When we adjourned last night I had pointed out that the hon. the Prime Minister had addressed the House at great length. I do not want to take exception to that, except to tell the Minister of Justice that if he finds—that is the experience of all of us in this House—that 90 days’ detention is not enough to break a man psychologically, he can confidently bring the persons concerned to listen to such a long speech by the Prime Minister in this House.

One is compelled to be selective in one’s reply when replying to the Prime Minister. I want to say immediately that what struck me most in the speech of the Prime Minister was the attack he made on the judgment of the Leader of the Opposition and on our judgment on this side of the House in the incident where he referred to us as Judas Iscariot. Mr. Speaker, I find it surprising that the Prime Minister and the party he represents can accuse us of a lack of judgment. In every great decision which the people of South Africa have had to take in their history since the Prime Minister has participated in politics, his decision and that of his party has been wrong. In connection with the gold standard in the 1930s our nation was on the verge of bankruptcy as the result of the wrong judgment of the party opposite, including the Prime Minister. No, then we had to prove our economic independence to the rest of the world by not leaving the gold standard. At the outbreak of war in 1939 it was the policy of the party opposite and of the Prime Minister not to participate in it and they considered that Hitler and the Nazis would win the war. Early in May 1940 there were rumours that the Nazi armies were rallying on the borders of Holland with a view to an invasion. On 10 May an article appeared on the leader page of the Transvaler with the approval of the editor, the present Prime Minister, in which it was stated that it was merely vile Allied propaganda that Hitler would ever do anything so wicked, and when the Transvaler appeared on the streets the Nazis were already firing on the innocent people in Holland. To come nearer to the present time, every citizen in South Africa received a circular, in a facsimile of the Prime Minister’s handwriting, with his signature, in which he referred to a Republic within the Commonwealth. As an honest man he believed that that would happen. He judged that we would remain within the Commonwealth, but his judgment was wrong. We heard from the Prime Minister how he bases his policy of apartheid, of separate Bantustans, on the assumption that the peoples of Africa and the nations of the world want it. He wants us to believe that the people of the Transkei favour his policy. At the first opportunity they got to vote, the majority of them voted for multi-racialism, and thanks only to the fact that the appointed chiefs who are dependent on the mercy of the Government voted for Kaiser Matanzima was it possible for Matanzima to obtain a majority of votes. In regard to this serious matter his judgment was also wrong. His excuse of course is that the people of the Transkei were exposed to propaganda. But, Mr. Speaker, are they then to follow his policy by not being allowed to hear other opinions? Are they to be sheltered from the truth in order to persuade them to adopt his policy? What is one to think of such a judgment? And that is the hon. gentleman who expects the people of South Africa to have confidence in his judgment in respect of the greatest problems and the greatest difficulties which have ever faced South Africa.

Let us examine the judgment of the hon. the Prime Minister a little further. We have observed a lack of judgment in the whole approach of the hon. the Prime Minister in respect of the Broederbond. What was his approach? In the first place he tries to shelter behind the Sunday Times. He tries to intimate that because these revelations appeared in the Sunday Times they must be suspect and therefore we cannot believe them. But what appeared in the Sunday Times? Revelations, every one of which came from prominent Afrikaners, and for the rest the publication of the actual documents of the Broederbond. Neither the Prime Minister nor any other member of the Broederbond can be heard to say that those documents were not genuine. Because any doubt which existed as to the genuineness of those documents was removed by the actions of the Special Police of the hon. the Minister of Justice. They went out of their way to ascertain how those documents came into the possession of the Sunday Times. To-day we know how. Those documents cannot be doubted; they are genuine. But the main point in the Prime Minister’s defence is that they appeared in the Sunday Times and that we are now following the Sunday Times. Mr. Speaker, we are not following the Sunday Times. We are following the facts which appeared in the Sunday Times. The hon. the Prime Minister might just as well say that murder is not an important matter; the people who are at fault are the public prosecutors and the police who bring cases of murder to court and publicize them. That was the strongest argument we had in a three-hour speech.

Let us examine the hon. the Prime Minister’s defence further. The Broederbond is similar to other movements, for instance the Freemasons and the Sons of England and the Anglo-American. But even the S.A.B.C. was too ashamed to use that argument against the Anglo-American this morning, although they devoted most of their broadcast to the part of the debate dealing with the Broederbond. Let us look at the differences. The membership of the other bodies mentioned by the hon. the Prime Minister is easily ascertainable, and it is a well-known fact. Not a single Freemason, as far as I know, has ever asked that his membership should be kept secret. But that is not all. Anyone can get into touch with the Freemason movement. I took the trouble this morning to refer to the Cape Town telephone directory and I immediately found two telephone numbers of the Freemasons. Sir, I challenge any Nationalist to give me the telephone number of the Broederbond. [Laughter.] It is a well-known fact that in every town there is a building which is known as the headquarters of the Freemasons. Where are the headquarters of the Broederbond? Where does it hold meetings? The Prime Minister talks about organizations with secrets, but the Broederbond is not an organization with secrets; it is a secret organization. [Interjections.] There is a great mass of literature written also by Freemasons which is available even to their enemies. Nothing is available about the Broederbond, except a half-baked apology such as we had from the hon. the Prime Minister. Even the ritual of the Freemasons is freely available and can be purchased, with the exception of a few key words which are omitted. Show me the rites of the Broederbond. Sir, what is the oath the Prime Minister took when he became a member of the Broederbond? To what extent is that in consonance with his duties towards the whole of the population of South Africa? No one can ascertain that. [Interjections.]

Order!

But the Prime Minister went even further and compared the Broederbond with public companies, like that of a former member of this House, Mr. Oppenheimer. But how can the Prime Minister do that? Where on earth is his insight into the facts if he says something like that? I want to give a few examples of the differences between a public company and the Broederbond. A public company has to register and publish a memorandum of association. Its constitution is public knowledge. Is the constitution of the Broederbond publicized? A public company has to hold public annual meetings. Any member of the public may buy shares and attend the annual meeting and can question the directors. Its books are subject to public audit, and an auditor has to confirm that what it did with its money was done lawfully. How does that apply to the Broederbond? Every director of a company must from time to time declare what his other interests are, so that the shareholders may know whether his interests clash with any other interests he has. What publication is there of the interests and the membership of the Broederbond? That is the absolute nonsense to which we have listened for hours while the Prime Minister defended the Broederbond. [Interjections.]

Order!

May I put a question?

No, you are just wasting my time. The Prime Minister wants to appoint a commission in regard to the Broederbond and other organizations. I shall not reply to that: my leader will reply, but I can say this: Where is the prima facie case which justifies such an investigation in regard to the other organizations mentioned by the Prime Minister? But we have the case against the Broederbond, based on intimate documents, the authenticity of which was proved by the Special Police. Documents were published, from which we see that the Broederbond circularizes people and instructs them how to promote members of the Broederbond in their posts. In the Transvaal an applicant for employment with a municipality is disqualified if he solicits the support of City Councillors, but here we have a facsimile of a document where members of the Broederbond are urged to approach the Town Council of Springs, to approach a member of the executive body, a certain Mr. Lloyd, a Broederbonder, to obtain employment as the City Engineer. That is an authentic document, as was proved by the Special Police. Any person who makes use of such means should be disqualified as an applicant. Show me any other body in South Africa which does such irregular things. And when the minority on the Town Council of Springs wanted to discuss these things, they were not allowed to do so by the majority, because they were too guilty. Our charge is—and that has been proved—that the Broederbond is guilty of organized nepotism. The Prime Minister says that by raising this matter of the Broederbond we are destroying national unity. Has he read the Circular of 1962, issued by the Broederbond, as it was published in the Sunday Times, in which the Broederbond says that national unity must now be promoted in South Africa, but on what basis? On the basis of assimilating the English-speaking people and preventing them from assimilating the Afrikaans speaking people. What is the meaning of the concept of national unity if the one section is to dominate the other, and it is not based on the principle of justice and equality? My leader gave the Prime Minister a golden opportunity to divorce himself publicly from that sort of approach to national unity by resigning from a body which approaches national unity in that spirit, but the Prime Minister refused to do so. Sir, I want to make a counter-offer to the Prime Minister. He says the Broederbond is similar to a public company. Let him apply an Act with the same provisions, mutatis mutandis to the Broederbond as those which apply to public companies, and we will immediately cease our agitation against the Broederbond. I hope he will have the courage to abide by his standpoint because he compared the Broederbond with companies.

But let me give another example of the Prime Minister’s methods in debating. The Prime Minister devoted a large part of his speech to the Native policy of the United Party, and particularly to the provision which says that we will not grant any further rights to any section of the population without a referendum. He took us under cross-examination and spent almost an hour on it, but the reply was in his hand all the time. He had this document of ours in his hand, but he did not read its contents. [Interjection.] Here it says that we give the electorate of the country a guarantee that we will not extend the political rights of non-Whites further than is specifically stated above without first obtaining the approval of a definite majority of the electorate for such an extension. On that point the Prime Minister attacked us for an hour and he asked us what would happen if the electorate should change. But the reply is contained in the following paragraph, and why did he remain silent about that? Why does he sow suspicion in that way when he had the full facts before him? How can we meet each other in South Africa in regard to our differences and put the one standpoint against the other if the standpoint of one party is misrepresented in this way by a responsible leader? Here it says very clearly—

Because remember that we can introduce these reforms only after having obtained the approval of the electorate at an election—

In other words, we clearly say that the electorate may change and therefore, having implemented this first mandate we obtained at an election, we will write in new guarantees just as effective as the referendum we will hold. But this he did not mention, and the whole speech of the Prime Minister amounted to nothing but the sowing of suspicion. I do not want to say that he should have known better. I do not want to say that the Prime Minister was dishonest, but I do say that he is flagrantly neglectful if he has two copies of our policy in his hand and reads just one paragraph but not the rest.

The Prime Minister devoted much time to the international situation and, inter alia, he made the absolutely astonishing statement that nowhere in the world will one find a multi-racial state which has been successful. I wonder whether I heard him correctly. I looked at a map of the Continent of America, and with the exception of Canada every state—and there are about 30 of them on the Continent of America—is a multi-racial state. In some of them there is a Black minority and in others a non-White majority, but they are stable states. America is full of multi-racial states, but the Prime Minister bases his argument on a denial of the facts; he says there is not a single successful multi-racial state in the world. [Interjections.]

Order!

Of course the Prime Minister was correct when he said that we stood alone. He alleges that the rest of the world is sick, and only the policy of the Prime Minister—not even that of the Nationalist Party, because he has changed it—is the correct one, and we are the only sound country under his policy. Sir, I wonder why the Prime Minister has just appointed a Minister of Foreign Affairs? Abolish that post, because what are we to do with a Minister of Foreign Affairs in a world which is sick and in which we alone are healthy? What is the use of sending a doctor to a sick patient if the patient does not want him? That is why I said yesterday that we could summarize that part of the Prime Minister’s speech by the cry: “Stop the world, I want to get off.”.

There is not the least doubt that there may possibly be a change of opinion in the world vis-à-vis South Africa. I personally believe that as a result of events in Africa and the instability which exists and the visits paid by the leaders of communist China, there must be important nations in the world which will now have to start thinking anew, and we have an opportunity such as we will never obtain again, but that opportunity will be of no benefit to South Africa, because the policy of this Government is such that the Western nations cannot associate themselves with the policy of the Prime Minister. Just recently a prominent American wrote an article about South Africa in the Reader’s Digest, one of the most well-disposed articles I have read for a long time. He was Mr. Clarence Randall, an ex-president of the Inland Steel Company of Chicago and an adviser of the Government on foreign economic investment. But what did he say while he was in South Africa? I quote from an interview he granted to the Natal Mercury on 17 October 1963—

All that is petty apartheid, all are things which derogate from the human dignity of people in South Africa. That they cannot tolerate. The trouble with the Prime Minister’s policy is that in essence it is a dishonest policy. It is a policy designed to promise heaven on earth to a minority of Natives in their own areas, but for the majority of Natives there are no rights or human dignity in the White areas of South Africa to which we attract them to help to create wealth for us. Therefore the policy of the Prime Minister will never be able to improve South Africa’s position, because it ignores the facts. I wrote in one of his own newspapers, Dagbreek, last year that if the Prime Minister really wanted to give meaning to his policy, he should change the conditions in the Native areas in such a way that there would be fast economic development in those areas, as in the White areas, so that the Natives could be attracted back to their own areas, and away from the White areas. That is the only way in which he can give meaning to his policy, but he will not do it. He dare not do so; he has not the courage to do it. In the meantime South Africa must suffer and be detested and downtrodden by the whole world, and the Afro-Asian countries rejoice when they succeed in isolating South Africa completely from the Western world. And why? Simply because we have a Government and a Prime Minister who do not keep pace with the times and who do not want to face facts. The fact, whether they like it or not, is simply that South Africa is a multi-racial state. Nobody can deny that, but the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government want to hide the truth behind political fictions and want to give a minority of Natives everything, whilst the majority have no real rights in the country of their birth. I should like one of the hon. members opposite to reply to this question. The Prime Minister mentioned many examples of ethnic division. Where in the world is there another country where a person born in that country can never claim to be a citizen of that country, but is expected to abide by the fiction that he is still a citizen of another country? What would we have thought of South Africa if we had said that the children of our Prime Minister could never become South Africans but should be satisfied to enjoy their political rights in Holland? That is the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister, the policy which is forced upon us in the name of apartheid. That is the reason why we are despised by the world. Until such time as either one thing or another happens in South Africa, things will go from bad to worse with us. The one is that the Government should come to realize that we are living in the second half of the 20th century, and that they are no longer subjects of dear Queen Victoria. The other is that they should get out and make room for a Government which will govern South Africa as it is, as a multi-racial state, in this second half of the 20th century.

The hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow up his argument, simply because the time at my disposal will not permit me to do so. I just want to say to the hon. member in passing that he started off with a tremendous amount of steam. I could not quite follow what the hon. member wished to make us believe, but I did gain the impression that he is not a member of the Broederbond. I say that the time at my disposal will not permit me to follow the hon. member; other members will do so.

In the first place I want to express my sympathy on the one hand, and convey my congratulations on the other, to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). The hon. member has had the experience in this House that the Leader of the Opposition, in so far as the attacks which he made upon me are concerned, ploughed with her oxen—both of them. I understand the one’s name is Hamilton and the other’s name is Russell. [Laughter.] We find that the hon. member for Houghton has given notice of a motion to discuss the so-called 90-day provision. Nothing whatsoever has come from the Opposition; there has been no notice of any motion to discuss this matter on its merits. That, of course, is why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was obliged to drag in this matter at all costs in the way in which he did, and he was forced to raise this matter as a result of Press publicity and as a result of instructions from the newspapers which support him. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now seen fit to make an attack upon me. I can understand that, because it so happens that as a result of the circumstances in which we find ourselves, circumstances of which we are all fully aware, my Department, and therefore I myself, have come under the searchlight a good deal in recent months. It is not necessary for me again to set out those circumstances, which I outlined on various occasions last year. The fact of the matter is that we were faced internally with a greater threat than we had ever faced before in our history. Hon. members will recall that it was not only I who said that; the Leader of the Opposition boasted that he had his own independent information, which corresponded with mine, and that was the one reason, amongst others, why he supported my legislation. Both the Leader of the Opposition and I therefore were conscious of the threat which existed. Let me say at once in passing that thanks to the measures taken by the Government, in so far as the past year is concerned, thanks to the 90-day provision and thanks to the smart action taken by the police, those threats have been averted. Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had the same information in his possession, I did not expect thanks from him for the fact that my Department averted those threats, but I did at least expect an expression of appreciation from him of the fact that South Africa has been spared those things which faced her. That I did not get from him. On the contrary, what I got from him was a number of trivialities, to which I shall reply if time permits me to do so. But let me say this immediately in passing. If the only sins which I committed are those which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned here, then I think that having regard to the dangers that existed and the measures we had to take to cope with the situation, I could even have expected an expression of thanks from him in the circumstances.

