even say “booh”, and that during the greatest war the world has known, and in which South Africa was involved for better or for worse. Then the only penalty for an explosion under certain circumstances was a term of imprisonment for one year! But Dr. Malan even had a choicer expression about this innocuous piece of legislation. In Col. 2658 of Hansard of 6/7 February 1941, he is reported as having said—

Now I should like to ask the hon. the Minisster: Who is he prepared to listen to? I am sure he is not prepared to listen to me. I am quite certain of that. As a matter of fact, up to now he has given no indication that he is prepared to listen to anyone in this House. I should like him to tell me whether he is prepared to listen to one of the outstanding leaders this country has ever had, namely the late Dr. D. F. Malan? Is he prepared to listen to two of his colleagues, i.e. the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs? I have already quoted what these two colleagues of his have said.

No, not in your context.

Let us then go back to 1939, and see what another important leader of the Nationalist Party said in another context. In 1939 the world was considered to be in a very serious condition. It was a sick world, and it was being pushed into a threatening war.

You are a sick man.

I may be a sick man, but the last doctor I would go to is a doctor in Randfontein! At any rate I would like to quote from speeches made in the House of Assembly on 21 March 1939 when the Government was headed by General J. B. M. Hertzog. I should like members to note what was said on that occasion, especially by General Hertzog himself. Now if it can be said that a Government under General Hertzog was a sick Government there is no possibility of us ever having a sane Government in South Africa, because General Hertzog was a great architect of his party and the greatest Nationalist Prime Minister South Africa has ever had. However, in March 1939 there were people who were very worried about the world situation, and rightly so, because by September the world was at war, and we were in it too. There was a highly respected member of the House at that time whose name, even to this day, stands high in the estimation of all who knew him, irrespective of political differences. The man I am referring to is the late Dr. N. J. van der Merwe. Who is there in this House to-day who does not know of Dr. N. J. van der Merwe? I have sometimes formed the impression that there are certain members in this House who know less of the history of their own party than they do of Communism. They have been telling us about Communism for so long and they have virtually set themselves up as a voluntary Public Relations Organization for the Communist International. To return to Dr. van der Merwe—according to Hansard, Col. 2100 of 21 March 1939, Dr. van der Merwe moved the following motion under the heading “Democratic Liberties of the Nation”.

Further in his speech he said—

Towards the end of his speech he said—

Where are all these people who were telling us about the methods of the Communist Party and its blueprints? I want them to listen to this—

This was an eminent member of our Parliament speaking, and therefore I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to remember what he, i.e. the Minister, said when he introduced the Bill we are dealing with now, namely “I would have preferred not to have introduced it”. The conclusion I have come to is that on a reconsideration of the matter in the light of what the hon. the Minister has himself referred to as “objective regard” and in the light of the established opinions, not those of to-day’s Opposition, but of very eminent people in our history, we can deal with this problem of Communism without this Bill becoming necessary at all. I should like to remind hon. members on the other side that the thread which ran consistently through all their speeches was the statement that the Government was being consistent in producing this legislation. In fact, the hon. member for Standerton used a very extraordinary phrase when he said that this legislation was in accordance with the “historical pattern” of our country. Moreover, we have listened to the most strenuous efforts by members from the other side to convince us that everything which was now being done was part and parcel of the traditional policy of South Africa. Is the genuine tradition now going to be scorned whenever it is convenient to do so? Government members have repeatedly told us—as a matter of fact they have done so too often—that we should be consistent. “Wees konsekwent” are the words they have repeatedly used in their references to this side of the House. They have alleged that we are not consistent or logical, but that we change our policy and our attitudes. But is it not perfectly true to say the same thing in regard to members on the other side, especially in the light of what was said in 1939? And I could have quoted much more from Hansard than I did in fact quote. As a matter of fact, I have been studying Hansard for the past ten days. I could go back further in the history of South Africa and quote examples to show that whenever there was legislation of this nature, i.e. legislation which sought to restrict the liberties of the individual and to undermine the very democracy which those who advocated the legislation pretended to protect, there was in fact a consistent and reasonable and reasoned opposition to it. If that was traditional, how dare hon. members come now and accuse us, when we say that we oppose this legislation because we have carefully considered it and come to the conclusion that it will cause trouble, and accuse us of being communists? How does Communism come into the matter, except in the form of a red rag to the bull? Because the Western world is against Communism, it seems to me that hon. members have come to the conclusion that to shout “Communism” is sufficient to cause everybody to start rushing to their side. Well, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister, as well as other members on the Government side, that the United Party is not going to be scared by them merely because they try to allege that our opposition to this Bill makes us fellow-travellers or communists. We are better democrats than any member who sat on that side during this debate. This is also borne out by Hansard, which contains a record of all that has been said in Parliament, and the entire tradition of this country proves that this is true; that no matter how much you may scorn it, the rule of law will prevail one day, and in the very near future, simply because the people have throughout the history of democracy preferred the rule of law to the rule of hyprocisy.

Order! What does the hon. member mean by the “rule of hypocrisy”?

Sir, “democracy” and “hypocrisy” rhyme well, and I like rhyming doggerel. But I shall withdraw it, if necessary. [Time limit.]

I cannot do much more than to refer to the remarks made by the previous speaker at the commencement of his speech, namely that he had not made a single note of what the speaker before him had said, and to say that, unlike him, I in fact did make a few notes of what he had to say. One of the first conclusions he arrived at was that we on this side had acused the United Party of being a communistic party. I want to tell the hon. member that no such accusation was ever made by any speaker on this side of the House. The accusation which was made, in fact, is that the United Party acts as the protectors of the communists and that in consequence they associate with subversive organizations. That proposition was also proved time after time by speakers on this side of the House. In fact, I do not think there are any hon. members opposite who will deny that that is so.

The rest of Africa, and in fact the whole world, is to-day involved in a struggle, and we here are involved in a struggle with the continued existence of our White civilization. In certain parts of Africa, White civilization has already been destroyed, with deleterious results, to a certain extent, to the non-Whites themselves, but particularly to the Whites because they had to leave their homes and in many cases lost their lives. In other areas in Africa this struggle is still continuing. In this regard I think particularly of Algeria and Kenya, and that position is fast developing in Northern Rhodesia. Without wishing to be pessimistic, I want to say that I think the chances that White civilization will be preserved in those areas are very slender indeed. On the other hand, however, our position here in the southern point of Africa is quite different. For example, we have no other place to which we can flee. Therefore we shall have to fight to the last. The question I want to pose is: Who incites those nationalistic uprisings in the other African countries? My reply to that is that it is mainly the communists; and they do so with a very selfish object and with motives which are hidden behind fine-sounding words and slogans such as, for example, human rights, one man, one vote, etc. The communist-orientated, self-appointed leaders in these Black states have launched a deliberate campaign to eliminate the Whites from Africa. The object of the communists is not only to destroy our statutory laws, but also our culture and our religion. And who are the bearers of culture and the spreaders of the gospel in Africa? The Whites. That is why the whole campaign is aimed at the Whites in Africa, and therefore they must be swept away in order to enable the communists to attain their objects.

The clear object of the Bill now under discussion is to make it possible for the Government to take action against Communism. We must remember that the communists cast covetous eyes at South Africa as being a desirable Naboth’s vineyard because of its riches and its strategic situation. Consequently it is necessary to pass this Bill in order to enable us to act against communists and saboteurs. During the past 12 years various measures have been placed on the Statute Book by this Government. The United Party now says that the powers contained in those measures are sufficient to enable the Government to take effective steps against sabotage. They forget, however, that when those measures were put on the Statute Book the United Party bitterly opposed them. The same language we have heard in this debate we also heard then. Nevertheless the United Party contends that the existing measures are sufficient to combat Communism and sabotage. In fact, that is one of their main arguments for saying that this Bill is unnecessary. In spite of the fact that when the other measures were passed, they made the same wild predictions in regard to a police state, the curtailment of the freedoms of the individual, etc. They admit to-day that those measures were in fact necessary and in the interest of the country. The United Party is always at least ten years behind the times. At this stage they therefore still do not realize that it is necessary to close the loopholes in the existing legislation in order to enable the Government to take effective action. I also have some objection to this Bill, and that is that it does not go far enough. I feel that if somebody is a communist, we should not wait until he has already committed sabotage before taking action against him, but that action should be taken immediately. I personally would like to see every person in this country who is a communist eradicated completely.

Order! Those arguments have all been used already. Has the hon. member no new arguments to advance?

Mr. Speaker, I shall do my best, but it will be difficult because I have already had to throw away half my notes because the points I noted down have already been mentioned here. But I shall do my best to use new arguments in regard to the necessity for combating this unholy and diabolic propaganda of the communists. One point which I feel has not been emphasized here is that an ex-communist can continue making his propaganda by means of the Press, and that this Bill gives us the power to stop it. The people of South Africa are sick and tired of the way our country is vilified abroad by the communists and their agents, who are depicted as heroes by the Press. The Government has the necessary powers to deal with known communists, and they need powers also to deal with the other communists, and with the agents who use others to try to upset the Government, and who commit arson and murder. I want to say clearly that this Bill will safeguard us in this life-and-death struggle for the preservation of White civilization. This Bill aims at rendering Communism harmless, and to deprive it of its mediums of propaganda, and to deal with saboteurs. That is its object. But what I find shocking is the speeches and the standpoint of certain hon. members opposite who are acting here as the protectors of the communists.

Order! The hon. member should not say that hon. members are the protectors of communists.

