Mr. Chairman, may I please have the privilege of the half hour? We have looked forward to this debate on the portfolios of Justice and Prisons throughout the session in order to discuss a number of matters which are apparent to the hon. the Minister and would be apparent to the House. We had hoped to launch out on this immediately. However, another matter has arisen which is urgent and necessary to discuss. I am referring here to the declaration of the Christian Institute as an affected organization and the tabling of the report of the Le Grange Commission dealing with the Christian Institute. While we do intend discussing matters relating to the Justice and Prisons Vote at a later stage, I propose at this stage to deal with the question of the Christian Institute.

I want to say at the outset that there are two separate issues in regard to this matter. Firstly, there is the declaration of the Christian Institute as an affected organization and secondly, the Le Grange report on the Christian Institute which, as I have said, has already been tabled. We felt obliged to issue a statement on Friday to counter a ridiculous suggestion made by the Reform-Progressives that the Christian Institute had been declared to be an affected organization because of the participation of the United Party on the Le Grange Commission. The object of the statement was to point out these two separate issues. They are two separate issues because regardless of what is contained in the Le Grange report on the Christian Institute, the Government could not have declared the Christian Institute to be an affected organization on the strength of the Le Grange Report. The Government could obviously only declare the Christian Institute to be an affected organization if it had received an independent report from three magistrates, one of whom had to be a chief magistrate or a regional magistrate. The report of the Le Grange Commission on the Christian Institute is, of course, part of a series of investigations and reports by that commission.

I want to say that originally the United Party demanded that a judicial commission of inquiry should be set up to investigate the four organizations which the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned at the time. This suggestion was, however, rejected and we as the United Party, the official Opposition, felt obliged to ensure that the Opposition was represented on that commission. To begin with it was, of course, a Select Committee of this House which was later converted into a commission. We obviously wanted to know what was happening,what the evidence and facts were, and we also wanted to ensure fair play to witnesses and to the bodies concerned.

Some fair play you ensured!

Let me say to the hon. noisy back-bench member there that his so-called leader supports us in this. In fact, at the time he waxed most eloquent in regard to the United Party’s participation on this commission. [Interjections.] He even went so far as to say that he personally would serve on the commission to ensure fair play.

And what else did I say?

That is just what he said. It must obviously be appreciated that the commissioners are appointed individually and they reach their conclusions according to their independent judgment of the facts before them. It is obviously a question of personal judgment in respect of each of the commissioners. In no way, therefore, can it be suggested that the findings of the commissioners of this commission or of any other bind the party which appointed them. Many commissions have been appointed over the years by the Government which has on many occasions accepted either none or only some of the recommendations of those commissions. Quite obviously, the findings of the United Party commissioners do not bind the United Party any more than the findings of the Government-appointed members bind the Government. The findings are matters upon which other persons may well have their own opinions. That is their right. However, they did not hear the evidence. They did not see the witnesses either. The varying opinions of the United Party commissioners or of the commissioners as a whole can in no circumstances impugn the United Party’s consistent determination to defend the rule of law.

You must be joking!

I want to pay a tribute to the United Party commissioners on this commission. I do not think that there have been any hon. members in the history of this Parliament who have been subjected to the vilification to which the hon. members of the United party who were members of the commission have been subjected.

Vilification by whom?

Well, you know.

Yes, I know, but I want you to tell me. [Interjections.]

One can only accept the fact that they applied their minds honestly and according to the evidence in bringing out their report and coming to their various conclusions.

Let me make it quite clear that the United Party is opposed to any executive action based upon the findings of commissions other than judicial commissions. If you have executive action following upon the report of a commission, which is not a judicial commission, you do not have the advantages which you would have had if the commission had been a judicial one, that is to say, the judicial process, the judicial mind, the application of the maxim audi alteram partem, the presence of counsel, if necessary, and the cross-examination of witnesses, whereupon you make a proper assessment in respect of the matters before the commission, based upon the well-known legal principles which a judicial commission usually applies. The Le Grange Commission is obviously not a judicial commission. It is a commission of parliamentarians, or, in relation to a judicial commission, one could say that it is a commission of laymen.

Does your party accept the final report?

I will come to that, Sir. The attitude of the United Party in regard to such a commission and in regard to the rule of law apposite to such a commission was set out very well in the minority report of the United Party commissioners, in the fourth interim report dealing with Nusas. Sir, this is the point of view which obviously applies in respect of all commissions and in respect of all findings. In the first place, as to the recommendation in one of the interim reports of this commission as to the setting-up of a permanent security commission, they made it quite clear that they would support such a security commission only if its functions were limited to the review of existing security legislation, an examination of proposed security legislation authorizing executive action and also the hearing of evidence as to the necessity of such legislation. Obviously, Sir, these are the functions of members of Parliament, and it was suggested that the members of such a commission should be members of Parliament. As yet we have not seen any such legislation and until we do we will reserve our judgment on it, and obviously it will be subject, as I say, to the criteria which I listed there and which were listed in the minority report.

In terms of the recommendations.

In terms of the recommendations of the minority report of the fourth interim report, namely the final report on Nusas. Furthermore, Sir, the United Party commissioners made it clear that in respect of any executive action to be taken by the State, any legislation in this regard should ensure that execution action to restrict the liberty of the individual should only be taken in times of war or of national emergency, and then only in specified circumstances in the interests of the community and subject to appropriate safeguards. They recommended that there should be established a judicial tribunal to which any recommendation for executive action affecting or restricting the liberty of the individual should be submitted. Indeed, Sir, it should also be remembered in this regard that when executive action was taken against Dr. C. F. Beyers Naude, when the Minister of the Interior impounded his passport, one of the commissioners, Mr. Lionel Murray, the hon. member for Green Point, issued this statement—

Sir, our attitude in this regard is quite clear and applies obviously in respect of all the reports of this commission or in respect of any other executive action. In the case of the Christian Institute, the commission considered that certain statutory provisions may apply. Let me quote what they said on page 165(931)—

Tell us which statute.

The only statutory provisions which they could have had in mind were those in the Affected Organizations Act of 1974. The only other statute which deals with the matter of politics in South. Africa being financed by foreign money in South Africa is the Prohibition of Improper Interference Act of 1968, which deals only with political parties and not with receiving money from overseas by political organizations, and no doubt the Act of 1974 was passed in order to deal with organizations. Under this Act, the Affected Organizations Act, there is a judicial safeguard against Executive action. That judicial safeguard is that before Executive action can be taken, there must be a factual report submitted by three magistrates in relation to the subject-matter in dispute. It is a committee of three magistrates, one of whom must be a chief magistrate or a regional magistrate, and it must be a factual report to whether politics are being engaged in by or through an organization with the aid of or in co-operation with or in consultation with or under the influence of an organization or person abroad. That is the judicial safeguard. When the Affected Organizations Bill came before Parliament last year, in the early hours of the morning, we made it quite dear what our attitude was in relation to the question of foreign interference in our affairs. As part of our amendment at the Second Reading we said this—

for the various reasons given. We made it quite clear at all times that such a state of affairs is an interference in our domestic affairs which we will not tolerate. Obviously,Sir, he who pays the piper, calls the tune and the recipient must dance to that tune, and it is not always a South African tune. If allowed to continue, such a state of affairs would result obviously in competition by various organizations for such funds and adjusting their activities accordingly. I do not have to dwell on it, Sir; I think certainly we accept it and certainly the Government accepts it.

I think the whole House will accept it.

I was wondering about that, Sir. I was hoping the whole House would accept it. In this regard I would like to hear from the Reformed Progressives, because up to now they have been silent on this matter, and when the Affected Organizations Bill came before this House the hon. member for Houghton moved that it be postponed to “this day six months” and when I challenged her on the subject last year, when we discussed whether Nusas should be declared an affected organization, she was silent again. Therefore, the two questions I would like to put to the hon. members over there are; firstly: Do they agree that bodies engaged in politics in our country should be allowed to receive funds for pursuing their political objectives from foreign sources? Secondly; Do they believe that when this is shown to be the case and the proper procedures have been complied with, that action should be taken to prevent this situation continuing? These are two questions which can be replied to with a simple answer, “yes” or “no”. So far we have had no answer, and now we challenge them to give us that answer.

Now we come to the question of the declaration of the Christian Institute as an affected organization. The magistrates had to make a factual report, of the nature I have indicated. Now, our information is that the Christian Institute was never asked to give evidence before these magistrates; it was never asked to state its point of view and it was never asked to controvert any evidence that the committee of magistrates might of had. That is our information, and if that is so, it seems incomprehensible to us that a proper fact-finding report could be made without hearing both sides. How do you, in the normal course of events, decide what the facts are except by hearing evidence from both sides? Unless the hon. the Minister can assure us on this matter, we cannot accept that the Christian Institute was properly declared an affected organization under the Affected Organizations Act, because the procedures laid down in terms of that Act were not properly observed. Surely, the principle of audi alteram partem is a basic necessity in respect of any such fact finding One does not need a commission in order to have a report drawn up by magistrates; one can have a report by magistrates at any time. At any time the Minister wants an organization examined, he can have it examined through the authorized officer and thereafter get a factual report. The situation can therefore arise, as it may well have arisen in this particular case, that an organization could be examined by a magistrate, there could be a factual report being compiled by magistrates in respect of an organization without the organization even knowing anything about it. That is the situation that could arise and which appears to have arisen here. [Interjections.] In those circumstances, until we are satisfied by the hon. the Minister in this regard, we cannot accept that the Christian Institute was properly in accordance with the procedures declared an affected organization under the Act.

Is that not a very thin fig leaf?

It is not a fig leaf at all; it is a fact. There is a judicial safeguard in the Affected Organizations Act and that safeguard has not been applied. The hon. the Prime Minister is a lawyer. Can he tell me that he can make a finding of fact in respect of a matter without hearing both sides, by only hearing one side? Well, if the hon. the Prime Minister can do that, I can tell him that magistrates do not normally do it and judicial officers never do it. The whole essence of the law, of fact findings, is to hear both sides and to test the evidence of the one side against the other and in the result magistrates and judges, trained as they are to sift the facts, do just that.

We raised these very matters last year on 16 September when we moved a motion in terms of the half-hour adjournment rule on the question of the very first declaration of an organization as an affected organization, namely Nusas. On that occasion we raised the question as to the manner in which the magistrates go about investigating an organization and we asked specifically whether in fact, the organization concerned was given an opportunity during the investigation to dispute any of the allegations made against it. But while this matter was raised a long time ago by us, we have had no satisfactory replies from the hon. the Minister. If the hon. the Minister has satisfied the judicial safeguards, what the Act requires, then of course, as with Nusas, he would be quite entitled to declare the Christian Institute an affected organization.

When the Bill was before the House, we suggested that a judge and two magistrates might be a better tribunal.

A judge and two assessors.

Yes, a judge and two magistrates or a judge and two assessors. In fact, the amendment mentioned “a judge and two magistrates”.

However, I am not quibbling over their ability and I am not suggesting that three magistrates are not as able to give a factual report as a judge and two assessors. I do not quibble over that at all, but I merely say that the nature of this tribunal…

Your tongue must be in your cheek.

I say that this tribunal should be clothed with as high an authority as possible because it is making a factual report in respect of which the Executive acts. Without such a report the Executive cannot act. It is a very good principle, as the hon. the Minister of Justice would know, that you should not look at one side only, that you should not just have the facts in, for example, one Police docket and act on it; you should have an inquiry as to whether those facts are, in fact, of such a nature that an organization should be declared an affected organization.

You are doing an egg-dance.

There is also something else which I should like to say to the hon. the Minister. At the time the Bill was discussed in the House, we suggested that the factual reports relating to an affected organization should be laid upon the Table of the House after the organization has been declared as such. I think it is a salutary thing to do, in the first place with those reports in respect of organizations declared to be affected organizations. The hon. the Minister said that he could not do it in all cases, because some organizations which were investigated were found not to be affected organizations. The hon. the Minister is responsible to this House for all his actions and he must not ever forget that. He is responsible for his actions here and it is this House which should be entitled to…

I am prepared to accept the full responsibility.

Wait a minute. This House should be entitled to assess the actions of the hon. the Minister properly and in relation to the declaration of a body as an affected organization, the arguments the hon. the Minister used before cannot be used in respect of a body he has already declared an affected organization. We would then ask him to lay that report on the Table in this House so that the House would be in a better position to judge what action he has taken. We invite him now to tell this House exactly how that committee of magistrates went about its business in making these findings.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, was right when he indicated that there was a matter of particular importance that must first be discussed under this Vote, viz. the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations and the declaration of the Christian Institute as an affected organization. I was just sorry about two points he raised and he should clarify them at once. The first was his insinuation that there was an irregularity in the procedure by which the Christian Institute was declared an affected organization. Section 8 of the Affected Organizations Act of 1974 provides that the Minister does not declare an organization an affected organization unless he has given consideration to a factual report made in relation to that organization by a committee consisting of three magistrates appointed by the Minister. According to the State President’s proclamation the statement was issued and signed by the Minister in terms of that Act. I now ask the hon. member whether he is implying that there was an irregularity. I want to express my regret concerning another standpoint, too, adopted on behalf of his party by the hon. member for Durban North. He praised the three commissioners of his party for their standpoint in spite of the vilification they had to undergo, but at the same time he dissociated his party from their findings. [Interjections.]

That is untrue.

He said that they had been appointed as individuals, and that they had reached this conclusion as individuals. [Interjections.] Well and good. Now I want to ask the United Party whether they fully support their commissioners.

Yes.

Does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout support the commissioners’ participation, conclusions and recommendations?

I shall speak for myself.

I also ask the hon. member for Edenvale whether he fully supports the participation, conclusions and recommendations of the commissioners of the United Party?

The hon. member for Durban North gave the reply.

I ask this of the hon. member for Pinetown, too. I do not want to enter into a dispute with the hon. member because he is still young, although not much younger than I was when I came to this Parliament. In any event, he told the Sunday Times that the investigation into the Christian Institute was a vendetta waged against the director of that institute.

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

I do not have the time now. He said that a vendetta was being waged against the director of the institute and this while three members of his party were participating in that investigation. I now ask him: Does he fully support the participation of the members of his party who have served as commissioners on this commission? Does he support their conclusion and recommendations?

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

I really have very little time. I do not mind replying to questions, but I do not have the time now.

Now there is another matter I want to mention. The hon. member for Durban Point rightly agreed with the conclusions reached by the commissioners, viz. firstly, that the Christian Institute does receive money from abroad—in fact, the greater part of its budget of R500 000—and, secondly, that in appearance, in substance and in function, the institute had become a political body with a political destiny. The commission made recommendations and these were signed unconditionally by the commissioners of the United Party. What were the recommendations of the commission? I quote from the final report (par. 9.3.1)—

I just want to say that no Government and no Minister worth their salt, faced with such a report, such a conclusion and such a recommendation with, in addition, an investigation and recommendations by three magistrates, could do otherwise than…

It was one-sided.

Does the hon. member say that his commissioners’ conclusions were one-sided? It was a unanimous decision. We shall come back to that now. No administrative action other than declaring the Christian Institute an affected organization was possible. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said by way of an interjection that it was one-sided. Is he stating that the conclusions were one-sided, or that the recommendations were one-sided? If that is so, he is saying, in effect, that three of his party’s most senior members had a part in a one-sided conclusion. Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that the finding of one of his party’s whips, a frontbencher of his party and another hon. member of his party who was also a frontbencher, was one-sided?

The finding of the committee of magistrates was one-sided. That is what I referred to.

That is not what you originally said. But let us leave it at that. [Interjections.] This was done according to law. On what grounds can the hon. member then say that this was a one-sided finding? To me the finding of the committee of magistrates is entirely consistent with the finding of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations, on which three members of his party served. It is entirely consistent with that.

Has the hon. member for Bezuidenhout seen the report?

Consequently he must say that this report, too, is one-sided.

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

My time is very limited. I would not mind answering a question on a later occasion.

Do you promise that?

Yes, I promise; I am not afraid of questions.

I just want to refer very briefly to the hon. member for Houghton before my time expires. I expect that she will enter this debate shortly. I want to ask her to reply to a few cardinal questions in the course of her speech, in which she will have a lot of time to vent her spleen. Firstly I want to ask whether she recognizes the supreme authority and sovereignty of this Parliament. I do not believe she will reply to that in the negative. Secondly: Does the hon. member acknowledge that the Select Committee, which later became a commission, was a properly and legitimately constituted committee of this Parliament, and that in that capacity it was entitled to subpoena people to be examined Does the hon. member agree that anyone who has nothing to hide and who need not be afraid of being investigated will not refuse or fail to appear before such a commission? On the contrary. Does the hon. member agree that such a person would seize such an opportunity to appear before such a Select Committee or commission of inquiry in order to eliminate all reservations about himself? Every day people stand trial in civil and criminal courts and, because they stand trial and defend themselves, they disprove suspicions entertained about them. Yesterday members of her party, and of the new supplement to her party, participated in some meeting at the University of Cape Town at which Mr. Naudé was paid the tribute of being called a “man of courage”. The hon. member for Rondebosch and the hon. hysterical member for Bryanston were there. There they again delivered their customary outbursts. But this “man of courage” to whom they paid tribute there, did not even go before that commission of inquiry to prove himself innocent, or otherwise he was too presumptuous or too arrogant to appear before a commission of this Parliament. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the second half-hour?

I shall answer the hon. member for Waterkloof immediately. He confuses completely the concept of the rule of law with the concept of the rule by law. I have never denied that this Government rules by law. It has passed enabling Act after enabling Act since 1948, Acts which enables it to abrogate the rule of law. That is exactly my answer to the hon. member in that respect. I want to tell him that the reason why the Rev. Naudé and others refused to give evidence before that commission—as I have stated in this House before, I too would have refused—was that it was not a court of law. It was not a court of law which gave the normal protection that a court of law gives to people who appear before it.

It was not a trial.

It might not have been a trial, but my, did it hand down verdicts! And on those verdicts action was taken. [Interjections.] I now want to ask the hon. member to keep quiet as I kept quiet when he was talking. I have answered his question completely.

I want to turn at once to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Durban North, whose speech I put on a par with his famous “it is what it is” speech which we had in this House a couple of years ago. I do not know if there is a single person in this House Who knows after the hon. member sat down, whether he was for or against the commission’s report, whether his party was for or against the commission’s report, whether they thought the procedures to be correct or not correct, or whether they thought the rule of law had been abrogated or not abrogated. One moment the hon. member was saying one thing and the next moment he was contradicting himself. His attempts to get the United Party off the uncomfortable hook, the Schlebusch-Le Grange Commission, are just too obvious for words. He has the impertinence to tell this House that it is purely coincidental that eight Nusas students and student leaders were banned with the appearance of the first and second interim reports of the commission concerning Nusas. He says it was quite coincidental that the Christian Institute was declared an affected organization with the appearance of the seventh report of the Schlebusch-Le Grange Commission. Who is going to buy that lot, I ask you, Sir? I would not buy a new car from the hon. member, let alone a second-hand car. He went on to say that the only statutory provisions that could have been contemplated by the seventh commission when it recommended that statutory provisions be employed against the Christian Institute, was the Affected Organizations Act. That is another lot of nonsense and the hon. member knows it. What he has forgotten…

He said that it was the Political Interference Act. You didn’t listen.

He did not; he said that it was the Affected Organizations Act. You did not understand. The hon. member forgets completely that there is a paragraph just before the final paragraph of the recommendations. This is paragraph 9.2.10 on page 165 and reads as follows—

This has nothing to do with the receiving of money from abroad, but it says “a danger to the State”. This is, therefore, a security recommendation and because of this the statutory provisions that can be used against the Institute are Draconian. There is not only the Affected Organizations Act; there is also the Unlawful Organizations Act which can put it out of business tomorrow instead of just crippling it as the Affected Organizations Act can do, as well as the Suppression of Communism Act which can lead to all sorts of action being taken against the office-bearers of that organization. How can the hon. member support that?

Action cannot be taken under the Unlawful Organizations Act. Read the Act.

The statutory provisions include the Unlawful Organizations Act and that Act gives vast powers to the hon. the Minister to declare an organization unlawful if he considers it to be a danger to the State.

The hon. member also said something which other hon. members also said in their hasty little attempts to get off this uncomfortable hook. Immediately after the report was published they made a statement that the minority report of the fourth report of the Schlebusch Commission which stated that the United Party was against arbitrary and executive action must be taken to apply to all the reports.

Of course.

The hon. member says “of course”. Will he tell me how that minority report, which appeared nearly two years after the first and second interim reports, could be taken to apply to the earlier reports on the strength of which eight students were banned? What nonsense! What a comfort it will be to those eight students who have been living the twilight existence of banned people to know that two years later the thought that was always at the back of the tiny mind of the United Party had suddenly been put down in a minority report of the Schlebusch Commission! What a lot of nonsense! Now we have the seventh report which I, for one, am happy to say, is the last of these boring instalments of the serial I am going to have to read… [Interjections.]… except for the afterbirth—I have not finished—which is going to be the report on the Christian Movement which the hon. the Prime Minister has told us is still to come. This is in any case the seventh and, as it calls itself, the final report of the Schlebusch Commission, Why did the hon. members of the United Party who were commissioners not take the trouble to add a teeny little sentence, another little minority report which would not have cost them much effort, to all the thousands of words they have spewed out over the years whilst they have been sitting on this commission, to say: The United Party wishes to state that it is against any arbitrary or executive action being taken in connection with the Christian Institute? It would not have harmed them; it might perhaps have done them a little good, although I doubt whether the United Party will ever be able to re-establish its credibility as far as the rule of law is concerned, despite the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has taken a course in jurisprudence. I doubt whether that is going to help. The statement which he made in his Press statement the other day…

That was a totally false statement.

Then why did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not deny it at the time?

Because it was absolutely childish.

I may say that it certainly sounded childish and therefore I thought it was true that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had said it.

I found another interesting contradiction in the speech of the hon. member for Durban North. He said rather ambiguously that he did not accept the findings of this report. He then tried to justify it. In a Press report which was also childish but probably true in this case and which was issued by the hon. member for Green Point and the other Schlebuschnik commissioner, the hon. member for Mooi River, they stated that the declaration of the Christian Institute as an affected organization had only been done after three magistrates had considered the matter and had made a factual report which the hon. the Minister had then handed on to the State President. What was the object of stating that? We all know that in terms of section 8 that has to be done. I say it was done to try to give a quasi-judicial respectability to the actions which had been taken in regard to the Christian Institute. If that was not so, why did the hon. members bother to draw our attention to it? The hon. member for Durban North now says that the correct procedures have not in fact been followed. I was here when the Affected Organizations Bill was passed. Section 8 of the Act lays down that the magistrates must consider a factual report. I do not think that it laid down any other procedures whatsoever. There was a brisk debate between the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Durban North, who moved some amendments which I supported, which showed that section 8 laid down no special procedures to be followed. So, what is the point of it?

You are wrong again.

I am not wrong again. I am dead right. I have read the Act and the debates. The only person who is wrong is the poor old hon. member for Durban North who has once again been given the impossible job of trying to extricate the United Party from its impossible dilemma over the Schlebusch or the Le Grange commission as it is now known. [Interjections.] It is an impossible dilemma in which they found themselves from the moment they agreed to serve on it as watchdogs for democracy—watchdogs without a tooth in their heads. They have been sitting on that commission, and time and again they are implicated… [Interjections.]

Order! I find it difficult to hear the hon. member.

I want to leave the United Party temporarily, but I will come back to that poor, sad body in a moment.

I now want to come to the commission’s report itself. As I have said, I am heartily glad that I won’t have to wade through any more thousands upon thousands of tedious, tendentious and boring words in reports of the Schlebusch Commission.

It is a monumental one.

It has cost ten members of Parliament, including the then hon. member for Yeoville who has changed sides since he was first appointed and is now a Minister, three solid years of work. Goodness knows how many thousands upon thousands of rands it has cost the unfortunate taxpayers who have had no say in the matter. [Interjections.] Just like the other reports, this report has employed the most devious methods in order to condemn the Christian Institute. It confuses, as did the other reports, analysis with recommendation. It draws false conclusions and it makes false analogies. It is a past-master at proving guilt by association over and over again. It refers to “people well-known to the Christian Institute”. It mentions attendances at international conferences at which dangerous Black Power people were present. It therefore makes all sorts of allusions to and draws all sorts of conclusions from guilt by association. There is one very interesting quotation I would like to use. It is on page 17 and it concerns a conference overseas which I think Dr. Naudé actually attended in person. This refers to a quotation by a militant Black Power leader, George Blac, who said—

I think that is wonderful. It is an excellent description of separate development. It is an excellent description of the maintenance of group identity. Does that mean that the Nationalist Party which advocates the maintenance of group identity agrees with the other ideas which have been expressed by George Blac? What a lot of nonsense! [Interjections.] Sir, that is exactly the same as the Commission’s reasoning. It quotes at length from well-known revolutionaries like Mao Tse-Tung, like Marcuse and even like Marx, and because some of their views happen to agree with some of the views that the Christian Institute may have expressed about wages and other things, it leads the reader to draw the sinister conclusion that therefore the Christian Institute believes, as these people do, in bringing about change through violence. Sir, it uses half truths to draw completely untrue conclusions. It even gives a subversive slant to the visits paid overseas by members of the Institute with the aid of Leader Grants from the United States State Department. I might say that many members on both sides of this House have been the fortunate recipients of Leader Grants from the United States Government. The report castigates the Christian Institute for daring to consult Robert Kennedy; that was really a very dangerous thing to do! And of course, it links the Christian Institute with Ussalep which, if I remember correctly, that past-master at tactful statements, the hon. the Minister of Defence, referred to as a neo-communist organization, or words to that effect. [Interjections.] Sir, most important of all is that throughout this report gives an emotive image to the word “change”— always in italics, either in slanted print or in heavy print or underlined or in inverted commas—as if the Government is not in favour of change. What about détente and all that jazz? That is change.