What nonsense!

What reproaches did the hon. the Leader level at me? He began—and I mention just this one case; I shall come back to the others later on—by reproaching me with the fact that Wolpe and Goldreich escaped. They did escape, but for the rest his facts were entirely wrong. After all, he knows that the young constable stole the keys which he used to allow these people to escape and that he was not in charge of their detention, as he alleged by implication. It is a fact, unfortunately, that these people did escape, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I, if I may refer at this stage to something else in lighter vein, find ourselves in the same boat. We cannot do everything ourselves; we have to call in the assistance of others from time to time. I had to call in the assistance of this constable, and two of these people got away. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is in the same position. He sometimes has to call in the assistance of other people like the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), and two of his members also got away. [Laughter.] But let me put this in all seriousness to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I listened to him very attentively. Does he really think that these minor matters which he raised against me and my Department deserved the attention of a Leader of an Opposition? Are these not minor matters which one should leave to a rather weak back-bencher—and I can think of many? Should he not have left it to them to discuss these matters with me under my Vote or on some other occasion? But the Leader of the Opposition made a peculiar speech and I cannot resist the temptation to say that he also made some peculiar statements. He advanced the proposition, amongst others, that South Africa’s prosperity was due to the fact that the Government had failed in its policy, in other words, because it was a weak Government. If that is the criterion, then we should put the hon. member in power immediately, because then South Africa will be so prosperous that when a dog barks one will be able to throw a £5 note at it.

Pagel’s Circus needs a clown.

If that hon. member wants to apply for the post I shall give him the best testimonial that one could ever get. The Leader of the Opposition attacked me and said that as far as he was concerned he had no confidence in the Government and, more specifically, no confidence in me. I did not expect him to have it, but it is not important to the Government or to myself whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has confidence in us. What I say is this, and I want the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) to contradict me if this is not correct. I say with the greatest confidence that not only the supporters of the Government have confidence in this Government but that members of the Opposition too have been showing increasing confidence in the Government and the measures taken by it. After all, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of the fact that to an increasing degree his supporters are leaving him, like leaves falling from a tree, and moreover he knows why that is so. He has every reason to be concerned about the inherent weakness that exists within the party and about the inherently weak leadership which comes from the party. After all, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of the fact that he is no longer a free agent in politics but that he is ordered left and right and that the course which he has to follow is prescribed for him by the Press which supports him and by the liberal and Leftist elements within his party. After all, he is aware of the fact that that is so.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to certain cases. He referred to the Rivonia case which is sub judice and he referred to the Look smart inquiry in which judgment has not been given yet. I cannot therefore deal with it. What are the functions of the Department of Justice and what are my functions more particularly? In the first place it is my function to maintain law and order. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not levelled the reproach at me—and I challenge him to do so because he is in no position at all to do it—that law and order have not been maintained in South Africa since we last gathered here.

That is precisely why he is annoyed, why he is disappointed.

Moreover, my task is to ensure the safety of the State. Is the Leader of the Opposition annoyed with me now because we successfully averted the threats which face South Africa? My task and my duty is to see that justice is done to all. Does the Leader of the Opposition accuse me—and I ask him this question pertinently—of not having done so? If that is his accusation against me, why does he not come forward with examples; why does he not lay them at my door? What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do? He talked about the powers which the police and I have at our disposal. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will do me the courtesy of replying if I put this question to him: Have I misused my powers in any respect in connection with that piece of far-reaching legislation? Because that is the test before us not only in this Parliament but that is the test as far as the people of South Africa are concerned. I should like to have a courteous reply from the Leader of the Opposition to this question. I could not quite follow what his charge against me was; that is why I now ask him pertinently, man to man, what his charge against me is, because it is a serious matter if a charge is made against a Minister of Justice of a country.

You heard his accusation.

I am asking the Leader of the Opposition this simple question and the rules of courtesy require a reply from him. Is his charge against me that I have misused my powers?

I shall reply on Friday.

No, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not reply on Friday because then I shall not be able to react to it; he must tell me now. He has not got the courage to make an accusation against me in that connection.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition talked about the powers under the detention clause, the 90-day provision. Let me put a second question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; perhaps he will be courteous enough to reply to it. Slightly more than 600 people were arrested. Of those 361 were charged, 213 were released and only 41 are still being detained. I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because his charge was vague in that connection and because as usual he simply left things in the air: Is his charge against me that any of those 600 people whom I detained should not have been detained or that they were wrongly detained? This is a very cardinal question. When one member attacks another member in this House, as the Leader of the Opposition attacked me, then one expects him in the first instance to come forward with proof and to have the courage of his convictions to say to you, “You erred here and you erred there.” But why does the Leader of the Opposition simply leave this charge hanging in the air? It would be very easy to tell me. Were any persons wrongly detained? I do not want to know their names; I do not want to know the details. I simply want to know whether his accusation is that certain people who were detained should not have been detained by me.

How would we know?

I do not expect him to know but if the Leader of the Opposition makes certain accusations against me I do expect him to have the courage to substantiate those accusations, but he does not do so. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because it is popular here in the liberal Press and in the oversea Press, has now seen fit once again to attack the 90-day provision. We discussed it here last year. I want to put a further question to him: Is he against that provision? Because that is not clear at all from his speech. I have again read and re-read his speech. Is he against detention in principle or is he against the implementation of the provision in practice, or is he against both? No, I will get no reply from him. If he tells me that he is against the principle—and I assume that he will not say so in this House but he may perhaps say outside of the House that he is against the principle—then my question to him is this: “Why did you vote for it, because you did vote for the principle of 90-day detention? It is true that you opposed the clause in the Committee Stage but you voted for the principle at the second reading; you moved amendments in the Committee Stage; those amendments were not accepted and you voted for the principle as contained in the Bill at the third reading.”

Is that the only principle in the Bill?

That is not the only principle contained in the Bill but it is the main principle contained in the Bill. It is this principle contained in the Bill which caused the then member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) to resign; it is this principle which is so important now that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition specially raises it in the no-confidence debate. It is so important that they voted for it. [Interjections.] The hon. member also voted for it but the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) did not even have the courage to take part in that debate. At no single stage did he enter that debate. If therefore the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tells me that he is against this provision in principle and that he attacked me for that reason in this no-confidence debate, then I say that he does not have the slightest right to do so. If he tells me that he attacked me because of the implementation of the provision, then my question to him is this: Why did he not mention a single example? He had before him 361 people who were defended in the courts by attorneys and advocates, attorneys and advocates who for the greater part are his supporters and who have access to him, and he had 213 people who were released, and yet the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was not able to come forward with a single specific and concrete example to show that one of those people was detained unjustly. He did not come forward with a single example to show that one of those people was ill treated; he did not come forward with a single example to show that these people were supposedly tortured. In spite of that the hon. member suggests that the position is so serious that he has to ask for a judicial commission to investigate the position. Must I appoint a judicial commission simply because the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) asks for it? Must I appoint a commission simply because Mr. Hamilton Russell asked for it yesterday during the lunch-hour? Must I appoint one because the Leader of the Opposition now asks for it in this House without mentioning a single example to show why it is necessary to appoint a judicial commission? He did give certain examples which I shall mention in a moment. The first one was that the A.N.C. issued a smear pamphlet in London. I have to appoint a judicial commission because the A.N.C. issued a smear pamphlet in London. Is that the level to which we have sunk in South Africa? Must I appoint a judicial commission because the Cape Times and the Rand Daily Mail and the Sunday Times ask questions and make insinuations in this connection? Must I appoint a judicial commission because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has in his possession certain secret statements of which I do not know and which he has never brought to my attention and which nobody else has brought to my attention? Must I appoint a judicial commission because certain communistic and liberal advocates, in the course of court cases, made insinuations which they never proved and in support of which they did not produce a shred of evidence? Must I appoint a commission of inquiry because Mr. Hamilton Russell made a speech here in the Cape, a speech which was broadcast to the world and the essence of which was simply that people in South Africa were being tortured? Immediately after I had read this, I instructed Col. McIntyre to approach Mr. Russell and to ask him for a sworn statement. He was not willing, however, to substantiate under oath what he had stated publicly. The Leader of the Opposition now allows himself to be taken in tow, but let us examine this. Where do these so-called stories come from? Because we have no facts whatsoever before us; we have no shred of evidence before us about people who were tortured. The Leader of the Opposition has not mentioned one example, or does he want to suggest that he did mention examples? Where does this story come from? This story started with the Rand Daily Mail. On a certain morning the Rand Daily Mail published a report on its front page to the effect that the detainee, Mrs. Wolpe, had been slapped by detectives and treated in a hard-handed way. I immediately instructed the magistrate of Johannesburg to go and take a statement from her, and she stated in an affidavit that she knew nothing about it at all, that it had never happened and that she had never said so to anybody. But this story was broadcast to the world by the Rand Daily Mail and from that moment the liberals began to spread lies and malicious rumours left and right, and then on 7 December of last year a certain group of doctors and psychiatrists came along and issued a statement. What strikes one particularly in connection with that statement is this: The first detentions under the 90-day provision took place as from May, and people were detained during July, August, September, October and November, and not a single word ever came from these doctors and psychiatrists. Not a single word ever came from them while this Bill was under discussion. Not a single word came from them while we were detaining these people. But, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I announced at the beginning of December that only about 10 people were still being detained under the 90-day provision, and immediately after I had announced this these doctors and psychiatrists came along and made the statement on which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now relies so much. But does he know what the background of this statement is? Does he know that that statement issued by these doctors was organized by Mr. Hamilton Russell; is he aware of that? Is he aware of the fact that Mr. Russell not only organized them, but that behind the scenes, as I happen to know also, he started a certain bit of intrigue which unfortunately for him and for them failed hopelessly in connection with this whole matter?

Put him in for 90 days.

Why did these gentlemen, every single one of whom is a leftist, not come forward with that advice, if what they now allege is true, when we were discussing this matter here in the House of Assembly? Why did they not come forward with that advice when dozens and dozens of people were being detained? No, the soil had to be made fertile first through lies and malicious stories from the Rand Daily Mail and other liberals and communists, and after the soil had been made fertile by suggesting that people were being tortured, then suddenly Mr. Russell organized these medical practitioners and psychiatrists to come forward with this statement. People have been detained in South Africa before, detained under very parlous circumstances—I do not want to refer to it again; we have already discussed it in this House—but at that time we heard nothing from these sacrosanct medical practitioners and psychiatrists. They only raise their voices when the people concerned are leftists: when one deals with other people then they simply remain silent. But let us go further. The Leader of the Opposition attaches a tremendous amount of importance to these people and to the statement issued by them. What do they say? What is their motivation? Against what is their attack directed in this connection? In the first instance one of them wrote the following in the letter columns of the Rand Daily Mail last Sunday: He says that only three reasons can be advanced for the 90-day provision, the one being that it is a penal provision, the second is that it is intended to curb the person’s activities and the third is to prevent him from conspiring with other people. He then analyses all three and arrives at his findings. But surely that is not honest. I stated perfectly clearly—there can be no misunderstanding in that regard; it was published in all the newspapers—that the object of the insertion of this section in the Act was not to punish persons; it was not to isolate them or to punish them; it was not to prevent them from conspiring with other people; it was to obtain information from them, information which cardinally affects not only the safety of the State but indeed the existence of the State. I made no secret of the fact that that was the reason why I was detaining people, namely to extract information from them. But although that was the official and the only reason which was furnished, these people prefer to ignore that entirely. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now attaches so much value to that issue that he lays a charge against me with the hon. the Prime Minister in that connection. Furthermore, they adopt the attitude that people will necessarily be locked Up for 90 days; they adopt the attitude that the detainees will be detained indefinitely. But that is not the case. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that a detainee need not remain in goal for one day. It was not necessary for a single one of these 600 people to remain in goal for a single day. It was entirely within their own discretion; it was possible for them—they had full control over it—to be released on the same day on which they were detained. All they had to do was to answer the questions put to them. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. members are laughing.

And if they do not know the answers?

I say that they all knew the answers.

How do you know?

I know because I dealt with these cases, but if the hon. member wants to contradict me and say that there are people who did not have this information, let him tell me who they are. My submission is that in the case of each of these persons questions were put to them the answers to which they knew, and 213 of those people did give the answers.

What reliance do you think you can place on evidence which you obtain in that way?

This is not relevant. It is not relevant what value I attach to the evidence. It is for the courts to decide what value they attach to it. But my attitude is that it was not necessary for these people to spend half an hour in prison. They could have answered the questions put to them because the matters on which they were questioned were within their knowledge. But if a man refuses to reply, as some of them consistently refused to do, if a person tells you, as Sachs did, “I know but I refuse to say, I refuse to speak,” whose fault is it then that he remains in prison? It is certainly not my fault. Let me put this question to hon. members on the other side: I know what the attitude of the Progressives is but I do not know what the United Party’s attitude is. Do the Opposition attach so little value to the safety of the State that they hold it against me that I interrogate people who know about things which are being organized against South Africa? That is the accusation which they make against me. Their accusation against me is that I detained certain people. They have not come forward with a single example where I wrongly detained any individual. I say that all of them were detained because they knew about things which were being manufactured and organized here in South Africa, things which could have meant death and ruin for very many people in South Africa. Does that mean nothing to them? But because I detained those people and because malicious stories are being spread that people were tortured, stories which they did not check to ascertain their correctness or otherwise and in fact which they did not check at all because the Leader of the Opposition did not give a single example…

I just spared you that.

The position is becoming very interesting now. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that he just spared me that. He comes along with this reply after I have put all these questions to him. Let me say this to the Leader of the Opposition: “You are not worth your salt as Leader of the Opposition. If you protect the Minister of Justice in those circumstances, if in those circumstances you refuse to give information to this House to which you owe it, what are you worth then as a Leader of the Opposition?” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that he spared me this. I have never asked him to spare me, and let me say here and now to the Leader of the Opposition that I relieve him of the concern which he has for my welfare. Let him tell me now. I cannot leave the matter there. The Leader of the Opposition has now stated by way of interjection.—strangely enough, he makes interjections when he should not do so, and when he should do so he fails to do it—he has now stated of his own free will and volition that he spared me this. In other words, I can only infer from that that he does have that information. Am I correct? Has he got it?

You will hear.

No, I do not want to hear on some other occasion; I want to hear it from the Leader of the Opposition now. He has information at his disposal but he is not prepared to give it to the House.

You also have that information in your possession.

No, I say that I have no information.

Put him in for 90 days if he has information which he refuses to disclose.

Note well, Mr. Speaker, a contract—and a contract is a contract—a very serious contract was entered into between myself and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition across the floor of this House. That contract was this: The Leader of the Opposition stated that he would hold me personally responsible for any abuses resulting from the implementation of this provision. I said to him that I was grateful for it; that I would keep him to his word that he would hold me responsible. Why does he not do so?

He will.

It is not a question of “will”. After all, he has had ample opportunity to do so. He did not only attack me; he had ample opportunity to speak; he had an unlimited opportunity to speak. But what is more, what sort of person is it who, when he lays a charge against me with my Prime Minister and who, although he has information in his possession, does not even give the information on which he bases his charge against me? What value am I to attach to the charges of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he comes along and tells me that he has this information in his possession but that he wants to spare me.

What value must I attach to it?

The Prime Minister quite correctly asks what value he is to attach to it. But I ask the Leader of the Opposition: What value must the public attach to the charges which he has made against me if he has information up his sleeve and he refuses to disclose it to this House? But I want to go even further. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that he has certain information in his possession. Will he let me have it at some time or other?

Did you not listen yesterday? I said that I would place certain documents at your disposal.

Will the hon. the Leader of the Opposition charge me in this House? If so, when? Is he going to charge me in his reply to this debate?

Is the document which he has in his possession a secret document?