Mr. Speaker, I make that statement and I want to quote from a leading article.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “protectors”.

I abide by your ruling and withdraw it. But I want to show why I used that word which I have just withdrawn. I find the following in a leading article in the Burger—

Those are not the thoughts of anybody in this House, but of somebody outside, and the hon. member must make his own speech.

Sir, I want to continue to say why I think that the United Party in the past gave their approval, to some extent, to those deeds. I want to remind hon. members of the time when a certain member sat in this House, and that the United Party pleaded that he should remain here. I am referring to Sam Kahn. And now I just want to tell you who this Sam Kahn is. I quote from Hansard of 15 June 1950, where Mr. Kahn said the following—

This Mr. Kahn frankly admitted that he was a communist and the hon. members opposite opposed us when we wanted to eject him from this House. Mr. Kahn went further, and in col. 9106 he said the following—

Then an hon. member asked—

And Mr. Kahn replied—

Mr. Speaker, I said that the United Party were the protectors of the communists. Here is somebody who expressed himself as a communist, and at a later stage when a Select Committee was appointed, he admitted that he was a communist, but notwithstanding that the United Party members took him under their wing. Therefore I think, Sir, that I am quite entitled to say they are the protectors of the communists—comrades of the Soviet Union.

Mr. Speaker, have you not ordered the hon. member to withdraw the word “protector”?

Order! I have already told the hon. member that he should not talk about protectors of the communists.

Yes, I withdraw it, Sir. Mr. Kahn clearly said that he was a communist, and after he had said so the United Party Opposition took him under their wing. They opposed us when we wanted to eject him from this House.

Mr. Speaker, does that not amount to the same thing, and is the hon. member not evading your ruling?

In this case I can at least qualify it by saying that I have quoted from Hansard that the United Party was the protector of one communist, Mr. Sam Kahn.

And of Bunting.

Yes, there are many others also.

Will the hon. member admit that in terms of the provisions of the Act it was impossible to prove that Sam Kahn was a communist?

I can give a clear reply to that question, because in the words I am now going to quote Sam Kahn himself admitted in this House that he was a communist. I quote from Hansard of 15 June 1950—

I think that is sufficient reply to the hon. member’s question. But I want to continue. When Mr. Sam Kahn appeared before the Select Committee in 1952 he frankly admitted that he was a communist, and after that report was submitted to this House and they had pleaded for him, he went still further and said that he was a Russian communist. I really think it is a shame that the United Party with that black record it has should come here today and adopt the same course they adopted in those years. I had hoped that in the meantime they had improved. The matter was put unequivocally by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins), and no one can deny it, as to what their associations are with these subversive activities and what this connecting link is. There is an unbroken chain of similar propaganda from the communists right through the liberalistic splinter groups to the United Party. I find that shocking, and therefore I say it is no use coming to this House and piously making long speeches. That will not count. Deeds count. We have to look at the deeds of that party, and to-day the United Party is bidding against the Progressive Party in opposing this Bill. I even believe that they know that this legislation is essential for the preservation of our White civilization in South Africa.

On a point of order, may the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. Lewis) read a newspaper here?

I cannot see the hon. member reading a newspaper.

I want to conclude by expressing a final thought, namely that the people of South Africa expect us to ensure that there will be peace, quiet and harmony in South Africa, harmony between the Whites and the non-Whites. We have already made much progress in this respect. I am not going to repeat what was said by former speakers on this side, who clearly indicated what has already been done for the non-Whites in South Africa. That is why there is peace and quiet here. That is why we have no demonstrations, riots or strikes, because these people now realize for the first time that there is a Government which does something for them also. For the first time they now have the opportunity to develop. It is quite clear to me that these people realize who their friends are. Now I say that it is our duty, and the public expects it of us, and this Government, during the past 14 years, has set up a record which is sufficient guarantee that they will do these things. For that reason the public outside also expressed its confidence in the Government and its satisfaction with the record of this Government. The public has confidence in this Government. And now I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to take action against these wrongdoers, against these saboteurs, and against the communist newspapers which besmirch the good name of South Africa in the outside world. I ask that they should be completely eradicated. The people of South Africa are grateful to the Minister.

The hon. member who has just sat down is adopting the same tactics as other members opposite, and that is to accuse members on this side of being the protectors of communists. Mr. Speaker, that is a completely unfounded statement and accusation. What is more, the hon. members who made that accusation are fully aware of the fact that the United Party has always opposed any form of agitation, or any person inclined towards communistic ideas. Indeed, Sir, in the amendment moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition it is clearly stated that “while determined to ensure the maintenance of law and order and the safety of the State …” That was the preamble of the amendment moved by my hon. Leader, and after that we set out in the amendment the four reasons why they are opposed to the introduction of this Bill. I believe that all the members opposite who accused us of being the protectors of Communism …

But you are.

Which hon. member said that?

I said that, and their whole argument …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Then I withdraw it.

That hon. member knows very well what his history is in regard to agitation. It is quite obvious that the tactics will be the same as they were when they used the “swart gevaar” in the past to win elections. We must agree that those tactics were effective, but now they want to add fuel to the flames of racialism, and they will bring about so-called “kommunistiese gevaar” in order to rally votes behind them by pointing to the great danger which lies ahead in regard to Communism. But let me remind this hon. House that it was in 1950 that the Suppression of Communism Act was passed, and yet we hear in the introduction of a Bill of this nature the hon. Minister saying that the activities of Communism are continuing and that is why drastic action must be taken, and why these wide and severe provision must be passed by this House. For a period of 12 years with that Act on the Statute Book they still admit that Communism is active in South Africa; in other words, they admit that the Act has been a failure, as was predicted by this side of the House when we discussed that Act in 1950.

So I think, Mr. Speaker, it must be clearly understood, and indeed many members on this side of the House have rebutted that accusation made against us that we are the friends and protectors of communistically inclined persons.

Then, Mr. Speaker, there are certain other matters I would like to deal with. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Sclhebosch), who has just resumed his seat, said that deeds count. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as a young member listening to the debate in this House and the speeches which have fallen from the lips of hon. members opposite, I feel their pleas for national unity are purely lip service. Take the speech of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) which was completely devoid of tolerance. I believe that in the interests of the future of South Africa it is the Government party which should show tolerance, because without that tolerance we shall never achieve national unity. I submit that part of that tolerance is to be able to allow people to put forward their points of view which they believe to be in the interests of South Africa.

But not Communism.

I agree with the hon. Chief Whip. The Chief Whip has referred to Communism, but with the wide field this Bill covers and from the speeches we have heard from them, it would seem that they intend going further than that, because when they find people who are opposed to the doctrines of the Nationalist Party and the Government, they label them as communists. Therefore one can only assume that it is a step in the direction of silencing voices opposed to the Government. We have often heard attacks made in this House that members on this side are un-South African. I submit that we on this side have the interests and future of South Africa at heart, and we would like to see South Africa develop as a peaceful country on democratic lines. And when we see the introduction of a Bill of this nature, it is our duty to voice our protest and to vote against it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the whole pattern of this Bill, and in particular one aspect which I want to discuss, the principle of treating juveniles as adults, is one of the most repugnant principles involved in the Bill. I wish to indicate that during the course of this debate, as far as we are concerned, and I am sure a vast number of people outside, no case has been made out for the introduction of this Bill in regard to adults, let alone in regard to juveniles. We have that principle in the Bill, which the Minister incidentally failed to mention when introducing the second reading. He failed to give any justification for making provision in the Bill to treat juveniles as adults for the purposes of the Bill. Why did the hon. the Minister not put forward any arguments in favour of that important principle contained in the Bill? I listened carefully to the introductory speech of the Minister, hoping to hear some justification. But, Mr. Speaker, nothing was forthcoming. Members opposite have been strikingly quiet on this particular aspect of the Bill. I have yet to hear any member opposite trying to justify the provisions contained in paragraph (f) of Clause 21, whereby the omission of three important sections of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1951 has been provided. Clause 21 (4) (f) reads as follows—

And in this Act there is reference to the Criminal Procedure Act of 1955 which is to be amended. Now, Sir, it has been enshrined throughout our legislation that juveniles are dealt with on a different basis. The hon. the Minister of Justice in 1960, when he was Deputy Minister of Social Welfare, piloted the most important Act through this House, namely the Children’s Act of 1960 whereby special provision was made for all children under 18 years of age, how they should be dealt with—children in need of care, children who had to attend attendance centres, places of observation—all these very important provisions were made in the case of children under 18 years of age. Similarly, in the Criminal Procedure Act, in the three sections I have just mentioned, special provision is made for the treatment of juveniles. It is generally accepted that a person under the age of 21 has not yet reached the age of discretion in certain respects. Starting right at the bottom of the scale, I wish to refer to “South African Criminal Law and Procedure” by Lansdown. It deals with the question of children between the ages of seven and 14, where it states that presumptive non-responsibility of children of that age does exist. It quotes two important cases of which both are applicable in terms of sabotage as defined in this Bill. One case was where two Native boys aged eight and nine, respectively, had in their own words built a kraal across a road. They were convicted of putting stones in the road and of obstructing traffic. The case was quashed on the grounds that they did not know they were doing wrong. Then there is another case which is quoted of a Native child aged 13 who put a 14 lb. fishplate across a railway line and packed it with stones, and was rightly convicted of a contravention under Act 37 of 1922. Then it goes on to state that since the court felt that the child could not fully have appreciated the enormity of the offence, the sentence was, on appeal, commuted from reformatory detention to a fine. This special provision provided for, shows that the presumptive non-responsibility of a child is recognized by the law. Then it goes further to deal with the question of these young persons falling under the influence of older persons, and what steps are taken in regard to coercion. It says that if a young person is in the custody of an older person, and if the older person could in any way influence and coerce the child to commit an act, he cannot be held responsible.