Is that jazz?

The whole world is in favour of change but if the Christian Institute is in favour of change then there is something wrong with it; then it is allied in every respect to violent change despite the denials of the members of the Christian Institute in this respect. Then, Sir, there are important omissions throughout this report. They omit, for instance, all the denials about wishing to bring about change by violence. They omit to mention that the Rev. Naudé denied completely the false report that was made of a statement that he was alleged to have made when he was in Holland last year.

He had the full opportunity to deny it before the commission.

Sir, he was not going to appear before a commission…

Why not?

Because it was not a court of law giving witnesses the normal protection given to them by the courts. I want to remind this House, Sir, that the Schlebusch Commission was not a court of law; that none of the normal protection given to people appearing before courts of law was given to witnesses. They did not have the right of cross-examination, although they were allowed to have their representatives present.

Are you advising people to contravene the law?

They did not know what evidence had been presented against them. Their representatives had no right to cross-examination. Sir, let us have a look at the evidence.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, sit down. The hon. member has already asked me two questions which I have answered. If I have time at the end of my half-hour I will answer or try to answer a third question.

What about answering the question now about where you stand?

Sir, I am not on trial. It is the United Party that is on trial. My part, Sir, has not abrogated the rule of law. It is the United Party that has abrogated the rule of law. Sir, that brings me back to the United Party.

Now answer the question.

I want to tell the United Party…

Just do not think you are coming closer to me.

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

Just answer those two questions.

I just want to remind this House as well that the commissioners were not judges, although they handed down a verdict all right, a verdict which they knew perfectly well would bring the most serious consequences to the people concerned, a verdict which was virtually a blank cheque for the Government to do anything it wanted to do in relation to the Christian Institute and the other organizations on which these gentlemen had sat as judges. And I want to remind the House, too, that the second and fourth reports of the Schlebusch Commission had some very damning things to say about the misuse of funds by Nusas. I am sure everybody remembers that. There were such cries of horror about these dishonest people who had taken funds and misappropriated them and the Schlebusch Commission had some of the most damning things to say, but in the event, what has happened? The Attorney-General has refused to prosecute. He has found that there is not, as the Prime Minister said there was, a prima facie case against the organization in that regard, anyway, and we have still to learn whether there is in fact anything which the Attorneys-General in any of the provinces are going to find to prosecute Nusas for any of the other so-called sins about which the Schlebusch Commission had no difficulty whatsoever in condemning them.

I would like to remind the House of that, that when tested against the normal concepts of law, these accusations and these verdicts seemed to fall away. I want to remind the House very strongly about that. [Interjections.]

Are you going to answer our question about your attitude to foreign money?

My attitude to foreign money was made very clear in two previous debates. In the Improper Interference debate I made it very clear that I was against money coming for political parties per se. [Interjections.] Sir, I know what I said. I said for political parties per se.

Correct.

I am not sure I am right if that hon. member says I am. [Interjections.] Never mind, I happen to know that I am right. In the debate on the Affected Organizations Bill, I repeated that. In fact, I moved amendments in the debate on the Improper Interference Bill, too, to that effect, and of course I moved that the Bill be read this day six months. What else would I move in respect of a Bill that was going to deprive our party, which was a multi-racial party, of its right to have members of other races? I also moved that the Affected Organizations Bill be read this day six months. The hon. members forget that they voted against it too, and they forget that they moved amendments in that particular clause which affected the giving of money. So I am not particularly worried about that. My attitude is clear. I said that political parties per se. … [Interjections.] All of us are engaged in politics all day long, whether we are politicians or members of organizations working for social change. How do you define the term “engaged in politics”? That was the gravamen of the charges of the hon. member, believe it or not, for Green Point during the debates on the Improper Interference Bill. He asked how you define “engaged in politics”, and he moved an amendment to delete references to political organizations and to being “engaged in politics” So, Sir, if these little new members at the back here think they can catch me out, they are wrong. I know what they are shouting against. [Interjections.]

Do you think organizations in politics should get money from overseas?

I do not think that any organization should be allowed to be put out of action by arbitrary executive action which is the direct result of a commission sitting without any of the normal protections given by a court of law. That is absolutely clear. There is this question of getting money from abroad. The Christian Institute denies categorically that it got any funds from the World Council of Churches. They denied that categorically, except that they said they got two free air tickets on one occasion and they got some help for legal defence to fight the Pont libel case, which I may say they won handsomely, and Prof. Pont was supposed to pay R10 000 damages to each of the gentlemen concerned, to Dr. Naudé and Prof Geyser, but needless to say, they simply gave up recovering those damages and asked him to pay the legal expenses. But do not other church organizations get money from abroad? For instance, do not the N.G. Kerk the Gereformeerde Kerk get money from abroad? They get it from exactly the same organizations as the Christian Institute, and that is from the Reformed Churches in Holland and the Lutheran Churches in Germany. [Interjections.] Will hon. members tell me that those churches do not engage in politics? Will they tell me that the NGK and the Gereformeerde Kerk do not engage in politics? Will they tell me that.

Which Gereformeerde Kerk?

No, not the Dopperkerk, the other one. [Interjections.]

When the political history of this country of this particular era is written, I suppose the decline and fall of the United Party will occupy a few chapters. When that history is written, high on the list of the causes of the decline and fall of the United Party will be its sorry involvement with the Schlebusch/Le Grange Commission. High on the list will be its role of collaboration with what I can only call a miserable bunch of McCarthyists [Interjections.] High on the list of reasons for the United Party’s fall will be its complicity in the banning of eight young people and the role it has played in the subduing of what I regard as an excellent spirit of resistance to tyranny at our great English-speaking universities. High on the list will be the United Party’s connivance with that. High on the list will also be its attempts to obliterate the Christian Institute headed by Dr. Beyers Naudé. I should like to remind the House that this gentleman is well, known, not only here, but abroad, highly regarded… [Interjections.] His sin is that he had the nerve to challenge the Broeder-bond and the teachings of the established Church in terms of race policy. I say without equivocation that the inquiry into the Christian Institute was not a security trial, but a heresy trial of the Rev. Beyers Naudé. He is the gentleman who received one of the most prestigious awards of the Reinhold Niebuher Foundation of America last year. I believe the entire world is going to be shocked at the Government’s action against him and the Institute It will also be shocked at the complicity of South Africa’s so-called official Opposition. We say, as we have always said on these benches, that the only proper place in which offences should be tried and in which verdicts should be handed down is the courts of law, where the normal protection of the rule of law applies. A trial in an open court with all the normal procedures is the only means whereby the innocence or guilt of a person can ever be properly ascertained.

We on these benches reject the findings in the seventh report of the Schlebusch/ Le Grange Commission just as we have rejected other findings; not all of them, because I know about the Institute of Race Relations and its role, as I said originally,as a decoy. Obviously that is an innocent organization. We reject the first, second and fourth reports and that ridiculous one…

Did we condemn the U.C.M.?

I have not seen it yet, but I shall have a look at it. I can tell the hon. the Minister this much: I shall not attach very much…

You will reject it too.

The hon. the Minister knows more than I do; he has been a commissioner all these years. I have no doubt that I will probably reject it for one major reason. As far as I am concerned the whole procedure adopted by the Schlebusch Commission is suspect and therefore I will reject it on behalf of hon. members on these benches. I entirely and unequivocally reject this commission’s 7th report.

Mr. Chairman, I shall refer later to the tirade of the hon. member for Houghton. There is another and more pleasant field to which I should like to move first. It is so that the commission has come to the end of its activities after a period of approximately three years. It is necessary to address a word of thanks on this occasion—and I do so with great pleasure—to a few people who did very important work in connection with the commission. I should like to thank all the members who served on the commission at various times, and especially the members who were responsible for the report which is before this House at the moment, for their help and assistance. That also applies to one member of the commission who used to be a member of this House, viz. Mr. Etienne Malan. It is true that the members, especially some of them, experienced hard times, and I am grateful that all the members, in spite of the insults which they had to endure, nevertheless did their work to the best of their ability. It was also a privilege to work with the Secretary of the Department of Justice and the Secretary of the Office of the Prime Minister and their staff. We are grateful for the help which we received from both departments. Competent members of staff were put at our disposal. The typists, who came from the Department of Justice in particular, as well as the Office of the Prime Minister, did an enormous amount of typing. Other people were also of assistance in the technical preparation of the different reports, as well as the report which, is before the House at the moment. Then there are two people whom I should like to mention by name. The first is Mr. C. P. J. Prinsloo, a magistrate of the Department of Justice, who acted as secretary since the inception of the commission. I think that everyone who had to do with the commission and its activities, whether as members or otherwise, will testify to the fact that he is an official who rendered exceptional service and who has exceptionally fine qualities.

Hear, hear!

Another person is Mr. T. B. Vorster, a chief magistrate of the Department of Justice, who assisted the commission, especially in respect of this report, as a professional assistant. I should like to bear witness that Mr. Vorster produced work for us of far above average standard, in a very intelligent, level-headed and fine way. In spite of the criticism which, may be levelled at the contents of the report, I can assure hon. members that Mr. Vorster was outstanding in the performance of a very difficult task in the preparation of this report. For that reason, I mention his name in particular.

As I have said, we have come to the end of the activities of the commission. I should just like to put it to this House that the commission did not see it as its task to make analyses, in matters of principle or canon law, of the different claims of the institute, whether ecumenical or religious. We are of the opinion, and this is how it is put on page 4 in paragraph 1.3., that it is the duty of the Church to give judgment in this sphere. Consequently the various churches did give their judgment on some of these aspects. However, I should like to refer at the outset to a part of paragraph 1.3. I quote—

I think it is necessary for the Church in South Africa to explain repeatedly to its members what test the conscience of a Christian must undergo before he is entitled to say, “My conscience leads me thus” and before he is entitled to rise against the State. Dr. Beyers Naudé says the State is demoniacal, viz. unchristian, and therefore he encourages Christians to resist the State. Responsible people who reflect on this matter in South Africa after this, must answer this question for themselves, before they decide to give further support to the Christian Institute.

Now, if we come back to today’s debate, and we ask ourselves what is actually at issue, the answer is very clear. The hon. member’s tirade, which we heard today, is a repetition of what we have heard here three or four times over the past three years.

Yes, and I shall persist.

I do not know why the hon. member for Houghton did not simply hand in the leader of this morning’s Cape Times as her speech, because all she did was to repeat it. The argument of the hon. members on the opposite side does not concern the Christian Institute as a Christian body. It does not concern Christian ecclesiastical aspects. And does the Christian Institute not pretend to be a Christian Institute with a Christian monthly journal which acts in a Christian way? That is not what is of concern to the hon. members. To them, it is purely a political matter, because to hon. members sitting on the opposite side the Christian Institute is an extremely important aid in their political campaign in South Africa. [Interjections.] That is what is at issue. Who saw the director of the Christian Institute yesterday? Who organized the director of the Christian Institute’s meeting here yesterday? It was the hon. members of the Reform Party sitting at the back over there and the hon. members of the Progressive Party. They are the people who organized that meeting.

Let us look at page 118 of the report. The hon. member for Houghton, who waxed so lyrical here, knows full well of the long history of co-operation between the Christian Institute and the Progressive Party. She knows what is on page 119 of this report, because she read it very closely.

Oh yes, word for word.

I know that she did not read previous reports before she gave her judgment, but she did read this one. She read it here under my supervision.

When was that?

The other day. She knows about the “twelve statements for the consideration of all Christian voters in the Republic of South Africa” which were drawn up by the Christian Institute. She knows that Dr. W. B. de Villiers, the then liaison officer of the institute, wrote on 30 October 1969 (para. 6.5.25):

1. 1. To confront the leaders of the various (White) political parties with its contents;
2. 2. to send a copy to every Christian minister of religion in this country with the request that they disseminate its contents among the members of their churches; and
3. 3. to release it to the Press at the first opportune moment.

The “Twelve Statements”, although drawn up on the initiative of the Christian Institute, will not be published by the institute, but in the name of its signatories, who shall be churchmen and leading lay Christians (but nobody with direct party political connections).

In this way the hon. members on the opposite side got, inter alia, an important document, and what happened then? A very responsible church leader from Johannesburg, the Rev. Leslie Stradling, the Bishop of Johannesburg, said, when he received it (para. 6.5.25(ii)):

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? [Interjections.]

I do not have much time, but the hon. member may ask.

Would the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us with which of the 12 statements, other than the reference to enforce separation in paragraph 8, he disagrees?

I shall tell the hon. member right now. It is unfair of him to ask me to deal with the 12 statements, when I have a short time to speak. In another debate, I should like to do so, but there is no opportunity for that now. I do not have half an hour as other hon. members did. Now I only have a few minutes at my disposal.

You have a highly developed sense of justice. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman… [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity to complete his speech. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member at the back over there should not get so happy. I do not have the time to reply now, but I should just like to point out what that hon. member said of the same gentleman whom he is supporting so eagerly now. Last year, the heading of a report in Die Transvaler was the following (translation), “Expose Naudé now, Harry”. On 23 November 1974, Die Transvaler reported as follows (translation):

[Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who will probably also enter the debate, referred just now to the onesidedness of the magistrate’s report to which the hon. the Minister of Justice was supposed to have reacted. Let this hon. member explain why they do not accept this report as one-sided. For what reason is this report accepted by hon. members of the United Party? Why did they make recommendations together with us and have these been accepted by their caucus? Here too, the Christian Institute did not submit evidence. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout will have his turn to speak, and I ask him in advance to state his standpoint in this regard. The hon. member had part in the projects of the Christian Institute. I do not see the hon. member here at the moment but what I am saying, can be conveyed to him. Let the hon. member comment for us on something which was not said by me, a member of the commission, but which a member of the Christian Institute said about the activities of an organization which was initiated and financed by the Christian Institute, and for which the Christian Institute is doing its best, viz. the Sprocas projects. I want to read from Pro Veritate of March 1974. It is a letter written by Professor André M. Hugo, a member of the Christian Institute. In it, he said the following, inter alia (translation):

The hon. member can reply to this. The hon. member for Houghton referred very insultingly here to “Schlebuschnik”, etc., to which I object most strongly. I really hope that it will not happen again in this House that someone, in such a high office as the Speaker of this House, will be referred to as a “Schlebuschnik”. I hope the hon. member will avail herself of the opportunity tomorrow to beg Mr. Speaker’s pardon for that insulting term which she used. [Interjection.]

Let us look at one particular accusation which hon. members make. The hon. member for Houghton, who is making so much noise at the moment, has not yet replied to a single question which was put from either side of this House. However, there will be an opportunity for that, and therefore, I do not want to dwell on this. Let us come to another aspect for which this Commission is blamed, viz. that it has not been proved that Dr. Naudé and the Christian Institute are in favour of violence. Here I have a special edition of Pro Veritate which was published in October of the year in which the World Council of Churches made their donation. It is a special edition about the donation which the World Council of Churches made. Any hon. member may try to point out any instance in this special edition of the Christian Institute expressing itself as being opposed to this donation or as being opposed to liberation movements hostile to South Africa. What do we find in the very last sentence of a special article by Dr Beyers Naude himself? A special statement of policy by the Christian Institute also appears in this pamphlet. What is the last very significant sentence in this article? Dr. Beyers Naude refers here to something which a young Coloured said. This Coloured said (translation)—

Then Dr. Naudé says—this is to conclude the article—

Any hon. member on the opposite side must bring me evidence of any instance of the Christian Institute having adopted a pertinent standpoint against the World Council of Churches’ donations to terrorist organizations in Southern Africa or any place in the world. They must not try to get away from that by saying that they are opposed to violence, that they propagate peace and that they subscribe to the realization of Christian principles. One does not find it in these documents. [Interjections.] I ask the Director of the Christian Institute pointedly: Why is this standpoint adopted? What reason is there for his participation at Hammanskraal? Why does he condone these things? He must adopt a standpoint, and then hon. members on the opposite side must tell us whether they associate themselves with it. I want to ask hon. members on the opposite side, who wax so lyrical about these things, whether they associate themselves with sermons delivered by senior members of the Christian Institute in which Che Guevara, Mao Tsetung and Jesus Christ are treated on an equal footing? [Interjections.] Those are the three heroes who are held up as examples. We have now really reached the stage where we have had enough of this story. Let those people come to the fore and tell the public outside what their standpoint is in respect of the things which are in the report. Here we have the position that people who took part in these Bible Study Circles of the Christian Institute say themselves that these are nothing but political discussions. They say these are not Bible Study Circles. Are these people who associate themselves with people who range themselves on the side of Bram Fischer, people who say that there should be no immigration to South Africa, people who say that “Last Grave at Dimbaza” is such an outstanding film and that it shows the real position in South Africa? Hon. members of this House saw that film. Hon. members on the opposite side must tell us whether they range themselves on the side of such people. Do they believe that “Last Grave at Dimbaza” is a good film which shows the real position in South Africa. What I want to say now I do not say in any way so as to cause embarrassment to those hon. members of the United Party who served together with us on the Commission or hon. members of the United Party who were involved in it earlier. I say that now is the opportunity for hon. members, such as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, to have the courage to stand up in this House and to tell South Africa where they stand as regards these leftists vermin in South Africa. The opportunity is there for them now, but I do not think they will avail themselves of that opportunity today. The hon. member for Durban North tried for half an hour to state the worst case in the political history of South Africa. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban North whether he is yet prepared again to carry out a task such as the one he had to carry out today just because there are a few men in the Party who do not have the courage to stand up and to say that they will take their hats and sit on the other side. [Interjections.] I say that it is not necessary for me to deal with this report; it is not necessary to try to motivate the recommendations. Everything is there. These are things, however, about which we must give each other straight answers. The opportunity is there now for a few hon. members of the United Party and the hon. members sitting over there on the opposite side, to tell the electorate of South Africa where they stand as regards this organization which has been exposed in this report. This side of the House is prepared to go to the electorate of South. Africa with this report.

Mr. Chairman…

The hon. member is busy chewing. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman…. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed with his speech once he has finished eating. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you are going to allow the House to shout for the entire 10 minutes and thus deny the right of an hon. member to speak.

Order! Is that a reflection on the Chair?

No, indeed not, Sir. I am glad that the House has now been silenced.

It gave you a chance to empty your mouth.

It is usually the custom in this House that members of the United Party rise two or three times before the Reform Party is allowed to speak. Suddenly, however, we find that there is no United Party speaker to get to his feet. Therefore, finding that there was no United Party member who was prepared to speak at this moment, I stood, not expecting to speak. I would like to say that it is time, after listening to the hon. the Deputy Minister, to get back to basic principle; not to some of the verbiage we have heard. Too often the basic principle is lost in a debate through verbiage and through people trying to draw red herrings across the path. Too often the basic principle is lost inadvertently. In the case of the hon. the Deputy Minister, I think it was persistently and deliberately thrown away. The first principle I would like to state is that the Reform Party believes that no person is punishable except for a distinct breach of the law. This applies to persons, individuals, bodies and groups of persons and it is therefore clear that we are totally opposed to punitive measures being taken when no clear breach of the law has even been alleged. From this report it is clear that no clear breach of the law has been alleged. Dr. Beyers Naudé has not been accused of being a communist. His organization has not been accused of being criminally subversive in South Africa and neither have its members. At worst it is alleged that some of the activities of the Christian Institute may lead to it being considered a danger to the State. If there has been an allegation that the law has been breached these allegations should be spelt out and motivated. Such an allegation, however, does not appear in the report. The second principle we should not lose sight of in a debate of this sort is that we believe that persons or bodies against whom allegations of criminal or subversive conduct are made under any circumstances should be brought before an ordinary court in the normal course of events.

From what authority are you reading?

It is a principle to which we of the Reform Party adhere.

From what authority are you reading?

I am reading… [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is a very experienced parliamentarian and he requires no notes to talk a lot of nonsense.

And you do.

When putting a point of view, which in this hilarious atmosphere in this House it is difficult to put, I find the hon. the Minister trying to throw another red herring across the path. I want to look at what has transpired in the light of the two principles that I have quoted. I want to say, firstly, that I believe that this commission, throughout its existence, has shown a lack of just procedure and of judicial practices. There is a lack of balance in this commission in that, as has already been said, it is a commission which consists of Parliamentarians and politicians with a subjective point of view, in terms of which cross-examination to test evidence is not allowed and in terms of which the public has not got access to the evidence which is given before the commission. [Interjection.]

Order! Hon. members should give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

Sir, the full report of the evidence and of the proceedings of the commission has to this day not been produced, and it looks as though it will never be produced. Then, Sir, there is also the question of representation. Witnesses who gave evidence before the commission found themselves restricted, in the first instance, and in the second instance the organization which was being investigated was not allowed proper representation. Sir, this form of commission is totally adhorrent to the members of my party. This form of commission is one of which South Africa cannot be proud. Secondly, Sir, I want to test this unanimous recommendation against the two principles I have stated. There is no minority report. Every single commissioner has subscribed to the findings of the report.

What did your leader say?

What we want to know is whether the United Party subscribed to the proceedings, the findings and the recommendations of the commission.

And to the action taken subsequently.

We want to know whether they subscribed to the action which was taken subsequently. If they say that they did not contemplate that executive action was going to be taken, why was this not stated in a minority report? I want to say that the recommendation of this commission contemplated, anticipated and even urged executive action against the Christian Institute. This recommendation, Sir, is rejected by the members of the Reform Party. The entire Opposition Press in South Africa is unanimous in its condemnation of the action of the minority commissioners.

What does that prove? It makes them right.

It proves—and I make this point for the benefit of hon. members of the United Party—that this Opposition is on the verge of losing, if it has not already lost, the confidence of opposition-minded people in South Africa, from the Transvaal to the Cape from Natal to the Free State …

What do you know about it?

I know a great deal about it. I agree, for one thing, with the Sunday Express, which wrote—

Sir, the United Party may not have used the Affected Organizations Bill; the Nationalist Party did; we know that. They are like Lady Macbeth. Macbeth did the deed, but Lady Macbeth banded him the dagger. The Government did the deed, but the United Party handed the Government the dagger. Sir, I want to say that every newspaper report in the past few days reflects the typical attitude of Opposition supporters to this action on the part of the Government. Even the United Party, however much it may deny it, is divided on this issue. We had the statement a few days ago of the hon. member for Pine-town who was reported as follows—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member for Sandton is a very good after-dinner speaker! It is obvious to me that he has bitten off much more than he can chew.

*I read in The Cape Times of 30 May that Dr. Beyers Naudé and Prof. Colin Gardener issued a joint statement in which they had to say, inter alia, the following—

Sir, if this report is correct, I regret that these gentlemen found it necessary, in defence of the Christian Institute, to accuse the members of the commission of lies and half-truths, without making an effort to point out a single lie or half-truth. By using this kind of unbridled language one does not do one’s own cause any good at all, especially if it is aimed at people who serve in the highest and most responsible positions in this country, all of whom are people who place a high premium on their honesty and integrity and who have to defend their honesty and integrity in the limelight of the public platform from time to time. When I, as an Afrikaner and Afrikaans-speaking person, discuss Dr. Beyers Naudé, I do so with hesitation and with something like sadness in my heart. This man was born and grew up in a staunch Afrikaner home and bears the name of Gen. Beyers, one of our great heroes, and was endowed with special gifts and talents so that, at a reasonably young age, he advanced to the high position of acting moderator of the Southern Transvaal Synod of the D.R. Church. With his remarkable gifts, Dr. Naudé could have done so much as a church leader in this country, not only in the spiritual or religious field, but also and especially in the field of race and human relations. Unfortunately he, just as another talented Afrikaner from a staunch Boer family who died so tragically as a prisoner recently, also went astray and thus became completely estranged from his own people. Like Bram Fischer, Dr. Beyers Naudé obstinately and persistently clings to an illusion which leads him further and further into the wilderness and drives him, as a lonely and isolated outcast from his own people and his own church, deeper into the wilderness. Sir, it is not pleasant to say these things, but it is a fact that this man, Beyers Naudé, did more harm to the image of South Africa during the past number of years than any other person I know of. He did more than any other person to vilify South Africa’s name overseas. More than any other person he is responsible for the misrepresentation overseas of the policy of this Government and of the State. Over a very wide front of social, cultural and religious organizations and especially in Holland, Germany and the Scandinavian countries he cultivated through repeated personal visits a facade of hatred and hostility towards this country and especially against the Whites of this country, by means of repeated personal visits. And of course, Sir, this master brain and this master actor clothes everything neatly and in a meaningful way under the all-inclusive cloak of the Christian religion and Christian brotherly love. He apologises for the fact that he became estranged from his church and his people by saying, a statement that cannot be reputed easily, that he cannot act differently, because he should obey God more than he does man. This is all very well, but it comes to the interpretation of the Scriptures, to the interpretation of the will of God, then he, only Beyers Naudé, who has the wisdom and who was granted the particular prophetic gift to interpret and explain the will of God, and everyone who interprets that will and the Scriptures in a different way, such as his people, his church and his State, is evil.

