Mr. Speaker, I move—

Having considered the documents which have been tabled, we raise no objection to this motion as it deals with compensation to be paid where persons have been affected by the Group Areas Act. They are the persons who have been affected and as far as we are concerned the compensation to be paid is reasonable.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I have been requested to make it possible for hon. members of this House to discuss certain reports that have been tabled. I deemed this a reasonable request, not only in order to afford hon. members who took part in that commission the opportunity to take up a standpoint in this House in regard to these matters, but also because it was fair, in my opinion, that other hon. members be granted the opportunity of expressing their standpoint in regard to these matters. In my opinion this would also be fair in order that hon. members in general might be able to express to the Government their standpoint in regard to recommendations and related matters. In spite of the fact that it is customary not to have private members’ days during a session such as this one, I considered it to be fair that time be set aside for attending to this matter. Therefore, it is in order to afford members that opportunity that I have introduced this motion in this House.

By way of providing a background I am just going to touch briefly on a few facts. Hon. members will recall that it was by way of a substantive motion that I raised this matter in this House in 1972, and that I requested the House in that motion that a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the objectives, organization, activities, financing and related matters concerning certain organizations, let me just point out in passing that people and individuals are not involved here. The motion dealt exclusively with certain organizations, which in fact were mentioned in it. When I proposed this motion at the time. I was attacked chiefly with regard to two matters.

In the first instance I was reproached for not having made out a case for a select committee having to be appointed. In the second instance the argument was put forward that if there were to be any question at all of an inquiry being instituted, that inquiry was not to be made by a select committee, but by way of a judicial commission. There were members who felt that one judge would be adequate and, interestingly enough, there were requests on the part of the said organizations for three judges to be detailed to conduct the inquiry. I defended myself against both those attacks at the time, and I do not find it necessary for the purposes of my argument to come back to them or to deal with them again. All of it stands recorded in Hansard. The fact of the matter is that that motion was adopted by Parliament. Although the official Opposition took up the standpoint that it wanted a judicial commission, and also advanced arguments in favour of that in the House, it decided, quite rightly, that it was its duty to participate in the activities of this select committee, which, for very good reasons, was subsequently converted into a commission.

This is the first opportunity I have had to comment on this matter, and I want to convey my thanks to the official Opposition in this regard. I think that it is good and right that the Opposition should have decided as they did, and that for many reasons which I could mention here, but which are also unnecessary for the purposes of my argument. I say that I want to express my appreciation for the fact that in spite of objections which they raised across the floor of the House, they took part in the activities of, at first, the select committee and, later on, the commission. I just want to repeat in passing that at the time when the commission was appointed, I intentionally made no accusations, neither against individuals nor against organizations as such, and that for the reasons I advanced at the time. What I wanted then, and I am convinced that it was correct, was that Parliament, through a committee made up of its members, should acquaint itself with these organizations. In looking back, one finds it interesting to note that seldom in our parliamentary history has there been such a spate of attacks as those which followed because of a decision taken by Parliament. Attacks were made because of the fact that such an inquiry had been ordered, and personal attacks were made on those members who were willing to serve on that commission in the performance of their parliamentary duties.

Initially the committee comprised six Government members and three members of the Opposition. In the course of 1972 a further member of the Opposition was appointed to that commission, the reason being that the commission felt at the time that it would be able to dispose of its business more speedily if it were to split in two. One member changed parties in the course of the business of that commission, and it is purely for the purposes of the record that I say that at the time I offered the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to appoint another member of the Opposition if he should so desire. He chose not to do so. Those members who served on the commission brought out certain interim reports, which were tabled. At present the position is that two full reports have been laid on the Table of this House and supplied to hon. members, i.e. the report dealing with the student organization Nusas and the report dealing with the Institute of Race Relations.

The committee and the commission did their work over the past two years, and I should be failing in my duty if I did not take this opportunity to tell hon. members that I have seldom come across a commission whose members worked as hard as did these very members who served on this commission. That hon. members, in spite of their very numerous duties as Members of Parliament, were still able to find the time and in fact sacrificed nights and week-ends in order to complete their task in this regard as soon as possible, is praiseworthy. The select committee had 19 meetings and heard nine different witnesses in the course of those meetings. The commission on Nusas met 89 times, heard 71 witnesses and received and considered documents and memoranda which comprised about 15 000 pages in all, while the transcribed proceedings with regard to Nusas comprised 4 904 pages.

In respect of the S.A. Institute of Race Relations the commission had 31 meetings, heard 24 witnesses and received and considered documents and memoranda comprising about 7 500 pages in all. This will give hon. members some idea of the amount of work that was required of this commission. That is why I want to convey to them my sincere thanks, as one parliamentarian to other parliamentarians and at the same time convey my thanks to the officials who were at their disposal and who, along with them, had to sacrifice time to get this job done in such a short time. I think that the hon. members do not only deserve thanks for the work done by them; I should be failing in my duty if I did not also express my gratitude for the dignified way in which all the members of this commission acquitted themselves of their task, in spite of the venomous personal attacks made on them in the most undeserved manner from time to time and in spite of the fact that there were organizations, bodies and persons who went out of their way to humiliate and try to disparage this commission. I think they deserve thanks for the manner in which they went ahead with the inquiry.

I am aware that there were many misgivings and, in fact, also many complaints before this commission commended its business, for example that parliamentarians would not be suitable to do this kind of work, that many evils would result from the manner of their inquiry, and so on. I am not aware of any complaint having been made by any person not in connection with having being treated courteously and decently. Sir, what is more, I am not aware of any charge having been made by any person with regard to his rights not having been protected fully before this commission or with regard to the commission’s not having tried painstakingly to prevent all persons who appeared before it from incriminating themselves. In other words, Sir, the members who served on this commission acted in accordance with the best traditions of this House.

Sir, as I have said members of this House have in their hands two reports on which they may express opinions. It is not my task and my function, as hon. members may appreciate, to express an opinion on the merits of this matter on this occasion. I am here as the head of the Government to listen to the standpoints of hon. members in this regard. After the conclusion of the debate, I shall, in so far as this may be necessary, announce the standpoint and recommendations of the Government. Meanwhile—and it stands to reason that this should be the case—instructions have been given that the report and the documents of the commission should go to the Attorney-General; because in so far as there may be criminal offences, it is not the function of the commission or of the House to deal with them, but in fact that of the Attorney-General. At that time I took the view that this commission should acquaint itself with certain facts in respect of these organizations. I believe that these reports bear testimony to the fact that this was indeed done by the commission. I repeat that I do not want to anticipate, through my comments, a factual discussion by hon. members. I do think, however, that I would not be doing the wrong thing if I referred hon. members to just one unanimous decision or finding of the commission, for this is to my mind the crux of the work done by this commission. I refer to the finding which hon. members will find in paragraph 20.2.6.4 on page 516 of the Fourth Interim Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations. I purposely refer to just this one paragraph because, in my humble opinion, it contains the crux of what is really involved here, the matter on which this House will, in my humble opinion, have to express opinions, in regard to which this House will have to take up a standpoint and with which this House will have to acquaint itself. The paragraph reads as follows—

I think hon. members, whatever their views on politics may be or whatever political party they belong to, will agree with me that if there is one thing all political parties must guard against, it is the fact which the commission unanimously and succinctly brought to the notice of the House in this way. This Parliament, the highest body elected by the voters, has a duty to take cognizance of such disturbances of such intentions and of organizations which concern themselves with matters of this kind. May I also say—and I owe it to the House to say this, and in doing so I am aware that there are hon. members opposite who differ with me in principle as regards this matter—that it is still my standpoint that when it comes to the combating of subversion and the prevention of actions aimed at the overthrow of the State, it is the task of Parliament to take cognizance of such matters. The Government is therefore the body which, in terms of the Acts of Parliament, is vested with the necessary authority to undertake such combating and prevention. I want to make it very clear, because these will be the guidelines on the basis of which the Government will act for as long it is placed in this position, that the Government cannot escape that obligation placed upon it by the Acts of Parliament. I want to make it very clear that the Government also has no intention of evading its duty in that regard. Therefore, in spite of attacks which have been made in the past, or which will yet be made in the future, in spite of the severest personal criticism which may yet be expressed in that regard, the Government will, in pursuance of the Acts of this Parliament and with the authority it is vested with by Parliament, take steps so that it may, to the best of its ability, in accordance with its discretion and in accordance with the nature of the threat, protect all people in South Africa against that kind of extra-parliamentary action.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister has said that this debate is the result of a request that this matter should be discussed. When this commission, this Select Committee, was originally appointed, the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that this matter would be brought back to this House. I mention this, Sir, because in going into the history of this, the hon. the Prime Minister referred to the fact that the commission had originated in a Select Committee appointed by this House on the motion of the hon. gentleman himself. In this respect, I think a few things are important. The first is that in motivating his motion the hon. gentleman said—

In other words, the implication was that a report would be made to Parliament and that Parliament would decide what action should be taken, should it be necessary. The hon. the Prime Minister at that time spoke of a prima facie case and he denied laying charges of contravening the law against anybody or any organization. He said that he had “certain evidence” at his disposal. He did not say what it was, Mr. Speaker, nor in what connection. It seemed to me that he tacitly admitted that there was nothing illegal or unlawful which he wished to specify.

The third thing which is important about the origin of this commission is that the hon. the Prime Minister insisted on a Select Committee as opposed to a judicial commission. He did this despite our plea for a judicial commission and despite our suggestion that it should be a term of reference to that judicial commission to determine whether the activities of these organizations were subversive of the safety, security or well-being of the State or of harmonious race relations in the Republic. The hon. the Prime Minister’s terms of reference were very different. I think it is for this reason that we find ourselves in the position today that we have no findings in respect of these matters, but findings of fact upon which we have to draw conclusions. The hon. the Prime Minister, having told us that this matter would come back to Parliament, nevertheless acted himself, through his Minister of Justice, on certain findings which were made public after the tabling of the second interim report. He did so without recourse to or discussion in Parliament. I believe he did it in breach of his undertaking to Parliament. He did it in a manner not specified by the commission, a manner which he well knew was unacceptable to the Opposition. Sir, that action can be defended perhaps by the Prime Minister’s statement that the commission was to investigate not individuals but organizations, but I do not think that holds water because this action I believe, immeasurably increased the burden on the commission; it increased the burden on the members of the commission and it made their work incalculably more difficult because there was an immediate demand for a public justification of their findings which, of course, they were not in a position to embark upon. There developed a lack of co-operation from witnesses which I do not believe would have arisen had this not happened. There was a campaign of vilification of the commission in the Press, to which the hon. gentleman himself has referred; there was denigration of the public standing of the commission and, Sir, unfortunately Opposition members to an extent carried the brunt of that vilification and quite unjustly. I say unjustly Sir, because we on this side of the House, we in the United Party, have always been totally opposed to restrictions without trial, as the hon. the Prime Minister knows. We were totally opposed to them from the day they made their first appearance in the Suppression of Communism Act. I believe that I am possibly the only member left in this House who sat on the Select Committee on the Suppression of Communism Act and there, although we were all agreed that legislative action should be taken against Communism, we disagreed violently on two things; one was the definition of Communism and the other was the right demanded by the Government to impose restrictions on individuals without trial in court. That was the cause of the dispute which led to majority and minority recommendations by the Select Committee at the time and which led to the battles in this House which, if I remember rightly, resulted in the closure being applied on a number of occasions. Sir, over the years there has been this criticism and there has been a search for a solution because of our inability to get the Government to abandon this point of view. During the war years, as the hon. the Prime Minister perhaps may know, where internments took place without trial, as they did, the dockets were referred to a senior magistrate, and there were a number of cases where internments were set aside on his recommendation.

You are talking about something now you know nothing about.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that I am talking about something that I do not know about. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that despite his expert knowledge on this subject, there are experts on our side of the House who were in the Civil Service at that time.

I would love to meet them.

The hon. gentleman will. The matter has been tackled in other ways in other countries. In Rhodesia there is a permanent tribunal which reviews all banning or restriction orders; it does it within 30 days, I believe, on request and automatically within 60 days; it reviews all existing banning orders every so often, and if it disagrees with the Minister’s finding, then there is publication in the Gazette of the reasons for the disagreement and the matter is referred to the Officer administering the Government, who is now the State President since they have become a Republic, and a decision is taken which I presume is a Cabinet decision that can be discussed in Parliament. Sir, it is also interesting that this very subject was examined by the political commission of Spro-Cas, which advocated very strongly the appointment of a judicial tribunal to review restrictions of this kind.

Because of our attitude in this regard there are in the minority report of the commission three recommendations, which are of cardinal importance to us. The first deals with the nature of executive action which should or may be taken by the State, and the circumstances in which such action is justified. It suggests that of course those should be explicitly laid down by Parliament, more explicitly than at the present time, and that such legislation should ensure that executive action to restrict the liberty of an individual should only be taken in times of war or of national emergency, and then only in special circumstances, in the interests of the community, subject to appropriate safeguards. It goes on to suggest that to ensure that there is no injustice done to the person or persons concerned, it is necessary to consider what steps should be taken to evaluate such evidence independently of the security agency, for the benefit of the Minister, and to provide for an appropriate tribunal for review of executive action. Then the minority recommended—because the majority thought this was outside the terms of reference and was not prepared to give an opinion on this matter—that there should be established a judicial tribunal to which any recommendation for executive action should be submitted, and it laid down how the proceedings should be regulated, how secrecy could be observed where it was in the public interest, and how recommendations could be made, motivated by reasons, to the Minister concerned. It asked that that tribunal should consist of a judge and two assessors who would be counsel of not less than 10 years’ standing, or senior magistrates. But it said that where executive action was taken as a matter of urgency in the public interest, such action should be subject to review by the tribunal and that the tribunal should be empowered to review all existing restriction orders imposed by executive action and make recommendations to the Minister thereon. Of course, Sir, the minority makes it clear that they do not suggest, condone or approve executive action otherwise than in the manner they suggest that it should be laid down by Parliament, subject to safeguards against possible injustice, in terms of their submissions. I think I have made it clear, Sir, that as far as we are concerned we would prefer there to be no power in the hands of the executive to make restriction orders or to ban people. We would like to see this disappear altogether, except in very exceptional circumstances. Sir, the Government is in power. If we cannot persuade it to repeal the legislative provisions which give it this power, at least we may be able to persuade it that they should be exercised only subject to the strictest safeguards.

Now, Sir, the question is whether the findings of such a tribunal should be binding on the Minister or not. My own feeling is that they should be so binding on the Minister, and that where they disapprove of his action, that restriction order should be set aside. Sir, there is a philosophical justification for this whole approach, quite apart from one’s respect for the liberty and freedom of the individual, and that is that the maintenance of law and order in any State involves relationships between individuals and individuals and between individuals and groups of individuals and the State; and the relationship between the individual and the State requires that special attention be given to three things, the common law or statutory crimes which the State prescribes, violations of law and order as such, and acts subverting the authority of the State in an endeavour to achieve change through violence in disregard of normal constitutional processes.

One appreciates that the State has certain duties, that the courts must take certain action, that the Police have responsibilities, that the legislature has responsibilities and that the Executive has responsibilities. I want to say that the restriction orders applied in respect of this, what I call, Nusas clique, certainly do not comply with any of the requirements which we on this side of the House feel justify restriction orders being imposed. Therefore we have no hesitation in saying, now that the final report is before Parliament and the papers are before the Attorney-General, that these restriction orders should be lifted and that it should be left to the Attorney-General to take such appropriate action as he thinks fit.

There is a second matter that I want to deal with before I come to the report itself. Our commissioners, namely those that represented our party on this commission still believe—and I agree with them entirely and we on this side of the House agree with them—that when regard is had to the background of the work of this commission and the issues involved that the appointment of a judicial commission, i.e. a commission presided over by a judge or assisted or not by other judicially trained individuals, would have been the proper course. I believe it would have been the proper course because it would have induced greater public confidence. Whether we as parliamentarians like it or not, I believe it would have induced greater public confidence. It is accepted that the judiciary as such is more practised in evaluating evidence and I believe that it would have been given more specific terms of reference. There is an interesting comment by Lord Denning, who as you know presided over the Profumo investigation concerning the security of the State in Great Britain. I have here only an Afrikaans translation of what he said and which was referred to in the judgement of Bell v. Van Rensburg, N.O., 1971 South African Law Reports. It reads as fololws—

I believe that is very true of the situation with which we were faced in respect of this Select Committee which in due course became a commission. I want to say once again that I believe that had this been a judicial commission, we would have avoided a lot of the difficulties with which the commissioners were faced and the public denigration and vilification that took place. It might have been that the whole exercise could have been achieved in a very much calmer atmosphere and one more conducive to a sincere evaluation of the situation by the public at large.

There is a third thing that one has to consider and that is how it is that with this information which was put before the Select Committee or the commission there was no Government action taken before the final report came before Parliament. As hon. members know, the Government did not hesitate to restrict people. They did not hesitate to come to this House earlier this year with the Affected Organizations Bill which it now seems arose from this report. How is it that earlier recourse was not had to the Attorney-General with the information that must have been available to the Government? When one deals with the reports themselves and with the report on Nusas in particular, I think we are all grateful that there was no suggestion that Nusas itself should be banned or done away with. In fact, the desirability of the existence of such an organization was recognized very clearly by the commission, but the picture was painted of the operation of a clique of people who I do not think can really be regarded as students, but can be regarded as paid politicians or paid activists. If the facts are to be accepted, and on that I cannot judge, the picture is one of a gigantic fraud by a small self-perpetuating clique upon their fellow-students, upon the public of South Africa and in some respects upon overseas donors. That is what is revealed when one examines the situation. These conclusions were drawn by the commission on evidence which came largely from the individuals concerned themselves and from documents for which they were responsible in preparing. It seems, as one of the previous presidents of Nusas said, that they conducted a schizophrenic existence. One aspect of that schizophrenic existence involved the perpetuation of their ideas in a leadership group by means of sensitivity training and terrorism of the mind, the exploitation of the ideals of their fellow-students for their own political motives, the creation of an impression with the public of South Africa that they represent the entire student body at English-language universities, the attempt to get their opinions accepted and evaluated as such, the collection of moneys overseas from bodies and organizations—many of them hostile to South Africa—on representations that they represented the entire body of students at the English-language universities in South Africa and that they were following far more radical policies than even they were prepared to follow, and in some cases the collecting of money for one purpose and using it for another. This all paints a most unsatisfactory picture which is made much worse when one bears in mind the ideas of this group in respect of polarization between Black and White in South Africa, their efforts to bring it about and the political uses to which they put the wages campaign which they conducted. Whether these findings were what led the hon. the Minister of Justice to make his restriction orders, I do not know. Whether he had additional information, I also do not know, unless he would be prepared to make some statement, but unfortunately he is not in the House. Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister could react on his behalf. I think what worries me ...

Here he is.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, he is the new Minister of Justice, but he was not responsible for those bannings and I shall not hold him responsible for them, because I do not know whether he was even the Deputy Minister of Justice at that time. I have no doubt that the hon. the Prime Minister himself will know what the situation was.

I rather think that we discussed that fully over the floor of the House.

No, we did not.

Yes, in the light of the interim report that was tabled in the previous session.

No, we did not have any discussion on that. We had a short discussion, when restriction orders were served on the leaders of Saso, in the form of questions and answers in this House. However, we never discussed this point in detail. A thing that worries me and that worries the public is that we have no assurance that the information which the hon. the Minister of Justice had at that time, was placed before the Attorney-General with a view to further action. I know that the powers to restrict as laid down by law, are somewhat wider than the definition of certain misdeeds contained in the relevant Act. The line is a very narrow one indeed and one has the feeling that if the hon. the Minister felt that he was justified in taking that action, the papers should have gone to the Attorney-General and should have been considered with a view to further action. I think it is the fact that we had no assurance at that time that has led to a lot of the unhappiness in respect of the activities of the commission and its sittings.

There are other recommendations by the minority which I will deal with later. First of all, I want to deal with the unanimous recommendations of the commission and the attitude of this side of the House to them. The first concerns the donation of money from abroad for the furthering of political purposes in South Africa. As we know, political parties are governed by the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, but this does not apply to organizations like Nusas which are nevertheless apparently actively engaged in political activity. I think it is recognized by all sides that this is undesirable and I think the Government had this in view when the Affected Organizations Bill was introduced into Parliament earlier this year. I want to say that although that Bill was approved by the House I had the greatest misgivings as to what the effects of its operation would be and the manner in which it might be administered. I believe this is something which should be re-examined. It should be re-examined accepting that we do not tolerate interference from outside South Africa either by means of finance or by other means in our political affairs. By the same token we should also bear in mind that it is obviously to South Africa’s advantage for money to be donated from overseas for non-political purposes in South Africa. I feel that that was the distinction that was not made when the Affected Organizations Bill was before us.

The commission also raised the question of the centre affiliation of Nusas and recommended that the system must not be made use of in political organizations like Nusas. I believe that the ASB also has a centre affiliations.

It is not a political body.

I thought that would be the reply. For a non-political body it spends an awful lot of time discussing politics as anybody knows who reads reports of their congresses and some of the resolutions that are put forward and some of the speeches made to the congresses by leading politicians and Ministers of the present Government. In fact, it is rather odd that I cannot remember a leading politician on the Opposition side ever being invited to address an ASB congress.

It seems to me you are not wanted anywhere.

I certainly do not want to be wanted by certain organizations; let us make no bones about that. The lack of wanting is mutual in certain cases. In any event, the problem is how are you going to stop this. Surely this is a matter for the councils of the universities and not for legislative or Government action. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we recognize the evil but we feel it is something that should be left to the councils of the universities concerned. That goes also for the other matter to which the commission has drawn attention, namely the registration of persons who are not bona fide students, year after year as students at universities, not to play rugby but to become entitled to privileges to which students are entitled and to gain access to the campus for purposes other than study. The commission recommends that this matter should receive the attention of the Minister concerned and of the university authorities. I think we would prefer to see it squarely stated that this is a matter which should be left to the councils of the universities after their attention has been drawn to this. I believe there are already stirrings in certain councils designed to cope with this particular difficulty.