When we move to the older age groups, to persons of 18 years of age, then we have special provisions under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which was substituted by a new section in the Children’s Act. Details are given there of how such a child should be dealt with. In this particular section it is shown that a person under the age of 18, if convicted of any offence, may in lieu of imprisonment be placed under the supervision of a probation officer or in the custody of certain persons designated in a court order, dealt with in terms of both these sections, or sent to a reform school. Then there is a further provision in Section 345 where a whipping may be imposed, apart from any other sentence. For the person between 18 and 21 years of age special provision is also enshrined in legislation. For instance, a person aged over 18 but under 21 years of age convicted of any offence other than treason, murder or rape—instead of imposing any punishment on him the court can order that he be placed under the supervision of a probation officer or be sent to a reform school, and that any person who is sent to a reform school may be placed in a place of safety and detention. The other section of the Criminal Procedure Act which is to be limited in terms of this Bill is Section 345, and that section deals with a male person not over 21 years of age convicted of any offence, who may in lieu of punishment be sentenced to corrective whipping not exceeding ten cuts. I have read the debates which took place when that Act was passed, and it was specifically stated that the object of this was to save him from the undesirable influences of being held in imprisonment. Now, Sir, in terms of the Bill before us, there is a minimum imprisonment sentence of five years, and these sections which specifically apply to youths are now to be deleted and taken away entirely. The other section which is also to be abolished in terms of this Bill, deals with the postponement of sentence for a period of two years which may be ordered by the court. In terms of the Children’s Act of 1960 this section of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1955 was also amended to make special provision whereby a person under 21 years could be dealt with in terms of the previous provision; in other words, placed under a probation officer or sent to a reform school. These provisions already are on our Statute Book and they show that young persons who could easily come under the influence of other people, are protected by law. Therefore Sir, I fail to see why the Minister should take such a drastic step as to propose in this Bill to abolish these very important safeguards as far as the young people are concerned. Because, Sir, it could quite easily occur that a young person influenced by others could be guilty of committing an offence, which would amount to sabotage, and in terms of this new crime for which provision is made in the Bill, this young person then runs the risk that the death penalty may be imposed upon him, or a minimum term of imprisonment of five years. In the case of the other offences he is protected by law, and even in regard to the death penalty we find it is left in the discretion of the courts, but in regard to persons under 18 years the court even has a discretion in the case of murder. So we see that in our statutes very careful provision has been made to try to reclaim a young person who might have developed behaviour difficulties and problems, and if a young person has become associated with communists, or he himself becomes a named communist due to such association, he is put in a very difficult position where he will be very severely dealt with, more severely than in regard to any other offence in the Statute Book for a person of his age. Surely it is not impossible to allow these provisions we had in the past to remain even if the Sabotage Bill is passed. I hope the Minister will realize the enormity of the penalty he is imposing upon these juveniles. There are other aspects in regard to the offence of sabotage whereby a young person could find himself innocently facing a charge of sabotage. For instance, round about 5 November many teen-agers make their own fireworks, although I admit that that is a dangerous practice, and if they are found on Government premises in possession of these fireworks, which are really explosives, they might be charged with sabotage. I believe that the provisions of this Bill are much too severe. I believe that the Minister should give most serious reconsideration to incorporating juveniles and treating them as adults in regard to the very grave offence of sabotage.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) only raised one particular point and that was in connection with the application of this legislation on persons under the age of 21 years. I will deal with that point later on. Mr. Speaker, we have been listening for hours to the United Party setting out their approach to this Bill and that was to indicate how wide the powers were which the Government was taking under this legislation; and the way they did it indicated that they thought that they had a special lease of wisdom and that this side of the House was not capable of knowing what was in the Bill. I can assure them that this side realizes what all the implications of this Bill are and yet this side of the House has decided unanimously to support this Bill wholeheartedly. We accept the fact that the freedom of the individual should only be curtailed in order to safeguard the basic rights of the community as a whole, and that is the right to live in peace in an orderly and civilized community. The first question which arises is whether this basic right of the community is being threatened. I will be brief. The fact that this right was threatened was already acknowledged by the United Party in 1950 when they also admitted that they were against the threat of Communism, and since then, during the past 12 years, unless they are completely ignorant as to what is happening in the world, they must admit that the threat has become more serious. They need only look at what has been happening in Africa over the past five years and it is not necessary for me to enlarge upon that.

The Government has been asked why it has not exterminated Communism during the past 12 years. They might just as well ask why America has not done so. That brings me to the next question. In view of the fact that Communism has become a more dangerous threat, what is the object of this Bill? In this respect the Opposition has failed hopelessly in getting the public to panic, because the whole object of this Bill is to safeguard the safety of the State, of our industries and mines and the safety of our women and children. We wish to prevent the civilized non-Whites from being incited against the existing order. We are taking measures to prevent a second Algeria from developing in South Africa. But we particularly want to get at those White agitators, those enemies of their own race. I want to ask those people who organize those demonstrations outside whether they approve of those reckless misdeeds which are mentioned in Clause 21. It will only be the person who deliberately and unlawfully commits a deed who will be guilty of sabotage. We are dealing with the criminal, and no law-abiding person will be affected by this clause. The State must first prove that an offence has been committed and the accused then has the opportunity of pleading any of the defences listed in Clause 21 (2). He can plead in defence that he had not committed sabotage and those are facts which are only within his own peculiar knowledge. I wish to emphasize that this clause deals with a criminal, and it is not necessary for the Opposition to be so exceedingly merciful towards such a person. It is indeed true that in theory it may happen that somebody may be charged and found guilty of having committed sabotage whereas he has only committed a minor offence but that is precisely the reason why the Bill provides that the Attorney-General personally should decide whether there should be a prosecution. I just want to clarify something. It has been said that in terms of our laws the Minister can overrule the Attorney-General. It is stated differently in this case from the way it is stated in other laws. The word “personally” has been inserted specially; you do not find that in the other laws. The Minister himself has explained why the word “personally” has been inserted, the reason being that there cannot be the slightest suspicion that any political influence will be exercised. Consequently we will have an impartial Attorney-General who has nothing to do with politics, a person trained in law with a full sense of responsibility. Our Attorneys-General are known for their impartiality and fairness, so that there can be no objection to their taking action if they think that sabotage has been committed. Once the Attorney-General has decided to prosecute you still have the impartial Judges who have to decide on the case and I do not think there is anybody who doubts their fairness. You can imagine, Sir, what will happen and what remarks our Judges will make in public about such an inhuman Attorney-General who sends an insignificant case to court. It must also be realized that the proceedings are conducted in public and not in camera The case is heard in public, in the Supreme Court, and not in a special court. Furthermore, it is possible to petition the Minister against the Judge’s decision. Furthermore, if there is the slightest suspicion of injustice this Opposition will be failing in their duty if they did not raise such a case in this House. Consequently all the steps which can be taken to protect any innocent person have been taken. Since 1950 the Minister and the Cabinet have had far-reaching powers under the original Act and in spite of the fact that the Opposition have been challenged they could not mention one case where any injustice has been committed. I have full confidence firstly in our Attorney-General, then in the Minister of Justice and after him in the Cabinet and the Judges. Each one separately enjoys the full confidence of this side of the House. No confidence should be placed in anybody, not even in Parliament, and then there is still public opinion in the face of which the Government will never dare to place an innocent person in gaol.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has made the point that the Attorney-General has insight into all the documents, that he lays a charge of sabotage and that the Judge will be influenced because he knows that the Attorney-General has had insight into all the documents, and that the Attorney-General knows that the man is guilty of sabotage. But that argument applies in the case of all crimes which are referred to the court by the Attorney-General. Even in the case of murder he has insight into all the documents and according to the hon. member’s argument the Judge must be influenced and think that the person is guilty.

It has also been argued that this Bill may have serious repercussions. I refer to the Cape Argus of 22 May—

This was written after this Bill had been introduced.

The Opposition also maintains that the Bill which has been introduced will promote Communism. It does not appear as though the communists outside this House think that. It does not appear as though they welcome this Act. They also referred to the serious repercussions of this Act, but they conveniently forgot about the serious repercussions which would arise if we did not place Acts of this nature on the Statute Book. They forget what the serious repercussions will be if a single mine is blown up on the Rand. What will happen to the stock exchange in such a case?

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) asked why the United Party should be against Communism because it would affect them as much as it would affect us? Mr. Speaker, he is very young in politics but if he is honest with himself he will admit that during this Session that party has often voted against a Bill in this House merely to see what political benefit they could derive from it and in this case they have been encouraged by the Progressives and the Liberal Party, because they have to bid for the votes. That is the sole reason why they are opposing it.

The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) said that by prohibiting meetings we would be creating dangers. He said that was a well-known principle. I should be pleased if the hon. member would explain to us why they prohibited all public meetings in Rhodesia for two months. The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) said he approved of it that the newspapers would have to deposit up to R20,000 but that he thought it was scandalous that the Minister, only a single person, should have the right to ban a newspaper in which case it would forfeit its R20,000 deposit. I want to tell the hon. member that that right does not vest in one person. If he looks at the Bill he will see that in terms of Clause 6 the President has to ban the newspaper; in other words the entire Cabinet has to decide and the hon. member is making a false accusation when he says that only one person decides on it.