Mr. Speaker, you will see that I am doing my best to be charged! I am begging the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to charge me but I am making no progress with him. I want him to know this: As far as this aspect of the matter is concerned I am not going to leave it there. There will be other debates in this House; we will have other opportunities to talk about these matters, and unless the hon. member wants to cut a very tragic figure, unless he wants to shock the parliamentary institution to its foundations as far as the public is concerned because a Leader of an Opposition acts in this way, I am going to get those answers out of him.

You will not have to struggle.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), unlike the United Party, came to my office during the recess to express her dissatisfaction with the 90-day provision. The hon. member made certain complaints on that occasion but not a single complaint made by the hon. member dealt specifically with the ill treatment of any individual. Am I correct in saying that?

I have them here now.

We shall come to them. The hon. member came to see me and I can tell her on what date she was with me. I cannot lay my hands on it at the moment; perhaps she can tell me when it was.

On 31 October.

The hon. member for Houghton came to see me on 31 October and lodged certain complaints. I asked the hon. member on that occasion whether she had any specific complaint in respect of any person who had been ill treated in any respect. The hon. member told me that she did not have the name of a single person. Is that correct?

Not entirely.

The hon. member did not complain about a single individual. The only person whom she mentioned was one individual in respect of whom she asked me to see that a psychiatrist saw her. Is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is correct, but I just want to remind him that I said that I had received many complaints in connection with the ill treatment of non-Whites and I asked him for indemnity for those persons against re-arrest.

The hon. member did say to me that she had had many complaints about the ill treatment of non-Whites. I asked the hon. member what their names were and the hon. member said that she could not give them to me. Thereafter I said to the hon. member—she must tell me if this is not correct—that if any complaint was made to me in connection with the ill treatment of any person I would immediately cause it to be investigated and that I would immediately take steps against such persons. Is that correct?

Yes.

I went on to say to the hon. member (this was on 31 October), “If any case comes to your notice at any time where people have been ill treated will you please bring it to my attention immediately?” Is that correct?

Yes.

And to this very day the hon. member has brought no case to my notice.

You are not telling the whole story.

What is the position therefore, Mr. Speaker? Let us sum it up. I know that there are plenty of malicious stories; I know about it. I also know that there are some people who do lend their ears to that rumour-mongering. I know too—I have mentioned a few examples here—who started these malicious stories and who the people are who are spreading and propagating them. I also know that when you ask these people who are propagating these stories to make a sworn statement they are not prepared to do so. But no concrete case has been brought to my notice or the notice of the Department by any member of the Opposition, or by any member of the Side Bar, or by any member of the Bar. No specific, concrete case of ill treatment of any client of theirs or of any person has been brought to my notice up to the present moment. That is what I say, and if the hon. member has different information she should give it to this House. As I say, there is much gossip, but for the rest—and I owe this to the House—the magistrates have regularly visited these people every week, as laid down in the Act. They have not only visited them but they have made notes of all the complaints, requests and grievances of these people, and they have submitted them to me and to the Department. There have been cases where people have complained to the magistrate that they were slapped here or there or of that they were assaulted. The moment I receive those complaints I cause them to be investigated through the proper channels. Some of them are still being investigated and others, I assume, have been referred to the Attorney-General concerned for a decision as to whether a prosecution should be instituted. In many cases, of course, it appeared that there was absolutely no substance in the complaint. Why all this fuss? The fact of the matter is that we detained 600 people in terms of an Act of this Parliament, for the reasons which I mentioned in this Parliament at the time as to why it was necessary to do so. For those reasons, plus other information which hon. members said they had in their possession, they voted for the measure in principle at the second and third readings, and we have implemented it with a minimum of inconvenience to everybody concerned.

I want to make use of this opportunity to say this—I would be neglecting my duty if I did not do so. We know that there are times in the lives of all policemen, whether it be in this country or in another country, when they strike somebody. It does happen; we all know it; those of us who practise in the courts know it. We know that they do so under provocation and difficult circumstances. I want to make use of this opportunity to congratulate the Police Force on the way in which they have exercised this far-reaching power. I stated in this House and in the Other Place that as far as the implementation of these powers was concerned, as far as their far-reaching nature was concerned and the possibility of abuse, I was placing my political reputation in the hands of the South African Police Force. That is what I said, and I am very grateful that my reputation remains unsullied thanks to the way in which they acted in that connection.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to certain specific examples on which he based his charge against me. I told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection that his facts were entirely wrong. They were wrong in each and every case. I dealt with the Rivonia case. The young man to whom he referred was not in charge of these people; he was only employed there.

I did not say that he was.

This unfortunate incident did take place and nothing that I say can justify it. He got hold of the keys and unlocked the back-door which these people used to get out. I am very sorry about it: I should have preferred to have kept them. In the second instance the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the trap case. There is a question on the Order Paper in that connection by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson). I think that question will be replied to next Friday. I do not therefore want to take up the time of the House in that connection. I just want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it was not a question of a trap; it was a White man who procured White women for Indian men. That White man was sent to prison for two years. The Indian pleaded guilty and because he pleaded guilty all the evidence was not led with the result that when the case went on appeal, all the relevant evidence unfortunately was not on record. The fact is that here we had a White man who made a practice of procuring White women for Indians. That is quite a different story from that of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I do not hold it against him that he did not have all the facts in his possession. I do not blame him, but one should not speak so hastily.

Then the Judge did not have the correct facts before him either.

All the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to do was to find out precisely what the facts are; they would have been given to him.

I want to go further. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a very great point of this. He laid a charge against me with the Prime Minister as a result of a certain statement which Colonel van den Bergh allegedly made. He asked me whether I agreed with it and whether I subscribed to it. What did Colonel van den Bergh do? Colonel van den Bergh gave a group of pressmen the purely factual information that saboteurs and others who left this country to receive training as saboteurs were readily assisted in Bechuanaland and that they had a passage through Bechuanaland. That is a fact which everybody knew, and Colonel van den Bergh emphasized this. But the words which were put into his mouth were not used by Colonel van den Bergh. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition only read out the words which were put into Colonel van den Bergh’s mouth. Why did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not go further? The words read out by the Leader of the Opposition appeared on 26 August. Why did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not read out what Colonel van den Bergh said on the 27th, the next day, when he denied that he had said those things?

What was the reply of the Britons?

I do not care what their reply was. The fact is that he attacked Colonel van den Bergh here. Why did the Leader of the Opposition, in fairness to Colonel van den Bergh, not tell this House that immediately this came to his notice Colonel van den Bergh denied it?

Was the attention of the Britishers drawn to it?

That has nothing to do with this matter. Let us be fair towards an official who cannot defend himself. Then the rules of fairness demand that one should not attack him when a certain newspaper says that he said a certain thing and he denies it the next day. His denial appeared under banner headlines—

Here it appears under banner headlines in the newspaper but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not take the elementary trouble to come forward with this denial by Colonel van den Bergh.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went further. He referred to the 300 Indians and he tried to hold me up to ridicule by saying that these people had permission and that the police nevertheless arrested them. The fact is that they had no permission to hold an exhibition, for which they had to pay 50 cents a head, without paying entertainment tax. These are the facts. I can make a long story out of this, but unfortunately the facts of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were also entirely wrong in that connection. He referred to what the Commissioner of Police allegedly said in connection with the Sachs case. There is nothing wrong with that whatsoever. I said to the hon. member for Houghton, and I have said it on various occasions in public, that our attitude was that people were given reading matter from time to time, or they were not given reading matter, depending on the particular case. Does the hon. member recall that I said that to her? I also said this publicly but now suddenly the Leader of the Opposition discovers that General Keevy and I completely contradicted each other. You see, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not know what unanimity is, and now he does not recognize it when he sees it.

In conclusion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition laid a charge against me with the hon. the Prime Minister, my Leader, because at one stage Col. van den Bergh allegedly participated in the investigation into the Broederbond documents. I may say that there is a question on the Order Paper in that connection by the hon. member for Sea Point. He apparently takes a great deal of interest in this type of case. I hope that that question will be replied to. I want to repeat what I said. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had read the newspapers he would have seen this. I stated specifically that that matter was not without interest to the Security Police. It was not without interest to the Security Police for the simple reason that the communist, Kodesh, who has now left this country, together with a certain Bloomberg of the Sunday Times … In that connection it is interesting that it is stated by Professor Geyser, I think, that he had these documents photographed. It is very interesting that the account for photographing these documents was paid by the Sunday Times. I mention this just in passing. But I was saying that this case was not without interest from the security point of view…

Were the documents ever stolen?

A charge of theft was lodged.

A false charge.

I challenge the hon. member to say that outside. He will not have the courage to say it outside.

Can the hon. the Minister tell us what evidence the police had for thinking that such a theft was ever committed against the Broederbond?

I can say this to the hon. member that we have an affidavit from a complainant to the effect that certain documents were stolen. I can also say to the hon. member that we have evidence that five attempts were made to break into the offices. I can also say to the hon. member that this communist, Kodesh, together with Bloomberg, formerly of the editorial staff of the Sunday Times, wanted to come to an agreement with a certain person, who informed us of this, to break into the offices to obtain those documents for them, for which he was to receive compensation. That I will say to the hon. member. Let me make it perfectly clear to the hon. member that what General Keevy said was perfectly correct. Every member of the S.A. Police Force, whether he belongs to the Security Branch or to the Criminal Investigation Department or to the Uniformed Branch, is a policeman, and if it is necessary for us to do so, if the circumstances require it, then any member of the Police Force will be used to investigate a particular case. I cannot have the hon. member or anybody else dictating to me who should be used to investigate a particular type of case.

Let me conclude. I reject this request which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has addressed to me. I do not propose to recommend to the hon. the Prime Minister that such a commission be appointed. On the contrary, I am convinced that there is no necessity for it whatsoever. If the reason for the attacks which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made upon me and which are still going to be made upon me is that hon. members think that they are going to frighten me into not using the 90-day provision when it is necessary to use it in the interests of South Africa, then they are making a mistake. I shall use it as often as it is necessary in the interests of South Africa.

We have listened to the hon. Minister over the past hour. I should like to show immediately that he has sought to avoid the charges that have been laid against him. I say further that he has failed in his duty to this House, as a Minister of Justice, in giving this House information, in the fullest detail, to which it is entitled.

In the first place I should like to remind the hon. Minister that there is a fundamental difference of approach between us in regard to this matter. It is the opinion of this Opposition that this 90-day clause should never have been placed upon the Statute Book and we are convinced that the placing of this clause on the Statute Book of this country has done immeasurable damage to South Africa throughout the world.

Are you against it in principle?

We were clearly against it in principle throughout the debate. We made it perfectly clear that we objected, in time of peace and in the circumstances prevailing in South Africa, to having a provision of this sort enacted; we voted against it in Committee. The hon. Minister referred to the second reading and the third reading. It was made abundantly clear that because in fact there were issues in connection with which it might be necessary that the Government be given powers to deal with the safety of the State, we had to vote in favour of the second and the third readings. But it was made abundantly clear that so far as the 90-day clause was concerned we objected to it, that we regarded it as quite wrong to enact it. We remain convinced that it was wrong to have enacted that clause, we remain opposed to it and we asked that it should not have been enacted. We ask also that it should not be re-enacted. The hon. Minister has given no good reasons for the retention of this clause. He has again made it clear this afternoon that he intends that this provision shall be extended for a further period.

You will have plenty of opportunity to discuss it.

Yes, that opportunity will come. But I wish to make it clear that there is a fundamental difference between the approach of the hon. Minister and ourselves. So far as this Opposition is concerned we consider that the retention of this clause on the Statute Book is in itself an admission by this Government of the failure of its policies over the past 15 years. Nothing could show more clearly than that, that in fact the Government has failed. It came into power very largely on the fact that it could deal with the colour problems of this country. After it had been in power for a period of no less than 15 years it found itself obliged to put the most drastic provision, I believe, on the Statute Book, a provision to which this Opposition and a very big proportion of the people of this country took the strongest possible exception.

Sir, the hon. Minister has also failed in another regard and it is this. As the hon. Minister knows, the Congress of the United Party in November of last year called on the hon. the Minister to appoint a judicial commission. We did that in the interests of this country. The Minister said that the charges that there were abuses of one kind or another were entirely without foundation. We believe that it is in the interests of South Africa that that should be proved beyond question and we believe that it is in the interests of this country that there should be a judicial commission so that the whole question could be examined and so that, if the hon. the Minister is right, and I hope he is right, the name of South Africa could be cleared because the Minister and those who sit with him know that nothing in the whole of the 15 years of government by the present Government has done more damage to this country than the enactment of the 90-day clause. I have no hesitation in saying that, Sir. I do not believe that anybody on the other side of the House will deny it. This clause, more than any other Act, has damaged this country. We wish to see this country marching forward and not backward in the goodwill of the other states of the world, particularly those states with which we are more closely associated. We wish to preserve the great traditions of our legal system. I say that the retention of this clause on our Statute Book appears to show that this Government is prepared to have this clause retained in this country and the Minister tried to justify that to-day. We are against that. We believe there is no necessity for it; there are other methods of dealing with the problem which this country has and we believe the sooner we can see the end of this clause the better it will be for South Africa, not only in the eyes of the outside world but also within South Africa. We believe, and I repeat it, that the fact that this Government considers it necessary that this provision should remain on the Statute Book is a clear and unequivocal admission by this Government that its policies have failed in South Africa.

We have also said that we are entitled to a full and frank statement on the clause. The hon. Minister has made no statement to-day. The only way in which the hon. Minister can satisfy the world, let alone South Africa I believe, entirely is to give in to the advice given to him by my hon. Leader who, in this debate as on previous occasions, has asked that there should be a judicial commission to investigate the treatment of detainees so that if these complaints are groundless let it be said: Here is a decision of a judicial commission; there is no slur on South Africa’s good name. I repeat that request; I associate myself with it. I believe that the retention of this clause is damaging to this country and I sincerely hope that as a result of this debate the Government is going to change its mind in regard to the whole matter. Sir, the hon. the Minister cannot set himself up as a judge of the conduct of his Department. Let me say that I have the utmost admiration for that splendid body of men, the South African Police. There have been members who have failed in their duty but by and large we in South Africa can be proud of the high standard of this force and we would like to see it maintained. We hope that it will be maintained because in a country such as South Africa it is absolutely essential that the high standard of the force shall be maintained. I believe we can say that this force at the present time has had many of the weaker elements eliminated. And I believe that a good job of work has been done in maintaining the standard and we hope that that will be continued.

Sir, our plea simply comes to this, that we regard it as basically unsound that methods of dictatorship should be used to preserve democracy. I say that the retention of this 90-day clause on our Statute Book means the retention of a provision which should have no place on the Statute Book of a democratic State. There are times where obviously the safety of the State must come first. We showed by our vote last year that we stood for the maintenance of the safety of the State. We were prepared to give the hon. the Minister what we believed should be quite adequate powers to deal with this matter without the inclusion of this further provision to which we took and still take the strongest objection. We believe that this Government should realize that the following of this method, while it may temporarily deal with the problem, does not really provide a solution, and that the solution of the problem really lies along the lines of finding positive solutions for the problems of the day, of being awake to the real problems of the country and following policies which can bring about a happy and a peaceful situation and a lasting situation in this country of ours. We say that the policies pursued by this Government will not bring that situation about.

Finally I would say that we regard this clause as something that cuts across our system of law, a system of which we should all be proud. I can only hope that hon. members on the other side will feel as we do in regard to this clause and will yet have the courage to get up and add their plea to the plea that has been made by this side of the House. Perhaps they will be able to move the hon. the Minister when we are unable to do so.

Sir, the real problems of South Africa of course are great, they are immense. We are convinced that to solve those problems we must act according to the highest principles of ethics and of law. The hon. Minister is apparently quite determined that he is not going to give heed to the advice that he is getting from this side of the House and that under those circumstances I do not propose to carry that matter further. I would like to say that I believe that the misconceptions which exist in regard to this matter will be completely eliminated in the course of this debate. That is my hope.

