I move as an unopposed motion:

That Order of the Day No. XXVIII for to-day—Adjourned debate on motion on medical costs, to be resumed—be discharged.

I second.

Agreed to.

Yesterday afternoon at the request of this side of the House the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) raised the question of the Interim Report put in by the Commissioner, Mr. Justice Snyman, dealing with the Paarl riots. He did it in a very responsible manner, casting some small measure of criticism upon the Minister, in the hope that we would get a responsible, constructive reply from the hon. the Minister which would enable us to evaluate the situation. I may say that from this side of the House it was done in that responsible manner for the very real reason that we were perfectly conscious of what the effect of any prolonged political debate on this matter might be on South Africa’s good name overseas. What did we get, Sir? We got a political reply from the hon. the Minister in which he attempted to trap the hon. member for Germiston (District) into giving an advance reply, as to what his attitude would be in respect of legislation which he might be introducing. We had a series of political speeches, completely regardless of the effect upon the security and the peace of mind of the public of South Africa and completely regardless of the effect of a debate of this kind upon the name of South Africa amongst the peoples of the world. I think that, led by the hon. the Minister, their responsibility reached its lowest point with the speech of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins), which reached depths seldom plumbed in this House. I think that as a result of what has happened it is perhaps right that we should discuss this matter a little more fully, and since the Government has asked us let us have a debate on this subject … [Laughter.] … and let us see what happens to the raucous laughter of hon. members on the other side of the House when they see what construction can be put on this report. I think in dealing with this report the first question you will have to ask is why this Interim Report was issued at all. The hon. Commissioner has not attempted in this Interim Report to go into the root causes concerning the origin of the riots. He has put up an Interim Report for certain very definite reasons, and I think that a fair conclusion as to why he put up that Interim Report is possibly fourfold. The first reason is that he found that a very serious situation indeed existed. That appears from the preamble—

And then he proceeds to issue an Interim Report because of those circumstances. What were those circumstances? I think they are set out in paragraphs 21 and 24 of his Interim Report. In paragraph 21 he says—

He has lost it already.

Sir, what does that mean? Here we have a commissioner who feels that urgent action is necessary to reestablish the confidence of the Bantu in the ability of the State to protect him. He goes on in paragraph 24—

He points to the danger that the law-abiding Bantu is losing his faith in the authority of the State and for that reason he feels that it is necessary to put in an urgent report and ask the Minister to take certain urgent action.

Will you support that action?

Listen to that, Sir. The Minister is again trying to play politics. Is he such a child in a responsible position that he believes that when South Africa is threatened in this way, the public and we on this side of the House appreciate attempts at tomfoolery in this House? What a childish approach! I am surprised that the hon. the Prime Minister can tolerate him in the Cabinet when he makes statements of that kind because it is perfectly implicit in the report of the Commissioner that he is not satisfied with the steps which are being taken at the present time to deal with this situation. Why otherwise did he put in an Interim Report? If he was satisfied with what was being done, why should he put in a report? He puts in a report because he is not satisfied with what is being done, and as a responsible man he appreciates the dangers to the State in what is going on.

And he gave his recommendations which I accepted.

We will deal with the recommendations and with the Minister’s actions as well. What is the state of affairs with which the Commissioner is unhappy? Why is it that he is not satisfied with the actions of the State? In paragraph 8 he says—

And then comes the next sentence—

openly, Sir—

It was going on perfectly openly.

That is what you wanted.

Did you hear that, Sir? The hon. member for Heilbron says that that is what the Opposition wanted. He is trying to create the impression that this disgraceful organization, this most shocking organization, has the support of the biggest political party in the Opposition in South Africa. That is the impression he is trying to create. He is trying to encourage them to go on with their activities because he is trying to tell them that the United Party will support them. That is the spirit in which this debate is being conducted from that side of the House. Half the population of South Africa, according to that hon. member, is supporting the activities of Poqo. Could there be a more irresponsible statement in this House at a time when the people of South Africa are worried because of the state of affairs which exists and the necessity of issuing this report? But the Commissioner goes further and I want to quote paragraph 19—

In paragraph 24 he says—

Sir, that is what the Commissioner found; that is what he is dissatisfied with.

And the Minister accepted that.

Yes, the hon. the Minister accepts the report. This is what has been going on and the Minister tells us what steps he has taken to meet the situation. The third finding in this Report which is vital is that the Government is unable to protect law-abiding citizens. I think that is first set out in paragraph 15 where it is said—

What is the result? Because of this situation which the Commissioner thought it necessary to bring to the notice of the Minister and of the Government a number of things are happening. First of all recruiting for Poqo is being facilitated. Why? Because they are able to force the Bantu by fear and intimidation to join the organization. You find that set out in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13—

The Commissioner goes on to say in paragraph 12—

He also blames the liberals.

Listen to that, Sir. This is the spirit of irresponsibility that we have in this House. Let the hon. member go on and tell the public of South Africa what an irresponsible crowd we have in this House posing as hon. members. Now, Sir, what has happened? As a result of the lack of action by this Minister, which you find set out in paragraphs 19 and 8, Poqo has been enabled to flourish. Paragraph 8 says—

The Commissioner makes it clear that it openly carried on under the name Poqo. Paragraph 19 says—

Sir, there is a third thing that it does; it makes it difficult to get evidence against a member of Poqo.

So much for the Report. That is the first aspect of it. There is a series of indictments against this Government implicit in the Report which we have seldom had against any Government in power in South Africa. Sir, why was this Report handed in as a matter of urgency? Simply because the Commissioner—it is implicit in his whole Report—is dissatisfied with the way in which this matter is being handled.

Read paragraph 15.

There is a second thing that is important about this Report, and that is that it does not deal at all with the underlying causes which have given rise to the popularity of a movement like Poqo. What is interesting is that while in some cases the Commissioner makes findings, in other cases he merely says that “there is evidence to show …”; he makes no findings, and he clearly does not intend to make findings in respect of certain issues. He is a lawyer and he must be understood to intend the meaning of his words, and thus you have this in paragraph 16—

Sir, I have seen it written in books, but I doubt if the Commissioner had any evidence before him to that effect, and probably he is quite right in making this distinction between his findings and matters in which he says there is evidence but where he makes no findings. What is significant is that one of his cases where he does not make any findings is referred to in paragraph 18—

Those are the people whom you are protecting.

He goes on to say—

What do you think about it?

My hon. friend wants to know what I think about it. I believe that it is quite possible but I believe that if this evidence is available to the Commissioner, why has the Minister not acted on It? Why has he not put these people in goal? This amounts to treason to South Africa, one of the most serious crimes that can be committed. Listen to this, Sir—

Sir, if the Commissioner could make findings there would be irrefutable evidence because the evidence was led by the Attorney-General in regard to these matters, as the Minister knows, and if the Attorney-General could lead evidence which would enable the Commissioner to make findings then despite everything that I think of that Minister I believe these people would be behind bars, but I do not believe that they have the evidence. I believe that is the tragedy. I believe that statements were made to the effect that there is or may be evidence of this or that this is what some people have said but that there is no proof, and that is the trouble; they are not capable of getting the proof. They are falling down on the job. They are suggesting that these things are going on but where is the proof? I do not believe that even this Minister would dare to sit there with the proof in his pocket without having these people charged before a tribunal of this country and put behind iron bars; I do not believe it.

I think the fourth point that is important in the Commissioner’s Report is that he recommends treatment for a symptom which he believes will facilitate adequate action. He does not say that he has found a cure; he is merely going to help the Minister to treat the symptoms as they exist and perhaps to relieve the pain, but he is a long way from giving the cause of the disease; he knows that and the Minister knows that. What does he recommend? He recommends first of all legislative action to remove the difficulties of identifying Poqo with the P.A.C. He makes it clear that in certain cases evidence has been made available to prove that Poqo and the P.A.C. are in all respects the same organization. He points also to the difficulty that in some cases that evidence has not been adequately produced or has not been available, and he suggests that legislative action may be taken in order to assist the State in that matter. I think the Commissioner makes out a very good case indeed for deciding that Poqo is the successor at law to the P.A.C., or shall I say the successor at criminal law to the P.A.C.

That is your child.

Did you hear that, Sir? The hon. member says that it is the child of the Opposition.

Shame on him!

You see, Sir, this is the spirit! Here we have people who are quite incapable of dealing seriously with a matter of national importance; everything must be played for political purposes. The public will learn what sort of people they have to deal with. But let us come back. The suggestion is that legislative action should be taken to identify these two bodies. I believe we could support such legislative action but I would like to know in what way it is going to be done. It could be done in any one of a number of ways and one that I can think of might not be acceptable because I rather fear that the Minister is going to be faced with the fact that if he identifies Poqo with the P.A.C. to-day, to-morrow they may take another name.

I am providing for that.

Well, we will see to what lengths the ingenuity of the Minister will lead us. I want to say quite frankly that as far as I am concerned I hope we shall be able to support his legislation, because I believe that that case has already been proved in the courts and my own information is to the same effect.

They have already changed their name to night club.

Well, I wish the Minister luck with the night club. Perhaps he is more familiar with clubs of that kind than I am. The Minister suggests that that legislation might have to be retrospective; I believe it may have to be. But, Sir, this is a difficult assignment, it is one that is going to be difficult to achieve. It could be tackled in a number of ways and we will have to reserve our final judgment until the hon. the Minister produces his Bill.

Then, Sir, the Commissioner recommends that in effect the provision of Section 21 (4) of the Sabotage Act should be made applicable, and the reason underlying the recommendation is most significant. He makes that recommendation because he as Commissioner recognizes implicity the inability of the State to protect Crown witnesses between a preparatory examination and the trial before the Supreme Court. Here we find that the Minister of Justice, who tells us that everything is calm and peaceful in South Africa, that in his opinion he has taken adequate steps to deal with this matter, is faced with a recommendation from his own Commissioner that these provisions should be made applicable because the Minister cannot protect his own witnesses between the preparatory examination and the Supreme Court trial.

So what!

The hon. the Minister says “so what”! Must we accept that his idea of a calm and peaceful South Africa is a Republic in which he cannot protect witnesses, in many hundreds of cases, between the preparatory examination and the Supreme Court trial? Hon. members sit there jeering; they know the trouble we had protecting witnesses against the Ossewa Brandwag. They know all about it. They did not jeer then; then they thought it was clever.

May I put a serious question to the hon. member?

No, I am sorry. After the behaviour of hon. members opposite yesterday, I do not propose to reply to any questions from them.

Now, Sir, a Judge takes this line. Do you know that the Minister says that everything is calm and peaceful in South Africa? I want to say to the Minister very honestly that I hope we can find reason to support him in anything which will result in the destruction of the Poqo organization. But I should be very sad indeed to feel here in the Republic of South Africa that I had to give my support to a measure of this kind because the State was not able or willing or prepared to take the trouble to protect its witnesses between the preparatory examination and the trial. I hope very sincerely that before this Minister comes before this House with the legislation which he proposes, his police will have told him that there is no need for panic at this time, that they can do the job. I hope he will be able to tell us that.

What worries me too is that when this debate took place yesterday we had the ridiculous attempts of the hon. the Minister to get a “yes” or “no” reply from the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). Despite the fact that the hon. the Minister has said that he is legislating on other matters as well. Is this clause going to apply to them or not?

That is a silly question wiht reference to the report.

You see, Sir, it is the old story which we get from this Minister. One good provision in a Bill and he ties a lot of bad ones to it and then he says: “Are you going to support me, because I have one good provision?” I think the next question we have to ask is: How did we get into this position? The reason why we are in this position is set out, I think, in paragraphs 8 and 9 which say that the P.A.C. took on the name of Poqo from 1960 and flourished openly in the Cape Province. Paragraph 9—

The Minister says that this is nothing new. He knew all about this. What was he doing if he knew all about this?

I arrested them.

The Minister says he arrested them. That is one thing he had done; I had hoped he would produce another. I shall deal with that in a moment. In his Press statement he says he will introduce legislation as soon as the law advisers get around to it. He reminded us that there was a statement during the election in 1961 about 1963 being the year of revolution, the year of take-over, a warning which the Government took seriously. The hon. the Prime Minister anticipated the date of the election and gave that as one of the reasons. So it is not just last year that he knew about this or the year before. He has known it for three years. Now what has he done during those three years? I think when we ask that question there are certain criticisms which must be answered. The first is that he has not coped adequately with the situation as it has developed. I think the second is that he has lacked either the insight or the ingenuity to find even the temporary remedies proposed by the Judge or to apply them. I think those criticisms were made in a very restrained and very responsible manner by means of a very restrained and responsible impeachment by the hon. member for Germiston (District). What was the Minister’s answer? One of the most revealing things we have had in this House. What was his answer? First of all, to make himself guilty of a number of glaring and reprehensible inaccuracies, glaring and reprehensible inaccuracies, Sir, for which the only charitable explanation is that they were based on ignorance. But that must have been abysmal ignorance. What was the first? The hon. the Minister suggested that the United Party opposed the Unlawful Organizations Bill throughout.

Hear, hear!

There you have it, Sir. He suggested that the United Party opposed the Unlawful Organizations Bill throughout, the Bill which provided for the banning of the P.A.C. and the A.N.C. [Interjections.] Sir, they are anticipating a possible lapse of memory on the part of the hon. the Minister. I have here my full note of what he said.

But you have the wrong notes.

This was what he said—

Those were his words, Mr. Speaker. If he wants to correct them I shall accept it. But surely he knows as well as I do that we opposed the first reading. Surely he knows as well as I do that an arrangement was come to; that this party supported the second reading.Oh yes, the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) knows that. He did his best to put the Minister right when he spoke. He did it very well; I want to congratulate him. And we supported the third reading, Sir. But oh, no, we must play politics; we must try to tell the public that the United Party opposed the banning of those two organizations. And that from a Minister in a serious debate.

Secondly, Sir, what happened? We had the hon. the Minister trying to make the cheap political point and making a most scandalous statement in which he attempted to suggest— and he was followed by other members afterwards—that he United Party Opposition and Poqo, with only one difference, had the same political objectives. Can you imagine what the effect of a statement like that from the Minister of Justice is upon an organization determined to overthrow White rule in South Africa and chase what Whites there are back to the countries they came from 300 years ago? Here is what the hon. the Minister said—

Hear, hear!

You hear them all shouting “hear, hear”, Sir? But the Minister told me that he accepted the findings of the Commission. Here is what the Commissioner finds—

Does the Minister accept this report? If he accepts the report why did he make an irresponsible statement like that? I hate sinking to the level of people who make statements of that kind but it seems to me that if you are looking for similarities the similarities between the Nationalist Party and Poqo are very much more marked than between the United Party and Poqo. You see, Sir, both are extremist organizations; each one wants to dominate every other section; the one wants a parliament in which only Whites are represented and the other wants a parliament in which only Blacks are represented. They are very similar, Sir. But there are other points of similarity. Both want people of different races to themselves to return to their alleged countries of origin. There is a third similarity, Sir, that should be familiar to this hon. Minister. Both seem to be under the impression that certain leading members of their party were wrongfully interned.

The third thing which this hon. Minister did in trying to reply to this debate. He tried to use this occasion to talk himself out of the challenge which I made to him earlier on concerning the banning of a man called Hjul by suggesting that the man in respect of whom I issued a challenge was one of those Europeans responsible for sending Poqo agents to the Transkei to disrupt the peace and to terrorize the people. The hon. member for Heilbron went further; he suggested that I challenged the hon. the Minister about Vigne as well. That is just his imagination; it runs away with him sometimes. My challenge to the Minister was a very simple one. I asked him to tell us whether he banned Hjul because he believed he was a communist or because he, the Minister, equated liberalism with Communism; because Hjul was a liberal he thought he could ban him as a communist? I suggested that in order to test this matter he should bring him to court and give him a trial and, if the Minister is right, and he is guilty I hope he is convicted, and then reveal to the world that there is at least one man on whom he has inflicted certain limitations who has been proved of having assisted the objects of Communism. He tries in this speech to suggest that this is one of those persons who are associated with sending Poqo agents to the Transkei. He says in so many words: “When I ban these people I get protests and reproaches from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.” [Interjections.] I had nothing to do with Patrick Duncan. I am tying him down to Hjul. Let us stick to Hjul. It was the hon. the Minister who chose the battlefield not me; he chose the battlefield and he chose the referee. He has even chosen the rules under which we play the game. I challenge him again. I challenge him now in this House, if this statement of associating Hjul with paragraph 18 of the report suggests that he is one of those who send Poqo agents to the Transkei to cause trouble, to prosecute Hjul and to bring him before the courts. I will help him if necessary. If a man does that he deserves to be prosecuted and found guilty. If that was the real reason for the banning of Hjul what a pity he did not tell us the first time. What a pity we had all this nonsense of challenge and counter-challenge, of statements and the Minister trying to get me off the ball. Surely he knows by this time that once our pleadings have been filed I stick to them. He knows that. I ask him, Sir, to charge Hjul in accordance with the hon. Minister’s speech and let us see what happens. I would be very happy if he were convicted if he is guilty, very happy. If he is found guilty I hope it will be a very serious sentence because this is one of the most shocking accusations ever made against a European in South Africa.

That was the beginning of the hon. Minister’s statement. Then he made certain attempts to justify his position. He says that he has acted and he points to a few hundred members of Poqo and saboteurs in gaol. What is the effect of that on the Commissioner, Mr. Justice Snyman? He seems to be so little impressed by the success of the efforts of the hon. the Minister that he considered it his duty to bring the situation urgently to the attention of the Government. That was after the Minister had put people in gaol. That was during the last few weeks. The hon. the Minister tried ta justify his position in a second way. He says he has taken administrative action against certain people. He proudly claims that he thereby avoided the hell which he says was promised for 1963. You know, Sir, to many observers his so-called bannings seem to have little effect on the maintenance of law and order. He seems to be concentrating on comparatively innocuous individuals. We still do not know whether he has taken action against them because they are communists or because he equates liberals with communists or because they have been guilty of specific misdeeds, That, Sir, is the reply of the hon. the Minister.

What is the situation as it exists to-day? The Minister claims that everything is peaceful and calm in South Africa.

Do you deny that?

Sir, the Minister asks whether I deny that? I do not know whether to believe the Minister or not. He says everything is peaceful and calm but he warns us that there are going to be outbursts. He warns us, as he did this morning, that the police are mobilized and the Army is alerted. Everything is peaceful and calm.

A calm and peaceful hell.

That is the Minister’s claim: peace and calm but the police are mobilized and the Army alert. Then, Sir, we have the Commissioner who clearly thinks that a serious situation exists. We accept the facts found by the Commissioner in his report, not where he says that there is evidence that this is so or that is so, but where he makes findings. We accept his findings, we accept that he as an honest man has, to the best of his ability, come to those conclusions. So does the Minister. What does the Commissioner find? He finds that there is a very serious situation, one which makes him come as a matter of urgency to the hon. the Minister.

There is a third thing. Despite having a Minister, clothed under the General Law Amendment Act last year with powers unequalled in this country, even in war-time, we still seem to be having more sabotage than we ever had during the war years. What does that mean? There is something else, Sir. For the first time organized murder has been used in South Africa as a political weapon. The Minister knows what I mean when I say that.

Fourthly, despite the limited number of Poqo in the Transkei—the Minister says that they are limited; the Commissioner says so; I accept that—there is still a state of emergency in the Transkei. No one can say that peace and quiet has been restored there yet.

I hope it will come, but the emergency is still in operation.

Fifthly, Sir, you find from this report that protection is not yet accorded to the ordinary law-abiding citizen in the Native areas and townships and indeed even to the Whites in the Transkei. The processes of law are frustrated by a fear which prevents co-operation with the authorities. This is no new situation; this is one of which we warned at the time of the bus boycott in 1955. This is one we spoke about at the time the Unlawful Organizations Bill was discussed in 1960. This is a situation we spoke about last year when the General Law Amendment Bill came before Parliament. We spoke of the signal failure of this Government to give protection to the non-European, the emergent middle-class African, in his own township, in his own areas, to assist in the maintenance of law and order.

Lastly, Sir, when we evaluate the situation at the present time the position in respect of Communism is probably more serious to-day that it was at any time in our history. It is being aggravated, Sir, by the attitude of this Minister …

And by your speeches.

Not by my speeches. That is the one thing that destroys Communism in South Africa. The position is being aggravated by the attitude of this Minister who is trying to equate liberalism with Communism. As a result he is creating the impression that every do-gooder in the nation is a communist and building up an image for communists as the friends and helpers of even the responsible non-European population.

Do you accept the recommendations of the Commission?

I have told you already; were you not listening? I shall tell you again, do not worry.

Was Duncan a communist?

My friend asks: Was Duncan a communist? I do not believe so and I do not believe the Minister can prove it. I believe Duncan behaved disgracefully; I believe he supported a boycott of South Africa which I cannot defend. I believe he suggested that overseas countries should use force against South Africa and I think that is treason …

You do that.

The member says I do that. He says that I suggest that overseas countries should use force against South Africa. I challenge him, Sir, let him stand up and tell us where I have ever said that. [Interjections.] You see where we are, Mr. Speaker. They cannot carry on an argument, so all they can do is to make the most irresponsible statements in an attempt to play politics instead of discussing this matter on a decent basis.