I now come to the point made by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) in regard to children. It has been scandalously alleged that this was the Children’s Hanging Act. The hon. member for South Coast was completely off the rails when he said that the age of the person would not be considered when imposing the sentence. Of course the Judge takes that into account. The Judge takes all the factors into account when he imposes the sentence. It is true that the minimum sentence is five years’ imprisonment but that is far from saying that children will be hanged. Not once in the history of South Africa has anybody of 14 years of age been hanged, and why should that happen in future? And the Judge is not the only person who has a say. It is submitted to the Cabinet for approval. It is simply impossible for anything like that to happen in this country, but hon. members call this the Children’s Hanging Act and that is the way in which our name is being besmirched overseas. The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) dealt with the position which obtained during the last war. He said that the crime of sabotage was created at that time, that it had to be properly proved before the court and only then was the person sentenced. He also conveniently forgot to tell us that when a person was suspected during the last war of having committed sabotage, and it could not be proved, he was interned without trial for years.

Even people who had proved their innocence in the court were interned.

It is even worse. I want to sum up by saying that this Bill has three aspects. Firstly, you have the banning of newspapers which must be approved by the whole Cabinet; secondly, you have the powers which vest in the Minister to place certain restrictions on a communist, something which he has been doing with justice for 14 years, and thirdly, you have the definition of the crime of sabotage in respect of which steps will only be taken against the criminal. A heavy duty rests on the Minister, on the Cabinet, on the whole Government to maintain peace and quiet. To attain that object the Government will not hesitate to pass the necessary legislation and to take the necessary steps. This legislation will also apply in South West Africa and I welcome it, therefore, because we do not tolerate communist agitators there. I go further and say that it is the duty of everyone who respects and accepts our way of life to support us and I know that all right-thinking people will reject the attitude adopted by the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I think it can be stated that if one thing has been proved in the course of this debate it is that both the Government side and this side of the House are against Communism. I am surprised to see the hon. the Minister laugh. When we say we are against communist ideology, which this Bill seeks to combat, we must say on the other hand that we are in favour of maintaining democracy as represented by the social order which we have at present. It therefore surprises me that the Minister can laugh when I make that statement, because surely he does not believe that there are any hon. members on this side of the House who would like to see a communist form of government in this country. [Interjections.] I am very glad the Minister has said that, because that is the point I wish to make. I assume that the Minister will believe that we on this side of the House are against Communism as such, and that he will believe that we are against it because we believe in democracy and we want to see the social order which we call democracy prevail. It is on this argument that the Minister seeks to justify this Bill. The Minister’s contention is that the provisions of this Bill will be a bulwark to the social order as we know it, and that it will be one of the further securities that we can offer for a democratic form of government in this country. But we on this side also stand for upholding the existing social order, so where is the difference between us? The difference is that we on this side do not believe that by prostituting the basic freedoms of democracy you can destroy Communism.

Since when have you held that view?

It has been our belief ever since the original measure was introduced in 1950, and surely the Minister knows that. I do not believe the Minister was here at that time, but surely he has read the Hansard, and surely every utterance made during the course of this debate shows up the difference between this side of the House and the Government in respect of this measure and preserving our democratic way of life. We do not believe that you can adequately preserve the basic freedoms of our democracy by prostituting the ideal of freedom which is the essence of democratic government. Sir, you do not preserve the democratic form of government by adopting the dictatorship cult of the communist. It has been proved throughout the Western world that Communism does not spread and cannot survive if it does not have those conditions of society in which it can breed. One of the hon. members opposite said there was something like 70 named communists in this country. If, for the sake of argument, they were left loose, and if the seed-bed upon which they have to work to propagate their ideology and their form of government is not right, if the conditions are not there, they can never hope to reap any harvest whatever. When you listen to the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) he does not see bad social conditions in South Africa.

Did we not do everything possible to improve social and economic conditions in the country?

I agree that that is the approach, and that a great deal has been done. But when the hon. member for Vereeniging spoke, he did not refer to this basic approach in combating the communist ideology which this Bill seeks to control. This Bill works on the assumption that the communist agitator in our country has something upon which he can work. If he is allowed loose to spread his doctrine he will try to make capital out of large masses of ignorant people. But if the conditions do not exist, the effect of what he propagates will be of no consequence whatever.

But then you must combine the two methods, the negative and the positive, in combating Communism.

I think that is more of a statement than a question. What the hon. member for Vereeniging is really afraid of is political principles. He is afraid of the spread of political principles based on, let us say, the theory that Luthuli preaches, of one man, one vote. I think the hon. member for Brits will agree with me that the principle of one man, one vote is a democratic principle, as we know it. When you listen to the hon. member for Vereeniging, he does not approach the principle of one man, one vote from the democratic point of view, but from the communist point of view. He says that any man in this country who preaches the democratic principle of one man, one vote, makes himself guilty of treason. He said that the man who preaches one man, one vote, is guilty of treason, and therefore this Bill closes up all those loopholes. Let me quote his actual words on this thesis in justification of the provisions of this Bill. He said:

The things said by these people should not be published, and he supports the principle that the Minister should have control over what is published. So this dangerous doctrine of one man, one vote, cannot be published because according to the hon. member for Vereeniging it is not a democratic thought but a communist thought. I put it to the hon. member for Brits and the hon. member for Vereeniging and other members of the Government that this side of the House has a policy of race federation in which it offers representation in this House on the principle of group representation for the non-Whites. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we advocated, on the principle of group representation, one man, one vote. We do not do that, but let us assume we do it. In other words, the separate race groups of our country, on the principle of “one man one vote” under a system of group representation, would return their representatives to this House. Sir, on the basis of the argument of the hon. member for Vereeniging and that of the hon. member for Brits, we would be guilty of treason. I ask the Minister of Justice: Would we be guilty of advocating one of the principles of Communism?

Are you becoming ashamed of your conscience now?

No, I ask the Minister: Would we be guilty of advocating one of the objects of Communism? The argument of the hon. member for Vereeniging is that if a non-White advocates the principle of “one man one vote” in the non-White area, then he is not a communist, but if he does it in the White area of South Africa then he is a communist. I want to take the logic of that argument a little bit further. You see, the Minister cannot answer “Yes”

I leave it to you to salve your own conscience.

The reason why the hon. members for Vereeniging and Brits and other members on that side argue that the propagation of the principle of “one man one vote” might be treason or the propagation of a communist ideology, is because they consider that the acceptance of the principle of “one man one vote”, in the words of the hon. members for Vereeniging and Brits, will destroy the White race in South Africa, so that to them it would be treason; it would be anarchy.

He did not say that.

That has been the gravamen of the argument in support of the provisions of this Bill right throughout the course of this debate by Government members.

If you can do it constitutionally, there is nothing wrong with it.

Assuming that this side of the House had to propagate a policy of “one man one vote” in our multi-racial society …

You are not very far from that.

… and this Government thinks that to propagate the principle of “one man one vote” in our multiracial society is treasonable, then it is possible in the terms of this Bill for the hon. the Minister to ban this party and to accuse the Leader of the Opposition of being guilty of the crime of sabotage; he could place the Leader of the Opposition under house arrest …

Don’t be foolish.

… if the Minister considers or if the Government considers that the propagation of such a thought is equivalent to the propagation of one of the objects of Communism. If there is no justification for my argument, then what the Burger described as the effective speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging is of no force and effect whatsoever, because that was the kernel of his argument and not only the kernel of his argument but also of that of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) and others. I want to remind hon. members what the hon. member for Vereeniging did say; it was published in the newspapers. He said this—

What is wrong with that?

The hon. member for Vereeniging said that the idea of this Bill is to prevent the propagation of the concept of “one man one vote”, because hon. members opposite regard that as a treasonable act when it is propagated in the White area. In other words, you can say that the principles of democratic government are of no consequence. That any Bill that this Government may care to introduce, which gives the necessary powers to control and to stop the development of such political thought, whether by an underground method or whether, as the hon. member for Brits says, in a constitutional way is justified. Let me ask the hon. member for Brits whether it is the constitutional method to stand on the Parade in Cape Town and to propagate what you believe to be the political true rights of the people of South Africa? Is that a constitutional approach or an unconstitutional approach? Is it a constitutional approach to stand on the steps of the City Hall of Johannesburg and to advocate what you believe to be the right political policy offering the greatest political freedom for the people of South Africa?

You are simply evading the issue.

I am not evading the issue. Is that a constitutional approach? Is that the agitator’s approach?

It all depends on what you are advocating there.

Now we are making progress, Sir. Faced with the logic of the situation, the hon. member for Brits has to make such an utterance. His political conscience is beginning to prick him.

That is very optimistic.

A very small prick.

It may be a small prick but it is progress.

We will have that argument in the Committee Stage.