The problems that arise under this clause clearly arise from the multi-racial state of this country, and I wish to state quite clearly that until this Government is prepared to face up to the fact that South Africa is a multi-racial type of state, until it is prepared to depart from the policies which it is seeking to enforce at the present time, there can be no lasting peace in this country of ours. Hon. members opposite must know perfectly well that the whole of the history of the past 15 years provides a clear condemnation of the policies of this Government, policies which have not only been utterly unsuitable but inadequate to the situation we are facing in this country. It is perfectly clear that the solutions which were set out in the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister, the steps which he proposes to take in relation to Coloured persons, in relation to the Indians, in relation to the Native population in South Africa can never provide a basis upon which South Africa can enjoy lasting prosperity and peace. We know quite clearly that initially this Government’s intention was to stop, as they called it, the flow of the Natives to the towns. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration will be the first to admit that the hon. the Prime Minister has admitted that they have been utterly unable to deal with that question; they have been utterly unable to meet the challenge of the time, and in fact in so far as their policies have succeeded in respect of the urbanized Natives, it is because they carried out to some extent not the policies which this Government was elected in 1948 to carry out, but the policies which the Opposition believed is the only way in providing a real solution for the problems of this country, the provision of housing and better services. But let us not think that the provision of those services alone is going to bring about a different situation in this country. Let us attempt to face up to the real problems of this country. Let us get down to the job of seeking to find a basis on which the various colour groups, which quite obviously for all time are going to occupy this country with us, can live in peace, a basis on which we can further democracy in South Africa. If we can do that, we will achieve something. But quite obviously the policies of this Government are not contributing towards that end, they are bedevilling the situation and making the solution more difficult; they are adding to the problems of this country instead of minimizing those problems. Sir, they are storing up problems for this country for the days which lie ahead and that is going to make the solution of those problems more and more difficult. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration is here, and my plea is that this Government should wake up before it is too late. This Government should realize the challenges which face us, and this Government should try on a realistic basis to find ways and means of dealing with those problems, because I am quite sure that if the hon. Minister who is facing me now will search his heart he will realize that the policies which he has advocated in this House are utterly inadequate to solve the problems which we are going to face in the years which lie ahead. Sir, we know that those problems are going to test us to the full. It is my prayer that we will succeed perhaps during this Session in convincing the people in this country that there is no solution to those problems on the lines followed by this Government and that if South Africa wishes to make a real start towards the solutions of those problems there should be a change. If there cannot be a change of heart on the part of the Government, then that Government should make way for a government which might have a chance of leading South Africa towards the solution of the problems which face us.

Something very peculiar has happened during this debate since yesterday and that is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has found it necessary to use a debate which is regarded as the important debate of the Session, a debate to which the entire country look forward, to drag in an organization like the Broederbond in his attacks on the Government. The hon. member for Yeoville continued to attack this organization this afternoon. It has never happened in the past that a political party has started a debate on the level on which the present Opposition started it yesterday. It must be difficult to be an Opposition and to conduct a debate when everything is as rosy in South Africa as it is to-day. It must be difficult during a time of prosperity hiterto unknown in this country to be in the Opposition and then to find that the Leader of the Opposition feels obliged to come to this House and to complain because everything is so rosy in the country, because we are smothering in our prosperity; because we lack the necessary people to handle that prosperity; because the Government is not making sufficient provision to ensure that the prosperity which this Government has brought about will continue! It must also be difficult to move a vote of no confidence in a government when you are as sure that your political fate is sealed as the United Party is sure that its political fate is sealed. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and members on his side know and realize that on every occasion their party has returned here weaker and weaker than it left. This year again they have come here with fewer members than they had when they left last year. It must be difficult to move a vote of no confidence in the Government when you are sure that the English-speaking section is breaking through to this Government, and that in spite of the attempts of the Sunday Times and the Opposition to frighten the people; not only people here in Parliament are crossing over to the Government side, but the English-speaking section in South Africa is breaking through completely to the National Party. In that case you drag in the Broederbond in an attempt to give life to a debate. It must also be difficult when you have done your utmost to make the Whites in South Africa afraid of the world outside and of world opinion and they no longer want to take fright; when you have to realize that in spite of your attempts to make South Africa afraid of world opinion, an opinion which is not a world opinion but really the opinion of a small group which is trying to form world opinion to suit itself, South Africa no longer takes fright. Then you revel in it when South Africa finds herself in difficulties—and if you do not revel in it you do not do anything to assist your country either. In those circumstances the Broederbond is dragged in to see if the people will not become scared of the Broederbond if they are not prepared to be frightened by the spectre of world opinion. It must be difficult for an Opposition to move a motion of no confidence when they have been in the habit of reviling their fatherland, South Africa, and calling it a smelly polecat, as the Opposition have done in the past.

It was the Burger who did that.

The leader of the Opposition referred to us as the polecat of the world.

The Burger.

They call South Africa a smelly polecat but in the meantime it has become very clear that world opinion was be ginning to change in favour of South Africa. Financiers and businessmen are offering more and more money to South Africa and not only do they themselves want to come here in greater and greater numbers, but they want to bring their confidence and their money and their people with them to find a new home in South Africa. And that in spite of the fact that the Opposition have reviled South Africa in that way. More and more newspapers as well as leaders in the world outside are speaking in favour of South Africa and even English-language newspapers in our country are publishing what people from overseas are saying. I quote what the a Argus reported as recently as last Thursday. A prominent businessman came here and said “There is a marked change for the better in overseas thinking about South Africa.” That was stated by Mr. Mackenzie, chairman of three companies, when he arrived from England in the Windsor Castle. There was a similar report on Friday as well about what an important person who had arrived in South Africa had said. When it happens that world opinion is getting wise to South Africa as it is continually doing, particularly over the last few days, and you have to sit here as Opposition and realize that you have severely criticized and attacked your own country instead of defending her, it is understandable that in their predicament the Opposition have to drag in the Broederbond. The Opposition will realize that countries overseas are also beginning to note what we in South Africa think about their actions. The world outside gains more confidence in South Africa if she is determined. Our people are gaining more confidence in the Government because it is determined. We can understand, therefore, that the Opposition, in their desperation, have to drag in the Broederbond. They will also realize what the world outside, like our own people, ultimately think of a party and of people who do to their own fatherland what the Opposition is busy doing—an Opposition which grovels cheaply before the enemies of South Africa, like a frightened dog, willing to be kicked for the sake of any doubtful benefits they may derive. If they do things like that in an attempt to find mercy in the eyes of the world outside, the Leader of the Opposition will discover that, like public opinion in South Africa, world opinion similarly despises and condemns such deeds. More and more people in this country who condemn the Opposition like that are coming over to the National Party and not only do they join it but they indicate clearly how they feel about the matter. That is what is also happening in the world outside. That is why it is a pity that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition saw fit, on the instructions of the Sunday Times, to drag in an organization which has always been kept outside this debate. It is interesting to note that the Sunday Times announced last week what the Leader of the Opposition would say—not only did it announce it but the Leader of the Opposition also dealt with the points, one by one, in the order laid down by the Sunday Times. As the hon. the Prime Minister has also indicated, it is a pity that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has followed the lead of the Sunday Times so faithfully.

I want to make this point that as far as I know this side of the House has never acted in that way. I do not believe that this side of the House, when they were still in Opposition, have ever availed themselves of such an opportunity to launch an attack on any organizations of this nature which may have existed in South Africa. Many similar organizations have existed and still exist in South Africa. I think of the International Freemason organization, I think of the Sons of England, I also think of the Toc H and other organizations. This side of the House has never launched an attack on such organizations, although members on this side of the House might have had every reason to suspect that everything was not above board as far as those organizations were concerned, although they might have had every reason to take exception to such organizations. Because, Mr. Speaker, you must understand that a great deal has been published about the nature of such organizations. Here I have a number of publications. Here I have a book called “Freemasonry Unmasked”, and the sub-title is “As the Secret Power behind Communism”. But even if members on this side of the House had reason to attack such organizations, they did not do so.

It is true that secret organizations which existed were attacked by this side of the House and also by the Government, namely organizations which were engaged in subversive and criminal activities in South Africa. It is very interesting to note, however, that in such cases the Opposition adopted a firm attitude and defended those organizations. You, Sir, will remember the way in which the Opposition came to the assistance of organizations which were engaged in subversive activities in South Africa when the Government was obliged to curb their activities in the interests of public safety.

In the process of the development of nations, that of our own as well as of Western nations, it has been the position throughout the years that they have used various organizations, public, semi-public and secret organizations, in order to serve a host of diverse interests of public life, some of them to serve the ideals of the nation, to serve material interests, to serve Christian-like interests, to serve political interests. Ecclesiastical organizations existed and political parties existed and also the various organizations to which I have referred. There are also business organizations in respect of which hon. members opposite try in vain to suggest that they do not operate in secret. With reference to what the Prime Minister has said and with reference to what has been published in the public Press, which has been quoted repeatedly, the Broederbond also came into existence. Nowhere in the world, neither in the countries of origin of those hon. members, are people denied the right to form such organizations if their aim is to serve their own communities and to promote the material and spiritual interests of such nations or national groups in one way or another. Nowhere is that right denied. Yes, members opposite also belong to such organizations—to secret organizations. Can the hon. member for Yeoville tell us whether he belongs to the International Freemason organization? Of course, he belongs to it. Will the hon. member and other hon. members opposite get up and deny that they belong to it? No, they will defend the right to exist of such organizations by word and deed. Yes, even in the case of the exclusive anti-Afrikaans organization, the Sons of England, hon. members opposite will defend the right to exist, as they have indeed done in the past. Such organizations are therefore not denied the right to exist. In all countries, however, legislation exists which is aimed at preventing the existence of secret organizations which may endanger public safety. It is interesting to note that in South Africa they approve of the existence of the Communist Party. The Opposition have defended the right to exist of the Communist Party, and when legislation was introduced to ban the Communist Party in South Africa, the Opposition moved an amendment defending the existence of the Communist Party. When this side of the House had to introduce legislation to ban the A.N.C. and other subversive organizations, the Opposition took up the cudgels on their behalf and defended the right of such organizations to exist.

These attacks on the Afrikaner Broederbond, these insinuations and these aspersions constitute a definite attempt to deny the Afrikaner the right in his own country also to exist and also to have an organization, just as other organizations exist in South Africa, to serve his own material and his own spiritual interests. It is all very well in the case of others but not in the case of the Afrikaner. I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition why it is all very well for a communistic organization to exist and why it is wrong for an Afrikaner organization to exist? Why is it all very well for the Sons of England to exist in South Africa but not for the Broederbond? Why should the right to have such organizations to serve its interests be extended to one section of the community and why should the Afrikaner be denied that right? I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Why must you measure with two yardsticks? Why is there a yardstick for the Afrikaner and his organizations and another yardstick for a Black organization? Why is there one measure for an Afrikaner organization and another measure for the Sons of England? Why is there a measure for the Broederbond and another measure for the International Freemason organization? Why is there a measure for an Afrikaner organization but another measure for a multi-racial organization? Why do they measure in favour of such organizations and against the Afrikaner? I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition why, as the hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday, he is promoting race hatred in this way? Why are they, by their actions, opposing an organization of this nature while the Opposition use another measure when it comes to organizations to which they themselves and their people belong? Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his followers say that they are against the Broederbond because it is secret. But what is more secret than the United Party to-day? When the United Party chose the Leader of the Opposition at that time did they not do everything in secret? Did they not close all doors so that nobody would know what they were doing? When they were in congress and the Progressive Party broke away because the United Party were sitting on two stools, they were so secretive that they closed every door and window and plugged every air vent because nobody had to know what they were doing. In that case it was not wrong for a political party, which ought to be a public body and which has tens of thousands of members, to do so. They did everything in secret then. Yet they pretend to be a public organization. Things which they ought to do in public they do in secret and then they are the people who attack an organization because it is alleged to be secret. What is secret about the Broederbond? A great deal has been published about this organization. A number of years ago yards and yards of expositions were given in the Transvaler about the objects of the organization as well as explanations why it has to operate in secret. Surely it is not true that everything is so secretive. In recent times many of the so-called secrets have been exposed because a person stole documents which were then made available. I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and members on his side with what they are finding fault. Do they find fault with the objects? The objects have been widely published, have they not—also by our churches. But I can also quote them from the Sunday Times and from the Burger. Here are the objects. The first objects, as published by the Raad der Kerke are the following—

I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what is wrong with that? Does he begrudge the Afrikaner an organization with such an object The second object—

Does the Leader of the Opposition find fault with this object? Why then is suspicion cast on an organization with such an object? Here is the third object—

I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he finds fault with that? Does he find fault with the moral basis of this organization? Has he any fault to find with the members of this organization? Numerous lists of members of this organization have been published in the Press. Have hon. members opposite any fault to find with the type of man who belongs to the organization? Have they any fault to find with the acts of the organization? I notice that the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) is looking at me. Let him reply. Do they find fault with the acts of the organization? Who is better able to enlighten us on the acts of such an organization than the Afrikaans churches? We are told that the organization is undermining the Church but we have had one opinion after the other. The Cape Church aired its views and stated very specifically that this organization was not trying to interfere in church matters. The Free State church also expressed its opinion and the Raad van Kerke have also in the past expressed their view. I now ask hon. members opposite what deeds this organization has committed that have justified their attack? I think the attack launched by those members was unjustified; there was no justification to drag in this organization in that way. It is foreign to the tradition of this House. When an opposition has no case against the Government it drags in an organization which should not be dragged in.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition this: When he does launch such an attack, in whose interests is he doing it or on whose instructions? According to the Sunday Times, the Leader of the Opposition says he is doing it on the instructions of Nationalists. Well, the National Party has a few hundred thousand registered members. Can the hon. Leader submit a list of the names of the people who gave him such an instruction? If he mentions one per cent of those names it should already amount to a few thousand. But he need not submit a few thousand names. He need only submit ten. I challenge him to give us the name of one registered Nationalist who has instructed him to launch such an attack on the Broederbond. No, the hon. the Leader is not acting on behalf of Nationalists or on behalf of the conservative section of the English-speaking section.

In spite of his attack and that of the Sunday Times the English-speaking section have effected a completely break-through to the National Party, and that is also recognized by the English Press. He therefore had no instructions from them because the suspicions which he and the Sunday Times sowed did not frighten them. But, Mr. Speaker, I shall tell you on whose instructions the Leader of the Opposition acted. He is part of a plot which is being hatched inside and outside South Africa to cut the South African nation adrift by making it suspicious of its church and all its national bonds. The hon. Leader forms part of that pattern of trying to cause trouble hence his attack on an organization of Afrikaners of which he knows very little. The only thing he knows about it is favourable but that he will not admit. I say it is a pity that he and the hon. member for Yeoville, who spoke after him, have launched an attack against the Broederbond. However, they have launched this attack and in that they have used two measures, a measure for the Afrikaner and a measure for the non-Afrikaner, a measure for the Black man and a measure for the White man. They have launched this attack and by doing that they have become part of the pattern to undermine South Africa by sowing suspicion and making the people afraid of their own churches and their own organizations. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition, on the instructions of the Sunday Times, has wasted the time of the country and of this House.

After listening to the brotherly lecture we have just had, it is quite easy to understand why the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) is so keen to take the line he has taken throughout the length of his speech. I remember being in his constituency at a time when he had just been selected as candidate for the Nationalist Party, and I think the hon. member will be the first to admit that there was bitter dissatisfaction in his own constituency amongst the members of the Nationalist Party, who said that he had been forced on them by the Broederbond because he was a member of the Broederbond. He displaced the sitting member because he was the protege of the Broederbond and therefore he received the party nomination. No wonder that hon. member comes to the House and devotes his whole speech to defending this organization to which he is duly grateful. I think that is all the hon. member spoke about, except to list amongst the equivalents of the Broederbond organizations like Toc H and the Y.M.C.A. and the Y.W.C.A. His point was that never had the Government party attacked organizations of that nature. Has he forgotten the attacks by Dr. Malan on the Ossewa-Brandwag, to which so many supporters of that party belonged, an organization which led to the use by the United Party Government of powers to deal with this selfsame Minister of Justice because he was regarded as a danger to South Africa and its security? However, I think we are wasting the time of the House in following this line of debate, and I want to deal with more serious matters, one of which in passing was the Prime Minister’s reference to the Indians and the fact that they were now, as a permanent part of the population of South Africa, to be given a permanent council which would develop the field of their political rights.