The commission published a report after months of effort and study which is based practically word for word upon written documentation of the Christian Institute itself, for they were of course too pious and self-righteous and refused to give oral evidence. However, it is being said now that the report contains lies and half-truths. Perhaps we have the right now to ask whether documents of the Christian Institute dealing with the intimate friendship between Dr. Naudé and some of South Africa’s foremost enemies overseas are also lies. Is it also lies that he sometimes goes overseas as many as three times a year and vilifies South Africa’s name and its people at confidential conferences, public speeches and sermons from the pulpit? [Interjections.] Would it be lies when a respectable body such as the General Synod of the D.R. Church stated in 1974 that (translation)—

Are these also lies? Is it also a lie when the books of the Christian Institute reveal that they received an amount exceeding R300 000 from abroad during the year 1971, which is virtually 92% of the total funds for that year, or that almost R55 000 was received from abroad during the year 1972, which is more than 87% of their total income? Is it also a lie that the telephone account of the Christian Institute amounted to R7 700 for one single year, namely 1972? Is it also a lie that Dr. Naudé collected the enormous amount of R524 000 by means of a special fund-raising campaign in Europe for the purchasing of Pharmacy House, the new headquarters of the Christian Institute in Johannesburg? During this campaign the heartbreak story was told that the non-White workers of the Christian Institute did not have the right to share the toilet facilities with Whites in the rented offices and for that reason a new building had to be purchased. Then the money streamed in, of course. Money streamed in and the Christian Institute was able to buy a new building for R500 000 in cash. This is one of the great tragedies of this organization that it became so radical that it can hardly get any financial support from South Africa itself and that it therefore became a parasite just like Nusas that has to feed on a large number of meddlesome foreign organizations, which are strongly anti-South Africa and which want to destroy the Whites in this country and for that reason denote money to terrorist organizations. It is obvious that since the Christian Institute has to ask for money from these far-leftist organizations and in addition, has to do so in competition with terrorist organizations, it will paint as sombre a picture as possible of conditions in this country and present itself as the precursor of a new social and political order in South Africa. In order also to obtain money from the churches abroad, the Christian Institute constantly created the impression that there is a confrontation between the Church and the State in South Africa. Various ingenious arguments were advanced to lend credibility to this untruth. I have the evidence here, but I do not have the time to quote them. When examples of State action against so-called church leaders are given as a proof of the confrontation between the State and the Church, only the sound Christian witness of these people are presented, but no mention is made of their subversive activities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, certain statements have been made by the hon. member for Houghton, statements which were not new but merely a repetition of generalities which have been expressed in the past. This afternoon I want to say, first of all, that on 3 April 1973 I stated my and my party’s reasons in this House for serving on this commission, our obligation to serve on Committee originally appointed by Parliament which later became a commission. I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat the reasons which I then spelt out in this House. If hon. members wish to know what I said and if they ever do look at what I said, hon. members to my left can look at column 3982 of the Hansard of that date.

They will not take the trouble to do that.

We were requested by our parliamentary caucus, by the central head committee of our party and by the central congress of our party to continue to serve. That is the support which the United Party has given to the investigation which was initiated by the House in regard to these four organizations. During the 1973 central congress of our party there were gentlemen, who are now members of this House, who were party to the request that we should continue. During the time the commission was sitting, the Government took certain executive action and we as United Party members of the commission submitted our minority report stating what we felt should be done and what safeguards we felt should be applied in regard to executive action in terms of legislation in this House. That has been spelt out and it is clearly known. For anybody to stand up in this House and say that we of the United Party have not stood for a tribunal and for some judicial safeguard in regard to executive action is grossly misrepresenting the consistent attitude of this side of the House. I want to say this in regard to the minority report in which we set out the position, and I quote—

In another paragraph we said—

In that minority report we also recognized that, in the interests of the safety of the State, executive action is necessary in certain instances. That is the attitude of this side of the House with the safeguard of a tribunal. That attitude has been reiterated by the United Party in debate after debate in this House and, as I said, to represent it otherwise is a misrepresentation of what the true position is.

When I come to the seventh report, I want to say quite categorically in this House that I associated myself with the findings of fact on the evidence which was placed before the commission, in a documentary form in the main and substantiated by a certain amount of oral evidence. I found no reason to depart from my signature or to suggest that I withdraw my signature from that report. This was obviously not a judicial commission and nobody ever claimed that it was one. It was a parliamentary commission which must report to Parliament so that Parliament can decide what should be done on the facts. So, I want to draw the attention of the hon. members on my left to the point we made in the report—

May I just digress for one moment? We had a similar investigation into the Institute of Race Relations, which also received considerable sums from overseas. Because of the assistance of that institute, we were able to establish that the funds received from overseas were earmarked in a separate account for research. We were able, with the aid of the witnesses to establish that it was a perfectly legitimate and proper undertaking and that there was no suggestion that those funds from overseas should be stopped. They were being used in the proper way and were being controlled both by the foreign donor and the receiver in this country. However, we were denied this information as far as the institute is concerned. The Sprocas 1 Commission came with certain findings and conclusions which are not criticized by the commission whatsoever. Sprocas 1 said:

In this House we on this side have over the years accepted the position that polarization between Black and White in this country can only hold an inherent danger to the future security of this country. The hon. member for Houghton did not refer to these matters this afternoon. Despite these warnings, the Director of Communications of Sprocas 2 made certain comments which he attached to Sprocas 1 by some mental gymnastics. This, again, is not referred to by these people who generalize in regard to this report. The Director of Communications in Sprocas 2, in a statement published by the institute, said:

I want to ask the hon. member if that is anywhere in any one of the reports of the Commission on Sprocas 1. Polarization to me is the antithesis of détente; yet this party on my left claims fatherhood of the détente exercise in Africa, but offers no criticism when polarization is practised by the institute.

This institute gave space in its monthly publication, Pro Veritate, to a series of articles by Rick Turner, who has been referred to in previous reports. He was given space not only in one edition but in a number of editions of Pro Veritate. He says: “I am no Christian.”, and this in a Christian journal. He says—

Is that something of which we must say that it does not require to be reported upon to this House? The Christian Institute has given space in Pro Veritate to a series of articles on Black Power and Black Theology, articles which can hardly be regarded as contributions to peaceful and orderly change in relations between Black and White. Mr. Roelf Meyer, the editor of Pro Veritate, has said without contradiction—this has been verified—that the Christian Institute did not disapprove of church support for liberation movements in South Africa, but he made this statement outside of South Africa and not in South Africa.

The Christian Institute appointed the Anglican Rev. Colin Davison—and I am an Anglican—as head of the Bible Study Group. This man used a pulpit to profess these views:

As the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, he lumps together Mao Tse-Tung, Jesus Christ and Ché Guevara as the three heroes of our age. He takes as his text: “I raise up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation.” Then he says we must merely substitute for “the Chaldeans” the words of Mao Tse-Tung, Fidel Castro or any other revolutionary leader “because they are the people whom God uses to work out his purpose in the world”. This is the man who was appointed by the Christian Institute to direct the Bible Study Groups as, so it is suggested, a non-political Christian activity in South Africa.

I want to refer to some of the reasons which drove me to sign this report. One of the reasons is that, as the report states, certain activities of the Christian Institute constitute a danger to the State. I am not here to judge to what extent specific members of the institute were aware of what was going on. Over these years we have had enough evidence of infiltration of persons into various organizations, but I accept that we constituted a parliamentary, if not a judicial commission, and I regarded it as my duty as a member of this House to report to this House what I honestly believed on the evidence which was before us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point will excuse me if I do not follow up on his argument. He dealt with the contents of the report and I, too, intend to do so. What we have here once again, in the form of the Christian Institute, is one of those sickly phenomena of our times, a phenomenon which is in fact occurring throughout the world, of people who, at a given moment, suddenly discover that their consciences are in revolt against established norms and standards. We usually find, as the result of such qualms of conscience, the establishment of an organization or body which has to salve the over-sensitive conscience of the person concerned and also be in total rebellion against the established orders and norms. Usually scriptural arguments are seized on to support their standpoint. Scriptural arguments are manipulated and offered in a form totally different to the accepted meaning attached to them by the ordinary Christian. In addition, these people are usually suffering from an exaggerated feeling of guilt.

That is precisely what we find with the Christian Institute, too. Its director and its whole organization concentrate on inculcating a feeling of guilt among the Whites in order to prepare them for the eventual take-over by Black Power, something they would like to see happening in this country. The report dwells on this aspect at great length. One does not express an opinion on the consciences of others very lightly, but when, in pursuance of their ideals and objectives, people associate with Marxists, with neo-Marxists, with the New Left, one is justified in questioning the purity of the consciences of such people and passing judgment on their motives, as this report, too, quite rightly does. It is remarkable to find the more sensitive these people’s consciences, the more leftist are the allies they embrace, in their struggle against the so-called “injustice of society”, against the “humiliating and oppressive policies of the Government”, and so on, and in the process they allow themselves a degree of arrogance which is beyond all understanding.

I was shocked to read in the Natal Mercury of 29 May that a man like Jan Vercuiel should say the following: “If Dr. Beyers Naudé was a danger to the State, so was Jesus Christ.” Surely that is absolute blasphemy. These great believers do not charge people with making these remarks. If I had such friends. I would not want enemies. What does Dr. Beyers Naudé have to say about his own organization? In this morning’s Burger it was reported that he said last night that the institute should be compared with Calvin’s institute. Even Calvin is now being described as a revolutionary figure, and in the idiom of these people and their Marxist friends, even Christ is described as a revolutionary figure. We have had innumerable examples of this in Pro Veritate, and if time permits I shall come to that. But what extremes of arrogance are displayed by these people? In a statement which appeared in the Sunday Times on 1 June, the director of the Christian Institute states the following—

How far can one, in fact, follow the dictates of one’s conscience when one starts to use this kind of hyperbolic language? I have said that the more sensitive the consciences of these people are, the further left they move in their search for allies in their struggle. I cannot mention all the examples that appear in the report, but I want to mention a few.

This report is being reviled as a string of untruths. But is it not true that the Christian Institute is the greatest protagonist of the World Council of Churches in this country, its strongest ecumenical arm? Who is the World Council of Churches? The World Council of Churches is regarded as the most important Marxist front organization in the world. There is no doubt about that. As far back as 1967, the present Secretary-General, Phillip Potter, used these words—

understand the world; our business is to change it.”

That is the basis on which the World Council of Churches operates. Now it is very interesting that Potter, when he used these words, was still chairman of the World’s Students’ Christian Federation. Very shortly afterwards, the UCM was founded in this country, at the instigation of the WSCF. Who were the greatest protagonists of that project? They were the Christian Institute and its director; they worked in the closest co-operation. The UCM was merely an extension with the aim of introducing the Marxist ideal of the WSCF into this country as well. The hon. member for Potchefstroom, the hon. the Deputy Minister, has already referred to the attitude of the Christian Institute with regard to the donation to terrorist organizations made by the World Council of Churches. He pointed out that no-one in the Christian Institute had anything to say against the donations. An entire issue of Pro Veritate was devoted to making this donation known and evaluating the climate for it. It is also interesting to note from that statement by the Christian Institute concerning the donation, that there was no reference to donations to terrorist movements. No, they are referred to as “anit-racist movements”. The terrorists’ activities are labelled “guerilla activities”. Hon. members can see the sympathy and understanding with which these people are handled. This also illustrates very clearly the Christian Institute’s standpoint on violence.

The Christian Institute and its director stand accused of introducing into the country, as so-called ecumenical Christians, Marxist and neo-Marxist ideology with scriptural concepts which are then given a different content. The best example of this is to be found in an article by Berkhof, a known Marxist, in the February 1970 issue of Pro Veritate. In this issue Berkhof, makes a blatant plea for the establishment of Socialism and, in the idiom of Marxism, makes a plea for change, not only for a change in approach by mankind, but a “radical change” of all his structures. The concept of “radical change” is used in a sentence which we are used to hearing from the leftist elements. These are the kind of words he utters—

He goes on to say that the Christian ideology offers no ideology within which this essential change can take place. Strangely enough, in this article in Pro Veritate, a sentence is left out which appeared in the Ecumenical Review, in which Berkhof states—

Mr. Chairman, the fact that so many people have participated in one single area of this debate suggests how important it is regarded in this House and, of course, it is indicative of how important it is regarded in the country as a whole. The hon. the Deputy Minister to my mind did a service to the debate when he suggested earlier that we focus on the heart of the matter instead of speaking only on some of the peripheral areas. I would like to try to respond to that by going to what I believe is the very heart of this matter and to emphasize the very seriousness of the charges against the Christian Institute and see whether or not they stand up.

Are you a member?

Yes, I am a member, but I shall come to that. I speak as a member of the institute and as a member of this House.

That says quite a lot.

The latest report of the Le Grange or Schlebusch—Whatever you like to call it—Commission is in my judgment a further dramatic illustration of the guilt by association and smear tactics which have been used by and have characterized this commission from its inception. The muddled vendetta or heresay trial recordings we have read—I have read this very carefully indeed on three occasions—suggest again the rightness of the Progressive Party’s attitude towards this commission from the start. It is clear that the commission and the Government are out to silence Beyers Naudé, Theo Kotze and others like him. After all, it was only during the last session in this House that the hon. the Minister of Defence said that he was after the blood of Beyers Naudé.

Use that in context.

I shall use that in context. In relation to the debate that was then taking place the hon. the Minister said this, not only of Beyers Naudé, but of others as well. We tried to learn from the hon. the Minister what he had meant by that and when we suggested that he be asked to withdraw those words, he said that he meant that he was speaking politically. Once again one has seen, I think, a consistent attitude by this Government in relation to an organization like the Christian Institute and specifically against Beyers Naudé. On page 2 of this report it is made clear that—

The major charge against the Christian Institute is that it is committed to radical change in South Africa, even if this involves the use of violence, and that it is, therefore, a danger to the State. This is what the debate ought to be about and not so much about whether they received so much money or whether they are involved in politics. The question is whether they are a danger to the State and whether they are committed to violence. The chairman of the commission agrees with me that this is the heart of the matter and that everything else is secondary. As one reads this report, it is equally clear that what it states by direct implication is not that the Christian Institute is committed to violence merely as a means of change and that it is therefore a danger to the State, but that Beyers Naudé, inseparably linked with the Christian Institute, is committed to violence and is a danger to the State. That is very clear. We can speak at great length about the social gospel and the horizontal and vertical dimension of religious faith, but I wonder just how many of the commissioners are really qualified as theologians to judge exactly what this means and what it is all about. It is very clear to me that in my judgment there is no such thing as the social gospel, and anyone who seeks to divide the horizontal from the vertical has not begun to understand the implications of the Christian faith.

I will take you up on that as a layman.

I would be very glad to take on the hon. the Deputy Minister as a layman at any time on any public platform. Mr. Chairman, let me say immediately that if a man claims to love God and does not demonstrate this by an active caring concern for his fellowman, he is a liar. The Scripture makes this perfectly clear. Sir, it was God Himself who delivered the people of Israel out of slavery in Egypt. Does that mean that God is political? No. It means that he is desperately concerned about the freedom of all peoples, and those who seek to serve him, those who seek to follow him, must have the same concern as well. Mr. Chairman, when you pick up the New Testament you find that there is a 2 000-year old precedent as to why one must move away from merely good words to good deeds, and away from good deeds to actual action which dares to challenge the Church and the State to be obedient and loyal to God from where they both receive their power.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Sir, I only have five minutes left. I am terribly sorry. If I had more time I would allow the hon. the Deputy Minister to put his question, but I do want to say what I believe about the Christian Institute. Sir, the early Christians found themselves in very significant trouble. They were called disturbers of the peace; they were called meddlers in business and politics; they were called law-breakers, according to the New Testament. They were arrested, beaten, put into gaol, and even put to death. Of course they were a threat, and many people saw them as a threat and even crucified the Founder of the Christian religion. Sir, let me quote the basic premise stated on page 4 of the commission’s report, to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred—

Mr. Chairman, I believe—and I weigh my words very carefully—that all those who understand and are committed to the Judea-Christian faith must reject that premise, for my ultimate allegiance, Sir, is not to a party, not to a language, not to a skin colour, nor even to the State, but to God. And this is Beyers Naudé’s real sin in the sight of this commission. He has dared to test an ideology, that of apartheid, by his Christian faith, and as a consequence, he has with every fibre of his being fought against discrimination on the grounds of race and colour, and as a member of the Christian Institute I support him in this action. As one who had a Bible-study group of the Christian Institute in my home, I can give the lie to those who suggest that all these Bible studies were merely used as a political means, because this is not what happened in my home and at many other Bible-study meetings of the institute which I attended. Sir, I have known Beyers Naudé for ten years; I have known Theo Kotze very much longer, and I want to say that this action to silence Beyers Naudé is not going to work. I believe that the charge that Beyers Naudé is committed to violent change is to be rejected with utter contempt. I have attended meeting after meeting with Beyers Naudé, here and overseas, and again and again he has stood up, when enormous pressures have been placed on him, and said, “I cannot go along with violence; I loathe it.” I say that he is not committed to violence as a means of change and, secondly, therefore, that he is not a danger to the State. If there is anything which is a danger to the State, it is the commitment of the privileged to hold on to their privilege in this country, no matter what, and this Government’s determination to follow that through. In so far as the United Party deliberately connives with this Government to do just that, it is the United Party and that Government which stand on trial today and not Beyers Naudé. I suggest, Sir, that what is happening is not a judgment on the CI, but a further nail in the coffin of the party to my right which is determined to go towards self-destruction instead of opposing this Government. [Time expired.]

Sir, may I pose one question to the hon. member? Will he concede that Dr. Beyers Naudé and his institute are committed to furthering and propagating the establishment of a Black-dominated socialist State in South Africa? Does the hon. member deny that? I find it very strange. [Interjections.] The hon. member is very emphatic about it. But even before this report was published, a very prominent member of the Progressive Party rejected the Christian Institute and Sprocas on this very account, for this very reason I have mentioned, namely that the institute and Sprocas are moving towards Black socialism. I should like to refer hon. members to correspondence and to an extract from an article in Die Vaderland of 30 January 1974. I commend this article to the hon. member. I doubt his sincerity now because he is not aware of the relevant facts. Therefore I will proceed to deal with another point, namely the question what the main issue is.

*Sir, the real issue here today is this: What was the object of the Christian Institute and of its offshoots? I want to suggest to you that that object was the replacement of the existing dispensation with a Black-dominated socialist system. This was a finding of the commission, and Mr. W. A. de Klerk, a very prominent Progressive member, confirmed this long before this report was written. Sir, it is not a sin to propagate and to further a socialist State, but the question is how it is being done. Is it being done in terms of the political rules according to which those hon. members participate in the parliamentary system? In what form is it being done? I want to allege that it is confirmed over and over again by conclusive evidence in this report that the establishment of this socialist Black-dominated State required careful planning, and this was in fact undertaken, and after that careful planning had been undertaken, they proceeded to give effect to it, they proceeded to real action. Sir, the hon. member for Rondebosch is familiar with that action. He figures very prominently in public documents of Sprocas, their executive branch with which they wanted to perform certain acts among the Whites. The hon. member can reply to that. I want to tell you that this strategy included the occupation of various spheres of life, and the first was the sphere of the church, the sphere which that hon. member now alleges to be immune when it concerns itself with certain affairs of State. But how did these people themselves see the Church? As a supreme authority according to the orders of certain men of learning? No! They saw it as a “change agent where we have leverage”. This is the same Church which Mr. Beyers Naudé defended last night. It is a “change agent where we have leverage”. A second sphere which these hon. members had to occupy in order to propagate and to achieve their object of a socialist system was the economic sphere, because a prerequisite for a change in the system from capitalism to socialism is interference in our economic situation as it exists at the moment. That is why these people advocate “a redistribution of power, wealth and land”. You know that; you will not deny it. But how did they set about interfering in the economic situation? In September last year the Christian Institute issued a document in connection with immigration. The hon. member for Johannesburg North must listen very carefully now. I request his attention; he must listen very carefully.

He does not understand you.

I ask the attention of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, because in this paper issued by the Christian Institute the following was said—

*What is the implication of this? The implication is that our economy would suffer if they were to succeed. It would mean unemployment, tension and revolution. That is what they want to bring about, of course. [Interjection.] That is not all, however. The “Programme for Special Change”, one of the offshoots of the Christian Institute via Sprocas, issues newsletters. More than two-thirds of their space is devoted to criticisms of the capitalist system. They do not attack Sanlam or the Old Mutual. The hon. member for Johannesburg North must listen. Whom do they attack? They attack Anglo American and Schlesinger; these are the organizations they want to get at; these organizations have to be destroyed. To me the tragedy of the day is the fact that the hon. member for Houghton is defending those people who want to destroy the basis of her party. Why? It sounds very sinister to me if those hon. members were to be deprived of their basis of capitalism, nothing would be left of the party, but we shall come back to that shortly, [Interjections.] There were other circumstances which had to be created for these people to enable them to succeed. I may mention polarization, which was dealt with very effectively by the hon. member for Green Point. However, we must consider what would happen if polarization were to succeed. The Christian Institute has done everything in its power to enable it to succeed; they have accepted it as a philosophy that the initiative for change should proceed from the Blacks. They have given Black consciousness a militant colour, because they have accepted the American concept of Black power as the medium through which change is to be brought about. Now they deny that violence is likely to result from this. Are these people acting in this way in order to fail? No, they are acting in this way in order to succeed, they want to achieve success. They want the Blacks actually to consolidate and to take over power. But at the same time they write in their publications that the Whites will not surrender their position. They accept that as a premise as well. What does this mean? It means only one thing— actual racial conflict! That is why we said in our report that these things were done in spite of the possibility of a violent revolution. In legal terms this is something very serious. It means that if the probability had been foreseen as well, they were in my opinion guilty of high treason. However, I want to go further. Several techniques were used, such as the communication technique, where posters were used which could incite Black and White against each other. They also used the very well-known Marxist “multi-strategy” technique, or “tapeworn” technique, in the sense that one organization issues from another. The hon. member for Rondebosch can say whether he agrees with that and whether it is true or not.

Let us accept the formula of the hon. member for Pinelands and let us go to the heart of the matter. Let us talk about Sprocas and its offshoots, about these tapeworm segments which were cast off. Let us talk about the operational part of these people’s activities. They knew that their actions might lead to violence—hence the finding—apart from other direct things which were said. I say that the moment of truth has come for the Progressive Party.

And for the United Party!

The hon. member for Houghton has been the spokesman for the leftist element for many years, but now these people are coming forward themselves, Sprocas and its supporters, and whom do they reject? They reject the liberalists. The people who are attacked most are the liberalists. They will have to choose violence or they will remain what they are. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, one of the oddest occurrences in this debate is that it has been stated that this party has a war going on against Dr. Beyers Naudé because of the actions he has taken against the Nationalist Party. We have been attacked by members on my left as though we are inimical towards Dr. Naudé, as though we have gone into this commission prejudiced against him. I want to say that if it was the case that he was waging a war against the Nationalist Party, I would have been supporting him. Why would I not? I have some things to say to the Nationalist Party myself. What I am concerned about is that there are activities going on not only in this organization, but also in other organizations, which have the most profound bearing on the future of White people and Black people in South Africa. That is my concern. Members of my party and I sat in that commission as commissioners for several years, reading through evidence, looking at things and asking questions, when people were prepared to come and be heard, and I am entitled to come to a conclusion. If I find things there which perturb me as an ordinary citizen of this country who tries to think, who is active in politics and who tries to see the future patterns that are developing in this country, I will be failing in my duty if I do not put my finger on it and say that there is something which I regard as being a danger to the future of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

I resent the implications and the accusations which have been made not only by the Progressive Party and the Reform Party, but also by other people that we did not give our attention to this matter, that we did not look at it and that we did not study it. As a matter of fact, we have been living with it for 2½ years and more.

And you will die with it too.