I told you, Sir, when I started that we had hoped not to have a political debate on this matter; we had hoped not to be alarmists; we had hoped not to do any damage. The position is responsibly stated in this report. Neither the Minister nor any member opposite can deny it. I think if you look at the situation to-day I am sure it is a record of dismal failure on the part of this hon. Minister and the Government. What is the solution?

Race federation.

That is the first sensible thing you have said.

Some hon. members are getting educated slowly. Before long they will be supporting race federation. What is the solution? I would say the first step, the immediate step, is that there should be firm interim measures taken against Poqo. Poqo must be stamped out. Poqo must understand that despite the attempt of members on that side who create the impression that the United Party supports them, their greatest enemy in South Africa is the United Party. I said that the hon. the Minister intended to introduce certain measures once the law advisers have drafted them. We will evaluate those measures when they are placed before us. I told the hon. the Minister that I believe that we would support his proposals to take legislative steps to identify Poqo with the P.A.C. I told him I hoped we could take other measures to assist him if he has to come to this House and admit that he cannot protect witnesses between the preparatory examination and their trial. I hope, however, that he will not have to come but admit that his legislation has broken down to that extent. He says he is taking other measures; I do not know what they are. I presume from his statement that he is acting under 21 (4) which means that he is not going to ask for special courts. I can assure him that if he wants to ask for special courts he will have very sympathetic consideration, depending on the way in which they are to be constituted and the powers which he proposes to give them.

The Commissioner’s interim recommendations, as I have said, are only a remedy for a symptom of an evil, an evil which I believe has resulted from the policy of this Government during the time it has been in power. We have warned before, we warned last year at the time of the General Law Amendment Bill, of the inability of the Government to protect the law-abiding citizens; we showed how a state of affairs was being created in which there was a fertile seed-bed for the germination of communists and Pan Africanist ideas.

Was that why you call it a police state?

We suggested, also to that hon. member, that the only way to fight Communism and Pan Africanism was to place against it an ideology more powerful and more attractive than the ideologies behind those movements. All we got were cheap political interjections. I want to say now that I do not believe you will get a solution while there is a situation in which racial tension continues to exist and to be amplified. I believe I am right in saying to this Government that it is not enough to restore law and order now. We shall help you to restore law and order. We helped you once before. Were it not for the members on this side of the House and the responsible attitude they took up at that time, I believe the Minister’s job might have been a great deal more difficult. We believe that when you come to restoring law and order you must also remove the causes and destroy the seed-bed in which disorder and revolution will flourish, and in which movements like Communism, Pan Africanism and Poqo find ready adherents and are able to intimidate people into joining their movement. We have also given them that warning before. We have given it on many occasions. I have spoken in this House before now of a minimum policy in respect of which I believe this Government could co-operate in an attempt to do away with a situation which is resulting in these organizations flourishing. I suggest firstly that we should stop classifying Bantu permanently settled in our urban areas as potential citizens of states yet to be formed. I know, Mr. Speaker, you will not allow me to expand on that, because we have Transkei legislation before us. I believe secondly that we should tackle the problem of the development of the reserves, whether the Transkei or any other reserve, in a dynamic manner as a matter of major national responsibility. We should accept that certain of the old systems are falling away there, and we should prepare to meet the new situation and try and take steps which lead to diversification of the economic life of the people in those areas, and that we must accept that White skill, White capital and White initiative are necessary for that development. Sir, thirdly we must accept that the detribalized Native outside the reserves is a permanent part of our population, that he should have a say in his own municipal self-government, that he should have home-ownership in his own locations, that he should have undisturbed family life; steps should be taken to do away with the friction caused by the pass laws by creating a class of exempted Natives, and we should realize that he should have some representation of whatever kind in this Parliament which controls him. Because of our peculiar situation there should be separate residential areas for these people, but better amenities should be created for them as a positive act of community development, a challenge, Sir, to the new Minister of Community Development. We should examine and re-assess those laws which discriminate against the non-European not because they are necessary to maintain Western standards, but discriminate against him because he is non-European. Sir, I think we want to go further. The Government has understood our problem. They are coming our way in respect of an immigration policy, but I would like to see it more dynamically applied, because I think they appreciate with us the importance of maintaining Western influence through White political influence here in South Africa. Sir, those would be minimum suggestions. I could give many more. They have been raised so often in this House, and it seems that I cannot penetrate the solidified thinking of the present Cabinet, I cannot penetrate the fixed ideas which they have, ideas of which the hon. the Minister of Justice was saying only the other day that nothing will make him change—no disturbances, no troubles, no difficulties. They will continue along that path. He may reach a glorious end, Sir, but he will reach an end perhaps a lot more quickly than he believes. Because that policy is going to fail and he knows it.

But, Sir, if I am to make one last plea, then that plea is perhaps the most important of all, and that is this: Please do not let this Government wait until it gets the findings of the Snyman Commission as to the underlying causes of all these troubles. From the evidence it is already quite clear that a large number of the findings he will have to make are going to be the things of which we have been warning this Government for many years. Why wait for another commission? Why not get busy now trying to deal with these problems in the interest of South Africa? I promise hon. members opposite that if they are prepared to get down and tackle those problems they will have support from this side of the House. We are not looking for political gain in those things. We are trying to put the interests of South Africa first. That is why we did not want to have an acrimonious debate of this kind. We thought of the effects there might have been overseas. We thought of the troubles that might arise. We knew the irresponsibility of members opposite who are trying to persuade these underground ignorant organizations that they have the support of the strongest party in the Opposition in South Africa.

Lastly, there is only one thing the Government should do, and let me appeal that it may be this, that they will ensure the proper protection of the law-abiding Bantu, whose assistance they need to maintain law and order in South Africa.

Finally, may I say what a tragedy we on this side of the House believe this incident at Paarl was, what sympathy we have with the victims of this tragedy, and how much we hope that it will be possible to follow policies which will ensure that there will never be more incidents of this kind. I think, Mr. Speaker, that in my heart of hearts I know that cannot happen unless there is a change of Government. I pray earnestly that it may be possible for us to reach that measure of agreement to ensure that we will have no more incidents of this kind in our public life in South Africa.

We are not bluffed in the least by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s appeal towards the end of his speech. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a direct, blatant attack on the Government and on the Minister of Justice. It is because of that that I rise to cross swords with him and at the same time to inform him that I do not believe for a single moment that the statement which he made towards the end of his speech that he will support us was genuinely meant. I do not have the slightest faith in it. I base my attitude not only on his reaction but also on the cynical way in which the United Party in recent times has been trying to bring South Africa under the impression that in its struggle against the Government it is anti-Bantu and pro-White. In spite of everything that they say, they have been engaging in a type of propaganda recently which I think is more shameless than anything that has ever been seen in South Africa.

I want to deal at once with the attack which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a moment ago. Why did he do this? Why this seemingly great indignation because a debate was conducted here yesterday for which he as Leader of the Opposition is responsible and not the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker)? I refuse to believe that the decision to convert a Budget debate immediately into an attack upon the Government in pursuance of the Snyman Report was made without the knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition and without his instructions. I accept that the decision was taken deliberately to make an attack upon the Government and that it was decided that that attack should be made at an early stage while the motion of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) was being seconded. I also accept that when that deliberate attack failed so dismally, the United Party’s continuous retreat yesterday afternoon was also the result of an instruction. In other words, what I am saying here is that the United Party thought that they had chosen a good battlefield, and when they retreated from that battlefield they did not expect to be pursued by us. When we did pursue them to point out that this attack must be viewed as part of the recent cynical attempt at propaganda on the part of the United Party and that it forms part of the pattern whereby it is sought to mislead South Africa, they were anxious to escape from the trap, not a trap which had been set for them by the hon. the Minister, as alleged by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but a trap which they had set themselves and in which they then became enmeshed. The stage was suddenly reached yesterday when the henchmen of the Leader of the Opposition could no longer hold the fort; he had to go and consult with all of them the whole afternoon and the whole evening. The result of their serious preparation is this sham indignation which accompanied their attack a moment ago. In addition to that, as a second part of their tactics, an attempt has been made to create the impression in South Africa that in spite of all the bitter and acrimonious things that they said against the Minister of Justice and against us, the Opposition nevertheless wish to help the Government. Let me say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that in the light of the reputation which his party has acquired in South Africa in recent times, the reputation of being people who at one stage apparently fought for the morality of treating the Bantu in a certain way and not in a way which would be unfair to him, but who latterly have turned a complete somersault in respect of all their arguments and in respect of the views that they formerly held, nobody has any respect any longer for their word in this connection or for any promises that they make in this connection. I would be ashamed if I were the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if I had to lead a party which is capable of somersaulting in this way and of carrying on as they have done recently.

Where?

Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition still not know how they have somersaulted in their colour policy attacks? I know it perfectly well, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also to him, the people of South Africa know it perfectly well. As a matter of fact, it is an interesting phenomenon that the Press which usually supports the United Party is so ashamed of the present attitude of the United Party that in recent times its own newspapers have given very little support to the attempts on the part of the United Party to attack the Government.

But I am still dealing with the argument that the Leader of the Opposition had to enter this debate to-day in an attempt to save his party from the dismal defeat that it suffered yesterday. The debate yesterday exposed the Opposition’s unwillingness to enable the Government, at least by remaining silent, to combat the pernicious evils which are emerging in our midst. These evils are emerging in South Africa not because of any fault of the Government’s, as he suggests, nor because of the Government’s policy, as he also contends. The evil that is rearing its head here is due to three reasons. The one is the nationalistic aspiration which is developing over the whole of Africa, an aspiration which can be guided in South Africa towards a genuine Bantu nationalism on a basis of separation, or which can be guided towards a type of nationalism which is really imperialism and the aim of which is to conquer South Africa. Secondly there is the support, based on misunderstanding or wilfulness, which comes from the outside world. Thirdly there are the attacks which have been, made for years by the Opposition against the present régime, attacks which have been made in such a way that the expectation has been aroused in the minds of this very group of agitators that they will be able to achieve success with the assistance of certain Whites. That is why I adopt the attitude that if anybody is to blame for creating the atmosphere in which such bodies develop, the United Party as the main Opposition party must accept the responsibility for it. This atmosphere does not flow from the actions or the policy of the Government party.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows now that these are the circumstances under which this debate is being conducted. It is because he realizes, after yesterday’s debate, that the nature of their attempt to attack the Government and the failure of that attempt will not go unnoticed by the people of South Africa, that he has tried to-day to save something from the wreck. That attempt of his was a complete failure. His indignation impresses nobody except perhaps hon. members on the other side of the House.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that his accusation against us is that in this connection we are seeking to play at politics. I fling that accusation back in his teeth. I say that the responsibility for any attempt to make political misuse of the Snyman Report lies at the door of the Leader of the Opposition personally. The Snyman Report was issued with the intention of serving South Africa, but the United Party behaves as though it was issued to serve the United Party. The Judge issued this report with the intention, I believe, of making it possible for the Government, with the support of the whole country, if at all possible, to take steps against the danger that we have been warning against for a long time and in connection with which we have been taking steps but in connection with which we do not have the universal support that we deserve. I do not doubt for a single moment that the inference that I draw as to the Judge’s objectives in submitting an Interim Report, is much more likely to be true than the inference drawn by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggests that it is intended as a warning to urge us to take action. I contend, however, that it was realized by the Judge that any action that is taken should receive general support; that seems to me to be the position if I have to read between the lines, and I have just as much right to read between the lines as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I have just as much right as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to draw my own inference as to the Judge’s motives.

The Leader of the Opposition read the lines; you are reading between the lines.

I have just as much right to draw inferences, and I am not going to allow myself to be led by that hon. member who is usually completely off the rails. I draw the unambiguous inference that the Judge came up against something which he realized was extremely important and that although he realized that the State was also aware of what was going on, he also realized that there were large sections of the population in South Africa, and most certainly and particularly those people who get their information from the United Party and its Press, who did not fully realize what we were up against here. I believe that he felt in the circumstances that it was high time, for the sake of South Africa, that a disclosure came from an impartial source as to what we were up against so that people would be able to understand why the Government acted in the way it did in order to combat subversive acts of this kind. To my mind the fact that the Judge submitted a definite recommendation that certain legislative action which the Government has already taken in another connection should also be taken in this case is an indication that he is of the opinion that the Government is following the right lines, and also the Minister of Justice, and he recommends that we should take further steps along the same lines.

Far from criticizing the Government and far from criticizing the Minister of Justice therefore, I think that this report is a means that was resorted to by an enlightened person of impartial character in an attempt to support the State. I suppose he hoped that it would unite the whole of South Africa in an effort to destroy the organization concerned. In return for this service rendered by the Judge his report has now been dragged into the political arena by the United Party through the hon. member for Germiston (District) under the inspiration of the Leader of the Opposition.

Shame!

When we go into the arguments advanced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, we find that he made so many allegations which are entirely out of place that it is not possible to deal with all of them at this stage. I do want to deal with a few of them, however. He suggested, if I remember correctly, that the Minister of Justice in putting up the defence which he did here yesterday, gave no attention to the public interest and that he took no notice of world opinion and the effect on world opinion. In point of fact that is precisely what the Minister did. Since the Leader of the Opposition has taken it upon himself to criticize the Minister of Justice in the way that he did and since he has tried to belittle the Minister, I want to say at once that the Minister of Justice has my full and unequivocal personal support. I think he is an extremely capable Minister of Justice. I am also convinced that he has this matter under better control than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would have had if he had been Minister of Justice. If I had to chose between the two to take charge of the police and justice during a period of subversion such as we have in this country to-day, I would most certainly not choose the Leader of the Opposition, even if we had no political differences, because I do not think the Leader of the Opposition has either the strength or the judiciousness or the drive to deal with a matter such as this. My reply to the personal attacks upon him by the Leader of the Opposition, attacks which in my opinion were improper, is that I have implicit confidence in my Minister of Justice.

What he said hurt!

If the hon. member is saying that I was hurt, my reply is that I was hurt by two things. The one is that the Leader of the Opposition thinks that it is in the interests of his country and his nation, during a period of crisis such as this … [Interjections.]

Hear, hear!

Yes, I shall explain that too. I say that I deplore the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, during a period of crisis, made such an attack, in the personal way in which he did so, upon the Minister of Justice, whom he even described as childish, if I remember correctly. To do that sort of thing at a serious time when the interests of the nation are at stake, is extremely reprehensible.

Hon. members opposite laughed a moment ago because I said that we were going through “a period of crisis”. They link that up, of course, with the attack they made both on the Minister of Justice and on myself for having said that there was more peace and order in South Africa than in most other countries in the world. I repeat both allegations, and I ask anybody who knows this country and its circumstances to deny it. In the first place therefore, I say that there is more peace and order in South Africa than in most countries of the world. I say that in this country there are far fewer disturbances, even of the kind that took place in Paarl unfortunately, than in many other countries of the world. Do not let us try to run down our country by suggesting to the world that a state of disorder prevails here, because that is not the position. We have peace and order such as hon. members will find in few countries in the world. The investments which are being made in the Republic of South Africa, the boom in trade and all those things which are demonstrated by this Budget, testify to the fact that peace and order prevails in this country. That state of affairs is due to the Government that the Republic has, and to the steps taken by the Government to maintain peace and order. Any country which refuses to give its police the necessary support, will find immediately that there is disorder in that country. Order and peace cannot be divorced from the powers which are necessary to maintain peace and order. There is order and peace in every state where the police are able to ensure that the community lives in order and peace. Surely nobody would contend that because a Government strengthens its Police Force and because it strengthens its Defence Force that that is a sign that there is no order and peace there! On the contrary, it is a good sign if a state strengthens itself so as to be able to ensure the maintenance of order and peace. But, in the second place, surely nobody will dispute my further statement that in South Africa we are going through a period of crisis. We know that there is a clear struggle going on in the whole of the world, we know about UNO and its causation or handling of crisis. We know about the developments in Africa. We know about all the threats against South Africa. We know that we have agitators here in our midst. It is true that they can achieve nothing; they cannot disturb our peace and order, but we are living in a period which is pregnant with possibilities of trouble. We have never disputed that. There are two facts which nobody can dispute, the first being the fact we have peace and order in our fatherland, thanks to a good Government, which takes the necessary steps in spite of jeers and vituperation from the United Party, and secondly that we are living in a period which must cause great concern to the Government and which should also give the United Party cause for concern. If it had not been so anxious to get into power, the United Party itself would not have been so completely irresponsible. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has accused the Government of being irresponsible.

Yes.

Yes, but I accuse the United Party and its leader of supreme irresponsibility. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can shrug his shoulders; he is nevertheless still to blame. The conduct of the Opposition in dragging this Poqo problem into this debate in this way is the greatest manifestation of irresponsibility that I have ever seen. The continual attempt in recent times to create the impression that the Government is doing less than justice to the Whites because of a desire to do too much for the Bantu, is highly irresponsible. So too are speeches such as those made by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) who said the other day, “I only think of the White man” I am not sure that she did not also add, “I have nothing to do with Kaffirs”, but I think she did. But she did at least say: “When I think of anybody, I think of the White man only.” To talk about the National Party in this way, only makes the United Party appear petty and, furthermore, only creates the impression that the United Party is really anti-Bantu. As I said a moment ago this sort of irresponsibility which we find within the United Party and which goes unpunished, makes the United Party an extremely irresponsible Opposition. That is why, when the time comes, the electorate will deal with it again. I say again that if the Leader of the Opposition makes accusations against this side he must know full well that those accusations can be flung back in his teeth with double force.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to know why this Interim Report was submitted. He says that it was submitted because there is a serious situation, because urgent action by the State is considered necessary and because it is also desirable to obtain the confidence of the peace-loving Bantu in particular by protecting him. I agree that the Interim Report seeks to bring to our notice the fact that there is a serious underground situation. We knew it; we said so. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, however, would not always believe it. Whenever measures which are placed before this House are debated here, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition denies the seriousness of the situation, or he tries to get away from it by saying: “Yes, that is the superficial cause, but what is the underlying cause? Your policy is the cause of it.” He tries to shelter behind that excuse on every occasion. He did not only do so to-day, although he again tried to do so; he always does it. The fact of the matter is that he has continually tried to minimize and hide the seriousness of the situation by attributing it to other so-called causes. Actually this merely gives him a political motive for pushing his Party’s policy as the one which will allegedly remove these causes—which will not happen, of course. I shall come to that. He dealt with this towards the end of his speech. I say again that a serious situation has in fact been revealed. In my opinion the Report reveals this situation to that section of the general public who may not have been prepared perhaps to accept the Government’s word. The Report also calls for urgent action. I think in recommending that the Judge wanted the United Party and other Opposition parties to realize that urgent action was necessary. I accept that the Judge is right in saying what all of us have often said, and that is that in order to retain the confidence of the peace-loving Bantu we must be in a position to protect them. We are doing everything that we possibly can to protect the peace-loving Bantu. The main reason, however, why the Judge disclosed all this, was not to force the Government’s hand because, after all, he realizes that the Government is taking action. He must have known that the Government was introducing further legislation because the Minister had announced his intention to do so, but he specifically encourages the passing of even further legislation. He specifically places a particular item in the forefront for that legislation. I think it was his desire to help the Leader of the Opposition to get over the obstacles which have continually prevented him from co-operating properly or giving his support unconditionally when important proposals are made to take steps against sabotage, proposals which the Leader of the Opposition has always viewed with suspicion. He has always looked for something which is not relevant as the motivation for such proposals.

It was also highly irresponsible on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to accuse the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Froneman) in that portion of his speech of having made an allegation which is tantamount to saying that half the White population supports Poqo. The hon. member did not say that. The United Party says that it has half the population behind it, and it is the United Party which places that interpretation upon his remark, namely that the United Party by its conduct is giving support to Poqo. That is an entirely different thing from saying that half the population supports Poqo.

He said that Poqo was the child of the United Party.

But what does he mean by it? He means what I said a moment ago, that this type of organization could only come into being with the assistance of three factors and one of those is the atmosphere created by the policy of the United Party. But “half the population,” as he calls the supporters of the United Party, do not believe in it; the Leader of the Opposition must not flatter himself by believing that the vast majority of the members of his Party are satisfied with the attitude that they are adopting here, an attitude which gives indirect support to Poqo. I repeat that in spite of the fact that the leaders of the United Party say that they are the worst enemy of Poqo, the way in which the United Party acts, that is to say, by accusing the State of doing the wrong things which allegedly give rise to the birth of organizations such as Poqo, in fact helps such a movement. The same Leader of the Opposition who levels this reproach against us says that Government policy is responsible for the fact that bodies of this kind come into being. That means that he again says that we are supporting Poqo; that we are creating the opportunity for it. That is what it amounts to. Such an attack is just a question of playing with words.

Cut out the “speletjies” (games).