The support that hon. members opposite have offered for this Bill in all these discussions is that any measure is justified which can protect our conception of a democratic state. Anybody who has any other thoughts of what a democratic state may be like or how it may be governed or how the people may be represented, which clashes with their views of nationalism, of a Nationalist approach, that is unacceptable, that is communist, that is subversive. That has been the general theme of arguments opposite. When you face the hon. member for Brits with this fact, he finds himself in the difficulty in which he found himself just now. Mr. Speaker, members on the Government benches admit that the provisions of this Bill coupled with those of the original Act give the Minister tremendous powers. In some speeches it has been admitted by hon. members they are possibly powers which are not desirable to place in the hands of the Minister, but they have argued that the threat to our way of life is so great, that we must trust the Minister with these powers. You see, Sir, what the hon. member for Brits and other Nationalist Party members do not realize is that this approach of theirs is the very basis of an autocratic form of government in a communistic state. It is the very basis of the approach to government in a communistic state. It is the basis of autocracy in a communistic state, that it must protect what it has. It devises its forms of government and it makes the law placing all power in the hands of the executive. In the autocratic state the executive must have that power because without that power it will be threatened from within, it will be subverted. The remarkable thing about all this is that the hon. the Minister confesses this. The hon. the Minister admits openly that his approach in regard to this matter is the autocratic approach. He said it at his Press conference which he gave before the introduction of the Bill into this House. I do not want to be unfair to the Minister. I believe the Minister preceded his description of the Bill to the Press correspondents present by saying that he admitted that he did not consider the Bill essentially undemocratic. I hope I have that right; I do not want to base my argument on false premises. Can I take if from the Minister that that is right?

Frankly I am not even trying to follow your argument.

Well, I can admit that the Minister is feeling the fatigue of this debate and we have sympathy with him.

The plain fact is that you bore me.

We have had this offensiveness from the hon. the Minister of Justice in the past and I recognize his difficulty at this early hour in the morning.

Order! The hon. member cannot use the word “offensiveness”.

Well, may I say”rudeness” then?

Order! The hon. member cannot say that either.

Well, I withdraw the word then and I keep my own thoughts on the subject.

“Unpleasantness”.

Yes, that will be Parliamentary. He offered the same justification for the autocratic approach when he introduced the measure. Sir, the Minister made it quite clear that this measure was not designed only to combat a criminal act but that it is designed to combat the spread of a political doctrine by the printed word, by mechanical means, by gatherings or meetings, even to the extent of being able to create the new crime of sabotage. Let me therefore show, as one not versed in law—and I make an open admission that I have no experience of law—but by a layman reading this Bill, just in one respect alone, the impression that has been left on the outside world and on the citizens of our country in respect to its provisions. I refer to Clause 21 of the Bill which seeks to create the new crime of sabotage. I refer to Clause 21 (1) (g) and(2) (h). What does Clause 21 (1) (g) say? It says this—

It is clear that if any person should damage any property he can be charged with sabotage, but in sub-section (2) it defines the manner, objectively regarded, in which the crime should have been committed. Clause 21 (2) (h) says—

Sir, I want to put it in a practical way. Assuming that in my constituency of Turffontein it is publicized that the hon. the Minister of Justice is going to hold a public meeting, and that the purpose of his public meeting is to state National Party policy, including this Bill. As the public representative of that area and that community, I consider that it is not in the interest of that community that they should listen to the Minister; and that they should mobilize themselves to show their opposition to the policies that the Minister represents, as a Minister of State. I consequently organize a tremendous hostile audience to the hon. the Minister—and let me assure him that it is very capable of being done in my constituency. The Minister arrives at this meeting of hundreds of people at the hall, hostile to the approach of the Minister. They do not want him there, they do not want to listen to him and they want to have nothing to do with him because their views are entirely different to those that the Minister represents. But the Minister persists; he is a powerful orator; he thinks he can sway those hundreds of people, so he gets to the hall and he leaves his motor-car outside. An enthusiastic youth member of the United Party who listens to the Minister says, “I don’t like his voice and I don’t like his views” he cuts the types of his motor-car and then he probably throws a brick through the windscreen and damages the front of the motor-car. In the first instance he is committing sabotage in terms of this definition. If the hon. the Minister likes to refer, I have been to the library on this subject and I looked up every possible interpretation of the word sabotage that I have been able to find. In no single instance is the word “sabotage” defined as an act against a private person. It is described as being an act committed by a body of people against the established government, against the established form of law and order. But in this Bill you can commit an act of sabotage by an act against a private individual. And I ask the Minister pertinently here this morning: Have these words been included to protect the Ministers of this Government? Will it be an act of sabotage if any persons in their abhorrence of Nationalist Party policy in the strength of their feeling, should by an accident damage or visibly indicate their feelings by personally injuring the person or property of any one of these Ministers; is he then going to be charged with sabotage and be subject to a minimum penalty of five years or a maximum of a death sentence?

What do you think?

I am going to tell the Minister what I think. I am going to tell him in his own word’s. You see, Sir, if it was a real act of sabotage, a provision to create the crime of sabotage, then it is another matter, but it is not in terms of this Bill. It is too wide. Why “any person”? The Minister has not explained it at his Press conference; he never explained it when he introduced the measure before this House. An act of sabotage is against the State, against the Government. Why “any person”? Sir, the facts are clear that if we go as far as these lengths, and they may not be as absurd as I have made them appear to be—when you examine what has happened with this type of legislation and this type of measure in other countries of the world, then we as democratic citizens, the representatives of the people in a democratic institution have a right to have a doubt about how these powers will be applied. What disturbs me more than anything else is that all this type of legislation that is being introduced by the Government is being introduced on the basis of personal assurances by Ministers. Where there are far-reaching powers taken, we always have personal assurances given that they will never be abused. What guarantee has the Minister got that he is going to hold his position for another month and that somebody else may not take his place?

The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) for example.

What guarantee have we got as citizens that some other extreme power may not take over the reins of government and abuse these powers which stand on the Statute Book—what guarantee other than the personal assurance, which I accept from this hon. Minister? From this Government there is no guarantee of the free democratic rights of the people of our country once this stands on the Statute Book of our country.

Now I want to take the hon. the Minister one step further. When this legislation was hinted at by the hon. the Minister during the election campaign and immediately after the election campaign, and he made certain speeches which were reported in the Press—I do not want to quote them now—something rang a bell. I have listened at length to these debates, and I realized when I listened to the Minister introducing the Bill that I had heard what he had said before; that I was familiar with his speech, and I want to quote to the Minister his speech to-day, a very effective speech, one exactly like the hon. the Minister’s and completely as his speech. The same pattern, the introduction, the citing of the cases, of the leaflets, of alleged communist activity, offering the proof and the substantiation of the subversive leaflets—all of it in the same order and the same pattern. Let me quote it to the House, because I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question after I have quoted it. It starts off just as the Minister started, and said—

And the Minister gave us that—the sort of security problem with which they had to contend. In this case it is slightly different but it was the same thing with subversive leaflets circulated by subversive organizations. And then the Minister went on and said this—

Did the Minister say that in his speech? Let me quote another piece—

The situation outlined by the Minister in the leaflets he quoted—

Did the Minister not use that as his argument?—

Listen to this one, Mr. Speaker; this is the Minister’s voice—

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful to have support from the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet). This Minister went on; he had a great deal more to say; he said—

I seem to have heard that expression in the course of this debate—

Then, Sir, several Ministers took part in the debate, including the Minister of Information. He had this to say about the foreign Press—

That is the Daily Express published in London—

Very familiar, Mr. Speaker. I have only quoted a few extracts from his speech, but any member of the House can take this Hansard and can read the introductory speech and can read the closing speech and can read the speeches of Ministers of the Crown, reported in this Hansard. Mr. Speaker, you will be astonished to find that the introductory speech for this Bill followed completely and absolutely and utterly the pattern of the speech introduced by this Minister when he introduced this Bill before this House. Sir, what was the Bill that was introduced? It was a Bill containing provisions such as these: Provisions of detention in house-arrest, publication in the Gazette as counting as notification to a person that he has been named as a communist, and all the other provisions. And what country does it come from? When the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) was discussing in this debate the background of Communism and all the dangers of Communism that arise in Africa and the necessity therefore for this Bill to protect our country against these threats of Communism in Africa—and I asked him across the floor, “Where are the communistic states in Africa?” he could not answer me. But you see, Sir, this does not come from a communistic state; it comes from the State of Ghana. This is the Ghana Hansard that I have been quoting here; the Ghana Hansard and the Emergency Act and the provisions of the Preventative Detention Act which were discussed in that Assembly. This was the speech of their Prime Minister, Dr. Nkrumah. And what I now want to read to you, Sir, is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say in the debate, and I hope hon. members will find a bit of familiarity—

That was said by the Leader of the Opposition in Ghana. And where is he to-day? He has been exiled from his country. He had to flee his country, and the other members in their opposition who took part in this debate on the same theme are locked up in the gaols of Ghana. If hon. members want the details of how many, they can get it out of the library. There were something like 206 who were house-arrested and detained under this same Preventative Detention Act and the same arguments of sabotage and preserving their country from subversive elements were used. Arguments that we have had of a similar nature in the course of this debate. No less than 206 have been detained as political prisoners. Sir, the words that I quoted of the Leader of the Opposition were those of a Black African. He had precisely the feelings that we on these benches have had in regard to this Bill now before us. There are also many nationalists who have had similar feelings and expressed strong views about autocratic measures of this kind. By fighting for democratic rights to preserve democratic government they paid the penalty of opposing autocratic powers by being gaoled or fleeing their country. The tragedy for South Africa is that we have to have this Bill presented to us by the Minister which is the very anathema of democratic practice in our country.