Many other people will be dead before I am dead, but let me say something to the hon. member for Pinelands who says that this was a conspiracy to reduce to silence this organization. In what way have we reduced it to silence? There is a remedy present in the hands of the members of that party right now. They can agree to pay the costs of the Christian Institute. That is all they have to do. What I say to them is that they can shut up or they can pay up; one of the two. [Interjections.] That is the remedy. To Dr. Naudé and the Christian Institute I say that by the colour of their money ye shall know them. If this is such a wonderful organization and if they are not simply making political capital out of it, they will take active steps to see that this organization is funded from here within South Africa. The only thing that is being imposed upon them is the fact that money may not come into this country to be used for a political purpose in South Africa. The thing that perturbs me is that there is a thread of radicalism running through all the organizations, with the exception of the Institute of Race Relations, where that wily old bird, Fred van Wyk, was awake to what was going on and took time out to see that it was put an end to. But in respect of the other organizations—and the UCM report will bear this out—it was shown that there is a core, a group of people, who have been seeded into these organizations, people from Nusas and the UCM, who have one purpose and that is to change the entire political structure in South Africa. To say that it is merely a question of doing away with capitalism is wrong. It goes far deeper than that. I want to say one other thing which —has emerged from these investigations —and this is a warning to everybody and not only to the organizations concerned— and that is that where these organizations made themselves available to Black thought and took in Black members and this kind of thing, every single one of them was subjected to such pressure that they immediately had to turn in a radical direction. All of us, everyone of us in this House, may well be subjected to exactly that same pressure in the future and it is something that we have to take account of. We have to think about it and we have to bear it very much in mind. What did we have? One of the slogans that came out of this dealt with the radical redistribution of land, wealth and power. This slogan was heard from the U.C.M. and from Nusas. It was even heard at one stage in our own party and has now passed on to the members sitting to the left of us. I must say that I wish them luck with it. I think one must understand what is envisaged. The radical redistribution of land is something I have spoken about in this House before. It is not something which can be used as a political football because the implications are far too serious. We are not dealing with a group of people who can understand the background and political norms, the sort of thing we understand and debate in this House; we are dealing with people who have a totally different view of land. This is the most inflammable issue that can be touched on in this country and it should not be lightly bandied about.

Then there is the idea of socialism. Everybody here talks as Christians. We are all Christians and we all have our own convictions. My conviction as a Christian is that the White people have a mission in this country. We have something to perform. I say it is my absolute and fixed belief that we were put here for a purpose, and that purpose is to live out and allow to take root in this country what we regard as the plant we have brought, namely Christian Western civilization. It is our task to trim it, to water it and to allow it to flower and to grow. That is my Christian conviction to which I am entitled. I believe that, if one starts talking about socialism, one starts to break down that which is the absolute key to this whole matter, namely capitalism in the sense that it is up to the individual to make his own contribution to the State and to society. That is how I see it. That is what I believe is the mission of the White man. Because it is something we have brought here, it is our task to spread it abroad and to allow other people to share it with us. Surely, if we have a mission at all, it must be that. Where we have something infinitely precious in our hands, surely we should not clasp it to our own bosoms but should allow it to percolate out so that everybody in this country can share in it, and not only the people in this country, but also eventually Africa to the north of us. Surely that is part of our mission.

Yet there are people who deliberately go out of their way to attempt to break down the confidence of the White man through organizations such as Sprocas, the Black communities programme and other organizations such as the White consciousness programme. By this means they want to make the White man conscious of having guilt feelings; they want him to cower and grovel. Speaking of grovelling, if ever I saw a case of abject grovelling, it was in the latest speech made by the hon. member for Randburg in this House. He was lying on his belly shouting his war-cry and kicking up the dust. His war-cry was “mea non culpa”: “I did not send out the pamphlets.”

You are not the first one to say that.

If there is one thing I cannot understand, it is that member’s attitude. As a member of this House, he is a part of this Parliament and a member of the White race, although by no fault of his own. He is simply here in a historical situation. If he thinks he is impressing anybody, whether Black or White, by turning all Twitter and a shake every time he thinks of a Black person and the wrongs that have been committed, he is serving no one, because people understand and respect strength, and that is one thing which I believe is necessary in this particular situation.

What pamphlets were you talking about?

I am not talking about any pamphlets.

You mean the hon. member for Bryanston, not the hon. member for Randburg.

Yes, the hon. member for Bryanston, the good-looking one. In the Progressive Party we have a political organization which to my point of view has embraced the slogan of the radical redistribution of land, wealth and power. That is something to which they look forward. Let me say that if this should ever result in any kind of a disturbance in this country, they are not the people who are going to suffer from it. There have been many instances of revolutions in history and it has always been the rich people who get away. In other words, if you are looking for a new name for the party which they intend creating, I would suggest “the Emigre Party.” [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Mooi River made a speech here today with which I, as a member on this side of the House, have no fault to find, and it is not always that I and the hon. member are in such full agreement about matters. The serious nature of this matter and particularly the way in which the hon. member for Mooi River put it, brought us far closer to the heart of the problem than did the attempt of the hon. member for Pinelands to get to the heart of the problem. We have had various matters elucidated today on the basis of this report. If there is anyone who thinks that the National Party or this commission, the so-called Schlebusch Commission, is waging a personal vendetta against any person, then he is failing entirely to grasp the situation in South Africa. It is quite clear from everything which the commission has published thus far that what it has been concerned with is not a personal vendetta against anyone but a certain matter. When we study the findings of this commission, there are a few aspects of special significance to us in South Africa. In its earlier reports, the commission mentioned concepts accepted by Nusas, inter alia, those of Black Power, Black consciousness and Black theology. In the final report of the commission they come back to these concepts. It is essential for us to consider what organizations like the Christian Institute in South Africa make of these concepts. We must realize that when we refer to Black Power this is a purely communist concept. When we refer to a Black consciousness, we are moving in a sphere in which the National Party and the vast majority of the Whites in South Africa would like to see a consciousness existing among the Black peoples. We feel the need for Black nationalism among the people. Looking at the handling and treatment of these concepts by the Christian Institute and others, we see that it is these very concepts—concepts which are very close to what we want to bring about here in South Africa, namely the basic service rendered by and place occupied by the Whites here in South Africa, concepts which we want to convey also to our Black people and White people in South Africa—which these organizations make their own, which are described as the so-called “agents of change” and they are given a content which we do not want them to be given, primarily for the sake of South Africa itself. We cannot support what these people do directly and often very subtly in an indirect way. We cannot support their concept of Black Power, because the concept of Black power implies far more than merely the innocent word itself. We cannot support the concept “Black theology” just like that, because that concept, as worked out by these people, has nothing whatever to do with Christianity. A Christian does not inquire as to the colour of a person’s skin. It is not the colour of a man’s skin that makes him a Christian. It is something entirely different. When we refer to Christianity, we cannot refer to a Black Christian, a Black theology, a White theology, a Brown theology or a Yellow theology. There is no such thing. However, if we come to the concept of Black theology, as it is dealt with here, then it is indeed indicated where Black theology will also exclude White theology, Brown theology and Yellow theology. In the same way the connotation is given to the concept of Black Power— and these are the concepts which are propagated—that Black power excludes White nationalism just as it will exclude Black theology—theology in general, as far as I am concerned. So we must tell each other today whether we are talking to the Whites in the country or whether we are talking to the Black people in the country, if we are stimulating the concept of Black power or Black nationalism and such a concept of Black Power consciousness excludes the existence of a White nationalism, then we are engaged in fallacious reasoning and an idiom which is dangerous to the State. I want to say this, too, today, that the same applies when we refer to a White nationalism and we view the concept “White nationalism” in such a way that we exclude Black nationalism and have no grasp of the existence of Black nationalism. Then our grasp of White nationalism, too, would be a danger to the State. The total concept would then no longer exist for us in its correct form. I have already dealt with the issue of Black theology. When we consider the subtlety with which these concents are handled, then we arrive at the thought expressed by the hon. member for Green Point, viz. that it is very clear that we are heading for polarization. It is very clear that we then arrive at the standpoint expressed by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West concerning the direction in which these people are heading. I should like to say today—and I know that the hon. members of the Progressive Party would probably have fits if one were to express such an idea—that I want to associate myself with the statement by the hon. member for Mooi River to the effect that we sat, that we listened, that we studied, that the Commission worked hard and heard expert evidence. In my opinion it is time for us in South Africa to consider the possibility of doing away with an act like the Suppression of Communism Act and that we should get an Act whose aim will be, quite simply, the security of the State. We are dealing with subtle matters here. In certain respects we are dealing with terrorism of the spirit. These are things which are linked to the concepts Black consciousness, Black power and Black theology, things which it is not necessarily possible to link to Marx, Lenin and Russian Communism. The standpoints that are stated also have to do with subversion of the State. We must bear in mind that although these nuances have no obvious link with Communism, the communist world and ideas have also progressed and developed. There is no more adaptable ideology in the world, from the point of view of achieving what it wants to achieve, than this very communist ideology. Consequently one cannot always be content with saying that what we can do under the Suppression of Communism Act can guarantee the security of the State. I fear that we have reached a stage at which we simply cannot guarantee the security of the State by means of this kind of legislation any longer.

Mr. Chairman, the debate in the House of Assembly of South Africa today is not a debate primarily about the details or the merits of the reports which have been handed in by the Schlebusch Commission. It is a debate which deals with the rule of law in South Africa, and it is a debate to determine whether or not we are prepared to stand by the requirements of the rule of law or whether we are going to move away from the rule of law. Sir, I am not going to reply to what the previous speaker said. The hon. member for Mooi River— and I take it that he spoke on behalf of his party—made a right-wing, reactionary speech in which he set out the attitude of the United Party in respect of the matter under discussion. Sir, what we are dealing with here is the rule of law, the rule of law which has been violated throughout the proceedings of the Schlebussch Commission in all its undertakings and all its investigations.

What do you understand by the “rule of law”? [Interjections.]

From the day that that commission was appointed, and from the day that that commission’s investigation started, every single fundamental principle of the rule of law was violated. Everybody knows that there was inadequate representation at those hearings. People who appeared and who gave testimony there did not have access to the evidence which was given as a whole. They could not prepare a proper case. They could not call witnesses and they could not cross-examine witnesses. And, Mr. Chairman, they were found guilty and executive action was taken against them arbitrarily by the Government. There was for them no opportunity of appeal. In other words, the entire procedure was a violation of every requirement of the rule of law, and what we are discussing today is the violation of the rule of law and the results it has had. As a result of the Second Report of the commission, eight defenceless students were deprived of their freedom without having had the opportunity of appearing in a court of law, and as a result of this last report an organization is being crippled by executive action without having had the opportunity of appearing in an open court of law in order to put their side of the case. It is no good saying that they did not appear before the commission, because nobody would be prepared to appear before a political inquisition of that nature where the rule of law did not apply in respect of his rights. What members in this House do not understand—and certainly the United Party does not understand it— is that the organizations, small as they may be amongst the Whites in South Africa, which oppose the Nationalist Government and its policies, do so on behalf of all the population groups in this country. We oppose the injustice and the discrimination of the National Party and its policies. We do so for the sake of South Africa and all its peoples, and specifically to avoid violence. Every one of the actions which the bodies which oppose the Government take, of which we are part, is in order to avoid violence, because we understand and know that it is the policy of the Nationalist Government, the way in which they perpetrate injustice on other people, the way in which they discriminate against other people, the way in which they dominate other people, which will bring about revolution in South Africa. That is what will bring about a Black-dominated Government in South Africa. That is what will bring about everything which we do not want in South Africa, and not the fact that there are people that oppose them. [Interjections.] In this sorry, deplorable, sordid saga in our history, where the rule of law has been violated, assaulted and destroyed, the official Opposition has collaborated with the Government right from the start. The performance of the official Opposition as a collaborator and a conniver with the Government in the destruction of the rule of law is a disgrace. It is a disgrace in the history of that party and it is a disgrace to South Africa. Mr. Chairman, we spoke today about religion and we spoke about the days of Jesus Christ. I want to say that in respect of the violation of the rule of law, in respect of what has been done against the Christian Institute, the United Party operated as Judas Iscariot.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member entitled to refer to this party as a Judas Iscariot?

Order! Was the hon. member referring to any particular hon. members?

I was not referring to any members. I said “United Party”.

The hon. member may proceed.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member referred to the participation of this party in the proceedings of a specific commission, where two members on this side are named and known to participate. I submit that that is a reflection on known and identified members of this party.

Did the hon. member refer to hon. members in this House?

I did not refer to the members who served on the commission. I said the United Party, in violating the rule of law, has been a Judas Iscariot, but I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

Sir, I withdraw it. I want to get on with my speech.

What speech?

I would like to ask whether what the hon. member for Durban Point said at Middelburg the other night does not possibly give the answer to the question as to whether the United Party is collaborating with the Nationalists. The hon. member for Durban Point was reported as follows—

To serve South Africa.

Sir, the hon. member for Carletonville indicated by way of interjection that he did not want the hon. member for Durban Point in his party. I wonder whether the hon. member for Durban Point did not believe that he could get into that party by supporting the action recommended by the Schlebusch Commission. The United Party is prepared to violate the rule of law. They are prepared to destroy and decimate their own principles in order to get into the Nationalist Party via the back door. I want to say that the Nationalist Party does not want back-door Nationalists; it does not want this crowd. It would not help them to violate the rule of law in an attempt to get into the Nationalist Party.

If you applied, they would not have you.

Mr. Chairman, in the eyes of those people and organizations in South Africa who are prepared to stand up and be counted in the defence of the rule of law—and there are very few people and very few organizations today who have got the courage to stand up and be counted, I regret to say that the United Party has become a fifth column, and I want to make an appeal to the people of South Africa, my appeal is this…

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “fifth column”.

I withdraw them.

And apologize.

Order! The hon. member must not make a habit of making accusations of this nature against other hon. members or parties.

Absolute disgrace.

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Umhlanga entitled to refer to another hon. member as an “absolute disgrace”?

Order! Did the hon. member use those words?

Sir, I referred to his speech as being a disgrace to this House.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the time has arrived in South Africa—and the time has arrived today—for everybody in South Africa and everybody in public life, and particularly for hon. members of this House, to stand up and to say unequivocally where they stand in respect of the rule of law. Either they stand with the United Party and with the Nationalist Party against the rule of law, for the commission and the findings of the commission, or they stand for the rule of law. Sir, when the question was asked, they all said that they support the commission. Hon. members of the United Party and of the Nationalist Party either stand for the destruction and the decimation of the rule of law, or they must have the courage to stand up now and say that they are for the rule of law and against the commission and against their report. I wonder whether there is anybody in the United Party who has the courage to get up and say that they repudiate the findings of that commission.

May I put a question?

No. [Time expired.]

Sir, when the hon. member for Bryanston started his tirade, he asked what this debate was about. He then tried to conduct a debate on the rule of law. I want to tell the hon. member that this debate concerns a key question, viz. whether the Christian Institute wanted to encourage a violent revolution or assist in encouraging it, a revolution which, if successful, would mean that we would not have a rule of law in South Africa nor a “rule by law”. This debate and the actions of the Christian Institute must necessarily be seen against the background of two concepts, the concept of State security and the concept of the threat to State security. In their book, Outlines of Constitutional Law, the writers Chalmers and Asquith state the following—

Sir, these people of South Africa are today knitted together in a dynamic community in order to uphold certain common factors relating to a view of life and the world, in a specific economy. It is the inherent right of the people of South Africa to live together in freedom, responsibility and order and to protect their State against attacks. This security is threatened by external force and internal disorder. The threat to the security of the State by “internal disorder” therefore consists in the disintegration, obliteration and overthrow of the character and the identity of the State. That, in my opinion, is what is at stake here.

The question now is why the Christian Institute is a danger to the State. The answer is that when, through its actions, the Christian Institute helps to create a situation which could reasonably give rise to an attempt to overthrow the Government by violence, then it is a danger to the State. It is against this norm that we must test the Christian Institute. The Christian Institute—and this is not a secret—is hostile towards the prevailing order in South Africa. That is fact No. 1. The Christian Institute, in all earnest, wants to bring about a change in the prevailing order in South Africa, and it does so through its office-bearers, through the medium of Pro Veritate, through Sprocas and through the “Black Community Programme” and the “Programme for Social Change”. Each citizen is entitled to work towards change in South Africa; that is his democratic right, but then the change must be via the polling booths and implemented by this Parliament and the Government of the day. And that is how the National Party and the United Party and the Progressive Party and the Reform Party and the Herstigte Nasionale Party work towards change, but now the question is how the Christian Institute works towards change.

Let us consider the incontrovertible facts in this regard. In the first place we know that there is always the potential danger of terrorism from abroad, a physical threat to the Republic. Support for this constitutes support for violent overthrow of the South African State. The World Council of Churches provides financial support for the terrorist action. The Christian Institute states formally, for the record, that it does not support this action, but then it does things which show that in fact it does lend support to this action. Firstly: in the October 1970 issue of Pro Veritate the following was stated (translation)—

The entire decision of the World Council relating to the donations, and the defence of this in three articles by well-known World Council personalities such as Dr. Albert van der Heuvel, Dr. B. Schollema and Ds. R. J. van der Veen is reproduced in this issue of Pro Veritate. As a result of the attacks made on the World Council of Churches by the well-known publication Reader’s Digest, in which the World Council of Churches is accused of communistic sympathy and the fomenting of revolution, Pro Veritate has affordede Dr. Van der Heuvel the opportunity to defend the mentioned decision of the World Council of Churches to support terrorism, in no fewer than four numbers since March 1972. The action taken by the Christian Institute amounts to support of this policy of the World Council of Churches. The converse of the strengthening of hostile action abroad is to be found in South Africa in the Hammanskraal decision, the only logical result of which is the weakening of the internal defence structure. At home, polarization between White and Black is promoted and Black power is developed. Sprocas 2 writes as follows—

Now the “Black Community Programme” is established as the public arm. With what aim? With the aim of promoting the idea of Black Power in South. Africa. On 15 January 1972, Pro Veritate states that the aim of the “Black Community Programme” is—

That is fighting talk, because we know that the development of Black Power is prelude to revolution. In order to encourage this process, race hatred is fomented by the Christian Institute by means of all kinds of articles and cartoons in Pro Veritate and other publications. For example, there is the April 1975 edition of Pro Veritate, which I have before me. On the cover there is a photo of a poor non-White child who is obviously in need of care and who, there is no doubt at all is underfed. Looking at this photo, one’s heart goes out to the child. One also sees a description which corresponds with the photograph on the cover. It reads as follows—

The purpose of this article and photograph is to encourage a feeling of frustration and hate in every Black man who reads and sees this, in order that this may serve as a basis for the development of Black Power. As far as the Whites are concerned, their resistance must be weakened by, inter alia, the Programme of Social Change. A feeling of guilt is created and “White consciousness” is defined—

The White man’s spiritual resistance is worn down, and we know that the director of the institute argues that the Christians of Europe have no alternative but to support demonstrations, promote economic pressure, appeal to trade unions to refuse to handle South African goods and promote sanctions. So we have, on the one hand, Black Power with the emphasis on the initiative for change being with the Black man, and on the other, we have the weakening of the White man. Against this background of two forces that are developing in South Africa, we find innumerable articles in the pages of the Christian Institute in which it is put to the reader that the Christian can justify to his conscience the overthrow and improvement—as he sees it—of the situation in South Africa by violence.

I must point out to the hon. member for Pinelands for the sake of the record that it is also set down that the Christian Institute does not support violence, but then the arguments that envisage and justify violence are given prominence, as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Information said. In the light of this it is very clear that what we have here is the prelude, and not just the prelude but also a blue-print for a revolution in South Africa. It is against this background and this broad image that the commission considered the evidence submitted to it and it was then forced to the conclusion that the Christian Institute had become dangerous to White and Black in South Africa. That is the essence of the matter. The duty of the Progressive Party, in wanting to defend these people, is to disprove these facts, because that is the essence of the debate.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria Central is a very brave man; he makes accusations in this House, he puts his own case and then he himself proves all the accusations he makes. If he is so convinced of them, I want to put one question to him. Will he go to any court in this country with the same accusations and obtain a conviction there? May I request him to answer me that question? Would he lay the same case before a court?

It is not for me to decide on that.

That is the issue. The National Party will not go to court with the accusations they publish in this report. If they would in fact do so, why do they not do so and why, then, was this commission necessary? There are a number of reasons for this. Let us look at the report. For example, we see on page 97 …

You are off the point.

An hon. member states that I am off the point, but I have not reached the point yet. The point is that the question I asked the hon. member for Pretoria Central must be answered. On page 97 we get the following statements, in paragraph 6.2.19—

And then in paragraph 6.2.23 on page 99, the following is stated—

Eventually, and this is the important point, the following is stated on page 121—

What is the issue? One of the most important points made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West was that we were dealing with a socialization of religion and that this was a subtle attempt to carry out some conspiracy, for example a Marxist conspiracy, in South Africa. I want to make the point that the first churches in South Africa which made a start with the social gospel this century were the Afrikaans Churches. [Interjections.] I shall give hon. members examples if they will only give me the chance to do so. I have before me the Tydskrif vir Rasse-aangeleenthede, volume 10, published in October 1958. In it is an article written by Professor F. J. M. Potgieter, professor in dogmatics at the Stellenbosch Seminary. The article is entitled “Veelvormige Ontwikkeling—die Wil van God” (Multiform Development—The Will of God). I want to quote an extract to hon. members (translation)—

The hon. professor applies that (translation)—

[Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member?

Mr. Chairman, I have only ten minutes at my disposal, whereas the hon. the Deputy Minister can still speak a number of times. I refer to another document, Regverdige Rasse-apartheid (Fair Race Apartheid) in which another theological professor writes at length about apartheid as the will of God. I quote from the work (translation)—

A little further on he states (translation)—

Let me quote further from this work. On page 67, the following is stated (translation)—

[Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please make fewer interjections.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was quoting—

What is the point I am trying to make? The point is that what we have here are two theological interpretations of the race situation of South Africa, and both enter the political sphere. The one has the power of the State behind it, and it can use all the instruments of the State to persecute its opponents. That is why the sovereignty of the law is so important. The issue is not the merit or content of this report, but the principle of whether people should have access to the courts of our country to defend themselves. That is the issue. If they do not have that access, the Le Grange Commission, with all respect, is nothing but a group of politicians appointed by politicians to persecute political opponents, without those opponents being able to defend themselves in the courts of our country. [Interjections.] That is the issue. We can quibble as much as we like, but that is the central fact at issue. If it is argued that there are circumstances in our society that make it essential that sovereignty of the law be set aside—our constitution provides that this may be done in conditions of emergency—then they must be able to explain why. But now the situation is that we have the hen before the egg has been laid. They first bring out a report and then they say why sovereignty of the law must be set aside. Why is a case not referred to the courts first? What is of cardinal importance here is that we in South Africa do have a situation of conflict. The hon. member for Carletonville is constantly repeating in this House that it is an issue of “we and they, of our power against their power”. I do not want to spell it out in those terms but I just want to say that to the degree that sovereignty of the law in South Africa is undermined, disappears and is no longer available to groups which differ from each other, to that extent there will only be blind historic forces lined up in opposition to each other. When that is the case it is impossible to predict which of those forces will win, or how. When hon. members start talking about the new powers which they require and about the fact that the moment of truth has arrived for the Progressive Party, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein West said, what do they do then? They use the argument of patriotism, but…

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

Just wait, I have only two minutes left. If the sovereignty of the law is undermined, there is no way in which I can prove my patriotism or innocence, and what happens then? Then politicians, and this Government specifically, become the people who decide for everyone in South Africa what political involvement, justice, the Word of God and South African patriotism mean. [Interjections.] Then there is no way whatsoever in which the Christian Institute or whoever…

Order! I have requested hon. members twice already not to make so many interjections.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Who knows, next year Anticom may be investigated to determine where they get their funds. I wonder whether that is going to happen. Perhaps there will be an investigation into the Carnegie Foundation to ascertain when they became politically involved. The exercise of justice, therefore, becomes an arbitrary function which is determined not by the courts, but by the prejudices, feelings, beliefs and theological standpoints—to which they are fully entitled —of politicians who sit in judgment over their own opponents.

Rubbish!

That is the basic point at issue. If that is not true, I want to ask the hon. member for Waterkloof whether he believes that if they go to court with this report, they will obtain a conviction.

That is quite beside the point.

Why is that beside the point? That is precisely the issue. If he believes in the courts of South Africa, why does he not go to the courts with this accusation? They say that the Christian Institute is endangering the State and advocating revolution and violence. If they are so sure of their facts, surely there is no doubt that the courts can hear the case and will find them guilty. However, that is not done. Because they are afraid and because they are unsure of their case, they arrogate powers to themselves and sit in judgment on their political opponents. That is why we reject this report and the procedure by which it was compiled.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation towards my hon. colleague the Minister of Justice that he does not mind that I, as his colleague in the Cabinet, also take part in this debate. I do it gladly, because I started serving on the commission, when it was the Kruger Commission, then the Schlebusch Commission and eventually the Le Grange Commission. I served on it for three years.