The fourth matter to which the commission drew attention has to do with the question of the activities of recognized political parties on the campuses of what are called the “Nusas Universities. The commission was of the opinion that political activity by recognized political parties should also be allowed on campuses on an equal footing with other groups, and recommends that all authorities concerned with this matter should devise ways and means of making this possible, with due regard to the laws of the land. This has been a running battle between my party and certain of the English-language universities for a considerable time. What this commission reveals, if it is correct, is what we have always suspected, namely that as a result of the difficulties placed in the way of the existing political parties to operate on the campuses of the various English-language universities, usually by the students’ representative councils concerned, the position is that the country and the political parties are deprived of a training ground for what should be a leadership group in the future. Extraordinarily, in most overseas universities the political parties have strong branches. Active debate takes place. The students are taught, educated and practised in putting across party policy and participating in inter-party debate. Many of them graduate very early from that sort of training into the active political scene outside. At one of the universities at which it was my privilege to be a student, I think there were no less than three members in my time who left the university, and within a period of nine to twelve months were candidates for various parties in the general election which took place at that time. I feel that they were well qualified to be so elected, because of the experience they had had during their university years under the guidance of the political parties concerned. This is not happening at our English-language universities. It is very interesting to note the sort of excuses and devices that are resorted to to justify this state of affairs. The commission sets them out in chapter 18, paragraph 25; they suggest that students should have the opportunity of developing in a field free from party politics, that they should be allowed only to debate with people of their own standing, and that they should be free to develop on their own, without their development being influenced by the professional politicians. But of course, where the whole thing broke down was that the paid, professional politicians from Nusas have been activating them and attempting to influence them all the time in a vacuum created by the lack of activity of the existing political parties. The advantages of being recognized on the campus are pretty substantial. It means access to the buildings, the halls; it means access, very often, to secretarial assistance; it means a ready audience; it means various facilities in respect of being brought into contact with people, which are invaluable to any political party. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we feel very strongly indeed that it is absolutely essential that the normal political parties should be allowed to operate on the campuses, and that something must be done to see that this is made possible.

Before we get down to some of the more serious matters, there is one matter which concerns the evidence presented to the commission about Nusas’s control of its funds, and not only the control of its funds, but the whole series of qualified auditors’ annual reports which seems to have evinced no comment from anybody, either at their congresses or from the constituent students’ representative councils, who must have had some members amongst them who at least knew what a qualified auditor’s report meant. The evidence of the diversion of funds from the purpose for which they were collected to other purposes, the system of commission employed in their administration of funds—they suggest with the consent of the donors—reveals a very sorry picture indeed. I do not think anything can justify such carelessness and negligence in the administration of what must be regarded as trust funds. I wonder what the result would be on the freedom of a company official who acted in this way, or any attorney who had a trust fund and operated it in this manner. It is incredible that there was such a lack of interest that no objection appears to have been lodged at any time by representatives of student representative councils or individual students representing the donors which were the student representative councils of their own universities who had contributed to these funds. It is suggested that control under the National Welfare Act of 1965 is a possible way out. I have no doubt that that is a possible way out but it does not seem to me to be the right sort of legislation to deal with funds of this type. I think this must receive urgent attention.

We now come to the recommendations and findings in respect of the Nusas wages campaign to one paragraph of which the hon. the Prime Minister has drawn attention. I think it is important that other paragraphs are also brought to the attention of the House. I read from chapter 20, paragraph 2.6.2.—

I also read paragraph 2.6.3—

Then comes the paragraph to which the hon. the Prime Minister has referred and which I shall not read again. Then follows the next paragraph (20.2.6.5)—

As far as I am concerned I want to draw very particular attention to the necessity for determined action to eliminate unhealthy economic conditions. I want to draw very particular attention to that, because where they exist and where there is no proper machinery to deal with them, a vacuum exists which will be exploited by agitators of any kind whatever in South Africa. Putting an end to agitation by one group will not put an end to agitation by others. Where that sort of vacuum exists, agitation will result. I think it is clearly the duty of the State to eliminate the growth of areas of dissatisfaction and the commission recognizes it as such. It does not seem to envisage legislation, but it should be noted that from statements made Tucsa itself was very worried indeed about the activities of Nusas in this field. It is notable also that Mr. Vic Feather, who I know had an interview with the hon. the Prime Minister, when he, as a British trade unionist, visited South Africa, certainly indicated that he gained the impression that Nusas had masterminded the strikes. Whether he was right or wrong I cannot say. However, there seems very little doubt that until we have trade unions as such managing these areas of dissatisfaction, trade unions operating under the Industrial Conciliation Act which restricts political interference in these activities, we are in danger of having a vacuum which is going to cause trouble in future.

There is another issue here as well that is the tardiness of wage boards in making wage determinations and the length of time between the various determinations. To avoid the dangers inherent in this field—they always will exist while there is dissatisfaction—we must urge the Government once again to accept our proposals of the change of the definition of an employee under the Industrial Conciliation Act so as to cover Blacks as well as Whites and to abandon the present machinery for the settlement of disputes which is proving unacceptable to the Black workers in South Africa. This has been mentioned before and it has been related to the effect strikes will have on inflation, labour relations and race relations in South Africa. The position is doubtly unhealthy because Black trade unions are mushrooming forth at various points all over the country. They are receiving de facto recognition, and are operating outside the law under circumstances which cannot be tolerated. Unless steps are taken, the hon. the Prime Minister is going to be faced with other reports of other agitators and other people taking advantage of the vacuum and exploiting it for their own purposes. The commission also makes mention of arms and economic boycotts and is convinced that people and organizations are encouraging arms and economic boycotts against South Africa as part of an attempt to bring about a radical change in the existing political order. The commission is of the opinion that this is a form of subversion of the State and recommends that steps be taken to combat it. Mr. Speaker, if these findings are correct, it reveals a most shockingly unpatriotic action or series of actions on the part of the individuals concerned, of the Nusas leaders concerned, actions which cannot be too strongly condemned.

When they state that these findings are correct, do you not accept that they are correct?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister asks whether I do not accept that they are correct. The findings of fact by any commission, untested by cross-examination in the course of law, are always open to different interpretations. While I expect that the commissioners have made these findings to the best of their ability and with the utmost sincerity and integrity, I must have that caveat, because I cannot accept that there may not possibly have been other findings had a different form of procedure been adopted or evidence of another kind been put before the commission.

I don’t think these facts are in dispute with regard to Nusas.

I will accept that if the hon. gentleman says so.

These particular facts.

These particular facts, if they are correct. What I wish to make clear is this: I cannot believe that this attitude is representative of the student body of South Africa who realize only too well that their own compatriots, their own comrades, are fighting on the borders at the present time to protect the northern boundaries of South Africa. It seems that attempts to deny South Africa arms for defence purposes, at a time when the situation to the north of us is as serious as it is, come precious close to treason and deserve all the contempt which attitude such as these deserve. It is not representative of the South African student body, Sir, nor should it be accepted as such.

Then, lastly, Sir, the commission dealt, in respect of the Nusas report, with the question of a standing Committee on Internal Security. They referred to the first interim report and indicated that they found it necessary to define in greater detail what the functions and responsibilities of any such proposed Standing Committee should be. In that regard, Sir, I would say that we on this side of the House go along with the recommendations of the commission. It recommends an independent judicial tribunal and it recommends that if an internal security commission is considered, it must be of such a nature that it will ensure that the executive and any individual or group against whom executive action is contemplated will have the benefit of the opinion of an independent judicial tribunal, or will have access to the courts, and that the contemplated legislation affecting State security should be motivated by members of Parliament fully informed as to the circumstances requiring such legislation. The minority report sets out in Chapter 20, paragraph 5.7.15. what the functions should be. I believe, Sir, that those functions should be perhaps even more closely defined. It says that it should receive evidence as to the necessity for any legislation relative to State security. I believe that that should be limited to evidence from State witnesses, because where there is an inquiry as to the state of affairs which may involve the guilt or innocence of individuals, we feel that that should be undertaken by a judicial commission and not a body of this kind; and that where the recommendation is to inform Parliament from time to time in respect of matters investigated by it, it should be limited to the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) of the earlier recommendation, that is, to review any existing legislation relative to security, to determine proposed legislation authorizing any executive action, and to receive evidence as to the necessity for any legislation relative to State security from witnesses of the State.

Sir, I think that the Parliamentarians engaged in this inquiry had an extremely onerous job to perform. I think they performed it to the very best of their ability. I think they are worthy of our thanks for what they have done and naturally I feel particularly that those members from this side of the House who served on the commission are doubly worthy of thanks.

Sir, the commission’s inquiries into the Institute led to certain recommendations which can be rapidly disposed of. They suggest that the Commissions Act be reviewed because of the anomaly that the penalties for breaking regulations laid down for a commission are more serious than for failing to give evidence before a commission. I believe that that is a matter that should be looked into. The minority have indicated their disapproval of the majority’s findings in respect of the censure of newspapers concerning Press comments on those who refuse to give evidence, and I must say that I accept their attitude in that regard. Thirdly, they have dealt with the action that should be taken in respect of the youth activities of the Institute. Here again, Sir, I believe that the minority are correct in saying that this is a matter that should be left to the Institute itself without Government interference. But, Sir, what is interesting in this report in respect of the Institute of Race Relations is the fact that, of course, it was found blameless, as I think all of us believed it would be, but there is an indication here that the continual attacks upon it since 1948, certainly in so far as the Prime Minister at the time, Dr. Verwoerd, was concerned, had their origin in the fact that the Institute was making propaganda which was not harmful to South Africa but which was against the policies of the Government at that time.

They see these as synonymous.

Whether they see them as synonymous for not, it is very clear that that distinction exists and that that unfair criticism of the Institute had its origin in this belief by the Prime Minister, and this is borne out by a statement which was published at the time and which is referred to by the commission in its report.

Now, Sir, to sum up: We on this side of the House are still convinced ...

You left out a very important finding about the Institute’s Turks.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. the Prime Minister has had aspirations for some time to be placed in the young and Turkish camp. I do not think he is going to succeed.

I am not talking about your Turks at all; I am talking about the Institute’s Turks.

I know, Sir, and I know what the United Party’s problems were and I know how they were dealt with.

To sum up, Sir, I want to say that we on this side of the House are convinced that a judicial commission would have been desirable as opposed to a parliamentary Select Committee converted into a commission. Secondly, we feel that the attacks made on the procedure adopted by the commission are entirely unjustified and unjustifiable. I need only refer to the case of Bell v. Van Rensburg, in which this whole matter was gone into and the question of the rights of individuals appearing as witnesses before commissions was dealt with in full by Mr. Justice Baker. He quoted from a judgment by Lord Justice Salmon concerning the Salmon report in Great Britain, Command Paper 3121 of 1966—

That, Sir, dealt with the question of legal representation and the right of cross-examination in respect of these matters.

Thirdly, we are satisfied on this side of the House that our presence as members of the Select Committee and the commission was not only judged to be necessary at the time, but in retrospect was necessary and was fully justified, fully justified if only for the fact that we had to inform ourselves of the facts in respect of this matter, and secondly, to satisfy ourselves that the procedure was as we believed it should be and would be in a Select Committee of this House. I think, fourthly, Sir, there is justification for the fact that these bodies were inquired into, Nusas because of the relevations, and the Institute because of the end, for all time, of the accusations against it that it was acting against the interests of South Africa. I believe the Police could not have done this job. I believe that this commission in no way usurped the functions of the judiciary. And I believe that what is most valuable in this report back to Parliament and the debate which will take place today, which will enable the parties to state their points of view and enable the commissioners and those participating to draw the attention of the public to the various aspects of what was under review. I think that if one thinks back to some of the criticisms, one could fairly ask some of those critics whether they approve the alleged actions to which Nusas is reported to have lent itself in terms of this commission’s report; and I think they can ask themselves, secondly, whether they are not happier that the attacks on the Institute of Race Relations are now at an end for all time.

I believe that for those reasons a good job has been done and that it will be in the interests of the country that it be made as public as possible.

Mr. Speaker, from the nature of the case we are extremely thankful for the motion which is before the House today and which was introduced by the hon. the Prime Minister, and I want to assure the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that as far as the first part of the motion is concerned, we as ordinary members will, of course, experience a large measure of unanimity. We shall differ on the second part of the motion, and I shall go into that in greater detail later on. However, at this stage there are a few matters which I should like to mention first, and I shall then return to certain points raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

In the first instance I should like to express our thanks to the hon. the Prime Minister for this motion and for his sympathetic support in a very difficult inquiry, which has not yet been completed in full. We were at all times appreciative of the interest shown by the hon. the Prime Minister in our work and in our problems. I also take pleasure in referring to the hon. member for Kroonstad, Mr. A. L. Schlebusch, whose great task it was to act as chairman of this commission in the final preparation of the reports which have been laid upon the Table here today. Mr. Schlebusch did this in a competent manner. He was tactful, cool-headed, friendly, firm and impartial at all times. The new office which he holds today, that of Speaker, represents a fine gesture of recognition to an experienced parliamentarian for all these exceptional accomplishments which he possesses. It is also true that the commission was at all times assisted by exceptionally capable officials. I should like to mention the names of two of these officials on account of the special task performed by them. The one is Mr. S. S. van der Merwe and the other is Mr. A. P. Stemmet, both from the Department of Justice. Mr. Van der Merwe was more concerned with the Nusas inquiry and Mr. Stemmet with the inquiry into the Institute of Race Relations. These two gentlemen performed their task sympathetically as well as in the best traditions of the South African public service. We are proud of both of these gentlemen. At times the members of the commission had to perform their work under extremely difficult circumstances, and here I am referring to hon. members on both sides of the House. During this period some members were involved in nomination campaigns and all of them had an election to fight. Some of the members fell by the wayside. In this connection I am thinking of Mr. Etienne Malan, who is no longer a member of this House. In thinking about these things, one cannot but ask oneself: What support did Mr. Etienne Malan receive from his Transvaal leader in these difficult circumstances? If his Transvaal leader had been in accord with his hon. chief leader, one would have expected him to support Mr. Etienne Malan. What happened to him? He was thrown to the wolves. I should like to place it on record that the members of the commission on this side of the House have great appreciation for the work done on the commission by the hon. member for Mooi River and the hon. member for Green Point. They had to endure insults right and left, even from their own ranks. In spite of that they consistently took up this standpoint: We have a task to perform on this commission and we shall fulfil that task to the very end. I am sorry that the hon. member for Turffontein is seriously indisposed today and will therefore not be able to participate in the debate.

The report of the commission in respect of the inquiry into the Institute for Race Relations and Nusas, which is before the House at the moment, arises from the motion mentioned by the hon. the Prime Minister. In the discussion of the motion he stated very dearly that he was not, by means of his motion, placing these particular organizations in the dock. The hon. the Prime Minister said (Hansard, Vol. 37, col. 727)—

The commission’s terms of reference were clear, i.e.: Inquire and report. We were placed under no obligation whatsoever. The reports being discussed today did, from the nature of the case—and this one could have expected—evoke from Nusas and other leftist ranks the usual derogatory and insulting criticism, but I do not intend reacting to that. Their action merely follows a preplanned, fixed pattern, and it is not worth wasting the time of the House by reacting to it.

With reference to the report of the Institute of Race Relations I should just like to point out the following. We experienced no problems in obtaining information. In fact, numerous persons gave verbal and documentary evidence. Several thousands of documents were considered. What was interesting, was that when we started summonsing people to give evidence before the commission, the gulf widened between the rightest liberals and the leftist radicals in that movement. That gulf became apparent very soon. All the leftist radicals who were summonsed refused to give evidence, while all the rightest liberals came and gave evidence. This conduct on the part of the leftist radicals has been referred to the Attorney-General for consideration with a view to prosecution. This experience which we gained on the commission has given rise to our feeling free to recommend that the Government look into the penal provisions in the Commission Act in regard to persons refusing to give evidence, so that it may be brought into line with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act. This inquiry also showed how present and past Nusas office-bearers had tried to take over the Institute or to exert pressure in a leftist radical direction. Even the management of the Institute was not aware of this until we pointed it out to them. They took cognizance of it in great astonishment. [Interjections.] Yes, they did. There is more than prima facie evidence that the Institute’s youth programme under the leadership of Mr. Clive Nettleton is being steered in a wrong direction, particularly through the use of sensitivity training and other methods. The commission also recommends that the Institute set its affairs in order in this regard. From reports in the Press over the past week since the report became known, I have noticed that Mr. Nettleton is no longer the director of the Institute’s youth programme. I should also like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the director and some of his office-bearers for the assistance they gave the commission.

With reference to the Nusas report I should like to point out that, when the first three interim reports were laid upon the table and criticized vehemently, someone in the House said that when the final report was laid upon the Table there would be a few red faces. After the report had been laid upon the Table, the face of the hon. member for Houghton was the reddest of all.

Not really. Have another look.

This fourth report is a monumental work of 641 pages, and anyone who claims that there is no case to be made out against Nusas, is not in possession of all his faculties. I cannot give a better description of Nusas than those given by two previous leaders of Nusas themselves. I refer hon. members in the first place, to what Mr. Martin Legassick said. He referred to pressure that was being exerted on Nusas and then went on to say—

Mr. Jonty Driver, who was president of Nusas from 1963 to 1964, said—

But I shall leave it at that. Hon. members, particularly those of the Progressive Party, would do well to comment on this for us.

The various facets of Nusas become apparent from the report and will also be commented on by other members on this side of the House. The recommendations on page 515 are clear and I am not going to deal with them in detail, except to mention that we feel it is imperative to look into the matter of the money Nusas is receiving from abroad; secondly, that their attempts at polarization of Whites and Blacks against one another, as well as their wage campaigns, hold grave dangers for South Africa; and thirdly, that they are dangerous “change agents”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked why no prosecutions had been instituted. It is not for me to reply to that. I should just like to comment on one aspect, and that is that it is a matter of the Attorney-General to decide on the amount of evidence, the adequacy of the evidence, in any case referred to him. The House has taken cognizance of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has decided that these papers will be referred to the Attorney-General. But it remains the task of the State to decide to what extent it is prepared to disclose its sources of information in respect of State security. If it is not in the interests of the country to do so, the interests of the State must be placed above those of the individual. This is my personal opinion on this matter, since the question has now been asked.

When one comes to these reports, it is interesting to look at the minority report of hon. members opposite and at the recommendations which have already been put before the House. In referring to the minority report, I do not wish to say or do anything today which may in any way offend the two hon. gentlemen of Mooi River and Green Point, for they were truly valued members of this commission. It concerns the party to which the hon. members belong. What do we have here? One is amazed by the minority report and the request by the United Party that the restrictions be lifted, particularly since the hand of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and that of the hon. member for Yeoville can clearly be seen in them, and I will in fact indicate this ...

Where is your evidence?

I shall furnish you with evidence as well. I shall come to that presently; this is something we have suspected for quite some time. Furthermore, these matters compel us to ask seriously the question which is being asked by so many people: How many leaders are there really, on the other side, also as regards this matter? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows how much respect I have for him. I shall point out our problems in connection with the attitude adopted on the other side in respect of matters relating to State security. In this first report that was tabled, a unanimous recommendation was made that a permanent parliamentary body be established. This is menioned on page 10 of the report in question. What is important in this recommendation is that such a committee will only report and make recommendations to the executive authority; in other words, the executive authority is subject to no one’s authority. This is important when one comes to the minority report of hon. members opposite. What is also interesting, especially with reference to what was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, i.e. that the hon. the Prime Minister allegedly went back on his word in regard to this restriction, is the position, and I am now referring to page 17 of the second report—and, really, hon. members should not come back to that so easily—unanimously stated by the commission as follows—

Eight names are then mentioned. The commission then states unanimously—

On page 31 the commission, once again unanimously, says the following—

Here the commission is therefore telling the Government that these people are undesirable, and asks the Government to consider taking action in this regard. It is in fact true that the hon. the Minister of Justice decided what he wanted to do in that regard, and some of these people were restricted. But, Sir, surely the hon. the Prime Minister did not go back on his word. When did the hon. the Prime Minister ever give the assurance to the House that every matter which arises out of this and requires urgent attention would first be submitted to Parliament for a decision? That is not the case.

Now, what standpoint does the United Party now take up in respect of these very same reports? I shall now furnish the hon. member for Bezuidenhout with his proof. Immediately after these reports had been tabled and these students had been restricted, the hon. member for Green Point, according to The Argus of 2 March 1973, identified himself with it. I quote—

That is what the hon. member said. No reproach was levelled at the hon. the Prime Minister or in regard to the restrictions. On the same day a statement was made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who, after all, always approaches everything obliquely. I quote—

That was on 1 March—

That is the ground on which he moves, but not a word is said about this. On the following day there was still no objection to or disputing of these decisions. What is more, the hon. member for Green Point said that he would serve on that commission when it was appointed one day. This he said in a statement he issued to Die Transvaler. Sir, that was the attitude for about three weeks. The hon. member for Yeoville was, after all, overseas at the time. He was not here to give guidance in the party. Then, after three weeks, he returned, and when he arrived in South Africa, the Rand Daily Mail said to him “But you have promised, Harry, that you would remove the ambiguity in the United Party”, and then proceeded to put certain questions to him in an editorial. Inter alia, they told him—

The newspaper then asked Mr. Schwarz to take action; things could not continue as they were. He then took the first aeroplane to Cape Town and saw the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. A few days later, on 22 March, Mr. Schwarz gave guidance to the party that had been so satisfied and happy with the first reports. Newspaper reports were head-lined: “Security plan opposed by U.P.” Mr. Schwarz then said that the United Party had not accepted and would not accept these reports; their caucus had not accepted them, and they were not bound by them either. He said that the four members participated in their personal capacities and that the United Party was not bound by the recommendations of the commission.

Quote what he said.

I do not have the time to read everything, but here it is, at the hon. member’s disposal.

Quote it.

Very well—

Then he went on to say why there should be no participation in a commission such as this one, and he referred to commissions in France and in America to which particularly unpleasant stigmas came to be attached in years gone by. The same newspaper then told Mr. Harry Schwarz that this was well said—

But what happened next was that the hon. Capt. Jack Basson, a former member of this House, issued a specific statement in which he recorded his objection to this report on the hon. member for Yeoville. He then said the following in The Cape Times of 27 March—

Further on he said—

The hon. member for Durban Point, who sometimes becomes so vehement, spoke up on the same day. I am reading from a report in this connection in The Cape Times of 27 March—

Then the actual leader of the United Party came along, the person who at that stage had already issued his manifesto on which his leadership will be based when he takes over. On 19 April—he always waits for matters to take a course—the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said, according to The Cape Times: “I am not a Schlebusch fan.”

“I like Harry.”

Yes, he is a “Harry fan”. That is quite correct. All he said was that the hon. the Prime Minister’s security guards had been caught napping and that they were actually the people who had to be dismissed. That was the position before the two hon. members commented on the matter. Before and up to the time the hon. member for Yeoville returned from abroad to come and give guidance, everyone had been quite happy. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition levels reproaches at the hon. the Prime Minister. Surely there are no grounds for that. The next step followed a few months later. The United Party presented a minority report, which was based precisely on the standpoint of the hon. member for Yeoville and was totally in conflict with the first, unanimous report. In that minority report the executive is subordinated to the judiciary in matters relating to State security. This is how they put it in their minority report (translation): “In that the Judicial Tribunal be established for review of Executive action.”

When was that submitted to the Commission? It was long before that date.

I am referring to a date prior to the signing of the final report.

It was not as a result of the matters to which you have referred. [Interjections.]

Surely the hon. members can reply to it. I am putting a case and they can reply to it later on.

That proposal was made back in 1973.

I am telling the hon. member that that is not the case. He can argue about it if he wishes.

It seems to me that there is disagreement between two of the commissioners.