Thus far we have heard nothing but admiration from the Opposition in regard to Ghana. It is one of the African states in regard to which they have always expressed the greatest esteem. I am pleased to hear from a member of the Opposition this morning for the first time, that they condemn Ghana. Now I do not wish to argue with the hon. member about that, but I think he ought to be ashamed of himself for comparing the Republic of South Africa with the dictatorship of Ghana. I do not think that is good enough. All this time members of the Opposition have been saying things that are much worse than what has been said by the Opposition in Ghana, but all the members of the United Party are still sitting here safely. And if the hon. member then comes along and compares us and our government with that of Ghana, then I think it is such an insult to the country and the people, that I shall leave it to the people to call him to account for that. Nor is it necessary for me to refute the terrible picture he has painted here of the poor lad with more enthusiasm than brains, and who cuts the motor types of the Minister and throws tomatoes through a window, and that the lad will now necessarily be guilty of sabotage. The hon. member knows well enough, or he ought to know, that it will be the duty of the Attorney-General to decide in the light of the circumstances, whether it is the stupid ignorance of the lad or whether he should be charged and have his bottom warmed, or whether he is a member or tool of a gang of saboteurs who have systematically planned those acts. It will be the Attorney-General’s task to decide about that, and that of the courts but not that of the Minister. The hon. member further is burdened down by confusion of thoughts. He attacks the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) because the hon. member for Vereeniging has said that we shall fight if people come along to foist upon us the policy of “one man, one vote”. Now he says they have their race federation scheme and they now propose to give the various colour groups a certain number of representatives each, each in its own way. If for instance there is the Coloured Community, they will get say four representatives, and every Coloured person may vote for the four representatives. The hon. member knows well enough, or he ought to know well enough, if only he had thought for a while to-night instead of trying to make trouble, that when we speak against the idea of “one man, one vote”, we do so in the sense in which the communists and the liberals intend it, namely, that in the same community the vote should be given to all colours and to all races, and to every individual in the same political community. When it is done in respect of separate political communities, it is something quite different. For instance we could go along to the Coloureds to-day and say to them: Here you have four representatives; you can all come onto the separate list and vote for the four representatives. We have nothing to do with that. Then in their community it is “one man, one vote” but that is not the meaning the world attaches to it to-day when they say “one man, one vote”, for then they mean that all should have it in the same community.

I really rose to deal with a few points raised here by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) and the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), who is not here. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth quoted from an English speech. I do not know where it appeared, and who did the translation. I have never made an English speech in this House, and I do not know whether it has been translated well or badly. As regards the hon. member for Durban (Point), I do not even know what he quoted. But his technique when quoting from a person’s speech is well known. In that regard he always reminds me of what my old professor in Theology, Prof. Moorees, taught me when he analysed the teachings of a certain sect, and said: Look, you must remember, all the sects base their so-called doctrines on the Bible always, but they read the Bible thus: They will say for instance: Look, it says in the Bible that Juda took his 30 pieces of silver and he went forth and he hanged himself, but it also says in the Bible: “Go ye forth and do the same”. That is what the hon. member does. He takes a piece here, he takes a piece there, and he adds them together, adding some of his own, and then he comes along and quotes them as the words of somebody.

Our attitude is very clear. My attitude has always been very clear. If the hon. member, who has acquired so much admiration for my speeches and writings of the past, now only discovers how much wisdom there is in them that he quotes them at length, has read everything he ought to know what my attitude has always been—and I can bring scores of quotations to prove this from articles I wrote—that Communism and Fascism are equally repugnant to the people of South Africa, that our national tradition condemns Fascism and Communism to an equal degree. That has always been my attitude and I have written that in numerous articles.

You were a SAP then.

I still maintain the attitude that Fascism and Communism are objectionable to a democratic country such as South Africa. But I should nevertheless like to ask those hon. members, as they are so fond of reading what I said formerly, why don’t they also read something else I said in regard to this Bill? I should like to quote from an article I wrote in the Suiderstem on 12 December 1941.

Then you still were a SAP; then you still spoke the truth.

I am glad the hon. member says that it is the truth. Now we shall test it a while. I wrote:

I wrote that not as Abraham Jonker, but as the Editor of the official paper of the United Party, and all hon. members of the United Party agreed with that. I wrote that these people should be sentenced to death regardless of mitigating circumstances. This Bill before us gives them plenty of scope to adduce extenuating circumstances, and to get off more easily. I wrote further, and hon. members agreed with me:

All hon. members agreed with that. But when it is proposed now that a minimum penalty of five years be imposed for the worst degree, hon. members come along and make a great fuss. In those years hon. members agreed with me, and they said it was a good step then. Then they agreed with something much more drastic, but now they come along and make a tremendous fuss about what is in the Bill. I should like to mention only one more example. I wrote as follows in a leader on 13 November 1940:

Referring to people who commit acts of violence and threaten violence, I asked this:

That is precisely what the people who are opposed to the Bill are saying to-day. If they find an opportunity to do so, I said, they will destroy our democratic state with all its liberties. In 1940 I was pleading as official editor of the official organ of the United Party that the Government should consider whether the time had not arrived for democracy to rid itself of this great fault and weakness of the past, and to protect itself against those who openly declared that they would murder democracy and its supporters when they came into power. Those articles were written 21 years ago, and the whole United Party agreed with them. No English paper in South Africa ever uttered a word of protest against those proposals. All of them applauded them. I went further and I wrote a series of articles, I think there were four or five articles, in which I set forth precisely this kind of legislation we have before us now, and in which I said that that was the legislation with which we should restrict the abuse that was being made of liberties. Every man is free to go where he wishes, but he may not trespass on another man’s property. Every person has the right to say what he likes, but he may not violate another’s character. So there are limits to our liberties. That is why I say that the supreme right is not the right of the individual, the highest freedom is not the freedom of the individual, but the freedom of the community and the right of continued existence of the community. That is why democracy should take the field with measures to tackle those who wish to destroy that freedom of the entire community. That I wrote 21 years ago with the approval and the concurrence of all the members of the present Opposition. I went further: I sent those articles to the various Ministers of the United Party of that time, and all who replied expressed their agreement with what I wrote. There was one exception. One man was a little hesitant and he would not say unequivocally that he accepted them, and that was the well-known liberalistically disposed Jannie Hofmeyr. He moved a little in the direction of the pleas of hon. members. But you see now how much further the hon. members already are than he went. All other Ministers of the United Party expressed their agreement with those articles.

May I ask the hon. member: Will the hon. member deny that all the articles were written and were aimed at the supporters of the National Party?

That is a very easy question to answer. All the articles were aimed at certain supporters of the hon. member for East London (City) (Mr. Moolman). It does not concern that question, it concerns the principle. I have always been in favour of all saboteurs, all throwers of bombs, all arsonists, being tackled in this manner, and dealt much more severely than our indulgent Minister of Justice is doing to-day.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to refer to an incident during the debate when I interjected in reference to something which had been said by the hon. the Minister. It appeared to me that he, and I believe, you, Sir, understood that as being an allegation that the hon. the Minister had deliberately misled certain persons. I would like to say immediately that that was not my intention. I don’t believe it is the proper construction of my words and although you, Sir, ruled that the remark referred to something which happened outside the House, I desire to withdraw the remark and to dispose of it in that way.

That is a very fine gesture.

I am not prepared to hide behind the fact that my remark referred to something which happened outside the House. I am appreciative of what the hon. the Leader of the House said.

I would like to come for a moment to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker). I was astonished that the hon. member should have said that it was disgraceful that the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) should have quoted from a debate in Another Chamber, namely the Chamber of Ghana.

No; I took it amiss that he likened us to Ghana.

Of course if the cap fits the hon. member he must wear it.

I would like to dispose of a couple of points which were raised during the debate on a few occasions. Let me say at once that I take the strongest exception to the publication in the Burger of completely unjustified news items in reference to this side of the House, and I would like to say that I was very proud to work with the team whom I had assisting me in regard to this Bill, that never have I had a happier relationship, and I hope that that relationship will continue. I believe that those who were helping me. a number of them, are persons who will play an important part in the future of this country, and it will be a very great privilege for me always to work with them.

I now to come to some items raised by the hon. Minister of Information. He referred to an interview, some remarks I had passed. The hon. member will realize that that was in the course of a discussion, but I am not querying the report. I referred to preparatory examinations and said “It may be necessary to avoid situations as arose in the treason trial”. I will deal with that to a slight extent later, but I want to say at once that I think all sides of the House ought to hope that never again shall we have something like that happening, where a preparatory examination and other proceedings last over a period of years (I will give the details just now) and in the end the persons are discharged. I want to make it quite clear that I said that this was one matter that should be considered. It is perfectly obvious to me that that is a very good example to show the necessity in cases of this sort for a preparatory examination, that it will be a mistake for Parliament not to remove from this Bill the power which allows the Attorney-General to decide that there shall be no preparatory examination. I would like the hon. the Minister in this regard and in respect of another matter, the matter of indictment, to give us some further clarification. In effect he said in his introductory speech “Can’t we trust the Attorney-General?” Sir, I think we can be very proud of the Attorneys-General that we have had in this country. They have played a splendid part, they were men of great distinction, and I know of no case where I can suggest in any way that there was a prejudiced decision by an Attorney-General of any of the divisions of our Supreme Court. I know of no case. But I do want to say this, the hon. the Minister will agree with me, that there is ample evidence that the Attorneys-General have made mistakes. I want to refer to one. I want to refer in more detail to the treason trial. Here you have a case where persons were arrested in December, 1956. The arrests that night numbered 151 and the number was subsequently increased to 156. One year later, after the preparatory examination had proceeded, 61 were discharged; a month after that three more were discharged; seven months later the indictment was quashed and a number were re-indicted. Others were discharged or charges were withdrawn and a year later there were 30 remaining who had not been discharged, and finally, trial took place. If there is one thing we can be proud of in this country, it is our Judiciary. In that case the Judges after hearing the case for the Crown, when the defence was in the early stages of its case for the defence the Judges stopped the case and discharged the accused. I don’t think anybody can suggest that there was not a number of very serious errors made in that particular case. I quote it as an example.