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question. Since he now regards and accepts the Indian population as being permanent South Africans with a permanent place in this country, will he or the Minister of Indian Affairs tell the House that the Government is now prepared to lift the ban on the movement of Indians into the other provinces? If the Indian population is recognized as South African citizens with a permanent part in the whole of South Africa, is the Prime Minister prepared to remove the ban on the movement of Indians outside Natal, or does he regard Natal as a Hindustan or Indiastan where they are to be confined to their own areas? Or does he regard them as South Africans, with a right to travel and live and work anywhere in South Africa? I think that is a question from which the Government cannot escape.

From what does Natal want to escape?

The Government has based its whole case in this debate on two patent fallacies—two false theses—upon which its whole case rests and which, when analysed, destroy their case; because the Prime Minister has once again in his marathon reply to the Leader of the Opposition come out with the old story that you have either to have partition in South Africa, or else you must have one man, one vote, and that there is no alternative to those two possible courses for South Africa to follow. Now, last year we challenged the Government to name one Western country which had demanded of South Africa or of this Government that we adopt a policy of one man, one vote. Six months have passed and this House has met again, but we have not had one statement by any Minister indicating clearly that that demand was made of South Africa. If the Government wants to continue with this “gogga maak vir baba bang” story, then it is the duty and the responsibility of the Government to name one Western country which has demanded one man, one vote, of South Africa, and I challenge the Government, as we challenged them last year, to name one Western country which has demanded of this country the acceptance of one man, one vote. Unless they can prove that, the one half of the platform upon which their case stands is destroyed. But the other half is what the Government relies on, the aura of fear which it is continuously trying to create amongst the people. All the Government cares about is winning a few votes. We have had it again and again from speakers in this debate. All they are interested in is to maintain their electoral support and they can only do that as long as they can maintain panic and fear amongst the electorate. Their whole existence as a Government depends on maintaining a fear complex, which the Prime Minister spent almost three hours fostering again yesterday.

Will the hon. member name one single Western country which will be satisfied with the policy of the United Party?

I allowed the question because I was aware of the line which that hon. member would take. It is the typical line which this Government takes in order to evade their own responsibilities. I allowed the question to be asked because it pinpoints what the Minister of Justice spent the whole afternoon trying to do—avoid answering the attacks and the charges against them by trying to draw a red herring across the trail and I challenge the Government to name one Western country which has demanded one man, one vote, and because the hon. member for Vereeniging knows that they cannot meet that challenge he now tries to draw a red herring across the trail by asking which countries will accept our policy. I will tell the hon. member which countries will accept a moderate, decent policy in South Africa based on the recognition of the dignity of the individual. Every responsible Western country would willingly exchange this Government for this side of the House and give us a chance to lead South Africa on a road which would bring to this country harmony between the races, and I challenge that hon. member to disprove it.

Your challenge is accepted.

I say the Government is trying to build up an aura of fear because that is the only thing which can keep them in power. I say that it is a tragedy that we should be governed by a party which is so flagrantly afraid that it is not prepared to face up to any of the issues which require a solution. The Government has admitted again at the start of this Session that it has failed to govern South Africa, that it cannot govern South Africa as a multi-racial country in which all races can live in peace. The Prime Minister has admitted it, and the Government admits it. Now I want to challenge the Government on something else.

We have warned the people of the consequences of the policy of fragmentation which they have been forced to accept. They have been forced, I believe unwillingly, to accept that policy because of the failure of the Government to govern in any other way than by breaking up our country. I want to charge that the Government has now been forced to the point where it has got to pay a price for Western and Bantu support for their policy, a price which will shock South Africa. I charge that the Government has negotiated and has given an indication to Bantu leaders that it is prepared to pay the price of the sacrifice of the whole of the East Coast from the Fish River to Mozambique. [Laughter.] The hon. member laughs, but during the election campaign in the Transkei the indications given by candidates were that discussions were taking place along those lines, and I ask the Government here publicly to deny that it has had any discussions with Bantu leaders or with any Western countries in which it has indicated that the price it is prepared to pay for their support of the Bantustan policy is the sacrifice of the East Coast, with at this stage Durban being kept out of the picture. Durban and a corridor to the hinterland are at this stage reserved, but I ask any responsible member of the Government officially to deny that it has had any discussions along those lines. I believe that the Government cannot deny that it has had discussions in that direction both with Bantu leaders and overseas, and that the Government believes that by making that sacrifice and by paying that price it can win the support of the West for its policy of partition. The indication was given in a reply to the Transkeian Territorial Authority when that authority, before it became independent, made demands for territorial annexation, and the Government said in its official reply that it was premature to discuss this matter at that stage. The answer continued to say that when the Transkei has its own Parliament that will be the opportunity to discuss territorial annexation. In other words, a year ago the indication was already given that the Government was prepared to negotiate on the basis of handing over further land. I now challenge the Government to deny that discussions have taken place since that reply was given. I accept that the Government has not yet committed itself, but it has given an indication that that is how far it is prepared to go, and I wish to ask the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration to deny that there have been discussions in regard to the districts of Harding and Port Shepstone and Mount Currie and Matatiele. Those are the three fields in which discussions have taken place, which went so far as the Transkei even talking of Port Shepstone as their potential port, and the Deputy Minister knows it.

There was no discussion of that nature with the Transkeian Authority.

I have stated clearly that I was talking about discussions with Bantu leaders. Obviously there have been no discussions with the Transkeian Government yet. That Government has not yet really met, except to do the Government’s bidding in selecting its Executive and to carry out the orders given to the Chiefs. Does the Deputy Minister deny that discussions have taken place with Bantu leaders? The Minister does not answer.

You should know that there were none.

I am asking the Deputy Minister to deny that there have been discussions in regard to those four magisterial districts. [Interjections.] In other words, this Minister’s reply, when the Transkeian Territorial Authority demanded the annexation of certain districts, that this was a matter for later discussion, was not a true reply; it was a false reply. It indicated the Government’s willingness to discuss it, but now the Deputy Minister denies that any discussions took place. Am I clear now that the Minister denies that any discussions have taken place? It is an important issue. [Interjection.]

Order!

No discussions took place.

The Minister says that no discussions took place. I will deal with that again on a later occasion, but I say again that the price the Government is prepared to pay is the sacrifice of the East Coast which the present Chief Minister indicated in his speech last year when he demanded that area.

Now I want to come to the second issue which is tied up with this same question. The hon. the Prime Minister said that the Transkei and Zulustan would have those parts of Natal and East Griqualand and the Transkei which were historically Bantu areas. My question to the Deputy Minister, who is responsible for that Department, is to tell this House what date the Government regards as the start of history? [Laughter.] The Prime Minister talks about those areas which are historically Bantu areas. When does history start for the Nationalist Party? Which date does the Government regard as the historical date when territories belonged to Blacks or to Whites? It is easy to talk vaguely of historically Black and historically White areas, but history is recorded and the Prime Minister has said that the Bantu are entitled to those areas which are historically theirs. Now this Government owes a duty to South Africa to say at what stage that history starts, because if history starts this year or last year one can talk in terms of scheduled and the released areas, but if history goes back far enough, who is to define what were traditionally Black areas or White areas? I charge this Government with misleading the people of South Africa by withholding from them the true price which they will have to pay for the policies the Government is following. We asked the Minister of Bantu Administration last year, and I ask him again now that another year has passed, whether he is prepared to make available to this House a map of the Bantu areas of Zululand, and is he prepared to give an undertaking that land presently occupied by Whites outside the released or scheduled areas will not be incorporated into a future Bantustan? The Minister will not give that undertaking. He refused to give it last year and I say that he will refuse again. He is unable to give South Africa and Natal the assurance that non-scheduled and non-released areas will not be incorporated into a future Zulustan. I ask him again whether he is prepared to make available to this House a map showing the Bantu areas of Zululand with their contemplated Bantustan boundaries, and to give that undertaking to the owners of White property in Natal that no White property not presently scheduled or released will be incorporated in the future Bantustans. I repeat that it is quite clear from what I can see that this Government has decided in its own mind on the price it is prepared to pay. Hon. members of the Government have even gone so far as to talk of Durban as a free port with a corridor to the hinterland. That is how far thinking has gone in the hierarchy of the Nationalist Party and it is time that the Government places clearly before South Africa the consequences of the policies it is asking South Africa to follow. Sir, it is not yet too late for South Africa to save itself from the chaos into which we are advancing. We had a charge made by the hon. member for Soutpansberg that this side of the House talks of South Africa as the “muishond” of the world, but it was a Government newspaper, the Burger, which first used that expression in an editorial. I had the privilege of going overseas during the recess and it was bitter to see the hostility and hatred which have been built up against this country, hatred not for South Africa or the South African people, but hatred for the policies which this Government has inflicted on South Africa and which it says are the only healthy policies in the world. The Prime Minister accused the rest of the world of being sick, but for any South African it is bitter to feel that resentment and that bitterness against us.

Where did you find that?

I found it in Europe and in America.

I was there as well, but did not find it.

Yes, the hon. member could quite easily have closed his eyes to it there, as he does in this country. In this country he is completely impervious to the realities, and he and other hon. members opposite close their eyes to the facts and say that everything in the garden is rosy, and just as they can do it here I suppose they can do it elsewhere. That is what this Government does in regard to all its policies. It only sees what it wants to see and closes its eyes to everything else. I say that this country still has time to save itself only if the people realize what the policies of this Government are leading to. As soon as the people realize the real price which South Africa will have to pay, as soon as the country realizes what is being created in these states which the Prime Minister in this debate said would have complete control over their own destinies …

Ultimately.

The Prime Minister said that he was not interested in the political policies which they followed in the Transkei; he was not interested whether a multi-racial policy or a segregationist policy was followed; he was not interested in the policies which their governments decided to follow. Sir, is he not interested if that policy should be Communist? The Minister of Justice would be interested; the Minister of Defence would be interested, but the Prime Minister says he is not interested in what policy is carried out in the Transkei; they can do what they like; once they have decided their own destiny it is for them to follow it. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development does not agree with the Prime Minister.

You are talking nonsense.

No, I am not talking nonsense. The Minister of Bantu Administration has said that they will guide the Transkei. The Government has gone so far as to second public servants to the Transkei to guide them, but the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon said that he was not at all concerned with what policy the Transkei decided to adopt. He said it quite clearly and unequivocally; he said it was not his business; it was their business what direction or what line of development the Transkei followed.

When they are independent.

No, he did not say when they were independent. We were talking of the present Chief Minister and the other candidates in the election which has just taken place. The discussion was on the election of a Chief Minister and the Prime Minister said he was not interested in what policy they followed. It was quite clear, it was in relation to the election which has just taken place. I hope the Minister of Bantu Administration is going to repudiate that. If not, the Minister of Justice must withdraw Proclamation 400 in the Transkei, because if the Transkei is going to determine its own course then it is not for this Parliament to place restrictions on its own destiny. The Prime Minister said it was not our business to interfere. He said in fact that he was sure that if we could put our case to the Protectorates they would choose South Africa as the country to guide them to independence.

You are afraid that that might happen.

Sir, the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) need not worry. Does he really believe that 90-day detention or Proclamation 400 is the way in which the Protectorates would want to be guided to independence? If that is an example of how they are to be guided in the Transkei, under emergency regulations … [Interjection.] Sir, nobody argues about the maintenance of law and order. What we say is that the Government boasts of peace in South Africa; it boasts of the support of the Bantu people; it boasts that all the troubles have been settled. The Minister of Justice said that all the troubles were under control, but they still have emergency regulations; they want to retain clauses like the 90-day detention clause the one thing which has done more harm to South Africa than anything else that this Government has done. This Government is prepared to talk in an airy-fairy way in generalities, but I charge them with withholding from South Africa the truth of the real price which South Africa is going to have to pay for the policies which they are following now.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) made the point, in conclusion, that the Government was using the 90-day clause in order to maintain law and order and that it claimed that law and order prevailed here but that it maintained law and order by means of a section like that. I want to put this question to that hon. member: Is his party prepared to see that section removed from the Statute Book and that the people who are affected by that section be given a free hand to do what they wish in this country? Are they satisfied with that?

If we are in power it will not be necessary.

If they are in power it will not be necessary because those people will then have a free hand and in any case their policy will then be carried out; I am prepared to accept that wholeheartedly. Before the hon. member made that utterly cheap remark about the Broederbond to the hon. member for Soutpansberg, he asked whether the Government would be prepared to allow Indians to move freely throughout the Republic. I want to ask him what their policy is? They want to consult the Indians do they not?

Answer the question.

No, the question was put specifically to the Minister of Indian Affairs; he will reply to it. I am now asking a very pertinent question. The policy of the party of that hon. member is to consult the Indians as far as their political rights are concerned. If that were one of the demands the Indians made to that Party would they accede to that demand? I believe they will.

Unlike you we do not run away.

They will simply do what the Indians ask. They do not run away but they are not prepared to tell us what their policy is in respect of the Indians; they will consult the Indians and if they are asked specific questions in connection with that consultation they are as quiet as the grave.

Mr. Speaker, this year the National Party will celebrate the fiftieth year of its existence. I have had the honour for more than 30 years to serve this Party in one way or another as office-bearer. I am therefore not talking here to-day as a member of the Broederbond or as a non-member of the Broederbond.

What are you?

That hon. member asks what I am. He would very much like to know which members of this House were members of the Broederbond and he would also like to know who were not members.

I know them.

The Sunday Times will pay any amount of money for that information. Outside this House theft has even been committed, burglary has even been attempted in order to get that information and if the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) tries to get that information in that way, by way of elimination or otherwise, I know he collects a considerable amount with that information. I do not know whether he is not perhaps the local agent of those people who want that information. I wonder whether he will admit or deny that now.