What happened next? What happened was that on the day on which the report was published, the United Party, out of the blue, issued a statement to the Press in which a request was made that the restriction orders be lifted. I ask myself how this is possible in the light of the first report which was adopted unanimously.

It was not out of the “bloute” (blue); it was out of the “Schwarte” (black).

How is this possible with reference to the latest actions of the Nusas leaders? I shall come back to the latest actions of the Nusas leaders. One then asks oneself wheter this was once again done under pressure from the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I always alternate the order in which I mention these two, for I do not always know who the real leader is. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is so quick to ask where one’s proof is, but let us look at this again. On 23 May of this year the hon. member for Bezuidenhout delivered his big speech in the Cape. It was his leader speech, in which he set out his policy. According to a report in the Rand Daily Mail of 23 May ...

Did you also play party politics in this way in the commission?

No, wait a minute; both sides, after all, dragged this matter about in politics. The hon. member may reply later, for these hon. gentlemen know that we have appreciation for their co-operation. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and spiritual associates may as well reply to that. This is what appeared in the Rand Daily Mail—

I wonder how many of this Old Guard were pleased with this leadership speech of the hon. member. He then, please note, went on to discuss his party caucus and to say how many new men there were and why he thought this matter would be reviewed. This is the treatment meted out to these gentlemen who for two and a half years worked day and night. The position, however, is that when one leader has spoken, the other is quick to follow suit, and the very next day the hon. member for Yeoville said this—

Is that not the case in the Nationalist Party?

Then the hon. member went on to say—

The hon. member for Newton Park kept to the course for a fairly long time, until recently when he, too, threw in the towel. At the time it was necessary for the Chief Whip, the parliamentary leader of that party, to issue a statement in which he said that this decision would not be reviewed automatically. That is why I said at the very outset that we should discuss these things with one another. We and certain hon. members of the United Party are trying our best to fulfil the duty imposed on us by this House, but what treatment do hon. members opposite receive at the hands of certain members in their ranks? It is necessary for us to reveal this in the debate in vindication of the members sitting over there. If one thinks about these things, one seriously asks oneself whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can still be astonished at his being derided by the voters. Surely this is inevitable. Now the United Party asks that the restrictions imposed on these gentlemen be lifted. Why should they be released?

Take them to court.

Surely, what is involved here is not merely a question of taking them to court. The hon. member is surely not as naïve as that, and, besides, he is chairman of their defence group. I shall tell you why these people cannot be released. They will then be turned loose in our student community again. What did they do? I shall pick out a few things from the report at random, without keeping to a chronological order. These are the people who wrote to New Zealand asking that the South African rugby tour to New Zealand be cancelled. These are the people who maintain that we should withdraw from South-West Africa. These are the people who issue statements at Kumasi. [Interjections.]

I am making this speech, not that hon. member. These are the people who issued a statement at Kumasi, in which they requested that there should be a prohibition on the sale of arms to South Africa. These are the people who boycott Republic Day by, inter alia, circulating half a million pamphlets proclaiming “Republic Day—the great divide between oppressors and oppressed”. It is strange to note in how many places one encounters this term “the great divide” nowadays. They are people, Mr. Speaker, who through their representative, John Daniel, indulge in intrigue concerning matters relating to South Africa at the United Nations in the U.S.A. He wrote from America with great satisfaction and said that he had spoken with Mr. Ted Kennedy, and that he was very happy about Mr. Kennedy’s proposal that South Africa’s sugar quota be cancelled. This letter from Mr. John Daniel was applauded in Cape Town. This is a man who wrote to South Africa and said Mrs. Helen Joseph should be designated as the president of Nusas. Those who have been restricted follow the example of Paul Pretorius, who said that he rejected the ballot box and incited students to range themselves against the White establishment. They go overseas with the most unflattering slides on conditions in South Africa, and exhibit them there to the detriment of South Africa.

This is done solely with the aim of thwarting the good work done by the Department of Information. These are the people you wish to release, a man like Paul Pretorius, who, when he hears “The Voice of the Republic of South Africa” over the radio while he is abroad, says, “Quite disgusting!” These are leaders whom the hon. members opposite want to release, people who distributed thousands of pamphlets among the students on the S.S. Universe Campus, the big American student ship which called at Table Bay harbour, pamphlets in which South Africa was cast in the worst possible light and their cooperation was requested in order to do us harm. These are people who are in league with the communists; they ally themselves to organizations which are communistically inspired through and through and which exert themselves to the utmost in that field and in the field of terrorism. I am referring to organizations such as WUS and others. Sir, do hon. members opposite seriously want to tell me that they would have these people moving about freely once again among the students of South Africa for the present, while those are their friends and that is how they behave? [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by paying tribute to and thanking the three chairmen of the commission, namely the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. J. T. Kruger), who was the first chairman, the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. L. Schlebusch), who was in the chair for most of the Nusas investigation, and the present chairman, the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. L. le Grange). Sir, these chairmen at all times maintained very good control and set an example of hard work, by dint of great tact, dedication, objectivity and politeness, and they always ensured that the witnesses enjoyed protection. The hon. member for Kroonstad, in particular, stood out in this regard by, in fact, taking various witnesses under his wing and protecting them, although they were accompanied in most cases by a legal representative.

I should also like to convey my thanks to the hon. members of the United Party who served on this commission, I want to mention to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana who served for a considerable time and then resigned, and in addition the hon. member for Green Point, the hon. member for Mooi River and Mr. Etienne Malan, who is no longer in this House. Together, these gentlemen and we on this side, worked hard. They were prepared to make many sacrifices because it was often necessary to work in the evenings and late into the night. They devoted themselves to this task in an earnest and dedicated spirit and in my opinion they have undoubtedly earned the appreciation of the House, as stated here by the hon. the Prime Minister. But, Sir, I want to thank them in particular for having worked under exceptionally difficult circumstances. We on this side have always been aware that we had the moral support of our hon. Prime Minister, our Cabinet and our other members. Those hon. members had this problem: They feared that at any time they might be stabbed in the back by their own people. The United Party caucus did decide on 3 May 1973 that it was necessary and desirable for these hon. members to remain on the commission. Subsequently there was more back-stabbing by their own people, and then the central congress of the United Party in Bloemfontien decided last year with a large majority that these members should remain on the commission. But, Sir, what did we find after that? I shall mention only a few instances. Just after the election the undermining and backbiting among these hon. members started up again. At first it was only little dogs who were doing the biting; it was the hon. member for Wynberg, Mrs. Catherine Taylor, in particular, whose criticism was biting, but after the recent election another U.P. member, Mr. Simon Jocum, issued a very solemn warning to the hon. member for Green Point; he said—

The hon. member for Green Point had to experience this kind of backbiting. On 2 May I read in the Argus that another and somewhat more important person than Mr. Jocum, namely Mr. Dave Epstein, M.P.C. of the Transvaal, had made a statement on this matter. I quote—

But it was not only the little dogs who were biting; there were bigger dogs or should I say wolves, too, such as the self-designated leader of the United Party, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In Die Burger of 25 May we see a reference to “Mr. Japie Basson stormy petrel of the United Party”, and that he had caused a flutter in the party by his speech (translation)—

Now, it cannot be pleasant for a man who is serving on this commission and engaged in this task, to the constantly receiving this kind of warning. But then the most serious threat came from the hon. leader in the Transvaal, the hon. member for Yeoville, and I quote from Die Burger of 30 November (translation)—

I should like to put a few questions to the hon. member for Yeoville in this connection. I wonder whether the hon. member regards it as fair to address such a threat to members who were appointed to this important commission on the basis of their integrity, on the basis of their knowledge and experience, and on the basis of the confidence their own party had in them. Sir, these members were supposed to express an unprejudiced opinion according to the facts before them, but their leader in the Transvaal, a very important figure in the party, comes along, places their necks under the guillotine, and says that if they are incorrect in their judgment they will be repudiated and action will be taken against them. Incorrect in their judgment, Sir? In whose opinion? Not in their own opinion, but in the opinion of that hon. member and of the Sunday Times. If they were incorrect in their judgment, action would be taken against them. I ask: How can one expect a person to perform this difficult task objectively and make known his unprejudiced finding if this threat to his political future is hanging over him?

I want to put a second question to the hon. member. We have now had ample time to study this report. When is he going to tell these hon. members, and when is he going to tell this House, whether or not these members have, in his opinion, been correct in their judgment? Or does he want to wait until the Sunday Times tells him on Sunday? Sir, I think these hon. members have been kept in suspense long enough. I think they would now like to know whether they have been correct in their judgment, or whether they will be repudiated. I trust the hon. member will avail himself of the opportunity of removing this doubt in this debate today.

I shall tell you now.

No, I do not want to hear now. Thirdly I want to ask the hon. member this question: Why did he not wait until he had received the full report before passing judgment on and politically murdering Mr. E. G. Malan? Where is Mr. Etienne Malan, Sir? I want to ask whether the hon. member is very proud of the fact that Mr. Malan ...

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think the hon. member used the word “murdered”. Is he entitled to say that a member has murdered someone?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I want to ask whether the hon. member is very proud of that deed? Why did he not wait until he knew whether or not these members had been correct in their judgment? He murdered Mr. Etienne Malan politically before being in possession of the evidence, he and his people. I want to tell him that Mr. Etienne Malan sat in the front benches of the United Party. His Leader had confidence in him. His Leader said that he could not manage without this man in this House. Mr. Etienne Malan was a very valuable member of the United Party. Mr. Etienne Malan was a very valuable member of this commission. He is an intelligent man. Last year he accompanied us on a trip through the United States and there, too, he represented his party with exceptional distinction. That did not count. He suffered political decapitation because he displayed loyalty towards his Leader and because he obeyed his caucus when it called upon him to serve on this commission. Although Mr. Etienne Malan and I do not belong to the same party, we were friends and I regard the political murder of Etienne Malan as one of the most despicable acts in our political history. I want to say this to the hon. leader of the United Party in the Transvaal ... there is political integrity ...

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member first alleged that there was a murder which he ascribed to me. He then qualified it as being a political murder, and then he said “It is one of the most despicable acts”.

*Is it parliamentary to accuse another member of a despicable act?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I want to tell the hon. member that in this House and in South African politics a high premium is placed on integrity, good fellowship and loyalty. A high premium is placed on those things in our politics and in this House. A man with political blood on his hands, cannot wash it off easily.

You are despicable.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this debate we are conducting today is concerned in the main with two words or concepts, namely State security and patriotism.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the hon. member for Algoa by way of an interjection as a “despicable” person. He must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it. I used the words.

The hon. member may proceed.

I say that in my opinion this debate is concerned with two concepts, namely State security and patriotism. These are two concepts about which there ought really to be very little difference of opinion among members of this House. It is indeed a fact, too, that the members on our side who served on this commission, as well as the members on that side who served on the commission, were for the most part able to reach consensus on these concepts. It is owing to this fact, as will be seen from the report, that there is also very little difference of opinion concerning the recommendations which appear in this report. In fact there is a great deal of unanimity concerning them. Unfortunately it is also true that certain factions in that party, as well as the hon. member for Houghton—I do not want to include her companions because we have not yet heard from them in this connection—are in total disagreement with us with regard to the concepts “State security” and “patriotism”. They have attached a totally different meaning to these concepts. I think that it is this very difference in the way these two words are understood which constitutes the essence of the dispute among hon. members on the Opposition side. Therein, in my opinion, lies the decisive factor. It is a difference of opinion between those who attach the correct meaning, as we see it, to patriotism and State security, and those who advocate the ideas held by those factions and the hon. member for Houghton. I believe that this debate we are conducting today will represent a watershed in the years that lie ahead and will show who stands for upholding Christian Western civilization in this country, and who throws in his weight with the underminers and the anarchists who want to destroy the existing order in this country. I trust that the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will make their standpoints in this regard clear to the House today. Since the early sixties we in South Africa have been the focal point of a well-planned and purposeful onslaught on the survival of Western democracy, on the values on which democracy is based, and on the institutions it establishes. An American journalist put it like this—

This is a fact. We are the microcosm, the focal point on which these forces are concentrating. Throughout this report being discussed today, the various facets of this onslaught come through loud and clear. These facets are, the propagation of an ideational revolution and the perversion of the values of the Christian Western civilization, the propagation of an anticulture or a false culture as advocated by Marcuse, the propagation of sport and economic boycotts against the Republic of South Africa, the propagation and support of extra-parliamentary pressure groups, terror and terrorism, the propagation of labour unrest among our labour force and the fomenting of race riots, race hatred and polarization between White and Black. I should also like to urge hon. members, in all seriousness, to read the chapter on polarization—I think it is chapter 18—very carefully, because it will give hon. members an indication of the greatest danger threatening South Africa’s survival, namely the manipulation of a process of polarization between White and Black. Lastly it is aimed at the inculcation of a feeling of guilt among Whites. This is just as important a point of attack by these people who carry on the work of subversion. On the one hand it is their aim to foment hatred of the White man among the Blacks and on the other hand their aim is the inculcation of a feeling of guilt among the Whites and the indoctrination and softening-up of the Whites into a condition of total submission and surrender. These are the two major features of the onslaught on the existing order in South Africa as stated unequivocally in this report. Those who are unable to see it in this report, do not want to see it. Whoever associates himself with this and condones it, ranges himself on the side of the underminers of our State security. I think that it is good and right that we pay tribute and convey our appreciation of that man who, more than any other, has ensured the security of our country, namely our hon. Prime Minister. South Africa does not realize what this man has meant to its security and its survival. I want to say today that if in future Nobel prizes are to be presented and statues erected, South Africa and history will assign a special place to the hon. John Vorster. He had the vision and the insight to have this commission, as well, appointed to investigate these matters. This also bears testimony to his exceptional perceptiveness in this regard. In its report “The Security of the Cape Oil Route” a study group of “The Institute for the Study of Conflict” in London stressed the following—

It is not only the National Party which says this, but experts of the Institute for Conflict in London. They say—

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

When the House adjourned for lunch, I was quoting from the report of the “Institute for the Study of Conflict” in London, which found that in the first instance it was not so much terrorism which was responsible for the sea route around the Cape being in danger, but in reality a world-wide campaign of misrepresentation and incorrect information about Southern Africa. I accordingly want to try to illustrate this role of Nusas, as outlined in the report, namely the intentional misrepresentation of conditions in South Africa to the outside world and the co-operation and co-planning with organizations abroad which are desirous of overthrowing the existing order here.

In the first place I want to point out that in chapter 8 of the report, Nusas’ relationship with two international student organizations, namely IUEF and WUS are dealt with. I shall only refer to a few aspects of this relationship. In the first place, for example, it is very interesting to observe that immediately after the hon. the Prime Minister had appointed the Select Committee, the president of Nusas, Mr. Paul Pretorius, sent the following cablegram to Ericson of the IUEF—

This cablegram is very interesting because here Nusas, in its hour of need, was asking for money from an organization, a student organization abroad, which also donates money to terrorist organizations. It is also interesting because here Pretorius is informing the IUEF that its contact with South Africa is in danger. Precisely what he meant by this, he was unable or unwilling to tell us in his evidence. It is very clear that he regarded himself or his friends in Nusas as contacts for IUEF in South Africa. Now, taking into account that IUEF is an organization which also donates money to terrorist organizations, it is interesting to know for what purpose they wanted contacts in South Africa and what those contacts of IUEF were doing in South Africa. Thirdly, it is interesting that it is to his foreign friends that the president of Nusas turns in his hour of need. Why did he not seek protection from the hon. member for Houghton? After all, she is the protectress of his organization. In the second instance I want to point out that Nusas receives large sums of money from abroad. According to Mr. Paul Pretorius, Nusas received more than R50 000 from overseas sources in the first nine months of 1972. The organizations donating this money, also donate money to terrorist organizations that seek the violent overthrow of the existing order in South Africa. Thus Nusas has to compete with terrorist organizations in its depiction of the inhuman conditions in South Africa, and in its plans of action to overthrow the existing order here. If it should not achieve credibility in this regard from those organizations, it would not obtain money. Sir, I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton this specific question: If Nusas were as innocent as she pretends, why does she not donate money to it, and why does Mr. Harry Oppenheimer not donate money to them? Why is there not a single person or organization in this country which is prepared to donate sufficient funds to this organization to make it unnecessary for them to collect money from abroad from these questionable organizations? The reason is very clear to me—they are unwilling to risk their good names by donating money to that organization.

In the third place I want to refer to misrepresentations made abroad by Nusas and its onslaught on the economy and the defence of the country. In this regard I want to refer to the so-called Kumasi declaration. In December 1970 a Commonwealth student Conference was held in Ghana, to which the then president, Mr. Neville Curtis, sent an emissary, Mr. Barry Streek, with a special message from Nusas. The message began with propaganda about racism and oppression in South Africa, together with an appeal for solidarity among all Commonwealth student conferences. Then came an appeal, in three parts, calling on students in the Commonwealth countries to arrange campaigns and programmes of action, in their respective countries, to oppose sales of arms to South Africa and to influence the Commonwealth heads of State, who were to meet immediately afterwards, into taking the decision that no weapons should be supplied to South Africa. Secondly they had to take steps to promote economic boycotts in their own countries and thirdly, take steps promoting sport boycotts against South Africa. Not only did the president of Nusas commit an un-South African act here, by addressing these appeals to foreign students abroad, but was what he had said also, in point of fact, in keeping with the statements of the S.A. Communist Party, which, only a few weeks previously, had made the following appeal in its mouthpiece, The African Communist—

Sir, one wonders, and is surely justified in asking, whether it is a coincidence that the president of Nusas and the S.A. Communist Party should have made, virtually simultaneously, similarly-worded messages, appeals to institute boycotts. This kind of anti-South African incitement campaign over a broad international front is something Nusas has been doing for many years. It is an indisputable fact that Nusas is thereby seriously harming South Africa’s image abroad.

As a final example of Nusas’ slandering campaigns abroad, I shall mention the travels of two presidents of Nusas, namely Mr. Neville Curtis, who visited the United States in 1970, and Mr. Paul Pretorius who made an extended tour of Europe in 1971. Both these presidents had talks with important Government leaders in the various countries. They made contact with far-left people and organizations abroad and addressed them and blackened South Africa’s name. They gave newspaper interviews and published articles in magazines in which they blackened South Africa’s name and called it a police state. Both exhibited a series of slides compiled by Mr. Clive Nettleton to depict poverty in South Africa, and you can imagine what kind of image that presented, of, for example, emaciated Black children, of a series of childrens’ graves, of poor housing conditions taken in Pimville and the poor suburbs of Soweto, and that kind of thing. It was a totally distorted image, but Mr. Paul Pretorius gave that exhibition in Germany and other places “to show people a little of what South Africa looks like”. Sir, the commission regards such conduct in a foreign country, the exhibiting of such slides which are aimed at creating a very distorted image, as contemptible. Sir, no government can allow this kind of distortion and subversion to continue in its country. Nor will this Government allow it. Just as it is facing up to the physical threat on our borders, in the same way it will fight this subversive action in our midst and the ideological onslaught on the soul of our people, with all the means at its disposal. A co-ediotr of an American newspaper, Mr. Harrington, writes in his book The New Republic—

Hon. members on that side of the House who want to do nothing, who never see any reason to act, who place an excessive value on personal freedom, in that way giving the underminers the opportunity to carry on with their devilish work, should also take cognizance of the following words of Mr. Harrington’s—

Mr. Speaker, the two hon. members who have just spoken, the hon. members for Potchefstroom and Algoa, started off by ridiculing the United Party. Now, this made one wonder a bit. You know, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter and the hon. the Prime Minister quite rightly put his finger on the crux of the matter as far as a debate on the economy here in South Africa was concerned. But it seems to me that those two hon. members have not been spending their time the last two years by reading documents and by hearing evidence. It seems to me that they have read only a few things here and there in the English Press, things they have now come to hurl at us. As far as I am concerned, I do not have the time to carry on with that kind of thing.

Sir, I should like to associate the two of us on this side who served on the commission, with the words of the hon. member for Potchefstroom concerning the hon. gentleman Alwyn Schlebusch. We saw in him a man who went out of his way to see to it that justice was done to the witnesses who appeared before the commission. We want to put on record our appreciation for what he did as chairman of that commission, and I do not want there to be any doubt about it; we stand by what the hon. member for Potchefstroom said. Then just a few words about the officials who assisted this commission. Sir, this commission is a man-eater; one has no time or chance to do anything else but be a member of this commission, and I should like to express my appreciation to the officials who helped us for the enormous task they performed, in my opinion in the interests of South Africa.

†Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister, when he introduced the motion, put his finger upon the section of our report which deals with the attempt to bring about political change, to overthrow the existing order in South Africa and replace it with an anti-capitalistic system which has sometimes been described as Black Socialism. I want to deal in the time that is available to me with this point and I want to ask several questions, and I do so in all seriousness, because this report affects our children, the children of English-speaking South Africans. Sir, I want to say that where people come in the role of activists and radicals and make use of an organization which purports to speak for English-speaking students and they adopt attitudes and postures and strut about the stage of the world wheelding money from people for purposes of their own, I believe they have forfeited any right to claim to speak for the English-speaking student as such. Sir, what they have done is something far more important; they have brought into question the whole position of the English-speaking student community here in South Africa. Sir, I wish to deal a little bit this afternoon with an ideology. What is the ideology of English-speaking students in South Africa; have they got a part to play; what is their role? They are the intellectuals of the future; they will be the leaders; they are people who have a very, very important role indeed to play, and I want to make one thing quite clear and that is that this report here is not an attack by the Prime Minister or the Nationalist Party on English-speaking students. This is a report of facts, on which the United Party members on the Commission are fully at one. I want to make that quite clear, because I want the message to get through to the parents of English-speaking students that those of us of the United Party who are members of the commission are desperately concerned that something is going on and has been going on in this country in the name of our children, something with which we know our children do not associate themselves and which, as I have said already, has drawn their whole position in South Africa into question. Sir, I believe that the English-speaking student has a vitally important part to play in South Africa. But I want to go one step further and say this; I say it to the hon. the Prime Minister and I say it to the Afrikaner people and to the Nationalist Party, and I say it in all seriousness, in all responsibility: I believe that what we are seeing in this country is a build-up of a backlash among the English-speaking people, of which this report is only the tip of the iceberg which shows through the activities of certain people who are representative of a very small community of thought among the English-speaking people. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, without any hesitation at all that I believe the time is very serious indeed, and whatever the Afrikaner people and the Nationalist Party are going to do about it, they must make up their minds, but I want to say to them in all seriousness and, as the hon. member for Rissik would say, “met alle pastorale liefde,” that they must look to what is happening in this country, because I say that there is something going on which I believe requires very serious attention indeed. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the English-speaking students today are undergoing an experience which can be described as traumatic. They have an organization which was regarded as their mouthpiece, which has been found in this report to be in the hands of people who are leading it in a totally undesirable direction. I would like in this debate here today to issue a challenge to English-speaking students of South Africa to define their aims, to define their objects and to debate amongst themselves what they want to achieve in South Africa. I want to say one thing to them. I do so in all humility, because it is not really for me to advise them. I should like to say to them that there is today a field of opportunity which is open to them as never before. I refer to the ferment that is going on in the ranks of the Afrikaans-speaking people. If ever there was a field of activity which the English-speaking students should be engaged upon, through the medium of debate and dialogue, then it is the field of contact with the Afrikaans-speaking students. I believe that in the ranks of Afrikanerdom today there is a searching for answers which arises because that party on the other side has failed to provide the answers. Because that party has failed to provide the answers and because, as a result, there is this searching going on in the ranks of Afrikaners, there is a field of opportunity available to English-speaking students of which they must avail themselves at this time. I believe that this is a challenge they must accept. If they do accept it, they will do good for all of us in South Africa, for English and Afrikaans-speaking, for the White people, the Black people and all sorts of people in this country. The English-speaking community, through its students, has something to contribute, and I believe they have bitterness in their own hearts today because it does not appear that there is a chance for them to operate in the political set-up in which we find ourselves today.