What about the war years?

I am not discussing the war years. The point I am discussing is the fact that an Attorney-General may make mistakes.

You say that the Attorney-General may make a mistake. But surely it goes to a Judge?

It may have to go to a Judge, but I believe that when persons are on trial, particularly if it is a trial for their lives and particularly in times of peace, whatever advantage there is, and very often there is an advantage either to the Crown or to the accused in a preparatory examination, it is better that the fullest facts are before the court, so that the court can base its judgment on all the best available information. Sir, that is a matter which can be discussed further in the Committee Stage.

I referred to another matter, the death penalty for juveniles. I would like to point out that already under our Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act there is in respect of juveniles from the age of 18 to the age of 21 a death sentence for crimes such as treason and murder for example. It can be imposed in those cases. Let me make it perfectly clear, Sir, that I am utterly and totally opposed to a death sentence in respect of a youth under 18 years of age, and I believe that that clause in the Criminal Procedure Code should be left as it is. Obviously if there is sabotage in circumstances that justify conviction for treason or where there is murder, then the courts already have the power to impose a death sentence. That provision may be very well left alone, and I hope we will be able to persuade the hon. the Minister to go no further than that when we come to the Committee Stage.

Do you think this Bill should be called the Children’s Hanging Bill?

I propose to make my own speech and if the hon. the Minister wishes to put questions to me when I have put my points, then I will answer them, but I don’t propose to answer questions which are irrelevant to the point I am discussing at a particular time.

I would like to refer to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Schlebusch), who was one of the last speakers on that side. He said “we are engaged in a struggle to save White civilization; we shall fight to the last man”. He referred to what he said was a planned attempt to remove the White Governments from Africa, and we see what is happening in Africa. Now let me say this that we on this side of the House are as much convinced as members opposite that we are engaged in a struggle to save civilization in South Africa. In respect of the saving of civilization and in respect of the securing of a permanent and a safe future for the White man in South Africa, I don’t believe that there is any difference between us in this House whatsoever. When I hear arguments of hon. members opposite, I think of my own case and the stake that I have. After all we are getting older, but think of the other generations coming along, and I do wish that hon. gentlemen opposite would realize that even if there may be differences between us as to what is the right method to deal with these matters, in respect of the matter of the maintenance of our civilization in this country, quite obviously all South Africans feel the same way. There may be a difference in the method proposed but it would be a good thing if we could only bring ourselves to accept that and believe it. It might form a very much better basis on which we can proceed to try and deal with these tremendously difficult problems which lie before us. I would like to say to that hon. member and other hon. members who have said that Communism is a godless creed and who have referred to the necessity of combating Communism, that for my part I am utterly convinced that Communism is a doctrine which is dangerous to the future of Africa and of the world. We know that there is a world struggle for the minds of men and we of course have a very particular responsibility cast upon us in this country. You see, Sir, we here in South Africa are in this position that if you take the Whites and the Coloureds as the Westernized group, we represent approximately one-third of the people of the Republic. And if we look at the facts of the world, and take the position we find that the proportion in South Africa in that regard is almost exactly the proportion which exists throughout the world. The Whites of the world are outnumbered by two to one. In other words, I believe that the part that South Africa can play in meeting these difficult problems is of the utmost importance for the world, the problems we are discussing, the methods of dealing with these problems, and the legislation before this House is of very great importance in respect of a correct solution of the problems which the hon. the Minister is seeking to deal with in this Bill. The question does arise as to the method, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Bill will take them seriatim because I think it will be convenient for the House if I do so.

The first one I would like to refer to is Clause 5 which deals with newspapers. I do most sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister is going to reconsider the provisions of this clause. I believe that it is utterly wrong that a Minister who has the power, for good reasons, to stop publication of a newspaper, should be in the position that in advance he can require a variable deposit which might range from nothing up to R20,000, and that that same Minister can decide in due course of time, if he stops publication for good reasons, that that amount be forfeited. The forfeiture is automatic. It means in effect that this Minister or any future Minister would be in a position then that two papers banned for exactly the same reasons will be treated quite differently. In one case there might be no penalty at all and in the other case there might be a very heavy penalty of R20,000. I don’t think that that is right. I believe that the Minister might very well reconsider that provision. I don’t believe that it is a sound thing to place a Minister in the position that a decision which really ought to be in the hands of a court of law, should be in the hands of the Minister.

I come to Clause 7 on page 7. It is a very important clause and I would like to say that I believe this House would be grateful to the hon. the Minister if he would be prepared to say quite frankly in his reply whether this clause as it stands is intended to be in these words or whether it requires amendment and what the real intention is. I refer to the addition of the proposed new sub-section (3), which reads—

1. (a)Of any gathering; or
2. (b)of any particular gathering or any gathering of a particular nature, class or kind,

As far as I can see Sir, there is no difference between the meaning of the Afrikaans and the English text. As I read it, it means that if there is in South Africa any person or organization which is furthering or may further the achievement of any of the objects of Communism, then the Minister is given, in terms of the earlier part of the clause which I have read, the power to ban any gathering or a particular gathering or any gathering of a particular nature, class or kind.

Clause 8, which inserts a new Section 10, is one of very great importance. It is one which was referred to by one hon. member who is not in the House at the moment, as a real stroke of genius on the part of the Minister. I would like to say again that in this clause the Minister is taking unto himself very wide powers, powers which in my view should not be exercised by a Minister of the State, powers which might very well be exercised by some judicial body, if they are to be exercised at all. Because under this provision the so-called house arrest is unlimited in point of time. It is utterly objectionable for that reason. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister will be able to cast any different light on the clause, but certainly in its present form the clause is utterly objectionable. I do not think the Minister has given any reasons in respect of this clause in respect of the extreme powers which it vests in his hands.

Do you object to the clause in principle?

I would not object if the decision was in the hands of the court. That would be a different matter. Any order of this sort should be limited in point of time. If in particular circumstances the Minister had power to do this for a day or two or for some very limited period, that may be a matter which can be discussed. Certainly in its present form it is utterly objectionable and I believe should not stand.

Then we come to the Public Safety Act which is amended in Clause 16 of the Bill. I do not think the Minister in introducing the Bill, gave adequate reasons. Perhaps he might deal with it further in his reply. The Section provides for regulations and it is the clause which allows for the declaration of an emergency in one area and the application of the provisions which apply to that emergency, to other parts of the country. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that in this form the clause could be the subject of very grave abuse. If the Minister asks: “Do you expect the Minister to abuse it?” I say that is not the point. The point is this that no powers should be granted, powers of an arbitrary nature, which can be abused by a Minister. It is absolutely essential, if we want to put on our Statute Book laws which are worthy of the civilized state which exists here, that provisions of this sort if they are included, should be circumscribed very, very clearly, or there should be some other check. The position at the present time is completely unchecked as I see it. The decision rests entirely with the Minister.

I now come to the extension of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act. Sir, I would like to express the view that where there is provision in a parliamentary Statute for the extension of an Act by resolution of both Houses—while I do not for a moment question the competence of Parliament so to extend by the substitution of 1963 for 1962—that provision should be observed. It is my belief that that provision was put in because Parliament wished to have a specific opportunity of debating those matters. It may be a point about which others may have their own views, but it seems to me that where there is a specific provision of that sort, specially designed for a particular purpose, that provision should be acted upon.

I now come to Clause 19 of the Bill. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that very careful consideration should be given an amendment of this clause. This is a provision which deals with the re-production of speeches in any form whatsoever. The clause, Sir, is in the widest possible form. I want to submit to the hon. the Minister—to put it at its lowest—that there is a grave doubt whether Section 2 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, No. 19 of 1911, is not repealed by this provision pro tanto or at least varied? Obviously it would not be repealed in form; it might mean that it is repealed or amended by implication in respect of these matters. Sir, if we look at Maxwell on “The Interpretation of Statutes”—I do not want to quote extensively—but he says this—

If the object of the clause is to prevent dissemination in any form whatsoever, quite obviously the provision which prohibits dissemination is of the same kind as those dealt with in the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act which gives an absolute right to raise any matters whatsoever in Parliament. Here, Sir, is a specific provision which specifically prohibits anybody from in any way disseminating or spreading speeches which have been made by persons who are referred to in the clause.It seems to me that that provision falls fully within the rule which I have quoted. I think the hon. the Minister will follow my argument. If it is intended to stop entirely the spreading of statements by the persons who fall within the terms of the clause, quite obviously the statement of those matters in Parliament would immediately get right round that provision. In those circumstances I do submit to the Minister that there is. as I said a minute ago, a very grave risk that the freedom of speech which exists here, is being impaired. It is only right that freedom of speech in this House should be put entirely beyond all doubt.