I say that this Party, which is celebrating the fiftieth year of its existence this year, can look back with pride on its record. It can look back with pride to that which it has achieved, but as wonderful as that past record may be, when it looks ahead it is more hopeful for the future and more hopeful to achieve even a more wonderful record than the past one. When we think of the reception the hon. the Prime Minister had at Durban, for example, last year and when we think of the overwhelming support the English-speaking people give the Government, support which it did not have in the past, it is quite clear why the National Party is being attacked so violently; then I do not find it strange that everything is put into operation in order to break the National Party. The National Party is simply breaking through; it is simply becoming stronger and stronger and that in spite of the fact that the National Party has now practically been in power for 16 years in this country. It does not seem to me as if anybody on that side of the House wants to deny that the National Party is becoming stronger and is getting support from the English-speaking section. There does not appear to be any reaction to that statement. I say that expansion is taking place in spite of the most violent attacks on the part of the liberals in the first instance. These liberals and that section of the English-language Press which is extremely liberal and which is the mouthpiece of the liberals, have the support of all Opposition parties in this country. They are trying to put a stop to the progress the National Party is making but unfortunately they are doing it in a fatally wrong way. They think if they advocate a policy of integration, if they can break through the colour bar and get assistance from the other side, they may perhaps succeed in breaking the National Party. It is peculiar to note that no credit is given to the National Party. The National Party is denied any credit for everything it has achieved. This terrific economic progress we are experiencing, the terrific industrial development which is taking place, every phase of industrial development, have taken place under the National Party, but everyone of those processes of development, that entire process of development, are ascribed to integration by Opposition-writers and Opposition-speakers and Opposition-newspapers. The process of integration is supposed to be responsible for that. The fact that greater numbers of non-Whites are still coming to the White areas is supposed to be responsible for it. On the other hand they adopt the attitude that every attempt at sabotage, every attempt to encourage riots, must be laid at the door of the National Party and its policy. Does that party really think that the public outside is as stupid as that; are they under-estimating the intelligence of the public to such an extent that they really believe that the public will swallow that sort of argument? It is as a result of this sort of argument that the United Party is continuing to deteriorate. The same thing is happening in respect of their colour policy. Some of their speakers told us to-day that South Africa was a multi-racial country, that it must be governed on that basis and that they were in favour of a multi-racial Government. What is multi-racialism? Wherever it has been lauded and advocated throughout the entire Africa and everywhere in the world it has failed completely. There is no such thing as a multi-racial country; there is no such thing as a multi-racial government at all. Incidentally it is the same Party which, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, commended Cyprus as an example or as a model of multi-racialism. It is this very policy of multi-racialism of the United Party which has caused a person like Sen. Piet Groenewald, who was a prominent member of their party to advance the following as a reason for his resignation—

Like many others the hon. Senator issued a warning and resigned timeously from that party. We know it is not easy for any prominent person, any leading figure, in any political party or organization simply to walk out of that party or organization. You create enmity, and you invite the odium of your former colleagues on your head. In spite of that, however, he had the courage of his conviction and he specifically advanced that as the reason why he could not continue to be a member of that party. The trouble is that the race federation policy of that party is not a policy based on principles; it is simply a policy constituted in such a way that it can be adjusted to suit various people or groups. It can be adjusted to suit the most extreme liberals as they are sitting there and it can be propagated in such a way that it satisfies the most conservative members. We have, however, become wise to that party. Because of the different versions we have had of this policy it is not surprising that the electorate have increasingly shown their lack of confidence in that party. We find, for example, that in respect of one question which has also again been raised in this debate, the question of Black representatives in this House, they have spoken with so many different voices that nobody really knows what that party’s policy is and what they envisage. Thus we find, for example, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following, inter alia, in a statement which he made to the Press last year—

That is as far as the Bantu are concerned. “Indefinitely” is somewhat shorter than “eternity”. A few years ago, in 1961, the following significant words appeared in a leading article in the Star, a newspaper which supports the United Party—

That is under the race federation policy—

That is not all that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) said, however; he went further. On 16 February 1962, at the time of a by-election at Green Point when their candidate was opposed by a Progressive Party candidate he said the following, inter alia—

We now have this phenomenon that the National Party or members of the Government are accused with indignation of misleading the electorate when they warn against the real danger that will face them if the United Party were ever placed in power. Then they say: “No, here is our printed policy; you will find nothing like that in here.” But when leading figures of the United Party make statements such as these must we ignore them? But that is not all. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) too expressed himself very definitely on the occasion of a by-election on the Rand, at Greenside, a few years ago, when he said—

I was not quoted correctly.

That is interesting; the hon. member says he was not reported correctly. This is the second time I have quoted these words to this House in his presence but he did not then deny their correctness. On that occasion he stared at me quite silently and he silently accepted the report as correct. Nor did he issue a correction to the Press. The problem is this, however, that the feelings of the conservatives in the United Party have in the meantime been stirred and it does not suit their purpose to have that sort of statement repeated in future.

Read the newspaper report of the other meetings I held at the same time.

You are not so important.

On the one hand it is stated that that is the attitude of United Party members, but on the other hand you have the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), the leader of the United Party in Natal who, when asked whether Black people would be allowed to sit in Parliament under their policy, denies it emphatically; then that possibility does not exist. It is that equivocal attitude of hon. members opposite that we find so confusing.

Do you agree with me?

No, that hon. member does not even agree with himself; how can I agree with him? Nor does he agree with his own Party.

He contradicts his own Leader.

Mr. Speaker, you get the same equivocal statements in connection with other matters. On the one hand the United Party announce in their little book, in their statement of policy, that to start with the Bantu will be represented here by eight White representatives, but the very next minute they tell us that the degree of their development and civilization will determine how many members the Bantu may have in this House, but then they do not hesitate to say that they will do everything in their power to raise the standard of civilization of those non-White races and to improve their economic position. In other words, as soon as possible as many of those people as possible must take their seats in this Parliament.

They are heading for a multi-racial Parliament.

As far as the extension of non-White representation in this Parliament and the form that extension will take, are concerned, we find different versions of that under their policy. When Senator Groenewald and Mr. Odell resigned from the United Party three months ago he very pertinently again stated that under their policy any extension in Bantu representation, or any change, would only take place with the approval of the White voters. On another occasion their leaders said that it would take place with the approval of the White and Coloured voters.

Where did you see that?

Colonel Bowring, the United Party organizer in the Cape Peninsula, stated it very clearly last year in a letter to the Burger, in reply to the hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais). At more or less the same time, in February last year, the hon. member for Yeoville held a meeting at Carnarvon. There he stated very pertinently—and it was reported like that in all the local newspapers—that under their policy the White and Coloured voters would decide on the extension and the form of Bantu representation in this House. The next moment, however, they say the voters will decide. We know to-day already who the voters will be then. I shall not enlarge upon that because I think the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with that point very clearly in his speech yesterday. We also find this under their policy, their own policy is responsible for it, and fortunately responsible for it, that confidence in them is waning faster and faster, that consultation is one of the corner stones of that policy. With whom do they want to consult or whom have they already consulted? We understand that their Caucus consulted a former A.N.C. leader last year. We understand that they have on a previous occasion consulted that type of Bantu. If that is the type of consultation what do they expect to retain for the White man in this country?

It is no good our trying to bluff the Black man, saying that you will consult him if you are not going to pay any attention to his advice. Surely by doing that you are only pulling the wool over the eyes of those people. I do not believe, in any case, that they are trying to bluff those people. On the other hand, is this sort of consultation any good, is it any good saying the sort of thing those hon. members are saying? Is it any good saying they will consult the Bantu? Is there any responsible Bantu or Coloured group in this land who accepts the policy of the United Party? They cannot mention one. Last year two prominent members of the United Party, the hon. members for Jeppe (Dr. Cronje) and Yeoville had an interview in their party offices with a Bantu journalist, Lawrence Mayekiso, and they promised him an interview this year during this Parliamentary sitting. This person is a journalist on the staff of a Bantu publication The World. What does that publication say in that same report? He says the impression he, the journalist, gained from the interview was that the two members of Parliament knew very little about the Native although they alleged that the United Party often had discussions with Natives. That is what those people think of the United Party, that is the result of this sort of dual policy which is aimed at satisfying everybody. On the one hand they are busy losing their conservative White members. As the hon. the Minister of Justice said, they are falling like leaves. On the other hand they are busy estranging the non-White races. We would have thought that they would at least have had the wholehearted support of the Coloureds because they promise the Coloureds everything there is to promise. What did one of the Coloured leaders, Dr. v. d. Ross, write in an article in the Cape Argus last year? He simply rejects their entire colour policy. They are trying to pull wool over the eyes of these people and in the meantime all they are doing is to harm themselves.

The trouble with that party is that its entire political outlook and political approach is an out and out negative one. As I said a moment ago everything that is bad is laid at the door of the National Party. But when there is prosperity, when there is an economic upsurge, when there is industrial development, when agriculture flourishes, that is merely a coincidence; then it is not the Government’s policy which is responsible for it. Their whole approach is negative. To the same extent to which that party loses support it is becoming more and more reckless and does it make more and more doubtful friends. It is as a result of that that we have had those attacks on the Church; the newspapers which support them attack the Church of the Afrikaner. The Afrikaners must be divided. The Voortrekker movement, the Noodhulpliga, not one of those innocent movements are spared. As much hatred as possible must be engendered, dissension must be sown amongst the Afrikaners. Those are the sort of methods they are trying to employ. They try to lull the conservatives within their own ranks to sleep in that way. They try to get the support of people who do not trust them either, namely, the extreme liberals. In the meantime they are being taken in tow by those people, by the Sunday Times and by the Rand Daily Mail, to participate in that campaign of hatred. Why is the National Party being attacked like that? Why is the apartheid policy attacked? For the simple reason that the apartheid policy of the National Party tries to preserve every racial group in South Africa. It is trying to give to the White man, to the Bantu, to the Coloured and to the Indian his own racial group and to keep that connection firm. Every racial group is beginning to develop his own national pride under the apartheid policy. But that does not suit the liberals; nor does it suit the communists. There has to be a process of equalization; then they can achieve their object, otherwise not. Hence the attacks on the apartheid policy of the National Party. I hope those hon. members will stop pulling wool over the eyes of the public, will stop conniving with the liberals and will stop playing this extremely dangerous game that they are playing to-day.

I hope the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Sadie) will understand if I do not reply to his speech. He was conducting a private fight between himself and the United Party and I am quite sure they would like to defend themselves.

Sir, I would like to come back to an earlier speech made by the hon. the Minister of Justice this afternoon. I want to reply to certain things he said and put certain other points to him. First of all, the hon. the Minister mentioned that I had a private member’s motion on the Order Paper dealing with the subject of 90-day detainees and asking for a judicial inquiry. I took that off the Order Paper deliberately so that the discussion of this debate would not be inhibited in any way. Despite the fact that the hon. the Minister has refused that request for a judicial inquiry I still think that the airing of this whole matter is serving a very valuable purpose. After all, there are still some 41 people being held under the 90-day detention clause. The clause is still in use and the Minister may arrest other people under this clause at any time. I believe it is important to air the abuses which I maintain are in fact being practised under the 90-day detention clause. Then the hon. the Minister said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had not berated him, for instance, for not having maintained law and order in this country or for not having allowed the security of the country to be undermined and so on. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that in a real democracy law and order can be maintained by a responsible government without the use of measures such as banishment, such as banning, such as house arrest, such as all the measures which have abrogated the rule of law in South Africa. I challenge the Minister to point to any democratic country—and I emphasize the word “democratic”—which has need for legislation such as the legislation he and his Government have introduced in this country over the past 15 years in order to maintain law and order. I will have more to say about this question of the security of the country at a later stage.

What about the British legislation?

As the Minister knows the British legislation was used in a time of emergency; he knows that it has not been used for years and that there are considerable differences between his law and that law, for example, the tribunal to which people can in fact appeal. The minute anybody, detained under the Irish law, makes the statement that he is prepared to accept the recognized authority, such person is released.

Sir, as far as the security of the State is concerned I want to point out too to the hon. the Minister that if he had an efficient security branch in this country it should not be necessary to use the refined torture of 90 days in solitary confinement and the other abuses which are taking place under this system. Indeed, the hon. the Minister himself said when the Rivonia arrests first took place that in fact he had had all the information which had led to those arrests before the 90-day law was passed in this House. I want to know from the Minister now whether his Security Branch is sufficiently efficient to manage without that sort of legislation or are we going to have a series of laws, one worse than the other, in order that the hon. Minister of Justice can maintain law and order in South Africa and can guarantee the security of the nation?

I want to make some general observations about this 90-day clause. The first I want to make is that there is no supervision from the top at all about the way in which the detainees are held, their general condition and so on. Indeed, the very manner of detention mitigates against such central control because the detainees are scattered throughout the length and breadth of the country; they are held not only in recognized prisons but in police cells as well. There are no uniform instructions under which these people are detained other than a general instruction and that is to the effect that they should be held generally under the awaiting-trial-prisoner regulations except where the Act otherwise lays down or where special security requirements deem it to be necessary to depart from these rules. To me that is exactly the same as saying that if we had eggs we would have eggs and bacon if we had bacon. There is, in fact, no point of similarity, except for instance in regard to the food given to White detainees. For the rest there is no single point of similarity between the conditions under which 90-day detainees are being held and the conditions that relate to awaiting-trial prisoners. It is absolute nonsense to talk of any similarity. For instance, Sir, awaiting-trial prisoners are not kept in solitary confinement; they are not locked in single cells for 23 hours out of the 24 hours of the day; they are allowed access to their lawyers and they are entitled to reading material as a right; they are entitled to visitors and to various other concessions. Where in fact is the similarity between the conditions under which 90-day detainees are held and the awaiting-trial-prisoner regulations? I think it is a distortion of the facts to say that it is under these conditions that 90-day detainees are held. I want to make the categorical statement here that as far as I can see the conditions under which the 90-day detainees are being held in prisons and in police cells throughout the country are worse than the conditions under which detainees were held under the declared state of emergency in 1960. At least then they were not kept in solitary confinement, except in the case of very few exceptions; they were allowed regular visitors; they were allowed certain reading material; they were allowed all sorts of privileges. Most important of all, Sir, the regulations under which detainees were held in South Africa during the declared state of emergency were published in the Gazette. Everybody could see them. No such privilege is afforded to this country at a time of so-called peace and prosperity. The hon. Minister refuses to disclose the instructions he has given to the people whose duty it is to administer this arbitrary law he has passed.

I want to talk about some of these abuses. I am going to take the hon. the Minister up on the invitation he issued to members of this House last year to disclose any such abuses. He said that he and his Government, whose mouthpiece he was, could be called to account; he was quite prepared to accept responsibility because this Government had shown that it was a responsible Government, a Government that could be trusted with powers of this kind. I want to say first of all that we are quite wrong, of course, to call this a 90-day detention clause. It is no such thing. It is in fact indefinite detention at the pleasure of the Minister or the officer to whom he delegates his authority. We have cases of persons serving not one lot of 90 days but two lots of 90 days. There are even cases of people serving their third term of 90 days’ imprisonment. There were at least three women who had served more than one 90-day stretch of imprisonment. The hon. the Minister said this afternoon that such people had only to talk and they would go free. At which stage does the hon. the Minister, or the officers in charge of these people, decide that such people do not in fact have the information which he requires? He says that some people say they have the information but that nothing will make them talk. But there are others who say they do not have the information. At which stage does the hon. Minister decide that he is in fact detaining people who do not have the information that he requires. I put it to him again, as I did earlier this afternoon by way of interjection, how does he ever decide that the information given under those conditions can ever be reliable evidence? Other people are affected—of course, this very law is designed to do this—by the information given under this 90 day clause. It is not confessions that the hon. the Minister is trying to extract from people, confessions about people’s misdoings. In fact he seeks information about other people’s alleged misdemeanours. Now as if detention, simply being locked up without recourse to the courts of law, to legal advice, etc., is not bad enough, this system involves a refined torture of solitary confinement. I believe this is a disgrace to any so-called civilized country. This form of confinement, far beyond what the Geneva Convention laid down for prisoners-of-war, far beyond what our own Criminal Code lays down for people who are actually convicted of crimes, people who are in prison and who have broken prison regulations, is a refined form of torture. The hon. the Minister took umbrage at the fact that a body of scientists and doctors and psychiatrists had issued a statement protesting against the dangers of solitary confinement … He stated that it was simply some form of agitation started by Mr. Hamilton Russell. The hon. the Minister really talks nonsense. Reams have been written about the dangers of solitary confinement. The fact that this was only publicized in this country at the stage that it was is due to the fact that once Parliament closed its doors at the end of last session, a curtain of silence and secrecy descended on this country as far as the 90-day detainees were concerned. It was only after there was further publication, after I visited the Minister, after certain court cases came to light, that people realized what was in fact going on. Nobody even knew how many people the hon. the Minister was detaining until he in fact made a statement towards the third quarter of last year. That is the reason why it took so long for any statement to be made by psychiatrists.