I should like to deal with a point the hon. the Prime Minister made in connection with the anti-capitalist Black socialist idea which was propagated by the leaders of Nusas. This comes down once again to the role of the English-speaking students. What is their purpose here in South Africa? It was openly said by the leaders of Nusas that they should drop out; that they should not be part of the White polarity; that they should actively hinder the White polarity; that they should associate themselves with the Black polarity; that they should not accept the responsibility which is laid upon them by their student status, to be leaders of opinion and leaders of thought and to go out into the world as skilled and technological people, as leaders in every field; that they should rather drop out and turn their backs on the White polarity and actively assist the Black polarity. To me this is an abandoment of the position of leadership that the White man has in South Africa. I do not pretend to say why the White man should have that position of leadership. Historically we have been placed here in a position of leadership. It is my absolute conviction that we have to play our part in the situation in which we find ourselves.

I was interested in an article in a magazine which comes to us from the Federal Republic of Germany, called Scala. The article is entitled “Business Strategists”, and I should like to quote just one paragraph, under the heading “More democracy”—

I think this is a telling paragraph for the English-speaking student community to consider. I repeat: The more efficient the management, the more democracy we can afford. I believe that the leaders of Nusas have taken a wrong path when they say that by building up the Black polarity they will be able to confront the White polarity and extract concessions from them. I want to say that if you take every single thing that every White man in this country has got and divide it out among the Black people, no one Black man will have anything, simply because there are so many of them and so few of us. If those conditions are to be created which are going to satisfy the wants, the aspirations, the desires and the just and legitimate hopes of Black South Africa, then the students of today who will go out into the technological society that we have built, the industrial society, are absolutely indispensable. They will be the leaders who will take with them the Black communities of this country of ours and build, create and generate enough wealth to satisfy all the peoples of this country. Mr. John L. Lewis, who was the leader of the coal miners in the United States, was once asked: “What do your coal miners really want?” His reply was “More.” If we ask ourselves what it is that the Black people, indeed all people in South Africa really want, the answer is “more”. But they will not get more through a confrontation between Black and White. They will get more when the Black people move up through the echelons of White skills and White management. They will get more through a sharing of what is to be won here in South Africa, what is to be achieved and what is to be generated. This is the field in which the White student community, as leaders of the future, have a vital part to play. If there was one thing which distressed me more than anything else, it was the attitude taken up by the student leaders that their people should simply drop out. Sir, this relates to the English-speaking students, and I regard the attitude of those people as absolutely reprehensible. What we are engaged upon here in South Africa is nothing less than a struggle for the mind of Africa. Every single person who contributes to that struggle on any kind of basis, be it intellectual, financial or anything else, is contributing to the survival not of the White man as such, but of the system which we represent here, which we call Western civilization, and which we qualify with the word “Christian.” Again I say that in that struggle the English-speaking students at our universities have a vital part to play. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is even bigger; it affects not only us here in South Africa. We are a small country and we are a small people. We are few in number, but I think we have a part to play in the history of our time which is out of all proportion to our small numbers. I believe that we are the bridgehead of the West into Africa. I believe that the Western civilization which we represent, brings to Africa a hope which can be brought by no other system, organization, way of life or thought process in the world. Where we are engaged in this struggle for the mind of Africa, I think that our historical significance is very great indeed. I have referred in this House before—and I do not want to repeat it—to the statement of Mao Tse-tung in which he gave his view of the part that Africa was going to play in the future struggle between East and West. It is against this background that we must view these people who abandon their position, these student leaders who turn their back upon the system we know and who say that the ballot-box is a farce and a failure. These people gave up the struggle. They were not prepared to carry on the struggle, and the struggle was with the Nationalist Party, with the thought processes of the Afrikaner students. That is where the action is; that is where the power is; that is where change is going to take place.

Mr. Speaker, as I stand here, I say to you that I am convinced that change is coming. It is coming within the thought processes, within the minds of the Nationalist Party, as they sit there in their benches. We have reached a situation which is intolerable. All the power is in the hands of a party which does not have a single idea in its head. I believe that change will come because of the very pressure of that which makes us Western and Christian, and that is the moral conscience which goes with those two words. The point that I want to make about Socialism is that in a country like South Africa we are going to depend on the individual effort, the initiative, the investment capacity and the drive of our people as businessmen if we are going to meet the challenge of our time. I believe that this small managerial group that we have, and of which our university students represent such an important part, has a colossal task laid upon it. In this respect Socialism is simply destructive because it imposes that blanket upon the minds of men which says to them: If you go out and work and you create and do something and make something for yourself, the State is always ready to come along to scoop the pool and when you die, everything that you have achieved will be taken away and your children shall not be able to inherit. I hope that on another occasion I shall have the chance to embroider a little bit on this thought and to carry it to a further conclusion.

I believe that there is today a real possibility of dialogue. My challenge to English speaking students is simply to stand back now and have a look at themselves to see what they want in South Africa. I do not want them to be led astray by the emotional debate which is going on now on the university campuses, where Nusas is attempting to justify itself and to explain away the report by means of emotional utternaces and reference to university autonomy, freedom of speech and that kind of thing, I want the students to look at themselves and ask themselves where they are going, what they are doing, do they have a role to play and, if so, what is that role. They must define it in terms which are sensible, realistic and practical and which have relation to what is going on in South Africa. Then I believe there is a very real possibility of dialogue with student opinion on the other side, because if you approach people in a sensible manner, you will find a sensible response from the other side. I think it is one thing that is absolutely vital. If there is one thing that I want to see come out of this report, one thing which will make all the hours, the days and the nights we have spent on this report worthwhile, then it is that the English-speaking student community will come up with something that is realistic and related to what is happening in South Africa today, something which is related to the part that they have to play and which will open the door towards the Afrikaans student opinion because action, power, everything takes place among the members of that community. For my part, I want to say that I regard the English-speaking student youth as being capable of doing this. I have been more than pleasantly surprised. Going about as one does, one is invited to speak at many places where there are many students and I have been more than pleasantly surprised at the sensible approach and attitude of the young people at English-speaking universities. I regard this report as giving them the oppor-to assert themselves; not simply to dissociate themselves from the extremism of the people who were the leaders of this organization, but now to come out and to say that they have a part to play and that they will play it. I have great faith, indeed very great faith, in the English-speaking students as a body. I hope that they will take this message from this Parliament—rot from the Nationalist Party or from the Prime Minister or from anybody else, but from this Parliament—to take this report as something which is intended to give them a chance now to start afresh and to make a real assessment of what they have to offer and then to come out to make that positive contribution that I know they can make.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat knows that I have a great deal of respect for him and that I think highly of his opinions. I particularly appreciate the fact that he stood up this afternoon and made an appeal to the English-speaking students of this country. The fact that he did so here and there with a back-handed dig at the National Party and the Afrikaner, I shall not pursue further. I appreciate the fact that he has spoken to his fellow-English-speaking students. It is a fact—I am stating it simply as a fact—that this abscess in our national life has been allowed to occur and develop in our English-speaking universities. It is the English-speaking students who, in the final instance, will have to root out this abscess in their own ranks. I can assure the hon. member that when he calls in the help of the Afrikaner students, that help will promptly be available to him.

I just want to refer to a remark the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made in his speech when he questioned the findings of the commission in connection with the arms boycott, in so far as he qualified the position with the remark, “If the information of the commission is correct”. In reply to an interjection by the hon. the Prime Minister he then said he was doubtful because the witnesses who gave evidence before the commission had no right to cross-examination, etc. I am not being sarcastic when I say that it is not possible to cross-examine a document. I have here to hand a document, the Nusas Press Digest which was published in 1971 by the Nusas organization. This is a photostat copy of that document. To satisfy the hon. the Leader of the Opposition let me quote just a few passages from this document. The document contains a speech drawn up by the then leader of Nusas, Neville Curtis, which was delivered at the Kumasi conference. It stated the following—

These words were uttered at a conference of students abroad. He goes further and states—

What is this “active support” that is being requested here? I quote further—

That is the worst form of sabotage. Students of foreign powers are being mobilized here and asked to exert pressure on their governments before the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference so that arms are not sold to South Africa. That is the kind of evidence with which the commission was confronted. I can positively claim that none of the significant findings and/or comments of the Commission in this report rests solely on verbal evidence. In the majority of cases, if not in all of them, every finding or statement of fact is controlled on the basis of documents drawn up by or obtained from Nusas people themselves.

In a country like South Africa it is important that everyone—political parties, people who move in political circles and the State—should, for the sake of good order, peace and quiet, and for the sake of peaceful co-existence, go about things very carefully and circumspectly when discussing the relations between White, Black and Brown people. One must go about things very carefully when advocating change in a heterogeneous country like this with a delicate balance of colour. This does not mean to say that no one in this country has the right, within the constitutional context, and the democratic dispensation, to continually exert his efforts and express himself in favour of changes to the existing system; in fact, all the political parties in this country are geared to change, change of the so-called status quo, in their search for a better dispensation for the country and its people of all colours. That there are strong differences about the methods or the eventual aims of this change being advocated by everyone, is true, but whatever is being done in responsible circles is being done with a greater or lesser degree of responsibility. Debates are being held, talks are being held, and we give attention to these matters every day in this House. However, this takes place in a responsible manner. I therefore say that “change”, as the concept is known in the contemporary idiom, is in itself not an evil phenomenon, but then the campaign for “change” must take place within a framework which will guarantee peace and quiet and order for the future. “Change” is not a new concept in the world; in fact the coming of Christ to the world bore the stamp of “change”. Today, of course, this fact is also wrenched out of context and presented by forces and ideologies that aim at destroying the world order and to change it as I shall presently indicate in my speech. Let me now say that many of the protagonists of change proclaim their ideologies and their philosophies in the name of Chirst. On closer examination one finds, however, that Christ has no place as a central figure anywhere in that ideology or philosophy. One rather finds the emphasis placed upon the humanistic concept of love for one’s neighbour, that is the horizontal element of the Christian faith, while the vertical element of Christ’s message of salvation finds no place in these ideologies or philosophies. Christ is presented by these people as a revolutionary figure who was sent to earth to deliver people from their oppression and to establish a “just society”. This is particularly the message of the Social Gospellers and related theologies which are essentially nothing but the concomitants and agents of the neo-Marxists and the “New Left” people. Not satisfied with the meaning attached to the word “change” in general usage, a new concept “radical change” has been brought into currency by the Leftist elements in the world. It is a fact that the concept “radical change” is a fundamental concept of the Leftist ideologies of our times. Karl Marx was already saying—

In radical Liberalism, that is that Liberalism which has its origins in Socialism, the concept “change” is extended and is given another meaning in the sense that it wants to change the political, social and economic order of a particular community into a socialistic order which will then result in “a more just society”. In other words, here “change” is no longer merely an ideological concept, but already a purposeful plan of action. Within the framework of socialistic ideology “change” always means the changing of an existing order and structure, and then preferably without force. In its place a socialistic social order is then established. In contrast. Marxism also works with “change” as a primary ideological concept to destroy an already existing order and then establish a socialistic social order, but amongst the adherents of this philosophy, revolution is an essential element. As far as Marx is concerned, it is the task of the proletariat or so called working class to actually start the revolution and to establish its structure. The new Marxist philosopher, Marcuse, does not agree at all with this particular view by Marx. Marcuse alleges that the revolution which a proletariat has brought into being has never brought a free society into being anywhere in the world. Marcuse’s “free society” implies, according to him, a total freedom from institutions and authority structures, in other words a form of anarchy. According to Marcuse, man must completely free himself from the present, traditional norms and patterns of life; hence his praise of permissiveness, a free sex life, etc. According to Marcuse, Marxism has nowhere been able to establish that so-called Utopia or “workers’ paradise” for the working class. And he ascribes it to the fact that the proletariat is corruptible. In other words, as soon as the worker revolts in connection with wages as a part of the “change” strategy, he is bribed by mammon, accepts the greater financial and material benefits which he receives, and simply becomes again part of the “establishment”. Marcuse says that as a condition for “change” man’s inner self must first be changed. He calls it “biological change”. Man must first be freed and alienated from the established, existing life-order with its particular values system, traditional attitudes and its stereotyped and well-tried structures and institutions. Here there is also a very close connection between Marcuse and the communism of Mao Tse Tung as it has developed in China.

It is a very well-known fact that the “New Left” of the neo-Marxists makes use of all-embracing revolution in the achievement of its ideals. It make use, inter alia, of the technique of sensitivity training, as has very clearly emerged in the Commission’s third report. I shall perhaps return to that later in my speech. We therefore see that Marcuse rejects the proletariat as the real “change agents” in this “change process” which he is setting in motion. According to Marcuse the people who must set this “change” in motion are our students. The students were supposedly not corruptible; they are enthusiastic and imbued with ideals of a better future for everyone. They are also better able to identify the oppressive structures and, they can therefore more easily be brought to realize that “change” is an inevitability. According to Marcuse they must then become the leaders of the revolution which must be realized by the proletariat. According to this philosophy, it is then the students who must make the proletariat aware of the “unjustness” of our “society”, of its so-called “oppression”, of the shortcomings of the “establishment”, and it is the students who must create in the proletariat the will to “liberation”.

It is, of course, true that Communism is on the one hand a philosophy one can study as one studies the philosophy of Aristotle and others. One can agree with it or one can reject it. One can even select ideas and adapt them to one’s traditional norms and patterns of life. On the other hand, however, one must bear in mind that Communism—whether it is Marx speaking or Marcuse—has developed a finely calculated scientific technique for revolution, a technique which is calculatingly and purposefully being implemented in all non-communistic countries to undermine the existing order, to subvert their value systems and norms and to break down their authority structures so that a totally new socialistic life-order can be established: “Come the revolution” as people say in this “jargon”.

It is significant to note the way Nusas applies this technique of revolution delicately and calculatingly. My hon. colleague from Potchefstroom referred this morning to certain utterances of Martin Legassick, who was in his day also one of the leadership figures of Nusas. In 1964 Martin Legassick attended a meeting or seminar of East African, West African and South African students in Dar-es-Salaam. On that occasion he asked to leave the congress because it was alleged Nusas could not claim to represent “the aspirations of the majority of the people of their country”. Now it is quite obvious that Legassick must have been very concerned that this union of his, which had been so activistic, should be doubted specifically by the people they desired free. This brought him to some deep soul-searching, and also to an investigation of Nusas and its structures. He issued a statement to the newspapers after he had been kicked out of that seminar, and these in fact were his words—

At that time already Nusas regarded itself as one of the important elements of the “liberation movement” in this country. These ideas of his crystallized in a document which came under the scrutiny of the Commission and from which several quotations were published here. I shall now refer to a few of them. But he refers, in particular, to the fact that Nusas has become schizophrenic. He then came to the conclusion that Nusas was forced to become schizophrenic because, on the one hand, it had a public image, an outward image, but then also a private image which no one knows about. He then states—the passage has already been quoted, but for the sake of my argument I want to repeat it here—

In other words, that organization was apparently just travelling its road of militant liberalism, but the leadership element had already tried to make contact with “the real liberation movement”, as they term it. I quote further—

Sir, surely it is now as clear as daylight that Legassick’s opinion of this organization was that it should play a more radical, revolutionary role in Africa. From the quotation it is very clear that Legassick is a slavish apostle of the Marcusian philosophy, which has elevated “student power” as an ideological concept. Mobilization of students in the “liberation movement” is part of the technique of the revolution as implemented by communists throughout the world. Legassick went further and said that according to its present composition. Nusas could not possibly fulfil its function as a “change agent” and as a “students’ wing of the liberation movement”. In connection with this, I want to quote to you from the report (paragraph 2.4)—

Any doubts about Legassick’s sympathy with the Marxism of Marcuse are hereby dispelled. This standpoint by Legassick placed Jonty Driver before a great dilemma. On the one hand it was very important to him to have as many members as possible in Nusas. He realized that when the affiliation of centres, the abolition of which Legassick was advocating here, and individuals were allowed to join Nusas, the basis of power would be yanked from under him. He would then not be able to claim that he spoke on behalf of 30 000 to 40 000 students. He would then only be able to speak on behalf of the small group of students who had joined as individuals. On the other hand, he also wanted to retain within the organization these radical elements, like Legassick and others, who were then overseas. They activated the organization and gave momentum to this “radical change” endeavour. It was important to Jonty Driver to be able to speak on behalf of 30 000 to 40 000 students, because as some of my other colleagues have already said, these young students depended on the fact that when they arrived in Europe, to collect money and to discredit South Africa, they would be able to tell people that they were speaking on behalf of 30 000 to 40 000 students. Their credibility would thereby be increased and status be accorded their specific positions. Driver was then faced with a dilemma and he very much wanted to retain the leftist elements within the organization. He then began to think seriously of a reconstruction of Nusas, thereby to enable him to hold onto both sides of the spectrum. His ideas were committed to paper, in fact in the form of a paper presented in 1964 at a national seminar at Botha’s Hill. This document contains sensational statements. The commission regards it as a very important document, because it actually formed a blueprint of Nusas’s later reconstruction and future objectives. It is important for me to quote to you passages from this document. This is what Jonty Driver said about the question of the reconstruction of Nusas—

Here again we have an emphasis of the dual aspect of Nusas, on the one hand its image as “liberator of the oppressed”, about which not so much is said, and on the other hand, the image of welfare projects, etc., which Nusas is tackling. I quote again—

Here the “liberation movement” is again the theme. Driver also spoke of Nusas as “a schizophrenic organization”, an aspect to which the hon. member for Potchefstroom has already referred this morning.

Nusas’s standpoint in connection with communism, in the words of Jonty Driver, is also significant. On page 8 of the report we read the following—

Why they took this slap at the Progressive Party, they alone would know. After this article of Jonty Driver was published an uproar broke cut in Nusas, because then many Nusas members began to realize in what direction the leadership element of Nusas had begun to move. These young people were seriously concerned, but they were simply steamrollered. The leadership corps paid no attention to their objections. The Commission also found that the fact that a national seminar or a national congress adopted a motion in which very muted criticism of this document was voiced, was actually not at issue. The reason for this is that this paper was delivered at a Nusas seminar held at Botha’s Hill in 1964. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to follow the hon. member who has just sat down in his philosophical discourses on Marcuse and other communist philosophies. I would just like to ask him whether he really thinks it is relevant to spend so much time on a document read at a seminar in 1964 by a man who, I understood, was subsequently repudiated by Nusas anyhow.

That document was again circulated last year.

The document might have been circulated, but this man was in fact repudiated by Nusas.

When?

Years ago.

And then it was circulated again.

Sir, I wonder if the hon. member would allow me to make my speech, considering that I did not interrupt him once.

Just stick to the facts.

I have listened here today to some six speeches on the subject of the fourth and fifth reports of the Schlebusch Commission. We had the hon. the Prime Minister handing out medals to the Schlebusch commissioners; I am expecting him to strike a special medal for them; we had the hon. the Leader of the Opposition replying to him and stating that the Opposition had done its duty nobly by serving on the commission. Then we had the hon. member for Potchefstroom, who is the new chairman of the commission, and we have also had sundry members on both sides of the House.

Sir, I think we should now perhaps discuss the commission itself and see exactly what their labours have produced and whether it has been worth while for these commissioners to spend all those endless hours burning the candle at both ends and costing the country quite a considerable amount of money. Indeed, these two rare pieces of Africana, which were put into my hands last week, together cost the country something like R31 000. I doubt whether the cost is going to be made up in any way by eager beavers rushing to buy these valuable documents.

Sir, let us see what has been produced. I do not want to spend very much time on the fifth report, that is to say, the report on the S.A. Institute of Race Relations. I knew all along, and I said so in this House last year, that the Institute was thrown in as a decoy duck. I was quite convinced that it would emerge unscathed from the inquiry, and so it has virtually, with the exception, of course, of a few sharp raps over the knuckles about the Polaroid report, which was prepared by Mr. Horner, and a few dire warnings about the dangers of the take-over by Nusas, by the Young Turks of that particular movement, and about the dangers of the Youth Programme.

They are all Progressives.

But, Sir, the fourth report is a different story. This 640-page tome contains a majority report signed by all 10 members and a minority report, whose recommendations, interestingly enough, are twice as long as the recommendations in the majority report, and that minority report is signed by the three remaining United Party members. We know, Sir, what happened to the fourth one; he crossed the floor and joined the Government side and, of course, one of the three who remains has lost his seat but remains a member of the commission; I rather feel that he often wakes up at night wishing that he no longer was. The minority report contains a reference to the setting-up of the internal security committee, which the hon. the Prime Minister promised us at the beginning of last year he was going to set up and which, by the end of last year’s session, he had still not set up. We are still waiting to hear his intentions in this regard.

I had understood from the first report, in which the recommendation was made, that this was a matter of some importance, but we have heard nothing about it since then. It is also interesting to note that while, according to a subsequent speech made by the hon. member for Turffontein when he was the member for Yeoville—I think it was during the Part Appropriation debate last year, when, as the hon. the Prime Minister correctly says, we had a discussion on the banning of the students—the hon. member mentioned that nowhere could the commission find, according to the first and second reports, that the eight activists, who were subsequently banned, who were abusing the organization of Nusas, had been motivated by any intention to further the aims of Communism, urgent action was nevertheless recommended. I must say I am always surprised at the astonishment of the Opposition that urgent action in the form of banning was taken. I do not really know what they expected the hon. the Prime Minister to do after a unanimous report had recommended urgent action and knowing the Prime Minister and his record for banning people, right, left and centre at the earliest opportunity. [Interjection.] I have read the reports all right, but there was no mention of the courts, just the demand for urgent action.

Nor of banning either.

This time the fourth report actually makes definite allegations of subversion and of plans to overthrow the existing order in South Africa, but more cautious terms are used in the recommendations. The unanimous majority report simply recommends that steps be taken, not that urgent action be taken but that steps be taken, to combat this form of subversion. What steps? We are not told. “It might be undesirable,” says the report, “to make detailed recommendations, because by emphasizing one aspect one could so easily lose sight of another”. Now, what on earth, I wonder, does that mean? Perhaps one of the members of the commission who speaks after me can explain to me what that cryptic expression means, for I find no sense in it at all, except to draw the conclusion that it was deliberately left vague because this time the United Party was fighting shy of being implicated in anything that might call down further executive action.