I now come to the provisions of Clause 21 I would like to say immediately that I believe that true sabotage is one of the worst and most reprehensible crimes which there can possibly be. We have no crime of sabotage on our Statute Book. It has been found in years gone by that our common law—our Roman-Dutch Law as amended by the influence of English law and of course our Statutes—has given ample protection. The position is that the hon. the Minister says that it is essential that the new crime should be created. He has pointed out that powers in respect of sabosabotage have been taken in various other countries in the world. Let me make it clear: First of all, it has been stated again and again, that sabotage is absolutely and utterly opposed by the Opposition. When I use the word “sabotage” I mean sabotage in its ordinary dictionary meaning and not in the meaning which it has been given in terms of this Bill. Case after case has been put to the hon. the Minister here in this debate making it abundantly clear that there are innumerable cases where comparatively minor matters fall squarely within the term “sabotage” as defined in this Bill. The hon. the Minister said across the floor of the House to one of the hon. members here who had put a specific case to him, a case which the Minister cannot deny was a valid one, “Don’t be silly” or words to that effect.

I did.

Now, Sir, I say it is utterly wrong to put on a Statute a crime so ill defined although only the Attorney-General can prosecute. I have already disposed of the argument that it must trust the Attorney-General by referring to a case, which was subject to great criticism in respect of wholesale prosecutions, I refer to the Treason trial in which 156 persons being put in jeopardy and later discharged. Don’t let us suggest, Sir, that an Attorney-General cannot make mistakes. I do not for a moment believe they would act arbitrarily. But I say this that Parliament would be utterly wrong to put on the Statute Book a crime as widely defined as this, a crime which can bring persons in jeopardy of a death sentence in respect of matters which are of a minor nature. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will reconsider this clause entirely. The Minister will agree that in this clause the definition of “sabotage” goes very much further than the definition in the War Measure Regulations which were put on our Statute Book during the war. Even there, Sir, when South Africa was fighting for her life, the sabotage clause was nothing like as wide as the clause which we have in this Bill. I believe, Sir, that it is possible to make sabotage a crime which will deal with real sabotage and not with matters which artifically become sabotage because of the terms of a piece of legislation. Now I come to perhaps the most objectionable provision. Member after member on the other side of the House has said that there is not a real shifting of the onus. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) took the first part of Clause 21 and he referred to a wrongful and wilful act and he said that had to be proved by the State. I entirely agree with him. That has to be proved by the State. Once the wrongful act has been proved then immediately the onus is placed upon the accused in respect of the contents of paragraph (2) of this clause, and no hon. member on that side can deny that. The hon. member for Ceres nods his head; and I think the hon. the Minister for Information also appears to agree. So we are at one. It is elementary because the clause says—

I say that in many of the circumstances which can arise that onus is an unfair onus so far as the accused is concerned. I hope the hon. the Minister will have second thoughts about it.

I should like to say this in regard to this debate. I think all of us on both sides of this House were privileged to be able to hear the analysis of this Bill by my hon. Leader. It was a magnificent analysis of the provisions of the Bill and it stands absolutely untouched by the debate which has taken place over the last few days. Not in one single respect has that case been shaken, not in a single respect. The case which was put by my hon. Leader stands unshaken, stands firmly and that is the case which the hon. the Minister has to meet in his reply to this debate. I hope he will concede a very large number of the points that were raised. It is so easy to say: You are against this Bill, therefore you are in favour of Communism. You are against this Bill, therefore you are in favour of sabotage. I fling that charge back in the teeth of any hon. member who makes that allegation, because he knows that it is an utterly unjustified accusation in relation to the attitude of this side of the House in respect of this Bill.

I do not want to deal with the Bill any further. I think it has been fully covered …

May I ask a question? I would like to ask the hon. member whether he agrees with the legislation in Rhodesia as intended for sabotage?

I believe that the best precedent that we have to look at are our own War Measure Regulations. I would be prepared to examine as an alternative any other law which deals with this matter, so that we can get a better law on the Statute Book. It should be the aim of all of us to get the best possible provision’s in our law and particularly in our criminal law because of the dire consequences. Because once a man has been hanged, there is nothing that you can do about it thereafter; it is the end. Therefore, I say we should spend all the time necessary, we should do our utmost to get an entirely satisfactory definition if the Minister feels that it is essential that sabotage should be a separate crime. But I do beg of the Minister this, Sir, that he will not make the so-called sabotage so wide that it covers all aspects of life. Let it be kept to the serious matters where persons are seeking to subvert the State. If that can be done, I think we might get some where.

I have completed the analysis of some provisions of the Bill. I would like in the last few minutes which are available to me to say this: More than ever in a debate that which I have heard during these last few days, has made me wonder whether hon. members opposite—many of them, not all; there are many exceptions to whom I pay tribute—do not realize the difficulties which face South Africa and do not realize where South Africa is standing at the present time in relation to the outside world. As far as this country is concerned, the happenings of these last few years and the difficulties which we have, each and everyone of us should have realized that enormous tasks face South Africa.

Capitulation.

You hear that, Sir,”capitulation”. That is not the spirit in which I am approaching this matter, Sir. Let me say at once, that so far as I am concerned, I am not prepared to capitulate. I believe it is nothing less than my bounden duty to pass down to the coming generation, particularly that portion for whose being I am personally responsible—my own descendants—what I can. I believe it is my bounden duty to do all that can be done. I think it is in that spirit that we should approach this problem. We cannot forever live in the position that South Africa is in the situation in relation to the outside world in which she is to-day. Let me say this: I realize as well as anyone the vast difficulty of solving the problems of this country. It will not be the work of this generation alone. It will be the work, I believe, of generation upon generation. In that work, I believe, to get anywhere near to a solution we must get very much further away from the hatred and the bitterness which has disfigured the life of South Africa for far too long. [Interjections.] Sir, I was not casting stones. I was referring to the South African people inside and outside this House. What is perfectly clear to me, Sir, is this: Whatever the solutions may be great demands will be made on the White man in South Africa in finding a solution to these problems. It is something which will test us to the core. I hope, Sir, that the day will come that we will have a sounder base from which to work. This is a democracy and I believe in democracy. But I do believe that if democracy is to stand, then it must be a democracy which is free from the hatred and the bitterness and the suspicion which we find all too rife in South African public life. [Interjections.] Sir, I am glad to hear hon. members opposite say”hear, hear”, I wonder perhaps if, in the remaining stages of the debate they would be prepared to do what they can so this may be a start in that regard. Sir, we are dealing with things of fundamental importance. We are dealing with the freedom of people. Don’t let us disfigure the remaining stages of this debate by this cry of “kafferboetie” and “communist It is something which has done this country immense damage, not only in that it made the solution of our problems more difficult but very much more than that, Sir. I believe that sort of statement finds its way overseas, and is one of the bases of the difficulties which South Africa faces in the outside world.

All Nazis; all child-hanging bills!

The hon. Minister is showing the very spirit which I suggest should not be the spirit in which we should face our problems. I was endeavouring to see if it is not possible to appeal to members—not only members on that side of the House—to think deeply when we are considering these matters. In that case I am entitled to ask that a Minister of the State, and particularly a Minister of Information, should set an example.

This is, I believe, the end of the debate except for the Minister’s reply and I should like to say this: That in spite of the stones which have been thrown from the other side of the House, I want to say that I have been proud of being a member of this team, brilliantly led in this debate by my Leader. [Interjections.]

Order!

I was saying, Sir, that I have been proud of being a member of this team, working with colleagues with whom it was a pleasure to work, working with a Leader under whom it is a privilege to serve. I say this that far from the attitude of this side of the House during this debate being based on the fear that, as one member put it “that will cost you a lot of votes”, it was based on our belief. Sir, you know votes are not the important thing. The important thing—and I hope that will be the important thing to every Opposition who ever sits in this House—is that in respect of our political problems all will take their stand on that which they believe to be right. I am quite prepared to take a stand on those principles which have been enunciated from this side of the House during this debate. If we should lose support outside, that will not worry me, Sir, for it will be only temporary. I believe that if you stand for the things which you believe to be right, in God’s good time, the sun will rise again.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that we have all stayed awake a very long time, particularly I, I should have liked to have replied to this debate immediately but for the fact that circumstances of which we are all aware make it impossible to continue.

Nevertheless I want to thank the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) for the words of appreciation which he addressed to me at the beginning of his speech. In saying that, the reply that I gave him also falls away, of course. I want to add, however, that I would be neglecting my duty if I did not point out to the hon. member that the pious protestations which he uttered in the course of his peroration simply leave me cold. I have heard similar protestations only too often in this House in the past and nothing has come of them in practice. That is why I take no notice of them. Unfortunately I have also reached the stage already where I no longer believe these protestations, because although words have been plentiful they have never been followed up by deeds. In the course of the 37 hours that this debate has lasted, the tragedy of the United Party has become much clearer than ever before in all the years that I have been a member of this House. The United Party is completely helpless in the grip of the forces which control it and which dictate its policy. For 37 hours we have heard protestations here that there is no party which is more inexorably opposed to Communism and to sabotage than the United Party, and yet it has taken them 37 hours to say why they are going to vote against this Bill which is specifically designed to deal with Communism and sabotage. That is the tragedy of hon. members on the other side, namely that whatever the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Germiston (District) and others may want to do, they are at the mercy of forces which do not allow them to act as they see fit. The second tragedy which has been enacted in my mind’s eye during this debate is that in any other country which professes to be and which is genuinely opposed to Communism, this debate, however badly this Bill may have been drafted, would have taken no more than one morning, because the second reading debate only concerns the principle embodied in this Bill. In any other country an Opposition which is not helplessly trapped in the grip of the forces controlling it would have said that although the Bill has been badly drafted it approves of the second reading for the sake of the common principle of anti-Communism and anti-sabotage and that it will deal with the Bill in detail in the Committee Stage. That is what one could have expected from an Opposition which is not tied hand and foot as this tragic United Party is.

At this stage I should like to move—

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned.