Mr Chairman, before I turn to two matters which I should like to discuss here at the beginning of the debate, I first want to congratulate the hon member for Innesdal once again on his appointment as chairman of the standing committee and on his election as chief spokesman of the NP on Home Affairs. I have every confidence in the qualifications and in the special capabilities of the hon member to do good work—and also to work with people. I wish him everything of the best. I am pleased that he is there to support me.

Furthermore I want to congratulate the hon member for Overvaal sincerely on his nomination as his party’s chief spokesman on Home Affairs. When the hon member for Overvaal is not discussing politics, he is quite a sensible man. [Interjections.] I am certain that the two of us will get along well together. Then, too, I want to congratulate the hon member for Green Point again on his nomination as chief spokesman of the PFP on Home Affairs.

Here, at the outset of the debate, I want to refer to two particular matters. The one is the general election held on 6 May this year. I want to discuss that for a while. The other matter deals with the media.

First of all I should like to express a few thoughts on 6 May. To judge by all the reports about chaotic voters’ lists, about irregularities at the polls and about people who were not able to vote for one reason or another, I must accept that we are going to conduct a lively debate on this subject today.

†I would like to deal with a number of election and pre-election issues today in an effort to provide perspective in respect of some of the claims and criticisms.

When first there were rumours about the election last year, it was claimed by some that at least 30%of voters’ addresses were outdated. My department, on the other hand, claimed that it probably had the most complete voters’ lists ever available. What did give cause for concern, however, was that voters neglected to advise the department of their changes of address.

I wish to remind hon members that voters’ lists have been drawn from the Population Register since May 1985. The election on 6 May was the first opportunity to put the voters’ lists to the real test of a general election. In order to produce up-to-date rolls from the register, it is important that the public fulfil their statutory obligation in respect of address changes. It is known that more than 70 000 White voters change their abodes every month, while only 30 000 of these advise the department. To prosecute the defaulters will obviously overcrowd our courts.

The joint select committee under the chairmanship of the hon member for Innesdal which investigated the Electoral Act last year, addressed the questions relating to our voters’ particulars and issued a draft interim report on which the chairman consulted me towards the end of last year.

I wish to thank the chairman and his committee for the useful and good work they have already done in this regard. Due to the limited time available since they reported on the matter, as well as the election on 6 May, it has not been possible to implement their recommendations. The joint committee has been reconstituted and I am keenly looking forward to its report in due course.

Experience in the past, particularly in 1981, of door-to-door surveys with a view to obtaining new addresses proved this method to be ineffective.

The department therefore embarked on an extensive publicity campaign encouraging voters to advise the department of their new addresses. This campaign, although slow in results at first, proved extremely successful in the end. More than 1,3 million address changes were effected to the rolls. In some constituencies the percentage change was as high as 80%whereas in others it was as low as 22%. An overall average of nearly 43%was achieved for the country as a whole.

Notwithstanding this apparent success thousands of voters still used postal vote facilities because they were not registered at their residential addresses on 6 May. This is a disturbing state of affairs and it is doubted whether we will ever succeed in educating our electorate to comply with not merely a statutory obligation but with what I should like to call its civic responsibility.

*Then, as usual, there were those who waited until polling day to find out whether they were registered, and who then discovered to their dismay that it was too late to do anything about the matter. At the beginning of January we made the voters’ lists available for a time in magistrates’ offices and in the offices of the department throughout the country available for inspection by the public. The reaction of the public was deplorable. Our appeals fell on deaf ears and very few people took the trouble to determine their situation. The department admits that with the large volume of work in the short space of time at its disposal, voters were classified into the wrong constituencies and polling districts.

In addition there were, as subsequently became apparent, a number of block errors present in the population register when the change-over to the new system took place in 1985. Those errors were therefore dormant because there had only been a number of by-elections since 1985, but no general election had been held. However, the department can safely say that all errors brought to its attention were dealt with and, where possible, rectified. To give hon members an idea of the scope of this task, I could mention that the department deleted a total of 55 026 names from the list and added a total of 53 961 names to the voters’ lists by way of addendum lists. Once again, not all the errors became apparent in time and quite a number of these were only discovered on polling day.

During the recent election a number of malpractices emerged. One of these is an iniquitous practice which we will have to eradicate. I am referring to the method of registering voters out of their proper constituencies. [Interjections.]

Order!

An hon member of this House was registered in another constituency in this way by what was presumably a person of a different political persuasion. The department is aware of another half-dozen similar cases. During the emotional election campaign it was speculated that hundreds and even thousands of voters were disenfranchised in this way. This is of course a gross exaggeration of the actual situation. As I have said, the department is aware of seven cases of this nature. The fact of the matter is that this is an iniquitous situation which will have to be eradicated. I have every confidence that the Joint Committee will be able to deal with the problem. Of course this is not a completely new phenomenon. This practice has occurred before, but in that case one was able to compare the signatures on the old RV1 forms and it was easier to expose falsifications.

†Mr Chairman, I want to deal briefly with some of the problems the department experienced on election day. Firstly, I must refer to a few election realities. The election of May 6 was the biggest election ever conducted in South Africa, having had the largest number of registered voters, namely 3 053 417. The largest ever number of seats was contested, namely 164, and the largest ever number of candidates nominated, namely 480. In this election we also saw the largest number of votes ever cast in a South African election, namely 2 058 036, and a high average percentage poll of 69,1%was attained.

Yet, as happens in every election, there were people who were unable to vote on 6 May. My department admits that some of its errors disfranchised voters. On the other hand, most cases of this nature were caused by incomplete address particulars, as a result of which voters were allocated to the wrong polling districts and electoral divisions.

Criticism of voters’ lists was mainly generalised and difficult to counter. However, when individual cases were brought to the department’s notice, acceptable explanations were given. Numerous letters of explanation were directed to individuals and the Press. I have examples of such explanations with me, and I would be happy to show them to hon members.

Allow me to say that after all the excitement had died down and the dust had settled, it was refreshing to read the following in The Starof 20 July 1987, from the pen of political researcher Donald Simpson, about the fairness of South African elections:

He continues—

[Interjections.]

*I do want to make an appeal to hon members, when they criticise, to preserve the necessary perspective. We must not attack and disparage the image of our truly democratic, impartial and honest electoral system to such an extent that an image of machination is conveyed. It is not in the interests of our country that such an image should be created.

I know how hard the Director-General and the officials of the department worked to cause matters to function smoothly during the election, and I should like to convey very sincere thanks to them for their services.

I come now to the other matter which I should like to raise at this stage and deal with again later, and that is the concept of the freedom of expression, as manifested in the Press. This is of real importance. Allow me to state the standpoint of this Government on this important matter.

The Press has, for a long time now, been claiming that it is the Fourth pillar of democracy. In order to give credibility to this claim, the Press ought of course to maintain standards worthy of the responsibility it takes upon its shoulders. Such standards do exist and have been incorporated into a set of rules and principles which include inter aliathe following. I quote:

I quote further:

With the occasional reader and passer-by in mind, I quote further:

Finally the necessary care and responsibility must be displayed by the media in respect of:

Sake wat die vrede en goeie orde, veiligheid en verdediging van die Republiek en sy bevolking nadelig kan beïnvloed.

And then finally:

Where did these rules originate and where are they found? These rules are in fact taken from the Code of Conduct of the SA Media Council.

I am convinced that hon members will agree that these rules are commendable. In fact, the Government has frequently pledged its support for these principles and rules. The Government has even gone further, and repeated appeals had been made to members of the Newspaper Press Union and the Media Council to support and apply these principles and rules effectively.

The Government is under the impression that in general the organised, conventional Press respects its self-imposed code of conduct. Recently, however, a completely new and different kind of publication has appeared. These publications appear as newspapers or newsletters that are served by their own news agencies. They are easily recognised by their total contempt for the high Press norms that have been laid down over the centuries. They support a specific matter and display no qualms of conscience at the use of dishonest and deplorable methods in order to promote their dubious objectives. They are active in many spheres and they are to be found on the far-right as well as the far-left extremes of the political spectrum. I shall refer to this sector of the Press as the revolution-supportive Press.

†I now wish to point out what the concept “revolution-supportive media” means to the Government. Then I will indicate why the Government has considered it necessary to curtail this particular section of the media. Later on I will give an indication of the measures the Government intends to take and the procedure that will be followed in order to achieve this objective.

In the political field the concept “revolution” adopts the meaning of radical change in a political and social system by means of violence. This is also the way in which the foreign-supported revolutionary movement—our enemy the ANC—perceives its revolution in South Africa.

In order to determine whether an action was directed at furthering revolution, one must ask whether a person or organisation has perpetrated or propagated or, in one or other relevant form, furthered violence. A political revolution is always synonymous with violence. An authority once expressed it as follows, and I quote:

Revolution is easily recognised after it has taken place. It is, however, not so easy to determine exactly which actions are deliberately of inadvertently directed at the furthering of revolution. Revolutions seldom erupt spontaneously. As a rule they are the result of deliberate organisation and other actions by self-confessed revolutionary movements. This pattern also applies to the South African situation. Revolution is a process; it results from the implementation of arevolutionary strategy. In implementing the strategy, elements of the media play an extremely important role. I wish to concentrate in particular on the role of such media in the revolutionary process.

On 7 May this year the editor of the official ANC mouthpiece, Sechaba, said the following in a broadcast on Radio Moscow

Mr Chairman, let me explain further why the role of the media deserves our attention. The possibility of certain seemingly innocent actions forming part of a violent process is no flight of the imagination on the part of the Government. The ANC itself states in its ANC Diaryof 1982 that—

It then goes on to say that “an all-round offensive” in South Africa means that—

Here our enemy links the armed struggle with other seemingly peaceful actions. To it, therefore, revolution is a multi-faceted struggle.

How are the media affected by the aforementioned? Where do they fit into this picture? Once again our enemy provides us with the answer. Take its declared objectives for its attempted revolution. In its youth-wing magazine, Forward, No 6 of 1983, it says of its jailed leaders:

In a document on its 75th anniversary in 1987 its Secretary-General Nzo made the following appeal:

We must always remember that to them “struggle” implies a violent struggle.

I would like to elaborate further on the role of certain elements of the media. The self-acknowledged revolutionaries stress the point that support in various forms for their revolution is extremely necessary. On the one hand support for the authority, its institutions and supporters must be alienated while, on the other hand, support for the revolutionaries must be promoted. Any responsible government, like ours, will naturally allow lawful actions to alienate support from it. Many members of the media carry on with these actions undisturbed. The critical point in the promotion of revolution lies in the building of support for the revolutionaries by way of praising its leaders, its flag and other symbols. Our enemy expects support from the media for its organisation through these actions of mobilisation. Certain elements of the media are assisting the enemy in this regard. The result, which makes it such an important aim for them, is that at the end their violence can be deployed more readily.

*Let me explain further. Mao Tse Tung made the well-known statement that the masses are to the terrorist as the ocean to a fish. A fish cannot survive out of water, and in exactly the same way a terrorist cannot carry out his activities without the support given him by members of the community. Support such as that which the revolutionaries expect of the media can also lead to the recruitment of terrorists. Hon members can tell me now: Surely the media does not plant bombs. However, to be successful on a violent level the revolutionaries rely on the masses being mobilised in a subtle way, inter aliaby the media. Their attempt at revolution can therefore not be successful without this support-generating propaganda. The masses must consider the violence of the revolutionaries to be useful and morally justified. They must support and help the terrorist and must not oppose him. In South Africa this process is at present under way.

Part of the activities of the Press, by means of its reports, has the effect, although they may advance other stated intentions, that support is generated for this self-acknowledged, foreign-supported revolutionary action. The point I want to make is that elements of the media are generating support for the revolutionary organisations by dealing with the revolutionary organisations and their symbols in an ennobling and propagandistic way. These organisations openly approve of violence, while their symbols epitomise revolution.

The Government is not going to allow this sector of the media, which promotes revolution with its ostensibly non-violent, support-generating activities, to continue unchecked. Furthermore I want to justify the Government’s intended action against them on the basis of an example from a South African judgement. In the Witwatersrand Division of the Supreme Court the accused Hogan, who was a member of the ANC, denied that she supported the violence of the organisation. She was nevertheless willing to carry out other directives of the enemy. She was found guilty of high treason, and the court inter aliafound as follows—

The subtle forms taken by revolutionary propaganda are legion. I am going to refer to only a few. The existing order is condemned as being repugnant; however, nothing bad is said about the revolutionaries, although a great deal is said about them. This media often adopts the package approach. A whole string of negative appelations are associated with the Government and its leaders. Detestable key words and slogans are repeatedly used in the process of negative association and conditioning. This kind of reporting boils down to atrocious support-generation and image-building for the violent movement.

Mr Chairman, it is not the intention of this Government to restrict the freedom of the Press or the free flow of information in any other way than by protecting the following: The safety of the public; the maintenance of public order; and the earliest possible determination of the state of emergency.

Hon members may also ask whether the Government’s existing measures are not adequate to achieve this. My answer is no! Neither the Internal Security Act, nor the Publications Act, nor the Newspaper and Imprint Registration Act give the Government sufficient powers to act effectively against the revolutionary supportive propaganda. [Interjections.]

†The hon member obviously knows nothing about this.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister of Defence entitled to accuse members of this House of being soft on security? [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon Minister of Defence please inform me what he said in this regard?

Mr Chairman, I said that the PFP is soft on security. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister of Defence referred to a single member of this party. He did not refer to the PFP.

Order! Unfortunately I did not hear the remark. I will check on Hansard and give my ruling at a later stage.

Mr Chairman, is it in order for me to say that the hon the Minister is soft in the head?

No. Order!

Then I will not say it.

Order! I must warn the hon member for Sandton not to trifle with the rules of the House. The hon the Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, I indicated that those Acts did not make provision for dealing with this type of propaganda.

The existing emergency measures in regard to the media are primarily aimed at controlling and prohibiting certain defined offences which are clearly set out in the regulations. They are not intended to restrict propaganda. Other restrictions on the flow of information relate more specifically to certain matters and not to pro-revolutionary propaganda.

It has been said that the Media Council would be able to exercise the necessary control. I regret to say, however, that the Media Council has in no way been able to exercise any influence on this sector of the Press.

It has become clear to the Government that this propaganda and resultant actions must now be controlled. The necessary steps will be taken tomorrow, and I shall furnish further particulars in this regard during my reply.

Mr Chairman, I should like to request the privilege of the half-hour.

The tune the hon the Minister sang here again today on security and order is an all too familiar one by now. Time and again we hear from the Government that it wants to maintain security and order. The Government already has numerous pieces of legislation on the Statute Book by means of which it can protect itself, but apparently that is still not enough. We say that the legislation which the Government already has at its disposal is sufficient to combat the revolutionary onslaught, and the time has come for the Government to stop threatening and threatening and threatening, as the hon the Minister of Defence does so regularly, and to take action. We are behind them all the way. We support them in their attempts to protect public safety. They should stop talking, however, and establish the necessary security and order for us.

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the hon the Minister in congratulating the hon member for Innesdal on the latter’s re-appointment as chairman of the standing committee and of the select committee. He certainly has a good knowledge of the Electoral Act. He is also very diligent. We are just not always sure whether his knowledge of the Electoral Act is greater than his knowledge of the activities of the ANC. Nevertheless, we wish him everything of the best in his committee work. I also want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon the Minister for his kind words to me with regard to my nomination as my party’s chief spokesman on the portfolio under discussion.

This brings me to the question of the voters’ lists. In his speech earlier the hon the Minister had a lot to say about the condition the voters’ lists were in now and the allegedly chaotic condition they were in before. We want to make our standpoint on that very clearly. As far as the officials are concerned, we are more than satisfied that they worked extremely hard and were not really to blame for the condition the voters’ lists were in. That was the Government’s fault. It was the Government’s fault because the Government does not plan thoroughly enough; because the Government, for reasons of political gain, tends to gamble with regard to the date of the election. At first one heard that the election was to be on 26 November. Then it was this or that other date. Then the election was being postponed, and then not. All that leads to uncertainty. What is necessary, therefore, is more systematic planning. Perhaps it is even necessary for the Government to announce a definite election date well in advance so that the officials can have months and months of time—perhaps even years—to get everything ready for the election. I am sure that if the Government were to give its officials that prior knowledge, they would significantly reduce the problems with regard to the voters’ lists.

In addition, I want to say that in our opinion the department's annual report is a very good one. We want to congratulate those who helped to compile it. We want to tell Mr Gerrie van Zyl, the Director-General, and his officials that we notice from the report and other available information that they had had a particularly difficult year and were under a lot of pressure. Hon members will recall that in November 1985 these officials had to take over the 66 district offices of the former Department of Co-operation and Development, which entailed 1 364 extra posts in all. Of course, this brought enormous pressure to bear upon this department, and we want to thank them sincerely for the way in which they handled that take-over.

In particular, Mr Chairman, I think Parliament should be proud of these officials and we should all thank them for their enormous contribution to economising measures. After the Government had once again requested economising measures, this department did not fill some of its important vacancies. They did the following. In order to prevent themselves from falling behind with their work, these officials worked a lot of overtime without remuneration. In this regard the officials worked 56 000 man-days without remuneration. This represents a monetary value of R3 770 000. I feel we owe them a debt of gratitude. In reality, this department serves as a wonderful example to other Government departments as far as economising measures are concerned.

Then there were 59 officials in this department who received the benefits of recognition of merit. We should also like to congratulate them on that.

The general election on 6 May was this year’s great occasion this year. It brought enormous pressure to bear upon the officials. Despite the criticism in respect of the voters’ lists, we on this side—I am sure the other parties in this Committee agree with us on this—want to say that they always offered a sympathetic ear. These officials were always prepared to assist us, whether it was during working hours or after hours, whenever we wished. They even rendered a lot of assistance on polling day. We are very grateful to them for the assistance they rendered on polling day.

The department’s functions, which include administration, civic affairs, immigration and control over publications, were also expanded recently, and they are also responsible for the Government Printer and the Central Statistical Services now. We are of the opinion that this will once again make great demands upon the department, but we are sure that they will do good work as far as that is concerned again this year. We want to wish the officials and the hon the Minister success for the year ahead, except that we do not wish the hon the Minister success in the political sphere.

There is something in the annual report that worries me a little, and that is the reference on page 11 to the immigrants who do not wish to accept citizenship. Hon members will notice that item 2. 1 concerns those immigrants from the ages of 15 years and 6 months to 25 years, who automatically become South African citizens after five years’ permanent residence in the country. There are a number of them, however, who refuse to become citizens. They have indicated that they do not wish to become South African citizens. There appears to be approximately 900 of them. It may be that approximately half of them are women, but what I want to ask the hon the Minister today is what he is going to do about those approximately 500 male immigrants who do not want to accept South African citizenship. I ask whether he is still going to allow them to stay in the country or not, because their main reason for not wanting to accept citizenship is very clear: They do not want to do military service. Mr Chairman, if your son and mine have to do military service, that immigrant who wants to come and settle in this country and his son should do military service too; otherwise the hon the Minister must, in my opinion, give them a one-way ticket to the place from which they came.

The immigrants?

I am referring to the young immigrants who do not want to accept citizenship. [Interjections.] I am referring to those who have been categorised. If the hon member for Boksburg would only read the annual report, he would know what was going on here.

As far as the postponement of the election is concerned, I briefly want to say that it really came as a great shock to the country. Promises were made to us during the election. Many of the NP politicians said that the 1989 election would not be affected by this one. What has happened, however? On polling day the breakaways—we are regarded as the breakaways—appeared to have attracted 550 000 votes. [Interjections.] Now the NP has very quickly made arrangements for postponing the election. There are numerous complications in this regard, because the NP’s partner, Rev Hendrickse, may not give the NP permission to postpone the election. We want to give advance notice that the CP will oppose that amending Bill with all the power at its disposal. The Government is not going to evade its responsibilities, because whether that election takes place in two years’ time or in five years’ time, the Government is going to participate in it, and lose it. [Interjections.]

As far as the joint committee is concerned, I want to refer specifically to its past proceedings and tell the chairman, the hon member for Innesdal, that we have made good progress. My problem, however, is this: What about the mass of inputs that have been made? The hon the Minister will agree with me that a number of people have made inputs and representations—we have even heard evidence—and the question is how we are going to get through that enormous quantity of work.

I should like to make a recommendation today. We are now saddled with the problem of numerous proposals. We have a lot of work to do, and I can honestly say I do not know where the hon members who serve on that committee are going to find the time to do that mass of work. The department is already suffering a staff shortage. I should like to suggest a way of solving that problem. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether we could not consider appointing working committees. I am not sure what the law provides, and whether or not he may do so. These committees could, for example, be established under the chairmanship of a senior Government official. The people who would be involved as working personnel, could be seasoned political officials such as the general secretary or the provincial secretaries of the NP and the other political parties. They could then sift this enormous amount of work and arrange it in some kind of order, and in so doing save members of Parliament and the standing committee a lot of time so that we could reach finality more quickly.

The updating of the voters’ list is the big problem, and although I initially absolved the officials from guilt and blamed the Government, I want to agree with the hon the Minister that the public must really play a more active part in this. I think people must be more conscientious about reporting changes of address, thus ensuring that their names appear on the voters’ list. The political parties can also assist more actively in this regard.

I also want to say a few words about this card to which the hon the Minister has referred—the BI-4A. That is the card one completes when one changes one’s address so that one’s name appears on another voters’ list. The Act makes no provision with regard to the signature appearing on that card. Apparently that is done in terms of the regulations. I merely want to say that anyone can sign that card; and even if a witness were present—someone said a witness must also sign—a fictional person could sign as a witness as well.

Nationalists do not do that. [Interjections.]

I know they do not do so on a small scale, only on a large scale. [Interjections.]

I want to suggest something I heard about, namely that when a person submits a card like that to report his change of address, the department should send its acknowledgment of his new address in duplicate—one to his new address and one to his old address. If someone were to try to transfer me back to Jeppe, for example, then I would receive a card at my old address and at my new address. If a swindle were to take place, the card sent to my old address would indicate that I was registered in Pietersburg or wherever. [Interjections.] I could then go to the department and say that Hennie Smit or whoever, was responsible and that they should rectify the matter immediately. [Interjections.]

I should like to ask how the name of the hon the Minister of Defence—he is not here now—was transferred to the Modderfontein constituency. I also want to ask the hon the Minister whether he does not want to talk to the hon member for Port Natal, because at some or other stage his name also appeared rather mysteriously on the Port Natal voters’ list, whereas he was living in a huge house somewhere else. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is very mysterious. The Electoral Act provides very clearly that one may be registered only in the constituency in which one lives. The hon the Minister of Defence does not live in Kempton Park and I should like to know how this card was completed. Did he complete the card, or not? We should also like to know whether the card of the hon member for Port Natal was completed.

Look how he is blushing.

It was the “tokke-lossie”.

I should now like to deal with a completely non-political matter, viz the position of the Speaker. When the Speaker was elected at the beginning of the session, he made a few remarks about the problems regarding his position. We should like the guideline to be that the office of Speaker must always be uncontroversial. As far as possible the Speaker should always stand outside of party politics. That is possible, except for those two, three or six months during which he fights an election. That creates a problem, because then he is involved in active politics. That makes it difficult for his opponents, because they want to respect him but they also want to attack him. It is unreasonable to say that the Speaker should not be opposed, because an opposition party also wants that seat, after all. Coincidentally, the present Speaker’s seat is a marginal one. He won by a majority of approximately 500 votes. That is even a problem even when it is not election time, because the Speaker has to hold public meetings and report-back meetings in his constituency from time to time. After all, he remains in politics for as long as he retains his seat.

Since we feel that the Speaker should remain aloof from politics as far as possible, we think that the Speaker should be a nominated or indirectly elected member. If he is not bound to a constituency, he can stand completely aloof from politics. I trust that the hon the Minister will accept that this input of mine is completely non-political and that it merely reflects my high regard for the office of Speaker.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Overvaal made a number of comments. I merely want to react to his claim that I know more about the ANC than I know about the Electoral Act. We on this side of the House, however, are not at all ashamed to admit that we should like to know as much as possible about everyone and everything in this country. We have no problem with being informed about the activities of every organisation, irrespective of which one it is. We think it is in the interests of our country to know exactly how people think, how they react and what they are doing. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Overvaal, like the other hon members of the CP, is extremely brave when elections are at issue. He keeps on telling us in the House—as he has just told us—about the 550 000 votes and the crowds and crowds of people that are going to vote for them at the next election. I want to tell him, however, that if he looks back on the history of the HNP, he will see that parties that got masses of votes, which were based on absolutely raw emotions during election periods, fell before the onslaught of rejection by the voters. Surely that is true. People in this country of ours who have common sense know that with every step forward the CP takes, the country goes back a few steps. [Interjections.] People may be angry at a given moment. They may even protest, but ultimately the political course the CP is taking is one of damnation.

I also want to tell them that the White voters in this country who have common sense will never put them into power. [Interjections.] They can study world history. I know this will annoy the hon member for Barberton. After all, he can get documentary proof of people in world history who were applauded by millions of people. They were people who were involved in political absurdities; people who eventually plunged the world into crises that humanity is still ashamed of today. When one does not know where one is heading, it does not matter which course one takes. [Interjections.] As far as politics is concerned, that is the truth in connection with the CP, in contrast with us. We know where we are heading with South Africa, and that is why the course we are taking matters a great deal. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member for Innesdal a fair chance to make his speech.

I want to refer briefly to the speech made by the hon member for Overvaal. He spoke about the change-of-address cards. I want to say, merely in passing, that he once lost a nomination struggle against the hon member for Alberton. He then went from Alberton to Jeppe. From Jeppe he ran away to where he is now, Overvaal. [Interjections.] I really want to suggest that he forget about that idea of his, because in the case of an hon member like him, who moves around so much, the department would get terribly mixed up with all those different addresses. It would be difficult to keep track of him. [Interjections.]

I have been staying in the same place for 25 years!

I tell the hon member for Overvaal that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, people who quarrel about the injustices of the past have no political future. The hon members of the CP have this aspect in common with the left-wing radicals, the ANC and the AWB, viz that the politics they are involved in is politics of bitterness about the past and vengeful ideas about today and tomorrow. That is why I want to say in this discussion about the Department of Home Affairs that we are not worried about an election now, tomorrow or any other day because ultimately that kind of politics simply cannot win in this country of ours. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Overvaal spoke about the standing committee. I am surprised that an hon member like him, who should know better, spoke in this Committee about the work of a standing committee of which he himself is a member. In the second place, I was amazed when he said there was no time to deal with the work. We disposed of a mountain of work. If he does not see his way clear to doing so, he must get someone else from his party. I think we as parliamentarians can do a very good job with the task entrusted to us within a short period of time.

Do you still think Louis Nel is a security risk?

We have received constant inputs from the officials. We are not worried about not being able to finish our work. [Interjections.]

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

The hon member for Overvaal is a very interesting person. The moment he gets hurt, he becomes like all members of the CP. [Interjections.] They jump into the arena and become personal. They are constantly trying firstly to disparage people, from the hon the State President to hon members in the back benches of the NP, and secondly to stir up emotions in this country, something that we as Whites in South Africa are going to pay dearly for. The hon member for Overvaal’s people in my constituency tried to do this. [Interjections.] They will try it again, but they will not succeed. The South African public is sick and tired of the kind of derogatory, condescending and vulgar politics that they indulge in on such a personal level.

Tell us about the ANC!

Unfortunately I have only 10 minutes left, but just in passing I want to convey my sincere thanks on behalf of this side of the House to Mr Gerrie van Zyl and the officials of the department for the annual report and the excellent work they have been doing in many sensitive spheres for many years. With the immigration policy and all other aspects of their activities, the Department of Home Affairs has to deal with some of the most sensitive matters in South Africa, and we are grateful to see that there is compassion and understanding, also for the people affected by the legislation that is administered by this department.

I should like to say quite a lot about the Central Statistical Service, but just in passing I should like to thank Dr Treurnicht du Toit and his officials for what we as parliamentarians constantly receive from them. I thank them for their excellent brochure about population registration. This merely proves that when we ask for something in Parliament, we get a reaction from the Government departments. In this debate last year the Central Statistical Service was asked to make certain statistics available to us in a more attractive way, and I think this brochure is an excellent example of what can be done.

I should also like to request the hon the Minister to allow the Central Statistical Service to retain its autonomy to a maximum degree. It is true that many organisations and people make use of the Central Statistical Service, and it would be a pity if it were ever thought to be involved in the party-political arena. They must be permitted to retain their individuality under all circumstances.

The hon the Minister made certain announcements here today, which will be elucidated later, about possible steps against the Press. On behalf of this side of the House, I want to say that we on the Government side have great appreciation for the tremendous part the Press has played in South Africa and always must play in a free country such as South Africa. Today, however, there are a number of spheres in which we have to contend with reports and activities in written form that are directly linked to the objectives of organisations which state candidly that they want to overthrow the existing order and seize power, and that they do not intend at any stage to participate in the democratic organisations in the country.

When we talk about protecting the public’s interests, every government which has to contend with a situation such as the one prevailing in South Africa, has a responsibility to ensure that there is law and order, and to ensure that no institution, revolutionary organisation or people who have revolutionary ideas, will be prompted and encouraged by means of the media, in whatever shape, to promote the overthrowing of the Government in a non-democratic way. [Interjections.]

In that spirit we on this side of the House say that we appreciate that. We must also accept, however, that many of the problems we have in South Africa are caused by the ignorance of people about how other people think and feel. The only pity about steps such as this one, which have to be taken from sheer necessity, is that a large part of the population is completely uninformed about the nature of other people’s thoughts, ideas and activities.

During the past year, and especially during the past few months, we have observed a reckless undermining of Government authority across the whole of the political spectrum, from left to right. When I look at the world we are living in, and see the attitudes of some of our children today, and I hear what they say—these are innocent children—and I see their absolutely racist approach, I say that this unacceptable conduct in printed form does not come only from revolutionaries on the left, but that there is a tremendous amount of propaganda pamphlets and written documentation which comes from the far-right elements, something that is not in the interests of the inhabitants of this country.

It is also true that this is extremely difficult to control, and new technological developments will make this even more difficult. The chairman of IBM International said last year that the latest desk computers would have an incredible impact on the printing industry within the next two years. They will enable an ordinary individual to print reports of a high quality in his office, using an ordinary computer and a laser printer. It is becoming increasingly complicated, therefore, to control things. That is why the NP says, when we consider steps such as these, that ultimately South Africa and its people will not hold their own because of control measures, but will hold their own only with a system that lives in the hearts of all the people in South Africa.

It is because we know our course is one in which we can address the hearts and minds of people and in which we want to guarantee people’s freedom, that we still have to adopt certain measures and take certain steps to prevent the undermining by violence and revolution of the freedom of people who truly believe in freedom, as we in this Committee believe in it. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the second half-hour.

The hon member for Innesdal will forgive me if I do not respond directly to what he has said, except to say that I believe, at least in this depressing climate, that the hon member could have found it in his heart at least to refer to the importance of the fact that a government should in the final analysis govern with the consent of the people in the country where it operates. I am pleased that at least this sort of sensible sound emanates from somewhere in spite of a fairly depressing afternoon.

We have witnessed this afternoon a performance by the hon the Minister which I must frankly describe as no less than bizarre. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister regaled us with a lecture on revolutionary strategy. Frankly, it is a lecture which we have heard ad nauseamfrom the hon the State President, the hon the Minister of Defence, the SABC and many other sources. [Interjections.] We have heard lots about this revolutionary strategy from a variety of propagandists of the Nationalist repressive strategy. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister told us how these revolutionaries are at work in South Africa. Of course, in the process he defined all sorts of weird and wonderful things as being elements in this revolution, and therefore things, developments, institutions and trends we should guard against.

He used this whole performance to set the scene for new and more oppressive restrictions on the South African media. Then he concluded by failing to tell this Committee what the restrictions were so that Parliament could debate them sensibly. The hon the Minister said he would tell us what the restrictions were when he replied to the debate, presumably at the end of the discussion of this Vote.

Now that is a disgrace!

The hon the Minister denies this Committee the opportunity to express its opinion on this most important development. [Interjections.]

Why do you not express your opinion now?

I will certainly do so, but the point is that the hon the Minister would not tell us … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Green Point may continue.

The hon the Minister failed to tell us what the restrictions were. The proper thing to have done would have been to tell us right at the beginning of the debate what the situation was. That would have given hon members the opportunity to express their views, to debate this important development on this most appropriate occasion—during the debate on the Vote of that hon Minister. [Interjections.]

This attitude is a reflection once again of the attitude of the hon the Minister towards Parliament. He wants to announce new restrictions. Let me just make this point by the way—that he is presumably going to announce restrictions which in a normal democratic society cannot be announced by a Minister but have to be approved by Parliament in the first place. However, I am sure that he is going to announce restrictions which in a normal society would not have been announced by a Minister by executive decree. Moreover, he even denies this House the common courtesy of expressing its views. It shows nothing less than contempt for Parliament, which that hon Minister shares with the hon the State President, with the hon Minister of Defence and with most other members in his party.

In the motivation of the hon the Minister for the unannounced restrictions, he refers to the Media Council and he quotes them at length on how the Press should behave. He quotes them with approval and, quite frankly, I find very little difficulty with the sentiments expressed by the Media Council in that respect. However, the hon the Minister prefers to remain silent with regard to what the Media Council has said repeatedly about the restrictions that exist even at this stage. He prefers to remain silent about the very critical comments of the Media Council particularly with regard to the emergency regulations pertaining to Press and media control. The Media Council has repeatedly expressed very sincere concern about the degree to which the emergency regulations, particularly in respect of the media, have interfered with the free flow of information thus leaving the population of this country uninformed about the realities of what is happening in this country, however unpleasant they may be.

In his motivation the hon the Minister makes a statement about Press freedom and again says that the Government is committed to Press freedom. He says, and I quote:

I do not want to be unpleasant about this, but I must tell the hon the Minister quite frankly that I reject his Government’s “commitment” to Press freedom with contempt. [Interjections.] I believe it is a lot of hogwash—mere empty words! And when they talk about the loss of Press freedom they shed crocodile tears. That kind of “commitment” as opposed to what Press freedom and democracy should really be does not mean a thing. It is rubbish. [Interjections.] I should say that there is a dangerous mood prevailing in the Government, and this hon the Minister has given an indication of that.

Frankly, Sir, the performance of the hon State President a few days ago in this House was quite a lot worse when he too dealt with the Press. He quoted the Cape Timesat length. He referred to what he said were statements by that newspaper and others in this country and labelled them as lies. I think he called them “deliberate and disgusting lies”. I read up on some of the pieces he quoted, and some of them do not even purport to be statements. They are clearly an expression of an opinion; and how can an opinion be a lie? I mean, how can one say people are lying if they do not even purport to be telling the truth?

There is a political paranoia prevailing in the minds of this Government about any kind of criticism. The hon the State President has shown very clear and dangerous signs of that. Sir, the hon the State President has shown signs of having reached the stage at which he can actually no longer stand criticism, of whatever nature. [Interjections.] It is a terrible situation. He has reached a degree of intolerance which makes it impossible for a man like him to function sensibly within a democratic system. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon member. I referred to certain propaganda that was being disseminated by a certain section of the Press in full. Is the hon member going to express his and his party’s view on that propaganda and that section of the Press? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, this party’s view on Press freedom is very clear. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development and the hon member for Houghton must now give the hon member for Green Point an opportunity to reply to the question put to him. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister knows very clearly what this party’s point of view is on Press freedom. He knows very clearly what stand we take in the whole South African political perspective, and he knows what we think of other parties’ and other organisations’ propaganda. One of the most disgusting propaganda performances I have ever witnessed in my life was that of the NP in the recent election. [Interjections.] There was reference to “damnable lies”; there were slurs, there was blackmail—all part of his party's propaganda campaign, let alone what happened outside of this House. Of course, some ugly propaganda is being spread by organisations to the left of us, and there is some ugly propaganda being spread by organisations to the right of us in respect of which, I may point out, the Government does not respond with equal concern.

The hon member Prof Olivier expressed this party’s view very clearly the other day when he responded to the hon the State President. He said one cannot actually divide freedom. What he meant was that if there is freedom and there is democracy, one must be prepared to tolerate that kind of propaganda. [Interjections.] One must be prepared to tolerate it, to accept it, and to deal with it in a sensible way. Quite frankly, Sir, those people who think that one can fight a revolution or a communist onslaught—we can call it what we like—by applying all the methods of a totalitarian communist regime, have already lost that battle. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, they have already lost that battle. That is what my concern is with regard to what the hon the Minister has had to say this afternoon.

Allow me to refer briefly to one or two other matters that the hon the Minister raised. He referred to the voters’ rolls and the recent election.

In spite of all the hon the Minister’s assertions the voters’ rolls are generally in a very poor state. I think everybody accepts that and nobody can argue about it. There is no point in being defensive. I do not want to suggest that anybody has any ready explanation as to how to deal with the matter if the population does not co-operate. That is a fundamental problem. One of the things that we need to look at very seriously is the actual mistakes that are being made in the hon the Minister’s department. My concern is not so much about people who fail to change their addresses and to have their names put on the correct voters’ roll where they live. My concern is much more about people who have not actually moved anywhere and have not filled in any forms and whose names are then removed from the voters’ roll for some or other inexplicable reason. Other members of my party will deal with that later. I believe that if we can deal with that problem we will already have made much progress and many sincere and bona fidecomplaints by members of the public will have been removed.

I want to align myself with the hon member for Overvaal just to the extent that he thanked some of the officials for their services in the past election. I believe the hon member was correct in saying that they worked very hard. Let me just make another point in that respect. I asked the hon the Minister some questions about what officials who helped in the election were paid and I think they are being paid atrociously. The pittance that they received for the overtime that they put in, the hard work and the harassment that they were sometimes subjected to, was quite frankly not worth it. I think that one has to be crazy to accept that kind of payment. I appeal to the hon the Minister to give his serious attention to the problem so that these people can be remunerated in such a way that it will actually be worth their while to take on such an important job. I also possibly want to agree with the hon the Minister to the extent that in the main the election system in South Africa enjoys quite a degree of credibility. The Electoral Act basically functions infinitely better than much of other legislation we have on our Statute Book. I think one must be thankful for that, but I hope that the hon the Minister will pay some attention to the position of some of the officials charged with carrying out those very onerous and very important tasks.

Mr Chairman, I shall reply to the hon member for Green Point on the question of the alternative media in a moment, and he will pardon me if I first devote a few minutes to another matter before returning to the subject he discussed.

Initially I wanted to discuss the modernisation of our election methods. When I referred to modernisation, I am not really referring to the modernisation of the provisions of the Electoral Act, because it is my privilege to serve on the joint committee under the chairmanship of the hon member for Innesdal, of whom mention has already been made this afternoon. Any contribution I can make in respect of the Electoral Act itself, I shall be able to do better on that joint committee.

Instead I want to avail myself of the opportunity to express my gratitude that it is the declared intention of the department, over a period of years, to establish a fully computerised system of voter registration and voting. I welcome this intention and I also want to express my appreciation for the fact that great progress has already been made in this sphere. Modern technology is already being employed in various ways by this department.

I think the time has come for us to give attention to a further step in this process—this declared implementation of the intention of the department. I am referring to making available the terminals of the computer of the chief electoral officer to every constituency prior to and on polling day. Mention was made here of complaints on the part of constituencies concerning particulars contained in the voters’ lists. The hon the Minister himself referred to this, but I do not want to spend any time on the matter. I just want to say that we have already made a great deal of progress since those days when it took several days before one could make corrections to the voters’ list. We have even made considerable progress since the time when we began to make microfiche facilities available to the respective parties.

Today the information on entries in the voters’ list is as readily available as the nearest telephone. But that is also where the snag lies. The closer it gets to election day, the more difficult it is to contact regional offices of the department by telephone, because of pressure on the telephone facilities. I think it is necessary to consider making a computer terminal available, certainly at that point in every constituency at which special votes are dealt with, and on polling day at the main polling station in every constituency.

For years I worked for a large insurance company. Life assurers today have computer terminals throughout the country. If a large firm can have a 100 or more terminals in operation, I think the State can certainly do this as well in 166 constituencies. Actually that is all I wanted to say about the modernisation of election methods.

Now I should like to take this opportunity, since the hon the Minister spoke about it, to express my great satisfaction at the declared intention of the hon the Minister to take steps against the alternative media. Since I have just been talking about elections, I think one should also give attention to the fact that candidates, parties and the media are subjected to strict rules by the Electoral Act. These are in addition to the other measures to which the hon the Minister referred. If these are important, even when a single by-election is involved, how much more important is it not that the necessary regulatory measures should be there when people in the community arrogate to themselves the right to subvert entire structures in our society.

†That brings me to the hon member for Green Point who said here that he treated the assurances given by the hon the Minister about Press freedom with contempt. Let me say right away that it is strange coming as it does from the party of the hon member for Green Point to talk about the hallowed principles of Press freedom in this Chamber, and in this day and age in which we are living, when two hon members of the party to which he belongs went to Dakar to have discussions with the ANC.

Now I ask the hon member for Green Point where in Africa he finds the example of the Press freedom which he extolled here this afternoon.

Botswana. [Interjections.]

Where, in the councils which enjoy the support of the ANC does he find this form of Press freedom? [Interjections.] These two hon members of the PFP visited Senegal, Burkina Faso and Ghana to look at democratic institutions in those countries. Could they indicate to us the measure of Press freedom which those countries enjoy? More than that, the ANC enjoys the hospitality of frontline states throughout Southern Africa. Could they tell us about the Press freedom enjoyed in those countries? No, the hon member for Green Point is the very last man to come here and tell us about Press freedom.

This Government has been in power for close on 40 years, and to this day that hon member and his party and their Press enjoy the fullest measure of freedom to spread the lies which that party tried to spread before the election. They are the very last party to talk about Press freedom. [Interjections.]

*When we are talking about the alternative media, I can only say “hear, hear” to the allegations made in this House by the hon the Minister. These alternative media are equally dangerous … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must allow the hon member for Umlazi to make his speech.

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

Mr Chairman, the hon members have been conducting their own conversations here for so long that my time has almost expired.

Order! The hon member for Umlazi is not prepared to take a question at this stage.

Mr Chairman, these alternative media are guilty of the grossest forms of exaggeration. They are guilty of conduct which can sow ever-increasing suspicion among the people of this country and consequently they are threatening the whole substructure of South Africa.

I have here a copy of a publication entitled Die Stem, which purports to be the voice of the Boerevolk. I take it this is an organ of one of the allies of the Official Opposition. In the July edition of this publication an open letter to the Rellys, the Cohens, the Blooms and the Oppenheimers appears. In that letter the following allegation is made:

This is probably a reference to the Rellys, the Cohens etc …

Another allegation in this publication is the following:

This demonstrates the kind of racism that has taken root in these far-right wing publications. I am certain there are other hon members on this side of the House who will discuss these right-wing publications further.

†On the other side of the spectrum, I also have here the official mouthpiece of the ECC, entitled At Ease. This was handed to me by a concerned non-Nationalist constituent. This leftist publication tries to spread the lie that South Africa is engaged in a civil war and is not being undermined by a terrorist insurgency campaign. I read from the latest issue:

It spreads the lie that the SADF is an agent for one of the sides in this civil war, while the opposing side has nothing but right on its side.

I quote again, Sir:

And again, Sir:

Furthermore, Sir… [Interjections.] Sir, it is interesting to hear hon members of the PFP agree with the sentiments expressed here. Small wonder then that they fared so dismally in the last election. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to talk about the recent postponement of the 1989 general election. Before I come to that, however, I should like to make two preliminary comments.

The hon member for Umlazi has just referred to the racial hatred that is gaining acceptance. With reference to this side of the House, I should like to tell the story of what happened at one of the polling stations in the Losberg constituency on election day. I am referring to the Fochville polling station. Shortly after supper-time, a number of Nationalists got their children together at the Fochville polling station and then had the children, whose ages varied between 8 and 12, sing the following song:

We on this side of the House would like to know who is really instilling racial hatred in the hearts of children. [Interjections.]