Sir, I have been reading up a good deal on solitary confinement. There is a very interesting little book that I recommend to the hon. the Minister. I read it long ago and I re-read it just recently. It is called “The Royal Game” by Stephan Zweig. In it he describes solitary confinement under the Gestapo in Nazi Germany. He says—

Sir, do I need to remind the hon. the Minister that he said it was not his intention to break people mentally? In the teeth of all the evidence which has been submitted by this learned body of scientists does the hon. the Minister in any way defend the ruthless practice of holding people in solitary confinement for months on end? Of course, the Minister cannot deny that there is solitary confinement; it is an intrinsic clause of this section. Indeed, one has only got to read the section to see it. But another form of torture is denied and that is the physical torture, unlike this mental torture, about which many allegations have been made. I have dozens of statements here made by non-White detainees. Many of them are prisoners to-day having been charged under other laws, but they all allege different forms of physical torture. I think it is impossible for any reasonable person to read these statements and to believe that all of them are phoney, that they are simply concoctions of neo-communists and so forth. All of them make the same sort of allegations, yet these people were kept in solitary confinement, away from each other, and, as I have mentioned, they were kept in goals scattered throughout the length and breadth of the country. I have statements coming from the Central Police Station, Pretoria, from the Pretoria North Police Station, from Marabastad, Mamalodi, from Middelburg, from Wit-bank, from Wonderboom, from the Roeland Street Gaol, from Bellville; throughout the length and breadth of the country, prisoners have made statements to that effect. There are allegations about hitting with sticks, with bare fists, with hosepipes, of people being punched and kicked, of people being beaten with straps and batons. And there are many allegations about the giving of electric shock in order to induce people to make statements. Now, Sir, the hon. the Minister has challenged me on this. He said that when I went to see him he asked me to give him the names of these people and that he would have the cases investigated. That is correct and I said it was correct. But the Minister did not tell the whole story. The whole story is that I said to the Minister: Can you give any indemnification to these people that, if they make these statements and they have been discharged, they will not be re-arrested? For after all, the 90-day clause is still on the Statute Book. I asked him whether he could give any protection to those people who were in the very goals run by the very warders against whom the allegations were being made; whether he could protect them against those warders. Sir, the hon. the Minister’s reply was simple; he said “no”. If the hon. Minister will wait; I am not going to misrepresent his words. He said “no” as far as the indemnification against re-arrest was concerned, because, he said, there could be no reason why such people may not have to be re-arrested because they have other information which he requires—not that they would be re-arrested because they gave such evidence but because he or his police might require to re-arrest them on other charges.

I told you that everybody would be protected.

Against re-arrest?

Yes.

According to my recollection the hon. the Minister said he could not guarantee against re-arrest. Does he admit that?

No.

Then I am very sorry that we have not got a tape recording of this conversation. I pointed out to the hon. the Minister that people were frightened. Perhaps I can revive his memory. My very words were: “You must understand, Sir, that people are frightened of this law; that people are afraid that if they give statements they will again be rearrested.” I do admit that the hon. the Minister did not go further into the question of the punishing of people already in prison; he made no statement one way or the other about that. I pointed out the fear that people had of being re-arrested in this connection.

I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that there are 361 people in goal awaiting trial; there are 41 ordinary detainees and, as I say, people are frightened. But statements have been made which the hon. Minister, off his own bat, could have had investigated. Has the hon. the Minister forgotten that there were statements made, for instance, during the course of a case which is still before the Court—the Looksmart Ngudle case—where Counsel appearing for the relatives of the deceased made this statement? He said—

He goes on to say—

Sir, I am reading from a court record which, after all, is as available to the hon. the Minister as it is to me. There is in fact the evidence of one man, in the same court record, where he gives detailed statements of how he was in fact subjected to electric treatment, how he was handcuffed and his hands were placed over his knees; how he was made to squat; how a stick was inserted under his knees and over his arms; how a hood was placed over his head; how bands were placed on his fingers and electric shocks applied. After two applications of this he finally made a statement. This is in a court record; it is not necessary for anybody to read this to the hon. the Minister. I shall tell him something else he evidently does not know. One of his own police officers at Bellville—I shall mention his name if the Minister wants me to—is in fact in possession of actual complaints that have been made by a number of detainees. I have the statements here, Sir. They all mention that complaints have been made. I want to know what investigations have proceeded in these cases? All of them allege torture in some form or another. “I was told to undress; electric wires were connected to the current; I cried and fell down …” and so on—here they are, one after the other. I have the statements here: “I was taken to the Bellville Police Station; I was handcuffed; a canvas sack was placed over my head; a stick was pushed between my legs and arms …”, etc., “electric shocks were applied …” Another one: “I was at Bellville; a sack over my head …” Sir, these complaints have been lodged with the major at that station. How can the Minister say that not a single case has been brought to his notice?

I specifically said that complaints were made to the magistrate and that they were being investigated.

I am not talking about the magistrate, Sir. I shall come to the magistrate in a moment. That wonderful concession that the official Opposition rung from the hon. the Minister, of the protection of people against ill treatment!

The particular case you are referring to was referred to the magistrate and I instructed him to investigate it.

Well, I do not know what instructions the hon. the Minister gives to his officers. I only know that the lawyers appearing in this case also made a complaint to the major. It is not very long ago; this case is still proceeding. I have an affidavit from a man who has had electric shocks administered to him. The hon. the Minister is aware, as everybody else, of these allegations. I want to ask him how far he has proceeded with these investigations? How come, Sir, that the day after the London Observer published detailed statements from the Look smart case about the electric shock treatment given to people, the Commissioner of Police announced that this was a lot of nonsense, that they were the statements of neo-communists? Precisely what investigations had the Commissioner of Police made at the time that he denied these statements? I want to know exactly how much investigation, in fact, has been commenced on this and how far the Minister has got with these investigations. It is no good his simply coming to the House and denying these things; and it is no good his Commissioner of Police and his Commissioner of Prisons, simply saying it is a lot of nonsense. I will say they may not know that this goes on because, as I stated originally, this whole thing lends itself to abuse. There can be no detailed supervision in a law like this and therefore, Sir, it is quite likely that the hon. the Minister does not know, that the Commissioner of Police does not know and that the Commissioner of Prisons does not know. And that, Sir, is an even graver indictment of the Minister and his Department—that these things can in fact be going on and that none of these senior people in the entire Department know anything about it but are in fact prepared to deny them without investigating the whole position.

Apart from this electric shock treatment, I have the case here of a man who was removed from the Robertson Gaol and was taken to Valkenberg. The former employer of this man states that this man was with him for 12 years before he disappeared and then he discovered that the man had been arrested. His employer states that he was a fine man; that he was a non-drinker, a non-smoker, an active member of his Church and a healthy man. A priest signed an affidavit after visiting this man in Valkenberg. It ends as follows—

Apart from torture allegations, there are many other complaints again ranging over the length and breadth of this country. It is impossible to believe that all this is a preconceived communist plot to bring the Government into disrepute here and overseas. Almost without exception the non-Whites complain about the rotten food they are receiving in these goals. I know I had a little interlude with the Minister about the food at the Pretoria Central Prison, and he kindly invited me to visit that place, which I did. I saw the raw materials and the Minister was rather angry because as a housewife, he said, I had not commented on the quality of the food I was shown.

You complained and I showed you the food.

Yes, Sir, I saw pounds and pounds of butter in the cold storage; must I assume from that that the prisoners get butter? If so, it does not appear on any prison diet sheet that I have seen. I will say this, that the hon. the Minister invited me back. Unfortunately I did not have time to go but I will, with his permission, pop into the Roeland Street Gaol some time, unexpectedly, and ask to be shown the food served both to White and non-White prisoners. I hope the hon. the Minister’s permission still holds?

Any time.

Thank you, I shall accept that. Now, Sir, there are other complaints about filthy cells, of no toilet facilities, no toilet paper, no utensils for eating, not enough blankets and worst of all, about the constant intimidation and threats by the warders. Now, Sir, let me come to the magistrates, these famous magistrates, who are supposed to be visiting these people weekly. Many of the statements I have state quite specifically that complaints were made to the magistrate about filthy cells, no change of clothing, bad food, beatings, assaults and so on. The statements go on specifically in many cases to say: “I complained about the food and was told that this was not an hotel.” “The magistrate sat in a car and the interpreter said that the magistrate was not interested in such things as ”~electric shocks”’.”

Which magistrate?

I will give the hon. Minister the particulars. I think it was in the evidence of the Look smart case. Others have reported assaults to the chief warders. What was the result? They were beaten up again, not by the chief warder, but by the very men who assaulted them at first. I say that despite the hon. Minister’s assurance, there are all these complaints. I will lay other cases before him. The Minister gave the assurance that relatives of people detained would be notified. I have had complaint after complaint that people in fact have not been told.

I asked you specifically to give me the names and so far you have not done so.

I thought the hon. Minister follows court proceedings and statements in newspapers about his Department religiously. But I will give them to him. These have all been reported in the Press. There are people who go from police station to police station, they are moved, and their relatives are not told where they are. There may be difficulties in finding the relatives, I do not know. But why should people have to go from one police station to the other to find out where their relatives are being held? Now the general thing is also that after being kept for months in gaol, without any charge, without access to legal advice, in solitary confinement, etc., Sir, people are then charged under certain Acts, such as the Sabotage Act, belonging to an unlawful organization, and so. Then cases are remanded over and over again. There is one particular case where a man has been in goal for nearly a year without his case having been dealt with. He started as a 90-day detainee, he served one lot under the 90 days, and another lot and he was finally charged under some offence and the case was remanded over and over again, and some time in February his case is expected to be heard. I think he was one of the first arrested under the 90 days clause.

The Act only came into force in June.

So what? The hon. Minister should wake up. The first arrests were made in May, and that makes it nearly a year by the time the case will be heard.

Nearly?

Have you got the name of the man?

Yes, I will give it to the hon. Minister. Is he then going to hurry up the law-courts? The hon. Minister told me that he has to rely on his senior officers. So this man was kept for a second term apparently on the advice of his senior officers. Will the hon. Minister do something about it? I can give the hon. Minister the names right now of people who are serving their second and third terms of 90 days. Will the Minister do something about them?

I have got all the names.

Will the Minister do something about it? I was referring to cases that have been remanded over and over again and I will give the Minister chapter and verse if he requires it, although they were all published and he should know about them. The hon. Minister surely realizes how people generally suffer under this clause. Many of them even if they are released and come out of goal have lost their jobs. If they are Africans they are endorsed out of the area, Their families have been thrown out of their houses. What care does the hon. Minister take to see that these people and their families are compensated for the harm that has been done to them? I would like to put that question to the hon. Minister.

Now I want to come back to this question of the general security of the State. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just spoken was more fiery to-day than I have ever seen her before. Why was she so fiery? Why is she perverse and aggressive? Is this really something which arises from a legitimate complaint, or is it an act she is putting on designed to give the country outside to understand that she now really has a case and that grievous injustice and unfairness are taking place? If I understood her correctly, she made certain accusations, or rather allegations, and then the hon. the Minister said: “Give me the names of the cases in regard to which these allegations are made.” She then said that she had mentioned one, and the Minister replied that in this specific case he gave definite instructions to have the matter investigated in order to ascertain whether it was true or not. For the rest, her whole speech consisted of innumerable vague allegations, and now she has developed a technique, when the Minister insists on her mentioning the specific cases in regard to which she makes these allegations, of saying: “No, I am afraid now, because if I give the names of these people they will perhaps be detained longer and they will then be victimized and suffer greater injustice than they have already suffered.” Sir, I think this is anything but responsible behaviour. Now I ask her and I ask any member of this House in the name of reason: What on earth is the Minister to do otherwise when allegations are made and he asks for details in connection with these cases in respect of which the allegations are being made, and that is refused and she seeks refuge by cleverly saying: “No, if I give the names I am afraid that these persons will suffer still more”? Sir, I do not think a responsible House can ever take notice of such unfounded statements made in this House. There is no substance in it. It is just an exhibition here in order to create the impression outside that such things take place in our prisons to-day. We can only treat it with absolute contempt, because to make such serious allegations is deplorable. It is just something which will be published in the world to vilify the good name of South Africa once more. I cannot say anything more about that hon. member.

I want to come back to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Personally, I am very sorry for the Leader of the Opposition, because he was compelled in terms of the practice in this House to move a motion of no confidence in the Government which is quite contrary to the facts. Years ago the hon. the Minister of Finance said at a certain meeting, by way of a joke, that we should consider whether the time had not arrived for two elections to be held every time, the one to elect the Government and the other to elect an Opposition. I think that if the electorate were to be given the opportunity first to elect a Government and then the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition and his party would certainly not come back here as an Opposition. There they have been sitting now for many years in opposition and they still fail to criticize the Government from a purely South African viewpoint. Their most important actions have always been inspired by the idea that they are representing a foreign power here which wants to bring South Africa to a fall as soon as possible. They always give us the impression that whenever they go down on their knees their most fervent prayer is for a catastrophe to strike South Africa, and that their greatest grief in the present circumstances is that a catastrophe has not yet struck South Africa in spite of all the dark clouds hanging over the world. On the contrary, we find that South Africa is to-day the country which is regarded by the whole world as the most attractive one. Sir, a government and a country would not have that attraction were the party which has governed it for so long not been a good government. The hon. member for Yeoville stated to-day that the National Party has consistently left South Africa in the lurch whenever it had to take any great decision. Sir, I am surprised that a man can soberly make such allegations knowing that the National Party, under its various leaders, has taken South Africa from height to height, in the constitutional as well as in the economic sphere. We have the history that South Africa has developed from a Crown colony to one of the most prominent and modern Republics in the world, and that it has been brought up by the Nationalist Party Government from a poor country to the stage where this country was described by the chairman of the World Bank as being the finest of all the 64 countries with which he has to deal.

Why did you sun-port the United Party in 1939 and during the war, if it was so bad?

That hon. member, who has regretted voting against the Republic, is now interrupting me again. Does it behave him to interrupt me at this stage? Does it behave an ex-Minister to act in that way? Has the hon. member lost all reasonableness?

Why did you support the United Party in 1939 and right throughout the war?

I did not support the United Party in connection with a political measure, and every citizen had the right in the circumstances to decide what he should do, apart from political considerations. I have never yet supported the United Party, and there are many members sitting here who thought just as I did in those days. But must the hon. member for Green Point now again beat the war-drum? Is that the best argument he can advance in connection with this motion of no confidence in the Government? If that is not the greatest exhibition of foolishness, I do not know what it is.

Let me get back to the point that the National Party has developed South Africa constitutionally and economically and in every other respect, so that to-day we are regarded as being the model state of the world. Even our bitterest enemies must admit it. But our Opposition is consistently trying to see where it can get support overseas for its standpoint. It continually attacks the Government and it dances to the tune of foreign musicians. It consistently Doses the question: If you do this will you pain world friendship? Do you remember, Sir, how the Leader of the Opposition asked three years ago: What will Ghana say about it? It is not. “Suikerbossie wat sal jou mama daarvan sê?”, but “What will Ghana say?” They also continually asked what UN will say. The National Party Government does not ask what UN will say, or what the communists and the leftists and the liberals say. We ask what is in the interest of the people of S.A. I see the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) is now getting quite excited, but as the result of those actions of theirs they will suffer even greater setbacks than they have already suffered. The process of their people coming over to our side has not ended yet. As the result of that attitude there are members still sitting opposite to-day who are very tired of the un-South African actions of the leaders of the U.P. If the country were given the opportunity to elect the Opposition, as the Minister of Finance suggested at the time, we would perhaps hear criticism in a debate like this to which the Government could listen. But when one hears criticism here which is aimed at causing the downfall of South Africa and providing ammunition and lending support to arguments, false arguments, to be used against South Africa in the rest of Africa and in the rest of the world, then it is time for the people to consider seriously whether any opponent of the Government should necessarily be regarded as the Opposition, and whether the time has not come for the people in electing a Government to ensure at the same time that we have an Opposition in the House which has as a first consideration the interests of our country at heart. Let us imagine that the present Opposition were to sit on these benches and form the Government. As such, they would bring the greatest chaos possible to this country, just as has happened in the Congo and other parts of Africa. We know that there are many jealous eyes fixed on South Africa. We know that there are many countries that are jealous of us, and the actions of the hon. members of the Opposition here make them the servants of those people who are jealous of South Africa and who seek to destroy us. Is it any wonder then that we had the statement from an important Opposition source last year that it would only be by means of attacks and pressure from outside that this Government would be removed from office? That, of course, is true. This sort of treasonable action will be the only way in which to remove the Government from office. But the electorate who give these matters a great deal of thought will not vote this Opposition into power. That party with its un-South African attitude will never sit on these benches. They will only be able to get into power with the assistance of forces outside of this country and not by means of an election.