I shall be glad if the hon. member will cut out his “speletjies” because he is doing nothing else. He is more or less the clown of Parliament.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, towards the end of his speech, made an allegation which is much worse than anything which the hon. member for Frankfort allegedly said, and that was when he accused the Minister of Justice of having said that in the political sphere there was only one difference between Poqo and the United Party, and that is that they have the same political aims with only one difference. It is quite clear what the hon. the Minister meant by that. He said it very clearly. It was that in the case of both organizations the aim was to have a Government in which the Black man would play a role, but in the one case, according to Poqo, the Black man should play the predominant role, and in the other case, according to the United Party, the White man should play the predominant role. What did the Leader of the Opposition then make of this? In regard to this statement or analogy which clearly concerned only one political point, he says: It is a terrible thing to intimate that the United Party associates itself with revolutionary methods. But that is not what the Minister of Justice said. He did not associate the United Party with the revolutionary methods of a subversive organization. He drew an analogy on that one point only. And what did the Leader of the Opposition then prove further? Not only did he ascribe to the Minister of Justice an implication which was not in his mind at all, but with the sham indignation of the United Party in regard to this smokescreen (which the Leader of the Opposition himself put up), he then continued to say that it is rather the National Party which is comparable to Poqo. He did not make a comparison in respect of a political point. No, he referred to the revolutionary methods. He does not say the National Party is comparable (as was alleged of the United Party) in respect of a point of difference in regard to the Constitution of the Government or something of that nature. No, he mentioned a whole series of points to intimate that the National Party is also an organization which, like Poqo, takes radical and extremist action. I am not saying that the Leader of the Opposition used the words “revolutionary methods”, but he intimated that we applied the same technique.

Where do you get that from?

I can see no other meaning in it than that he was drawing an analogy in respect of methods.

We are not arguing on that point now.

Then I simply say that if he alleges that he may say that our policy or actions are of a kind comparable with that of Poqo …

I said you were both extreme and dominating.

The hon. member first said that he himself was now going to say something hard, and that he did not like to argue in that way, and then he came to light with a whole series of comparisons between the National Party and Poqo. He compared them in order to show that there was similarity.

I just pointed out how dangerous it was.

That is the same person who dares to say that when an hon. member uses the argument that the policy of the United Party supports the objects of Poqo it is an insult, but his more comprehensive accusation is not. He dares to make a whole series of comparisons between the National Party and Poqo. I suppose that is not insulting, and that we just have to swallow it. I think the Leader of the Opposition has degraded himself and his party by trying to draw analogies in this way.

The Leader of the Opposition also made quite a number of further allegations. He quoted, for example, from the report, namely that the more Poqo commits crimes the more the Bantu are intimidated. I agree with that. Now what must one do to stop it? What must one do to prevent such intimidation, whether it is White people or Black people who are being intimidated? There is only one way to do it, and that is to seize such an organization by its throat and to deal severely with its leaders and its members. How is the State to do that? Is a subversive organization to be given the opportunity to make use of all the sly methods used by the communists? Should the State simply allow them to train their members in sabotage? Should the State give those leaders, even though they be the leaders of a murder gang, a chance to hide, whilst their minions commit these atrocious acts, because it knows that the proof which has to be adduced in a court is of such a nature that such people cannot be dealt with in the ordinary orthodox manner? Is a Government to say: Democracy is powerless against this kind of thing? Should one, after the event, try to pass legislation to cover every item or form of subversion to which the leaders of murder gangs may resort? Or should the Government of the Republic take steps, as is done quietly in certain circumstances in every democratic country, to prevent the country being endangered? We describe the position in which we are as being a cold war. Hon. members know very well that in wartime it is often necessary to take steps to deal with subversion. [Interjections.] That happens in every country. What the hon. member does not want to admit is that his Government also did so. They continually deny us the right to apply methods other than resorting to the courts, as they themselves did. I frankly state it here as our clear policy that, if it is necessary to prevent communist subversion by methods other than the ordinary procedure by which a man is taken to court, then we will put the safety of the State and of its citizens above mere technicalities. I would like the administration of justice in our democratic country to prevail, and I am in favour of the courts being used in every case where it is possible to do so. I am against any undermining of the authority of the courts and of the administration of justice in any shape or form. But I also say that when we are in the midst of a cold war and have to deal with subversion and threats to the lives of the citizens or to the continued existence of the State by attacks or forms of sabotage which can only be dealt with in ways other than by taking people to court, then I am prepared, for the protection of my country and my people and my State, to use such methods. I will restrict the use of such methods as far as possible, but I shall not hesitate to put the safety of the State and of its citizens above any technical arguments.

In this regard the Leader of the Opposition said, in connection with the same report, that the Minister of Justice or the Judge—it was not clear to me whom he meant—evidently has certain evidence but no proof.

I say he made certain findings in certain cases, and I said that there were such findings but no evidence.

No, the Leader of the Opposition said, “He has no evidence.” But I do not know whether those words refer to the Minister or to the Judge.

I challenge him to bring the man before the court.

The hon. member even used the words afterwards: “He is falling down on his job because he has not got the proof”. It is in this regard that I want to make the following allegation: It may be that the police have enough proof to be certain who is guilty of certain acts, or even who inspired them, but if they want to go to court they must be able to adduce that proof in a form which will be acceptable to the court. Supposing the State finds itself in such a position in the case of sabotage or subversion—I am not referring to ordinary crime—must it then, when it has sufficient proof to satisfy itself that it knows what the position is, but not the kind of proof which will satisfy the court, cold-bloodedly sit back and allow these people to murder and undermine and organize sabotage? Or should the State take steps to prevent it? The Leader of the Opposition intimated that he accused the Minister of not having certain proof. Supposing he did not have it. It is often impossible to adduce all the proof. How many cases, even of ordinary crime, are there not where the police know what the position is but they do not have the type of proof which will satisfy the court? That is not something to accuse the Minister of. It is rather something which should induce the hon. member to adopt the attitude assumed by all responsible people right throughout the world when there is subversion of their state, viz. that the state must then evolve other methods of combating these threats. I therefore adopt the attitude that it is essenial to combat these threats timeously and to prevent these crimes, and the Minister has taken such steps. But when he takes such steps the Leader of the Opposition nevertheless says that he is not doing his work properly. The Leader of the Opposition is always suspicious and just makes all kinds of accusations.

The hon. the Leader further said that the report deals with the treatment of symptoms but does not deal with the actual causes. It is quite true that this report deals with a phenomenon as it manifests itself. The Leader of the Opposition now says that perhaps he will assist us in passing legislation to deal with that phenomenon, but he would be most reluctant to give his assistance in connection with this phenomenon which has to be dealt with, because he would much rather deal with the causes of it.

No, he did not say that.

The Leader of the Opposition said that he hoped that the Bill to be submitted would be of such a nature that he could support it, but that he would be very unhappy if he had to assist in connection with a Bill which dealt only with the symptoms and not with the causes. Then he continued to propound his own policy. I shall return to that later.

I first want to deal with the fact that hon. members opposite so easily make accusations which they cannot substantiate. The Leader of the Opposition, e.g., accused the Minister of Justice of giving an inaccurate statement of the facts when he alleged, in regard to the P.A.C. and Poqo, that last year the United Party was opposed to the General Law Amendment Bill, and that they thereby made it more difficult for him to cope with these organizations. But what did the Minister say? His words were that in spite of the resistance of the Opposition when the measure was announced …

From the time it was announced.

Well, what happened? It was announced that a measure would be introduced to deal with these organizations, and before hon. members knew what the contents of that Bill were, in other words, ever since it was announced the United Party refused to grant permission for the introduction of the Bill, and opposed it. Is that not opposing it from the time the measure was announced?

But then it means that the opposition did not cease.

Very well. But what happened thereafter? I have here the Cape Times of 22 March 1962, which deals with the attack by the United Party on the Sabotage Bill.

The wrong notes!

No, those are their words.

I want to ask the Prime Minister whether it is not correct that the difference of opinion between the Minister of Justice and myself was in regard to the Bill which in 1960 banned the P.A.C. and the A.N.C., and not in regard to the Sabotage Bill?

I have already said that those hon. members even opposed the first reading. In other words, they were not even prepared to allow the Minister to introduce a Bill to cope with this subversion, and that is the essential point. I now want to show how hon. members generally conduct themselves in regard to any step we take, and in that regard I want to quote what happened in the case of the Sabotage Bill. I want to show what hon. members’ general attitude is in regard to anything we have tried to do in order to deal with subversion, such as the General Law Amendment Act, the Sabotage Act, and then they pretend to be honest in their offers of assistance, notwithstanding these continuous attacks they make on us. Here they say—

There we now have a lot of remarks about the Minister, and then they say—

The Leader of the Opposition made a speech, in which he said—

So what?

In reply to that “So what”? I want to say that the hon. member to-day accuses the Minister and the Government of not adopting measures to take drastic action against subversion, and as against that I make the allegation that on every occasion when we have asked for the passing of measures to enable us to act, the United Party has not raised the objection that these powers asked for are not wide enough and that consequently these dangerous situations cannot be handled properly, but they then opposed it and gave many reasons for their opposition, inter alia that every step which was considered necessary would undermine the rights of law-abiding people. The Opposition does not accept that such measures are intended to deal with unlawful elements such as Poqo, but they continually try to oppose these measures by pretending that they would be improperly applied to law-abiding people.

In this connection I want to point out that the Leader of the Opposition made a great fuss and said that we should have taken stronger action so that the law-abiding Bantu could have confidence that the Government would protect them. (I should be glad if the hon. the Leader would tell his members to keep quiet, because I find it difficult to talk to him when they are doing the same). He says it is essential for the Government to act in such a way that the great mass of law-abiding Bantu will have confidence in the power of the Government to protect them, because then they will not be intimidated by others who threaten them with death. But when we try to evolve methods for doing this very thing, he attacks us. When, e.g. the police take action and carry out raids to try to ascertain whether there are weapons, we must continually endure the unpleasant reactions of the United Party and hear accusations as to how we are oppressing the Bantu. As soon as we say that there are law-abiding Bantu who co-operate with us against these subversive groups, they call those people our stooges. Every Native leader who co-operates with the Government is called a stooge. Those hon. members are continually making such accusations, and therefore I say that we will receive no real assistance at all from the United Party.

I now come to the final point made by the Leader of the Opposition, viz. that one should not deal with the symptoms only, but also with the causes. I ask myself what are the real causes. These causes do not lie, as he alleges, in the whole series of points of policy in regard to which the Opposition differs from us. For example, the cause is not that the Bantu cannot have property rights in the towns. The cause is not that they will have to exercise their franchise rights in the Bantu homelands and not in this Parliament. Supposing we had granted all that, and that the Bantu living in the urban Bantu residential areas could purchase an erf there, that would only have given them a greater claim to the franchise, as being part of the land-owning citizens of the country. That would not have minimized their demands. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not mind that, and perhaps he would even like it, namely the strengthening of their demand for the franchise in White South Africa. He wants to give them the franchise in this Parliament, but he wants to give them only eight representatives. Does he think that thereby he will for a single moment minimize the pressure exerted by this Poqo type of organization which we are discussing here? Does he want to tell me that he believes that these Poqo types, or any of the people who co-operated and conspired against South Africa together with the P.A.C. or the A.N.C. will then say: Very well, we can now buy erven and we can have eight representatives in Parliament, and now we have no further ambitions. Can he honestly say that? It should not be forgotten that we are now not dealing with the causes of anything else but the cause for the existence of this type of organization such as Poqo. How dare he say that this type of organization will not exist and will not act as it is doing now if we take the various measures he has mentioned? The Leader of the Opposition has just grasped at the Snyman Report and at this problem as a platform from which to propagate his general policy. But his policy, however much the Government and I may differ from it and condemn it as being a danger to the Whites, will not be regarded by outsiders, either by UN or by the African states, or by the Oliver Tambo group, or by the Luthuli group, or by the Poqo terrorists, as being any different from our policy. The reason is that all those I have mentioned want nothing else but Bantu domination, and therefore the hon. member does not satisfy them and his suggestions do not assist them. Therefore I must say with the greatest emphasis that this pronouncement made to the public of South Africa, that the United Party has a solution to these problems, is completely wrong. Not only does the policy of the United Party fail to provide the means for solving this problem, but the United Party has not the courage or the willingness to tackle the problem in the way the Minister of Justice does, and as it is necessary to tackle it. That is proved by the continuous opposition of the United Party to all legislation dealing with this matter. No, as I have already said, the background to these troubles lies in many factors, but what is very important is the atmosphere created in the country and in regard to it. The atmosphere which exists in respect of a country is influenced to a large extent by the way in which the Opposition attacks the Government.

It depends on the laws passed by the Government.

It depends on the way in which the Opposition at present depicts the Government not only to the Black people of South Africa but also to the world.

Ever since 1948 when we came into power, ever since the deep-seated jealousy of the United Party began to play a role, a distorted picture has been shown to the world through all the media available to them, by their own words, by their newspaper reports, by those who send reports overseas, by their Bantu newspapers which are read by the Black people in South Africa. Since that time we have had an atmosphere here in South Africa which can almost be described as one of continual incitement against the Government. It is in this atmosphere that many of the worst things can be hatched. That is where the guilt lies. The guilt lies with the United Party—no, with the Opposition: not only with the United Party but also with the other Opposition parties. That is the tragic part of it. The tragedy further is that after we had successfully coped with the difficulties with which we were continually faced, so that we achieved peace and good order, the United Party is now trying to exploit the position in another way. Whereas all these years it has adopted the attitude that we are the oppressors of the Native, and for all these years has incited, encouraged and fostered the idea in their minds of regarding the Government as an oppressor which they should get rid of, after it has helped to create that atmosphere for all these years, it now suddenly tries to adopt this attitude towards the Whites: We are your champions; we are the party most concerned with your interests; this Government is doing too much for the Blacks; we would like it to do less for the Blacks and more for the Whites! Now the United Party dares to adopt that attitude. As I said in the beginning, I think this is one of the most cynical political actions our country has ever experienced. But fortunately for South Africa this is not something which has really become deeply rooted either in South Africa or in the world. This Budget, which should really have been discussed in this debate and which the United Party has again, as on every occasion when there is a Budget debate or a debate on a motion of no confidence, has turned into a debate on Native affairs, has revealed three things. The one is the existence of stability and order in South Africa; the second is the confidence the White people of South Africa have in their own future, and thirdly there is the belief on the part of the great majority of the Bantu that along the road of apartheid a future also awaits them. The result of these three factors is that the outside world realizes more than ever before that the weal or woe of South Africa is in good hands. Overseas businessmen therefore also feel that they can come to South Africa with their investments, to link their prosperity with that of South Africa. They are beginning to realize that we are planning for the distant future, that we do not take a pessimistic view of the future as the United Party does, but that we view our future as people who know that South Africa will remain an orderly country. That is not the conclusion they come to because they think the Republic has no difficulties with which to cope, but because they believe that it has a Government which has and uses the necessary machinery (and is willing to create new machinery, with or without the co-operation of the Opposition) to retain proper control over everybody in the country and to secure peace and good order for every one. If once in a while there is an unfortunate incident, as happened at Paarl or at Sharpeville, I hope that what happened in the past will not happen again in the future, viz. that the United Party—I have in mind Sharpeville more specifically now—will assist to create the impression that this happened as the result of bad government by the White rulers of South Africa. It is the result of other factors. I therefore want to appeal to South Africa, and not to the leaders of the United Party. My appeal is that the people of South Africa should again recognize the United Party to-day for what it is namely an organization which seeks to make political capital out of everything that happens, a real party of vultures.

It very seldom happens that we on this side of the House follow the example of speakers on the other side of the House by prefacing our reply to a Minister—in this case the Prime Minister—with a word of thanks, but I want to thank the hon. the Prime Minister very earnestly to-day for his participation in this debate, for the way in which he did so and for the revelations that he made in the course of his speech. I want to thank him very sincerely for it.

Vulture.

Order!

There is one thing, however, for which I cannot thank him and that is the unfortunate observation which the Prime Minister made towards the end of his speech with regard to the attitude of the United Party at the time of the Sharpeville riots. Mr. Speaker, you and I can remember and all hon. members on this side and on the other side who were here at the time will also remember that in those days members on the Government side of the House were truly grateful for the responsible attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and all those who support him. We can remember the days when members of the Government walked about in the lobby of this House, livid with fear and anxiety, drawing courage from the responsible attitude of all South Africans, as interpreted by the United Party in particular. Today we find that the hon. the Prime Minister—I say this with sorrow—repays us with ingratitude.

Did you not say that we were to blame?

No, what we did do, as the Leader of the Opposition has again done to-day, was to say to the Government in all earnestness that it was not enough to deal with the superficial causes. We begged the Government to inquire exhaustively into the true causes of the unrest and the then riots in South Africa, and we put forward certain suggestions, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has again done this afternoon, in connection with the lines along which that exhaustive inquiry should be undertaken and the basis on which that reform should rest. Mr. Speaker, this is not the Prime Minister as I know him, and that is why I want to express my sorrow. I know that he sometimes becomes annoyed and even insulting as he did this afternoon, but I have never known him to be unappreciative of the loyalty of the Opposition in times of crises in the national life of South Africa. We on this side of the House deplore that very much indeed. But apart from that, we thank the hon. the Prime Minister for entering this debate because he made certain revelations in the course of his speech. The hon. the Prime Minister was very annoyed at the beginning of his speech. As his speech developed he calmed down, but at the beginning he was seething inside. He pretended to be annoyed with the Opposition. He should not be annoyed with us; he should be grateful to us for pointing out to the Government, with so much patience and so much love, the error of its ways. But the hon. the Prime Minister was really annoyed with the hon. the Minister of Justice. I am sorry he is not here. The Prime Minister was justifiably indignant and dissatisfied and unhappy about the very unfortunate intervention in this debate yesterday by the Minister of Justice who behaved in an unworthy fashion, who made use of a serious occasion as far as the people of South Africa are concerned to make cheap political attacks. The hon. the Prime Minister tried to refute it and he launched a counter-attack, but nothing that the hon. the Prime Minster or any member on the other side can say can detract from the utterly irresponsible words of the hon. the Minister of Justice, the utterly irresponsible attitude of the Minister of Justice, to the effect that except in one respect there is no difference in essence between the Opposition and Poqo. Mr. Speaker, can you honestly believe that? Here we sit together in this House, representing mainly, with a few exceptions, the Whites of South Africa, charged with a tremendous responsibility, and that is to justify and to defend in this multi-racial country of ours the attitude and the values of Western civilization, and then the Minister of Justice comes along— he was not being serious; it gave him pleasure to score a debating point in this debate against the Opposition—and for the sake of a debating point, he proclaims to the world that in essence there is no difference between the members on this side, who represent half of the White population of South Africa, and a demented, crazy, criminal organization like Poqo. It is incredible.

Shame!

The sentiments expressed by the Minister of Justice were echoed by the younger, less responsible members on the Government side, and the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) who, after all, is the chairman of the Native Affairs Commission, came along with these words: “I want to go further than that.” He had already gone too far, but he said that he wanted to go even further: “I want to go further than that. I say that I lay the responsibility for Poqo at the door of the Opposition. Poqo is the child of the Opposition.” Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take much notice of that member. I just want to deplore the fact that in his ignorance he followed in the footsteps of the Minister of Justice. I deplore it and I feel sorry for him. South Africa is also to be pitied if in a country which, according to the Prime Minister, is going through a period of crisis, members of the Cabinet, whose sentiments are then echoed by chairmen of responsible committees, reveal so much flippancy, so much superficiality, so much irresponsibility. Mr. Speaker, why are these extravagant—that is all one can call it—political attacks being made on a responsible Opposition by members on the Government benches? It is because—and I am sorry for hon. members opposite—they realize the complete failure of their policy in respect of race relations in South Africa. That is why the Prime Minister, contrary to his character, became annoyed this afternoon. He was annoyed because in his heart he realizes what a hopeless failure his policy is and that is why he projects his distrust and his fury onto the Opposition instead of looking into his own heart and at his own policy and at his own actions in South Africa. That explanis why we had the phenomenon here to-day that the Prime Minister, who in his own way is a political philosopher who likes, when he takes part in debates, to elevate his political philosophy to a gospel, to an incontrovertible series of 99 propositions like Martin Luther, spent his time making trivial little debating points except in the last few sentences of his speech.

Was your Leader making trivial little debating points because I was replying to him?

No, if the hon. the Prime Minister had replied to the points raised by my Leader, then this would have been a worthy debate. I do not know how to express it in Afrikaans because this is really an American saying, but I would say that “he skirted the melody”. He did not really reply to the points raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He put up a series of skittles and then tried to knock them over, but the charge made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his positive suggestions remain unanswered. In the first few sentences of his speech the hon. the Prime Minister referred to the fundamental issue, the fundamental need in South Africa, as he sees it,and that is to give expression in their own areas to the various nationalisms of the people in South Africa—Bantu nationalism and White nationalism. Not a word of course, about Coloured nationalism or Indian nationalism. The actions and the attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister and the attitude of members on the other side who make these extravagant and irresponsible statements, prove that they are beginning to realize that it is a fundamental fallacy to pretend that they can give expression to a separate Bantu nationalism in separate areas which are to be carved out of the heart of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, in this debate to-day I do not want to discuss another matter which is already before the House, namely the Transkei question. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. members opposite in which areas expression is to be given to the separate Black nationalism that they advocate? To which Natives’ nationalism is expression to be given? Because it is perfectly clear from the Report submitted by the Commissioner, Mr. Justice Snyman, that this nationalism in the Transkei, in the reserves—but in this particular case he mentions the Transkei—does not need special attention because the inhabitants of the Transkei are peaceful; they are law-abiding. Paragraph 14 of the Report says—

But the hon. members for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) and Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) alleged the very opposite in this debate.