I followed its deliberations with interest, and saw how it acted, and in the process, I developed an appreciation for the fairness of all the members of that commission. I gained a realization of their earnestness in their inquiry; and I want to testify today that it was an exceptional privilege to be a member of the commission and an exceptional privilege, for the sake of the order and the proper resolution of the political differences in South Africa, to make findings which, whatever might be said, are true and correct and justified by the evidence which was submitted to the commission. One felt disappointed while one was listening to the few speeches from the opposite side which dealt with the merits of the case. Most of the speeches we heard, were part of the struggle among a divided Opposition as to who was to become the official Opposition. We on this side of the House sit here as spectators. Occasionally there was a heated speech, such as that of the hon. young friend who has just spoken, which had something to do with the matter. When one listens to a speech of that kind one may think that the whole Christian strain of the South African people constitutes a danger at the present time and that every citizen in South Africa who holds a standpoint based on Christianity is an evil-doer. If that is the truth, if that standpoint is justified—it was also propogated by my virtuous friend, the hon. member for Pinelands, with a great show of virtue—one might expect that the Christians in South Africa who do not agree with this Government, would be up in arms, that this commission would be clearly condemned and that there would be support for the Christian Institute, such as has never been seen before, because of the threat it posed to the Christianity of the Christian Institute. But what are the facts? The Progressive Party, with all its financial means, and with the Press behind it—that is virtually the whole English-language Press and the martyr Beyers Naudé, held a meeting in Cape Town yesterday to gather the people round to gird their loins to deal this injustice the death blow. And 300 people turned up! Only 300 people out of a population of 22 million people turned up! Where are the grounds for this fuss? One would expect church leaders to come to the fore and to say that they are going to step in and, since these people may no longer obtain money from abroad, are going to provide money. But what are the facts? Here I have a cutting from The Argus of 30 May. Church leaders were asked how they felt about the matter, and the following was reported:

And further on:

If this was such a monstrous deed which was perpetrated against an altogether innocent body, the Christian Institute, one would not expect such a feeble reaction from a Christian church leader. I read further:

That is the wrath which arose because of an attack on a Christian institution, an unjust and evil onslaught by an evil Government, supported by evil commissioners from the official Opposition. That is the reaction, from the hon. member for Pinelands’ own church as well. The report reads further—

If this was such an evil thing, there would not be divided views about the matter among Christians who normally do not agree with the Government. Then everyone would agree with the Progressive Party. The truth must penetrate to people who are genuine Christians in this matter.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

There is one exception. The Catholic Church adopted another standpoint, although it does not commit itself to giving funds either. The report reads further—

Not certainly—

Where is the “quite a stand”? Where is it? Where is there as much as a ripple among the churches who are opposed to the Government in South Africa, to justify the exaggerated and excessive standpoints of the Progressive Party and their adherents in this House. [Interjections.] I quote again—

Order! I want to draw the attention of the hon. member for Waterkloof to the fact that I made an appeal this afternoon for hon. members not to make so many interjections.

I quote again—

†Mr. Chairman, all I want to say—and I say this with great emphasis—is that if the Progressive Party and the hon. member for Houghton want to get up here and try to persuade the people of South Africa that we on this side of the House supported by the official Opposition are attacking Christian institutions because they are Christian, then for heaven’s sake they must be certain that they have some support from the Christians of South Africa. [Interjections.]

What has been interesting to me about this debate—I referred to it a minute ago— is the fact that we sit here to a large extent as spectators in a rather unseemly dispute between warring sections in the Opposition as to which party will be the Opposition in future. That is not my concern.

No, we are not any more.

However, I think that Parliament suffers as a result. The function of Parliament is to conduct a dialogue on points of view between the Government and the Opposition in a search for the truth. The role being played by the Progressive Party and the Reform Party is to deny the true function of Parliament because they aspire not to become the Government but to replace the United Party. That may be a worthy aspiration. It is probably the maximum of their capabilities! However, it does not help us in Parliament and it does not help us to establish the truth in this type of debate. We understand the differences that exist between the United Party and ourselves. We try to understand the differences between the other parties and ourselves. However, when one listens to a speech like the one made by the hon. member for Bryanston one is amazed. He spoke about the rule of law in the same way as the dear old lady spoke of Mesopotamia—because it sounded such a beautiful word! [Interjections.] When I asked the hon. member what the rule of law was he could not tell us. He made the shocking statement that no cross-examination was allowed on this commission under its various chairmen and he added that no witnesses were called. He said that. I checked with several hon. members. What importance can one attach to statements made by people who take part in a debate of this nature with such colossal ignorance and who take no steps to establish the facts? What is the value of such a contribution?

Let us for a moment not think of the differences but try to ascertain whether in regard to the question of the security of our State, as investigated as far as four organizations are concerned by the commission under its various chairmen, there is any common ground possible among all the parties in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to complete his speech.

I appreciate the opportunity to complete my speech. Can there be any common ground…

Yes, by charging all suspects in an open court of law.

There is not a single member in this House who does not have the greatest respect for the rule of law. That includes every member on this side of the House, and I have discovered that the hard way. What is the rule of law? Is it part of our law, something that can be enforced in the courts? No, it is not; it is part only of the philosophy of law. It is an ideal to which people subscribe and which people try to observe in the administration of justice in their country. It was a concept devised in the past century when the Pax Britannica obtained throughout the world and it was easy to apply the rule of law almost without qualifications. However, the world has changed. Today the democracies of the world are facing enemies who deny democracy. There are people politically active in South Africa today and the hon. member for Suzman … [Interjections.] I should not state her constituency so boldly. The hon. member for Houghton knows, or should know, that there are people politically active in South Africa and throughout the world who use the machinery and the privileges of democracy to overthrow the existing order. Once they succeed they will not allow others who disagree with them to use that machinery in order to rectify the mistakes which they might have made. In a world such as this, where this is the political truth that we have to face, to try to make of the rule of law something absolute, as the ignorant and non-regal young member for Bryanston is trying to do, without any qualification whatsoever, is to court disaster and to make a coward of democracy. For that reason I am glad to say that as far as this side of the House is concerned—and I am sure as far as many members on the other side are concerned—we shall do what is necessary to maintain democracy in this country against its enemies and against those who wish to destroy it. We shall do it for our own sake and for the sake of our children. Some of us might differ about the extent to which breaches of the rule of law may be permitted in seeking this objective, but about the need that such breaches are from time to time inevitable for the sake of the security of the State and the ultimate maintenance of democracy, there can be no argument.

There is another question which I think we should consider. Can one justify the fact that people want to bring about radical political changes in South Africa where, in the particular case we are dealing with now, people are trying to bring about a Black socialist State in South Africa, which can mean anything and which, to judge by the precedents of recent history, leads to a one-totalitarian state? I should like to ask whether any member of this House can tolerate the idea that that sort of object should be furthered by a political organization under whatever guise it poses—in this case, a Christian guise. Can one tolerate that that object should be furthered by an organization which cannot derive support from the people of South Africa for the continuation of its activities and which has to go overseas where it persuades the gullible overseas to supply it with hundreds of thousands of rand in order to destroy those things decent South Africans believe in by vilifying and denigrating their own country with lies, exaggerations and misrepresentations? One of my jobs on the commission was to have a look at Pro Veritate. I read it until ray stomach nearly turned because in each issue the same theme is found repeatedly, namely that a certain type of change should come about in South Africa—a change propagated by the Christian Institute and by the Rev. Beyers Naudé and his lackeys. Again and again their demand for change is coupled with the announcement that if this does not happen, violence is inevitable in South Africa. The hon. member for Houghton has warned that violence may become possible in South Africa unless we have change. Sir, she must do it, but even she does not make that the theme of all her political propaganda. The Progressive Party does not tell the electorate, to condition them to violence, that if the Progressive Party’s policy is not carried out, violence becomes inevitable and violence will be justified. They do not do that, Sir. If they did, they too, like the Christian Institute, would lose the support of all decent South Africans, and their most valuable source of funds; 44 Main Street would then withdraw its support. The hon. member for Houghton says that she is against foreign funds for organizations which are purely political. Is that right?

For political parties.

Yes, she is against foreign funds for political parties.

She will not say “for organizations”.

That is the whole point. I must thank the hon. member. He and I used to make speeches together. It is nice to know that we can still do it. Sir, I want to know where we stand with the Progressives, because I am worried. I have been under the impression, or perhaps the misapprehension, that no matter how violently they may differ from us, they are a South African party. I want to know where they stand. The hon. member for Houghton says that no political party as such should get foreign funds, but if there is an organization which does everything that a political party does except to put up members for Parliament and therefore uses extra-parliamentary methods to achieve its objects but then adds the tag of “Christian” to its name, is that not a political movement or a political party? But that organization can get foreign funds. Sir, let us have a little logic; let us have a little commonsense in this matter. If the Christian Institute wants to bring about democratic change in South Africa through a different policy under a democratic regime, it will have no interference from either side in this House, but then at least they should, like Nusas, prove that they represent something which is in and of South Africa and that they are not a medium through which foreigners seek to enforce their views upon us in South Africa. We South Africans, irrespective of party—and I hope to God that I can include the Progressive Party in this—are determined to find answers to the problems of South Africa, but they will be our answers. They will not be answers thrust upon us by foreigners who have financial means to try to influence our political thinking and who have stooges who will play their political game against South Africa. Mr. Chairman, that is the issue. Let us see the issue as it is, and then we can talk. I am getting sick of this talk that this was not a judical commission. Sir, I challenged the Progressive Party at the end of last year; I said to them, “Do you accept the findings upon Nusas and its activities at Rhodes University by a judicial commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Munnik?” I am still waiting for an answer. Mr. Justice Munnik as chairman of a judicial commission found almost everything that the Schlebusch Commission found. Do they accept his findings? If they believe in judicial commissions, why do they not join us and get up and say, “Nusas has been found by a judicial commission to do certain things that are wrong and we support the proposal that they should be stopped from doing these things that are wrong”. Sir, hon. members over there must not talk to me about a judicial commission. The interesting thing is that a judicial commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Munnik was vilified in exactly the same terms as the Schlebusch Commission. My hon. friends opposite will support a judicial commission, they will support even a parliamentary Select Committee—provided it finds according to their pre-judgments and prejudices. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am indebted to the hon. the Minister, who has just resumed his seat, for attempting to get clarity from the party on my left as to where they stand in regard to financial assistance from abroad to be utilized in the political life of South Africa. I am afraid we are now in the same position as we were in when the hon. member for Durban North asked the same question, without getting any clear reply. The hon. member for Houghton expressed some doubt as to where we stood. I want to read the ipsissima verba of our amendment when we stated our philosophy in February 1974. We said that we on this side of the House were totally opposed to political interference in South African affairs from abroad and to the receipt by politically activist organizations within the Republic of financial assistance from abroad. Now, as the Progressives are not prepared to answer, I might ask the Reform Party to answer whether they support that principle, which was the principle enunciated by the United Party in February 1974. I would be indebted to them if perhaps they would indicate what their views are. They are silent now. No doubt they will have a conference about it.

You will get no answer.

I want to turn to another matter, and that is the attempt which was made to suggest that we on this side of the House are in some confusion in regard to this commission and its findings. Sir, I do not think there is a single commissioner who assumes unto himself— anyone on that side of the House or on this side—a position of infallibility in regard to every deduction and every conclusion arrived at on the evidence before us. This is something which is not even assumed by the highest and most respected members of the Judiciary, because judges frequently differ on the deductions to be made from particular aspects of the evidence before them. So, although the position is that this side of the House, this party, may possibly have come to different conclusions in regard to certain aspects of this matter, I want to assure the House that I and my colleagues on this commission have the fullest support of the caucus of this side of the House in regard to the attitude we have adopted in this commission.

Where is Japie Basson?

The main point about it is that there is complete and utter unanimity on this side of the House on the principle as regards interference from outside by means of funds or by any other means in the domestic affairs of South Africa. I would like to have the same explicit statement from my friends on my left in the Progressive Party and from the Reform Party.

Sir, I hesitate to raise the matter, but I do it in all earnestness. That is that there has been an attempt in this debate by the Progressives to introduce an aspect of what one might call a Church-State dimension in what is before us, a sort of religion versus politics aspect. I think it is an aspect of development in this country which all of us would regret if it were to take place. I hestitate, particularly as a layman, to deal with a matter of this sort because it is an eternal problem in the world, the relationship between ethics, religious ethics, on the one hand and civil law on the other. The question which one is asked so often is whether one must introduce religion into politics, or do you introduce politics into religion? As far as I am concerned, I completely support the introduction of religion and the ethical codes of religion into politics, but I would oppose the introduction of politics into the conduct of the religious side of the life of our country. Unfortunately it is there. I myself have had reason to complain to the Archbishop of my church because of the actions of certain members of the clergy. But that is a human failing. I want to say that I was astounded this afternoon at the hon. member for Pinelands, speaking with his authority as a man of the cloth, addressing us in such a way as to suggest that we, the sinners on this commission, were confronting and violating the Church and everything that the Church wanted to do when we were dealing with an organization. But if that hon. member were to apply the ethics which he propounded here today in regard to his own conduct, he would not have written the letter he wrote to the Pinelands municipality about some unfortunate Black people. If the hon. member for Johannesburg North would perhaps apply those ethics, his company, which has the control of the Marina da Gama, would not have written to the city council saying: “Remove all those squatters; they are affecting adversely the sales of our property at Marina da Gama.” The hon. member for Johannesburg North is the chairman of Amoprop, the controlling company of Marina da Gama. These are the ones who come here with generalities and accuse us, who have served on the commission and have made those findings, of not acting in the best interests and with justice and fair play.

Mr. Chairman, I am a fairly placid member of the House and I do not often get roused, but I was roused when I looked at this spectacle this afternoon and listened to the speeches which were delivered. I wonder how many times “the rule of law” came out of the mouth of the hon. member for Bryanston during the 10 minutes he was speaking. If I were a betting man, I might open a book before the Hansard becomes available. I have never before seen in what I believe to be a serious scene in South Africa such a flock of political vultures trying to feed on expediency, on misrepresentation of what the position is for their own political ends. I want to say to them that the end of that type of political activity is not on the road to success in the political life of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by addressing myself to the hon. the Prime Minister. I believe that since the report was signed and handed in to the Government there have been considerable changes in attitude and approach in this country and in Africa as a result, to a considerable extent, of the endeavours of the hon. the Prime Minister. I believe that the suggestion that there is any form of confrontation between State and Church in regard to attitudes in this country and the regulation of the lives of individuals could do irreparable harm. This matter has been raised in this debate. It may be wrong, but it is an impression that should not be allowed to continue. I want to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister because I am sure that through efforts on his part and in collaboration with the leaders of the established churches in South Africa, the hon. the Prime Minister and those leaders will be able to say jointly how they stand in regard to this relationship so that embryonic organizations which spring up all over the place will no longer be able to detract from the churches and so that people will find in their church and public life their opportunity of serving South Africa in conformity and complementary to one another and not in conflict with one another. I make that appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister and I am sure it will receive his attention.

Mr. Chairman, further to the theme expounded by the hon. member for Green Point, that an attempt was being made to give an ecumenical character to the Christian Institute and to achieve immunity in that way, it is very important for us to note that the commission specifically found that the Christian Institute’s claim to an ecumenical character and to the right, in terms of its constitution or otherwise, to concern itself with other spheres, was completely dominated by its political activities. Why do we say this? The evidence is there in this regard, and its chief exponent, one of: the most important operators, was Mr. Peter Randall, and he did engage in politics. It is not generally known that he was a representative of the Social Democrats during an election and that he operated from offices staffed by this organization, the Christian Institute, and its offshoots. Horst Kleinschmidt, who was involved in this, was an official of Sprocas himself, and Peter Randall too was an official of these organizations. Consequently, even if these organizations engaged in politics only occasionally and then withdrew again, they must expect to be judged according to the rules applicable to all political organizations. What are those rules? The first rule is that the matter is decided at the polls. The second rule is that we who participate in the democratic political process in this country should not try in our political activities to destroy the order which protects us. We must never do that. The Christian Institute has definitely assumed the character of a political organization and it cannot lay claim to any immunity. We want to allege further that if Mr. Beyers Naudé believes that he has so much political influence in South Africa, he should go into active politics as the hon. member for Pine-lands did. Why does he not stand for election at the earliest possible opportunity? Let him state his point of view on the platform and let us debate with him. Let him come to the surface so that we may learn what his standpoint is. However, we say that these people did not intend to decide the matter at the polls according to a democratic process. It is quite clear that the hon. member for Yeoville is going to enter the debate. It is also clear that he has associated himself with the attempts of the Progressive Party to protect the Christian Institute. We want to ask him whether he knows that the people they want to protect today, namely the Christian Institute, Sprocas and its offshoots, despise the liberalists on that side of the House. Does the hon. member know that these organizations have condemned them in no uncertain terms? For this reason the reaction of the hon. members must be interpreted as an attempt to curry favour with them. Why? Because the hon. members hope to draw votes from that quarter. What do these people think of the hon. members? They have denounced the liberalists as “rhetorical gurus assuming that they can convert the masses”. They have been rejected with contempt. Furthermore they have said that the group of liberalists which is sitting in front of us is “our target in this sphere”, and the sphere is the cultivation of an awareness of their guilt and of the fact that they have to co-operate with and subject themselves to a Black socialist state. They say—

That is the hon. member for Johannesburg North—

The action here is very clearly aimed at forcing the people more and more to the left and making them adopt amore and more radical standpoints. That is why we say that the moment of truth has come for the liberalists, for they will have to say whether they accept as their friends the people who denounce them as “gurus” because they are so hypocritical. Are they going to move to the left to draw votes from that quarter? The moment of truth has come for them and up to now we have had no reply on these points.

Mr. Chairman, in the last little while the debate has taken a somewhat interesting turn. Firstly we had the hon. the Minister of Tourism, the representative of Turffontein who was once the hon. member for Yeoville, delivering a speech on the rule of law. I should like to commend to the hon. member, if I may, not merely his past emotions on the rule of law, but perhaps something more recent, and that is an article by Mr. Willem de Klerk which appeared in Rapport only last Sunday. If he would read that, he would find the following:

[Interjections.]

The article goes further:

Whom are you quoting?

I am quoting Mr. Willem de Klerk of Rapport.

Is he an authority?

What is important and interesting in the South African political scene is that the Schlebusch Commission, now called the Le Grange Commission, has actually been a political bridge; and the hon. member for Turffontein has used that political bridge to tremendous advantage. What is happening now is that other people are trying to get across that bridge the same way, but the hon. member for Carletonville is pushing them off as he does not want them to cross that bridge. That is what is happening politically. This issue is an ideological one as the hon. member for Mooi River quite correctly said. It is an ideological issue, but it is also correct to say that this issue has had consequences not only for the hon. member for Turffontein, but also for other people who were in the United Party and are still there.

It had consequences yesterday too. It is most amazing to notice who has spoken in this debate on behalf of the United Party. What is more amazing is to notice who has not spoken in this debate on behalf of the United Party. The reason for that choice of speakers is the 64 000 dollar question which needs to be answered and needs to be answered today because there are some bridges which appear to have holes in them which some people are going to fall through.

The hon. member for Turffontein put what I consider to be a very real problem.

“The Minister.”

I am sorry. I must apologize. I meant to say “the hon. the Minister”. I want to say that he made a very important point. He asked if there is in fact the possibility of common ground existing between all the political parties in this House in so far as the security of the State is concerned. I believe this is possible if hon. members on the Government side and hon. members of the United Party will accept it. I should like to put the matter to you, Sir. In the first place I think it is necessary that we should agree on what the offences actually are for which people will be punished in some form or another. There must be a degree of definiteness. It should not be the position that a political commission can come to a finding on which executive action can be taken in terms of a Statute. There must be a preciseness as to what one can do and cannot do because that is inherent in basic legal concepts and the rule of law which the hon. the Minister of Tourism knows about. The second point we have to agree on is the procedures which have to be adopted so that we know what is to be done when we carry out an investigation. We must have procedures which contain safeguards. I believe that this type of political commission does not have the necessary safeguards.

The third thing that we have to agree on is how you in fact find people guilty and how you punish them. That we must agree must be done in the traditional way, viz. by bringing people before a court of law, not by executive action and by banning. If we can agree on that then I think there is common ground among all the people in this House in respect of the security of the State. We cannot agree, however, if there is uncertainty, if in fact we do not have open trials and if the traditional protections which are available to the innocent are to be ignored.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

If you will give me an extra 10 minutes I will answer all your questions.

The other point I want to make at the moment relates to the question of the role people of religion play in a society. I do not believe that in any Western society in which there are people of a religion, which is a recognized religion the leaders of that religions can keep quiet when there are social injustices of which they disapprove. If you are going to have a society in which the leaders of churches are not entitled to speak up in respect of social injustice, you are negating the very concept of religion. This cannot be done and you cannot ignore it. In respect of the challenge that has been thrown across the floor here, the line that is drawn between politics on the one hand and social justice and religion on the other is a very fine one. There have been challenges issued across the floor as to what the attitude is which one adopts here. I have no difficulty in this matter because I believe that as far as the political problems of South Africa are concerned, they should be solved by South Africans with South African money. I have no difficulty about that. The difficulty I have is with what has been said today by hon. members of the official Opposition who have spoken. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke on this matter on 25 February 1974. According to Hansard, cols. 1849 to 1850 he spoke about the difficulties of a preacher who preaches on a certain matter. He gave the example of the preacher who preaches in favour of apartheid and asked whether he was in fact indulging in politics. He spoke of the difficulties which exist in this kind of matter. He spoke on this very subject. He said he was opposed to it. There is no better quotation I can make than that of the large and somewhat vociferous member for Durban Point. According to Hansard, col. 1938 of 26 February 1974, he said—

He must have borrowed that phrase from the hon. member for Houghton—

That is what the hon. member for Durban Point said then, but there has been an ideological change, namely that at Middelburg. He now wants to cross the bridge which the hon. member for Carletonville quite rightly says it is not his to cross. That is the problem of the hon. member for Durban Point. Let us talk about the recommendations of this report which the official Opposition have tried to evade. They say we must refer to the main Nusas report in order to understand what they mean in regard to the Christian Institute report. They refer specifically in this recommendation to statutory provisions. The hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Griqualand East said it could only be this particular Affected Organizations Act. If hon. members would care to look at the Unlawful Organizations Act which they say does not apply, I want to tell them that anybody who is able to read will see that it does apply

It is a statutory provision and it could be applied if the objects of an organization are in the opinion of the person who has to apply the order, similar to those of the ANC and the PAC. How can he possibly make these statements? Who do you think is going to believe anybody who says that the action which was taken as a result of which reports were submitted to magistrates was unrelated to this Christian Institute report? It is the most fatuous suggestion that can be possibly be made. The whole of South Africa knows that a report is tabled in Parliament, that the facts become public and that there is a recommendation to take statutory action. The hon. member for Durban North expects South Africa to believe that the action taken in terms of the Affected Organizations Act is unrelated to this particular report. It is really putting his credibility at an all time low in the eyes of the South African public. Nobody can possibly accept it. There is another matter. [Interjections.] Your voters will judge you, my friend, and will throw you out. The hon. the Deputy Minister stated that I had in fact attacked the Rev. Beyers Naudé. I concede that. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to try to reply to all the speakers who participated in this debate. The members of the commission of inquiry on this side of the House, and on the opposite side of the House, have all discussed this subject. Hon. members have indeed discussed the activities of the commission backwards and forwards. I am of the opinion that it would be unnecessary for me to try to repeat every argument to see whether there is something to which I ought to reply. There are a few points which were raised during the debate and which were not dealt with, and to which I shall in fact try to reply, to the best of my ability.

The first is the argument with which the hon. member for Durban North commenced his speech. The hon. member for Durban North made a very interesting statement when he said that he accepted the proposals of the commission of inquiry. Then he said that, apart from those proposals, this matter had been referred to three magistrates in terms of the Act. The hon. member added that he was not certain whether those three magistrates had done their work correctly, because there was an audi alteram partem rule, and that it would seem to him now as though that audi alteram partem rule had not been complied with. I cannot imagine that three magistrates have ever been offered a greater insult. We debated this matter when the Bill was before this House. At the time I told hon. members here that three magistrates would be appointed. I said that they would compile a factual report. They would give consideration to this matter.

The question was then put to me whether witnesses would be called and how those people would assemble the facts of that report. My reply at the time was that since the chairman would be a chief magistrate and that he would be assisted by two senior magistrates, I would leave the procedure to them. They could adopt court procedure; they could adopt any procedure they wanted to adopt. They could call witnesses; they could cross-examine witnesses. They could allow witnesses to be represented by counsel. They could allow reciprocal cross-examination, at their own discretion. They had to produce a factual report for us. They had to satisfy themselves that the facts which they found were the correct facts. I cannot understand what the hon. member is now telling me. He takes one aspect of a court case, the audi alteram partem rule. A person may appear before a magistrate and plead guilty. He is not heard at all. He simply pleads guilty. The magistrate then proceeds to ascertain certain facts, and according to those facts he pronounces judgment on the person. [Interjections.] I am coming to that hon. member. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout told me that the report of three magistrates was a one-sided report. The hon. member does not even know what the evidence before those magistrates was.