Since when has the CP been a race? [Interjections.]

Is it we they are referring to when reference is made to a newspaper report that appeared in a newspaper which we have nothing to do with? [Interjections.] We on this side of the House do not approve of racial hatred either. In the case I was referring to, it was not even racial hatred, however; it was simply—to use the old term—“Boerehaat”. [Interjections.] It is “Boerehaat” against people who the Government knows are going to assume the reins of government. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am not making the claim that the CP is going to assume the reins of government for nothing. The hon the Minister of Home Affairs quoted approvingly from an article written by a Mr Simpson, who had done research on elections at the University of Potchefstroom. Let me put the following question to this hon Minister. Since he referred to Simpson approvingly, does he also believe the same Simpson who on occasion said the following? I am referring to a report in the Sunday Starof 24 May 1987 in which Simpson said the following under the headline “Treurnicht for President”:

Subsequently I want to dwell for a moment on the postponement of the election against the background of what Simpson said in this connection. The CP says very simply that the Government is postponing this election because they are afraid. [Interjections.] They are afraid of the CP. They are afraid of losing the next election. They are afraid that after the next election, the CP will become the Government of this country. [Interjections.]

That is something to be afraid of! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman … [Interjections.]

Order! No, we cannot continue in this way. I am not prepared to permit a chorus of never-ending interjections. The hon member for Losberg may proceed.

In wanting to postpone the election, the Government has a certain problem. To postpone this election it needs the permission and the co-operation of the Coloured and Indian Chambers. You know, Mr Chairman, what section 99 of the Constitution provides. Section 99 of the Constitution clearly provides that each House must agree to the amendment of the Constitution before the 1989 election can be postponed. The NP also knows with what malicious pleasure—I am referring in this connection to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Minister of National Education—they dinned it into us that all the constitutional loopholes had been eliminated, that the CP would not be able to amend the Constitution when we came into power one day—that we should therefore have to stay wedded to this constitutional dispensation.

But what is happening now? They are falling into the trap they set for us. What they thought they were doing to their fellow Afrikaners is now being done to them. [Interjections.] The day of reckoning has come as far as the Constitution is concerned. The final day of political reckoning for this country will come when they give us an election, however, whether it is in 1989 or 1992. [Interjections.]

They are dependent on the will and wishes of the Coloured and Indian Chambers if they want to amend this Constitution. Do you know what is worse, Mr Chairman? We see this on their faces day after day. They do not have the self-confidence they had when this Parliament was opened after 6 May. [Interjections.] We see them walking in the passages and talking to one another in groups. We see them talking to the Coloureds and the Indians to get their co-operation, because they have become dependent on them if they want to amend the Constitution. [Interjections.] We see White sovereignty lying in fragments because they have become dependent of those whom they have to take along with them on this course. [Interjections.]

These Coloureds and Indians are challenging them about this amendment of the Constitution; they are challenging the NP to enforce concessions. What are the Coloureds and Indians saying to them? The hon members over there must not think that we are not also informed about these matters. The Coloureds and the Indians are telling them that they are prepared to agree to the amendment of the Constitution on condition that they know what the NP is going to do with the increased time.

You curry favour with them.

They say they are asking the NP for the concessions which will be true reform. In the course of time they have become much cleverer than the NP originally thought in order to get what they are entitled to in terms of this dispensation.

We are negotiating with them.

What is the NP going to do? Are they going to back down once again in respect of this question—that is whether or not they are going to grant more concessions—as they backed down with regard to the abolition of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the relevant provision in the Immorality Act?

[Inaudible.]

We on this side of the Committee want to convey a very clear message to a large section of the hon NP MPs. Hon members must know that there is less and less time to turn back. [Interjections.] The price of White sovereignty and the price …

Order! The hon member for Meyerton is making too many interjections. The hon member for Losberg may proceed.

The price of White sovereignty and the price of deciding one’s own future, is becoming higher and higher. Future generations will call them to account, just as they will call us to account.

We are putting a very clear question to the NP. There is still time to turn back.

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

Order! Is the hon member for Losberg prepared to reply to a question?

Unfortunately I have very little time left. I shall see whether I have time at the end of my speech.

Order! The hon member is not prepared to reply to a question.

We tell the hon members on that side that there is still time to turn away from this fatal course of integration, but they must know that there is little time left. With respect, that side of the Committee is so eager to postpone the election that they themselves—unfortunately, or fortunately, we include the hon the State President in this—have gone off the rails in respect of consensus.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The postponement of the election is a constitutional amendment which has nothing to do with this department or this debate.

Order! The hon member for Losberg may proceed. [Interjections.]

I say that those hon members have gone off the rails in respect of consensus and that not only are they taking the confrontation course with Mr Hendrickse, but also with the SABC in the case of Mr Eksteen and Mr Freek Robinson. [Interjections.] It is as if the NP is telling us very clearly that there has not been sufficient propaganda on television yet; those hon members want to do away with those people as well, so that there can be even more propaganda.

I want to conclude. The hon the State President was not the first to announce that the election would be postponed. The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid said during the election campaign that there would not be an election in 1989, but a referendum.

I want to confine myself to what the hon member for Umlazi said on a prior occasion. The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid said a referendum would be held so that the Blacks could become involved in government. Thereupon the hon member for Umlazi said: In that way we will be making the CP irrelevant. This side of the House says, however, that they will not make the CP irrelevant, because a people’s downfall will not be determined by whether an election is held now or not. We are prepared to fight the Government in an election now or in future. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Losberg blew hot and cold about our being afraid, about amending the Constitution, about our having to account to future generations and about the fatal course of the NP which is a course of confrontation. Let us put the same questions to him.

I should like to refer him to the franchise qualifications in our country. Section 52 of the Constitution and section 3 of the Electoral Act provide that one has the franchise only if one is a citizen of South Africa and is a member of the White, Coloured or Asian groups. One must be 18 years of age or older. In addition, section 4 of the Electoral Act provides that one is not entitled to vote if one has been found guilty of high treason or is mentally disturbed. I want to know from the hon member for Losberg, if they were to come into power after the next election—whether it takes place in 1989, 1992 or whenever—whether he would approve if the hon member for Overvaal, who is the shadow Minister of Home Affairs at present, amended the Electoral Act in such a way that one could have the franchise in this country only if one were a member of the AWB. That is the standpoint of the AWB. The AWB demands that those hon members insert this in the Constitution.

The hon member for Overvaal is turning his back on me deliberately, as he usually turns his back on the AWB.

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

I have only six minutes, Sir.

The AWB’s constitution determines that only card-carrying members of the AWB will have political franchise. The hon member for Bethal is a member of the AWB Politburo—I do not say so; I read it in the S A Observerof Mr S E D Brown—and he made a solemn promise that he acquiesced with the AWB’s constitution and programme of principles and would give effect to them. I want to know if the hon member for Losberg approves of this and whether he is afraid to adopt a standpoint on the AWB’s programme of principles. He asked whether we were afraid of the next election, but I want to know whether he is afraid of adopting a standpoint on the AWB. I also want to know whether the hon member for Overvaal is afraid to adopt a standpoint on this. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is what the AWB is going to do with South Africa.

I shall adopt a standpoint.

Order! If the hon member for Overvaal wants to adopt a standpoint, he must do so at some other time. The hon member may proceed.

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

I have only six minutes, Sir.

I want to refer the hon member for Losberg to the AWB’s programme of principles as contained in Sweepslag No 2 van 1984, page 6. When the hon member for Losberg gives a lecture again, he can also look at page 8 of Sweepslag, where he will see:

Only a small clique of AWB members will have political franchise. [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon member for Overvaal whether he is afraid to adopt a standpoint on that. I also want to ask the hon member for Losberg, who says we are afraid, whether he is afraid to adopt a standpoint in that respect. The hon member for Overvaal must know what the hon member for Bethal is telling him in reality. He is telling him that he is too stupid to participate in the complicated political decisions. That is too complicated for the ordinary citizens of the country and according to S E D Brown, the hon member for Overvaal is not a member of the AWB. I accept, therefore, that the AWB says he is too stupid to understand the complexities and ramifications of politics. [Interjections.] They are a small clique of people who want to govern this country, and the AWB holds exactly the same standpoint as the ANC. Ask the twin messengers of the ANC who came from Dakar; they will tell the hon member. [Interjections.]

Order!

The AWB says we should change section 4 of the Electoral Act in order to get representation of the people (volksverteenwoordiging) in a Boerestaat, à laEugéne Terre’Blanche, 1984. The ANC says we must establish a “People’s Democratic Republic” à laOlivier Tambo, 5 June 1985. There is no difference. There is no difference between these two standpoints. In the Soviet Union 5 million people—they are members of the Communist Party—control 250 million people. Both these organisations, the AWB and the ANC, are in favour of a dictatorship for South Africa.

This is a long six minutes.

The AWB advocates an Afrikaner dictatorship. I shall give the hon member for Losberg the quotation if he wants to deliver a lecture about it in future. The hon member for Overvaal is too afraid to adopt a standpoint on this. He is a puppet controlled by the AWB. He is ashamed of these people who gave Hitler salutes at Hess’s funeral service. [Interjections.] He is too ashamed to adopt a standpoint against them.

He swings from left to right.

I ask the youth of this country, who romanticise this kind of conduct in South Africa, to be careful. I ask the hon member for Overvaal to stop being spineless and to adopt a standpoint on the AWB. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sasolburg will forgive me if I do not follow him in the trend he developed during his speech. I am, however, very interested in the answers he will receive to the questions he put to the hon members on my right.

I should like to return to one of the matters raised by the hon the Minister in his opening speech. I want to ask the hon the Minister why he adopted the unusual procedure he did in making the announcement he made. Surely, Sir, having built up his case on the alternative media, the correct or proper thing to do were the hon the Minister to take any action, would have been to announce at that moment what that action was to be.

You have much to respond to.

That would require courage, though, and he does not have it.

The crux of the matter… I have much to respond to but not to the crux of the measures he is about to announce. The real issue relates to the precise nature of the regulations he intends to introduce in order to deal with this alternative media he spoke about. I should like to ask him, however, whether this method of introduction was a means to prevent a debate on the very points he was about to make. Was it a means to prevent a debate in this House? In doing it in this manner—in other words by announcing the regulations at the end of the debate, or after the debate has been completed—what does the hon the Minister think he will achieve? Is this not a kind of junior school debating trick which he is perpetrating upon the Parliament of this country?

He is blocking it.

Surely, Sir, he should have told Parliament precisely what is to be expected and what he intends doing. He should then have sat back for a couple of hours and listened to the debate on that very issue.

He is chicken!

Sir, the point I want to make is the following: His announcement that he is going to introduce these curbs on the alternative Press was not unexpected at all. In fact this has been mooted for several days now and much of the detail, if correctly reported in the Press, is probably already known to members. That does not, however, mean that shockwaves will not be felt throughout the country and even further afield.

The Press in South Africa, already under siege and greatly hamstrung, is to take yet another blow which will further erode the freedom of all South Africans.

I should like to spend a few moments examining what precisely we are talking about in speaking about the alternative media.

These are newspapers or publications not belonging to the Newspaper Press Union and not subject to its code of conduct, which employ journalists—most often they are Black—who very often do not fit into the pattern of White liberal journalism practised in the established newspapers. That is indeed so.

The journalism practised often lacks objectivity, in direct contrast with the ideals of the liberal journalism practised in this country. This has been confirmed by those very journalists themselves, and by their organisations and newspapers. I should like to refer to a statement by the Writers’ Association of South Africa as quoted in the December 1980 edition of Frontline:

For historical and political reasons too complex to analyse in these few minutes, elements of advocacy journalism are indeed to be found in these publications. The newspapers themselves do not claim to be unbiased. They are strongly anti-Government in both their reporting and their content. Having said that, I think the following question has to be asked. Are these proposed new curbs at all justifiable in the circumstances? For my part, I believe they are not.

Firstly, the alternative Press, rooted in its community, provides a very real safety-valve for the rising temperature of its readership. It expresses views which do no more than mirror the aspirations, feelings, grievances and interests of its public. The point to remember is that the Press does not create grievances. It merely reports on the grievances and highlights them and that, after all, is its job. However, if we remove the safety-valve of the alternative Press and drive underground those people whose activities are best kept out in the open, we will be dealing with an entirely new situation. What is worse, however, is that if the Government does this, the political temperature of the community concerned where a newspaper has been repressed will rise accordingly. Subjection is not going to bring peace to our country.

Secondly, if these newspapers present such a threat, and if they are breaking the law, why has the law not yet been used against them? I dispute the hon the Minister’s statement that he has insufficient powers to deal with subversive statements in the Press. He has the power, in terms of a myriad of Acts, to stop publication, to close a newspaper and to prosecute people and to impose crippling fines if they are found guilty. The Government has at its disposal a veritable armoury of repressive laws, such as the Police Act, the Internal Security Act and the Newspaper and Imprint Registration Act. They can also invoke the existing regulations promulgated in terms of the state of emergency.

What amazes me, however, is that as far as I am aware, not one of these newspapers that the hon the Minister criticises so much, and in fact not a single newspaper in this country, has in the past year had any one of these or other available measures applied to it insofar as prosecutions or executive action is concerned. Not once has the Government used any of the laws that it has at its disposal against this alternative medium.

If these papers are indeed promoting revolution, surely the existing legislation is sufficient to deal with them. Why have the Government, if they feel that these newspapers pose such a danger, allowed this festering sore, as they see it, to continue and not taken action? Why are new powers needed?

I wish to voice a warning. Whatever ministerial assurances are given, in a few years’ time the law will remain, but the assurances will be long forgotten. In any event, they have no legal status. Who today remembers the assurances given in the 1960s when detention without trial was first introduced? Section 27B of the Police Act was enacted in tandem with ministerial assurances, and was to be used only against those launching campaigns of lies against the Police. Today that section is applied on a far wider scale, and the assurances given at that time are long forgotten.

The established Newspaper Press Union newspapers appear not to be affected, but they should not bluff themselves. They could and probably will be next.

If the report we read, is correct, it is clear that the Government is once again bypassing the courts of our country, allowing of a politically motivated subjective ministerial opinion to hold the power of life and death over the Press in a manner in total conflict with natural justice. This cannot be agreed to.

The hon the Minister is probably aware of the fact that South Africa’s greatest daily newspaper, The Starholds its 100th birthday celebrations within the next eight weeks. Visiting publishers, editors and newsmen from all over the world are going to be here. No one in his right mind would ever accuse this Government of being any good at timing, but if these regulations are implemented now or soon, the hon the Minister will spark a world media outcry such as he has not seen before. We might as well close all our embassies around the world except in Venda, for all the use they will be to us after he has taken such steps.