It was not going to become implicated in anything. It knew only too well the consequences of having given the Prime Minister the green light in the first and second reports. Thus, although they signed the majority report, they have really tried to dissociate themselves from any of the consequences which may follow. How else, Sir, can one explain the vagueness of the majority report and the very peculiar final paragraph in the minority report which is vagueness itself? It says—

Which is the one recommending action—

Well, even I do not think the hon. the Prime Minister acted outside of Parliament when he went in for his vigorous banning exercise last year, because after all it was Parliament, in the shape of the Suppression of Communism Act, which gave him the powers. So I am not too sure what is meant by this minority report. Now, I want to say at once that I, for one, am not pressed by the United Party tactics, which is what they are, to try to undo some of the harm they did themselves by so foolishly agreeing to serve on the Schlebusch Commission in the first instance. I believe that thereby they irrevocably compromised themselves, and a number of their members think that as well, and have said so.

Why should not any member serve, including you?

Well, I made my position absolutely clear. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that. I said right from the beginning that I would have nothing to do with it.

You shirked your responsibilities.

And I warned the United Party that it was making a parlous mistake when it agreed to sit on that commission. Now, yesterday we had the hon. the Leader of the Opposition reproaching the Prime Minister for having let them down, because after all they served on the commission and they did their duty and he let them down by banning the students. Well, I say that if he feels he was so badly let down, they had a good opportunity to get off the Schlebusch Commission at that point in time, but they did not do that either, of course.

I must warn the United Party that their honour is lost and cannot be retrieved. Not even the recommendation of a judicial tribunal, which can make recommendations to the Minister, will do much good. I would like to see the hon. the Minister of Justice taking any notice of a judicial tribunal which recommends that the banning orders be changed. Now, there is nothing in the minority report which obviates the fact that the United Party has co-authored its findings, in the majority report, which stated, inter alia, that Nusas was deliberately stirring up labour unrest, inciting Black and White against each other, even unto violence, and that unnamed people and organizations are committing subversion by encouraging arms boycotts and economic boycotts against South Africa. I do not know why the commission suddenly got so coy about naming people, because up to then it had been naming people left, right and centre. Now, however, it talked about unnamed people and organizations.

The commission, therefore, has pronounced judgment—that is the point I want to make—the whole commission, including the United Party. I wonder—perhaps the hon. member for Yeoville who was the author of this dedication can tell us—how this, in fact, conforms with the United Party’s dedication passed at the Transvaal congress of the U.P.—the dedication to the rule of law which reads—

How does this judgment which is made in the majority report, signed by United Party members, conform with the United Party’s dedication to the rule of law and how does it conform to the U.P.’s own analysis in the minority report “of a code of conduct” as it calls it “which distinguishes very clearly between Parliament, the Police and the court”? I want to say quite unequivocally on behalf of these benches that we are not prepared to accept the findings of the commission of inquiry drawn from members of the National Party and the United Party, both openly hostile to Nusas over a long period of time and acting under rules of procedure which bear no resemblance to natural justice at all. At this stage, in case I run out of time, I wish to move as an amendment—

I want to say that the House needs reminding of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said when the Select Committee was first appointed because I believe that his words still hold good, although it did not take very long for his appointees on the Select Committee and later the commission to bluff themselves that they had rightfully donned judges’ wigs. This is what he said in col. 733 of Hansard of 1972—

I agree with him. He was quite right then and he is quite right now. I believe we are all in great danger of being brain-washed by the torrent of words which has poured forth from this commission. I believe that we all need reminding that the commission did not consist of independent judges, but it consisted of party politicians who are not objective people. I fully agree with the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposion. I think it is necessary that we see this commission in its proper context.

It is not, as it is euphemistically called, a Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations, it is in fact a quasi-court. That is what it is—a make-believe court, and we have make-believe judges who deck themselves out in ill-fitting judicial robes. We have the accused, which are four organizations and certain individuals, who have been publicly charged, accused and, indeed, summonsed. Just as in Kafka’s trial, the charges are: “Subversive of the State,” un specified and known only to the judges. [interjections.] Let me point out the procedure. None of the safeguards that attach to normal judicial proceedings obtains, although in fact the commission sat as a court and has pronounced judgment. That is my point. Judgment has been pronounced. The hearings are in secret; justice is not seen to be done. Though counsel may be present, he does not have the right to lead his client’s evidence nor to cross-examine nor to call witnesses. I am not saying that the chairmen of the commission did not act in a very “ordentlike” fashion as the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned, but that, in fact, is not the question. We are not interested in “hoflikheid”; we are not interested in courtesy, but what we are interested in are judicial procedures which should be followed. When a person who is summonsed appears, he has no right to hear the evidence that has been led against him, he has no right to know the allegations against him and he is not given a copy of the record. He must also answer incriminating questions.

In other words, he has to submit to interrogation. I believe this is a travesty of justice. What is the sum total of this quasitrial? It is a tome, which I have here, and which, mark you, is an abbreviated version of thousands upon thousands of pages of evidence which have been edited, selected and expurgated by the quasi judges and tabled here in Parliament. What we have is a series of political statements by professional politicians who have woven a web of conspiracy out of unrelated incidents many of which are ten years old. The hon. member ...

You are talking a lot of nonsense.

That is what the hon. member may think. A whole web of conspiracy has been woven by this commission. On the strength of this we are asked to accept that this is a fair report and we have to give sanction to ministerial action of a completely unspecified kind. This is completely untenable. No court of law could possibly pass judgment on a portion of the record edited by the prosecution. That is what we have been asked to do. I can contrast these procedures with that of another parliamentary committee, namely, that which sat in connection with President Nixon only recently. The hearings were public and Nixon’s counsel was not only allowed to attend the sessions, but he could also cross-examine witnesses and call his own. The evidence was reported and published despite the strong objections of the executive. I want to make the point that a great deal of the evidence which was submitted to the commission over the past two years comes from sources provided by the Special Branch and/or Boss, from confidential documents that were swiped during raids, from intercepted letters, from diaries that mysteriously disappeared somewhere between Frankfurt Airport and D. F. Malan and from phone calls which have been intercepted over the years. It is on the basis of this evidence that the commission reached the conclusion that sinister subversion was afoot in South Africa. If this is so, I want to know what our security forces have been doing all this time. I would like to point out that the first security raid on Nusas took place as early as February 1971, that is a full year before the hon. the Prime Minister stood up and said there was a prima facie case and that he was going to appoint a select committee. This committee was appointed in February 1972. The first raid took place two full years before the first report of the commission appeared. I want to know what our security forces were doing all this time, allowing all these dangerous subversive characters to run around without charging them and dragging them before the courts of law. What irresponsibility!

It is also interesting to note that while the second report concentrated on a clique—the dangerous gang that lived in the two communes, that very emotive word, which were in fact two ordinary houses in the suburbs but never mind—in their speeches the commissioners emphasized that they thought that Nusas as an organization ought to continue to exist. But the fourth report, the one we are considering today, is a very different thing. It does not consider that Nusas as an organization should continue to exist.

Where do you read that?

The recommendations it makes must cripple Nusas drastically. The minute it loses its funds from overseas, never mind its political aims, it cannot even continue with its welfare work. I think that is more than obvious. [Interjections.] Because most of its funds for that sort of work come from overseas. Another thing, if centre affiliation is abandoned, it must weaken Nusas. Incidentally, I want to know whether the ASB does or does not have centre affiliation. I am absolutely sure it does and I am sure that many of its decisions are political, but of course you will not get any investigation into that patriotic organization. If you go back far enough, you might find that some of the things that were said by students belonging to the ASB during the war years were a great deal more subversive than anything that has been said by Nusas. [Interjections.] Three of the recommendations, I want to point out, actually affect university autonomy. The one recommendation is the recommendation about the centre affiliation and the other is the question of allowing political parties on the campus. That is entirely a matter for the university as far as I am concerned. I always thought that the United Party also believed in university autonomy. The third recommendation was the question of non-students on the campus. That I would think must very much distress the hon. member for Durban-North who I remember said last year that he would have been bitterly disappointed had there not been spies on the campus. In view of the recommendation that non-students should not be allowed on the campus, that hon. member will have to have another think about what he is going to use instead of the Special Branch that he admired so much last year.

I want to take a look at the comments about the Wages Commission. Much has been said about that subject. The commission says that there is certainly a need for better socio-economic conditions and commends those who work for improvement. However, I want to know whether there are no students whatsoever who are working in fact for improvement in socioeconomic conditions. Are all the students who have been engaged on work commissions only doing this for subversive reasons? Are there no students who might, idealistically, have put in hours of work preparing reports, attending wage board sittings, telling Black workers what their legal rights are and advising them how to use their legal rights? Is it not just possible that some of the students might have been working for an idealistic solution to the socio-economic problem? Does the commission give no credit whatsoever ...

They do.

... to any student at the English-medium universities who have spent many hard hours of work trying to improve socio-economic conditions? I do not deny that there are radical students on the campuses. Of course there are. Many of the things that they have done are very rash and many of the things that they have done are very foolish. They have made a lot of foolish statements as well. Many of them favour what is known as “Black socialism”, whatever that may mean. Of course, there are these radical students on the campuses. You find radical students on campuses everywhere in the world. Whether what these students in South Africa have done is subversive or not is another matter. That still has to be tested in a court of law. I was glad to hear from the hon. the Prime Minister that the papers are to be handed, or have been handed, to the Attorney-General. Now it is for him to decide whether further steps must be taken as far as prosecution is concerned. I am sure that the banned students themselves will welcome the opportunity of being properly tried in a court of law.

Finally, I want to say that I find the whole Schlebusch-saga depressing in the extreme. The hon. the Prime Minister might find it all madly patriotic, but I do not. I find the spectacle of 10 grown men spending hours pouring over the diaries of young men and women, cross-examining them about their sex lives, reading their private correspondence and pursuing them relentlessly, rather revolting. I want to say that the most depressing aspect of the whole business is the utter lack of communication that this all demonstrates between the Government and the official Opposition on the one hand and the youth of today on the other. The commission is completely out of touch ...

What did Varsity say about the Progs?

I do not care what they say about the Progs, and I certainly shall not ban them because they criticize the Progs. I shall not call them subversive because they criticize the Progs. They are entitled to criticize the Progs. I say hon. members are completely out of touch with the attitudes, the thinking and the lifestyle of the youth of South Africa today. They are no different, they are no worse and they are no better than their peers in other countries. Youth is rebellious and we know that to be so. Surely in other countries they have learnt to cope with the aberrations of youth without banning them, without subjecting them to the slanderous slurs of subversion and lack of patriotism. [Interjections.] For nearly two decades the students of the English-medium universities have been threatened and harassed, they have had letters intercepted and passports removed and their leaders have been banned. Does the Government really think there will be no reaction to this? Of course there is defiance as a result of this, and more particularly as a result of the fact that every day of their lives they are exposed to the paraphernalia of discrimination ...

You are talking absolute nonsense.

... and because they do not seem to be making any headway in their struggle for a just society in South Africa. When the first and second reports were published, I warned the Government that any one of three or, in fact, all three results could easily emerge from the Schlebusch Commission. The first is that some of our best and brightest young people might leave South Africa’s shores for ever. That would be a bad thing.

Good riddance!

Hon. members can shout “good riddance”, but they do not understand that the progress, the advancement of the country depends on its concerned youth. If those people leave the country, it is a bad thing for the future of South Africa. Secondly, it may turn students into apatehetic, submissive creatures and that, I believe, is much more appropriate to countries behind the Iron Curtain than to a young, growing democracy like South Africa. Thirdly, as I warned, it may drive students to reckless action and that, too, would be very bad for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton has said nothing to let this House change its attitude with respect to that party in any way. It was perhaps interesting to listen to the hon. member and to note where she disagreed with the official Opposition. I want to say that although I sympathize with the hon. member, since she has apparently not recovered from her cold yet, I have no sympathy for her standpoint as such. That party thinks it won the election in South Africa, and it made a great fuss about the work it would do if it were to come into power in South Africa. Therefore I expected them at least to have made a study of this report before passing comment on it. In no way did the hon. member for Houghton attack this report on the basis of a single fact contained in it. She did not attack this commission on the basis of the information it collected and put on record. At the very outset I want to say that no one—not the hon. the Prime Minister nor the hon. the Leader of the Opposition either—has implied that this commission is a court.

They made a judgment.

We made no ruling. If the hon. member thinks that any legal ruling was made in this report, this only reveals the hon. member’s ignorance. I am sorry—and I just want to say this here today too because one gets annoyed when one thinks of it—that there are hon. members on that side, whose names I am not permitted to mention today because they have not yet made their maiden speeches, who have already commented on this report before they had even made their maiden speeches in this House. They made those comments knowing that we who have to discuss this report today—the members of the commission, of the official Opposition and of the governing party—are not permitted to attack them in this House. But I want to say this to the hon. member for Houghton and to that party: They say they want nothing to do with the commission, and they even went further in this amendment that was introduced here today. From the very beginning the hon. member for Houghton has besmirched the Schlebusch Commission, to such a degree that I told her in this House last year that if she continued in that vein we would no longer call her “Mrs. Suzman” but instead “Mrs. Sissman”.

Yes, you said that last time—so ha, ha!

I do not intend to contravene any of the commission’s regulations, but I want to refer to an hon. member on that side of the House, in that party, who said in a Press statement that he gave evidence before this commission. Where then does that party get the right to accuse even the official Opposition of having co-operated with the Government in respect of the work of this commission?

It is very easy to try to make party politics out of this whole situation. I think that a discussion of this report and the existence of the commission on State security and internal security is no occasion for party politics, in any case not with a view to winning a few seats. That has never been the intention of the National Party or the Government. There was sufficient reason for the hon. the Prime Minister to appoint this commission, as has been proved by the information which the commission has documented.

Sir, I should not like to spend much time on the hon. member for Houghton, but there are a few matters one must just mention for the sake of the record. I want to tell her that the document to which she referred, from which the hon. member for Cradock quoted and which she says is an outdated document, the content of which Nusas has rejected—that shows you, Sir, how badly that hon. member has read this report—was unearthed, taken out and used again in 1970. In 1973 it was used again, because it all deals with the reconstruction of Nusas. In the second place I want to assure the hon. member that her party can prepare itself for the fact that the permanent commission is going to be appointed. The sooner that party decides to co-operate with this side of the House and with the official Opposition as far as State security is concerned, the better it would be for everyone in South Africa, specifically for the Black people of South Africa too. That party is still going to discover that the very methods we are putting into operation to protect the State in South Africa, do not apply only to the White people of South Africa. I want to concede to the hon. member one point that she made. In this connection I want to address myself to the official Opposition as well. When the first and second reports appeared—today we are dealing with all the reports which the commission has submitted to date—this commission had virtually all the information processed, and had heard all the evidence as far as Nusas is concerned. This commision did not say lightly that urgent steps had to be taken. Neither did this commission say lightly that it felt that the participation of certain persons in the activities of Nusas on certain university campuses should be stopped. I am sorry that the official Opposition had to make use of a fig leaf by saying they did not know this could mean restriction. In all sincerity towards the official Opposition—I am not saying this to try to make political capital—the members of the commission did, after all, sign this report jointly. It was a completely unanimous report, and if anyone says that the information appearing in this report is insufficient to substantiate the conclusions in the first and second reports of this commission, I want to tell him that he does not know what it is all about or what these people mean by attacking South Africa in this way. I think they were using the fig-leaf technique in coming along and telling us they signed the report but did not know that the Government would issue the restriction orders. That is one mistake we do not make. I think it is necessary for the position to be corrected for the sake of all the members of the commission. The fact that restrictions would have resulted for certain members who belonged to the South African Students Organization, has nothing to do with the restrictions which possibly followed upon the second report of this commission. This commission furnished no comment about that and had no instructions to investigate Saso. It is unfair to link the restriction orders, which resulted in connection with certain Saso Leaders, either to this commission’s work or to any of the reports of the commission already submitted. I want to say that the recommendations made in the second report, as I said here today, were made in all honesty and sincerity, and that all members of the commission knew that we were dealing here with a serious matter. I am not reproaching the Opposition for that; I do not want to accuse them, and neither do I want to steal a march on them. The matter of internal security, the matter of State security, is much greater than stealing marches in any political debate.

I think it would be good for the official Opposition to take another look at their attitude with respect to certain legislation and certain measures that must be adopted, and which have already been adopted in the past, in connection with State security in South Africa. We must no longer have an official Opposition in South Africa which says “yes” when one is speaking about the principle, and then suddenly says “but” when one comes to its implementation. In respect of State security we do not want and official Opposition in South Africa which has a “yes-but” attitude, or at least a “yes-but” image. It would be the most dangerous of situations if we were to adopt a “yes-but” attitude with respect to something like State security. It breaks down our resistance; it breaks down those elements that have to be incorporated in the national structure to offer resistance. The hon. member for Houghton asked why we did not make more recommendations and why it is stated in the majority report that it is not regarded as necessary to make clearer recommendations than those that were made. But, Sir it is only a blind person who cannot understand that report.

Or a nearsighted person.

It is only people, who do not want to look at all at the dangers threatening South Africa, who will see that report in that light. I have already said that we were not a court. We did not give a judgment. Not at all. I challenge that hon. member to prove to me, on any proof-furnishing basis, that we have passed any legal judgment in this report. That is how hon. members opposite would like to read it.

It does not matter.

I also want to concede another point to the hon. member for Houghton in connection with the official Opposition. This is in connection with the last paragraph of the minority report to which the hon. member for Houghton referred. I again want to lodge an appeal—let us be serious about this whole question of State security.

The hon. member for Houghton and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred to the Afrikaanse Studentebond this morning. It is true that the ASB does have an affiliation of centres. The commission did not proceed from the standpoint that the affiliation of centres is in any case taboo. The commission adopted the standpoint that as a result of the activities of certain organizations, it was questionable whether the affiliation of centres was acceptable or not. Let us look at what the report states in this connection. I remarked, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, that the ASB is not a political organization. Mr. Speaker, if you compare the two organizations in only one respect, you will see—this can be read into the report by anyone who is prepared to look at it—that the Afrikaanse Studentebond works with a budget of R5 000 per year, but that Nusas works with a budget of almost R200 000 in certain years. Sir, let us look at the money that Nusas obtains from abroad for their so-called welfare services, and in particular for their education scheme for prisoners. They themselves have acknowledged that that money is used only for assistance to so-called political prisoners and their next-of-kin. Look at the way in which that money was handled and the kind of thing Nusas does with that money they get, of which a maximum of about R5 000 per year is collected in South Africa and the rest outside South Africa.

Sir, I also want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that we can actually tell Nusas today what was said a few years ago to the Afrikaanse Studentebond when the latter took certain action that was not in the interests of the Afrikaner students in South Africa. The hon. member for Mooi River today appealed to the Afrikaner students to take certain action and to initiate certain action within the field of the English-language students. I want to tell him and the hon. member for Houghton that the Afrikaner students took those steps in the ’forties, and from those steps we got the Afrikaanse Studentebond as it is functioning today. It is an organization that is engaged with student matters; it is not an organization, I am tempted to say, which goes and begs abroad for money with which to harm South Africa’s image. It is not an organization which would go abroad to preach boycotts against South Africa, but it is also an organization involved with change. Sir, as far as change is concerned, I should like to link up with the hon. member for Cradock and tell the hon. member for Mooi River, who is not present at the moment, that it is specifically the Afrikaners who are the greatest agents for change in South Africa; they are the people who have brought about the real change in South Africa up to now. The hon. member for Mooi River says that the Afrikaner and the National Party have the power to bring about changes, and I tell you, Sir, that there is no greater agent for change than specifically the National Party. But in speaking of change, we must remember that we are not permitted to use the word “change” lightly, and therefore I first want to say this before I say a few more words about change. In these times we are living in, not only in the light of the circumstances in South Africa, but also in the light of the situation in the world today, we know that change is in fact expected of us and that change will probably be forced upon us as far as the “third world” is concerned. Sir, when we as White people, Black people and Erown people in this country speak of change we must adopt this motto for ourselves: Every time we speak of change, we must in fact, by way of a prayer, ask for strength to change what we have to change, for the discernment to realize what things cannot be changed, and above all for the mercy and wisdom to know what the difference between the two is.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with a student organization. The hon. member for Mooi River has referred here to the English-language student. The hon. member for Cradock has referred to Marcuse’s standpoint, and neither the hon. member for Houghton, nor any one of us, can despatch the Marcuse standpoint as being merely a philosophy. Sir, the Government of a country which is prepared to close its eyes to attacks on the spirit of its young people, is a government which is prepared to murder the future of its country. Look at the attacks being unleashed upon our young people look at the chapter on polarization, look at the elements being brought into this situation, and look at the background that has been sketched in this report, where it is pointed out that these things that are being brought into South Africa, and even the student riots we have had in South Africa, are not simply things that have breezed in. They were positively planned on the lines of the Marcuse standpoint. If we in South Africa are prepared to leave our young people destitute, and if we are not prepared to give them the necessary protection in respect of these things, I today want to ask those who are opposed to this report, and those who do not want to co-operate with us this apposite question: Are we prepared to accept the Marcuse standpoint that young people, particularly the students, should cause revolution, and are we prepared—all who are sitting here today must answer this—to say as Neville Curtiss has said: “That the students must align with the Black polarity and not with the White polarity”? Are we prepared to say that? Each of us must ask himself that question. Are we prepared, as we sit here today, to let the students loose so that they can go and collect money abroad and use it to bring about a situation of polarization? Are we prepared to allow methods such as those applied at Wilge-spruit and other places, sensitivity training, to indoctrinate our people? After having looked at everything, after having viewed the whole report in its proper context, and after having seen what we are dealing with and the things that have happened we find that it is true what Marcuse said, that man’s sensitivity must be harnessed—it is no longer blood that must flow; it is man’s spirit, his innermost self, that is changed in this manner. Are we prepared to let those things loose amongst our young people What it briefly amounts to is this, that anyone who is prepared to give a levelheaded evaluation of this report must actually ask himself the question: Are we prepared to unleash amongst our young people the kind of terrorism of the spitit that has been revealed in this report?

Now I come back to the minority report of the official Opposition. I think the official Opposition has progressed since the hon. the Prime Minister spoke for the first time about an inquiry into these organizations. It was my impression that the official Opposition was opposed to that, and to this very day they say that they endorse a judicial commission. Sir, I think the official Opposition has made progress, and I am glad they have done so, because as I have said, a consensus of opinion must be arrived at in this matter. They have made progress, but the hon. member for Houghton will make no progress. She is not concerned about terrorism of the spirit. That is why she and her party will not make any progress. But we have now reached the point where the official Opposition is at least prepared to let us have the standing commission. I want to ask the Opposition, in respect of these matters, to please relinquish the “yes-but” attitude. Now the official Opposition comes along with its minority report and they actually weaken the commission. The hon. member there opposite me is now shaking his head, but that is so, is it not?