May I put a question?

Can the hon. member give me a reply? Did the hon. member know what evidence was before those magistrates?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? I want to put this simple little question to the hon. the Minister: Did the committee of magistrates give the Christian Institute a hearing?

Mr. Chairman, I shall reply to that question as soon as the hon. member has replied to mine. I have put a question to him the hon. member made an absolutely unfair and unjust statement against three magistrates here.

Just answer my question; that is the crux of the matter.

He told me that it was a one-sided report. He does not have the faintest idea of what it is all about, and this is apparent from the question he put to me a moment ago. He does not have the faintest idea of what the magistrates did. That is why he stands revealed as a person who has no equilibrium whatsoever. The hon. member made an allegation here to the effect that three magistrates had brought out a one-sided report, and equally naïvely, the hon. member is asking whether they did certain things.

They neglected to hear both sides.

Why did the hon. member make such an unjust statement?

But they did not call the Christian Institute.

Why did you make such an injust statement?

Did they?

Does it matter whether they did or not? What matters is the true facts which they submitted to me, and I have them here in my hand. I asked these people…

When?

Towards the end of last year I asked them to institute an investigation into the Christian Institute. A regional magistrate—I am not going to mention names because that hon. member did such an absurd thing as to insult these people in anticipation…

I repeat it.

I feel ashamed for the hon. member’s sake. There was a regional magistrate and two other senior magistrates. They are very honest people who are completely independent of this Government. Their position is that of officials who served for many years and whose judgments were for many years under review by the Supreme Court. They had absolutely honest careers and I think that this reflection made by the hon. member ought to be with drawn. It is a disgrace. These people applied their minds to two questions, i.e. whether the Institute was participating actively in politics and, secondly, in what way the activities of the Institute were being financed. To the question whether the Institute was participating actively in politics, they replied in the affirmative. I am not going to furnish, all the facts they gave me, I am furnishing only a few to demonstrate to hon. members that these at actual facts which we are relying on here. I want to refer hon. members to page 4, on which they quoted a directors’ report. I want to inform the hon. members that this is a signed directors’ report. What else would the audi alteram partem rule be able to produce than confirmation that the report had been signed? The facts were not even disputed. The audi alteram partem rule applies where facts are being disputed. Then the one can state that this is not a fact and another that it is, and then they can cross-question one another. But in this case there was a signed directors’ report. It is general knowledge that this is that of the Christian Institute and no one implied with a single word that this was not the position. We now have the following findings—

No one said that these people are not entitled to adopt a standpoint in regard to our race politics. What these magistrates are now discovering is whether they did in fact adopt such political standpoints. Who is there in this House who can dispute that if this existed in the report, it did in fact establish a political objective

Then that applies to the churches as well.

Wait a minute, never mind the churches; I am now dealing with the Christian Institute. Mr. Chairman, one cannot argue with a bird-brain. [Interjections.] If the hon. member knew such a lot why did he not state his standpoint to us. Now he is dragging the churches and other political references into this. [Interjections.] On page 6, the report states, with reference to a publication of 15 March 1968…

What publication?

Pro Veritate. This is an official publication. Now I am asking the hon. member for Durban North where the Audi alteram partem rule comes in when one has in one’s hand the official publication in which something has been written about these people? This is their publication and everyone knows it. There is no issue about that. It is general knowledge. He states: “Apartheid is a pseudo-gospel and openly in competition with the Biblical message of salvation.” That is a standpoint.

Whose standpoint?

The standpoint which appeared in Pro Veritate (translation)—

The word “crush” (verpletter) could mean many things; crush could also mean crush, and one is entitled to accept the word “crush” in all its nuances and to consider it. However, I do not think there is anyone in this House who would dispute that it establishes a political objective. We can consider once again the words which appeared in Pro Veritate, on page 7 on 15 January 1970—

This is an action now, not merely an idea—

These are political actions in which these people are engaged. They continue—

This still sounds rather harmless, but it is nevertheless a political objective. In the second interim report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations, mention is made of a speech by Turner.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, later. This person made a speech on “Socialism and Christianity” and began with the following words, which were reproduced in Pro Veritate, the mouthpiece of the Christian Institute: “I am not a Christian”. He then gives the following summary of his speech—

So it continues, and one finds the 12 points and Dr. Turner’s plea for a socialistic system (translation)—

In this way I can quote all the facts which appear in this report. These are not facts in regard to which one need have had a lawsuit, or in regard to which one need have called in witnesses, with the accompanying cross-examination, in order to give people a chance to ask a lot of questions, and so on. These things have all been proved on the basis of documents. There are documents which were published by the Christian Institute, and I think that the hon. members are occupying themselves with a red herring when they think that the Christian Institute does not have political objectives. In all honesty, I want to say that I do not even think that Mr. Beyers Naudé would say that it does not have a political objective. Perhaps I should pick my words carefully when I refer to him. After having done all these things, for all these years, he said yesterday (translation)—

When one has gone so far as to say, without turning a hair, from the standpoint of the Christian Institute—listen to how cunning this is (translation)—

[Inaudible.]

It seems to me the hon. member for Houghton has also become a Calvinist. Dr. Beyers Naudé is therefore trying to identify himself with Calvin now and trying to say that he has no political pursuits.

The hon. the Minister ought to be ashamed of himself.

No, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout ought to be ashamed of himself. I want to quote something else in regard to Dr. Beyers Naudé. I do not know whether it is correct. I am quoting from Die Burger and my experience has been that Die Burger does not print anything that is not true, but if it does it publishes a correction the next day.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.15 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? When were the instructions given by him to the magistrates to commence the investigation, and did he present to them the report and the evidence which arose out of this commission’s report?

No, the instruction was given to the three magistrates on 29 November 1974. That was after the report had been completed. I withheld the instruction on purpose so that there would not be two commissions sitting at the same time to inquire into the same thing. I am naturally not able to tell the hon. member whether any documents passed over from the commission to the magistrates, but the magistrates actually would have had the right to call for documents. It is quite definite that the magistrates would not have had the report, as far as I know, but they may have called for documents either from the Christian Institute itself, or they may have called upon the secretary of the commission to give them some of the documents.

*Sir, when business was interrupted, I was quarrelling with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. If I remember correctly, I told the hon. member that I was not prepared to argue with a bird-brain. I am sorry I said that, Sir. What I really wanted to say was that his argument was that of a bird-brain. The hon. member is not here now, but I want to set this matter straight. In other words, the argument which he advanced was in my opinion the argument of a person with a bird-brain, I did not mean to call him a bird-brain.

Sir, I know that the Committee will forgive me for having become angry, as Minister of Justice, at what happened here. Hon. members on that side are constantly asking us to appoint judicial commissions. We appoint a judicial commission to examine certain facts, and then what happens in this House? To a certain extent I can forgive the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for what he said, for he is not intimately acquainted with processes of law, but when the hon. member for Durban North questions the methods of the three magistrates, then I really have to express my regret at this.

Why?

Because these three magistrates—the hon. member ought to know this—are senior magistrates. As Minister of Justice I am aware of the work they are doing. I am aware of the responsibility they bear. I accept the findings of any of South Africa’s judicial commissions without qualification. I do not dispute their methods; I do not dispute their modus operandi. In this case the three magistrates had received instructions to institute an investigation into two facts: Was the Christian Institute practising politics and was it receiving funds from overseas? Sir, this was an open and shut case. I do not think the Christian Institute ever disputed either of those two facts. Therefore I say it is a pity that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in particular, who is a senior member of that party, made the disparaging remark here that it was a one-sided report, without having in any way known how the magistrates acted. I say it is also a pity that the hon. member for Durban North adopted the same attitude by asking me: “What about the audi alteram partem rule?” The hon. member saw the report of the commission, and he knows that his own members on the commission did in fact find that the Christian Institute was meddling in politics. His members, and our members, went much further than that. They said that the activities of the Christian Institute were a danger to South Africa. In view of this I say it is a great pity that the hon. member questioned in any way the modus of these three respected members of my department, all of them presiding officers in courts. But what really happened now? You know, Sir, we have now had an outcry from the opposite side, from the small parties, as though we had suddenly thrown Mr. Beyers Naudé into gaol, or something like that. One would think that we had summarily seized this Calvinist now, this modern Calvin, and cast him into outer darkness.

What does the report of the commission of inquiry mean? That report of the commission of inquiry was not a trial. [Interjections.] I cannot hear what the hon. member there is muttering. Is it that hon. member at the back there who was chewing on his words? Surely he can make a speech. Sir,the investigations which we also instituted into the Christian Institute, was not an investigation in which any person was the accused. The hon. members must not forget that. There were no accused here. What was brought out was a factual report. They investigated the Christian Institute and stripped it of its mask, its Christian mask behind which it sheltered. All the commission said, after it had made inquiries and had considered the activities of these people, was that it found that this was an organization which constituted a lethal danger to South Africa. That is what happened. It did not accuse Mr. Beyers Naudé of anything. The commission did not accuse him; the commission did not say that he should go to gaol now. Perhaps he incriminated himself, but the commission merely stated—

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether, in view of the fact that the commission has made the statement that in their judgment the Christian Institute is a threat to the security of the State, he is going to take further action against them?

Sir, that is the $60 000 question. They should now like to know whether I am going to impose restrictions on Mr. Beyers Naudé. I am coming to that. I shall not reply to that now. Towards the end of my speech I shall come to Mr. Beyers Naudé and the other person, Mr. Theo Kotzé. I am saying that this was a factual finding, and it was not a strange finding either. I have here a report from Die Burger and I said just now that as far as I know Die Burger does not easily misreport a person, and if it has in fact misreported a person, it publishes a correction. Here is the correction of what Mr. Beyers Naudé had allegedly said overseas. I am reading the correction, and not the original statement, to which the hon. the Prime Minister reacted. Here it is reported that Mr. Naudé had an interview with, the NRC commercial publication, and that a report of this appeared in the 23 November edition of this publication. The correction reads as follows (translation)—

That is where Beyers Naudé now stands— he is no longer an Afrikaner; he is no longer even a liberal. He intimates that he is more than that. He associates himself now with the lawful aspirations of the Brown and Black South Africans for political equalization.

Is that a crime?

Wait a minute. I quote further—

Now you must listen carefully, for a moment ago the hon. member preached a sermon to us; I listened carefully to his message of reconciliation. But Beyers Naudé does not speak only of reconciliation. He says—

He is not saying that people are being asked to consider this; he is exhorting them to a struggle. He goes on to say—

I referred to the three magistrates, I do not think it was necessary to refer to them. I referred to the report of the commission, but I do not think that was necessary either. If these words, as reported, are correct, then this person is a danger to the State. Not only is a danger to the State, but he is doubly dangerous to the State because, although he has been expelled by his own church, he still envelops himself in the cloak of the church.

I come now to my responsibilities as Minister of Justice. My first task, after a unanimous insistence, and in spite of the fact that the United Party is feverishly struggling to keep their divided ranks together now and to find formulae which will satisfy everyone, was…

That is not true.

I am saying that in spite of that, there was a unanimous finding of the commission to the effect that I should do something. What should I do? The commission stated very clearly what I should do—

I assume that that is a reference to me—

The important part is “that certain statutory provisions may apply to the organizations” and the statutory provisions which apply to the organization are the provisions in terms of which I have declared it to be an affected organization. The members of the commission have therefore requested me unanimously to take up this matter. They said: “There is a law at your disposal: declare the organization to be an affected organization.” If I had not, in the light of all the evidence at my disposal, declared the Christian Institute to be an affected organization, the hon. the Prime Minister could justifiably have expected me to resign, for here I have a unanimous resolution of the official Opposition and the Government, and I have all the evidence. If I did not take action, I would in any case be worthless. What is the effect of my actions? I have not yet cast Mr. Beyers Naudé into outer darkness; I have done nothing to him yet, nor have I done anything to Mr. Theo Kotzé, in spite of the fact that people, for whom we are looking, sometimes deposit a bomb in a church building in which he is praying, and then apparently remove the fuse. I must tell hon. members that I really find it extremely peculiar that it is always there when he is there. I find it peculiar because one never finds any fingerprints on it. We really have a hard time of it, and suddenly we find a bomb there, but this is so harmless that it would not harm a hair on his head. Then he complains to me and says the Police are not helping him and that some Right-wing element or o her is responsible for this. But we shall say nothing fur her about that for the moment. What is the effect when an organization is declared to be an affected organization? It is that they are no longer able to use the considerable sums of money which are sent to them for a certain purpose by the anti-South African organizations abroad to carry out their political objectives. They are still able to carry out their political objectives, only they must not try to bluff anyone and they must not try to use overseas money for that purpose. Now I have something to say to the organizations within South Africa, and hon. members must not think that I want to warn these people. In the Act which I have here in my hand, it is very clear that even money which comes from abroad indirectly, may not be given to the Christian Institute if it has been sent from abroad for that purpose. There may be an entirely harmless organization, but they should not blame us when we take action, nor should they say afterwards that I am getting at the church, or that I am doing certain things. There may be a harmless organization which receives money from abroad for its own purposes in South Africa, but then uses it for the Christian Institute. When an organization does this, it is exposing itself to an investigation by the officials of the State. What it does with its money is its affair, but it should not be annoyed if an investigation follows in which we ask for its books so that we can see how it is spending its money and where it obtains its money from. There are many people who are very sensitive about this kind of thing, and it would behove them to be careful before they give anything to the Christian Institute, for I am telling them this evening that it would be a great pity if I had to do this, but if it is necessary, it is my duty to do so. I shall not allow money to reach the Christian Institute in a roundabout way. That is quite certain.

From abroad?

Yes, of course from abroad. I am the last person, and I am sorry I have to say this in front of the hon. the Prime Minister, but I know that he is also the last person who would do this, who would look for any kind of trouble with the churches, for although I do not want to make a great show of this, I regard myself as being a religious person. I do not wish to look for trouble with the churches, but I am saying one thing this evening, and Mr. Beyers Naudé, Mr. Theo Koizé and the other gentlemen who are involved should pay heed to this, namely that I have a duty to South Africa. The duty of my department is to maintain law and order in this country. When I consider what is happening in the world, I see that there are many revolutions—they are everywhere—as well as many political conflagrations—they, too, are everywhere—and most people, those in our neighbouring states as well, have found that they were undermined from within. I am very aware of the fact that it would not behove or pay us in South Africa to build up a strong police force to combat terrorists and to build up a strong defence force to fight conventional wars, to enable us, when the bell tolls, to win on the battlefield while we lose on the home front. I am telling hon. members now that I am aware of many things which they are not aware of, and even if they are aware of them, they are most probably not aware that I am aware of them. If I have to take action in the interests of South Africa, I shall do so, whoever is affected by this. We shall not tolerate a situation in this country in which our foundations crumble while the blood of our young men is being spilled on the borders. Let me make it very clear to the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Rondebosch this evening—I am not accusing them—that they should tell the young people with whom they are in contact, and who can act very irresponsibly, that they should rather desist, for South Africa will never tolerate such conduct.

I should now like to come to the hon. member for Rondebosch. I just want to say that he should leave the Mr. Turner who is mentioned in this document alone, for as my grandmother always told me: “My child, that is bad company.” You should leave him alone. I am simply telling you.

I now come to the hon. member for Yeoville. He was kind enough to tell me that he saw a real problem. He asked: “Is it not possible to find common ground for the security of the State?” He also said: “There must be definiteness.” I want to tell him tonight that, as far as the Act is concerned, there is certainty as far as that is possible. We have laws, and we have never acted without those laws.

Of course not.

I am very pleased that the hon. member for Houghton admits and concedes that.

You have passed all the laws you need to get the power you need.

That is right, and we may need still more power because we may have to use more power. But I am speaking to the hon. member for Yeoville now. We have laws which are very clear. The hon. member is aware of the number of occasions the courts have ruled on this. The hon. member also referred to procedure and said that we should come to an agreement in respect of procedure and in respect of “how you find people guilty and punish them”. He is a person with whom one can talk when it comes to matters of this kind. Let me just tell him that it is not only the National Party that our enemies who want to unleash the violence of Black power in South Africa wish to overthrow and oust from Parliament. They want to overthrow the entire parliamentary building, as big as it is, and turn it upside down. They want to oust the United Party, the Progressives—everyone. What is far worse, they are constantly having recourse to the legal system, and there are always enough advocates, there is always enough money for defence, and so on. They are using the churches, and are infiltrating their people into the churches and into the ranks of the lawyers. There is an abundance of everything and—this is my difficulty with the hon. member for Yeoville’s information—they will demolish and change our legal system too. He is now appealing, at this stage, to the legal system. I know the hon. member for Yeoville. I know that he is juristically-minded and thinks in legalistic terms. He would now like me to combat these people in the normal manner. I want to tell him that this is impossible. It is impossible to pass an ordinary law and then say: “That takes care of certain offences now.” All that happens is that the action is amended slightly and then the rot to which that same system had been subjected, sets in again. The powers which we have so far taken are our only means of combating terrorism on the home front and combating the national subversion of our entire pattern of life. I want to concede that I will not be able to bring some of the persons, upon whom I have imposed restrictions, before a court, for various reasons. One of the reasons is that the evidence may be of such a nature that I know that it will simply not be able to stand up to the cut and thrust of our legal system. However, this does not mean that there is no case against them. In other cases, it is necessary to infiltrate our own people. Such cases are known. We all know about Gerald Ludi. It is very difficult to demolish one’s own organization every time to get evidence, particularly when one finds that the fish is such small fry that one has to throw it back into the pond in any case. In addition I want to tell hon. members something which the hon. the Prime Minister also said when he occupied this position, namely that one finds young children whom one could have thrown into prison, but when one looks at them carefully one sees that they are mere children who have been misled and used to do certain things which could get them into serious trouble. One simply decides then to impose restrictions on those persons so that they cannot attend meetings and one gives them a chance to cool off for a while and grow up, to gain experience and become mature. I want to state in public today that our Prime Minister saved many young people from becoming gaol birds in that he told them that they should not do certain things. I can fetch a letter in my office now from the mother of a person upon whom restrictions were imposed for a few years, which have now been lifted. That mother thanked me and said that she had know her daughter was dabbling in these things. She also thanked me for not having had the child charged and put away. These are the matters we have to deal with.

The hon. member for Yeoville must not be unfair to me now when we, as a Government, are dealing with a difficult task. He must know that I take this responsibility of mine of imposing restrictions very seriously. I do not like doing so for nothing, and I do not do so more than I have to. I want to reiterate that when I have to do something in the interests of South Africa I shall not hesitate to do so no matter what it costs me, for if I did not do so, my son and his son’s children will ask one day who the Minister of Justice had been at the time. They will say that he sold out their country and I do not want that accusation to be levelled at me. I have a duty to South Africa, and I shall fulfil that duty at all times.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. the Minister appreciates just what he has said. He has made perhaps the worst case that any Minister of Justice could possibly have made in respect of the powers of restriction that a Minister of Justice has in our country. What he has just said, is that there are a number of cases where he knows, with his knowledge of the cut and thrust of our legal system, he might not have a case if the matter went to court. I think that is the most damning admission any Minister of Justice has ever made in respect of the powers that he has under our legislation. I say so because it is that very legal system, that very cut and thrust, which makes our legal system what it is, with the people sitting in judgment over that cut and thrust and the facts thrown around and the cross-examination and the evidence, people who themselves have been part of that cut and thrust, which makes it possible for them, knowing all that, to sift the facts and to know truth from lies and to know probability from possibility. That is the very point that was made by the commissioners of the Schlebusch Commission in their minority report, namely that when it comes to a matter of individual liberties and restrictions, you must have an independent judicial tribunal which is able, by applying, by allowing to be applied, that very cut and thrust which is the essence of our legal system, to find the truth and be able to decide upon such matters. What that commission that we are discussing today suggested was that certain statutory provisions may in fact apply. Part of the statutory provisions is the factual report but it must be a factual report in accordance with our legal norms. The hon. the Minister spoke about an open and shut case. The hon. gentleman has practised for years in our courts. We know what an open and shut case is. In a civil case, an open and shut case is where either of the parties is in default or where either party declines to give evidence. The same position obtains in a criminal case. A person either pleads guilty or declines to give evidence. There are all sorts of open and shut cases. However, in all the open and shut cases the person concerned is always there. In fact, he is always aware of the proceedings that are taking place. I think that the hon. the Minister demonstrated to us himself this afternoon exactly why I am correct. He told us about the annual reports of the Institute. He said that nobody had repudiated it. Who could repudiate it if they did not in fact know that it was there? How could they in fact repudiate it if it was not put to them?

How could they repudiate the truth?

However, the hon. the Minister has not answered one question, viz. whether the Christian Institute was in fact contacted at all in respect of the inquiry by the magistrates. Was any of the evidence put to them and were they contacted at all? Surely the hon. the Minister has a responsibility in respect of this matter as well? In terms of the Act the hon. the Minister is entitled to appoint an authorized officer who has all sorts of powers. He can ask people questions and so forth. What is more, the persons questioned have the privileges that witnesses have in a supreme court. We would like to know whether any of these powers were used and—this is the crucial question— whether any of the evidence was put to the Christian Institute. Was the Christian Institute given the opportunity to rebut any of that evidence? That is the essence of the audi alteram partem rule.

The only other question which remains to be answered was the question asked by the hon. member for Yeoville. I really think that if the hon. member reads section 1(2) of the Unlawful Organizations Act he will appreciate how wrong he was in making the allegations he made this afternoon.

I think the time has come for us to get back now to the Justice Vote. I want to put certain matters to the hon. the Minister, as do many of us. The first matter that I want to deal with with him is the question of parole, the parole policy of this Government at the moment. The hon. gentleman sits here in a dual capacity for the purposes of this debate. He is ambidextrous. He is the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Prisons. He is, of course, also Minister of Police, a portfolio which falls under a separate Vote. We had virtually to extract information from the hon. the Minister. I shall deal with this later. I also want to deal later with the difficulty that we have had in dealing with this hon. Minister as Minister of Justice and of Prisons in order to obtain information from him that we were entitled to as members of this House. I shall deal with this matter separately. But, Sir, we eventually extracted from him the information that there was an instruction to the Prisons Department that anyone sentenced to six months in prison could be released on parole on the say-so, or the rule-of-thumb discretion of the commandant of the prison to which he had been sentenced. The situation that we have is quite extraordinary. We have the situation that the courts sentence people to a sentence of imprisonment of six months or less. We then have the situation that the courts in their discretion—I think we are all at one that the courts should have an absolute discretion when it comes to sentences because they hear all the facts—may decide that the person concerned should not go to gaol, but in fact should receive a suspended sentence of six months or less, suspended on certain conditions so that he does not go to gaol. The courts may also decide that he should pay a heavy fine and that in default of payment he should receive a certain sentence of imprisonment. What is happening at the moment is this: The courts, in their discretion, having heard all the facts and the circumstances sentence the accused to imprisonment for a certain period. What happens then? That is the right hand of the hon. the Minister a Minister of Justice. The courts in their discretion send these people to gaol because they feel that in all the circumstances that is the proper sentence. Then the hon. the Minister’s left hand, being the commandant of the gaol, releases them in his discretion without any consultation whatsoever. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North began his speech by making the allegation that the Minister had made a damning admission, i.e. that he does not have a case and that he therefore uses the powers which he in fact is using. I want to ask the hon. member and that side of the House whether it is their standpoint that the hon. Minister, when he knows that activities are taking place which constitute a threat to the security of the State, when he knows that such activities are being perpetrated, that plans are being made to take action which threatens the security of the State, should wait until a water-tight case has been made out which one can take to court where one can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed? Is that the standpoint of the hon. the Opposition? I shall be pleased if the hon. member would listen, because he made an extremely serious allegation here. He alleged that the Government acts in an haphazard way in connection with the liberty of people; this was the insinuation he made. My question to the hon. member is whether the Government should wait until the security of the State has been threatened to such a great extent, or whether the Government should try to act in such a way which would prevent such action from being taken? I want to say that the legislation of the Government and its handling thereof is geared to preventing actions in which the security of the State is involved. Is it not our mission and our task to act precisely in such a way that we shall prevent such actions and deeds? As a lawyer the hon. member knows that there are three stages which one can distinguish in connection with every offence. The first stage is the stage of prior planning. Although one knows that a person is planning a crime, one cannot charge him until he has reached the stage in his planning where one can charge him with attempting to commit such crime. Once he has committed the crime, one can charge him on the grounds of committing the crime itself. It is the standpoint of this side of the House with regard to crimes which constitutes a threat to the security of the State, that we shall act in such a way that we should nip in the bud such an attempt even before we can accuse a person of attempting to commit such a crime. Is this not in the interests of South Africa and is this not our task? This is what we are trying to do, and what restrictions succeed in doing. There are people who are restricted because they plan to overthrow the existing order, i.e. to commit sedition, high treason or an offence under the Suppression of Communism Act. We do not wait until they have done these things or until they have done so many things that we can charge them with attempting to commit a crime, but we impose restrictions upon them, and we therefore prevent the crime from being committed. After the previous speech of the hon. member and the responsible attitude which we have had from the United Party, I cannot believe that it is really the standpoint of the United Party that we should not try to take preventative action.