Paraguay too!

Finally, it is clear from its past actions that the Government is reluctant to act directly against the Press. What it wants, is for the Press to accept a form of self-censorship so as to keep up appearances of being free and retaining credibility. These new regulations will form yet another poisoned arrow in the quiver of its intimidatory and coercive powers.

The hon the Minister says that the Media Council is ineffective, but he himself has done the work in making the council ineffective. The Government refuses to allow the Media Council to adjudicate upon the SABC and therefore detracts from its powers.

Not one single complaint has been made by this Government to the Media Council over the past umpteen years in respect of the alternative media. Where are the Government’s complaints in respect of the alternative media? What has happened to them? What action has the Government taken? Have they ever tried to use the Media Council? I believe that argument is a bluff. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sandton said among other things the alternative Press is a real safety valve. I want to make a solemn promise to the hon member that I shall go on my knees tonight and thank the Lord that my safety is not dependent upon this safety valve.

*Accusations that State departments such as the Department of Home Affairs, the Bureau for Information or whoever propound, disseminate and implement the policy of the NP are heard regularly from the Official Opposition and the PFP. I should like to put this matter into its correct perspective again. What is the actual set-up? The NP, the CP in conglomeration with the AWB, the Volkswag, the Kappie Kommando and whatever other bedfellows …

But not the Broederbond!

… the PFP, the HNP and whoever else, have specific policies they advocate. In terms of our democratic electoral system we all held an election on 6 May which was very thoroughly and well handled by this department. The result was that 74%of the seats were allocated to the NP by the voters.

By how much did that percentage grow?

In terms of that same system the NP came into power in 1948 with a minority of votes and remained in power in 1953 with a minority of votes.

What was the increase in the number of seats your party holds?

We won this election with a 74%majority of seats. The Official Opposition only got 13%.

The will of the White people echoed loudly and clearly across the country for everyone with ears to hear and enough intelligence to understand. The Afrikaner gave his reply unambiguously. The White man gave a mandate, and a mandate is an injunction which must be carried out.

What does that mandate and that injunction encompass? The NP’s policy is that reform must take place, that the democracy must be broadened and that power must be shared without there being domination. Power sharing without domination is this mandate, this injunction and this policy. The election is a thing of the past, and the question is what is going to happen now.

The Government, by way of the Executive Authority, the Cabinet, has now decided that this is also going to be the Government’s policy and that this policy must be implemented.

[Inaudible.]

That hon member will run away again if he talks too much.

They are going to chase you away again! [Interjections.]

That policy must be implemented on the injunction of the White man and the will of the Afrikaner people.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must contain himself.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member Dr Golden say that I am a disgrace?

Order! Did the hon member Dr Golden say that the hon member for Overvaal was a disgrace?

No, Mr Chairman, I did not say the hon member for Overvaal was a disgrace (skande); I said he was a person who causes embarrassment (skandemaker).[Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Dr Golden had better withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Order! Very well. The hon member for Langlaagte may proceed.

[Inaudible.]

Order! No, the hon member for Overvaal really must contain himself.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon member Dr Golden is pointing his finger threateningly at me. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte may proceed.

I must now cut down my eight-minute speech to four minutes. I just want to say that it is very important that this policy be implemented now by Government departments and officials, on the instructions of the people. The State machinery and Government departments, including the Department of Home Affairs, as well as the Bureau for Information, must therefore implement this policy of reform and power sharing without domination now.

I say this is the legitimate choice of an intelligent and refined White electorate, an electorate whose judgement and intelligence the CP all too frequently doubts when they imply that over the years the Government and the NP have simply taken the voters in. The CP’s slogan was: “Die NP ooit weer glo? Nooit!” The reply of the voters was 123 out of 166 seats to the NP and only 22 to the CP. [Interjections.]

However, I want to make the statement that not only the Government departments, but also every public servant, in his work and in matters pertaining to his work must also implement this Government’s policy and this part of the NP’s policy. A public servant can belong to any legal party, or to no party if he prefers, but in his work and in matters pertaining to his work he must implement this Government’s policy. This is so obvious and logical that even the CP can understand this. I just want to add that I want to state unequivocally that if a public servant, after he has been warned and cautioned, does not implement this policy, or in any way hampers it after he has been warned, and does not want to listen, he should be summarily discharged. Those people and taxpayers whose money is taken to pay him, gave the injunction that this policy must be implemented.

In conclusion I want to tell a very short and simple, but very important story. It concerns identity documents. I wanted to say more about the role of the department in reform, including the role which the department played in the abolition of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act.

The story goes as follows. The other day I was buying petrol up in Roeland Street and I was looking for my small ID book in which I keep my petrol card. The petrol pump attendant looked through the window at my identity book and asked me to give it to him. He looked at it and then said to me with a broad grin: “Do you know, my identity book looks just like yours!” He went over to the restroom and fetched his identity book and said to me: “Look! My identity book looks just like yours!” I looked at that attendant, and I looked at myself in the mirror, and then I looked at both of us. I saw that his colour had not changed at all, and I saw that my colour had not changed either, but what I did see was that the man’s attitude, the feeling between us and his pride in being a South African, had changed tremendously. This had undergone a tremendous change.

That is why I maintain that these 4,5 million uniform identity books which have been issued recently by this department did not change my colour or his colour at all, but did a very great deal to create good relations and promote reform.

When are you going to join Wynand?

That hon member will still run a very long way while we continue to move in the right direction. I am not apologising for the fact that we ostensibly caucus with the Coloureds and the Indians to reach agreements. I do so openly. I feel I ought to do so; and not only with Coloureds and Indians, but also with Blacks—for the good of this country, South Africa, because that is where the solution lies. The solution does not lie in confrontation and hate and AWB politics and that kind of thing.

Mr Chairman, in the few minutes at my disposal I want to get back to the other topic which the hon the Minister touched on, namely the election. During the past election, as well as in previous elections, we probably all arrived at one conclusion, namely that to a great extent our electoral procedure has become outdated. Today I want to maintain that to a great extent our system can be adapted so that it can be more streamlined and modern.

What are at present the basic problems we have to deal with in elections? The biggest problem we are probably wrestling with is the fact that we do not have an up-to-date voters’ roll. The South African voter, and more specifically the White voter, has to a great extent been spoiled over the years, and simply accepts that it is the political parties who must take responsibility for getting the relevant voter onto the voters’ roll. At present the voter therefore has no compulsion to ensure that he is on a specific voters' roll.

A second problem is that the voter must be linked to a specific constituency and that he can only vote in that particular constituency on election day. This means that many voters cannot vote on election day. The question now arises, how does one address these problems? I want to say at once that I am not a member of the committee on the Electoral Act, and that the inputs I am making here represent a modest contribution in this regard.

In the first place, steps must be taken so that the voter will to a greater extent be compelled to report changes of address. I think the standing committee has already addressed this matter. This can to a certain extent rectify the incomplete voters’ roll. However, this is not enough. The fact that the voters’ roll is up to date is not sufficient. Most important of all is probably the point of departure that the voter must have the right on election day to cast his vote for the party, and also for the candidate, of his choice. We must not deny the voter this right. This means that the voter, wherever he may be on election day, must be in a position to cast his vote.

South Africa has made relatively good progress in the field of modern technology. In the past one could scarcely draw money from one’s bank account without being physically present in the branch of the bank where one’s account was kept. Today, however, it is possible with the assistance of modern technological aids to draw money from one’s account on every second street corner. What I am therefore advocating today is that urgent attention must be given to a computerised method of voting.

I shall try to sum this up in a few sentences. In the first place every voter must be provided with a voting card, whether it be a general election or a by-election. This is the ordinary plastic card as we know it. On this card must appear the identity number of the voter, and another code—and this is important—which also identifies the constituency; a three-figure code after the identity number.

The voter hands this voting card together with his identity book to the presiding officer. The identity book is stamped to indicate that the voting card has been tendered. Then the voter gains access to a machine, ie the terminal to the computer, and presses the button for the party or independent candidate, if there is one, for whom he wants to vote. In the meantime the computer has accepted the card, has crossed out the voter’s name on the voters’ roll, and the vote is counted for the relevant party in the encoded constituency.

I admit there are immediate questions which can be asked regarding control over the number of times a person votes, duplication of voting cards, etc. The key must be the one which was used with great success in 1983, namely the identity book which must be used. A voting card, without an identity book, is therefore worthless.

In the case of the voter who arrives at the polling booth without a voting card—we concede that there are going to be such voters—other solutions can be offered, for example an explanatory or tendered vote which that voter can hand in at any polling booth.

Provision can be made for the voter who will not be able to vote on election day, for example the sick, the elderly who find it very difficult to get to the polling booth on election day, and others, to vote by special vote or postal vote—we can consider this.

I am probably anticipating the work of the Joint Committee on the Electoral Act. This is, however, a modest attempt to stimulate the idea that we should move away from the standpoint that the voter can only vote in his own constituency on election day. I think we have progressed too far with modern methods to be stuck with this concept.

Unfortunately my time has expired, and I want to use the last few moments at my disposal sincerely to thank the Pretoria regional office for the way in which they accommodated the past election. I personally—and this has been placed on record—was very dissatisfied with the site on which the regional office was erected. We told the department and the regional representative so. The site in Pretorius Street, which is a one-way street and carries a great deal of traffic, is very difficult to reach. However, we should like to pay tribute to and thank Mr Du Plessis, the regional representative, for the neat and functional way in which he has organised the regional office. We want to thank him for that. We thank him and his staff for the way they handled the election.

May I conclude by mentioning the name of Miss Corrie Els, who over the past few years has functioned and still functions as an expert in election methods in Pretoria. I want to express our personal thanks to her, as well as the thanks of all the constituencies in Pretoria, for the way in which she and Mr Du Plessis did their work.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Gezina will excuse me if I do not follow too fully upon his comments. I am going to cover other subjects. Suffice it to say that I think there are inherent dangers in a computerised voting system. I think it is quite easy to gain access to the entire operation and cause large-scale manipulation which would be even far more difficult to trace than the manipulations which take place today.

As far as the question of the voters being allowed to vote in any constituency is concerned, I have reservations about that as well. I feel it would be quite easy to load one specific constituency on polling day. Should the NP, for example, feel serious about unseating the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition they could literally send thousands of voters into that constituency, pack the polls and unseat him.

I would like to see voting rights lead to residential rights thereby possibly solving the problem.

If hon members will permit me, I would like to point out the similarities between the hon member for Langlaagte and the hon member for Sasolburg. Besides being members of the far-left brigade on that side of the House, they also sit very close together and they seem to be locked into a parrot-like sound-track regarding the AWB. [Interjections.] I am sure that hon members will excuse me if I express my suspicion that those hon members are trying to cover up for the fact that they do not do their homework in the form of research and therefore pack their speeches with a lot of hot air while making very little or no contribution to the debate. [Interjections.] Perhaps those hon members will confine themselves to their private lives and leave our private lives alone. We are now here to discuss politics and political parties’ policies. [Interjections.]

Order!

If we are going to go into outside arenas then I would appreciate those far-left members of the NP to disclose their affiliation to the UDF, their new military wing. [Interjections.] There are many other areas we could cover if time allowed us to do so.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

Mr Chairman, I have no time to answer questions. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis may continue, but only that hon member may continue.

I shall continue, unless the hon member for Springs wants to ask me a question about the blonde spy. [Interjections.]

I shall do that as well.

What I really want to discuss, is the question of publications control under this department, but before I come to that I would like to refer briefly to an incident which one of my colleagues mentioned earlier. It regards the mystery surrounding the manner in which the hon the Minister of Defence was registered on the voters’ roll of Modderfontein. [Interjections.] Knowing the hon the Minister of Defence the way I do, I have very little doubt that he was totally unaware of what had happened. What in fact happened, was that he was put onto the voters’ roll in an area in which he did not reside, as a result of a telephone call made to somebody in the Department of Home Affairs. The hon the Minister assured me in his reply to a question as to whether changes may be effected telephonically to particulars appearing in the voters’ roll that it could not be done. The answer was an adamant “no” and all my other questions fell away. Therefore, I am forced to express the possibility that, because of his rather conservative views on that side of the House, the hon the Minister of Defence was actually the victim of a set-up by the left wing to embarrass him in his own constituency. However, I would like to see behaviour of that manner be eliminated by means of the envisaged changes to the Electoral Act which are being considered.

In reaction to the hon the Minister’s comments regarding the media, I have no problems in supporting the statement that the Press must report truthfully, objectively and accurately. We on this side of the House are of course the target of the venom of both the Government-supported media and the PFP-supported media. Therefore, we are in a no win situation and we do not want to be dragged into a conflict of interests between the NP Government and the PFP as to whose media is more objective. We do agree, however, that there should be objective, truthful and accurate reporting, and I think the hon the Minister would also agree with me that these same comments should also apply to SABC-TV.

My colleague the hon member for Losberg touched on the suggested postponement of the election. What worries me about this matter, whether we will have an election in 1989 or 1992, is not so much the fact that the far left NP is afraid that we will beat them. It is the damage done to the whole credibility surrounding the position of the hon the State President in South Africa. I think that when the CP comes into power we will have extreme difficulty in restoring the credibility of his position as a result of the manipulations, ramifications, running around, changing of decisions, and giving one story and then contradicting it with another one. I hope that serious attention will be paid to correcting the harm done as far as that is concerned.

I want now to touch on the Directorate of Publications. In this regard I want to quote from page 36 of the annual report of the Department of Home Affairs:

We on this side of the Committee want to echo those sentiments, and then couple this with an appeal to the Directorate of Publications to be far more severe in their application of the standards of morality in this country than they are at present, not only with regard to violence, but also implicit sex on the movies in particular. I should also like to ask the hon the Minister—I do not know whether he will be able to answer me on this today—whether any of the 231 persons who work on the Publications Committee is qualified to identify the techniques of subliminal brainwashing and, if so, whether they have experienced any problems in this regard over the past two or three years.

My time is limited but I wish to mention that on a recent rainy Saturday afternoon in Cape Town a friend of mine decided to take his two small children to the movies. After making the rounds of the cinemas they came home rather dejected because there was not a single movie that they could attend which did not have an age restriction of lower than 18 years.

The feeling is growing in South Africa that there is something wrong with our censorship system. I think that one of the main problems in this country is the fact that our entertainment world is subject also to a serious monopoly which is subjecting this country to the films that they think we should see, the films that they want to buy, and not the films which should be best for people in South Africa. The movie Salvadoris a classic example. It recently came on to the South African circuit and was an unabashed example of the Jane Fonda type anti-war film that we should be sick and tired of. [Interjections.] Not only was it against patriotism, pro-communist and quite pornographic, but the so-called hero, a journalist—there was a time when the heroes used to comb their hair and wash their faces—was nihilistic, depraved, a drunkard, and himself ashamed of being an American. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I shall not ignore the hon member who has just resumed his seat. I understand that he is a member of the AWB, and in the course of my speech I shall again be referring to the AWB and its affiliations. [Interjections.]