No, the ChiefWhip is wrong. The hon. member for Drakensberg was supporting in advance what the Commissioner says in the next half sentence which I am going to read out—

There are such activities, as the hon. member for Drakensberg says, but the Judge says—

Mr. Speaker, where are they sent from? That is the basic question. Where do they come from? Where are they sent from?

And by whom? By liberals who have been built up by the Press.

That does not matter; the question is where they come from. They are sent from those parts of South Africa where Government policy makes no provision for giving expression to the Nationalism of the people concerned; they are sent from the urban areas of South Africa.

In other words, you want to give them an opportunity to give expression to their Nationalism here.

We are not dealing with “other words” now; we are dealing with my words. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can come along with his biting remarks, but there is one fact from which he cannot get away: South Africa’s troubles do not stem from the Bantu reserves; they come out of the urban areas where the Natives are crowded together without family life, without any security …

You are taking the side of Poqo.

The hon. member for Heilbron must decide whether he agrees with the hon. the Prime Minister or not. The hon. the Prime Minister says that we are pro-White and anti-Native; the hon. member for Heilbron says that we are advocating the cause of the Natives in South Africa! Hon. members on the other side must make up their minds what is wrong with the United Party.

Everything is wrong with them.

You are so terribly dishonest about this whole thing.

Mr. Speaker, there you have the underlying weakness, the irreparable weakness of the Government’s policy. I listened on Sunday to one of the propagandists giving a talk over the radio at half-past six under the title “African Survey”, and. Sir. do you know what he said? In the course of his talk he said—

He has no right to say that, because the attitude of the Opposition has always been that this policy of separate development, the Bantustan policy, is a myth as far as the majority of the Natives in South Africa are concerned. May I just say in passing that to us it is no longer a myth; it never has been a myth; it has always been a threat to the continued existence of civilized standards and Western values in South Africa, and we are grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister, and also sorry for him, because his entry into this debate today and the way in which he entered the debate has shown us how helpless the Government feels in respect of this mythical policy of theirs. It has shown us that they have no real solution for the problem of the Natives in our urban areas. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Government is in earnest in alleging that it seeks to solve the problem by giving expression to separate Bantu Nationalisms in seven or nine separate Bantu areas which are to be created in South Africa? Because the latest census figures in South Africa reveal that in the first ten years of this Governments’ rule, or rather from 1950-60, a further 1,000,000 Native workers migrated from the reserves (where expression is to be given to their Nationalism), to the White man’s labour spheres around our cities where they cannot give expression to their Nationalism. What stronger proof does one want of the uselessness, the senselessness, the impossibility of the Government’s policy? While the Government is completely preoccupied with this idea of establishing separate independent states in due course, the problem in our urban areas is growing. The Interim Report of the Snyman Commission makes that perfectly clear to us. Where does Poqo find its strongest support? Not in Johannesburg where there are 700,000 urban Natives.

There your argument falls away.

No, my argument does not fall away at all. Poqo’s greatest following is here in the Western Cape where the Government’s policy in respect of the urban Native has advanced furthest. Where does my argument fall away now? It is in the single quarters in which the unmarried Natives are living in Langa and Nyanga that the danger is brewing. It is here where they are not allowed to have their wives and children with them, where they are denied the elementary requirements for human existence, where they are endorsed out of their spheres of employment, where they have to clear out so as to promote the Government’s so-called policy of apartheid, that that Nationalism finds its strongest expression. This Poqo movement may well be encouraged from Basutoland, it may have its headquarters in Johannesburg, but its following, its membership, is in Langa, where the Government’s policy has advanced furthest and is applied most strictly.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Prime Minister refers in such derogatory terms to the liberals of Johannesburg. Sir, more liberals are being detained under house arrest in Johannesburg than in Cape Town. In other words, the less dangerous liberals are receiving the attention of the Minister of Justice while the more dangerous ones are ignored by him. The position here in the Western Cape is more critical and more urgent because the Government’s policy has been implemented to a greater extent here than in any other part of South Africa, and the hon. the Prime Minister knows that.

There are many more people living in hostels in Johannesburg than here.

The hon. the Prime Minister does not follow my argument.

Nobody can follow it.

He apparently does not follow my argument, and I should like therefore to explain my argument to him again. It is here in the Western Cape that the Nationalist Party newspapers and members are propagating that the Natives should be endorsed out; that they should disappear from the Western Cape. It is more difficult here for a Native worker to have his wife and children with him. It is here that he has the greatest uncertainty and insecurity, and that is why I say that it is here in the Western Cape, where the Government’s policy has been implemented to the greatest extent that one gets the greatest unrest and the biggest following for criminal organizations like Poqo. Mr. Speaker, I predict that the more the Government’s policy advances, the more organizations like Poqo will flourish in South Africa. What causes us on this side the greatest concern is this policy which forces people out of their spheres of employment in the Western Cape. Where does the Government propose to send discontented people who are ripe for agitation, who are ready to commit unlawful acts? Are they to be spread over the whole country? The Government’s policy creates discontented people in the Western Cape and then they are taken under the Government’s policy and sent over the length and breadth of South Africa to carry on with their work; and where the Judge said that there are Whites who are responsible for sending out agitators, he might well have had in mind that one of the people mainly responsible for it, because he carries out Government policy, is the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, because it is he who sends the urban Native, with a grievance and with vengeance in his heart, to other parts of the country to wreak his vengeance there.

That is a scandalous remark.

It may be sandalous but it remains the gospel truth. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister reproaches us. He did not say it in so many words but he gives one the impression that he wants to suggest that one of the most terrible things that has ever happened is this, that the United Party, in his opinion, is now doing what the Nationalist Party did from 1924 until just the other day; that it is unforgiveable that the United Party could sink so low as to follow the methods of the party which he has helped to bring where it stands to-day! It is unforgiveable, the Prime Minister says, that we should represent ourselves as being pro-White and anti-Native.

I said that in connection with your attempt to represent yourselves in an untrue light.

I do not want to quarrel with the hon. the Prime Minister about the words that he used.

You are making no impression on the public outside.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make an impression on the public outside; I want to make an impression on a good, right-thinking person like the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) and look how I am succeeding! The Prime Minister reproaches us for adopting these methods. He says we pose as being anti-Native and pro-White. The United Party does not apologize for that; we are pro-White. But we strongly deny that we are anti-Native. Who is it who is being reproached in this House for pleading year after year, although they are not directly represented in this House, for the alleviation of the lot of the Natives in every part of South Africa? One of the strongest committees of the United Party is our Native Affairs Committee, consisting of enlightened individuals who strive for the promotion of the interests of our Natives and for remedying of the things which are wrong. Which party is it which correctly, with the agreement of every Christian in the country, pleads with the Government for the preservation of family life amongst our Natives? Who is it who rightly, with the tacit agreement of every Christian in the country, tells the Government: You have done many good things for the urban Native, particularly in regard to housing, but how can you expect something so unnatural from people as not to live together as man and wife in order to rear and to educate their children? That is the greatest point of difference between the National Party and ourselves. But the hon. the Prime Minister says we are anti-Native. We are not ashamed of our policy; we propound it right throughout the country. It has already cost us votes, and it may cost us votes again, but we shall not hesitate to continue with it. Which party is it that has been pleading for so long with the Government for the reviewing of the pass laws and of the influx control measures in regard to our cities?

You want even more: you already say there is too much.

Mr. Speaker, surely the Prime Minister is able to say something better than that. What we in fact said to-day is that we reproach the Government that whilst it applies a policy of apartheid, a policy which has to give expression to Native nationalism, they have a million more Natives in the cities to-day than before. We say that is unavoidable, but we reproach the Government because this is a denial of the policy of apartheid. That is our argument.

You therefore want to allow more of them there.

Let me put this to the Prime Minister slowly so that he can understand it. This United Party, which he regards as being anti-Native, is convinced that we will not have order in South Africa, that we will not have peace in South Africa, that we will not get away from the state of crisis which the Government has caused here, unless we give the Natives the opportunity to live as normal human beings, as a family. I say the Prime Minister can now make all the propaganda he likes in regard to this, but he should just not tell us that we are anti-Native. We want to use the pass laws and influx control for two objects. The first is to ensure that the influx to the cities does not take place at the tempo at which it did during the war years. We admit that it was then uncontrolled and that the social services could not keep pace with the social needs of those people. Secondly, we want to use it to bring the people who seek work into contact with the available work. That is the difference, and then the hon. the Prime Minister still says that we are anti-Native.

You want to use that pose of yours for political purposes.

The Prime Minister said so. If we carry on in this way, he will say in a moment that he thought he said one thing but meant another. He accuses us of posing as being pro-White and anti-Native. Now I want to ask him whether we are posing as being anti-Native when we plead for a better family life for them.

For political purposes.

Are we posing as being anti-Native when we plead for an amelioration of the pass laws and of influx control, against the policy of the Government? Are we posing as being anti-Native when we consistently and fearlessly, and with deep conviction, day in and day out, against the policy of the Prime Minister plead for the establishment of a Native land-owning class, a responsible Native middle class? Is it an anti-Native party which wants to make political capital by pleading for these things? That is the greatest point of difference between us in regard to our Native policy. Mr. Speaker, please be reasonable. Are we anti-Native? If one of the points of difference between us and the Government, right throughout the country on every platform, is that the Natives of South Africa should have a vote in this House and the Government says no? Who is anti-Native? The difference is this, and we say it with the greatest emphasis: The United Party, with its enlightened standpoint vis-à-vis the Natives of South Africa, with its reasonable standpoint towards the Natives of South Africa, can and will promote the real interests of the Whites and of all the racial groups of the country better than the Government with its blind policy of hard-heartedness, of unwillingness to see the truth and to realize the true facts; this Government which is busy destroying Western standards in South Africa, which is making South Africa the outcast of Western civilization. We are more pro-White, we are more pro-Coloured, we are more pro-Indian, we are more pro-Native than the Government is in any of those respects. My sincere thanks to the Prime Minister for the revelation he has made to-day in regard to the actual standpoint of his Government.

I want to start at the point where the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) left off. I want to put it this way to the hon. member for Yeoville— I shall be grateful to have his attention—that with their politicking the United Party is trying to make the White people of South Africa believe that they have their interests at heart. They want to make the Bantu believe that they have their interests at heart, but they only have the interests of the Bantu at heart so as to use them to destroy this Government and the policy of this party. That is the game they are playing. I shall tell the hon. member for Yeoville how they did it in the past. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that when the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Bill was under discussion in this House in 1959 the United Party adopted the attitude that they would oppose any further acquisition of land for the Bantu areas because, as they said, they were not prepared to allow more land to be purchased and to be added to areas which would become autonomous Black states in future. There sits the author of that policy, Sir, the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). It appears from a book “Shadow and Substance in South Africa” that that was suggested by the United Party caucus. [Interjections.] If he is so anxious to speak I shall ask him just now what he has said. They tried that “stunt” in order to make the Whites, particularly the White farmers, believe that the United Party would save them from the policy of this Government. That was the reason why they spread that story. They were so serious that, at their Bloemfontein congress in 1959, they put the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) out, I won’t say they kicked her out, together with a number of others. They were prepared to allow the United Party to be torn asunder because of that “stunt” of the hon. member for Hillbrow. In 1960, during the Budget debate, when the Post of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was under discussion, the Leader of the Opposition got up in this House and moved that the amount be reduced by R1,000,000. He said this—

He then went on to say this—

He said that in 1960. We then came to the 1961 debate where money was made available for the purchase of land and the United Party did not say a word about it. In the year 1962 a further amount was made available for the purchase of land, and the only thing that had happened since 1959 was that the autonomous states which the United Party had spoken about were two years nearer, and we did not hear a word from the Leader of the Opposition or from any member of the United Party against the purchase of land. Can the hon. member for Hillbrow give me an explanation for this, apart from the fact that the United Party was busy deceiving the White people of South Africa? Why were they prepared to allow their whole party to be torn asunder? Why did the hon. Leader of the Opposition demean himself to issue threats which he knew as surely as he was sitting here he would not raise again the following year? Why does a party do that? [Interjections.] I am only trying to get the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) to understand that the whole country, not only we, know what a White-man-party game the United Party is playing. It is the same sort of game which they are again trying to play here. It is the same game which they are playing in connection with the Transkei and they are not bluffing anybody. I do not know whether they are bluffing themselves. If the hon. member for Yeoville still had any doubts as to whether it was necessary for the United Party to make the White people realize that the United Party could be trusted, why did the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) say in Cape Town last year that there were only two things which the United Party had to do and that was to get rid of, what he called, the “labels” which had become attached to the United Party? The one “label” was that it was not a South African party and the other “label” was that it could not be trusted with the interests of the White man. It is against that which the United Party is fighting to-day. They have sunk to such a low level in the eyes of the electorate that they know they cannot be trusted. To-day they are trying to play this game of trying to frighten the White man with the policy of this Government and to prey on that. That is the whole story.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not here at the moment. I shall be grateful if one of the members opposite would answer this question. While the hon. the Minister of Justice was speaking the other day the Leader of the Opposition put a question to him by way of interjection, namely, whether he had submitted a sworn statement to Justice Snyman in connection with the Paarl riots. It was merely by way of interjection. He did not refer to it again in his speech to-day but it seemed to me that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to suggest that the Minister of Justice had submitted a statement to Justice Snyman and that he intimidated or influenced Justice Snyman in that way to say certain things. When the Leader of the Opposition referred to the statements that were made by Justice Snyman in connection with White liberals and the assaults in the Transkei, he made great play of the fact that that was only evidence and not findings. If you put the two together, Sir, I think he wanted to create the impression that the Minister of Justice had submitted a statement to the Commissioner in which he alleged that White liberals were responsible and that that was the reason why the Commissioner stated that there was evidence to that effect. If that is not the position, then it is for the Leader of the Opposition to explain what he meant with that statement. But that is the conclusion to which I come.

Before coming to the actual question of Poqo, I want to touch upon another matter which the hon. member for Yeoville also touched upon. He asked what the Government explanation was for the fact that it was precisely here in the Western Cape where the Government’s policy of separate development had been implemented the furthest that you found the greatest number of riots among the Bantu; why Poqo was more active and more attractive for the Bantu here than anywhere else. Surely that is obvious, Sir. Surely the hon. member for Yeoville is not as stupid as he pretends to be by asking that question. Surely he knows that all liberalistic activities and agitation in South Africa are concentrated on the Transkei and on the people in the Transkei at the moment. It is precisely there where the Government’s policy has been implemented the furthest that they are trying to do everything in their power to make that policy fail. That is why they are concentrating on the Bantu here and in the Transkei. Does he want to tell me that he is so ignorant of liberalistic activities that he cannot see that?

The hon. member for Yeoville told us how shocked and indignant he was because of the hon. the Prime Minister’s ingratitude towards the United Party for the big-hearted attitude they adopted after Sharpeville, during the days when the Unlawful Organizations Bill was passed. He told us how the United Party supported us then. To-day the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred to that attitude of the United Party in connection with the suppression of the P.A.C. I think I should once again draw their attention to the true facts. I want to tell them what impression we have in our minds of the attitude of the United Party in those days. Before the banning of the P.A.C. came up for discussion during the second reading the Leader of the Opposition stood up and said that his party was prepared to support the Government. He then turned round and launched the most malicious and venomous attack on this Government and said that all the incidents which had led to Sharpeville and Langa and the existence of the P.A.C. had to be ascribed to the policy of this Government. That was how they supported us throughout an all-night sitting in order to get that Bill through the House. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said on 29 March 1960—

That was their attitude. Their attitude was not that they wanted to reflect with us as to what were the reasons for those P.A.C. difficulties; they only tried one thing and that was to make political capital out of the situation which existed at the time. We have only had a repetition of that to-day.

The United Party pretend to be very indignant when they and their expressions of opinion and their activities are associated with the situation which we have in South Africa to-day. But I think the time has arrived for us to say to the United Party in very clear terms what they are doing to promote these things directly and what they are not doing to combat these things. I shall give one or two examples to the hon. member for Yeoville where I think the United Party has neglected its duty if he is so concerned about their responsibility as Opposition party in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that in 1961 a number of communists held a conference in Pietermaritzburg under the leadership of Mandela where they resolved that they would ask the Government to call a multi-racial national convention in order to frame a new constitution for South Africa. They resolved that if the Government refused they could call out a national strike so as to paralyse the whole Republic of South Africa on 29, 30 and 31 May. In view of the type of person who was concerned in that matter it was clear from the outset that it was a communist set. And what happened? The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) asked at a meeting what the Government was going to do in connection with that request. He said it was an entirely constitutional request and he wanted to know whether the Government would accede to it. He said that this Government was creating such a situation in the whole country that it would have no choice but to use force. This is what the hon. member for Wynberg said—

The hon. member for Wynberg, as a member of the United Party was prepared to accede to the request of Mandela that there should be a multi-racial conference in South Africa to draft a constitution. But that is not all. Mr. Speaker. Every United Party newspaper in this country, and I am referring to those people who call themselves the English Press, as for example the Star and the Sunday Times, repeatedly pleaded with the Government to hold such a conference. When it became clear that the Government was not going to hold such a conference they all said to the instigators: “In that case you hold a conference yourselves and draft a new multi-racial constitution for South Africa. You appoint an alternative Government to take over from this þ Whites only ’ régime.” That was what the Star said. The Star went further and said that every Afrikaner should be excluded from that multi-racial convention. Everybody in this country could be included, except the Afrikaans-speaking Whites. I want to know from the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville whether they said one word in condemnation of that action? Did the hon. member for Yeoville say one word? Did the Leader of the Opposition ever condemn it? We had a situation in which the communists were pleading for and organizing sedition in South Africa in a cold-blooded manner and that Opposition over there did not move a finger or say a word to put those people in their place. That was how they showed their responsibility as an Opposition.

We issued a Press statement condemning that.

If you can show that Press statement to me, I shall be pleased to see it. If the hon. member for Yeoville did not know what it was all about I take it he will readily believe what it was all about if he learns it from the Sunday Times, because that is a newspaper which readily makes its columns available to the hon. member for Yeoville to get rid of his wisdom and to propound his policy. I think the hon. member for Yeoville will even accept it more readily if it comes from the pen of Stanley Uys, because he is a great friend of the United Party. Let me tell you, Sir, what Stanley Uys said what was the object of that agitation for a convention. Stanley Uys wrote the following on 4 June 1961—

The communists tried to pull off a coup and the United Party did not say a word. They joined in the game. The hon. member for Wynberg associated himself with it. All the newspapers which support the United Party associated themselves with that “bloodless coup”

That is untrue.

If that is the attitude of the United Party towards revolutionary forces in South Africa, what else is it than an encouragement to those people? And then he talks about their responsibility as an Opposition! I want to go further than I have already done. It is not only what the United Party has omitted to do in this connection that we find reprehensible; the way they openly protect the liberals is a positive encouragement to those revolutionary forces. By way of interjection I asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to-day whether he thought Patrick Duncan was a communist and he said “no”. He will not answer me but the question which flows naturally from that is that if Patrick Duncan is merely a liberal who was dealt with under the Suppressions of Communism Act, does he agree that Patrick Duncan promotes the objects of Communism? Does the hon. member for Yeoville agree that Patrick Duncan promotes the objects of Communism? He will not answer. They are protecting the liberals. The Leader of the Opposition was decent enough, however, to admit that he thought Patrick Duncan had committed high treason. But that is not all that Patrick Duncan did. At the time of Sharpeville the hon. member for Yeoville referred to the P.A.C. This is what Patrick Duncan wrote at that time. This was on 2 April 1960. He wrote the following to those people who wanted to commit acts of violence and cause rioting in South Africa—

This is not the Patrick Duncan speaking who has now been kicked out of the Liberal Party because he is leaning too far over towards Communism; it is the Patrick. Duncan who as recently as last year was still protected by the United Party. He openly advocated that force should be used to overthrow this Government and the existing order and that if violence were used he expected the United Party and others not to condemn the use of such violence.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says Patrick Duncan is not a communist and he refuses to tell us whether he agrees that Patrick Duncan promotes Communism That is why we say that, as far as those revolutionary tendencies in South Africa are concerned, the United Party is absolutely worthless when it comes to combating those tendencies and a Government who depends on the co-operation and the support of the United Party for the combating of those revolutionary tendencies in South Africa will be building on sand; not only will it be building on sand, it will—I do not want to use the word which I have in mind—it will be hampered by the United Party in its efforts to maintain order in the country.