The third question is whether there should be a kind of tribunal. I say, with all the responsibility at my command, that there may be some merit in a tribunal, but the majority of hon. members felt that it is not within the commission’s compass to express an opinion about that. The hon. the Prime Minister has his reasons for coming along with a standing commission in good time. We felt that a standing commission would be the place where these aspects could perhaps be discussed.

I say we have progressed because we are now beginning to get away from the repeated allegation, as in the case of the hon. member for Houghton today, that we are breaking the “rule of law”. I think it is time for someone to say clearly again that the “rule of law” actually is. Is the “rule of law” not merely a custom? Can someone show me where the “rule of law” stands in Roman Law? Can someone show it to me? It is a custom, and a worthy custom. It is a custom that is characteristic of the law, but it remains a custom. If one is dealing with people, bodies or organizations that have certain objectives aimed at terrorism of the spirit, thereby specifically breaking the “rule of law”, must one then sit back and simply leave the “rule of law” alone? I personally endorse the standpoint of the commission, as set out in the last two paragraphs, in respect of the tribunal. The hon. Opposition proposes a judge and two senior advocates with at least ten years’ experience. We must remember that the Judiciary in South Africa has a special status. We must not take one judge from the Bench and make him the chairman of this tribunal, because then that judge, and by implication the Judiciary as well, can perhaps be labelled a parliamentary “stooge”. I am merely warning against that, and I am still saying that as far as I am concerned it is still something open to discussion.

We must also take a brief look at Nusas itself. In the past few years, we have received certain reports from commissions of inquiry at certain universities commissions on which judges, inter alia, have acted as chairmen. What was the attitude of those people towards those judges and the commissions of inquiry? Let us look at the latest one that dealt with the campus of the University of Cape Town. The chairman of the student council of the University of Cape Town herself served on that commission, with a judge as the chairman. She said: “They will go their own way”. No, we must be careful when we come along with such proposals.

There was also the commission of inquiry in the case of Rhodes University, Grahamstown.

The hon. the Prime Minister refers to the comission of inquiry into Rhodes University. I think Judge Harcourt was the chairman there.

No, it was Judge Munnik.

Yes, Judge Munnik. Judge Harcourt was the chairman of the commission of inquiry dealing with the University of Natal. We saw the state of affairs, and specifically because we have such a very high opinion of our Judiciary, we must be careful that our actions do not discredit our Judiciary.

The reports thus far published have proved that the interference that must take place is aimed at the spirit, the resistance, the will to survive in South Africa. Those are the things that must be shattered. Someone told the World Council of Churches on occasion: Rather give us R200 000 per year so that we can develop our methods of sensitivity training; you will then not need to give the terrorists R200 000 per year because we shall then fight the battle at the polls in South Africa. Because that is so, it is the primary responsibility of the State, of the Government, to look at these things. We cannot expect the Government of South Africa alone, or any government or parliament in the world, to look at this kind of terrorism that is taking place throughout the world. Let us begin at the right spot. And it is also essential that we initially begin in our educational institutions, our churches, our cultural organizations, whatever language group you may belong to, and it is absolutely vital that we get round to this. This links up with the Bill which the hon. the Minister of the Interior dealt with yesterday, and which perhaps received some scornful comment here and there. But that is the real onslaught against South Africa. We simply have to combat this onslaught. We must do so by being prepared to introduce those changes that are essential and that we know must be introduced. But let us do so with the necessary responsibility, at the right time and in the correct perspective. We must realize that there are certain things which human beings cannot change. Those things that people can change must be changed correctly. But those which people cannot change we must not try to change. Let us then pray, as I have said, for wisdom to realize the difference between the two.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say immediately to the hon. member for Schweizer Reneke that the two matters he dealt with particularly, viz. the functioning and nature of a permanent security committee of this House and the possibility or the likelihood of a judicial tribunal, are matters of the greatest importance to the House and the country. I welcome the way in which he has approached these two questions and I will deal with them a little later in the remarks which I will make this afternoon.

First of all I want to say to the hon. member for Potchefstroom and to the hon. member for Algoa how much I regret that considering the implications of this debate on such an important matter they used the time that was available to them to attempt to make some party political capital out of what might or might not have been said by various of my colleagues, particularly the argument that I should be distanced from statements which were made by the hon. member for Yeoville before he came to this House. I want to read to the hon. member for Potchefstroom the statement which I issued myself at that time and in respect of which the hon. member for Potchefstroom suggested there was a great difference between my leader and the member for Yeoville. The statement was published in Die Burger of 22 March 1973. An extract from it reads as follows:

That is what I said and that is what the hon. member for Yeoville said. But the hon. member today suggests that there is a difference in approach. Let me say immediately that I have never suggested, and I never will suggest, that anybody serving on a commission has the right to claim that his party, or the House, or the public, should support him or his findings without question. If one were to do that, then one is assuming unto oneself the status of infallibility. I know the hon. member for Houghton sometimes appears to achieve it, but I have in mind a status of infallibility which is beyond any human accomplishment, a status of infallibility which is not even enjoyed by a judge of the Supreme Court sitting in the normal exercise of his judificial functions and whose opinions need not necessarily be accepted by those who sit in judgment on appeal at a later stage. It does not concern me, to the extent that I become upset, when people say that I should not have come to a particular conclusion, but what is important is to know where we are going in this country and to know to what extent this commission has served a purpose. Before I attempt to answer that question I want to say first of all that I am grateful that in spite of the attempts to attack those of us in the Opposition who served on this commission, I have had the confidence of my constituents to the extent that I was able to poll more votes in this election than I was able to in the previous election.

Hear, hear!

Unlike other members of your party!

I say this because if one is able to have contact and to counter the propaganda which has been disseminated by those who have no desire to participate in trying to solve the problems with which we are faced in the field which has been investigated by this commission, one is able to convince people.

The hon. member for Houghton has again in her general way decided that she would attack right, left and centre. She said that the procedures were wrong, that there was no attempt at justice and that nothing was done properly by this commission. Like the hon. member for Mooi River, I want to say that the chairman of this commission, Mr. Schlebusch, acted in an impeccable way. I want to say that I, as a member of the legal profession, was proud to know that there was one of my colleagues acting in the way he did on this commission.

No one is arguing.

The hon. member now says that no one is arguing but she had a great deal to say about it.

The procedure was wrong.

Now the hon. member says that the procedure was wrong, but what does she know about the procedure? When we were sitting as a Select Committee did she ever think of coming in to see what was happening?

Everybody knows ...

Is she aware that every witness was enabled to have a legal adviser present at the meeting?

And what help was that?

Was she aware that every witness was asked whether he had anything more to say to the commission after he had been questioned? Now, the only way she can attack the commission is to suggest that we were functioning as a court of law. Before the hon. member makes statements of this nature she should first at least consult the lawyers in her party. She should at least consult them or her team of devilers and advisers who can look up the law and who are looking up to check the facts to see whether it is so before she makes statements like these If she had done so, she would have found a recent, or rather, the latest judgment on this issue which was delivered in the Transvaal Provincial Division on 20 May this year. I want to quote from the judgment given by Mr. Justice Snyman in which Mr. Justice Viljoen concurred. In his judgment he dealt with various tribunals which have disciplinary powers. Then he went on to the question of this commission. He said:

Did you come to a decision?

The hon. member wants to know from me whether we came to a decision. Of course we come to a decision when we are asked to investigate a matter and to report upon it. I do not want to take time in dealing with this judgment any further, but the very functions which we were performing and the manner of performing them were dealt with by Justice Snyman in his judgment as well. He said this—

This is a time-honoured procedure which is one of the procedures upon which this Parliament has based its operations.

Sir, I must say that I listened yesterday in this House with a great deal of gratification to the remarks made by the hon. member for Sea Point in connection with the defence matter which was before us. As there are members here now who were not present at the time, I want to remind the House of what he said. I also want to know how he and the hon. member for Houghton, after her speech today, can sit on the same bench. The hon. member for Sea Point said yesterday—I will not read the whole speech, just portions of it:

The hon. member continued:

He said further:

Then the hon. member referred to a matter with which we were both associated. He mentioned the fact that he joined up with a Cape Town regiment at the beginning of the war. He went on to say:

That is the statement he made expressing his attitude towards a defence bill, and accept that he was sincere. But then we had to listen this afternoon to the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton that the matters that have been exposed by these reports are of no consequence whatsoever, that we have wasted our time and that we should never have investigated them.

If I may just raise another matter with the hon. member for Potchefstroom, he suggested also that the minority report was the result of a change of attitude brought about by pressure within my party. I want to remind the hon. member of what I said in this House on the first possible occasion after the bannings took place, which happened before a tribunal existed. I want to refer him to a statement I made in this House on 28 February 1973 (Hansard, Col. 1597) when I said:

That is the 1973 session.

That refers to the persons who were banned.

I said that immediately at the time. The suggestion of a tribunal is no departure from the principle which I stated in 1973.

I want to say that I believe with the hon. member for Mooi River that the student body in South Africa has a very great role to play in the solution of the problems that exist in this country. The suggestion of the hon. member for Houghton, which she made in March of last year, was that we must ignore the happenings that were taking place because they were virtually the actions of irresponsible students. I want to agree with the hon. member for Mooi River in saying that I do not look on the student population of the English-language universities of South Africa as being an irresponsible lot of youngsters. I believe that they are people who have a duty to perform and that that duty has to be performed in difficult circumstances. Each one of us sitting in this House is only too well aware of the frustrations that exist among various sections of our population. It is a difficult matter for the student today because he has to maintain a delicate balance between legitimate protest, which is the right of anyone in a democracy, and protest which becomes a provocative protest and leads to confrontation and builds up animosity among the people of this country. There is a fine distinction, and it is a heavy responsibility on the students. But I do believe that there are various matters that the student body should take into account. Their work in respect of wages through the Wages Commission is admirable work. There can be no fault with it. But what happened because of the way in which it was tackled, to which there is reference in the commission’s report? There was an intent to cause unrest, revolution or at least violence. That view was, strangely enough, as my hon. leader mentioned this morning, held also by the independent British Trade Union Council representatives who came to this country, and has also now been stated to be the view of members of the Trade Union Council of South Africa. I want to say to the students in South Africa who are too young to know it—in fact, I am almost too young to remember it—that they must read what happened when strikes became violent in South Africa in 1922. That is the danger we were facing, and that is the danger which we believe is a matter of which notice must be taken. But in drawing attention to that danger, I say to the hon. the Prime Minister: Your Government can contribute to the maintenance of peace in that sphere by extending not only the control but the benefits of the industrial conciliation legislation in South Africa to the Black people of South Africa. That is a contribution which can be made.

Why did you not say that last year? Last year that was dangerous.

I want to say that the commission’s work was bedevilled by the reports which appeared in the Press and were published after the bannings had taken place and it was also bedevilled by those bannings. It was bedevilled, because on 28 February 1973 the Cape Times published the following statement on the front page:

Now, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister did not say that and the commission did not recommend the banning of eight people. But the effect of this throughout the country and overseas was that this commission had recommended banning, and that the hon. the Prime Minister had said that he was acting, not as his executive, but in terms of these recommendations. The hon. the Prime Minister went out of his way to put the record straight. I want to make this quite clear. I accept it, and I want to repeat it. When the hon. the Prime Minister made that announcement, he said that he viewed the attitude which he believed motivated the commission as being one in which we were concerned about the universities and law and order there, the interests of the universities, the parents and so on. He then said that that interest would be served but not necessarily in any particular way. In other words, the way he was doing things was not necessarily the way which we on the commission had asked that things be done. But, Sir, that accusation has lived with us for a number of years. When this matter was raised with the Press concerned, they put it right.

In small print.

I never saw it on the front page, but what I did see was a change of emphasis. Then we were wrong; not because we recommended banning, which they found we had not done, but because we did not specify the type of action that should be taken and had left it to the executive. I hope that the hon. member for Houghton and her cohorts will realize that the commission had no power whatsoever to dictate the type of action that should be taken. This was the prerogative of the hon. the Prime Minister and he acted accordingly. I said at the time that that action was contrary to United Party policy, and we have not departed from that view.

In the few minutes left to me I want to say that we as a minority group on the commission issued a statement, because we felt it was necessary to explain our views and to set out what we thought should be done. In our statement we have said that we still believe that this should have been a judicial commission. This feeling of ours is strengthened by a fact which was emphasized by the hon. the Prime Minister when he introduced the motion this morning, i.e. that the terms of reference of the commission went further than the terms of reference of the Select Committee. The terms of reference of the commission did charge us with the responsibility of looking into the activities of individuals and their involvement in the matters the commission had to investigate. I believe that an investigation such as this could have been done much better by a judicial commission. When one realizes the contemptuous way in which certain people treat a judicial commission, one wonders whether the outcome and the public reaction of those who wish to criticize, would not have been the same whether it was a judicial commission or a parliamentary commission, because both are bound by the same procedure.

The second point which we raised is that we believe—and I make this appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Justice—that these people who have been restricted over this period of time, 18 to 20 months, should now be relieved of the restrictions imposed upon them. I believe that it is due to them and that it will be just. The hon. the Prime Minister, the Government, is in a position now to place the documents before the Attorney-General and there is no excuse for delay. If these people are guilty of crimes or suspected to be guilty of crimes, they should be charged and brought before the courts.

I said that I would come back to the question of the tribunal. I read with interest, not being able to listen to it, a report of the hon. the Prime Minister’s recent television broadcast overseas. The hon. gentleman made the statement that persons who were restricted have access to the courts. That in its broad meaning is correct-access by way of review. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister made that statement in that way, because he is as conscious as anyone on this side of the House and as anybody else in this country, of the tremendous harm which is done to the image of South Africa by the continuation of this type of executive action when we are not in a state of emergency, declared emergency or war. I believe that the hon. gentleman himself—and I mean this in no derogatory way—had experienced executive action in a time of war. I also believe that with his background as a lawyer, and the way in which he made the statement, he is concerned to remove, as far as South Africa is concerned, a beating stick which is available to our enemies and that he would like to see some form of review tribunal established. It is for this reason that I was pleased to hear from the hon. member for Schweizer Reneke that there was a possibility that the matter would be further considered, although he did not commit anybody. I want to urge the hon. the Prime Minister to see that this matter is investigated, and investigated soon, and that if he must continue with the procedures which are permitted under the Suppression of Communism Act, section 10, that this safeguard is introduced.

That is a matter for the permanent commission of inquiry.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central says that this must go to the permanent commission. The permanent commission has not been established and I believe that this is such an urgent matter that the hon. the Prime Minister could well move the appointment of a select committee to look into this matter and to see what can be done in this regard. I do not expect the hon. gentleman to commit himself at this stage, but I want to say this to him: He is as aware as any of us of the situation in which we are living in this country. The students of South Africa have been shown in this commission’s report what has been done in their name in various parts of the world, and I hope that this will be an incentive to students to see that they themselves play a meaningful part in the solution of the problems of South Africa. Sir, whatever the students can do, whatever the public may urge, the power lies in the hands of the hon. the Prime Minister with the power that he has been given by this House. The hon. member for Schweizer Reneke says that the Nationalist Party is the biggest agent for change. That is fine, Sir, but if the changes are too slow, if those changes are not made and catastrophy results because the changes were not made expeditiously enough to avoid confrontation in this country, then nothing that we do, nothing that anybody urges the students to do, can stop people from exploiting the dissatisfaction, the unrest and the complaints of those people who have just reason for feeling that they are not properly part of South Africa, or part of the development of the homelands; that will then be fertile ground for the stirring up of further difficulties. Sir, the Prime Minister has the power in his hands and I would ask him to realize how heavy is the responsibility which rests upon his shoulders at the present time.

Sir, I want to deal with one other very short point in regard to the commission, and that is that the names of very respected South Africans have appeared on lists of so-called advisory panels of Nusas. Many of these gentlemen, as I say, are highly respected in the business and academic world of South Africa. I want to draw attention to the fact that we had many of them before us to ask them what function they performed as an advisory council. I think their reply can be summed up as follows: When we asked a member of the staff of the University of Cape Town what his function was, he replied, “I often ask myself”. I mention this, Sir, because it is wrong that the names of respected citizens in South Africa should be identified with the small clique that has been mentioned as the leadership of South Africa, just as it is wrong to identify the whole body of English-speaking students in South Africa with his clique. I mention this, Sir, so that there can be no question of any reflection upon the names of those persons who have offered to serve on the advisory panel of Nusas.

Sir, in conclusion, I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister to the statement made by the Archbishop of the Anglican Church yesterday, when he said—

Sir, if that is the lead which is given now by the Head of the Anglican Church, then I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister can work and consult with this man to see where and how those changes, which are in the power of the Prime Minister, can be brought about for the benefit of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not react immediately to the meritorious contribution by the hon. member for Green Point, although I shall come to it in the course of what I have to say. In the first place I want to turn to the hon. member for Houghton, who repeats like a refrain the complaint that the commission consists of politicians and not of judges. The hon. member is also aware that on a previous occasion Nusas did not even recognize the findings of a judicial commission. The hon. member is apparently forgetting that a committee was appointed at Rhodes University, comprising a number of people with Mr. Justice Munnik as chairman. That commission arrived at an unfavourable finding in respect of the students, and found that the unrest had been inspired by Nusas. Mr. Justice Cloete too, who was chairman of the university council, supported those findings and seconded them, but notwithstanding this, violent attacks were made on this judicial committee or commission by Nusas students and Nusas leaders, and also by certain newspapers. You see therefore, Sir, that we are dealing here with a group of people, of which I believe the hon. member for Houghton is one, which rejects a finding if it does not suit it, even though it is from a judicial commission. That is why I say today that if a judicial commission had arrived at the same findings, and had gone even further, what would their attitude have been then? But this attitude towards authority goes much further than that. Prof. Bozzoli is a good friend of the hon. member for Houghton, is he not?

Yes.

A few months ago, last year, Prof. Bozzoli saw fit to appoint a commission to investigate the antics of a certain Frescura and his hanger-on. This Frescura was able to make venomous attacks through his drawings, drawings with a political significance, a serious political significane. That committee found against Frescura. In other words, Prof. Bozzoli’s committee, comprising respected people from his various faculties, was subsequently reviled by the students as follows—

Sir, these people recognize no authority. Why then should they have recognized the authority of a judicial commission? That is what I am asking the hon. member for Houghton. Sir, if she is a friend of Prof. Bozzoli, she would at least say, “Disgusting!”, at this stage, even if she wanted to say nothing else.

The merit of this Schlebusch commission was that it drew attention to and identified a political world developing outside this Parliament, a grey political world, a political world in which no provision is made for democracy, one in which the National Party and the United Party and the Progressive Party would have no role to play. This was the particular merit of this commission, and at this stage I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point with all respect, in regard to his judicial commission, that in my opinion only politicians would have been capable of identifying these political trends which were developing outside Parliament. For the sake of the record and because I believe that we have not heard the last of it today, I should very much like to sketch its political development outside this Parliament.

To begin with, it takes us back to America, what a campaign for civil rights for, inter alia, Negroes, took place in the ’sixties. Stone, a co-author of the book Black Power Revolt describes the origin of the term “Black Power” as follows, and it is very important for us to take note of this because this was the springboard of Black Power—

These words had scarcely been spoken when, a week later, Stokely Carmichael, chairman of a political movement, marched through Greenville, Mississippi, calling out: “We want Black power; we want Black power!” It was reported as follows—

That is where it began. Stokely Carmichael, when questions were put to him as to whether he foresaw any race conflict or a class struggle, answered that it was a White/ Black clash because White workers were afraid the Blacks would destroy their way of life. According to him the Third World was the proletariat and the White Western community the bourgeoisie. When he was asked what struggle he foresaw, he replied—

He went on to say—

Thus Stokely Carmichael, who is married to the Bantu singer from South Africa, Mirian Makeba. Here, then, one immediately has the link between this exponent of Black power and South Africa. On 23 March 1970 Stokely Carmichael himself delivered a Sharpeville memorial speech; among his audience were African Nationalist Congressman Sibito Sitae and a few others. I want to ask hon. members to impress his fundamental premise upon their minds because this is what we are repeatedly going to find—

Here then we have the first symptoms of the plan to form a unified Black force to be able to bargain. It is very important for us to take note of this particular premise. Another exponent of Black power is a certain Bola Ige who is a Nigerian minister with a great deal of influence. On one occasion he delivered an address and associated himself with Chinese Communism. The question may be asked at this stage why I am dragging in these matters. In 1967 the University Christian Movement held a conference in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, known as “Process ’67”, and on that occasion three South African delegates were also present. They dealt, inter alia, with change in Southern Africa. This group discussed three problems of Southern Africa and agreed on one aspect. This aspect was that there should be a redistribution of power, land and wealth in South Africa. Here we have three people who participated on that occasion in the USA. They returned to South Africa and brought with them a book by Stokely Carmichael concerning “Black Power”. Then we had the conference of the University Christian Movement in South Africa in 1968. Americans who had perhaps also attended “Process, 1967” in America, were present on that occasion. They brought with them that work by Stokely Carmichael, as well as the speech by Bola Ige in which he associates himself with the Chinese in favour of the rise of the Third World. They also distributed a book called “Dialogue Focuser on Black Power” in which various articles appear. In the introduction to that book one of the premises was that Black people should develop a feeling of solidarity to be able to bargain against the White man, the oppressor. Another development which took place at this congress, was very interesting. It has not been conclusively proved that this was the case, but we suspect that it was. On this occasion it was arranged that a Black caucus consisting of Black students would function on the side with Steve Biko at the head. They would then discuss the so-called problem which had arisen in respect of laws concerning Bantu in urban areas. Those people later identified themselves as the founders or the starting point of a Black caucus which eventually developed into Saso.