He is not a member of the AWB!

In his introductory speech the hon the Minister very clearly identified the problems surrounding the so-called media which served the interests of revolution, at the same time announcing that the Government was going to take steps to curb this iniquity. Permit me to say that we on this side of the Committee are delighted at the announcement and that we fully support the steps which are contemplated. We support them because this has become a matter of urgency and because we realise and appreciate the fact that existing legislation is inadequate when it comes to dealing properly with these malefactors. Documents such as those involved here are being distributed in increasing numbers amongst all levels of the population, and when one looks at the content of the majority of them, one’s hair stands on end. One’s hair stands on end when one reads some of the articles and thinks of the damage that is done amongst uninformed and gullible individuals. There are still quite a few such people in our country. I am particularly grateful to the hon the Minister for emphasising that the steps now being taken are not aimed at the newspapers and magazines of the larger newspaper groups which are members of the Press Union. Nor are they aimed at the numerous smaller community newspapers, but rather at the far-left and far-right newsletters and newspapers.

Such as Die Nasionalis.

Newsletters and newspapers which, as the hon the Minister put it, have no pangs of conscience when using immoral and reprehensible methods to promote their dubious objectives. In leftist ranks it seems to me that there is a plethora of these newsletters which ought to be curtailed—too many to enumerate. Already the hon the Minister has referred to quite a few of them. Here in my hand I have a newspaper of right-wing origin, an adjunct of the AWB. The hon member for Umlazi also referred to this little newspaper—Die Stem van die Boerevolk—a short while ago. [Interjections.] In the left-hand corner they depict the Vierkleur, and in the right-hand comer there are the outlines of Southern Africa, with a delineation of the borders of the so-called Boerestaat. That is probably the equivalent of the CP’s White homeland.

That is not the AWB’s newspaper.

When one looks at everything that is included in this Boerestaat, one sees that it comprises the Transvaal and the Free State as a whole. The three homelands of Venda, Lebowa and GaZankulu are neatly pushed to one side, and just of the south of Swaziland the Afrikaners slip across the Drakensberg Mountains and take a bit of ocean there at Richards Bay.

But you know that is not the AWB’s publication!

Order! According to the list I have here, approximately 10 hon members are still going to participate in this debate. I think there is ample opportunity to refute, in a succeeding speech, any statement made by any hon member in the course of his speech. There is no need to shout at one another across the floor of this House. The hon member may continue.

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

Mr Chairman, I do not have the time. My time has already been taken up.

Let me immediately proceed to examine the contents of this little newspaper. In virtually every report in this little newspaper an effort is made to disparage, belittle and besmirch the Government. Let me just quote a few passages:

That is on page 3 of the July edition—the same edition to which the hon member for Umlazi referred a short while ago.

You could at least stick to the truth!

The CP is getting hurt!

Then in the 1986 October-November issue it is stated:

Another brief report—a really nasty bit of work—reads:

[Interjections.] These are nasty little reports in this little newspaper. [Interjections.]

To whom are you speaking.

I am speaking about your friends in the struggle. Your stable-mates! Your bedfellows!

In the leading article in the August edition of Die Stemthe writer turns his attention to the hon the Leader of the Opposition, and by implication to all the hon members on that side of the House. He gives the hon leader to understand—and I am very grateful for the fact that the hon leader is present—that he is actually wasting his time here in Parliament and encourages him to walk out. I quote:

The writer is speaking to the hon the Leader of the Opposition:

[Interjections.] Surely it is nothing short of anarchy that this little newspaper is advocating. It is egging the hon leader on to take extra-parliamentary action. [Interjections.] In point of fact, what I am now quoting here to hon members is really nothing by comparison. [Interjections.] On the front page of the same edition there is a report that cries to high heaven to be redressed. The report is so nasty and libellous that out of respect for the hon the State President I do not want to quote it here. Nor do I think I dare quote it here. The hon the Minister also has a copy of this little newspaper in his possession, and I politely want to ask him whether he does not want to consider submitting it to the Publications Board for a ruling.

Institute a libel suit!

I am of the opinion that this particular issue should be banned. When I read this particular article yesterday, I was involuntarily reminded about the adage in Greek mythology: Who wish to destroy the gods, first drive them mad.

Is that why you respect them so?

Now we come to the question about where we stand with the AWB and the CP. We all know that the AWB will not relinquish this muck-raking and these libellous statements. If they were to do So, they would be repudiating their old stable-mate. The question is what the hon members of the CP are going to do. Are the hon members on the other side of the House prepared to dissociate themselves from this kind of reporting and support the steps the Government now envisages taking? I doubt whether they would do so, because then their own little newspaper, Die Patriot, would perhaps also be threatened.

In reality the old problem that we have with the CP again comes clearly to the fore, and that is the CP’s persistent refusal to dissociate itself from the AWB. Then I also want to ask hon members of the CP this afternoon how they reconcile the conflicting standpoints of the AWB with those of the CP.

Are you a member of the Broederbond?

This matter has frequently been thrashed out with the CP in the past, Sir, but we do not obtain a satisfactory answer. Each time the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is confronted with this question, he gets out of it with a non-committal shrug of the shoulders: “Oh, the AWB is merely a cultural organisation.” I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that we are going to be hounding him in this House on this issue. The Government is very clear in its condemnation of both the ANC and national socialism. My advice to the hon leader is: Leave your egg-dancing and adopt a standpoint, as Dr Malan did at the time in regard to the Ossewabrandwag.

What did P W do then?

The hon the leader must tell us where he stands, Sir. He owes it to himself and to our country.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Kritzinger will excuse me if I do not follow on his speech.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member Mr Kritzinger read from a newspaper in which it was alleged that the hon the State President was putting more and more money into his own pocket. Then the hon member for Roodepoort said that it was true. I submit that that was a reflection on the reputation of the hon the State President.

I submit that you should listen more carefully!

Mr Chairman, I wish to say that the allegation that hon member has just made is not true. [Interjections.]

Order! No, we cannot carry on like this.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: If it was not the hon member for Roodepoort, it was very definitely an hon member in one of those benches who said it. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot give a ruling on something which I did not …

Repeat it outside the House. [Interjections.]

Order! I am considering a point of order, and I expect silence in the Committee while I am doing so. I cannot give a ruling on something I did not hear. I shall consult Hansard and then give my ruling.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Due to the fact that the hon member for Langlaagte was on his feet and asking for a point of order before you recognized the hon member for Johannesburg North, may I request that the hon member for Johannesburg North’s speaking time starts from now?

Order! The hon member for Johannesburg North may continue now.

Thank you, Sir. Are you putting the question? [Interjections.]

I will not follow on what the hon member Mr Kritzinger had to say, because I have a number of points that I wish to raise. The hon member for Langlaagte spoke about the uniform identity document.

In that connection I do recall that some years ago money was made available for those individuals who were not able to afford to have their photographs taken and pay for them themselves. I wonder whether those funds are still available, because I understand that there has been a problem in the Eastern Cape and I wonder whether the hon the Minister will just confirm that when he replies to the debate.

I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department on the annual report. Having had something critical to say about another annual report, I want to say that this one is everything that an annual report should be. It is comprehensive, informative and full of statistics and gives all the information one wants to know about the department. This is exactly what one requires from a department.

There are no pictures.

It is not glossy, neither is it printed on expensive paper, and there are no colour photographs either of the hon the Minister or of his senior officials. It might be that the hon the Minister himself is not very photogenic but I am pleased about that—not that he might not be photogenic but that his picture does not appear in full technicolour.

We see enough of him here.

My colleague the hon member for Cape Town Gardens has asked a number of questions regarding the cost of producing annual reports and I am sure that when the answer is received from this department, we are going to find that the cost of producing this annual report is one of the lowest in Government.

I want to say a few words about the further restrictions to be imposed on the Press by the hon the Minister when he replies to the debate later this afternoon. I must say that I join my colleague the hon member for Green Point in saying that the way he is treating this House is absolutely disgraceful. He is treating us with absolute contempt. He has been building up expectations for some days now in his addresses to other Houses of this Parliament concerning these regulations that we have all been anticipating, and today he comes along here and says that he will announce them at the end of the debate when no one will be able to respond to those announcements. I cannot understand why he did not announce them when he opened the debate, and I can only ask that when he does announce them, he will say that he and the Government are going to provide an opportunity for us to discuss the regulations on another occasion.

During the course of the address he gave us a quaint lecture on revolution which was backed by selective quotes, many of which are questionable. We are certainly not able to authenticate them. That gets us absolutely nowhere. The hon the Minister uses a plethora of words to disguise the Government’s real intention, which is to strangle those critics who vigorously probe and expose the excesses of this Government; a Government which is hell-bent on controlling every aspect of our existence in South Africa.

The hon the Minister used the word “necessity” a number of times in the course of his address which reminded me of remarks made by William Pitt in 1783. I looked them up to ensure that I have the correct quote. He said:

He must have known about the Nats.

There is no doubt that those remarks apply to this situation.

They are the “Pitts”! [Interjections.]

To get into calmer waters, I want to talk about the voters’ rolls. I want to join those hon members who paid tribute to the officials in the department who are hardworking and dedicated. In my frequent contact with them, I have found them most helpful, efficient and competent. For that I am most appreciative and I want to express my gratitude to the staff and to Mr Van Zyl, the Director-general.

However, I agree with those who are critical of the condition of the voters’ lists. At the same time I wish to acknowledge the assistance of the staff at the regional office who in the course of the election went to a great deal of trouble to assist with the many queries that we referred to them in correcting all the errors that had been made in compiling the roll. To those people in Johannesburg with whom I came into contact I am most appreciative for their assistance.

It is the Government that is to blame for the condition of the voters’ roll as it was at the time of the general election on 6 May. It was to satisfy the NP passion for an election that the department was thrown into a panic and had to cope with an impossible situation. The consequence was that a large number of decent, ordinary South Africans were disenfranchised. That does not particularly concern the NP as it has been the deliberate policy of that party in the many years of its miserable existence to separate South African citizens from their vote. There is no need to catalogue the sordid details of the removal of the voting rights of Coloured and Black people over the years. The details of the actions that this Government has taken against those people are known to everyone.

I do want to join the hon member for Green Point, however, concerning the removal of the names of certain individuals from the voters’ lists.

In Johannesburg North we have a community which can be regarded as being generally stable and one that does not move about that often. We have about 100 additions and deletions each month.

There was one lady in particular, however, who is almost 90 years old and who has lived in that part of Johannesburg for about 50 years who at the end of the campaign suddenly found she was registered in Brits. [Interjections.] Upon enquiring I found this had happened because she had bought a plot some years previously at Hartebeespoort Dam and had then been registered as a voter in Brits. [Interjections.]

Another forced removal! [Interjections.]

I had a gentleman come to see me in my office who had lived in Johannesburg North for many years but was registered in Jeppe. On questioning him I found out that he had bought a factory in Jeppe and so had been registered at the factory address.

Another case I know of was of someone who had bought a weekend home on the Vaal at Vereeniging and was then registered in that constituency.

Earlier during this session I did ask the hon the Minister whether the deeds office records were used to change voters’ records, to which he replied “no” and so I must accept that this is the case. How does it come about, however, that these people who own properties in other parts of the country are registered in those constituencies? Are the water or electricity or rates accounts the cause of this? How does the department acquire this information in order to remove people from the voters’ roll where they have been registered all this time, to an area where it takes them a long time to find out that they are registered and one where they have no desire to vote and have nothing in common with the candidate standing there? I hope that this is something the Joint Select Committee on the Electoral Act is going to consider. It will have to attempt to close these loopholes.

How does it happen that other individuals who have lived in their homes in urban areas for 20 to 30 years were removed from the rolls and then reinstated in the month after the election? It is quite inexplicable that this can occur. It is also most distressing that law-abiding citizens who follow the proceedings of the elections in the Press, on television and at public meetings arrive at the political office two or three days before the election, or indeed on election day, only to find that they have been removed from the rolls. It is not unreasonable to assume that if one has lived in the same house for many years and has not moved that one is still registered in the same constituency where one has voted for all those years.

I know of one individual in particular who has lived in Dunkeld West for more than 20 years, who suddenly disappeared from the roll. I hope the hon the Minister will try to shed some light on this problem which distressed many people during the course of the election.

Then, Sir, there is the question of the identity numbers. I also asked the hon the Minister a question earlier this session, why the twelfth digit had been changed on the voters’ roll, and he gave me a reply stating that it was in keeping with the relevant legislation—the Population Registration Act, I think.

I do not believe the legislation was intended to be used in this way. The intention was that the racial connotation should be removed from the identity numbers. What happened in the case of the Whites, however, was that the twelfth digit which was a zero was altered to an eight on the voters’ rolls, and the postcards which were sent to the voters indicating their ID numbers caused a great deal of concern, particularly to elderly people. This was done without explanation. People suddenly received a postcard informing them that their ID number was whatever it was and when they compared this number with the number in their identity books they found that there was a discrepancy. Elderly people were concerned that this might affect their vote. I certainly spent a great deal of time explaining to people that they should not concern themselves about this and that there had been a problem which the department had not followed through. I want to suggest that in the postcards they send out to voters before election day they insert a paragraph explaining to voters that that twelfth digit has been changed for administrative reasons and will not affect the vote. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pity that the hon member for Johannesburg North has tried to denigrate the department’s efforts to update the voters’ roll, as if it were a mistake the department was making, in spite of the fact that the department acknowledged that the voters’ lists are in a pathetic state. Let us state frankly in this Committee that the errors in this voters’ roll are not the fault of the department, but rather that of every voter whose civic duty it is to ensure that his name appears on it. Unfortunately it just happens to be true that we have spoiled them over the years by having this work done for them on a party-political basis and have accustomed them to the fact that we are doing so. This is now the result we are saddled with. It is really unfair to blame the Government, and thereby the department too, for this state of affairs when it is making an effort, from available interdepartmental sources, to reconcile data and ascertain where the voters are, when the voters themselves have failed to furnish the necessary information. It is also unfair to blame the department when people are incorrectly registered. I think that one should preferably express one’s gratitude to the department for the initiative it has displayed in trying to set matters straight in this way.

Then the hon member for Johannesburg North comes along with a standpoint that still reflects his objection to the existence of groups in South Africa. The Department of Home Affairs is apparently—can I say this?—the agent for the various groupings of people in South Africa. They accept the existence of groupings. The existence of groupings here in South Africa is supposedly a sin. It is apparently an abomination in the eyes of the world at large, but strangely enough it does not bother anyone that the failure to recognise various groups, which is the cause of international disturbances in regard to the continent of Africa, is cheerfully ignored. It disturbs no one that failure to do justice to Black groupings within the overall mass of Blacks results in this conflict which ultimately leads to dictatorships and all the various forms of government based on the “survival of the fittest". This kind of phenomenon is simply ignored.