The United Party, in its association with the English Press and other influential people; in South Africa and because of their attitude towards what is happening in South Africa to-day, pretend to be very innocent. It seems to be impossible that a party with that type of member and supporter and newspaper like the English Press, a party representing the interests which it does, should make itself guilty of those things of which it has indeed made itself guilty of. We were told to-day that we must find the root of the trouble. We have not come to the root yet. Nor is it my task to get to the root of the trouble. Pursuant to· what has been said, there are certain things which must be stated and I shall do so briefly. It is in connection with the attitude of the English Press in South Africa and the interests that Press represents towards the problem of the relationship between Whites and Bantu. I have said that it seemed hardly possible that they should lend themselves to the bringing about of a state of revolution in South Africa, but when you see what literature exists on revolutionary actions in other countries, Sir, you find that it ties up with what is happening here. I just want to refer to one book which appeared in America, called “The Anatomy of Revolution” written by Crane Brinton, a co-professor in History at the University of Harvard. It was written in 1939 and reprinted in 1954. He says one important thing in that book which we in South Africa probably do not always realize and that is that in order to bring about a state of revolution in a country you do not only require dissatisfied people, people who economically are on the bottom rung as the United Party would have us believe. They want us to believe that it is economic misery and the disruption of family life and that sort of thing which cause these tendencies to manifest themselves in South Africa. But this is what Crane Brinton says—

In regard to those groups who think that their economic activities are being hindered he says this—

Sir, when you consider this statement and you hear the utterances of people who have great economic interests in South Africa and of people who are some of the most flourishing in South Africa and you think how that is stated as being part of revolutionary action, you must try to find the reason why those people adopt that attitude. And the reason is as stated by Crane Brinton. This is what ties these people to revolutionary movements: They regard this Government as an impediment to their economic activities. They regard the political measures of this Government as hampering them in their chances to become rich. That is why they oppose the Government as experience has shown us. I want to ask the United Party and the hon. member for Yeoville whether they have ever been prepared or are they prepared in future to oppose any of those people or newspapers who say this sort of thing? Are they prepared to oppose Mr. Harry Oppenheimer (and I mention his name) in many of his utterances? I shall tell them what I mean. When Mr. Harry Oppenheimer says in his reports in America or here that—

Are they prepared to oppose him? That is what he is accusing this Government of.

He says “the outside world is convinced”.

Yes, but he says “that no serious effort is being made to remove them”. He says that is what worsens an “explosive situation”.

That is what the hon. member for Yeoville also said a moment ago.

Exactly. I want to conclude. I have said that we can forget about the United Party as far as the effort which we must make in South Africa is concerned, a sustained effort over a number of years, to maintain law and order in this country. We can forget about the United Party. When we take Africa to which they always like to refer us as an example it is clear that law and order have collapsed in Africa mainly for two reasons. The first is that the State did not timeously take action with the necessary firmness and determination against those people who were bent on undermining the good order that existed. It is very clear that that is what has happened in the whole of Africa. The second is that the State did not realize timeously that the object of those people who went about spreading pious stories about liberalism, was to incite revolutionary forces. That was how the Liberal Party palmed in the P.A.C. here and that was how the communists palmed in the A.N.C. here in order to use the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. for the revolutionary work they wanted done. That was what happened elsewhere in Africa and there is only one reply to that and that is that the State should protect itself with all the power it has at its command. We can assure the United Party of this that this Government will do that and that in doing that it will have the support of many of the United Party supporters in this country.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in this debate to-day, with reference to the preliminary report of the Snyman Commission, that this report was “a series of indictments against the Government”, and then he added his own accusations against the Government and against the hon. the Minister of Justice. Mr. Speaker, if there is a party which needs to hang its head in shame for its past as far as the actions of a Government in South Africa against communist activities are concerned, it is the official Opposition which to-day sits on those benches, and if a Government exists which can truthfully say that even in the days when it constituted a small opposition in this House it realized the danger of Communism in this country and which made representations to the then mighty United Party Government asking them to take steps to put an end to these communist activities, it is the National Party and the present Government of South Africa.

I want to remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of a few matters. As far back as 1937, when the National Party was a small party in this House as against a mighty United Party which still had the Labour Party as its ally as well, a Congress of the National Party at Uitenhage adopted the following resolution, and when I read out these resolutions I want to point out that what the National Party as the Opposition demanded from the then Government at that time, it put into effect when it becme the Government of this country. In 1937 the Congress of the National Party at Uitenhage adopted the following resolution—

That was 26 years ago, when the National Party, which was then in opposition in this House—and I repeat that it was then a small opposition—recognized this danger in South Africa.

But I go further and come to 1943. In that year the then United Party achieved the greatest victory in its history and they had III members in this House, more members than the mighty National Party has in this House to-day. Then our present Minister of Foreign Affairs, according to Hansard, Vol. 45 of 1943, moved a motion in this House, and peculiarly enough that motion was eventually brought to a vote, and the vote shows that the entire Government party with its allies voted against the motion at the time, whilst only the National Party voted in favour of it. This was the motion moved by Mr. Eric Louw, the present Minister of Foreign Affairs—

Mr. Speaker, I am going to mention the three steps which were asked for, and then I will ask which of the three steps advocated at the time by the Nationalist Opposition was not taken by the Nationalist Government—

1. (a) to declare as illegal the Communist Party and all organizations which propagate or encourage communistic doctrines;

That was done—

1. (b) to prohibit the propagation and encouragement of communistic doctrines, whether by means of speeches, distribution of literature, showing of cinema films, or by any other means;

That was done—

1. (c) to deport aliens who enunciate or propagate communistic doctrines and to prohibit entry into the Union of immigrants of whom it is known that they propagate or subscribe to communistic doctrines;

To a large extent that was done—

On 12 February 1943 the present Minister of Foreign Affairs, and at that time a member of the Opposition, made two classic speeches in regard to the activities of Communism in South Africa, which I do not think anyone has ever equalled, nor which do I believe anyone in future will ever equal. These two speeches are recorded in the same Hansard. I will return to those suggestions, because I want to show that we implemented them. But what was the reaction of the then mighty United Party which sat here with 111 members? I want to read what the then Minister of Justice (Dr. Colin Steyn) said about the motion—

And the then Minister of Justice then continued—

What did the then Prime Minister of South Africa, General Smuts say?—

Later on he admitted that Communism did exist in South Africa, but he said it was not the Communism of Russia, although he knew very well that the Communist Party in South Africa was linked with the Communist Party in Russia. Everybody knew that. And what did the then Minister of Finance of the United Party, Mr. J. H. Hofmeyr, say? He was the first man who in this House put these words into the mouths of the progressives and the liberals and the communists and of the United Party—

Hon members will find his words recorded in Hansard, Vol. 55, Col. 679 (Afrikaans).

What do you really mean to imply?

I regret that I cannot give that hon. member the intelligence to appreciate this point. In 1937, when the National Party was in opposition, it set to work in terms of the provisions of its own constitution, and in an honourable manner made representations to the then Government to take note of the communist danger in the country. Its representations fell on the deaf ears of the United Party, that same party which wants to accuse us here to-day. In 1943 this motion I read out was introduced in this House, and it was brought to a vote, something which happens with very few private motions, and the entire United Party together with its allies voted against it, and only the National Party voted in favour.

Now hon. members may think that this motion moved in 1937 to combat Communism by means of stricter immigration laws, a suggestion which was repeated in 1943 in a further motion, again to deport foreigners who propagated the communist ideology, was introduced merely for propaganda purposes in order to give the National Party an opportunity (as the then Minister stated) to make propaganda in regard to its Native policy. But here I have in my hand a list published on 16 November last year containing the names of all the White people listed in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act. There are 148 Whites on this list and 86 of them are of Jewish descent; I give six of them the benefit of the doubt. They came from Lithuania, England, Ireland, Canada, Russia, Germany, Palestine, Latvia and Poland. Now, was it ridiculous in 1937, 26 years ago, and again in 1943, for the National Party which then constituted an insignificant Opposition in this House, to warn against these things? Here we have it. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter. We have had the experience, during the United Party regime, and after this timeous warning by the National Party, of a man like Sam Kahn being elected as a member of this House, when he was a recognized and self-confessed communist. I have in my hand a report of the Select Committee which investigated his case. It contains a mass of evidence in regard to the workings of Communism, and when Communism under the United Party regime for the first time was given tangible form in this the highest Council of the land in the person of Sam Kahn, the National Party, faithful to its congress resolution of 1937 and to the motion it moved in this House in 1943, gave effect to the policy which it advocated as an Opposition and which as the Government it was able to implement. Then Mr. Sam Kahn was accused in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act before this House, and he was tried by a jury of his peers, and at his trial all the members of the United Party and all the members of their allied parties, the Labour Party and the Natives’ Representatives, voted that Sam Kahn was not a communist in terms of the Act passed by this House. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that they then pleaded, with crocodile tears in their eyes and a sob in their voices, that Mr. Sam Kahn should be found not guilty. Then he got up in that corner and said: “I admit that I am a communist and I shall remain a communist.” and raising his clenched fist and giving the communist sign, he concluded his last speech in this House with the words:

But that was not yet the end of the matter. Mr. Sam Kahn was succeeded by Mr. Brian Bunting. I was one of his peers who tried him in terms of the same Act, and peculiarly enough, then the United Party members on that Select Committee all agreed with the Nationalist members that Mr. Bunting was a communist. But I want to point to the evidence which emerged during the trial of Mr. Bunting. It should be remembered that this was after the National Party had come into power and had shown by its actions that it was going to seize the communist party in South Africa and all its branches by the throat. And this is not what I say, but what they said, which I am now going to read out. When they realized it panic arose in the ranks of the Communist Party in South Africa, and I want to read what the University Branch in Johannesburg decided about the matter. I quote from G.K. 10 of 1953, “Investigation in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act”, Appendix II. They resolved that—

Then they continued—

That almost reminds me of Poqo. Then they were very concerned because they had a shortage of cadres. I will tell the House in a moment what a cadre means in communist parlance. But then we come to the political resolutions taken by the Central Committee of the Communist Party in 1950. In paragraph 73 of their resolution they say—

And now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to tell me that this Government has neglected its duty, whilst the communists themselves admit that “particularly since the Nationalists came into power” they were faced with great difficulties—

I shall mention those circles in a moment. There are members of that “wider circle” sitting in this House. They continue with their report, and this is the point I want to emphasize, because it now links up with the preliminary report of Judge Snyman. This is what they say in paragraph 121 of their report, under the heading, “The Party and the National Movements”—

Then these words follow—

I now ask the hon. member of the Progressive Party, who unfortunately is not here now: What is contained in this programme I have just read about racial discrimination, and the programme of the old Communist Party which has been suppressed by legislation in South Africa, which differs from the programme of the Progressive Party? What is the difference between what is contained in this programme of the Communist Party and the programme of the Liberal Party in South Africa? There is not the slightest difference. These are the people who must help them to achieve their aims.

I have made a very thorough study of this brief interim report submitted by Judge Snyman, and I have also made a very, very thorough study over the past 30 years of Communism and its methods of organization. I am convinced in my own mind that this Poqo movement with which we are dealing, and which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his lieutenants are trying to exploit in a Budget debate because they can find nothing to say about the Budget, is a continuation of the Communist Party in South Africa which has been driven underground. It is quite clear to me that this Poqo organization is being led by well-trained communist cadres. As a member of the Select Committee, I put this, question to Bunting at the time: What is a cadre in the Communist Party? I gave him the same definition which was given by one of the most prominent communists Britain ever had, Douglas Hyde, who was the editor of the official communist organ, the Daily Worker I gave him that definition and asked him whether that was what a cadre was. In communist parlance a cadre means a person who is prepared at any time to do anything for communism, and “anything” also includes murder, and Bunting admitted it. It is quite clear from the report I have before me that Poqo is being led by well-trained cadres of the Communist Party.

Now the Opposition may ask me: But if the National Party acted so effectively against communism, how do you explain the fact that Poqo is still there to-day? My reply is this. When one wrestles in the ring and one applies certain holds to one’s opponent and he falls, it will not take him long to develop a counter-hold with which to bring one down in turn; and we should realize that when dealing with communism we must always be on our guard. I want to say that since the National Party came into power it has done all the things which its Congress asked for and which it itself pleaded for in this House from 1937 to 1948, when it came into power. It did not ask the then Government to do what it would itself be afraid to do if it came into power. We put a stop to that fertile breeding-ground which existed for communism during the regime of the United Party. We tightened up our industrial legislation to such an extent that to-day we have more industrial peace than any other country in the world. When the Opposition was in power there was a fertile breeding-ground for communism in South Africa. There were the questions of housing, and of wages and the provision of work, which formed a fertile breeding-ground for communism. Since this Government came into power, and has implemented the requests it directed to the then mighty Government, we no longer have processions in which churches are desecrated; we no longer have great processions of communists through our streets, with people throwing bottles and stones, and we no longer have those inciting meetings of the communist in Johannesburg; we no longer have the Torch Commandos and the so-called national movements which existed during the United Party regime.

But we have the Poqo movement to-day, and I was glad to hear from the Prime Minister that the Government intends to seize Poqo by the throat and to talk to them in the only language which the communists understand, because there is only one language which they understand. When dealing with a communist one must deal with him just as mercilessly as he will deal with one if he gets the upper hand. Have hon. members forgotten what happened in Russia in 1917 when 10 per cent of the population got the upper hand over hundreds of millions of people, and when they killed 4,000,000 of the intelligentsia of Russia? I agree with the Prime Minister, and every hon. member on this side will stand behind him four-square, in the conviction that in dealing with communists, with a subversive organization like Poqo, one has to address them in the language they can understand, the communist language, and one dare not allow them to have the same rights which are enjoyed by the ordinary citizen of the country who has perhaps contravened a law. One dare not give him the same access to the courts which one allows the ordinary citizen of the country. He must be severely dealt with, and let me tell the Opposition this. I know, having inferred it from what the Prime Minister has said, that the Government is going to do this, and I know our Minister of Justice, and I agree with the Prime Minister that he is a good Minister of Justice, much better than the Leader of the Opposition would be even though he were a Nationalist. I say the time has arrived that we should talk to these people in the only language they can understand, and the entire National Party will stand behind the Government, and the people of South Africa as a whole will stand behind us.

It is very difficult for me to answer the speech of the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) because I do not really know what he was driving at. I know that he spoke about the Torch Commando as being one of the things this Government does not have, but which the United Party Government had, but I do not believe the hon. member really meant that because the Torch Commando was a reaction against this Government, just as so many of these organizations that we find to-day are reactions against this Government. But I did understand what the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) had to say, and some of the things he said were scandalous.

The hon. member for Innesdale said that the U.P. was busy with what he chose to call “witmanstelery we were busy making the White man afraid of the policies of this Government.

You are trying your best, but you are not succeeding.

It is not very hard to make White people afraid of the policies of this Government.

You do not impress anyone.

I am not trying to impress the Chief Whip whose duty it is to shout the things he does in this House, nor the hon. member for Karas whose duty it apparently also is to say what a wonderful Minister of Justice we have.

What is your duty?

My duty is to act as a responsible South African, acting in the interest of the people I represent.

You are a very boring man.

I may be boring to the Minister of Information, but if he were doing his job—I will not ask him what his job is for fear that he may say something he should not have said—perhaps he would be looking into the facts of South Africa. I think the Minister should be concerned with facts and not so much with opinion; and if he were concerned with facts I do not believe we would be in our present position to-day. I do not believe the Prime Minister would stand up in this House to-day and tell us that this is a time of crisis. It is very obvious to us that this is a time of crisis, and that is why we raised this matter. But it is a time of crisis caused by this Government and every single man on that side of the House can sit up and take responsibility for whatever comes as the result of this crisis. [Interjections.] I do not think the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has in any case anything to contribute except a few inane interjections. What do you think your interjections are—pearls of wisdom? The hon. member for Innesdale said that the Government which relies on an Opposition like this for restoring law and order will not get any help. It is a scandalous thing to say. The hon. member knows very well that when there was a state of disorderliness at the time of the emergency, this party supported the Government and said: Get on with it and do something about it.

Like with the Sabotage Bill.

The same state of affairs did not exist then. When there is a state of disorder, our record is that we support any Government in restoring law and order. [Interjections.] But where we find the Government creating the situation, as we do here, and failing to deal with the facts, then I think it is an entirely different matter, and then I think we behave responsibly in raising the matter and asking the Government to do something about it.

What is the scandalous situation in which we find ourselves to-day? The Prime Minister tells us that we live in a time of crisis. Why? Why do we live in a time of crisis? That remark was sparked off by the Snyman Report which was tabled here, and if the attitude of hon. members opposite to this report and this debate is going to continue to be what it has been, then I see very little hope of the solution of this problem as long as they occupy those benches.

What a stage for South Africa to have come to, when we find ourselves about to consider urgent legislation to deal with a subversive organization whose policy is pillage and murder and sabotage. That is the situation in which we find ourselves in 1963, and why? When the Minister of Justice finished his speech he said he would give us two assurances. The one was that the Government would not change its policy in any way. Then he gave us a further assurance, that no one need be panic-stricken because the police have the initiative. What an extraordinary statement, considering the facts! How can we accept what the Minister of Justice says about this?

I say that the situation has arisen in the first place because of the incompetence and the ineptness of the Minister of Justice. The Minister must have known about this situation a long time ago. I do not know how long the Government has had the Snyman Report. It was tabled a few days ago, and the moment it was tabled the Minister of Justice gave a Press statement, fortunately for him not organized by the Minister of Information, in which he said that he was going to hurry along and get his law advisers to bring a Bill before this House as soon as possible. The point I am making is that by that statement the Minister acknowledged that he knew nothing about it, or he did not think it necessary to act until he received that report.

In 1961, on 10th March, six Natives stood trial for stealing seven rifles, 90 pistols and 4,935 cartridges. The evidence was that they were arms required by the P.A.C. in the Transkei, and that evidence was available to the Minister. The same year the bans on the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. were imposed. One must not forget that what the Snyman Report says is that the day when this Parliament banned the A.N.C. and the P.A.C., on that day did Poqo begin, and it has been in existence for three years. From the Minister’s statement to the Press he has not been in a position either to know about it, nor has he been prepared to do anything about it until right now. This is the very serious state of affairs in which we find ourselves, in which a Minister of Justice, charged with the duties he has, can place the country, and I go so far as to say that the Minister’s dilatoriness and ineptness have placed us in this situation. In May 1961 there was evidence of P.A.C. activities and riots, before the Langa riots—the day before. In December 1961 thirteen people were charged with being members of the P.A.C. In April 1962 three were gaoled for taking part in the P.A.C. Just about a year ago, on 17th April, two men were charged in Cape Town with furthering the objects of the P.A.C., and I read from the Argus report of that day—

There it is, Sir. There is all the evidence, all the way through. In that case Lieut. Sauerman of the Security Branch said that since its banning the P.A.C. had gone underground and he had heard from the Bantu that it was now referred to as Poqo. It is an extraordinary state of affairs that since its banning it was known to have gone underground, and it was known as Poqo. They knew about it, but it would seem that the Minister did not know about it. I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not here now, but I hope he will be here later because I have other words to address to him in relation to what he said to this House.

Quite apart from the incompetence of the Minister and the statement he made that there is no need for anyone to be panic-stricken because the police have the initiative, what are the facts? I wonder whether the Minister of Information knows these facts, and whether he realizes how many cases of sabotage there have been since the Sabotage Act was passed last year? The Minister of Justice was asked questions about it by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), and he said it was not in the public interest to give all the figures, but at that stage, on 5th February, he did give some figures showing that 22 people had been arrested, 10 had been convicted, and that there were several cases pending. I have looked through the newspaper records and they disclose a very sorry story, and also a very frightening story. I am not trying to be an alarmist. I believe that we have to face up to the facts as they exist, and for the Minister to tell us not to worry about it is nonsense. This is Parliament, and I believe this is the place where we have to decide what to do.

The figures are—I want to be very conservative and very sure—that there are over 70 known cases of sabotage in respect of which less than 10 convictions have been obtained. That is about one-eighth of the cases, in which we know what is happening, and this is not unconnected with the rest of the things happening in the country. It is all part of the general picture, but it is part of the picture presented to us by the Minister of Justice as the picture of one of the most peaceful countries in the world. Sir, the tragedy is that this has become part of our way of life. One can hardly pick up a newspaper to-day without reading of some sabotage somewhere, and about which apparently the police are helpless to do anything. This is a very terrifying position for a country to find itself in. What is so terrifying about it to me is that we have the people in charge saying that they will not unbend in any way in relation to their policy. I want to ask the question of the Minister of Information: If the recommendation of this Commission is that it is the policies of this Government in regard to the urban Bantu which are at fault, will they accept that, too, and introduce legislation to deal with it? Or is the answer of the Minister of Justice the complete answer? [Interjections.] This is a very serious matter. Either you accept the facts of South Africa, or you do not. This Government does not accept those facts and is determined to plod along regardless of those facts.

What about the legislation that has been passed?

Well, what about it? Let us have a look at the legislation which has been passed. What did we have in 1960? This very organization was banned. Was that not a lesson in itself, and did not the United Party at that time warn the Government that banning this organization was not enough? You cannot just legislate and expect a danger to disappear. You do not just pull the blind down on the sun and expect that it will not shine anywhere in the world again. How did the legislation help? [Interjections.] I have just given the figures in regard to the Sabotage Bill. We have got to the stage where the Commissioner of Police is offering unlimited rewards for information. How has the Sabotage Act helped in relation to sabotage or Poqo, or in relation to any other of these organizations? We find ourselves to-day, less than a year after it was passed, in a situation which the Prime Minister described as a time of crisis.