I shall now come back to Nusas. Hon. members should bear in mind now the establishment of Saso. Remember, too, that as far back as 1969, immediately after the establishment of Saso, Nusas tried to obtain recognition for this uniracial organization. However, they did not succeed. In 1969, under the leadership of Neville Curtis, they held a seminar at Stellenbosch, the theme of which was “Promotion of Black Power”. Saso was eventually recognized in 1970, but they persist in refusing to grant recognition to the ASB. Thus we find the Nusas congress of July 1970 becoming an extremely important one because, although at this stage Saso had not yet published its manifesto and publicized its ideologies in full, a number of young people delivered lectures which can only be described as dynamite. This was not merely an exercise by a few carefree, radical students. Paula Ensor advocated “Black Power” and said that they were often accused of Black racism. She went on to say—

Miss Ensor also said that the need for the Black man to organize involved the necessity for the group itself to close its ranks before it could develop solidarity. That solidarity was imperative if it was to be able to bargain. Stokely Carmichael adopted precisely the same standpoint. One can see, therefore, where this idea is already leading us. Miss Ensor presented “Black Power” and the “Black Panther” movement in a very favourable light. She said that to her there was no difference between the American and the South African situations. She went on to say, too, that White people deserved no assurance that White racism would not be replaced by Black racism. One can see in what direction this young lady’s thoughts are leading. At that stage Black power was still in its infancy, and Miss Ensor spoke as if she knew precisely what would happen in the future. It is very important to remember this. Hon. members know that Paul Pretorius was another speaker who very clearly propagated the idea of change although it did not have to be based on peaceful change. Another speaker was Keith Gottschalk. This fellow never really talks about revolution, but if we analyze what he said, the message is that a change can take place through the intervention of foreign powers and through rebellion, or a combination of the two. It is interesting that Barry Streek should have said the following at the same conference—

Then we come to Mr. Neville Curtis. On the same occasion Neville Curtis delivered an address which has to be regarded as a blue-print for the subsequent actions of Nusas. He said that they should accept the implications of what they were saying. He said—

In other words, what he is saying here is that the White liberals, the Progressive Party, are just as guilty as any others and must acknowledge the guilt of their white skins. Then Curtis sketches their future actions and states that the role of the White student must be to effect co-operation with the Black power systems. He states—

This is his ideal, that there should be absolute co-operation between the Black people—in other words, Black polarization—and that action should be taken against the Whites. I could continue in this way to point out to hon. members that that was where Mr. Curtis patched the plan for action in, inter alia, the economic sphere. It is very important for us to bear that in mind. Consequently Nusas accepted at that congress that they would operate in various spheres, inter alia, in the economic sphere. They decided on economic action and even called it the wage level action on which they would operate. According to this they would demand that the wages of the Bantu be increased and for this purpose they were to apply a Hain-type of extortion. This was the decision which was taken. Thus it is possible for hon. members to see the course which Nusas was adopting, even at that stage. That was long before any statement on the part of Saso concerning their line of action in regard to Black polarization or Black power.

We shall now deal for a moment with the Saso philosophy as it was eventually used in their manifesto. Once again we have here the thoughts of Stokely Carmichael. Once again we have the premise of Paula Ensor who said—

Hon. members see therefore that these people have developed an idea of Black power from America, probably through the UCM but definitely through Nusas. It was an impulse to form a Black polarity opposed to a White polarity. These papers by Saso leaders were also published and Prof. Seymour Martin Lipset, inter alia, supported them very strongly in a foreword to this publication. Hear in what earnest terms he introduces this—

He goes on to say that the university should cultivate leaders—

Nusas leaders fully endorsed this line of thought throughout. They endorsed throughout the idea that there was no longer any solution through the ballot-box. The strongest exponent of this was Paul Pretorius. That is why I say that by means of the commission we exposed a political world of which this Parliament had been ignorant. It is a political world which, if allowed to develop, would mean that those constitutional institutions of our homelands which are already finding favour there, will be threatened. Institutions which are recognized by the United Party, will be threatened. The Progressive Party, too, which is a party of integration and which wants to become fully intermingled with the Black man, will find that there is a polarity against them through which they will not be able to penetrate.

To make out, as the hon. member for Houghton has done, that this matter should only be seen as an exercise by a small group of radical students and that the people may simply accept it as the normal games students play, we cannot accept. The hon. member for Houghton also referred to the wage campaign. The wage campaign was a direct consequence of the Nusas decision taken in Howick, Natal at the instigation of Neville Curtis. It led eventually, as I have already said, to the establishment of the Wage Commission. What techniques does this Wage Commission employ? They make use of the distribution of pamphlets; they go on training runs with them. It is very important to note, as the commission found, that there are indications that the 1973 strikes had no other inspiration that the commission could find apart from this inspiration coming from Nusas.

You can see, therefore, Mr. Speaker, what these people are busy doing. They are creating different polarities, namely the proletariat or worker on the one hand and the White man, the capitalist, on the other. This reminds us very strongly of the Marxist formula of the creation of tension, the creation of expectations in regard to salaries and eventually to the creation of a militant, aggressive labour force which wants higher wages. One does not want to turn these down as undeserved, and the hon. member for Houghton was being very unfair to the commission when she said that they had lumped the students per se together and condemned them because they had concerned themselves with wages. I shall tell you why I say this. In paragraph 17.3, page 464 of the report the commission states very clearly—

Mr. Speaker, the question is now: What course will this polarization now take? Has it come to an end now, with the restriction of certain leaders, or not? On page 461 the commission tells us another story. They point out to us that Mr. Peter Randall, the director of Spro-Cas, is also propagating the idea of Black solidarity, in Pro Veritate. They point out to us that here, too, the premise of bargaining power through Black solidarity is being accepted. It is important to note that it is not children with whom we are dealing here; we are dealing here with Spro-Cas, which is, as it were, sponsored by the South African Council of Churches and the Christian Institute. It is very clear from this finding of the commission that the idea of Spro-Cas corresponds with that of Nusas, namely the creation of two separate polarities.

To conclude. Sir, we have already told you how the Black polarity is visualized. How is the White polarity visualized? This is very important at this stage. How is the role of the White man visualized here? What is the role of the White liberalist? I have already told you that the White liberal has been thrown out of the backdoor with the bathwater. Now we ask: What is the role of the White man? I shall quote you an excerpt from a Spro-Cas statement as contained in Pro Veritate of June 1973. They describe the role of the White man as follows—

The second aspect is visualized thus—

Now I want to put a question to that side, to the Progressive Party in particular: Do they still call it a children’s game that the role of their party should be seen in this light? Do they still call it a children’s game that through the creation of these two polarities, those people who enjoy their high esteem and ours, namely the homeland leaders, and their institutions, should be threatened? At this stage they are a small, apparently insignificant group of people, but they are playing with dynamite, and this could have grave implications for political development outside this Parliament, and that is why it is so important, when a member of the Progressive Party rises, for them to tell us frankly whether they really regard this as a children’s game. I have sketched the political development for them here. I have given an indication of the political lines. Do they really consider that nothing will come of it if such a thing as the Black community programme is still in progress under the supervision of Spro-Cas, something which is operative among many different kinds of people in the Black world? Now I ask again: Is it fair that the hon. member for Houghton should stand up here and try to give the impression that she has read the report? She, as an intelligent person, as a representative of the capitalist system, who, together with hon. members on that side, represents big capital in this country, is unable to acknowledge that a political scheme is being developed in our country through which the Black worker is being misused in order to form a polarity opposed to the White man. That is why I trust that the Progressive Party will find an opportunity, or make one to settle this matter for us in very clear terms.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. the Prime Minister will forgive me if I say that when this debate began this morning it took a very interesting turn in that, instead of coming to this House and saying: “Here are the recommendations that are contained in the report of the commission. This is what I propose to do and I now put it before you,” the hon. the Prime Minister took a somewhat different approach in that he said: “Here is the report. I am giving you the opportunity of debating the matter. I will thereafter tell you what the Government’s point of view is.” With great respect to the hon. the Prime Minister, I think that was a very proper approach!

You are taking over the opposite side, and now you want to take me over as well.

I think the hon. the Prime Minister must accept that it is somewhat more difficult to take over this side of the House than it is to take him over.

I think that is somewhat presumptuous.

Presumptuous of you or of me?

† should just like to say to the hon. the Prime Minister as an aside—I shall not allow myself to be sidetracked on other occasions—that there is something we actually have in common with each other. There was much talk today about the Young Turks and I am told that the hon. the Prime Minister is a Young Turk. I find this rather remarkable. I picked up a newspaper and in it read the following—

I had read that type of story many times in the past in many newspapers and to my utter amazement when I looked at the photograph it was not a photograph of myself but of the hon. the Prime Minister! He was the one being described as a Young Turk. He won too, and, if I may say so, it was a most remarkable achievement.

They can really not mistake me for you.

There are certain differences, Mr. Speaker, and I think I shall be able to make these differences very clear in the course of this debate.

†The hon. the Prime Minister put it to the House and said: “Here are the recommendations. Now tell us, members of the House, what is your opinion?” With respect, the only people who took up this invitation from the hon. the Prime Minister were the members of the United Party whose spokesman this morning was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The other members of this House spent their time quoting from newspapers and endeavouring to sow some form of dissension. Alternatively, they found it necessary to come here and to say: Well, you know, you did so and so some years ago and therefore it does not matter now. You must not do anything at all. Other hon. members decided to pay us the discourtesy of assuming that we had not read the report and made speeches which consisted of large passages from the report which they found it necessary to interpolate in those speeches today.

Not one hon. member on the Nationalist Party side did in fact get up and say: I respond to the hon. the Prime Minister’s invitation and I think so and so should be done. Nobody on the Progressive Party side got up and said: I respond to the hon. the Prime Minister’s invitation and this is what should be done. The only person who did it was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this House who spoke—I want to say this here and now to the hon. the Prime Minister—not for himself, not for a section of the United Party but for the whole of the United Party in this House including myself and, as his name was mentioned, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as well. [Interjections.]

He spoke for the whole of South Africa.

The policy decisions which he announced on behalf of the United Party in Parliament are the policy decisions of the United Party in Parliament as a whole, undivided and without any tricks being able to be played by anybody on the other side of the House. Let there be no misunderstanding in the mind of the hon. the Prime Minister: Sir De Villiers Graaff, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, spoke for the United Party in Parliament.

Now, Sir, let me underline, if I may, a number of the points which have been made and which I think it is important we should underline in this debate. Perhaps this will demonstrate where we stand so that nobody will mistake the Prime Minister for me, or me for the Prime Minister. As far as I am concerned, there should be no misunderstanding between us; I am utterly against imprisonment without trial and I am utterly against banning without trial. That is the difference which exists not only between me and the hon. the Prime Minister, but between this side of the House and the hon. the Prime Minister. He must understand and appreciate that if he wants to understand how this side of the House works. I want to say this so that there can be no misunderstanding between us:

As far as I am concerned, I believe in civil liberties; I believe in the civil liberties of the individual. That is the reason why I am and remain a member of the United Party, because without that belief in fundamental civil liberties there in fact is no room for the United Party in South Africa. But we stand by it; we believe in these fundamental human rights; that is what we stand for in the United Party. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I reject with scorn the attacks upon the patriotism of people who in fact oppose imprisonment without trial and who oppose banning without trial. I reject with scorn the attacks upon the patriotism of people who are prepared to stand for civil liberties in South Africa, because those people—and I include myself among them—who stand for civil liberties and for human rights, do so because of our patriotism and because of our love for our country. We believe that this is the right course that we should take. Sir, I reject with the utmost contempt remarks such as those made by the hon. the Minister of Labour during the election campaign for the sake of a few paltry votes when he said—

Sir, what kind of talk is that? I throw that back in the face of the hon. the Minister and his colleagues. Not only would I act against subversive elements, but I would act against him if he acted in a subversive manner. I would, however, give him the benefit of a trial in a court of law; that is the fundamental difference between the United Party and the Nationalist Party. Sir, if you think that this line taken here is in the interests of South Africa, let me give you another example. I have another cutting here from a newspaper, from Die Transvaler, in which a Minister, who is in the Other Place at the moment, is quoted as saying—

*Is that the opinion of the hon. the Prime Minister? A member of his Cabinet is allowed to say such a thing and then he talks of co-operation in the interests of South Africa!

†Sir, this is what he said; here it is in black and white; let there be no misunderstanding. Then there is another hon. Minister who is not here today either, who was reported on 11 April 1974 as having said—

That is the present hon. Minister, Mr. M. C. Botha—

Is that correct; is that what the hon. the Prime Minister also believed in those days?

Shame!

Hon. members opposite should not cry “Shame!”; these are the words of their own Minister.

†He went on to say—

Sir, for me it is not very hard to decide to co-operate with the Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa. I think it is a scandalous thing for him to say. Then he went on to say—and the hon. the Prime Minister can deal with this in due course—

What a scandalous remark to make and then talk about the operation and working together in the interest of South Africa! [Interjection.] No, Sir, if we want to talk about co-operation and if we want to talk about understanding, these things are two-way tickets, Mr. Prime Minister. These are two-way tickets; they do not just work one way in South Africa. Then the hon. the Prime Minister said very fairly and very properly, when he referred us to paragraph 20.2.6.4 on page 516 of the majority report on Nusas, that he wanted to know from people in this House where they stood. Well, Sir, with respect, let me tell him where we stand. As far as I am concerned and my party is concerned, we oppose the overthrow of the State by force or any other means such as violence or stealth. We oppose any unconstitutional means to change the structure of the State. But on the other hand, I and my party believe that there must be change in South Africa towards a just society, and the belief I have is that that just society is a society in accordance with the aims and principles of the United Party. I want to say without any equivocation that I neither agree with the type of change nor with the method of change referred to in this paragraph which the hon. the Prime Minister read. I am utterly opposed to polarization, not only between Black and White but I am utterly opposed to polarization between groups in the White community as such. On the contrary, I believe that the White community should work together and co-operate.

Sir, we have been attacked, and I in particular have been attacked, in respect of the issue of our asking for a judicial commission. Let there be no equivocation about this matter. We wanted a judicial commission and we would still prefer a judicial commission. It is true that it is said that there were only organizations to be investigated, but it has become apparent, and it is quite clear from reading these reports, that individuals are affected, that consequences will flow from this report, and no one in this House can claim that there will not be consequences for individuals as such. Sir, that is why we prefer a judicial commission and that is why we prefer—and we not only prefer it; we think it is essential—that if it is alleged that people have committed offences, the papers must be laid before the Attorney-General, who must decide whether or not to prosecute, and, if so, such people must be brought before a court of law. But people must not be banned or be imprisoned without trial. That is why I have no hesitation in saying that as far as the present bans are concerned which have been imposed upon people as the result of the second interim report, those bans should be lifted and if there is to be a charge against those people, the papers should go to the Attorney-General and he can then make a decision as to what judicial proceedings should take place.

But in the minority report the United Party commissioners—and I think they obviously applied their minds in a most dedicated fashion—produced the concept of the judicial tribunal. Now, why should there be a judicial tribunal? There should be a judicial tribunal not because we have changed our minds and are now prepared to agree to banning without trial, but because we know that the hon. the Prime Minister wants to retain that legislation. We believe that there should be a safeguard in order to make sure that there cannot be a mistake or a miscarriage of justice, however unintentional it may be. I want to tell my colleagues on my left, if I may use that term in regard to the Progressive Party, that I am somewhat disappointed at the attitude they have adopted in this debate, because they have not responded in this regard. They have not said that they also do not agree with banning without trial, but that they at least think that the concept of a judicial tribunal, the decision of which would be binding on the Minister, is at least a mitigation of the fact and that they would support this concept. Not a word has been said about it. The hon. members of the Progressive Party are all quiet about it. They do not say anything for the very simple reason that they do not want to give credit to this party for anything that we do in a constructive fashion in the defence of civil liberties in South Africa.

The minority report ... [Interjections.]

It is no use getting all worked up—the hon. member had 25 minutes. [Interjections.] I am faced with the situation that an amendment has been moved by the hon. member who is getting all worked up there to the effect that all the reports must be rejected, including the minority report, including the concept of a judicial tribunal. May I suggest to the hon. member that when she has amendments drafted in future, she considers the implications of what she is actually moving because here she is rejecting what should have been retained. I suggest this with great respect to the hon. member. [Interjections.]

There is, with great respect, another matter which I think has to be borne in mind. I think it is important that we know it. Sometimes in life you have to stand up and you have to be prepared to be counted even when it means that you have to say that people who are your friends have done wrong. I believe that we should look at some of the things which the students have done. I am talking about individual students, not the English-speaking student body as a whole. I think it takes a courageous or foolish person to say that nobody has done any wrong and they are absolutely pure and they are absolutely right. I want to ask a very simple question because I have come across this before, long before the Nusas commission was even brought into being by the hon. the Prime Minister. There was the issue of an arms boycott against South Africa in the early part of 1971 when, in fact the Commonwealth Students’ Conference was held in Kumasi, Ghana, and reports of it appeared in South Africa. In a debate which took place in the Transvaal Provincial Council I made it very clear—I repeat it now—that in my view the backing of an arms boycott against South Africa was un-South African and unpatriotic and I would have no part in it and would oppose whoever wanted to encourage such a boycott. What happened? The student leadership of Nusas at that time got themselves all worked up. This resulted in the publication of certain stories which alleged that I was against the students. With respect, and I say it with great respect to the hon. members of the Progressive Party, when, in fact, a student does something wrong, they also have to be prepared to stand up and say so. It is not enough to say that whatever a student does is right and what everybody else does is wrong.

Nobody said that.

I think this is a philosophy which is not acceptable in the community. I think it does more harm to the cause of people who speak for civil liberties to pretend that, in fact, there are no transgressions in this regard in South Africa. I believe that one has to be prepared to stand up and condemn people who are doing what is un-South African and unpatriotic, but at the same time one has to be prepared to defend those people from what are arbitrary actions and to say that they are entitled to a trial before a court of law if it is alleged that they have done something wrong. This is what I believe is the true philosophy of those who believe in civil liberties in South Africa. I accept the patriotism of the man or woman who believes in civil liberties. I want to say now that I cast no doubt on the hon. member for Houghton’s belief in civil liberty and her sincerity in it but sometimes one has to be prepared to condemn as well as attack.

The student body has not just attacked the Nationalist Party. Let me give examples of how not only the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was attacked but other people on this side of the House as well. I wonder, Sir, how you would feel if you had my particular background and the following references were made to you, as happened in my case. I was referred to as a member of something called “the Church of St. Adolf”; there was also a reference to a “Munich testament” and “My Camp”. I wonder how you would feel, Sir, if those were the sort of attacks that were made upon you by individuals in the student community? But I do not say that they should be locked up—far from it. I believe in their right to have trial before a court of law and I therefore oppose the concept of arbitrary action against them in this context.

Let me talk for a moment about English-speaking students as such. I think it is utterly wrong to seek to condemn the whole body of these students because of what some particular individuals are alleged to have done or not to have done. I think the body of English-speaking students in South Africa is as patriotic and as loyal to South Africa as anybody is in South Africa. Let me give you the example of the action of students only recently at the Witwatersrand University when there was an endeavour to pass a resolution in the Students’ Representative Council in respect of the encouragement or thinking about conscientious objection, how they objected to it and made sure that in fact no such resolution would be passed. These are English-speaking students who feel as strongly about their loyalty to South Africa as anybody else. But what is happening in South Africa, and the hon. the Prime Minister would, with respect do well to consider and ponder it, is that English-speaking students, as part of the English-speaking community as a whole, are becoming terribly frustrated. Frustrated people very often are more ready to exploitation than others.

Why?

I believe that this is a matter which the hon. the Prime Minister should think about. Why are English-speaking students, and English-speaking people generally, frustrated? The answer is obvious. It is because they have not had a part in the determination of their own destinies for 26 years. [Interjections.] They see themselves going downhill in a motor-car which has no brakes. They can see that this Government is heading for disaster, but they are impotent and unable to stop this motor car because they are not in the driver’s seat. This is the tragedy of the English-speaking people in South Africa and the frustrations of the English-speaking people in South Africa. And do not tell me that the answer is that they should join the National Party. They are entitled to have different philosophies and beliefs, but in fact they are becoming frustrated because they cannot participate in the determination of their own destinies in South Africa. If the hon. the Prime Minister as a result of this debate wants to do something constructive about that relationship, he should apply his mind to the question of how people who differ from him politically, who are good patriots and believe in civil liberties, can in fact play a part in the determination of their own destinies in this country which they hold so dear.

I want to deal with one other matter. There has been a suggestion made, and I think the hon. member for Houghton made it too, that in so far as this side of the House is concerned, we have accepted the factual aspects of this report. But with great respect, the hon. member has not been listening to the hon. the Leader of that Opposition, because he made it very clear that in fact in so far as facts were concerned we were not accepting a judgment on facts. If anybody was going to be prosecuted, the facts would have to be proved in a court of law. All that we have dealt with here is with recommendations which are before us and as to what the attitude of this side of the House is to those recommendations. May I also here deal with one other matter which relates to the call to get off the commission. I think that the hon. member for Houghton would have done well to have read some of the editorials that English-language newspapers have been writing in recent times. It is no use, and I have said it often before, saying, for example, that we did not believe that in the definition of “employee” in the Industrial Conciliation Act Blacks should not be included, that we now believe it and that somebody is now cross because we have changed our minds and that we in fact have changed our policy and have made advances. I think that when a party makes changes and makes advances those who believe in the same ideas should rather get up and applaud than carp about it and say: “Well you did wrong; now you are doing right, therefore you must still be wrong”. It is not logical and is not gracious, with great respect. In exactly the same way I think it is common knowledge to anybody who is sitting in this House and outside that the work of the Schlebusch Commission, if it may still be called that, is virtually finished. To now say, therefore, that people should get off that commission is, I think, an idle idea and an idle thought. The work is finished to all intents and purposes. The matter is over and the show is finished. Now that the show is almost finished the idea is to say “do not go to the theatre at all”. It is quite ludicrous to make such suggestions.

The other point I want to make is in reply to the hon. member for Potchefstroom. He made all sorts of veiled insinuations as to what I was alleged to have said and not to have said. I challenge him and I challenge anyone else to show where I have not abided by the majority decisions which have been taken in the United Party caucus and where I have in fact gone contrary to them. On the contrary, I regard myself as a person who is subject to discipline and who has abided by our majority decisions. [Interjections.] Hon. members know as well as I do, and I say it with great respect, that it is perfectly proper for intelligent people to differ on approaches, but when you have come to a decision, unless it is a matter of absolute conscience where you feel that you can no longer carry on, you must allow yourself to be bound by the majority decision. I regard myself as a disciplined individual who follows my leader and who follows the policy that he has laid down.

Comment was made as to our attitude towards what is happening on the campuses. Let me tell hon. members that I believe that it is for the university authorities to decide whether in fact students should be allowed to abuse a situation, to stay on there, when they are not studying and not writing exams. I think hon. members know that I participate in the council of the University of the Witwatersrand and I think it is also known that the council has in fact already taken steps in that direction. I believe that it is the correct approach and not to get a big stick from above because I believe in university autonomy. I believe exactly the same thing in regard to the activity of political parties on campuses. I have fought for political parties to be allowed on campuses for years, but I also believe that that is a decision to be made by the students and the university authorities. I do not believe that it is a matter for legislation. The same with centre affiliation. I do not believe in centre affiliation. I objected to centre affiliation when I was a student at university and I believe that it is a matter for the students and the university authorities to decide upon. I do not believe that it is a matter for the State to interfere in. The same applies when we talk about the handling of funds. I cannot get worked up about the security of the State if somebody is putting his hand in the petty cash, if that is what the allegation is or if the funds have been abused. These are matters for the student body to put right and for the orders and regulations with which they should comply. I do not think the security of the State is threatened by this, but on the other hand, when it is alleged that you should not have funds for the political purposes of Nusas, I believe that Nusas and any other student body should be allowed funds for its non-political activities. Student activities, charitable activities and matters of that sort should be allowed to get the funds from wherever they can legitimately get these funds for legitimate purposes. I do not believe that there should be restriction in this respect.