Are you calling us traitors?

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development this afternoon, a question that has already been asked and answered ad nauseam in this House. He merely changed the question somewhat. He is now trying to pose as the new champion of Natal in regard to the demarcation of land which will become Bantu land under the 1936 Act. He asked whether the hon. the Minister would give an undertaking that not one single piece of land falling outside of the released areas would be purchased for that purpose. He ought to know that that cannot happen under the Act—that purchases of land can only be made in the released areas and that if one wants to add one square inch of land to those released areas, a square inch has to be cut out at some other place. I want once again to ask the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell)—they will probably repeat the question—whether they would be satisfied if the areas declared to be released areas in terms of the 1936 Act were immediately to be regarded as the permanent boundaries? We will not get a reply to this question. Hon. members ask questions of this nature but they are not able to answer a counter question in the same vein. Because this would be a permanent boundary which would be blindly accepted. This Government is not so senseless and stupid. The finishing touches can only be given to this work after consultation with the bodies concerned and with their co-operation. But the hon. member expects to be told immediately where the boundaries will be and where they will not be. I can go on in this way. The Opposition try not to consider every point that they raise here from a development point of view in the interests of South Africa. No, their actions are always of such a nature that if their policies are followed the whole economy of South Africa will collapse, or else they want assistance from outside. That is why the Opposition pray for pressure to be exerted upon this Government from outside.

We are pleased that the people of South Africa have daily up to the present been showing more signs of becoming immune to those threats and the plans of certain members of the Opposition to have pressure exerted upon South Africa from outside. The public of South Africa no longer allow themselves to be influenced by these things but are steadily supporting the Government more and more. In actual fact, White South Africa is daily becoming more and more united. If the Opposition continue in this way—the way they are acting again in this debate on the motion of no-confidence—I say that they will be destroying themselves because if ever something of this nature comes into being in our country as a result of a one-party state, if such a state comes into being, it will not be as a result of the actions of this Government but it will come into being because the Opposition will have committed suicide. They are trying to commit suicide and they are losing the support of every sound and true South African. There are many of them who become terribly indignant when we tell them that they are furthering the aims of Communism. I would never say that they are communists, but they are creating an atmosphere in which Communism can flourish. They are fertilizing and preparing the ground for Communism.

If we analyse the policy of the United Party we must be convinced of the fact that multi-racialism in South Africa will enable Communism to find a foothold here. We have seen this happen in all those parts of Africa from which the White man has had to withdraw. From the example of these countries we realize that a multi-racial state can lead to only one thing—to the creation of a favourable climate for Communism which can, in the confusion, make use of the opportunity to further its own ends. Imagine what would happen if we were to hold an election in order to elect a multi-racial government. When the result of the election is known we would find ourselves with eight members of Parliament representing the 10,000,000 Bantu of South Africa. What would happen if those representatives were immediately to demand one man one vote? What would happen if they turned to the outside world, as the Opposition have often done, and invited the world to investigate conditions here and to see the injustice being committed here? Then they would find that injustice because their aim would be to prove that it does exist here. And then under pressure from UN the cry would be raised that these 10,000,000 Bantu were being unjustly treated. That so-called racial discrimination would be sufficient to bring the wrath of the world about our ears. What could the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do then? They are so anxious to please UN and the outside world but only one thing would result from United Party policy: We would experience chaos and disorder as never before and we would have coups and mutinies such as those now being experienced in other countries. This is what would happen under the so-called constitutional procedure which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to follow with his race federation plan. In the past he has used the example of Cyprus but I want to ask him whether he and his followers now appreciate the fact that although there are two White races in that country both of which are famous, both of which have a high level of civilization, even they now say that it is impossible for them to co-operate? The Cypriots have no difference in regard to colour: there are no social differences, but only religious differences. Those people say that it will be impossible for them to co-operate with one another in future. I want to ask the Opposition a further question. Where in the whole world can they find a parallel for what they are suggesting here for South Africa?

There are plenty of examples.

Now the United Party wants to deny completely the link that it had with the Rhodesian policy of partnership, the policy that has been followed there. They realize now that it has resulted in failure and they are trying to retract. Partnership has failed there completely and they no longer remember that at one time they used it as an example. I want to ask them this. The United Party has always in the past tried to tell the world that we are in favour of a policy of oppression, but what is more oppressive—to have 10,000,000 Bantu represented here by eight people or to give those Bantu the opportunity of forming their own government in their own ethnic area? What has now become of the accusation that the United Party used to make, an accusation that was used against us by the world—that we are following an oppressive policy? This is the most important reason why the world is hostile to us to-day. There is nothing else. Have you, Sir, ever heard a single argument against us that has not been based on similar accusations? Are these accusations not just a repetition of what hon. members have said in this House for years? You will not be able to quote any accusations that have been made against us at UN or at the Addis-Ababa Congress that have not first been made in this House by the Opposition. That is why I say that the time has come for us to demonstrate more effectively our absolute lack of confidence in the Opposition. Instead of criticizing the Government from a purely South African point of view, the Opposition consistently continues to make subversive statements and to fabricate arguments that can have only one purpose and that is to provide our enemies abroad with false arguments. I look forward to the day when South Africa will again have an Opposition that does its duty in the proper way. This Government is indeed doing its duty but we can imagine how much better things will be if we have an Opposition that can criticize the Government from a purely South African point of view and say: You can do very much better in this or that way. They oppose everything we do. They oppose what we are doing in the industrial sphere as well. They try to sabotage the policy of separate development. No matter what is done in South Africa the Opposition tries to frustrate it so that it will result in failure. Take the question of job reservation. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a practical question which he must answer. Because he is in favour of the abolition of job reservation I want to ask him whether he thinks that the White man in South Africa will stand at the same work bench as the Black man? Does he know that after our White soldiers returned from the First World War in 1922, the Chamber of Mines wanted to do what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is advocating to-day? They wanted Blacks and Whites to do the same work and they said that no such thing as a colour bar should exist. At that time they also spoke about “the rate for the job”

And it was exploited by the communists and the Nationalists.

It is immaterial who exploited it but the result of all this was Act No. 25 of 1926—job reservation.

That was not job reservation.

What? Do hon. members see what a stranger the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is to the laws of his own country? He does not even know that the first colour bar in South Africa was imposed by Act No. 25 of 1926. [Time limit].

Mr. Speaker, we listened with our usual amused interest to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). While he was speaking I also took the trouble to consult the Hansard of a number of years ago and there I found the following remarks made by the hon. member for Krugersdorp in 1943. He said then (Translation)—

[Laughter.] The speech of the hon. member for Krugersdorp is the kind of speech that I think he should rather have kept for his party’s Golden Jubilee celebrations….

I did not say that.

The hon. member will find his words in Hansard. I will give him the column number. And at the same time that that Golden Jubilee is being celebrated, the Silver Jubilee of the hon. the Prime Minister’s membership of the Broederbond can also be celebrated and a presentation can be made, a presentation which I am sure the whole of the Nationalist Party and the hon. the Prime Minister will appreciate. We read that the hon. the Prime Minister contends that the rest of the world continues to find his policy more and more acceptable. But what do we find here in South Africa?

The same thing.

There is not one single constituency that wants their own Minister of Foreign Affairs at the moment. Would it not be a fine gesture on the part of the hon. member for Krugersdorp to resign his seat for Dr. Muller and prove at least that the Nationalist Party want their Minister of Foreign Affairs? Since the hon. member for Krugersdorp is a member of the Bantu Affairs Commission, we expected him to tell us something about Bantu affairs and particularly about the great problems that exist to-day in regard to the future of the White man in the Transkei, the thousands of White people who are wondering what is to become of them. But the hon. member for Krugersdorp was silent in this regard just as he was silent about the fact that the increase in the number of Bantu in the urban area of Krugersdorp has been one of the largest in the whole of South Africa during the past nine years. And so one of the greatest failures of apartheid is taking place in his own constituency.

That is all I have to say to the hon. member for Krugersdorp. I think that the country should be very grateful to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for having raised all these important matters in this debate. But there was one matter particularly in regard to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke not only on behalf of hon. members on this side of the House but on behalf of the vast majority of right-thinking South Africans, no matter to what party they belong, and that was when he spoke about that dangerous secret organization, the Broederbond which is trying to gain the ascendancy here in South Africa. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke, he spoke not only on behalf of this side of the House. He spoke on behalf of people in the Public Service, in Education and in church bodies throughout South Africa, people who are worried. He also gave expression to the feeling of unrest that exists in the hearts of many hon. members on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, there are seven important reasons why that organization is dangerous to our country. Let me menton some of them. The first—this was mentioned by the hon. Leader of the Opposition—that that secret organization demands a greater allegiance to the organization than to the country’s domestic interests. As we know, there are secret oaths; members of that organization are required to place the interests of that organization above everything else. The hon. the Prime Minister is an honest man. A few years ago he was a members of the organization known as Sabra. Sabra held much the same views as did the hon. the Prime Minister, but the hon. the Prime Minister felt that there were certain principles of Sabra, certain decisions, with which he could not always agree and for that reason he resigned from Sabra. He gave that as his reason for resigning. If the hon. the Prime Minister could resign from Sabra, it is an indication that he can also resign from an organization with which he is not in complete agreement. If he does not resign from this secret organization we must assume that he is in agreement with everything for which that organization stands. The hon the Prime Minister resigned from the Ossewabrandwag at one stage because he did not agree with them. As our Leader said, we demand his resignation from that secret organization.

Mr. Speaker, it is undoubtedly true that no matter how honest a person in a position of that kind may be—and I do not doubt this for a moment—the trappings and the ideas and the basis of such an organization must of necessity influence one. We think of the Geyser case for example. I do not want to go into this matter but there we saw how persecution which was fundamentally based on the influence of that secret organization was of such a nature that the complainants proceeded with that persecution, that witch-hunt, and the result was that they very soon discovered that legally they had no leg to stand on; in other words, that they were completely wrong. It cost them some thousands of pounds. I mention this merely as an example to show how the trappings and the aura of an organization of this nature can exert their influence.

Secondly, I think that we are gravely concerned about this organization because its actions are in conflict with the fundamental principle of democracy. Although it is to-day three times as large as it was in 1938 when General Hertzog issued a warning against it, it still consists of only a small group of the Afrikaner people. That group wants to force its will upon others. Let no one imagine for a moment that the purpose of that organization is not to exert its influence in all branches of our national life.

That is the Sunday Times speaking.

No, this is not what the Sunday Times said although the Sunday Times was quite correct in everything it did say. The stamp of truth was placed on the photostatic copies of the Sunday Times by no less a person than the hon. the Minister of Justice himself. Mr. Speaker, let nobody doubt the aims of that organization. General Hertzog warned against it in 1938 and at that time he read out this part of a letter that was written by the Chairman and Secretary of the Broederbond (Translation)—

This was written by the Chairman and Secretary of the Broederbond at that time (Translation)—

This is a warning that was issued 30 years ago and to-day we see that day by day that warning is proving to be more and more well founded. At one stage General Hertzog said in Pretoria that a political commissioner of the Broederbond was even present here in the Gallery of this House. Mr. Speaker, we have enough commissioners in the Gallery already. Let me make another quotation. A circular was issued and the genuineness of the photostatic copy of it was not challenged. A photostatic copy of a circular from the Broederbond appeared in which the following was said (translation)—

Who are the “we” whose apartheid policy has to be implemented? Is it the Nationalist Party, the Broederbond? When one investigates political terminology, one finds, as far as I know, only one “apartheid policy” for South Africa. Does this not prove that the hon. the Prime Minister was wrong when he said that there was no political bond between the Nationalist Party and the Broederbond? Whose policy is the “our apartheid policy” which the Broederbond mentioned in its circular?

The third objection to that organization is that it does create disunity and race hatred in South Africa. What else is the Broederbond, Mr. Speaker, but a sectional organization? Only Afrikaans-speaking people holding certain views and belonging to a specific religious group may become members of it. I can quote here what was written by a certain chairman of the Broederbond, a quotation which will prove that race conflict can arise because of that organization. This is what one of the chairmen of the Broederbond wrote (translation)—

Is this not an expression of race hatred against English-speaking and Jewish South Africans? The Chairman went on to say (translation)—

In other words, this Chairman of the Broederbond was in favour of the destruction and collapse of co-operation between Afrikaans and English speaking people in South Africa. I have been asked who that Chairman of the Broederbond was. We know of one person, a member of the Cabinet, who has already admitted that he was a Vice-Chairman of the Broederbond—I refer to the hon. the Minister of Finance—but it was not he who wrote this. This was written by another Chairman of the Broederbond, a man who is to-day head of the Broadcasting Corporation in South Africa, Dr. Piet Meyer.

Fourthly, we are opposed to the organization because it intrudes upon the equal rights which every voter is entitled to demand from the Government. Let me once again quote the prophetic words of General Hertzog, words that he uttered many years ago. He said (translation)—

When, we ask, Mr. Speaker, will that fatal idea disappear in South Africa? It is not only those who are opposed to the Nationalist Party who complain about this. We find that organizations are founded consisting, as they put it, exclusively of Nationalists, organizations which are trying to counteract the danger of the Broederbond and are demanding that something be done. An organization has been founded in the Free State called the Nationaliste Bond. That organization has time and again expressed its disapproval of the Broederbond on behalf of the ordinary Nationalists on the other side. Certain resolutions were adopted at a meeting held at De Wetsdorp in the Free State on November 13 last year and those resolutions were sent to all the newspapers, not only to the Sunday Times. They were also sent to the Burger, to the Transvaler and to all the other newspapers, but those Nationalist Party newspapers did not publish those resolutions. Why not? Let us see what those resolutions were. I wonder how many hon. members opposite will agree with them? The first states (translation)—

This is rather exaggerated, Mr. Speaker, but nevertheless the resolution goes on to say (translation)—

This is not United Party propaganda, Mr. Speaker; it comes from Nationalists in the Free State. They go on to say (translation)—

They go on to say (translation)—

No wonder the Press refuses to publish these things! The hon. the Prime Minister told us that he joined that organization 25 years ago. If we go back 25 years we find that that was precisely the year in which he became editor of the organ of the Nationalist Party known as the Transvaler. I have here another statement—remember, this is not our propaganda; it emanates from the Nationalists in the Free State—to this effect (translation)—

The next reason why we believe that this organization is dangerous to the country as such is that we believe that it acts in such a way that it undermines the administration in this country and also the Public Service. Once again it is not I who make this allegation. I want once again to quote the words of General Hertzog, a man who was Prime Minister, a person who I am sure knew what he was talking about. He said (translation)—

If a former Prime Minister had this to say, then I do not know how the present Prime Minister can deny that it is possible for a secret organization of this nature to exert its influence in a body like our Public Service.

One of the disclosures in the Press that I found particularly ominous was the names and professions of the persons who were regarded as proposed members of that organization. Of the 43 persons whose names were mentioned in a Broederbond circular, the following appeared: seven teachers including the principals of two schools, a sergeant of police, a chief forestry officer at Knysna, a magistrate, two station masters, a railway clerk, two city engineers and an accountant of the Atomic Energy Board. Why is it that a branch of the Public Service and the administration connected with it contains such a large percentage of proposed members of this organization? A certain circular of this organization goes even further and demands of its members: “It is just as important for persons who are entrusted with the safety of the State to be enrolled as members.”

At 6.55 p.m. the business was interrupted by Mr. Speaker and the debate was adjourned.