In the second place, on the question of the investigation of the three magistrates and the fact that the Christian Institute was declared an affected organization, the hon. member asked: “Was the Christian Institute contacted at all?” The hon. Minister quoted here the grounds upon which the three magistrates made certain factual recommendations. These are conclusions which were not based upon fiction or assumptions, but which were based upon direct statements. These are statements which the Christian Institute itself made through its executive officers or by means of its official journal. These are statements which are damning in themselves. It is not a question of hearing evidence or listening to an argument as far as this matter is concerned, because the words are self-explanatory. According to the hon. member’s interpretation, do these words mean something else than what they mean to the hon. Minister? Does the hon. member think that the words we have had from the hon. Minister are innocent words which can also be interpreted in an innocent way? If the hon. member were to argue like that he is living in an even greater fool’s paradise than I thought he was.

I would like to deal, in the same spirit as the hon. member did, with more positive matters seeing that we have said so much already about security matters. I would like to bring an important aspect concerning the Justice Vote to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The South African Law Commission was established by means of legislation more than two years ago. It was my privilege to deal with this matter in my maiden speech. We have just experienced a milestone in that the South African Law Commission tabled its second annual report. Since we have reached this point, I want to plead tonight that the Law Commission should be seen in a new light. The Law Commission has already completed a great deal of work. In a few cases it resulted in legislation and in a few other cases separate matters were studied and finalized. Some of the recommendations which were placed before the commission were rejected and some were implemented. The commission is at present, according to its report and the information which I obtained, engaged with a very ambitious programme. Comprehensive studies are being envisaged, comprehensive investigations into subjects covering a wide field, such as law of evidence, law of succession, trust law, divorce proceedings, statutory consolidation and rationalization generally. We are grateful that the work is being proceeded with, but I want to pose the question whether the Law Commission as it is constituted at present, is equipped to meet these challenges it is faced with as well as those it will still be faced with in future. We read in the report of the Secretary for Justice that he also pleads that serious attention should be given the codification and consolidation of our statutory law.

I would like to mention a few statistics on comparable commissions elsewhere to indicate that I believe that we need further manpower for our own Law Commission. The Scottish Law Commission has a full-time professional staff of nine members and a non-professional staff of ten members. The Law Commission of England has a professional staff of 26 and a non-professional staff of 22. The Law Reform Commission of Canada had 18 fulltime law researchers in 1973, and Australia had a federal law commission consisting of 31 members, with which it started its activities. As against this, Sir, our law commission consists of seven prominent lawyers, but all seven of them are employed in a part-time capacity. There are two judges: there are two senior advocates; there is a magistrate and there is an academic. The full-time staff consists of a secretary, two researchers and one administrative officer. There is, therefore, altogether seven part-time professional lawyers and four full-time people, three of whom are lawyers. Sir, I think that these statistics alone make out a case that the extension of the manpower of the law commission could possibly be considered with some sympathy so that they can meet the great challenge they are faced with. In saying this I want, at the same time, to pay tribute to the Law Commission for what it has already achieved. I also want to express understanding for the problem we have in South Africa as far as manpower is concerned and for the problem the hon. Minister therefore has to supplement those serving on the Law Commission. But the fact remains that our law is one of the pillars of our society which, in spite of the case the Progressive Party tried to make out as if this is of no importance to us, we on this side of the House have very close at heart. We believe that the South African law system should be extended and that its justice and fairness should at all times be placed beyond all doubt. The South African Law Commission can and will contribute to achieve this, and I therefore ask that its hands be strengthened and that it be equipped to do precisely this.

Mr. Chairman, I would like, if I may, to bring back the debate to the issue of the Schlebusch and Le Grange reports, because I think it is quite remarkable that we still have not heard the actual view of the United Party in respect of this matter, although the debate has been going on for many, many hours.

What about yours on foreign finance?

Sir, I wish the hon. member would go back to the cold drink that he was drinking a moment ago.

You think you are being very clever.

Yes, I am, and I know what the cold drink is. Sir, I think there are some more important matters than that particular interjection to deal with. I would like to deal with some of the remarks made by the hon. the Minister. In the first place, I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that one of the objects of those who seek to destroy a system, of those who seek to destroy and overthrow a State, is to create a situation where in fact authoritarian action is taken so that they can then point to that Government and say, “You see, it is an authoritarian Government”. Sir, this is one of the recognized weapons which is used in this context. This is one of the reasons why we believe that you must in fact maintain the democratic structures in a State, that you must maintain the ordinary judicial procedures, because that is what is required, and that is why we stress this at all times. Sir, the second matter which the hon. the Minister dealt with was the question of when the powers to ban are used. The one thing that one found tremendously disturbing was the fact that he admitted that there were people in respect of whom he had taken and would take executive action even though a conviction could not be obtained in a court of law. In other words, he has to concede…. [Interjections.] In other words, you are not saying there are people; you are saying there would be people. This is what is important, because you can have a situation where a man would be found not guilty by a court of law except that by reason of the fact that he is not tried in a court of law, he will be found guilty by executive action. This is an extremely serious matter. You cannot have a situation where a court may find a man innocent and yet he has no remedy because in the opinion of the executive he in fact can be restricted or may even be imprisoned.

It is not in the opinion of the executive. The Minister has to be satisfied.

To be satisfied is to have an opinion. It is your view that he is in fact guilty of something. It is your view that he can be a menace to the State. This is what is important. It in fact creates a system in society in which there is no safeguard in the circumstances.

If I may come back to where I left off when I spoke earlier, I indicated there that the Deputy Minister of Information and of the Interior had quoted only the headline without referring to the whole of the article where I had indicated that I had a difference with Dr. Beyers Naudé. Sir, I make no apology for having differences with Dr. Beyers Naudé, none at all, because as far as I am concerned, the fact that I may differ from him on an issue is not important. I believe that the issue which the hon. the Deputy Minister was referring to was the issue relating to service in the forces. That is one that I dealt with.

It was in regard to his speech in Holland.

I never commented on that at all. Then that is incorrect. I never dealt with that, and I think that is quite wrong. I never dealt with it and I never commented on it, because in fact Dr. Beyers Naudé had by then already indicated that he had been wrongly reported. [Interjection.] You are quoting from a Nationalist newspaper, and you know it, and that is not reliable. [Interjections.] I want to make it very clear that as far as I am concerned, there are matters where I differ with him and I believe there are matters on which he differs with me, but that does not mean that he and his organization are not entitled to be treated in such a way that they get a fair trial and are not to be subject to executive action. [Interjections.] Of course that is the point. It is the same thing I said then, and I say it now. I say exactly the same thing now. I want to make it quite clear so that there is no misunderstanding that when one talks about the World Council of Churches giving aid to terrorism, I have no difficulty in saying that I reject it, abhor it and condemn it. I have no difficulty in saying that I disagree with encouraging people not to serve in the forces. I have no difficulty in saying that I reject violence as a means of change. I have no difficulty in going on record on that.

Then why are you fighting with me?

Why do you raise such a ridiculous issue? One is entitled to differ with people and yet uphold their right to get a fair trial in accordance with ordinary judicial processes. That is the simple issue that exists. [Interjections.] It does not matter. I have differed with lots of people but they are entitled to get a fair trial and entitled to be treated in accordance with the ordinary processes of law. That is the essential difference. That is where the ideological difference lies between the hon. member for Mooi River and myself. He talks about being strong and tough. Suddenly now he has this “kragdadige” attitude which is the new approach of the United Party. That is where the difference lies. It is in regard to our approach to this matter.

There is also the issue as to why people do not give evidence. Sir, look at the rules which applied to this commission. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Information and of the Interior was the chairman of the commission. He had the discretion. If we look at rule 7, we will see that he had the discretion to permit cross-examination and that he had the discretion to allow people to be present.

They did not even come forward.

You did not allow cross-examination. You did not even allow people to listen to what the charges against them were.

They would not even have come forward if they were to be charged in a court of law.

Did you allow people to cross-examine? Did you tell people when they came there to give evidence: These are the facts against you and this is the case you have to meet? [Interjection.]

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

You had better sit down.

No, I will not sit down. You did not allow cross-examination. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not allow cross-examination and he did not allow evidence to be led, but he is the man who, in fact, had a discretion so that the rule of law could, to some extent, have been applied even though it was a group of politicians. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister was the man who did not do it; he was the man who ignored it. He ignored the rules. This is, in fact, what the problem is.

Let me come back for a moment to the United Party. They have only put into this debate the hon. member for Durban North, the hon. member for Green Point, twice, and the hon. member for Mooi River; no one else has come into the debate on this issue. The hon. member for Green Point said he stood by the report and the recommendation. The hon. member for Durban North said: The findings do not bind the United Party and people are entitled to have other opinions. The hon. member for Mooi River was the tough man who came with a new rightist ideology for the United Party. That is all we have had. However, we have had some other remarks from other United Party people which perhaps need some answering. Let us take, for example, the new chairman of the Pretoria general council of the United Party who has been reported as saying that he is perturbed and distressed about the United Party’s role in the commission. What are they going to do about him?

Is this Epstein?

No, not Epstein, but Neser. Does the hon. member want to hear about Epstein?

“Advocate” Neser.

Yes, Advocate Neser. Let us hear about Epstein.

He is “Mr.” Epstein.

Yes, Mr. Epstein, because I like him. He said—

What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say about that? Is he going to do something about Mr. Epstein? No, I promise you that he is not going to do anything. And what is he going to do about the hon. member for Pinetown who sits here and who said that as far as he is concerned, he sees the inquiry into the Christian Institute as a vendetta against Dr. Naudé? He is going to get up just now in this House, I hope, and I hope he is going to tell us what he thinks about this, but maybe he will find another subject on which to talk and not this particular one. One can go through this, but I challenge the United Party to say tonight what its attitude is to this report, what its attitude is to the recommendation what its attitude is to the finding. It must let the public of South Africa know. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I prepared myself to deliver a plea to the hon. the Minister this evening to have courts for minor cases, but in consequence of the speech we have just heard, I feel called upon to make a few remarks about the debate which took place here this afternoon and especially about the standpoint of the hon. members who are sitting immediately to my right. I think the hon. members are so occupied with looking at the threes that they cannot see the wood. They are so occupied looking at the trees of the system of law, at the trees of evidence which had to be heard, at the trees of the legal rule that persons have to be heard, that they do not see the whole purpose and meaning of the matter. I am afraid that the hon. members are moving on the wrong track. They present the action of White politics in South Africa as being a repressive one. They present the action of White politics in South Africa as being purely a protection of privileges. They present the action as being the desperate preservation of a privileged position of the Whites in South Africa. Furthermore, they present it as though the defence is going to collapse in any event. That is the standpoint of the hon. members on my right, i.e. the hon. members of the Reform Party and the hon. members of the Progressive Party. They want to suggest that a revolution is in progress, that there is an overthrowing of the order which exists in South Africa and that they are part or even leaders of that order. They can suggest it and they probably want to be that for two divergent reasons. One is that they are, in fact, part of a revolutionary situation in which they imagine themselves to be, and the other is that they are so naïve, so innocent and so caught up in old-fashioned liberalistic ideas that they do not realize that they are playing with fire in South Africa. They are the Kerenskies of Russia who allowed the Russian revolution to break through. They are the Kerenskies, the liberalists who were too weak to rule and to take action the moment it was called for and allowed …

You are the Czars! [Interjections.]

That is the image of the Whites which they are presenting.

Order! Hon. members must make fewer interjections.

There we have just heard it from the hon. members. Their idea of White order in South Africa is that it is an oppressive Czaristic order. They compare the order to that of the Czar. It is not so. They are the gentlemen who wish to create the idea that order has to disappear in any event. They still see the order as the old colonialistic order which existed in South Africa and which has already disappeared from the rest of Africa as well. They would like to be the leaders or party to the movement which is to ensure that the order be destroyed. This, however, is not the situation. The situation is that we in South Africa are engaged in a revolution which is passing them by and which they do not understand. We are taking up a new standpoint which has not yet been tried anywhere else in the world. We are working out a new system in South Africa which is a revolutionary one, and I am saying this to the hon. member for Sea Point as well. We in South Africa are developing a revolutionary standpoint in terms of which peace will be maintained among the peoples of South Africa. That is the principle on which we are working in South Africa by means of the concept of separate freedoms. It is a radical concept, one in terms of which the hon. members on my right have not yet thought. They have never been able to think in terms other than the gradual absorption and the gradual assimilation of the Black opposition in South Africa which must eventually lead to the sort of situation one had in Algeria, Mozambique, Kenya and in other colonial states. These are the consequences of the policy which the hon. members on that side advocate. They hide behind rules of law and certain legal concepts instead of looking at the situation as a whole and at the crux or essence of the situation existing in South Africa. On the one hand we have the protection of that which exists, but on the other hand there is also the development of what we should like to see South Africa be in future, viz. a group of states co-existing in peace and assisting one another in their development. That is the concept we have on this side of the House. To defend, is to lose, but to attack, to develop, to grow and to have a new concept, is important. In the speech the hon. member for Mooi River made in this House this afternoon, he emphasized that there should be a vision of a South Africa in which we may have peaceful coexistence. I want to contend that this is only possible in terms of the concepts which the National Party has given us. To achieve this end is no easy task. To achieve this end one needs all the energy of all one’s people. One cannot allow tappers to snap at one’s heels. That is why we need certain repressive measures. That is why we must place certain powers in the hands of a responsible Minister. When hon. members complain here about the system or the rule of law, they know they have the right to attack the particular Minister maintaining that system of law and applying those measures here in this House and to say that he acted wrongly in some specific case. However, the hon. members, and the hon. member for Yeoville in particular, did not come forward here this evening with concrete charges, but with suppositions and hypothetical cases. They did not produce real proof of the powers already in the hands of the hon. the Minister having been abused. They are simply made hypothetical presentations. We are not giving the Minister new powers this evening. What we are discussing is whether the Minister has made proper use of the powers he has. As yet the hon. members have not mentioned one case in the course of this entire debate in respect of which they are able to prove that the hon. the Minister has abused the powers he has in terms of other Acts. This is the situation as we have it before us this evening.

I want to suggest that these hon. gentlemen on my right who have become silent now, know full well that they are on the wrong side of the matter, that they represent an obsolete political point of view in South Africa, that they represent a dangerous political point of view in South Africa and that they will do well to reflect on these things before it is too late.

Mr. Chairman in spite of the enthusiasm of the attack by the hon. member for Bellville on the Progressive Party, I wish to tell him that he is quite wrong. We are taking an attitude towards this particular report, its recommendations and the actions of the Government, because we believe it is this Government which is leading South Africa towards conflict. It is this Government which, through its policy, its actions and its repudiation of the rule of law, is taking South Africa right towards conflict in the future.

The hon. the Minister of Justice said that it was no use winning with the Police and the Defence Force if one lost on one’s home ground. He is quite correct in that, but the way to win on home ground is not just through “kragdadigheid”; it is not just through declaring certain organizations affected organizations and it is not through restricting people because you anticipate that they may commit a crime. You can only win on home ground by making meaningful reforms and getting rid of discrimination in South Africa. If we do that, we have some chance of winning both on the home front and on the foreign front.

It has been said that much or some of the debate has been irrelevant, that some of it has been superficial and that some of it has actually got to the heart of the matter. I want to comment on this by referring to some of the key personalities who have been involved in the Schlebusch/Le Grange saga and more especially to those who participated in the debate this afternoon. As far as the hon. the Minister of Tourism is concerned, I think we all have the highest regard for his wizardry with words. He has a knack which few other people have of imparting a shade of meaning to words. However, his comments, while they were attractive to listen to, were extremely superficial. The hon. the Minister explained that this was not a judicial commission. How right he was. We accept that. But one would expect that someone in his position as a member of Parliament, even if he was not formerly a judge, would try to be objective in his assessment. Yet his tirade this afternoon, in particular his tirade against the Rev. Beyers Naudé, showed a complete lack of objectivity and a prejudice against an individual, against an organization and against the political philosophy with which it is concerned. He almost gloated over the fact that the Government had managed to cripple the Christian Institute financially. To him this was the exciting thing, not that he had done something worthwhile for South Africa. His attitude was: “Is it not a fine thing that we have actually managed to cripple the Christian Institute of South Africa?” He gave the House and particularly the hon. member for Bryanston a homily on the rule of law. He spoke of democracy in South Africa in absolute terms. Let us realize that if we have a limited rule of law because of the Nationalist Party Government equally we have an extremely limited form of democracy in South Africa. We have a limited form of democracy because of the lack of popular participation in the decision-making process in South Africa. What is more, the hon. the Minister cannot divorce the rule of law from democracy. The two are interrelated and every attack on the rule of law is an attack on democracy. The hon. the Minister should realize that and not just simply dismiss this as he did.

The chairman of the commission, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Information, spent a considerable amount of time dealing with a message issued just before the 1970 general election.

I spent exactly three minutes on it.

He read from it at length and it seemed much longer. This was to show that the Christian Institute was supporting a political party or the aims of a political party. That is how I understood him. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he has failed in his duty for the past five years in not referring this to the Attorney-General. There is specific provision in the Prohibition of Political Interference Act which states that nobody who receives funds from overseas may advance the cause of a political party. Nor may they attack any of the aims of a political party. The hon. the Deputy Minister has been sitting with this in his pocket for the past four or five years. It was an offence in terms of what he has said for the Christian Institute to have acted in this way. If this was the gravamen of the charge there was no need to have the Schlebusch Commission and to spend all this money and to move further away from the rule of law.

The hon. the Deputy Minister tried to infer and to argue that the Christian Institute was in favour of violence. He referred to one statement out of Pro Veritate, but he did not refer to the very many denials which are in evidence before him coming from the director of the Christian Institute himself. Dr. Naudé warned the people of South Africa against violence, against the consequences of our not changing and the risk of violence. He has certainly not advocated violence. The hon. the Deputy Minister used the statement of the Rev. Beyers Naudé that, “die tyd vir vroom woorde is verby” as evidence that he believes in violence. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not believe that “die tyd vir vroom woorde nou verby is”? He still believes in pious words. He then went on to ask whether we agreed with certain sermons of clerics and statements made by the Rev. Colin Davidson. I do not necessarily agree with sermons given by priests. I do not agree with them in certain churches and not in my own church sometimes, but that is not the point. The point is that whether I agree or disagree I do not believe that because I disagree with the political views or the sermons or the philosophy of people they should be banned or their organizations should be declared affected organizations.

The hon. member for Green Point is not here. He made great play of the fact that this was a report to Parliament and that Parliament should therefore decide what it wished to do with the report. A formal report was presented to Parliament but the main recommendation is not a recommendation to Parliament. The recommendation is to the Government to apply such statutory powers as it has. Where the hon. member said it was a report to Parliament and that they as commissioners were innocent if the Government took other action, the recommendation was in fact not directed to Parliament. The recommendation was specifically directed to the Government to consider taking statutory action against the Christian Institute. Once again the hon. member has pointed out that the Christian Institute receives funds from overseas. He has also indicated that it is involved in what he believes is political action. However, that hon. member of the United Party also says that its actions constitute a danger to the State. When the hon. members signed that part of that report I want to know what action they had in mind. What action did they have in mind? It went far beyond the question of an affected organization because the Affected Organizations Act deals with people who are involved in politics and who are receiving funds from overseas. The report went beyond that. It said that the Christian Institute was a danger to the State and that the State should take statutory action against it in that respect as well. What I want to know from the United Party is what their recommendation was. What did it mean? What did it mean when they said: “Here is an organization which is a danger to the State. Take statutory action against it”? What did the United Party and these other gentlemen sitting there mean by that recommendation? What did they mean? We have not yet had an explanation from those hon. members.

We never will.

Mr. Chairman, I re-emphasize certain of the arguments that have been used from these benches. First of all, the debate that has taken place has confirmed the worst suspicions that we had when we read the report. In the first instance, this report and the behaviour of hon. members who participated on the other side indicate that the Commission had all the trappings of a vendetta. In the first case this was a vendetta on behalf of the Afrikaner Broederbond against one of its members who had resigned and in the second case, a vendetta because of a conflict within the church. I can understand hon. members in their personal capacity becoming very excited about this but that has no bearing on a report of members of Parliament who have been required to investigate the actions of a religious organization in relation to the security of the State. Secondly, it is quite clear that not only was it non-judicial, it was unjudicial and prejudiced from the start. The speeches made by hon. members today have not been the speeches of quasi-judges. These were the speeches of people who were prejudiced against the belief and philosophy of the individuals concerned. [Interjections.] Thirdly, if one looks at this report as it has been presented to this Parliament, one realizes that it sets out in the main to establish guilt by association and not by factual evidence. In reading this report carefully I find it interesting to note how often it tries to establish an identification between the Christian Institute and the World Council of Churches and also tries to isolate the Christian Institute from the other South African churches which are members of the South African Council of Churches which is also affiliated to the World Council of Churches. Finally, it seeks to justify statutory action on three grounds: Firstly, the receipt of money from abroad; secondly, engaging in politics; and thirdly, because it was a danger to the State. There is no difficulty in ascertaining whether individuals or organizations are in receipt of money from abroad. However, what is important are the other two areas. In this regard formal charges have been substantiated against the Christian Institute. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point has made the very radical statement that in this case the Government was prejudiced against the Christian Institute before the commission was appointed. I want to tell the hon. member that this is a very drastic statement to make. He knows that when this commission was appointed the Government already had certain facts at its disposal which induced the Government to appoint a commission to investigate the affairs of certain organizations. This commission eventually came to consider the Christian Institute. The commission established certain facts, but apart from that the hon. the Minister also received the report from three very respected magistrates. He dealt with this report in full. The factual report of the commission has been dealt with fully by various speakers in this House, and I am still waiting for speakers on the left hand side of the Opposition to come forward with arguments and supporting evidence rejecting any of the findings of the commission. All those hon. members do is to speak vaguely of the findings which were made, but owing to the fact that they did not make a proper study of these facts, they are not in the position to take issue with the Government on the findings which were in fact made in this regard. I want to suggest to the hon. members of the Reform Party and the Progressive Party that they should first study this report properly before coming to this House with this type of argument.

What I find very interesting is those four dwarfs of the Reform Party sitting there.

Order! The hon. member may not refer to other hon. members as dwarfs.

I withdraw it, Sir. For four or five months those four hon. members sitting there have been a group with its own identity. They are a group that tells us that they broke away from the United Party for certain reasons. However, they never told us what those reasons were, and what their real policy is. They have never, in their break-away from the United Party, said that it was in fact in regard to its participation in the Schlebusch Commission that they broke away from the United Party. There sits the hon. member for Yeoville. Prior to this report the Schlebusch Commission published five or six other reports. There was a report which contained very serious recommendations in regard to certain members of Nusas. There was a report which resulted in restrictions being imposed on people. Nevertheless, those four hon. members associated themselves with the Schlebusch Commission. They did not retire at the time, and they did not at that stage kick up a fuss about the rule of law, but remained on in the United Party because it suited their purpose. They would have been unable to win one seat, if it had not been on that basis. I want to tell the hon. members that they are not being honest with this House if they condemn the Schlebusch Commission, although they associated themselves with it fully until such time as they had reason to differ with it. These are the facts, and I am not going to argue about them.

The hon. members had a great deal to say about the rule of law. The hon. member for Yeoville, who is a lawyer, ought to know that the security of the State is the highest law. Does he not realize that? Does he first want the State to be overthrown before action is taken in terms of the rule of law? The hon. member for Vereeniging explained to that hon. member, and brought to his attention the difference between the doctrine of attempt and the doctrine of preparation. The hon. member pointed out a very close and very fine distinction which is drawn between a preparatory action and an attempted action. However, must we first wait until the attempt is made, and the danger actually exists, before we take action? Does the hon. member for Yeoville expect this of a responsible Government? The hon. member is silent, for it does not suit him to venture a reply at this stage. Mr. Justice Snyman, a judge of the Supreme Court and now chairman of the Publications Appeal Court, used the same argument. He said there comes a time in the existence of any State or Government when it has to act, and that it even has to act against the strict provisions of the rule of law for the sake of the security of the State. We are all agreed on that score, and there are many lawyers who are unanimous in regard to this matter. Many leaders of the State are in agreement on this score, and many debates have been conducted in regard to it. I want to refer hon. members to the learned work of Verloren van Themaat on this matter. I should like to quote briefly what Sir Ivor Jennings had to say on the question of the rule of law—

That is the situation we have in South Africa. It is a delicate situation. Does the hon. member for Parktown not wish to concede that? In South Africa we have circumstances which could very easily become dangerous. In South Africa we have to deal not only with different religions, we also have to deal with different colours, with different levels of civilization and with particular population strata. We have to be careful about what we do and say in South Africa, and for that reason I take it amiss of the hon. member for Sea Point for having made the typical remark that it is the conduct of the Government which could possibly cause a revolution in South Africa. He placed the words in the mouth of those people to go and do that. That is not the action of a responsible leader of a responsible party in South Africa. For that reason that party deserves to remain in the Opposition for all time.