What is there for us? What does the Government offer us to help us in this regard? What does it offer the country as a solution for this crisis? There will not be any change in policy, but more legislation. The Minister has not enlarged on what sort of legislation it will be. The lesson this Government has to learn is that legislation is not enough. That is the message the Minister of Justice _ still has to get. It is not legislation that wé want; we want some doing, we want something done about these unlawful organizations, and about sabotage, and about maintaining law and order in the country, and this cannot be done by passing laws. The doing of those things is the contact they will make with the people responsible, and that is a matter of policy and not of legislation. If it is a fact, and I think it is, and on this our whole case rests on this side of the House, that the urban Bantu are a permanent part of our way of life here, and if one accepts that as a fact, and if the Government accepts it as a fact, we might get somewhere in dealing with this matter. It is not a case of a difference of opinion, but of differing about facts. You can differ about opinions, but not about facts. They are either facts or they are not. I do not think anyone on that side will give me any figures as to how many Bantu there will be in the urban areas in 1978.

What does that matter?

Of course it matters. Those figures will tell their own story. It makes all the difference whether you change your policy or whether you don’t. One cannot live in this country pretending that the Bantu in the urban areas do not really belong there, and that they are like a lot of transitory cattle which come in to graze and then go out again from the one paddock into the other paddock. They are human beings and they belong there, and they have families there, and they have jobs there. They are just ordinary people, and they are there to stay. If you cannot offer them something better than that which has been offered to them, and if you cannot put them in the situation where they have something to lose— and that is the situation in which they are now—you will never be able to deal with sabotage and the other problems. If you have nothing to offer them at all, which is better than what is offered them by Poqo, you will never defeat it. Hon. members know this very well. [Interjections.] Hon. members know what our policy is. If they do not, they should listen more carefully.

Yes, a multi-racial Government.

That is one of those facts that the Chief Whip has not yet realized. The fact is that South Africa is a multi-racial country. I am only asking the hon. member to face the facts, and the first fact I ask him to face is that this is a multiracial country. Or does the Chief Whip not accept that?

Yes, but I also believe in a White nation.

I wonder whether the Chief Whip will accept also that the urban Bantu are a permanent part of our way of life?

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

I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Justice is not present at this sitting after the dinner adjournment. I indicated that there were some remarks which I wished to address to him in connection with some of the glaring inaccuracies which he delivered in the course of his speech to this House yesterday. I am also sorry that the hon. Chief Whip is not in his seat to continue the running commentary and cross-examination which we were having just before the House adjourned. As I said, I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not here. What I should have liked to say to him relates to the inaccuracies which he put before this House—inaccuracies which one would not expect from a Nationalist Minister; but not only not from a Nationalist Minister but especially not from an advocate, to put it on a higher plane. But as the Minister is not here, I will not deliver the reverse lecture which he once delivered to me. Perhaps the dinner which I have had during the adjournment have made me a little less accusing of the Minister. Perhaps I have been unkind to him by saying that he has been absolutely inept and negligent, in that he must have known of the existence of this organization long before this report was put before the House, but that he did nothing about it. He has been inept in that he has been able to do nothing whatever apparently about the real cases of sabotage which have occurred here. Perhaps I have been unkind to him and instead of saying he is a bad performer, I should perhaps say that one must not shoot the pianist—he is doing his best. The hon. the Minister is playing on a piano which is out of tune—an antediluvian piano.

And this is what this Government has got to face up to; but at the same time I must say that it is something which the Government will not face up to. What is required is not a change of approach, but just a facing up to the facts. If this Government will only do that; if it will only face up to the facts in this country, we can save it yet. If the policy is going to be that which the hon. the Minister has outlined to us, viz. the policy of before of “ons sal nie buk nie”, if we are not going to change our policy at all regardless of what the facts are, where are we going to end up? Are we going to have more legislation and still more legislation until eventually even the imagination of the hon. the Minister of Justice will be completely consumed so that he cannot think of any more legislation to introduce or of any more powers he can take to deal with the situation? And we will even then still have our problem.

The facts of the matter are that the Government has not dealt with the situation; it has not done anything about it. It is no use saying that they want more power and that we oppose them in that. If they would only do something about it, we would be with them. But all the powers in the world are not going to bring a solution, Mr. Speaker! All the powers in the world are not going to change what is happening in this country! It is not going to change the facts in South Africa! This Government must just accept that. If it wants co-operation from this side of the House it must do this. This side of the House is very keen to restore the order of things in this country; we abhor the situation more than anyone else does, much more than the hon. member over there who laughs at the situation. He is in a position to do something, but I do not think he has the courage to do anything; I do not think he has the courage to face up to facts. What is more, I think it is the position in which all members on the opposite side find themselves, namely that they cannot face up to the facts. Ts that not the position in which the hon. the Prime Minister is finding himself now?

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. member for Langlaagte entitled to refer to what my hon. colleague is saying here as being a lie?

Did the hon. member for Langlaagte say that?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

One cannot lie about facts, Mr. Speaker. Facts are facts. One cannot argue about facts. This side can argue all day against that side and vice versa as to what is the best policy for this country to adopt, or about what is the best method for dealing with a particular situation, but we cannot argue about what is a fact. A fact is a fact. So it is fact that these Bantu in the urban areas are there to stay. Is not almost everything this Government has done directed to that end? Does any one have to pretend that the housing at Umlazi and at Kwa Mashu is not provided for a permanent urban population? Who will pretend that it is not? But yet we still have that pretence; we still have the pretence that these are not permanent residents in those areas but that they belong somewhere else and that they are going to have rights somewhere else. All these things have been outlined by my hon. leader and I am not going to go into them again.

If this Government, however, wants to cure the situation, then let them face up to the facts; let them place those facts before them, take off their spectacles and look at them.

What is your alternative?

The hon. member for Karas asks me what my alternative is. He knows what that alternative is; he knows it has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition twice during the present Session already. But whatever alternative there is, if it is not based on the facts, it will not succeed. That is the simple problem: Face up to the facts! When the final report of the Snyman Commission comes forward, I hope the Government will face up to the facts. In this connection, I hope some Minister here would give us some indication of whether the Government is prepared, as readily as they were prepared to accept the interim report, to accept the final report of the Snyman Commission.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) raised one or two small matters and among others he referred to “looking into the past”. I believe that if there is a party that should refrain from looking into the past, then it is the United Party. They have all but a clean past. He also mentioned that “a fact is a fact”. So then what I have just said here, namely that the United Party cannot look back at its past, is a fact also. I do not think he will try to argue that away. He also said that the Government is supported by the United Party in its attempts to take steps against the inciting groups, sabotage and violence. But this statement also is not borne out by Hansard. Among the members of the United Party as it is constituted this evening, there are elements that we could call liberals because of the protection they are so keen to offer the liberals. That is why they are opposing all attempts made by this side. By so doing they are giving aid to those elements to play their role.

The hon. member referred to “a scandalous position”. It certainly is a scandalous position in which the United Party with all its propaganda and its Press wish to land our father-land. But I am leaving the hon. member for Durban (North) now, because I wish to revert to the hon. the Minister of Finance and say that I have nothing but praise for this fine Budget he has submitted to the House. It is a Budget full of realism and it serves the immediate needs of the Republic and its people. Here I am referring more particularly to the R157,000,000 that is applied to the defence of our fatherland. It is not intended for aggressive action against any other country or against any internal group, but it is intended to protect ourselves against the possible which we hope will be the improbable. But how different could the Budget not have been if we had not had the scandalous position created by my friends on that side of the House. Possibly—and I am not apologizing for saying this—it is the result of a faithful pursuit of a policy followed throughout decades whereby various methods were adopted and a variety of weapons were used to achieve the ultimate objective. This real purpose of the enemies of the National Party very certainly will not fall from the lips of any speaker on the Opposition side; not even from the lips of any liberal or communist even those liberals and communists whom hon. members opposite call their friends, and whom they are so fond of protecting and pleading for. How different could this Budget not have been! Had it not been for the conduct of the Opposition and of the enemies of our nation, the Budget would have been aimed at the welfare and prosperity of our country.

I have stated that the United Party is responsible for the position in which we are, if not wholly, then to a large extent. Had it not been for the retarding effects of that, we could have had a different Budget this year. It is known to us that they are trying to prejudice our country, our Party and our Afrikaans-speaking nation, in a twofold manner. On the other hand, we as Afrikaans-speaking people are thankful that we can produce plenty of proof of our goodwill towards our English-speaking fellow-South Africans. That side of the House will find it extremely difficult to produce any proof of their goodwill towards the vast majority of the National Party and their idealism We on this side have throughout the years shown our goodwill towards the patriotically minded English-speaking persons on that side. But then there are other elements on the Opposition side also. I am thinking here of a Mr. Cope who in this. House urged economic measures against the National Party. I am thinking of Mr. Pilking-ton-Jordan who wanted all Afrikaans-orientated finance companies to be boycotted. Hon.. members opposite must know that in consequence of their conduct, capital fled the country. All that was intended to reduce the Afrikaans-speaking people of our nation in particular to poverty. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban (Point) should not interject so continuously.

I’m afraid you will just have to forgive him Mr. Speaker; he is only an empty cymbal. I should also like to mention that political and constitutional sabotage has been committed against our nation and our Party, and that that was done not only over the period of a few years, but for decades already. For the sake of the goodwill there should be between us, you will forgive me if I do not mention examples of that. However, history is full of it. I am accepting· full responsibility for what I am saying here. I do not want it to be related to any party organization of whatsoever nature, but I say that it seems to me that all their actions thus far, in this House also, have been caused by their intense hatred of us. They want to· achieve their objectives in that way. They do not hesitate to choose their allies and to use them against us.

In the United Party we have a liberal group. All of us know what the objectives of the liberals are. They are operating with the assistance of certain non-White groups in order to make our task difficult. Moreover, there is another leftist group opposite, namely the Progressive Party. Just to show you how leftist this Progressive Party is, I should like to refer to the Hansards of 1961 and 1962. Certain questions are put to the Minister of Justice by the representative of the Progressive Party, and these questions indicate where their sympathies lie. The first question concerned the banning of the Coloured convention. They wanted to foist a multi-racial convention upon us, did they not? Another question concerned the allowances paid under the Suppression of Communism Act, namely the allowances they wanted paid to contraveners of our laws. There are questions in connection with Mandela. All these types of questions force me to the conclusion that the representative of the Progressive Party in this House is in particularly close touch with the unruly and rebellious elements in our country. Because she is so interested in these people, she is continually putting this type of question. That proves that she has close contact with the liberal elements in our country; the liberals in turn link up with the communists and they are the ones who set in motion the Poqo movement, as well as the P.A.C. and the A.N.C. That cannot be denied; indeed, there is documentary proof that this is so.

The United Party are terribly surprised that violence and murder occur here. But what else can be expected but that a non-White group will be incited to acts of violence when they read the kind of speeches that are made in this House sometimes? For instance, the hon. member for Wynberg has said—

In other words, those members of the Opposition also who this afternoon manifested a certain degree of hypocrisy, by saying that they would …

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

I withdraw for the sake of the word.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally. I have just read out an extract from the speech of the hon. member for Wynberg. Any right-minded person who reading that and listening to the pious speeches made here can come to no other conclusion but that this kind of thing is said specifically and deliberately so that the Bantu must take by violence that which he cannot obtain by way of consultation. That is indeed what Poqo is doing to-day. And that is why to-day we are being compelled to spend hundreds of millions on safeguarding the security of our country. Here is not only an incitement of elements within our father-land, but also of world opinion.

The hon. member has said that we spend hundreds of millions on account of Poqo. Is that correct?

I have also referred to the relationship that has been brought about between us and foreign countries as a result of the propaganda of the Opposition. But that hon. member is the last person who should put questions to me on these matters. When she speaks in my constituency, she says that we Nationalists refer to “Bantu”, whereas she has never called them anything but “Kaffirs”.

That is untrue, and you know it.

It is easy to accuse me now of telling an untruth, but it was never denied in the Friend. That is what appeared in the Friend, which is a newspaper supporting that side, but nobody has as yet denied it.

It is untrue and you know it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw those words, but say that what the hon. member says is untrue.

The hon. member adopted the same attitude during this debate yesterday by accusing this Government of doing too much for the Bantu and too little for the Whites. It amounts to one and the same thing. They are the people now who are playing the role of champion of the Whites, while we are the people who are doing too much for the Bantu. I could produce much further proof. In his evidence before the Snyman Commission Chief Matanzima stated that Poqo was assisted by the liberals in manufacturing the petrol bombs that were used on the occasion of the Bashee River murders. He also said that communists and liberals from Cape Town and Natal were the persons who had helped there. Murder followed their visits there. This charge is laid against the United Party here because they refuse to admit that Patrick Duncan and those who think as he does are communists, and because they wish to act protectively here when we seek to silence the Liberal Party. That is why we can come to no other conclusion but that they are the patrons of those organizations. I have said that I have my doubts in regard to the motive behind the actions of those people, and I have taken it upon myself to offer as an explanation of that the submission that it is the age-old grievance a group of them have against us. Now they want to harness every element to destroy us.

Is it not true that the only incidents of sabotage and disturbance by White people have been caused by supporters of the former National Party, and not by supporters of this side of the House?

I challenge that hon. member to prove that any sabotage perpetrated during the war was committed by order of a leader of the National Party. It may be that an individual committed sabotage, but he cannot name a group …

It was done by supporters of the National Party.

If you want proof, there sits a former general of the Ossewabrandwag, and he will be able to tell you whether he issued any instructions for sabotage to be committed. I should like to conclude by appealing to the United Party and its satellites. I wish to put it to them in all seriousness that in a country where there is multi-racialism, as in our own country, you have to be careful about the language you use and the manner in which one person criticizes and attacks another. Had we been a homogeneous nation merely divided into various political parties, it would not have mattered very much, but to act under the present circumstances in such a manner as to lead to the consequences we are experiencing is wrong. That is why I should like to appeal to the United Party to be more careful and also to ask its Press to be more careful in what they say with regard to the legislation and the actions of the White man.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. J. J. Rail) used the time allotted to him to couple the United Party to Poqo and to the riots we have had in this country. I also expected the Prime Minister to have availed himself of this opportunity of telling the people of South Africa that we were living in dangerous times and that we should therefore set an example to the non-Whites; that we should come together to see what we could save from the mess in which we find ourselves.

The United Party is in a greater mess.

As I have said, I expected the Prime Minister to have availed himself of this debate to-day to give guidance to a South Africa which is filled with fear not only of things outside South Africa, but of things inside as well. This is not the first time that we have experienced difficulties. A few years ago we also experienced difficulties at Langa and Sharpeville. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I want you and the Press to note that there is a deliberate and organized attempt by petty party politicians to put somebody off his stroke when he is dealing with serious matters. That is nothing new to us. We know that a great number of the Nationalists opposite are paid agents of the Nationalist Party and that they are not sitting here to serve South Africa but to fill their own pockets because they have nowhere else to go. I came here with the best of intentions and to offer a hand of friendship to the Government …

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say that members on this side of the House are here to fill their pockets? I think that is a very serious charge.

It is not as defamatory as when we on this side of the House are accused of supporting Poqo and of assisting them to commit acts of sabotage.

I should like to have your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Is that hon. member entitled to say that members on this side of the House are here to fill their pockets?

Order! The hon. member for Sea Point must not be so personal.

I shall try not to make myself guilty of that, Sir, as long as hon. members opposite allow me to carry on with my speech.

I was saying that I have come here with serious intentions fully aware of the seriousness of the situation in which South Africa finds herself. I have come here to offer a hand of friendship, as my hon. leader has done, to the Prime Minister and to tell him that we shall assist him in this emergency as we assisted him when our country was in a state of emergency during the time of Sharpeville and Langa. We gave our assistance as far as possible and we criticized where we thought it was necessary to do so. We supported the Prime Minister as much as he wanted us to support him. I think he will agree with me when I say that. But did we get one word of appreciation for that? The speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon surprised me. I have never known him to be discourteous in this House; I have known him to sink to the level to which he sank this afternoon when he attacked my Leader. I do not know why he did it. The only conclusion I can come to is that the Prime Minister realizes that South Africa is in a serious position and that that was why he carried on like a person who was filled with fear. I do not think it is necessary for him to be so afraid; we shall help him when it is necessary.

What worries me in particular is this, that when my Leader spoke this afternoon, the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) said that we of the United Party were encouraging the world outside to attack South Africa and the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) said that we supported Poqo. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he believes that? Has he done anything to help those two hon. members right?

I have already said everything that was necessary for me to say in regard to your support.

If that is the case, the Prime Minister naturally expects us to go a little bit into the history of the Nationalist Party as well. We on this side of the House admit at once that there are communists operating in South Africa to-day; we admit at once that there are White people—I admit that for my part—who are doing what they should not be doing, either deliberately or through ignorance. I admit at once that there are such people and that they are doing a great deal of harm amongst the Native people. I also admit at once that I shall assist in placing those people under restraint. At the same time I shall also be the first to admit that there are Natives in South Africa who have grievances and I think the Prime Minister will agree with me in that respect. Will the Prime Minister hold it against us if we try to assist in removing those grievances of the Natives? Will that be unreasonable on our part?

I wish to quote what a former leader of the Nationalist Party, namely Dr. Malan, said at the time when the United Party attacked him because he had advocated certain policies during the war years of which the United Party did not approve. The United Party said at that time, just as that side of the House is to-day saying to this side of the House, that they were on the side of the Germans. Dr. Malan said this—

That is precisely what I am now saying to the Prime Minister. If he thinks that, when we are willing to support him, we should remain silent and just blindly agree with what the Government is doing, then we are not willing to pay that price. The hon. the Prime Minister can depend on the United Party to do two things: Firstly, we shall support him if he takes steps against the agitators and we shall assist him to maintain law and order in this country. He can also depend upon us that when the grievances of the Natives who are not represented in this House, have to be brought to light here we shall bring the justifiable grievances of the Bantu people pertinently to the notice of the Government. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that this Government is scared only of two things. To-day they are scared of Poqo. We have had similar organizations in the past in South Africa. When the United Party was in power we had to contend with greater difficulties but we were not scared out of our wits. Poqo has scared this Prime Minister out of his wits, but his greatest fear remains the United Party. [Interjections.] I am still coming to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker). I shall tell you why the Prime Minister and the Nationalist Party are so frightened. Sir. They know that when the sea is rough, when the waves are high, it is traditional for people to seek refuge on the highest rocks. It has become traditional therefore—they are so fond of that word “tradition”—during every crisis for the people of South Africa to prefer the United Party to govern South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister laughs, but he knows that is so. It is interesting to see how the Nationalist Party hedges. The previous speaker tried to couple us to Communism. Are we not the very people who said: Make Communism a crime equivalent to high treason, punishable by death. What is their record from time immemorial in connection with Communism? Let us look at it.

You fought with them.

There is somebody who says we fought with them. I challenge that hon. member. Both he and I will still hand in our resignation to Mr. Speaker this evening if he can show me a single speech or article by the Nationalist Party or by a Nationalist Party organ in which they attacked Communism when Hitler and the communists were allies during the last war. Do you accept my challenge? You only became a communist when Russia was attacked by Germany. I make this offer in all seriousness. You can get in touch with the Burger and ascertain whether they ever said anything against Communism.

I said you fought with them. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please listen to the Chair. I shall not allow any further interjections if hon. members do not listen to the Chair.

I do not want to devote too much of my time to that, but I can show them, during the Communist/Bolshevist revolution in Russia, the Nationalist Party, through the then leader of the Nationalist Party in the Cape Province. Dr. Malan, said at Victoria West: “Communism is nothing else than the will of the people to be free.”

What are you quoting from?

I can give it to you. I am quoting from the Burger. They talk about supporting Poqo, I can refer to the days when the late General Smuts and the late General Hertzog formed the Government. They wanted to take action against communists and amongst others they charged a well-known group of communists before the court for treason. What happened then? Those communists subpoenaed the late Dr. Malan and various other people to come and give evidence on their behalf. Who were the persons who gave evidence? The late Dr. Malan and Advocate Erasmus, atlhough he was not subpoenaed. He gave evidence in his capacity as secretary of the Nationalist Party in 1936. How do I know? I was there.

What was the evidence?

Order!

Simply to the effect that during their time they had done exactly what the communists had done at the time, namely to defame the King. Let us get a little nearer home. We are now told that we are breaking faith with South Africa because we are supposed to be inciting the Native saboteurs and Native rioters; we are supposed to be so very unpatriotic as to do that. Let us look at their record. I just want to sketch the background. Oskraal, which is near Queenstown, has often been mentioned here during the shooting of Sharpeville. The Government said at the time: “Yes, but Jan Smuts also shot people at Oskraal.”

Bulhoek.