The present struggle in the Middle East and the existence of Arab groups within Arab blocs makes no difference. In regard to the Balkan crisis, even today, in the midst of efforts by Russian communism to create an international proletariat there, the possibility of avoiding the clashes in the Balkans on that basis is being examined.

In the midst of the free association that now pertains there, today we still have the Macedonian question, with simply no settlement being reached between Greece, Yugoslavia, Albania and Hungary. We are still faced with the tragic problem that Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria cannot agree about who belongs where. The Epirotic problem still exists, with Greece and Albania being saddled with problems, since the Gypsy problem prevails in all these areas. These problems still prevail, even if there was an opportunity—could one use the South African expression “partition”?—to grant people the freedom to move into the groupings to which they belong. That, however, did not happen. In spite of all the events in the Baltic belt and domination by the Russians, the Germans, the Austrians and the Prussians, today there are still a variety of peoples and groupings there, without any shift having taken place around this belt.

We have similar groupings in South Africa, and from what we have learnt from the world at large, and from our African context, today groupings represent the most orderly basis on which situations in South Africa can ultimately be organised. It is this department’s task to regulate the political game to be played by that diversity of players, in order to decide who will govern them.

Our own White political spectrum also has its various facets. In the grouping in which we find ourselves there is also diversity and there are hate campaigns being waged against one another to see in what way we can knock one another out of this game because politics is a power-game.

That is not what the hon the State President said.

There are also groupings which want to see in what way they can create this international proletariat and lump everything together under one blanket, and on the other hand there are groupings which want to absolutise one specific group—not a purely White group, but merely a section of the White group—elevating it to a level at which it will be the only one to have a say. If we acknowledge the existence of groupings in the country, and already there is a situation in which one group wants to absolutise its position and arrogate to itself sole authority over its own affairs—we must accept that the other groups would also want to absolutise their position and insist on their right to exist. I have merely tried to indicate that no place on earth has been exempt from these conflicts, whether by virtue of voluntary removals or by virtue of overall grouping. That is the crisis we are heading for in our country. We shall have to ensure that we minimise these points of conflict as much of possible.

I want to thank the department for having, in fact, succeeded in keeping the political roles, in accordance with which we will have to take future decisions, at the high level at which they are being maintained at present. We want to ask the Government to augment the programme and ensure that it is brought up to date and rounded off so as to improve our political situation in the future.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brentwood finds himself in very good company when he says that the name of the game is power. He finds himself in the company of my hon leader, because that is what he said here recently.

The hon member for Brentwood, however, finds himself in the problematic situation of again being on the wrong side, because his leader, the hon the State President, said that if that were to be the position, he wanted nothing to do with it.

Oh, nonsense!

The hon member says it is nonsense. He must just listen to what his hon State President says. No wonder Mr Hendrickse has already beaten a retreat. Is the hon member now crossing swords with the hon the State President? My goodness! [Interjections.]

I now come to the hon member for Langlaagte. For specific reasons, to indicate his party’s victory, he merely gave percentages to indicate the number of seats they won, because he knew that their weakness lay in the number of votes they obtained. He said that the NP had won 74%of the seats, but he never acknowledged that the CP won 27%of the votes. He would do well to go and read the Sunday Starof 24 May. In 1948 Dr Malan won with a mere 41%of the votes. Here they are saying that the CP needs 43%. So if one looks at this perception that we now have 27%and need only have 43%, one can see how close the CP is to taking over the government. Then it is clear why the hon member said nothing about that, merely confining his attention to the figure of 74%, something which is very transparent. [Interjections.]

He spoke here of a mandate and of consensus. He said the NP obtained a clear mandate, but Mr Hendrickse says he is now specifically going to ask what the mandate is. A Cabinet member does not even know what the mandate is. [Interjections.] And then he speaks of consensus! NP politics as a whole has now been transformed into confrontational politics. We are even coming across this now wherever the standing committees convene. So the hon member’s fundamental arguments were worthless.

The hon member for Innesdal did not make any constructive contribution. These days he is very unfriendly and sullen, and I do not want to make any further reference to him.

In my opinion the hon member for Umlazi made a very sterling and responsible contribution.

Like some others, the hon member Mr Kritzinger, who is unfortunately not present at the moment, made desperate attempts to involve the AWB. It is a conspicuous attempt to hide the Broederbond’s activities from scrutiny, but we want to ask hon members of the NP who of them are members of the Broederbond and who are not. Those who are members of the Broederbond, must indicate whether they agree with the Broederbond’s view that we should simply have Black majority rule. Those who are not members of the Broederbond, must tell us whether they reject the views of their fellow members or whether they endorse their efforts. [Interjections.] We want answers to these questions.

Order! Could the hon member for Overvaal tell me what the Broederbond has to do with Home Affairs.

As much as the AWB has to do with it, Sir. [Interjections.]

Now I merely want to ask the hon members of the Broederbond whether it is true that they have a committee specifically investigating the question of the Jews. They must just tell us whether they are anti-Semitic. Let us expose the activities of the members of the Broederbond for a moment, and we shall see why they focus so much attention on the AWB. They do so in order to throw up a smokescreen to hide the skeletons in their own cupboard. [Interjections.]

In the one minute I have left I merely want to put one question to the hon the Minister. I want to know whether he could not consider amending the Electoral Act so that in the event of a by-election there is a minimum period allowed for the Government to announce such an election. No such provision exists at the moment. If I were to drop dead here today it could take the Government 12 to 18 months before it announced a by-election. I therefore suggest that a specific period be fixed, for example that a by-election be held within 90 days of a vacancy occurring. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Overvaal is free to blame the Broederbond and to play with statistics to his heart’s content, but let me tell him, as Oom Boy Louw said: “Look at the scoreboard. ” The fact remains that the NP returned to this House stronger than when we left here in February. [Interjections.] The NP will govern this country—it has been doing so for 40 years now, and will continue to do so for another 40 years. [Interjections.]

In terms of the law a foreigner in this country is someone who is not a South African citizen, but not all foreigners are here illegally. There are many legal foreigners—tourists who have the necessary travel documents, people who work here and who comply with all the legal requirements.

As in the case of South Africa, and America which has a major problem with the Mexicans and others, Australia and Hong-Kong are faced with the problem of illegal foreigners streaming into those countries. Man’s ingenuity knows no bounds. The communists have built a wall in Berlin which has spotlights trained on it and which is guarded. The East Germans, however, get across to the West. So we, too, have foreigners streaming into our country. It is estimated that at the moment there are 1,3 million illegal foreigners in our country, and we cannot afford that. Firstly these people are looking for food here, and for that they need jobs. As a result they deprive our own South African citizens of job-opportunities; they take the food out of the mouths of our own people. What is more, these more than 1,3 million illegal foreigners place tremendous pressure on the country’s infrastructure. They put pressure on housing, on our health services and on the provision made by the authorities, in fact on every facet of the infrastructure created in this country.

Perhaps the worst aspect is that the security situation in this country could be seriously jeopardised by these illegal foreigners. Hon members will agree that action in this connection is urgently needed. Since 1 July 1986 this department has been entrusted with this question of the control of foreigners. It is a gigantic task which the department has at present entrusted to 500 or more officials throughout the country, and they are able to trace and deport approximately 2 500 of these illegal foreigners per month. The figure of 2 500 deportees tallies with the figure of those who are illegally streaming into our country across our borders. No matter what arrangements one made on the borders, the ingenuity of these people knows no bounds and they will get through.

The only people who could help us in this regard are the employers. In our country there are an estimated 200 000 employers. In the Act there is the provision that such foreigners may not be employed. One is not permitted to do business with them. One is not permitted to offer them accommodation or feed them. So if only each and every one of our 200 000 employers, in the interests of our country, in the interests of the security of our country, and in the interests of what the citizens of South Africa have accomplished, would help us to ensure that each of these employees is either a citizen of this country or a legal foreigner, and then report the illegal foreigners to the department so that they can be deported, they would be doing South Africa and its people a very great service.

Mr Chairman, I should merely like to refer once more, as I have done previously, to the hon the State President’s use of departmental documentation in this House for the purposes of making political capital out of a situation at the expense of some of his political opponents and others. I specifically want to refer to the case of Rev Theuns Eloff.

When I spoke about this previously, I said that I thought that the hon the State President owed Rev Eloff an apology for having suggested that the clergyman had basically lied in filling in the form as he did. In reaction to the point I raised he said that the change on the form had been signed by Rev Eloff. That is simply not true. There is an indication that a change had been made on that form, but no ex facieindication that that document had been signed by Rev Eloff after it had been changed.

I know that a subsequent statement was issued by the hon the Minister, the department of someone else stating that the woman who dealt with the relevant form had said that it was customary for her, when any change was made to a form, to do so in the presence of the prospective traveller concerned and that this was done with the approval of such an individual.

I am saying that that is not good enough. Such practices would be all very well if there were no repercussions, and normally one would not expect a great issue to be made of such a form.

This person’s whole career is now at stake, and his integrity, not only as a minister of the Gereformeerde Kerk, but also as a South African citizen, has been prejudiced by the hon the State President’s misuse of that document. [Interjections.]

In these circumstances I say again that the least that should be done is to have a proper investigation instituted to determine precisely what happened in this specific case. It is not good enough simply to say that the woman concerned had dealt with the form or that this or that was normal departmental procedure. It should be ascertained what happened in this specific case so that justice can be done. Otherwise the hon the State President, the department and the hon the Minister will stand accused of a gross abuse of privilege of this House as a result of having tarnished the name of a member of the public in this House, with the most terrible of consequences as far as his personal career is concerned. We cannot leave this injustice to go unanswered. No decent person who believes in the natural rules of justice can overlook such an injustice. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

Unfortunately I do not have the time to take a question.

I want to refer to another matter, and that is the position of foreigners who have come to settle or want to settle in South Africa because they have married South African citizens. During the past few days hon members would have seen reports in the Press about a Polish gentleman, Mr Romakovski, who married a South African woman. He apparently left his ship—he worked as an electrician on a fishing boat—and wanted to live in South Africa.

I do not know what precisely happened, but it was suggested that this man tried to obtain advice from the department in connection with the possibility of obtaining permanent residence in South Africa It was also stated that if sent back to Poland, an unenviable fate awaited him. That is probably not difficult to believe.

Apart from the merits of this case, the underlying principle involved here is important. I think South Africa is one of the few Western countries in which no special legal arrangements have been made with regard to the marriage partner of a citizen. In South Africa such a person has no preferential right to residence here. I really do feel that this is something we should give attention to.

One can understand that the Immigrants’ Selection Board should have the right, in general, to select immigrants according to pre-determined criteria. I nevertheless think that we are going too far in basically telling a South African citizen that his choice of a marriage partner depends, in the final analysis, on the Immigrants’ Selection Board.

I think it is an accepted principle in many civilised Western countries that if a person marries someone in our case a South African citizen or one having the right to reside permanently in South Africa, such a person should have some or other preferential right to obtain that privilege of South African citizenship or permanent residence in South Africa.

I am not saying that one should necessarily apply this to everyone on that basis. If someone has a criminal record or has been sentenced for having committed a murder, that is, of course, another matter. In some or other way, however, some legislative arrangement should be made for such a person to have a preferential right. I do not think we have it at this stage, and this is the source of many problems for those who find themselves in such a situation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Green Point occupied himself at the beginning of his second speech with things which in my opinion were less important than the more important matters which the hon the Minister raised here this afternoon. I should like to associate myself with the hon the Minister because I believe that with his announcement that he is going to take steps against the pro-revolutionary Press in South Africa, he will be getting to grips with an important aspect of the revolutionary onslaught on this country.

The fact is that the revolutionary process is an all-embracing process. Indoctrination and the creation of a revolutionary climate form the second prong of the process while the first prong is organisation. When I refer to the alternative Press, I immediately want to say that I do not include the alternative Press in its entirety because there are sections of the alternative Press that are doing good work. Therefore it is better if we refer instead to the revolution-supportive Press.

This Press is engaged in creating a climate in South Africa in a very subtle way among a very wide spectrum of the population. They have already started with the youth and with youth periodicals and this process is carried upwards through each level of the population up to the intellectual level. An estimated two million people in the Republic of South Africa read this left-wing radical Press reports. Hon members are now able to understand the danger it poses in terms of active participation in physical violence, arson, civil disobedience and so on if two million people are exposed to this indoctrination, and, if they are brainwashed in turning their back on the state order in South Africa. It is not concerned with opposition to the Government a such, but rather the opposition and overthrow of state order in South Africa. That is why I am very grateful that the hon the Minister intends to address these matters. This afternoon, in order to remove all doubt, I want to tell hon members that these people work on the basis of making a statement which they subsequently counter by placing the revolutionary forces or the new order which they want to establish in South Africa, in a very favourable light compared to the existing order.

Here I have a publication New Eraof June 1987. In the top left hand corner of the page a photo appears with the title: “Moscow youths—they will never face unemployment”. This report deals with an interview which was held with one of the factory managers in Russia and this interview was distributed throughout the world and South Africa. The report stated:

The report continues:

In this way I can quote several examples of these contrasting statements in which the existing authority is linked to the Western concept of democracy and the free enterprise system is played off against the communist systems which are presented as the so-called utopia which is waiting for people on this earth.

They are doing the same thing as Die Patriot.

Secondly, I want to say that in this country we have for many years been involved in warding off the physical onslaught on South Africa. Because the physical onslaught is visible and can be quantified it is much easier to draw peoples’ attention to this onslaught and make them aware of it.

We shall be making a very big mistake in this country if we underestimate the psychological onslaught on South Africa. This psychological onslaught is finely orchestrated. Its aim is to incite people and to mobilise them so that they resort to physical participation in the revolutionary process.

I think that if we are really sincere about the interests of this country and the people of South Africa we must support the hon the Minister in his intention of curbing this revolution-supportive Press. I should like to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to the following few points and make the following few requests to him. In the first place, I think it is essential that the funding of these publications be investigated. Hon members can go and look at them—they have almost no advertisements and their purchase price is very cheap.

I think the regulations under the state of emergency, must be extended so that effective action can be taken against these publications. The Newspaper Registration Act must be improved and applied more stringently. Licensing or registration of news agencies must also be introduced. It is interesting, since I am referring to the news agencies now, that a news agency entitled The Other Press Service—Tops—should have come into existence, manned by retrenched radical left-wing reporters. In the meantime quite a few of these news agencies have come into existence. They are in contact with the hostile world and continue without any control being exercised over them, to disseminate their articles on South Africa.