I want to say one last word by making an appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister. We are entering into very difficult times. This is not a time for lip service, but a time for real statesmanship and for reality. I believe that if he now takes into account what we have suggested in respect of a judicial tribunal and if he brings this into force with legislation, it does not go the whole way as to what we want, because we want bannings and imprisonment without trial to be abolished altogether. If we were to accept that, however, and introduce that into the legislation of the country, I think that he would find that he would be acclaimed by English-speaking people and by Afrikaans-speaking people throughout the country. It would be good not only for South Africa, but also for our image overseas that the rule of law is being upheld in our country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, has indicated to us very clearly today how he wants to take over the leadership of that side of the House. Except for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, this is the first time I have seen an hon. member on that side of the House standing up and saying that he speaks on behalf of the whole Opposition and that the whole United Party in Parliament supports him. How can the hon. member be the one to make a pronouncement on behalf of the whole party on that side of the House?

On whose behalf are you speaking now?

How can the hon. member be the one to say that he is speaking on behalf of the whole party, and that the whole party stands united behind him, when his Leader is sitting next to him? What is important is that one accepts it as a matter of course. One does not have to say it each time. It is only when a person does say it that we on this side of the House begin to doubt whether there is, in fact, unanimity. Then the hon. member comes along and says he also wants to take over the Progressive Party. He tells the Progressive Party: “You must be more careful with the amendments that you move; you must make more of an effort to determine what the effect of your actions will be.” The hon. member speaks here about English/Afrikaans relationships. He says the English-speaking people of South Africa are frustrated because they cannot share in what is going on in this House as far as the Government of the country is concerned. But what happens? There was an English-speaking person named George Oliver. There was an arrangement that he should go to the Senate, but the hon. member on the other side exchanged the English-speaking George Oliver for the Afrikaans-speaking Anna Scheepers, and she is now a Senator. If he sets such great store by the fact that the English-speaking people should be given a share in the proceedings in this House and in the Senate, why is the English-speaking George Oliver not a Senator today? Why does the hon. member not make use of the opportunity of getting an English-speaking person here? He did this for his own internal party-political interests.

Let me come back to the broader merits of the hon. member’s speech. He says he stands for “civil liberties”. I want to indicate to the hon. member the difference between this side of the House and that side. This side of the House takes as strong a stand for “civil liberties”, but this side of the House also wants to take the practical measures to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual in South Africa against those persons who want to take those freedoms away from the individual. It is no use our throwing our hands in the air and with a great flourish saying that we stand for individual freedom, and then standing back when practical measures are adopted to consolidate the individual freedom in South Africa, or saying: “I do not want any part of that practical protection”. It must not be doubted for one moment, inside or outside this House, that this side of the House, in every respect, supports and works for the concept of individual freedoms. The great problem that exists in practical politics is to maintain a balance specifically between the security of the State on the one hand and the freedom of the individual on the other. Therefore it is necessary for the responsible Government in this connection to take action from time to time with the specific object of maintaining the freedom of the individual on the one hand and at the same time also maintaining the security of the State.

When we look at the security of the State, we must realize that in the first place it is the duty of the Government, of the executive authority in particular—the duty of the Minister and of the Cabinet. It is not the duty of the Judiciary to maintain the security of the State, and neither is it the duty of the legislative authority, this Parliament, to maintain the security of the State. The security of the State must in the first instance be maintained by the executive authority. Thus we find that this country has a Minister of Defence and a Defence Force. When there is the possibility of outside interference in the security of the State, the executive authority takes action, in this case the Minister. He then takes action, as is now again the case, by sending the Defence Force to the borders. When something like that happens, it surely constitutes a great deal of interference in the lives of individual South Africans, interference of some importance. There are terrorists on our borders, and they create a threat, as all of us know. However, there is not a moment’s doubt that when danger threatens from without, it is the duty of the executive authority to take action. Why is it now suddenly not the duty of the executive authority to take action when dangers occur within?

Today the hon. the Leader of the Opposition quite rightly referred to certain allegations in the minority report. In particular he referred to paragraph 20.5.7.3 which points out the relationships between the individual and the State. In that paragraph they state that the relationships are very complex. They refer to three groups of relationships and state that the relationships between the individual and the State also relate to—

If I am correct, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stopped quoting at that point. Here we are now dealing with the very core of the question. Before I cross over to that, I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he accepts the minority report, irrespective of the point he mentioned this morning. In respect of the standing commission on security he had a proviso this morning. Besides that, does he accept the minority report?

Yes.

I am very glad to hear that, because the hon. members who signed the minority report went on to say—

In other words, there is not only a duty to take punitive action when persons have indeed endangered the security of the State and gone so far as to commit offences against the State, but it is also the Government’s duty to take preventive action. When we are dealing with restrictions, we are dealing with preventive action. I want to make this point very clear. The action against the Nusas leaders was in no single respect punishment for what they had done. Therefore, whether they would be found guilty or not guilty in a court, this does not mean that the restriction by the Government in terms of the security legislation was right or wrong as a punishment. The Government’s action was not aimed at punishing them for what they had done; it was a preventive measure in lieu of what they proposed to do. In the minority report it is also stated (paragraph 20.5.7.7)—

In other words, we are now dealing with a scheme of things where an offence has not been committed. Consequently when such conduct comes before the court, the people cannot be found guilty. The report goes further and states that acts—

• (a) maintains an adequate defence force. In paragraph 20.5.7.8 they state further—

I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he accepts this aspect of the minority report? The hon. member for Yeoville has said that he is opposed to restrictions generally. I want to tell the hon. member that in principle this minority report approves restrictions subject to certain conditions.

That is wrong.

That is not wrong.

Ask the people who drew it up.

Mr. Speaker, the minority report states that in certain circumstances—they speak here of times of war or of national emergency—restrictions can take place.

Go further. The paragraph states further—

Quite correct.

You do not read the whole paragraph.

The point the hon. member has just quoted does not detract from my statement that in principle restrictions are accepted by the United Party’s minority report. I put this to you as an unqualified statement. In the report the United Party states—

In other words, we must make a law in that connection.

Read further.

Very well—

This will have to be defined in Acts of Parliament—

[Interjections.] But, Sir, this surely implies acceptance of the principle of restriction. There can be not the slightest doubt about that. I put it to the hon. member for Yeoville that this paragraph means that they are saying one can restrict, provided ...

(Inaudible.)

Wait, give me a chance.

May I ask the hon. member a question? What is the reason for a judicial tribunal if it is not to be a safeguard? That is the whole point.

I shall gladly answer the hon. member’s question. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this morning that since the Government would not do away with restrictions, he was now proposing the “tribunal” as a “safeguard”. But at that moment the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was losing sight of the fact that his own minority report accepts, in principle, that under certain conditions ...

You know what my leader said.

... restrictions can take place. I have made my point.

You are a poor advocate. You have already lost the case.

If the hon. member for Yeoville wants to be personal, I can also follow suit. I am stating that the principle of restriction has been accepted here, in fact on the following conditions: The first is that there should be a state of emergency or a state of war. Sir, that is a very silly condition, because from time to time there are threats against South Africa, as is the case today. Because there are threats against South Africa from without, it is necessary for this Government to take action from within, against internal elements, for the sake of the security of the State. Now hon. members on that side want to do a silly thing by saying that every time it is necessary to take action we must declare of national emergency. What foolishness is that, since we can take action in an easy and simple manner, not necessarily because there is a national emergency, but because there is certainly a threat! A national emergency has far-reaching and detrimental consequences for South Africa. When it comes to prevention, the Government’s duty is to take action as a good father would do to protect his family. When the State has to take action in this connection—this I want to emphasize very clearly—it is not punishing the Nusas leaders for what they have done in the past, it is preventing possible future acts by them. In taking such action the Government cannot have itself bound by onus of proof with a view to ensuring, beyond all possible doubt, that an offence against the security of the State is definitely going to take place. Like a good father it must take action against any reasonably possible offence against the security of the State. That is practical politics when we want to protect the security of the State.

We on this side of the House will go out of our way to achieve unanimity with members on that side of the House in respect of aspects of State security. I want to ask hon. members please to bear that in mind.

Now we come to the merits of the charges against the Nusas leaders, and why it was necessary for the State to take action. In this connection I want to turn more particularly to the Progressive Party. The question I want to put to the Progressive Party arises from the standpoint of the Nusas leadership, i.e.—

Does the leader of the Progressive Party accept the following as a legitimate statement of political activist groups: “The ballot box has long been discounted as a means for social change in South Africa”? In other words, is he satisfied with that standpoint? He is now shrugging his shoulders. On another occasion one of the Nusas leaders said—

Is the leader of the Opposition prepared to go along with that statement? Because from that statement arises a very important argument, and that is that these people who are intent on bringing about change in South Africa, do not want to bring about change by means of this Parliament. From that arises the fact that those people are in no way political opponents of this side of the House or of that side of the House. I see the leader of the Progressive Party is shaking his head.

He must first go and ask the Sunday Times.

This means we are dealing here with people who have no interest in taking the place of the Progressive Party in this House, or of taking the place of the United Party or the National Party. Having ascertained that fact, the question is how they will set about things. I am now definitely not going to repeat the whole description of how they set about things, because it is very clear that these people want to set about things with polarization as a prerequisite for conflict. But it is very important to note that these leaders have geared themselves to the fact that the basic groundwork and spade-work can be done by an organization like Nusas. I just want to refer to a brief quotation from paragraph 17.45, page 486, where Clive Kegan said that Nusas cannot march in the “vanguard” of the revolution, but that he accepts the view of Che Quevara—

In other words, he is saying that a small group of people can prepare a country for revolution, and it is very important, in this connection, to take preventive action in the face of what might occur, not necessarily punitive action—the punishment may follow if the Attorney-General decides to indict them. Sir, I think it is very important, in the interests of our country and in all our interests, that we should try to determine in this House the degree of unanimity that exists in respect of some of the recommendations of this commission. I am referring to paragraph 20.2.6.4 where it is specifically stated, and I quote—

Let me ask the leader of the Progressive Party across the floor of this House: Is he opposed to this aim, on the understanding that it is correctly formulated? Do you think it is wrong for people to try to bring about political change in South Africa, to reject the existing order and to replace it with an anti-capitalistic and socialistic system?

I would not be sitting in this House if I agreed with that?

Very well. The facts in terms of which this commission’s findings were published are certainly for the most part—I would say more than 90%—not in dispute between the Nusas leaders and the commission. In other words, the facts we are speaking about here are not facts that are in dispute; they are not facts that will or can be attacked by the Nusas leaders. We have also seen in the past few days that in reactions to this commission’s findings, the facts upon which the findings were based were not attacked by anyone. But there is also another important point. The commission is convinced by the evidence that persons and organizations are encouraging arms boycotts and economic boycotts in South Africa as part of an attempt to bring about radical change. I should now like to ask the leader of the Progressive Party whether he agrees with the findings of the commission, i.e. that the propagation of an economic and arms boycott against South Africa is a form of State subversion?

I disapprove of that.

You think it is a form of State subversion and you disapprove of it?

This is not a cross-examination.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the hon. member for Houghton that I am not speaking to her at the moment. I want to draw the attention of members opposite to a very interesting piece of evidence. We have now decided that we all disapprove of economic boycotts. It is a form of State subversion and we consequently disapprove of it. What does Mr. Paul Pretorius say about this in his own handwriting? Just look at page 597. According to Mr. Paul Pretorius’s diary of Thursday, 14 October, he had an appointment with an official of the German Foreign Office. He mentions the person’s name, and then goes on to say—

In other words, he had a discussion about the economic ties between Germany and South Africa amongst other things. He goes further and states—

We here have agreed that propagating economic boycotts is a form of State subversion. Here it is now stated, in this man’s own handwriting, that at the German Embassy he told a senior official that they were wrong to trade with South Africa. He also states—

Here is one matter about which this House is in complete agreement, i.e. economic boycotts are a form of State subversion, and that we disapprove of it, but there can be no doubt at all that this gentleman has been guilty of that, and friends on that side of the House, the Progressive Party, stand up with terrible hypocrisy and defend this situation. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. I am not finished with the hon. member on that side of the House yet, because I still want to refer him to an article about “the rule of law” which appeared in Nuntus. In it the previous Judge President of Natal, the hon. Mr. Justice Broome, states the following—

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Progressive Party, the hon. member for Sea Point, made a speech in which, according to my interpretation, and to my amazement, he placed himself above the law. The hon. member for Sea Point has been guilty of a violation of “the rule of law” in South Africa. In all fairness I shall quote you the hon. member’s exact words—

Read the whole of that sentence.

He goes on to say—

and he is obviously referring to the Government—

Mr. Speaker, the standpoint of this side of the House is clearly that “we are against the maintaining of domination, against the maintaining of race discrimination”—what precisely “White privileges” are, is not always clear to me in this connection. That is not the point. What the hon. members must bear in mind is that the hon. the leader of the Progressive Party has taken it upon himself to decide when he will defend this Government against countries abroad in a specific situation. The hon. member for Sea Point has adopted the standpoint that if he feels that our action against the terrorists is “to maintain racial discrimination or to maintain White privileges”, he says: “You go into the future alone.” My accusation is that that hon. member is guilty not only of a violation of the “the rule of law”, but also that he and his party are guilty of the greatest possible unpatriotic act that a member of this House of Assembly could commit. And that is absolutely scandalous.

Rubbish! Absolute rubbish!

Mr. Speaker, I shall give the hon. member the opportunity, across the floor of this House, to withdraw those words. Does the hon. member withdraw what he has said?

The interpretation is warped.

[Inaudible.]

I just want to say that it appears as if the mother hen is concerned about her chicks. There is only one way in which the hon. member can describe his patriotism, and that is to do it unconditionally. Every South African who wants to stand up and say “I am a conditional patriot”, is a person who does not want to subject himself to the law of the land. Whether the hon. member for Sea Point likes it or not, the laws of the land are the laws which are placed on the Statute Book by this Parliament, and he has no right, and neither has his party, to take upon himself the right to refrain from an act of patriotism if he should think that this Government’s actions do not accord with his ideals as set out by him in his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Pretoria Central with great interest, as I always do. I must say, Sir, that his reference to the minority report of the Schlebusch Commission suggests to me that the hon. gentleman does not clearly understand the concept “the rule of law”. If one looks at the minority report, where it begins on page 518 of this report, it is almost a classic exposition of the implications of what is known as the “rule of law”; it is an almost classic exposition of that situation. It sets out three things initially.

Firstly, the responsibility for legislation rests with Parliament; secondly, the responsibility of the Police to alleged contraventions of that code, which is laid down by Parliament; and thirdly, the responsibility of the courts to determine the guilt or innocence of any person. Those are three elements which are classically set out in the minority report of the Schlebusch Commission—that is to say, by the United Party representatives on that commission. On the following page, page 519, is a situation dealing with executive action, which again falls within the classic definition of the rule of law. What is the rule of law? The rule of law is that a community should be judged by laws which are known and which can be clearly ascertained, so that the legality of one’s conduct can be ascertained in advance of its taking place. Those laws are to be passed by a legislature, they are to be administered, so far as the criminal law is concerned, by a court of law, an independent court of law, and there is a Police Force whose function is merely to receive complaints, to investigate and to provide the law officer of the State, the Attorney-General, with the necessary information to bring a charge and to bring a case before the courts if need be. Any classical writer on the rule of law will include a situation where executive action can be taken by the Executive without reference to the courts. That is specifically dealt with in paragraph 20.5.7.8.—

That is the first instance—

This is the second instance—

In any classical exposition of constitutional law, which deals with the concept of the rule of law, which is largely a product of the English legal mind, will include those two exceptions when the Executive can legitimately take executive action to restrict the liberty of individuals without recourse to the courts, but in those two cases alone—that is to say, in times of war and of national emergency and subject to appropriate safeguards. I do not see then how the hon. member who has just spoken can possibly say with any justification at all that there has been an acceptance by the minority commissioners of the present state of affairs which obtains in this country at the present time.

I said “the principle of executive action”, but I did not say “in the present state of affairs”.

Well, we are in times of peace, are we not? I take it the hon. gentleman will accept that we are not in a state of war and that we are not in a state of national emergency. If we are not in one of those two conditions, then there is no reason, in terms of any one who supports the rule of law, why executive action to restrict the liberty of an individual should be taken without recourse to the courts.

The point is whether you accept the principle of executive action to restrict the liberty of people.

Of course in so far as it can be embodied within the rule of law and it is set out in the clearest possible terms. The hon. member did something else. He quoted—I was very interested to hear it—an extract from a statement by Mr. Justice Broome, a man for whom I have the greatest respect because I learned a great deal of law at his feet. According to the extract which the hon. member read out he apparently said that there was a reciprocal duty in terms of the concept “rule of law”—while the Executive may not restrict the liberty of an individual without recourse to the courts, there is likewise a reciprocal duty on every citizen to obey the law in a system which pays lip service to and believes in the rule of law. That is perfectly correct.

However, there is a third factor which applies in these days of democracy and of parliamentary democracy in particular. We should remember that the rule of law is a concept which has arisen in modern times. What is the third concept? The third concept is that while there is a duty on the Executive not to restrict except by recourse to the courts and while there is a duty on the citizen to observe that law, there is a third duty and that is for all citizens to have some say in the making of those laws which they are obliged to observe. There is the duty to provide a situation, and that duty rests on the Government, any Government, where all those who live permanently under its jurisdiction have some say and can bring some influence to bear upon the legislature which makes the laws which they are obliged to obey.

This is the gaping hole which we have in our situation at the present time. It is this gaping hole which brings about that thought, particularly in the minds of sensitive young people, and many of them are misguided as we have seen from the commission’s report, but the thought is nevertheless valid that where you have a situation where a large group, the great majority of your people—be they Black or White—can have no legitimate influence whatever on the making of the laws, you find that these young people tend to give up hope and to look for a solution outside of legitimate parliamentary and political activity. I do not justify that situation, but I believe it is a situation that has a bearing on what the commission found was taking place amongst certain groups within the English-language universities at the present time. The tragedy of it is this: What action does the Government resort to deal with the situation? It resorts to banning.

Restrictions, not banning.

Yes, to restrictions. But restriction in this sort of situation solves nothing.

If you say that, you do not know the situation in South Africa at all.

I will concede that it controls the situation temporarily ...

It solved a lot of things from 1961 ...

I do not believe that the hon. the Prime Minister can seriously advance the contention that the restriction of individual liberty is anything more than a temporary solution to a problem.

It prevented many things in this country in the past as it will also in the future.

That is not the point I am making. The point is whether it can be regarded as being a permanent solution. But there is a permanent solution right on the Government’s doorstep, a solution which could cut the ground from under the feet of Nusas, the Nusas leadership clique and similar bodies, overnight. This solution is for the Government to move into the centre field of compassionate and humanitarian administration and legislation for all peoples in South Africa. I speak as one who is sometimes labelled as an arch-“verkrampte”, if you read some of the organs of the English-language Press. Nevertheless I say with all sincerity to the hon. gentleman sitting opposite that the ground upon which the leadership of Nusas thrives could be cut from under their feet immediately if the Government would move into that centre field of a compassionate and humanitarian administration which embodied some say in the legislature, wherever it may be, for all those who are required to obey the law.

I now come to the hon. member for Houghton who spoke earlier this afternoon. I likewise listened to that hon. member’s speech with great interest, because it disclosed a distinct change of position. Formerly we were regaled, and the country was regaled, with an argument against the Schlebusch Commission based on five principal points: Firstly, that it was not an ordinary commission; secondly, that it operated under extraordinary rules; thirdly, that there was no legal representation allowed for the witnesses who gave evidence before it; fourthly, that it was open to criticism as an extraordinary body following extraordinary procedure, because there was no right of cross-examination; and finally, it was suspect, according to the hon. member, because it operated in camera during part of its proceedings. If one examines those five criticisms, which in the past have been the main attack by the hon. member for Houghton, but which significantly were not the grounds of attack today, one realizes that every one of them is invalid. It is in fact an ordinary commission operating under the ordinary law concerning commissions in this country, which is the same as the Commissions Law in all material respects of that of Great Britain. It does not, and did not, operate under extraordinary rules. Legal representation was allowed in every instance and taken advantage of. There was no right of cross-examination, but this is the case with the majority of commissions and the fact that it operated in camera is a perfectly ordinary state of affairs when State security is dealt with. What happened today? The hon. member took quite a different line. What she did today was to try to compare a commission and its operation with a court of law. Her criticism was that it did not operate as and was not a court of law. I have never heard a more absurd argument. A commission is not a court of law.

I said it acted as a court of law.

It did not act as a court of law. No charge was laid against the individuals concerned; none of them were found guilty of an offence, nor was any punishment imposed upon them by the commission. It is those three things which constitute the cardinal difference between a court of law and a commission.

There is one further fact which I should like to deal with. I have heard no criticism from the hon. member, speaking on behalf of the Progressive Party this afternoon, of the leadership of Nusas, none at all. I have heard no criticism, not a word, of the findings of the commission in respect of the leadership of Nusas. One must assume then that the Progressive Party approves of these various factors which have emerged from the commission. One must assume that the Progressive Party approves of the misappropriation of trust funds on a substantial scale, because that is one of the findings.

Oh. come on!

The whole report is to be rejected in terms of the hon. member’s amendment. One finding is that there was large scale misappropriation of trust funds. Then there is the action in respect of the public both here and abroad and in respect of the students which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition described correctly as amounting to fraud but which the hon. member for Houghton made light of. One takes it that that also has the approval of the Progressive Party. You then have the positive finding of the commission that the Nusas leaders and others were with the wages campaign deliberately creating a revolutionary climate amongst the Bantu workers.

That is not a crime.

... and that they were directly associated with the strikes which have taken place.

Is that a crime?

Of course it is not a crime. No one suggests that it is a crime, but I do suggest that it is utterly reprehensible conduct which I would have thought responsible members of the Progressive Party would condemn in debate. Then we have the action, which has been clearly identified by the commission, of these people being actively involved in bringing about a political polarization between Black and White with an acceptance of the possibility of violence. This is once again something which I would have thought the Progressive Party would have deplored. One of the most interesting things has been the different approach between what the hon. member for Houghton said today and what the hon. member for Rondebosch said on Tuesday, 6 August, in respect of the stand of the South African Council of Churches. The headline of the article is “Progs condemn South Afican Council of Churches’ stand”. The hon. member for Rondebosch, quite contrary to what the hon. member for Houghton has said today ...

Rubbish!

He said—

It has nothing to do with the subject.

I do wish the hon. member would keep quiet. He said—

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member must stop those interjections.

—

The whole thesis of the Nusas leadership, which was defended by the hon. member for Houghton today, is that peaceful change in South Africa is not possible.

That is untrue.

The whole thesis is that it is not possible and that change can only come about by means of force, violence or external means.

Untrue.

It is the very antithesis of the point of view adopted by the hon. member for Rondebosch.