Yet, at Bulhoek, but some of them lived at Oskraal. Somebody who is a member of the Native Affairs Commission at least ought to know where Bulhoek and Oskraal are. Normally he would have known, but that hon. member … well, Sir! There was also trouble at the time and General Smuts also had to call out the Army. There was also shooting. An election was then held at Queenstown and the Natives were still on the Common Roll. Do you know who the Nationalist Party candidate was? Mr. Eric Louw, the present Minister of Foreign Affairs. I still want to go further with Mr. Eric Louw. After the shooting a telegram arrived from Dr. Malan, not to Mr. Eric Louw, but for him to use. You can find that in the Burger of 14 December 1919. It read—

If that is not siding with the Native, then I do not know what is. And may I remind the hon. the Prime Minister that that is traditional. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine my Leader sending a telegram to Luthuli to-day after any of the riots we have had and saying: Never before has there been a greater hero and a greater patriot than you, Luthuli, and you ought to take your place alongside us in this Parliament. I notice the Prime Minister is no longer laughing.

It is so stupid.

No, it is not stupid. It is simply something traditional in your past. What you wanted to accuse us of we are now throwing back at you with interest.

The hon. the Prime Minister attacked my hon. Leader this afternoon because my Leader had taken exception to it when the Minister of Justice tried to compare our objectives with those of the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. When my Leader hit back and made certain comparisons, the hon. the Prime Minister said that we were to-day accusing them and saying that, not only the objectives but the methods of Poqo were the same as those of the Nationalist Party. There is very little difference, Sir. You talk about the methods employed by Poqo, intimidation, but did the late Dr. Malan not write in his book that he knew who killed Lotter? It was not the United Party who killed him, was it? Who committed those political murders at the time? I was prepared to forgive and forget that, but I am not prepared, when the hon. the Prime Minister gets up here and says that I support a bunch of hooligans and skollies who call themselves Poqo, to forgive and forget that. I am not prepared to let them get away with that. I am prepared to forgive and forget those things but the hon. the Prime Minister must not tell us that we are encouraging saboteurs. I shall most certainly never do that in my whole life.

Are you scared?

Do you see, Mr. Speaker; there are people who think it is brave to encourage saboteurs when you are on the winning side. Now he says I am too scared; I am not too scared; I am too decent. If they think it is a brave and courageous thing to do I feel sorry for them. The courage of some of those hon. members will still be put to the test in future.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to create more trouble than we already have. I sincerely trust that the hon. the Prime Minister will rise to those heights where he will say: “Look, it is no longer I, Dr. Verwoerd, the Leader of the Nationalist Party, but it is I, Dr. Verwoerd, the Prime Minister of South Africa and I am more concerned about the future of South Africa than over the interests of the Nationalist Party.” I am telling hon. members across the floor of the House to-night that the day when the interests of South Africa clash with the interests of the United Party I shall not hesitate a moment to act in the interests of South Africa. I am asking the Prime Minister and every Nationalist to do the same. I come into contact with the people of this country often enough to be able to assure the Prime Minister that just as the people forced their leaders to come together during the gold standard crisis, the people of South Africa may force the leaders of to-day to come together eventually.

You have to comply with four or five essential elements if South Africa is to remain safe for the future. The very first one is that White leadership should be retained in South Africa, at least in the foreseeable future. What future generations may do will be their own affair.

Where is the “with justice” now?

Naturally with justice. There are certain things you take for granted, Sir; things which you do not always say. There are certain things which any fair-minded person will simply take for granted. It is only when you are accustomed to being unfair that you want to repeat that you are going to be fair. I say that is the first prerequisite. The second prerequisite is that the White people must stand together. The third is that there are too few Whites, that we need a greater number of Whites.

The Black partners.

I am talking about White people not about Black partners. And the fourth—the Prime Minister’s interjection will probably be more fitting here—is this that we should retain the confidence of the Native in South Africa. Without that, in spite of all his boasting, the Prime Minister will go under as sure as I am standing here. He will go under if he does not have the majority of the Native and Coloured people on his side. Then there is the last element, but it is equally important. Unless South Africa has Western friends in this difficult world in which we are living, friends on whom she can depend in times of emergency, she will also go under. In view of the five points I have mentioned we have to ask ourselves whether this Government should continue to govern the country. Do they still stand for White leadership in spite of all their stories of domination of the past? [Interjections.] Fortunately they say that they are still standing for White unity. To-day they tell us that they want to bring the two White sections which they have torn asunder from top to bottom together under one allegiance, one loyalty and one love for one fatherland. I now come to the third point, namely to strengthen the White community with more immigrants.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Heilbron is talking continuously. Will he please remain quiet.

He is a baboon.

Mr. Speaker, it makes no difference. The hon. member never says much. If you have to put the record of this Government to the test in respect of strengthening the White population of South Africa.…

Order! Did the hon. member for Turffontein speak about a baboon?

Yes, I referred to the hon. member for Heilbron as a baboon.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

When we come to the third point, Sir, namely to strengthen the White population of South Africa we find that this Nationalist Party is guilty of having committed the most serious crime towards future generations. We wish them every success in the world. We shall certainly do everything in our power to get more immigrants to come here. But they are too late. The English-speaking people will cry out: “They were the late Nationalist Party.”

Let us take the fourth point, the question of the confidence of the White people and the confidence of the Natives. Does the hon. the Prime Minister really believe that the Coloureds have confidence in them—they tell us that every day—and that the Coloureds are well disposed towards them? I wish they did have their confidence. I sincerely wish that, not for political reasons, but I wish I could have said to-night that the Coloured people still had confidence in the word of honour of the Nationalist Party. I wish I could have said that but I cannot because that is not so.

What are you doing now?

I am stating facts; these are not figments of my imagination; this is the truth.

The final point: Do you have the confidence of the majority of the Natives? You say 90 per cent of the Natives are not politically ambitious. I agree. Only a small minority are politically ambitious. Whether the Government have deserved it or not, the fact remains that they do not have the confidence of the broad masses of the Natives, and they know it.

Have you got it?

Can the Government mention one Western nation which is not ashamed to be seen in their company, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs said?

You should be ashamed of yourself!

The Minister said that not I. [Interjections.] Now he laughs; now the hon. member for Heilbron says it was a slip of the tongue. That is how seriously the hon. member for Heilbron regards politics, Sir. I should be ashamed of myself because of the something which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said! That’s a good joke!

What is the future of my child if that is the picture? I had hoped that the hon. the Prime Minister would have availed himself of this opportunity of painting a prettier picture for South Africa, of giving South Africa hope and of saying: “Look, I am prepared to take the hand which you are offering me in these difficult times.” Instead of that he brushes that hand aside with contempt. I predict, Sir, that if the present position continues the Prime Minister will no longer have a choice but that he will have to accept the assistance of the other White sections in this country. He will have to accept it no matter what happens. He will have to beg and pray— I hope not pray; I hope it will be given willingly—for that assistance. Why does the hon. the Prime Minister refuse to be big-hearted enough now that that hand is being offered to him to take that hand? Why does he refuse to take the hand of friendship of another Afrikaner who means it as well with the Whites as he does? Instead of that the hon. the Prime Minister accused my Leader of hypocrisy and that he was pretending that he was also fighting for the interests of the White man. No, Mr. Speaker, you cannot save a nation in that way. I cannot say to my children: “The country in which you were born is safe.”

I want to conclude with the same words with which I started.

But you are fighting for a multi-racial nation.

Does the hon. the Prime Minister not realize this: We are not fighting for a multi-racial nation; we are a multi-racial nation. Walk down the street and see for yourself. I am sick and tired of this type of argument that the United Party stands for economic integration. There is economic integration and when is economic integration not economic integration? How can we not be a multi-racial country if we are a multi-racial country?

A multi-racial nation.

No, it is not a question of a multi-racial nation; it is a question of whether the Prime Minister is willing to manifest those elements of statesmanship which I believe he possesses and realize that, if he can break away from the narrowness of the Nationalist Party, even the Natives in this country will mean more to South Africa than someone from a foreign country. I do not want to discuss that matter now, Mr. Speaker. You will not allow me to do so. But I want to say this that the hon. the Prime Minister will need the help of every person who is well-disposed towards him whether he be White or Black or Brown. I am asking the Prime Minister this in all sincerity; I am not trying to make political capital out of it: Does he accept that I, and not only I but the entire party on this side, am willing to stand by South Africa in times of emergency; does he accept that what we are saying is sincere and that it is not idle words to gain a petty political advantage?

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson); I have listened to his dramatic appeal to the Government to accept the hand of friendship of the United Party. If ever there is a hand of friendship I am always very anxious to take hold of it but it must be true friendship. I should like to remind the hon. member of this that it was only last week that the cry was: “This is the parting of the ways.” We heard that there was no hope of ever getting together. So how must I regard this hand of friendship? I do not believe it is sincere. You cannot say one day that this is the parting between the parties and then offer the hand of friendship the next day.

What is the point?

The point is this that there is always room in South Africa for the White races in this country to get together. I have experienced over the years, however, that there has not been a real attempt by the Opposition to get together. I have found these great exhortations that this is the hand of friendship, but I always found that it was never there when it came to the push. There have been many opportunities, Sir, and they were not taken. That is why I say there is a bit of cynicism on our part when the hon. member for Sea Point makes that offer. [Interjections.]

I also want to talk to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). Sir, we also find that that side of the House adopt the “holier than thou” attitude; that they really want to look after the interests of the White man and maintain law and order in this country. When he was cross-questioned, the hon. member for Yeoville said: “You cannot show me that we have in any way been anti-Native”. I do not want to accuse anybody of being anti-Native, but some of the public utterances of hon. members opposite have had the effect of inciting anti-Native feelings in South Africa. It is part of the operation pro-White campaign of the United Party. They said they wanted to get rid of the labels and now they have to show White South Africa that it can trust them. This is one of the methods which they are employing.

Are you anti-White?

I want to speak to the hon. member for Point (Mr. Raw) because he is one of the culprits in this matter of creating bad relationship between White and Black in this country.

May I ask a question: Are you anti-White?

I think the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) heard me say that I was anxious to create good relationship between both sections of the White people. I am also not here to try to create emnity between Black and White.

Why do you pick on me?

The hon. member picked on me as far as his question was concerned. I was dealing with the hon. member for Durban (Point). This was what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said on 24 August 1962—

You ought to know that that report was repudiated.

I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) …

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that that report was corrected by the member concerned?

Mr. Speaker, it was not corrected by the hon. member. I will give the correction made by the hon. member in regard to another speech altogether. I have it here in detail. What happened was that the Rand Daily Mail reported a speech of the hon. member and they said that he had accused the Government of having “kaffer politiek”. He wrote in and told them that he had said nothing of the sort. He said he did not refer to “Kaffir policies”. This is the letter which he wrote—

The hon. member said that the first report which I read was not the true one. This was how he corrected it. He corrected the words “Kaffir policies” to “Kaffir politiek”. The hon. member is now trying to get out of the extract I read. I was also at Weenen and he was playing these tactics all along the line. He said that too much was being done for the Africans by the Government in comparison with what was being done for the Europeans. He also said that no new laws had been made over the past 15 years for the benefit of the Europeans. The hon. member for Yeoville said: “I challenge him to show me where any frontbencher of my party has made an anti-Native speech”. That is the first point; now I want to give the hon. member the next one and that comes from the hon. member for Durban (South Coast) (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), a front bencher, a man who has been the leader of Natal for 14 years. What does he say? This was reported on 8 November 1962 and he never repudiated it. This was what he said—

If you want to adopt that “holier than thou” attitude, then you must be able to stand up to it. You have to show your credentials. He goes on. He accuses Dr. Verwoerd of being the country’s greatest liberal leader. He said Dr. Verwoerd was spending R20,000,000 on Pondoland and to create a Black state in the Transkei, and he continued—

Order! I am calling upon the hon. member for Durban (Point) to desist making interjections.

Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that is is essential to have good relations between Black and White. But listen to this. This comes from a responsible leader. He says—

Sir, you know what has happened in Ghana and Nigeria; you know what has happened under Black rule there. And what does he say? He says that the Bantu in South Africa are no different. Then he goes on—

Is that going to cement the feelings between the Whites and the Blacks? Is that not a deliberate attempt to try to create anti-Native ill-feeling, an attempt to try to get a few White votes for the United Party? Finally the report says this—

Mr. Speaker, both sides of this House in some way or other are trying to give some sort of voting system to the Bantu. Why then should the hon. member say that the Bantu regard the vote as a stupid innovation by the Whites? Why should he do that? You know why? Only because he wants to be able to say on the platteland that he is the great conservative. He wants to say: “They want to give the vote to the Black man; I do not want to give the vote to the Black man.” That is the way in which the relationships are being bedevilled between Black and White by this sort of language and this sort of speech.

Have you got any more cuttings?

Yes, I have got plenty of cuttings and I am bringing these cuttings because hon. members will deny that they ever said those things unless I have the proof to show. Why did the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) try to make out that he never made that statement I quoted and that he had repudiated it?

Take the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). Look at the atmosphere he is trying to create, the atmosphere of suspicion, suspicion amongst the White people in the Transkei, purely to see where they can find some fish which they can catch with the anti-Black bait they are using. And perhaps they will. The hon. member for Sea Point says that they are anxious to work with the Government and to help the Government. I remember the debates on the Sabotage Act last year. Surely there was an opportunity for both sides of the House to get together. I know the hon. member for Germiston (District) was a member of the Committee and I still remember the interview he gave. What happened? The hon. member did not find much fault with the Sabotage Bill. He said in a Press interview that he did not find much fault with the Bill. So what happened? The English Press right through the country started making propaganda against the Bill. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) led them by the nose. All of a sudden they changed their tactics. Even their own Press said that the United Party was not going to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but they were going to suggest amendments in the Committee Stage.

Nonsense! They never said so.

Yes, they did. The Sunday Times and other newspapers then in no time changed the U.P. line. And what did they do? After the hon. member for Germiston (District) had given a very fair and guarded comment on the measure, in which he said that there were certain clauses he did not quite agree with, but he had no principle objection to the Sabotage Bill, what happened? What was the language the hon. members used afterwards? I remember some of them, because I said at the time that I thought it was disgraceful how hon. members attacked the Bill: “A Nazi measure.” They now want to refer to something that took place in 1960. They don’t want us to refer to 1962. When the hon. the Prime Minister referred to the Sabotage Act and a Press cutting, they said: “No, don’t refer to that, go back to 1960.” Why? Because the attitude the Opposition took in 1962 in regard to the Sabotage Act was not a credit to them nor to South Africa, and they know it. They called it a “Nazi measure”, and “entrenched barbarism” and “child-hanging Bill”. Not even “hanging Bill”, but “child-hanging Bill”. What is more, one of their newspapers had a caricature of a hangman testing a rope to take a child of 60 lbs. That is the low level reached by the Opposition in regard to the Sabotage Bill. We remember it was called the “Civil Death Bill”. I never understood why the hon. Leader of the Opposition lent himself to that sort of thing. I have always regarded the Leader of the Opposition as fair-minded, but he brought in the word “death” because he realized that it was a dramatic description which would catch attention: “Civil Death Bill.” It was part and parcel of a campaign of calumny. “Destroying civilization.” I could go on and on. I remember well when we quoted a Rhodesian measure, the Law and Order Maintenance Bill, how the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) and the hon. member for Durban (Point) saying that this Law and Order Maintenance Bill in Rhodesia was not in any way comparable to our legislation. When we talked about minimum sentences, where in some cases a minimum sentence was laid down, there was the qualification that the Judge was still free not to impose a minimum sentence. They tried to make out that we were the Nazis, but in Rhodesia you had the real gentlemen and they obeyed the rule of law, and there were no minimum sentences in the true sense of the word. Will the hon. member tell me what is his attitude to-day when they now have the “mandatory death penalty clause”? What does he say about the mandatory death sentence in Rhodesia?

So far as I remember you were wrong in your quotations right through.

No, I quoted the law and I told them what the position was in Rhodesia. The hon. member for Durban (Point) pointed out that I have left out a quotation which said that the Judge still had a measure of jurisdiction. I remember reading of a sentence where a man had thrown a stone at a bus and he was given five years, in Rhodesia. Although that was the minimum sentence the Judge had the right to bring it down, and the judgment was to the effect that the Judge was not prepared to exercise his right because of certain conditions at the time. And then he gave the man five years. But of course if that happens in South Africa, it is some breach of the law, the rule of law goes, and the hon. member for Durban (North) feels that we on this side are a lot of Nazis. Now I want to put a question to him: There in Rhodesia it is not a minimum sentence of five years, it is not a minimum sentence of four years, of three years— the minimum sentence for certain crimes is mandatory death. What has the hon. member got to say about the Rhodesias? Are they terrible people? Are they Nazis? Is that a jackboot Bill?

Has that been passed in Rhodesia?

Yes, that was passed by that Parliament.

When?

What difference does it make, Mr. Speaker? The Bill is through Parliament. I have got the cutting here and I will read it to the hon. member. This was the report in the Cape Times on the 9th March—

And listen to this—

Oh!

… for pregnant women and youths under the age of 16.

Where is the hon. member with his “Oh!” These terrible people in Rhodesia. The report continues—

I mention this because of the language that was used in this House last year. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) knows what the position is. He knows how law has to be passed to maintain order in a country, and he was the one who had to sit and listen to the speeches that were made on the lines that I have indicated.

Did you read my speech?

Yes, and I noticed what did happen. The hon. member never made his speech until right at the end. Why? Because he was ashamed of the showing put up by the other side of the House.

A remarkable deduction.

Those are the things hon. members opposite have got to outlive before they can take voters with them in South Africa.

I want to come to another matter they should take note of. I want to refer to the position overseas.

Oh, no!

Oh, yes. The hon. member for Yeoville knows that some time ago he defended Mrs. Bertha Solomon when the Minister of Justice referred to certain articles she had written overseas and certain false and untrue statements she had made in those articles. Now firstly when a person writes overseas and writes about the politics in South Africa and is a South African, what is that person doing? They are not writing in South Africa where they can sway the voter one way or another. Even certain untruths may be rather harmless. But they are not writing in South Africa. They are writing overseas, and this good lady was writing in Canada. Now what can the purpose be to write to a newspaper in Canada and distorting the picture and not telling the truth about South Africa? The reason is to try and create an image of South Africa which is the worst possible. Such a writer cannot gain votes in Canada for South Africa, but the image is created that South Africa is one of the countries that Canada has no reason to support in international politics.

Did she not correct those statements?

Not yet. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said that she had written and said that she would correct the statements, but as Minister of Information when these articles were brought to my attention, I said: Write to the hon. ex-member and ask her to correct them. She wrote back and said this—

Then he wrote back to her and said that nevertheless we would still want her to correct that article. We have watched the papers and are waiting for a report to see whether the papers put in whatever correction she has made. But the point is that hon. members opposite jump to her defence. The hon. member for Yeoville was so anxious to defend her, and I accept that he did it for reasons of a personal nature, but from the point of South Africa: Why should you protect a person who does not tell the truth about your country overseas and does it for the purpose of disparaging your country? Why should she have done so? And that is something that the people in South Africa cannot overlook easily.

Because they protect all saboteurs.

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I said “Omdat hulle alle saboteurs in Suid-Afrika probeer beskerm”.

That is not what the hon. member said. He said “Hulle beskerm alle saboteurs”.

The hon. Minister may proceed.

The fact is that untrue statements were made overseas. Is that a fact or not a fact?

She offered to correct them.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a point to you. Surely if we have an Act on the Statute Book making sabotage a criminal offence, then it is highly unparliamentary for the hon. member for Wakkerstroom to allege that the Opposition protects saboteurs. I ask you, Sir, to ask the hon. member for Wakkerstroom to withdraw that insinuation.

The hon. member has admitted that he said so and he should know himself that he should not say such a thing.

I withdraw the expression.

May I continue?

On a point of order, the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) said by way of interjection that the hon. member for Wakkerstroom is a coward. Is that Parliamentary?

Order! Did the hon. member say that?

I said that “die agb. lid tree op soos ’n lafaard”.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw those words.

The point I make in regard to this case is that unfortunately the Opposition in this instance by direct action attaches itself to false statements about South Africa overseas, but the point is that they also attach themselves to false statements by newspapers and by what they themselves do, and some of them not necessarily false statements but statements which are only intended to do South Africa harm. I want to read one statement. This is reported on 31 October 1962 in the Rand Daily Mail—

You see, Sir, he refers to overseas experts and he puts into that the most unfavourable suggestion possible. He says that the S.A. Army is of no strategic value and that it is regarded as a force to keep the indigenous population down. He goes on to say—

I want to ask hon. members whether that shows any loyalty to South Africa? When a man makes a statement like that, is it a statement to help South Africa, or is it a statement to discredit South Africa? He goes on in this way—

These are the people who want to offer their hand of friendship! This is the Opposition that makes the holier than thou gestures to us in these benches. Can they expect us to believe that these gestures are sincere? That hon. member said further—

May I ask the hon. Minister whether his Department now is keeping files of all statements made by M.P.s?

I think I am entitled to keep my files the same as any member of Parliament. You know what the trouble is with the hon. member for Turffontein? This is his way to try and get his party out of a jam. [Laughter.] The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. Van der Byl) is very amused. I thought he was going to be quiet ever since he had little Patrick Duncan on his knees, jostling him up and down. He told us: “Since a little boy I have had him on my knees. How can he be a communist?”.

I did not sell my soul to go over to the other side to get a job.

The hon. member for Green Point can never live this down. He was hoping to become High Commissioner in London in 1948 and he did not get the job.