All that hon. member was able to do in his entire speech was to launch attacks on hon. members who had been members of that commission. He did not try to attack the facts and merit of that report. He tried to launch an attack on the hon. the Minister of Tourism. By the way, the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Tourism was one of the best speeches in this debate, and in this session, on this very important matter. He made an attack on the hon. the Minister. He made an attack on the hon. the Deputy Minister of Information, but we are still waiting for him to furnish replies to the very specific questions which were put to them here, such as the question put by the hon. member for Waterkloof and the hon. member for Durban North, namely whether that party identifies themselves with the fact that political parties or organizations should receive funds from overseas to combat the existing order in this country. That question has not yet been answered. Sir, apart from that, that hon. member also made an attack on the hon. member for Green Point, but we are still waiting for that party and for the Reform Party to attack the report of the Schlebusch Commission on its merits. Sir, with these few words I shall conclude.

Mr. Chairman, I very much want to associate myself with the words of the hon. member for Brakpan. I should like to come back to the Vote under discussion. Actually, the subject I want to discuss is that of escapes, and I do not want to escape my subject as the hon. members for Sea Point and Yeoville have been doing the whole evening. They escape the true facts as they appear in this report, they make vague statements and then fail entirely to come back to the point. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Yeoville is extremely fond of his own voice. When he has made a speech and said nothing, he sits making interjections.

In the first place, Sir, as regards the issue of escapes from our prisons, I should like to convey a word of appreciation to the work done by Gen. Steyn and his department. Apparently the public is worried that there has been an enormous increase in the number of escapes. In this regard I want to present a reassuring picture. The reason for this notion that there has been an enormous increase in the number of escapes is the fact that nowadays, the department of its own accord immediately provides details of escapes to the Press and the radio. Previously the news media were only provided with details of escapes at their request, with the result that the fact of escapes was not brought so forcibly to the public’s attention. Owing to the whole-hearted co-operation of the news media with the department, the public is now immediately acquainted with the facts and warned to be alert, for their own safety. This also enables the public to be of assistance in the identification and/or the re-arrest of escaping prisoners. It is this very fact of greater and more prominent publicity which has not only resulted in the illusion that the number of escapes has increased, but has also caused the fear among the public for its own safety to grow, particularly in the vicinity of prison areas. During 1973-’74 a daily average of about 99 000 prisoners were held in the various prisons. There was an increase of about 4 000 in the daily average prison population as against the figure for the previous year. During 1973-’74, 1 960 prisoners escaped, as against 1 836 prisoners in the year 1972-’73, an increase of 124, whereas the daily average prison population increased by about 4 000. Sir, looking at the number of prisoners who escaped, expressed as a percentage of the average number of prisoners in custody daily, then the position looks more or less as follows over the past four years: 1970-’71, 1,78%; 1971-72, 2,44%; 1972-73, 1,3%; and 1973-74, 1,98%. I also want to mention that of the total number of prisoners who escaped, namely 1 960, only 303, or about 15%, were prisoners who escaped from the prisons themselves. When I refer to prisons, I include the workshops. On the other hand, there were 1 657 other escapes, or about 85%, all of which occurred outside the prison, viz. from work teams, courts, trains, hospitals, etc. If we bear in mind the fact that the daily average prison population is about 99 000 and that at least 80% of the sentenced prisoners work outside the prison, then the escape figure cannot be regarded as being particularly high. I could also point out that whereas members of the prison staff guard the prisoners in the prison area, the guarding of work teams which are hired out—and we know that this takes place on quite a large scale—is undertaking by temporary warders who are specially appointed, who are in the service of the hirer and are paid by him. It is also clear, therefore, that not all escapes can be laid at the door of the prison authorities. I want to lay special emphasis on the fact that the Department of Prisons is by no means indifferent to the issue of escapes. In every case of escape the immediate vicinity is immediately combed by members of the service; the Police are immediately called in to help in the search, and the Press and radio are employed to keep the public informed. A departmental inquiry into each escape is held to check on possible negligence by members of the service and temporary warders or guards, and if there is a finding of negligence, extremely rigorous action is taken against them. Consequently, everything possible is being done to prevent escapes. In fact, the department views this matter in such a serious light that in 1972 a departmental committee was appointed to inquire into the matter of escapes. I believe that among other things, this fact, too, is one factor behind the drop in the number of escapes, if we bear in mind that in the year 1972-’73 the number of escapes was 1,93% of the daily average prison population as against 2,44% the previous year. It is interesting to note that by far the greater majority of prisoners involved in escapes have psychopathic tendencies and that it is particularly the outspoken psychopath who causes the most problems in this regard. He does not accept his sentence or punishment; he simply does not submit to it. He usually believes that he is innocent and is usually intent upon satisfying his immediate needs. He is liable to act impulsively without any idea of the consequences. In fact his view of the future and ability to plan his life are defective. In this regard I should like to refer to the system by which the department determines the classification of prisoners in the categories of psychopath in three prisons where they can now be more carefully identified and consequently withdrawn from the working teams outside the prison area. I believe that this method, too, will have a particularly favourable influence on the combating of escapes. Something else which one must bear in mind as far as escapes are concerned, the fact is that one is dealing here with people who work with people. There will always be escapes in any prison system, because the human factor is a fallible factor. The second aspect that in point of fact, it is in the nature of the matter that there are opportunities for escape because every prisoner in good physical health, excluding the dangerous criminals, works outside the prison area. However, I want to plead that work opportunities for the prisoners be retained and not curtailed as a method of combating escapes. The constructive and rehabilitative value of labour for a prisoner can never be underestimated. In fact, I believe that it remains one of the most important reasons for the extraordinary degree of peace and order to be found among the prison population in our prisons. We have the greatest confidence in our prison authorities and appreciation for the work done under extremely difficult circumstances. It is still important that the greatest degree of security be ensured for the public, particularly in the vicinity of prison areas, and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider the possibility of even closer contact between his department and the public. Perhaps the establishment of a permanent inter-departmental committee in this regard could be considered. I believe it is essential that there should be the greatest possible degree of co-ordination at all times. This will undoubtedly afford our people much greater peace of mind and also enable them to see to their own safety to a greater extent.

Mr. Chairman, the subject with which the hon. member for Klerksdorp has dealt has very much relevance to the matter which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister this evening. I am referring to the question of legal aid, a matter in respect of which I have already discussed certain aspects with the hon. the Minister in past years. First of all, I want to say that I am extremely disappointed that there is no report available. However, even if it were difficult to have had a report presented at this stage, it is even more disappointing that there are no figures, not even partial figures, available for the period 1974-’75. This is a great pity because legal aid is today one of the most important aspects of the whole of our legal system and, as I have pointed out, it has very much relevance to the subject dealt with by the hon. member who has just spoken.

One of the features to be noticed immediately in the budget is that the provision for legal aid by means of contributions by the department to the Legal Aid Board has dramatically jumped from R307 000 to R935 000. In the previous year, the year 1973-’74, the amount was R210 000. One can perhaps wonder why the amount has jumped to such a great extent. If one looks at the report one finds that most of the activity of the Legal Aid Board at the moment is confined to civil cases. I think it is probably in respect of civil cases that one finds that it has been necessary to provide this large amount of money because in the March 1974 report which deals with the year 1973-74, it is stated that at the end of the year 3 584 cases were still pending and the estimated liability of costs in respect of those cases was R888 500. This gives an indication of the tremendous leap in costs which is taking place, something which is commented on in the report. However, the figures indicate that the main concern of the Legal Aid Board has been civil cases.

I am rather concerned with the work of the Legal Aid Board in so far as criminal cases are concerned, because we find, according to statistics, that on an average there are about 100 000 persons in gaol per day at a cost of R175 000 per day. Over the years, as I mentioned last year, I find that the figures, save perhaps for slight increases, have been virtually the same. There is a consistent theme running right through the reports of the last few years which indicates that more than 500 000 persons have been at some time or another within the prisons of our country during a year. This is a colossal number and, as I have indicated, the bulk of the cases represent persons sentenced to periods of imprisonment of not more than three months. A considerable number of persons were sentenced to imprisonment for less than one month and a considerable number of persons were sent to gaol for less than three months. I think the hon. the Minister must direct his attention towards the criminal courts of the country. I find, for instance, that despite all the efforts in the field of publicity upon which the Legal Aid Board embarks and all the steps it takes to ensure that the question of legal aid is brought to the attention of as many people as possible, there are no social workers represented at the Bantu Commissioners’ courts, for instance. I do not think that we have sufficient social workers at any of the courts, particularly at courts which concern the average Bantu who comes before the courts. We find that out of a total of roughly 5 000 persons who were referred to attorneys for legal aid, 4 443 found themselves in the category of civil matters and only 425 in the category of criminal matters. Of the number of 425 only 136 Bantu were affected. In the year previous to that we find that in a total of 568, only 60 Bantu were affected. This indicates immediately that in this particular field where so many petty contraventions are taking place and people are imprisoned for whatever period, but usually short periods, our prisons are cluttered up at tremendous cost to the State. This year, for instance, provision is made for an additional R10 million on the Prisons Vote—it has jumped from R55 million to R65 million. During the previous year it had increased by almost a similar amount. This will constantly go on.

Let us look at what some people who are interested in this particular subject have to say. There is a commission of inquiry which at the moment is investigating our penal system. The chairman of Nicro, the National Institute for Criminal Rehabilitation, gave evidence, a portion of which appeared in the Press. What he had to say was reported in yesterday’s paper as follows—

I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to declare a holiday on technical ideological offences and particularly pass laws which are perhaps the foremost example of these technical offences. He should do so for two reasons. One is to enable the Police Force and other officers in charge of the maintenance of law and order to reduce the rapid rise in serious crime in the country by perhaps paying more attention to the whole question of serious crime of which we see a lot particularly in the Western Province and perhaps just as much in other parts of the country. The hon. the Minister’s approach should be based on new sociological and rehabilitation grounds. In my view this is one of the methods which he should employ in order to see whether he can circumvent what is taking place with regard to these numerous imprisonments for petty offences.

Recently we also had an opinion given by an eminent penal jurist who travelled throughout the country and took part in the Nicro conference. He is a former director of the United States’ state-sponsored legal aid programme. He said, talking about South Africa—

The report from which I am quoting goes on—

In the United States they employ a system whereby they do not rely on the practising profession only; they in fact rely mainly on professional assistants who are engaged in the Department of Justice itself. They employ such a system because they have found that the need for legal aid is a vital factor in the whole of the system of justice in the country. I can quote from a report by a young South African man who has just prepared a thesis for his Ph.D. at Oxford where he is a Rhodes scholar. Prior to leaving South Africa, at a conference held on legal aid two years ago, he referred to the United States, having studied all the systems, and said—

This was a dictum given in a case that actually appeared before the courts in the United States. However, we have something even closer home because in the case of The State vs. Bloom, Mr. Justice Van Zyl made the following statement—

He goes further and says in his report that deprivation of this right constitutes an irregularity—

That may perhaps be carrying it very far because I am not sure how adequately equipped we are to deal with the subject on this basis. It is perfectly clear, however, that if we are to relieve the pressure on our courts and if we are to enable justice to be properly administered through the legal aid systems—it has now become part of our statute law and part of our legal system of justice—we certainly have to approach it from an entirely different angle and not let it result in dealing mainly with civil cases, important as they may be. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since I intend occupying myself with murder and homicide, during the next few minutes, I do not think it would be fair if I reacted to the speech made by the hon. member for Jeppe. In any case, I think his subject was of such a nature that we could all agree with the proposals he made.

During a recent case which was tried here in Cape Town, and afterwards, too —the case enjoyed wide publicity in the Press throughout South Africa—the question again cropped up whether consideration should not be given to the possibility of the abolition of the death penalty in South Africa, particularly in cases where a person is found guilty of murder without extenuating circumstances. Attention has been drawn to this matter because in the last 25 years in particular the death penalty has been abolished in no fewer than 15 European and Scandinavian countries, as well as in various states of the United States of America, and also in 12 South American Republics. I think it is advisable for us to pause for a moment at the argument of those who would like to see the death penalty in South Africa being abolished. On the basis of the sources which I have consulted, I arrived at the conclusion that we can sum up their arguments in four categories. The first is that the death penalty as such is a denial of the Christian principle of reformation or rehabilitation. In other words, punishment should aim at improvement and not at condemnation. Secondly: Because man can err, we ought not to have the right to take a life, and therefore impose an irrepealable punishment on a person. Thirdly: The death penalty places a permanent and undeserved stigma on the family of the person who committed the murder. Fourthly: A hatred of the death penalty as such sometimes causes judges to hesitate to find a person guilty.

With reference to the last point, I want to say that I do not think it is even necessary that we consider this or comment on it. South Africa has a strong judicial Bench and I do not think that judges in South Africa have ever hesitated to pronounce judgment when they have found that that judgment should be pronounced on the basis of the facts presented to them. On the contrary, I think we have much evidence to show that our judges occupy and practise their office fearlessly. I do think, however, that it would be a good thing if we were to consider the other three arguments advanced by the advocates of the abolition of the death penalty. In regard to the alleged conflict with the Christian principles of the New Testament, we should, I think, see the Word of God as being cohesive, and consisting of one Book. The old Testament doctrine was: “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” In modern language we could express this as “A life for a life”. On this point church leaders differ with one another, but one thing is certain, namely that it pleased the Almighty to give the people of Israel certain laws and certain institutions. It pleased Him to lay down the death penalty very clearly if certain of those laws and institutions were broken or violated. I am thinking for example of the case of a person who worked on the Sabbath, or of a child who cursed his father or mother. Of course, we have moved away from this. I do not think any of us would say today that the death penalty should still be imposed in such cases. But when we come to the taking of a person’s life, in other words, a total denial by the murderer of his victim’s right to existence and right to be a living member of our community, the matter appears to be a serious one and the question is involuntarily asked whether the community should not always rid itself of such a murderer by taking his life as well. On the other hand it can with justification be asked what Christ meant when he said “But who so shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depths of the sea”. By implication I want to allege that even He foresaw that in certain cases a life could be taken. I am also referring briefly—I do not want to quote this because my time is limited—to Acts 25:11 and 1:32 both Books of the New Testament in which Paul refers to actions which deserve the death penalty. I also want to refer to Romans 13 in which it is written that the rulers are in truth the ministers of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil and who takes a life. To those who want to appeal to the New Testament and particularly to the doctrines of turning the other cheek and of doing unto others as one would have them do unto you, I want to say in any case that if they want to be consistent, they should do away with all forms of punishment and not only with the death penalty. If one questions them on this score, they say: “No, we are not prepared to do away with all forms of punishment.” That immediately indicates the weakness in this fifth argument of the advocates of the abolition of the death penalty. As far as the death penalty is concerned, I think that it ought to be retained in certain serious cases, where it can be regarded as being absolutely deserved. This may perhaps sound very mediaeval, but as far as I am concerned, punishment should in the first place be retributory, and only then can we begin with the rehabilitation aspect of punishment. Although the New Testament therefore introduced a new dispensation, I am not convinced that the intention was that punishment should not be applied at all, and least of all that no deed should be punishable with death. On the contrary, I think the principle is being affirmed. Every case should be considered and judged on its merits and all facts that could possibly have played a part at the time of the offence should be taken thoroughly into consideration when the degree of guilt present at the time of the commission of the murder should be established. The other argument concerning human error does not in my opinion make much sense, particularly if one takes into consideration how thoroughly all aspects of a murder are gone into today, how the evidence is presented to the courts and tested, and how, with cross-examination, the truth of the evidence can be tested over and over again. I am not in any way trying to imply that errors are not possible, but I want to say that it is very unlikely, particularly when the life of the accused is at stake, and deductions are not easily made unless these are supported by very sound evidence. In any case, it also happens in our law today that when a person is brought to trial on a murder charge and cannot afford an attorney or lawyer to represent him, such lawyer is made available to him free of charge by the State. His case is therefore conducted very thoroughly by persons trained to do so. The third argument, namely the stigma which allegedly attaches to the family, bears no weight either.

The fact remains that our society these days adopts a completely different attitude towards offenders than was the case in the old days. Today we are only too ready to tell people that we realize that they cannot be held responsible for what their sons or daughters or any member of their family has done.

However, let us consider for a moment the arguments of those who are in favour of the retention of the death penalty. From the sources I have consulted, I can sum up everything into one main idea, namely that the death penalty serves as a deterrent. In various countries where statistics have been kept in this regard, it has been found that in those countries where the death penalty still exists, crime has not necessarily been reduced. I want to concede that at once. However, I come now to our own country, South Africa. It is in this case that I feel that it is imperative that the death penalty should continue to exist, particularly as a result of the circumstances which prevail in South Africa. I believe that as a result of the special circumstances, South Africa is in fact the exceptional country, and when the statistics are studied, it will be found that this is in fact the case. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. member for Aliwal with great interest in regard to his statement to the effect that he believes that the death penalty should be retained. I do not think that he really gave proper thought to the whole question. I believe there are two major factors which arise out of investigations as to whether the death penalty should be retained or not. The first one is the question of the deterrent factor and whether the deterrent factor is such that if the death penalty is abolished, a diminution will follow in the crimes for which capital punishment could be imposed. Secondly, I do not believe that he gave proper attention to the question of the punitive factor and whether the punishment itself is going to be commensurate with the crime which has been committed. I believe that it has been proved in those countries where the death penalty has been abolished that the incidence of the crime has not dropped. Therefore the deterrent factor of capital punishment has not been proved to be effective. For that reason it seems that the death penalty could and should be abolished. Secondly, the punitive factor lends itself to the consequent rehabilitation of the person who is being punished. I believe it is wrong and that it is not a proper punishment. I believe too, however, that a proper alternative penalty to the death sentence must be imposed so that it is a real penalty. It must, of course, always be considered in regard to the type of crime, the person concerned and the full circumstances under which the crime has been committed. As far as I personally am concerned, and I am not talking on behalf of my party at all, I believe that the death penalty can well be abolished.

I want to say something about the hon. the Minister. I did hear him say just now that in regard to the magistrates’ reports which were given in relation to the Le Grange Commission, he would accept a magistrate’s report without qualification coming from those three magistrates, or from any three magistrates, in terms of the Affected Organizations Act. I must say that I am extremely surprised to hear the hon. the Minister say this, because I believe that nobody is infallible. Not even our magistrates are infallible as the hon. the Minister knows. Magistrates’ judgments have been upset on numerous occasions. Even judgments of Supreme Court judges have been upset by superior courts. For the hon. the Minister to say that he unreservedly accepts a report from the three magistrates under the circumstances of the Affected Organizations Act means, I believe, that he is not giving proper attention to the function he exercises as a Minister of Justice in this country. I believe also that the hon. the Minister is unfortunately not giving his attention to many other matters relating to justice which he should be doing in his particular position. He said that the Government had made many laws. We know that we face many laws in this country. The ordinary man in the street is overcome by all the laws that we have to abide by. Unfortunately, many of these laws do not follow the ordinary precepts of the rule of law as understood in a common democratic situation. More and more powers are being delegated under laws passed by this Government to administrative officers, powers and functions which normally would be exercised by the courts. In this regard I can refer to the Publications Act and also to this very Act that we have been discussing here this afternoon, the Affected Organizations Act. This is a trend which has been developing steadily throughout South Africa. Over the years the Government has also passed numerous laws in terms of which drastic procedures have been introduced—I have already addressed this House in this regard —which cut across all the normal precepts particularly of criminal law, the availability of the accused, persons and relations not knowing where the accused are and not being able to contact them; laws which actually prevent an accused from having a legal representative; laws which permit the Government to incarcerate people without any trial whatsoever. Many of our citizens are beginning to realize that such a situation is absolutely intolerable and that we must do something about it. I need only quote two leading personalities on the South African scene to justify my remarks. The first of these is Prof. Johan van der Vyver, Professor of Law at Potchefstroom University, the heart of Calvinism, who in a recent book declared that—

I should like also to quote another person who objects in this respect. This was mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Yeoville but he did not complete the quotation. The quotation is from Rapport of 1 June 1975. After having said that the law was the highest protector of society in South Africa, the commentator, Mr. Willem de Klerk, went on to say—

In this article he makes three specific statements—

That is the position. Here we have people in South Africa who are disturbed about what is happening in regard to our laws and our law-making in this country. I could go on to mention many more of these dangerous trends but suffice it to say that unfortunately at the moment the Government has blatantly accepted a method by means of which it instructs certain attorneys-general in certain cases not to prosecute. This, I would say, is an unheard of approach by a responsible Government, but we saw it yesterday when the hon. the Minister, in discussing the Liquor Bill, made a statement to the effect that he would allow a contravention of the law and condone it afterwards. This is reprehensible. The first example I should like to give of this type of operation relates to the Liquor Act. In terms of the Liquor Act, the Minister gave instructions that under certain circumstances people were not to be prosecuted. Blacks who had gone into White hotels were not to be prosecuted. The hon. the Minister knows it and admits that this is the position. He knows that those Blacks were enjoying liquor facilities there and that they were not to be prosecuted, although there was a contravention of the law. Mr. Chairman, we find that this happens also in regard to the Immorality Act. There is an attempt, apparently, by the Government to phase out section 16 of the Immorality Act. It appears that Attorneys-General have been instructed by the Minister to require any prosecutor, before he prosecutes, first to refer the matter to the Attorney-General.

It is just a safeguard, not a phasing out.

On many occasions no prosecution has ensued. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at this late stage of the evening it is pleasing that the debate has now become a little calmer. At least one can have a tranquil ending to the evening now. Sir, in the first place I want to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my wholehearted thanks to the Department of Prisons, Gen. Steyn and all the men who work under him for the hard work they are doing. It is work about which they are often criticized, but this work is carried out with great enthusiasm and loyalty by the department. We say to them, “Thank you very, very much.”

This evening I want to make an appeal for more young South African boys to apply to the department of Prisons. This is a department which offers the best security to any young man who would like to serve the people. It is a department which is sometimes forgotten to some extent. For example, when a recruitment campaign is launched, so often only the Departments of Justice and Police are mentioned. There is a tendency to shy away from Prisons. This evening I want to appeal to our young men to apply to this department with the aim of making it their future.

You will also allow me, Mr. Chairman, to dwell for a moment on a local matter. I want to discuss the fine prison which has been established in the Stilfontein constituency in recent years. Formerly it was in the Klerksdorp constituency. I want to say this evening that in my opinion, this building is one of the most elegant ever built in our country. But before I come to that fine complex I want to pay tribute this evening to our late friend, the former Minister of Prisons, the hon. P. C. Pelser. He was the Minister who devoted his energies to that fine complex, a complex which stands as a monument in his memory. It is one of the finest places one could visit. If one were talking about prisons and drove past this place as a stranger, unaware that it was a prison, one would probably believe that it was one of the finest colleges or universities built in this country. An old friend of mine tells me that a prisoner once went there and remarked to a friend, “My, but this is a fine college we are going to.” This evening I again want to convey my sincere thanks to the late hon. Minister who devoted his energies to establishing this fine place.

Before I dwell on the place further, I first want to pay tribute to the officer who started in the department as a young man, but who ended his career in the complex at Klerksdorp. I refer to the former commanding officer, the Col. J. J. A. Loubser. This man grew along with that complex. He strove not only to make his men and the staff that worked under him happy, but those in the prison, too. This man who did so much, was a friend of mine. He took up his post there on 31 December 1973 and went on pension on 31 January 1975 and he died on 17 February 1975. It is a pity that this man who gave up his life to the department and who left such a fine record should not have had the privilege of enjoying the benefit of a quiet life for a number of years. As I said, he died shortly after he retired—it was not even a month later. The building complex at Klerksdorp consists of and offers the following accommodation: In the prison—White men, 86: White women, 39; non-White men, 849; and non-White women, 82. The numbers in the hospital section are as follows: White men, 3; White women, 3; non-White men, 27; and non-White women, 14. I shall provide you with a few statistics relating to the housing provided for members of the complex. There are six of the most modern dwelling houses. I wish hon. members could go and see them. There are 40 flats and 32 single quarters. During 1969 a start was made with the construction of the buildings and the complex was completed, as I have already mentioned, in 1973. This fine complex cost about R1 195 000. The Department of Prisons deserves praise for the fine and elegant gardens and also for the outstanding sporting facilities established there. Since 1969, approximately 333 728 kg vegetables have been cultivated by the prisoners on a fairly small piece of ground. If one calculates the value of the vegetables at 11 cents per kg, this brought in R36 710 for the department. This is an enormous sum of money saved, owing to the enthusiastic spirit in which those people work. The vegetables are also used in the diet of the prisoners. The complex is undoubtedly an asset to the growth of the town and those who had previously objected to the establishment of the prisons would do well to take the trouble to visit this complex.

Whom are you quoting?

If that hon. member wants to take the trouble he would do well to come and take a look at it. If he wants to hold a meeting there for the few United Party supporters who are still left there, then I shall show him the complex. If the hon. member wants to play bowls with us, then he is welcome to do so there.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.