I am only sorry for the hon. Minister.

The hon. member should not squeal so much. Listen again to the hon. member for Wynberg. I have got another interview here that he gave when he came back—

Then according to the interview, Mr. Russell said—

Then he goes on, this man who goes overseas and is so important that he has interviews with leading members of the Kennedy Administration, and he says—

More than one person regarded Eric Louw as the greatest handicap to good relations at the United Nations.

That about our Minister of Foreign Affairs overseas. He continues—

Mr. Speaker, you know what I thought a South African would say to a man who talked to him like that, even if he were a member of the Opposition; “Look here, South Africa is my country …

What did the Government side say about Hitler during the war?

Order!

He went on to say—

I also gathered that no one in the United States of America insists that South Africa should totally reverse her present policy.

Now this is the clever part “should totally reverse her present policy He continues—

And the hon. member for Durban (North) came back and he said this—

Hear, hear!

Let me put a question to the hon. member. May I ask hon. members opposite whether they do not believe in discrimination on the ground of the colour of a man’s skin? Did the hon. member for Wynberg tell the Kennedy Administration that our Opposition also believes in discrimination based on the colour of a man’s skin? Did he? Of course not. They tried to tell them that they of course are the upholders of “no discrimination” in South Africa, and that only the Government believes in discrimination on the ground of the colour of a man’s skin. Because otherwise the hon. member for Durban (North) could not come back and say that the Kennedy Administration would support the Opposition. He could not have told them the full story. He could not have told them that the Opposition also wants separate amenities because of the colour of a man’s skin. He could not have told them that they want a separate roll because of the colour of a man’s skin, that they do not accept the principle of a common roll for all. But you see, it is this sort of double-talk, these statements overseas, these efforts to create the impression that they are such a wonderful Opposition, that they are the answer; that the American Administration and the Kennedy Administration approve of the Opposition policies that is put across. And why do they do it? They come back here and try and bluff the White voters in South Africa. They want to tell them: You must support us as Opposition, and then immediately America will swing over to support South Africa when we get into power. They know in their heart of hearts that that is not the case. They know in their heart that they will have to fight the same struggle that General Smuts in 1946 had to fight over discrimination, because discrimination is their policy as well.

So when hon. members on that side of the House offer their hand of friendship, I would say: The language that they have adopted with regard to the Bantu, the language that they adopt when they talk about overseas visits, and what they say overseas, are of such a nature that they first will have to be corrected before anybody on this side of the House feels that there is a loyal and sincere attempt to create good feelings between the Opposition and the Government.

It is very clear to all of us that yesterday the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) set a ball rolling which he by this time must be wishing he could stop, or had never set rolling. It is very clear that in South Africa to-day we are dealing with the cold reality of a wave of Pan-Africanism which is making its onslaught against South Africa too. In addition it is very clear, and we are quite aware, that Communism is riding on the crest of this Pan-Africanistic wave, and in South Africa these two elements are linked together in the present manifestation of the undermining of activities, and they have an arrangement and they are working together. In other words, it is very certain that there is a White element too, that is concerned in this matter and is co-operating. But it is sheltering behind the Black man. That has come to light more and more during recent years, and evidence has even been given in the country districts by Bantu prisoners to the effect that certain White persons from time to time make their appearance and visit them and incite them into doing what they are doing, with the promise that they will return. Fortunately for us in South Africa we have a National Government in power that has the courage to deal with these subversive elements, and is working hard to secure our White heritage, our heritage of civilization in South Africa, and where the hon. member for Germiston (District) yesterday came forward with the charge that the Government is not doing enough, we should like to remind him that during the past decade, and particularly during the last few years, this Government has taken several drastic steps to combat these elements, measures that have been fought tooth and nail by the United Party on every occasion. Remember the legislation to suppress Communism, and consider the banning of several organizations, such as the A.N.C. and the P.A.C., or recollect the Sabotage Act of 1962—we sat here and a lengthy debate took place necessitating even a night sitting, and then the Minister of Justice issued a warning that there were powerful elements which were determined to try and overwhelm and oust the Government of the country, and not only the Government, but the White man in South Africa as well. But in spite of the warnings he uttered on the basis of data he had at his disposal, the Opposition persisted in opposing that legislation (which was imperative) on all kinds of grounds, and particularly on legal grounds, mark you. Then, every time the Government is busy with something of this nature, they come along with the argument that certain human rights and certain legal principles are involved. But the electorate outside are not as unintelligent as the United Party may imagine. Actually on each occasion they draw only one inference, that in the United Party we have a very irresponsible element which on every occasion acts directly or indirectly in such a way that it gives that element which is set on undermining South Africa and the peace in South Africa and the Government of South Africa, and order in South Africa, the impression that they are their protectors. One day, at the beginning of 1949 I had occasion to be here in the gallery of the House of Assembly. That was within a year after the National Government had come into power. On that occasion Dr. Malan made an offer to the then Leader of the United Party to co-operate with him in taking the colour problem out of politics, and on that day he warned them that after that it might possibly be too late for them to co-operate. But the answer was: “No, because it would commit them to a policy of separate development.” Once again an excuse. But in reality, as I have read the history of the United Party over the past years, they have always tried to gain more political rights on their integration course for the non-White so that politically they might strengthen themselves and potentially ensure a larger number of voters for themselves. And they are proceeding on this course, still always assuming that they at least have the support of the non-Whites. Now I should like to tell the hon. member for Sea Point, who has referred to the support of the non-Whites for the United Party, that this United Party, too, is making a grave mistake. The responsible, thinking non-White, the Bantu as well as the Coloured, is to-day aware that it is this Government, the National Party and the National Government, and this Government alone, that guarantees for the future peace and proper co-existence for the various national groups in South Africa.

In other words, the United Party is increasingly being associated not only with those elements that are unwilling to co-operate with the Government, but also with the elements that are trying to disturb the peace and good order, and trying to impede the progress of South Africa. I have a very clear example I could present to hon. members. At the moment we are busy dealing with the legislation in connection with a constitution and self-rule for the Transkei. Here we have a resonant positive measure that gives to the Bantu of the Transkei the little place in the sun referred to by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) and which grants him the political rights in his own area he has asked for and for which he yearns.

Order! The hon. member cannot go too deeply into that.

I am merely mentioning it, and the U.P. is opposing it. But when we talk about the liberals, the people who are continually busy behind the scenes encouraging subversive elements, hon. members opposite take them under their wing, such as the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. Van der Byl) who pleaded for Mr. Patrick Duncan as being such a good democrat. Then they do not want us to touch them, because they say they are good South Africans. We as right-thinking people and the voters outside are able to add two and two together. When the U.P. takes the liberals under its wing, and when the Snyman Commission says that there is a link between the liberal elements and Poqo, we draw the inference that the U.P., and the Leader of the U.P., with all the seriousness he tries to show, indirectly are the patrons of these subversive elements, and they cannot get away from that. It does not require great intelligence to draw that inference. I should like to say to the U.P. that there is no crisis in South Africa, despite what the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) has said this evening, that the time is near in this crisis when the people will choose the U.P. again. The hon. the Prime Minister has explained in what sense there is a crisis, but this is not a crisis in the real sense but a crisis as far as the existence of the U.P. is concerned, because the electorate once again sees the U.P. in its true colours, with all its irresponsibilities, its negativism, and its refusal to take steps to protect and secure the survival of the White man in South Africa; the U.P. in all its negativism is refusing even to give the Bantu his homelands and his normal constitutional development, and it is doing its best to break down responsible Bantu leaders.

In the course of this debate, we have heard that Ghana has clandestinely contributed R50,000 towards this subversion of the peace in South Africa, and that is nothing new to us; we expect something like that from Ghana and even from other states in Africa that are obsessed with Pan-Africanism and the idea of Africa for the Black man and for the Black man alone. But I think it is high time that we told these irresponsible elements both within as well as without South Africa that R50,000 is far too little with which to effect anything worthwhile. The National Government is willing; and South Africa is willing— I can tell you, Sir, that the taxpayers are willing—that this Government should spend at least R 1,500,000,000 during the period of ten years from 1960 to 1970 for the security of our State and for its protection against a possible onslought from outside. So if Ghana thinks that with R50,000 it can do the work it would like to do, it is completely mistaken. I can tell you that the young men of South Africa are willing to sacrifice themselves in this struggle against Pan-Africanism from outside, as well as these subversive elements from within, whether it be Bantu incited by the Pan-Africanists or by Communism. What is more, during the same period of ten years the Republic will spend at least R 500,000,000 on its Police Force, and in the maintenance of law and order. It does not require a prophet to say that. In other words, the Government is now actively building a wall against forces from outside, and laying a firm, restraining hand upon those who are trying, within the borders of the Republic of South Africa, to undermine and destroy our heritage. So we are willing to pay a high price, and I am sure that we shall be able to secure our future in this way.

If I may say something to our Leader tonight, in spite of the pious submissions from the other side, it is this: In this struggle that we will be waging, we shall have to forget about the United Party and support from them. On every occasion they will, when it suits them, find some kind of legal or juridical excuse to leave us in the lurch. Mr. Speaker, you cannot go to war with a person who is likely to desert you halfway or who might shoot you in the back. The United Party is too afraid to take a stand in this struggle, because it is always afraid that it might offend or tread on the toes of someone in its fold; for apparently it is the policy of the United Party to try to bring together those who in herently do not belong together. Bearing in mind the fact that this is a budget debate, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice to strengthen the Police Force still further, and even to provide for more money and manpower being available for this service in the ensuing year, and not only by harnessing our White youths for this service; I think the development of our Coloured townships provides an opportunity for absorbing more young Coloured men into our Police Force, with a view to service in those areas. I am convinced that not only will those people render their contribution with great pride, but that it will lead them to a measure of self-realization, knowing that they are co-operating in securing South Africa, and in showing that they do not associate themselves with these forces of Poqo and other organizations.

Sir, we ask that more of these men be recruited to help in rendering this service, and the same applies to the Transkei. The Bantu know the Bantu, and I am sure that if we had a bigger Police Force and were to train the Bantu and use them in the Transkei, they would provide an important auxiliary service in destroying Poqo, and similar subversive activities there also, because the ensuing Government of the Transkei needs that strengthening.

Mr. Speaker, we are full of optimism that even this so-called crisis is only a temporary phase. We are optimistic that we shall continue to preserve the peace in South Africa and that this Government and the Minister of Justice are fully capable of dealing with the situation. That is why I should like to tell the United Party that we are not concerned about what they are going to do. One thing is certain, and we are giving this assurance to one and all, and that is that we shall not lightly surrender our heritage.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose following in detail the speech of the hon. the Minister for Information, because I have some difficulty in following the point of his remarks. He diverted the House for some time from its more serious business with what is becoming an annual excursion, or tour, through the files of his Department. This type of excursion is interesting from an hon. member who is also now the Minister of Tourism, but one does necessarily have to remind oneself from time to time that these diversions emanate from a Minister of State.

I should like, however, to dwell for a moment on two points which emerged from his remarks. The first was his concern as to whether the speeches of the United Party were pro-White or pro-Black, or both, and more particularly I want to say a few words about his strictures on the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), who, so the Minister alleged, said on a certain occassion recently that too much was being done for the Bantu. The hon. the Minister took great exception to that, but the interesting thing is what is the Minister’s objection? Is his objection that it is untrue? Does the hon. the Minister say that too little is being done for the Bantu, and if he does not say that, why does he object to such a statement being made? It is all very well for wild remarks and expressions of great annoyance to emanate from the Minister, but let him tell us why he objects to such statements being made, although of course the hon. member denies having made them. But if such a statement is true, why does the Minister object to it? What is the image that the Minister wishes to convey as being the image of his party? We had a lot of complaints from him and from speakers opposite about the alleged dual facade of the Opposition, but it ill behoves hon. members opposite to voice that type of criticism when one recalls the type of advertisements placed in magazines overseas by the hon. the Minister, clearly alleging that the policy of the Government is to create a number of sovereign independent states in South Africa, as compared with the speeches one hears in this House when a desperately pathetic attempt is made to reassure the voters outside that such is not and has never been the intention of that party, and that it will merely be self-government and nothing more. This tenderness of the Minister about the speech made by the hon. member for Point is surprising, to say the least of it, when it emanates from a spokesman of a party which for the first time now in 50 years is posing as the friend of the Black man. For the first time in 50 years this party, of which the Minister is now the spokesman, wishes to be known particularly in certain quarters abroad, and more particularly in areas such as the Transkei, as having the interests of the Black man at heart. Hence the extreme tenderness displayed, not only by this Minister but also by the Prime Minister earlier to-day on this subject. It arises not out of a real desire to forward the interests of the Bantu people, and that is quite easily demonstrated. There is a wish that the leaders of the emergent Bantu states in Southern Africa should accept that this Government has the interests of the Bantu at heart, but the proof of the pudding is surely in the eating. How can a party which stands for endorsing out from their homes to strange places of the Bantu in the Western Province pretend to have the interests of the Bantu at heart? How can a party which stands for job reservation, which imposes greater hardships on the urban Bantu than anything else, pose as a party having the interests of the Bantu at heart? The overwhelming desire of this party is to create that impression, because it is necessary at the present time for that impression to be created, but it does not stem from the heart. It does not stem from compassion for the real interests of the Bantu people.

Do you not believe in job reservation?

Of course not. It does not stem from a genuine desire to foster the interests of the Bantu, and one need only point to the position of the urban Bantu to drive that point home.

The hon. the Minister, unwisely I think, referred to the Rhodesian legislation and tried to suggest that that was an aspect of the debate on the Sabotage Bill last year when he came out well. Now, what were the facts? I have a particularly clear recollection of this portion of the debate. The Minister got up and purported to interpret the terms of the Rhodesian legislation then prevailing in Southern Rhodesia dealing with sabotage. The point he wished to make, and it was one of many inaccuracies in his speech, was that this was the justification for a compulsory minimum sentence; and after the hon. member for Durban (Point) had read the actual terms of that legislation to the Minister he was forced to accept that the one thing which it did not provide for was a compulsory minimum sentence, because in every case there was a discretion left to the courts.

And now, with the death sentence?

The hon. the Minister was referring to something which took place last year. As so often happens, he jumps up on the spur of the moment and tries to make a point out of something he has not carefully digested, and thereafter finds that he was wrong. He went on to deal with the position prevailing overseas at present. He said that the Opposition attached itself to false statements published overseas. That may be misfortune for the Opposition, but it is a misfortune which can easily be pushed aside. because it is so often the case that one can show that the statements with which one has accidentally been associated, or by design, as was the case with the Minister, are false. But how much better is it to be in that position than to be in the position in which the hon. the Minister finds himself, where he and his Government are so often associated with true statements published overseas, statements which, whilst being true, are totally against the interests of South Africa because of their very truth? So there can be no more unfortunate position to be in than that, because no amount of explanation can detract from the facts of the matter and its misfortune. No amount of explanation can do away with the impression that is left, associating this Government with a statement which was certainly adverse to the interest of South Africa because it happened to be true. That is the situation in which the hon. the Minister finds himself so often, and it is a situation which does so much damage to our good name overseas.

There was an amusing aspect, one of many, in the Minister’s address, quite inadvertent, I am sure, but it does point a truth, when he referred to the alleged criticism by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs during one of his trips abroad, and the Minister said that this was a scandalous statement and that the hon. member for Wynberg should have said: That man represents my country and I will not hear criticism of him. and I stand by him. But what the Minister did not say was that the criticism alleged to have been voiced against the Minister of Foreign Affairs was untrue. It was never suggested that to say of that hon. Minister that he is tactless, that he upsets all the diplomats overseas with whom he comes into contact, was untrue. The defence given by the hon. the Minister was that despite all that, the hon. member for Wynberg should have said: My country, right or wrong; my Foreign Minister, right or wrong. Quite inadvertently he has revealed the actual and true criticism of that hon. Minister.

I was particularly interested by one or two remarks made by the hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht). I see that he is not in the House at present, but the theme of portion of his speech was that we were fortunate in having a Nationalist Government in power because such a Government would ensure peace in South Africa for the future. It is this sort of attitude that one finds quite baffling. After all, who has been in power for the last 15 years? Who is the Government at present? Who controls almost every aspect of the lives of the Bantu, and who is able to control the situation? Who does control justice and the Police Force and the Army, and who controls the sources of information? The Nationalist Government, Sir. Listening to the debate from that side of the House, one would think that Mr. Justice Snyman had never made a report. We have a Government in office which has risen to power on the slogan that one must have in South Africa a strong Government, on the basis that only that Party sitting on the Government benches knows how to deal with the Bantu, and yet in spite of that we have reached the stage where Native administration has virtually broken down in South Africa. After 15 years of the Government of all the talents, which is alleged to be the most efficient Government we have ever known, diplomatic relations between Black and White have virtually broken down in South Africa.

That is nonsense.

The hon. member says that is nonsense. I suppose when the Commissioner who has been investigating these things says that Poqo attacks are increasing and have assumed alarming proportions, and the more attacks the more the law-abiding Bantu are influenced to join Poqo, or at least out of fear to assist it, particularly by not helping the authorities in the prevention of poqo crimes and the apprehension of Poqo members, that augers well for the administration of Native affairs. I suppose that when the Commissioner says that law-abiding Bantu and even Whites in the Transkei are panic-stricken to a serious extent and that the Whites were also afraid to give evidence before him in public, that augers well for the administration of Native affairs in South Africa. I suppose that when the Commissioner says—

That augers well for the administration of Native affairs in South Africa. I suppose that when he says—

there is perfect control by this Government of Bantu affairs in South Africa. [Interjections.] Sir, one wonders, hearing a remark such as the hon. member has just made, whether hon. members can read. We have reached the stage where this requires to be said, that for the first time since the Kaffir Wars nearly 100 years ago we have reached the stage in the Cape Province under a Nationalist Government when the Native administration here is about to break down. That is the situation for the first time in all that time, and this serious stage is reached under a Nationalist Government, the Government of all the talents, the Government by people who know how to deal with the Bantu.

You are a first-class agitator.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw it, and say he is a second-class agitator.

On a point of order, the hon. member said he withdrew it and then said the hon. member was a second-class one. Is he entitled to say that?

Then I will say he is a third-class one.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw unconditionally.

I withdraw.

That hon. member typifies the attitude which was so effectively condemned by my hon. Leader this afternoon, the attitude of irresponsible levity by a member who is also a member of the Native Affairs Commission. It is perhaps to be expected that if that sort of member is on a commission of that kind we have reached the state of affairs we have reached, when we are on the verge of large-scale violence and subversion. Sir, those words sound strong—large-scale violence and subversion …

You are really not even a third-class agitator.

Order! I instructed the hon. member to withdraw those words and he must not repeat them.

I withdraw.

Sir, I wonder—on second thoughts, I am certain that that hon member does not realize it—whether the House realizes what happens when we lose the trust of the law-abiding Bantu, and when the mass of the decent Bantu in South Africa prefer to give their loyalty to a terrorist organization rather than to the Government. The hon. member for Piketberg made the point that it was necessary to have more police, and he said that the Bantu know the Bantu and therefore we should have more Bantu police. I wonder whether hon. members, and particularly the Minister of Finance, realize what happens if we lose the trust of the Bantu police? They stem from the urban Bantu communities in the towns, and some of them from the rural Bantu communities. Their families live in those areas and they and their families are subject to the pressures and influences of an organization such as Poqo just as much as the ordinary garage hand or the factory hand. What happens if we lose the trust of the Bantu policeman? We then lose the sole remaining link whereby we can control events in South Africa under the civil power.

That is very suggestive.

Are there any indications of that?

You are putting ideas into their heads.

The blindness of those hon. members passes one’s belief. Do they not realize that every time a Poqo suspect has to be rounded up, a posse of police goes out with probably one or two White policemen and ten or twelve Bantu policemen, and very often the search party consists of Bantu policemen and detectives alone. What happens if we lose the trust and faith of those people? And if we can lose the trust of the ordinary Bantu we stand in danger of losing the trust of the Bantu policeman as well, and if that happens these hon. members will be even more afraid than they are at present.

That is almost inviting them to do it.

We live, as was said by the hon. member for Sea Point, in a multi-racial society, and whether we like it or not that is the fact of the matter. The bulk of the Bantu population presently live in the urban townships. in daily contact with the White people and with Western standards and ideas, and despite these influences of civilization which constantly impinge on their minds, we have reached the stage in our history where civilization is unable to compete with a subversive organization like Poqo for the loyalty of the ordinary Bantu.

Where do you get that from?

How much less can the ordinary Bantu withstand the blandishments of these menacing organizations if they are shut away by themselves in a Bantu state in a remote corner of the country, divorced from the influences which at present help them to resist these evil influences; left entirely to the mercy of the witchdoctors, the Poqo agents, and the like? This must go on as long as we have this Government in power. They are determined, according to the Minister of Justice, to continue with their policy and that means that in the Western Province they are determined to continue endorsing out to the Transkei the Bantu at present resident in these White areas. Imagine oneself for a moment as a Bantu and his family who are going to be endorsed out to the Transkei. I wonder whether these hon. members have ever thought of that? What happens? An official, no matter how well-meaning he may be, says to the person concerned: You must go back to the Transkei.