Fifthly, mechanisms must be created to bring freelance journalists under control. I want to express my opinion in this regard very cautiously, about this, but I do believe that there are people in South Africa posing as journalists who are intent upon and whose greatest task is that of bringing this country to its knees. I do not want to cast a slur on the rights of good journalists in doing this but I do believe that the journalists will also understand that if we have to make a choice between order in this country and the maintenance of our values and norms on the one hand and the goodwill of journalists on the other, the values and norms of this country are of greater value.

Sixthly, I believe that the existing legislation on publications must be improved and co-ordinated. It is simply not good enough to have to deal with this kind of Press and these kind of newspapers if one only has the Publications Act at one’s disposal. The hon member for Dakar … Durban Central … [Interjections.] is sitting here laughing. While the hon member is sitting here and making a noise I want to tell him what the effect of their visit to Dakar was.

You are doing Ian Smith’s job.

I merely want to tell the hon member what the results of their visit to Dakar were and how it was portrayed in the tabloid Southof 30 July to 5 August. Here it was stated: “The true face of the ANC”. In several reports in this tabloid reference was made to the misery into which this Government and this constitutional system had plunged these people. Arising from the interviews which the Dakar delegation gave this tabloid stated that they understood why the ANC had resorted to violence and so on. In fact a very mild image of the ANC was created.

I want to go further. It is no secret that this Government is intent upon bringing change in South Africa by means of peaceful processes.

You must mark the places in the newspapers you are quoting from before the time.

In this tabloid there is also an interview with Dr Boesak in which he states inter aliathat sanctions against South Africa have been of no avail. Nor have any other methods. It would appear that violence will have to be considered. Mr Chairman, we cannot allow this kind of spirit to be disseminated in South Africa. [Time expired.)

Mr Chairman, I have exactly two minutes available to me.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

I want to touch on a little matter which was referred to very briefly this afternoon. I am now referring to the problems video shops are at present experiencing in the market. There are poor video shops and there are very good video shops. This afternoon I am making a plea on behalf of the good video shops. In many cases the distributors of video material do in many cases distribute video material in which the necessary cuts have not been made. The video shops buy them in good faith and expect that the cuts which were requested by the Publications Board have been made by the distributor. The distributor has not made them and in this way this video material appears on the shelves. Video shops are consequently prosecuted for having placed this video material on their shelves without the necessary cuts. This afternoon I want to appeal to the hon the Minister. We must consider legislation that will compel video distributors to make the necessary cuts before the material is distributed. If the necessary cuts are not made the poor video shop owner finds out afterwards that he has bought a video which he may not distribute, and with about ten or twelve of them a few thousand rands have been lost. And the video distributors simply shrug their shoulders. The time has come to take a tough line with distributors and fine them when they distribute such video material without having made the necessary cuts. This is a real problem for the video shop owners.

The second problem which occurs is that video distributors distribute material bearing the necessary certificate of approval; the owners buy them and three or four months afterwards they find out that the video concerned has been banned and may not be hired out. Consequently they sit holding the can while the distributor has already received the money and refuses to do anything about it. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to consider legislation to clamp down on the distributors of video material and compel them to make the necessary cuts to their material—if not, heavy fines must be imposed on such distributors.

Mr Chairman, having during my introductory remarks identified very clearly and definitely the problems which we have to face, and having very clearly anticipated the action which the Government is obliged to take, I now wish to announce that regulations will be published in the Gazettetomorrow which may curb publications that are guilty of the systematic or repeated publishing of material which, inter alia, has the following effect: The promotion of revolution or uprisings in the Republic; the promotion of the breaking down of public order; the stirring up of feelings of hatred or hostility towards a local authority or security force; promotion of the public image of unlawful organisations; promotion of the activities of unlawful structures; and promotion of boycott actions and acts of civil disobedience.

Having mentioned these, tomorrow in the House of Representatives I shall deal more extensively with the regulations as they will appear in the Gazettetomorrow.

During this debate it has also become evident here that these regulations are necessary to curb the present flood of revolutionary propaganda.

I wish to draw the attention of hon members to the fact that the enforcement of the regulations will be aimed at the optimum maintenance of democratic practices. [Interjections.] The rules of natural justice are duly taken into consideration. The audi alteram partemrule, inter alia, is respected. A comprehensive administrative process is being created.

*This process provides, inter alia, for the following: Persons involved in the production, importation, compilation or publication of a periodical can by notice in the Gazettebe warned that the matter in the publication is causing a threat to the safety of the public or to the maintenance of public order or is causing a delay in the termination of the state of emergency. If there is a continuation of the publishing of such matter in this publication, the Minister of Home Affairs is empowered to prohibit publication for a period not exceeding three months at a time unless the matter in that publication is approved by a person he will designate for this purpose; or to prohibit totally further publication for a period not exceeding three months at a time.

No warning, such as the one to which I have just referred, will be issued and no prohibition will be imposed unless the publisher or importer has been informed in writing beforehand, the grounds being stated, and given the opportunity to submit written representations within two weeks. Any of the above-mentioned actions will be based on the Minister’s evaluation of a series of issues of a publication.

I trust, and this is my honest expectation, that these provisions will be honoured by the organised, conventional media in such a way that they will have a bearing only on the unconventional, revolution-serving media.

All interested parties should be assured that my office and I shall be available at all times for discussions on the many issues that could result from the implementation of this measure, and we shall welcome open discussions.

So the door is open?

The door is open.

The door is open but your mind is closed.

I now want to respond briefly to the various questions and standpoints that have been raised. The hon member for Overvaal expressed the idea that the existing laws were adequate to deal with this problem. In the motivation I gave earlier, I tried to prove that this creation of a revolutionary climate was in fact propaganda, and that it could not in fact be covered by existing legislation. This means we are powerless when it comes to dealing with that kind of publication as it should be dealt with.

I believe that in respect of these measures the members of the Official Opposition will agree with the Government. I have no doubt that they, too, are aware of the dangers involved, and that their ears and eyes are not closed as are those of the hon members of the PFP. I am convinced that we shall have their support for these actions.

The hon member referred to the children of immigrants who are not willing to perform their national service and therefore do not want to become South African citizens automatically. Let me inform the hon member that I have a comprehensive answer here. Perhaps I could refer to it just briefly. Minors are allowed, without exception, to work or study without hindrance until they reach the age of 21, when the position with regard to their residence is once again reviewed. This action is taken because within three months of a minor’s attaining his majority, he may submit representations for the withdrawal of the declaration made on his behalf, in terms of which he is deemed to be a South African citizen. I believe we have obviated the problem and I should like to discuss the matter further with the hon member in order to reassure him completely in this regard.

The hon member also referred to works committees. I took note of what he said with great interest, and I shall discuss it further with the department. I want to discuss the matter further with the hon member, too.

The hon member put forward various proposals regarding the Electoral Act. I am convinced that he will make his contribution in the joint committee under the chairmanship of the hon member for Innesdal, and I invite him to present his standpoint on the Electoral Act in detail there.

The hon member dealt me a low blow regarding an old matter concerning Port Natal, where I was registered. In my case I made the application myself, but I was given poor legal advice. When I established this, I had my name removed immediately. [Interjections.] Before I could vote there, I was once again disenfranchised. I know the hon member does not blame me for that.

As far as the case of the hon the Minister of Defence is concerned, the Director General has dealt in detail with this position. He issued a statement that was given full coverage in the Press. What it comes down to is that it was actually a mistake on the part of the department. A change of address that should not have been accepted was in fact accepted, and as soon as it was brought to our attention, we registered the hon the Minister in his previous constituency once again, and he also voted there again.

Who issued the card?

There was no card. There was a departmental inquiry and a telephone call. This was something that should not have happened, but the Director General made it clear that it had happened. After this, of course, steps were taken to ensure that such a situation did not happen again. [Interjections.]

The hon member's thoughts concerning the nomination of Mr Speaker are interesting. This is a matter we shall discuss further in due course.

The hon member for Innesdal did not have enough time to do himself justice and I thank him sincerely for what he said. I want to assure the hon member that the autonomy of the Statistical Service is appreciated by the clients they serve, and I fully agree with him that that autonomy should be maintained.

The hon member also expressed his appreciation for the important part the Press plays, and I want to associate myself with that sentiment once again. I do not believe there is a single member in this House, except perhaps the members of the Official Opposition, who do not receive such good support, who does not appreciate the exceptional role the Press plays. The Press plays an extremely important role in education and conveying information, and the measures we are now instituting have nothing to do with the great appreciation the Government has for the role the Press plays in our society.

The hon member also mentioned the important point that the various population groups should be informed about one another, that we should talk to one another, and that the standpoints of all groups should be stated. The measures we are about to institute will not curb those activities. These measures are concerned with a completely different facet, namely the creation of a revolutionary climate. Each hon member in this House should take cognisance of the fact that we should not hesitate to talk to our other population groups.

†The hon member for Green Point is a depressed hon member. It seems obvious to me that he is not satisfied with his position here in Parliament. I sometimes wonder whether the hon member is not on his way out, to join his friends in the extraparliamentary circles. [Interjections.] The hon member is dissatisfied and fails to respond positively to any action this Government takes.

I regret to say that the hon member obviously did not listen to a word I said on the motivation for our action. I referred to propaganda which cannot be dealt with in terms of existing legislation. The hon member, being a lawyer too, has no excuse for not having been in a position to deal with the issue before the House. He uses that merely as an excuse to oppose the Government in any action concerning freedom of expression, something he and his party constantly do.

*The hon member referred to the hon member Prof Olivier and said that he had explained the standpoint of the party on this matter. I took the trouble to have a look at what the hon member Prof Olivier had to say. He indicated recently in so many words that there were elements that would abuse freedom and democracy, and that this was simply the price we had to pay for freedom. The communists agree with that viewpoint. They still follow the strategy that democracy should be used to destroy democracy, and the church to destroy the church. [Interjections.] Does the same principle not apply in using the free Press to destroy the free Press? This appears to be the case, if we look at the rest of Africa. This is what is happening there.

The hon member and his party remind me of the story a great man, Abraham Lincoln, recounted of a man who murdered both his parents and then pleaded in mitigation that he was an orphan. This is the standpoint of the hon member’s party regarding these matters as far as the security and safety of our country are concerned.

†I also want to point out that freedom of the Press is not absolute. In the United States of America the courts have consistently and repeatedly held that the Government may place limits on the Press. The courts have clearly stated that freedom of the Press and freedom of speech are not absolute. I refer to what a most eminent Supreme Court judge had to say with regard to that. I have the reference here, if the hon member wants to see it. He said the following:

Therefore, what we are doing here is not something that is unknown in the rest of the so-called civilised world. The hon member is giving the wrong impression if he states that it only happens here in South Africa.

*I thank the hon member for Umlazi. I have taken note of that. He also replied to the hon member for Green Point effectively.

The hon member for Losberg was, after all, a professor. The hon member should remember that we expect a great deal from him. He should not only indulge in wishful thinking and build castles in the air. I tried my utmost to make notes in order to be able to answer him, but I believe the hon member imagined himself back in a lecture hall, and unfortunately I could not provide him with any further answers.

I also thank the hon member for Sasolburg for his contribution.

†As for the hon member for Sandton, I want to say that he would have made exactly the same speech even if I had given a little more information about the measures we propose taking. He would still have made the same speech; there is no doubt in my mind about that. He, too, obviously did not listen to what I said, because he did not argue on the merits of the case but merely put some very idealistic ideas across. If we look at his past Hansards we will probably find that he used those ideas in the past as well. I am very disappointed in the hon member, because I thought he would argue on the various points I had raised.

He referred to the Media Council. I want to place on record that the Government has a very cordial relationship with the Media Council. The media conciliator and the Government work very well together. Of course, we have differences of opinion: The Media Council does not want to be independent or take the initiative with regard to the various cases, whereas we encourage it to do so. We do have differences, but we talk about them. Any person who has studied the position will know that no existing legislation, whether it be in the form of regulations or Acts of Parliament, deals with the case of propaganda to which I referred earlier during this debate.

*As far as the hon member for Langlaagte is concerned, I thank him sincerely for his gratitude for the supporting role the department played in the attempt to make the programme of reform action a reality.

The hon member for Gezina is obviously an expert on the electoral system, and I am certain his evidence before the joint committee will be of great value.

†The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis referred to a number of issues. I shall not have the time to reply to all of them, but I want to make an appeal to him as well. He referred to the fact—I hope I understood him correctly—that his party does not want to be drawn into this fight between the Progs and the Government on the issue of control over this type of medium. I think, however, the hon member will agree that this type of action is essential whether, as far as political issues are concerned, it applies to the far-left radicals or to the far-right radicals. [Interjections.] We must make that admission and be truthful about it. I have an idea that the hon member and most of his colleagues agree on that particular issue.

Mr Chairman, does the hon the Minister regard the CP as “far right”, “radical” and so on? [Interjections.]

I shall see what happens and give the hon member an answer to his question at the end of this session. [Interjections.]

†The hon member referred quite rightly to many issues relating to publications control and I am very glad he has that interest. I assure that hon member that our system of publications control is one of the best in the world and we must talk about it more often. The fact is that we have tried to modernise our organisation as much as possible. I think we have outstanding people, for example in the person of the Director of Publications. I think we have succeeded in setting up a system in which we ensure that no excesses take place in regard to violence, sex or whatever we should not have. However, I do not have the time to reply to all the hon member’s questions in full.

*The hon member Mr Kritzinger referred to Die Stem. To prove how quick and up to date the Publications Act and the Publications Directorate are, I just want to tell the hon member that I was informed by the director that they were looking at that publication and that yesterday the committee found the August 1987 issue of that publication to be undesirable in terms of section 47 (2) (d) and (e) of the Publications Act. I have not yet received the full findings, but this is what I have been told. A prohibition on distribution has been placed on this issue. In this case, however, the Act once again does not have any potency. The merits or otherwise of this finding are not at issue now, but all that is happening is that the newspaper may not be distributed. It is not prohibited and consequently we need more legislation than simply this Publications Act. It is, however, a good Act in terms of the specific purpose for which it was introduced.

†I want to thank the hon member for Johannesburg North for the many suggestions he made. I will take note of some of them and I invite him to refer specific instances to me. I will most certainly look into any mistakes, faults or irregularities that he may prove. The department will be happy to give attention to those.

What about the photographs?

I am afraid the hon the Minister of Finance is applying so much pressure on us that the department cannot afford a cent for photographs at this stage. Perhaps we will be able to give the hon member a more positive reply next year.

*The hon member for Brentwood has obviously made a thorough study of the problem we have to contend with. I want to thank him most sincerely for the thorough study and for the explanation he has given us.

In his second speech the hon member for Overvaal referred to the 90 day period for by-elections. I shall give attention to this matter, too, but at the moment it is obviously not possible in terms of the existing legislation.

The hon member for Hercules indicated that he understood the problem of aliens in South Africa very well. We are being swamped by illegal aliens who are pouring into our country. It is very difficult to exercise effective control over our extended borders. The actions by the Department of Home Affairs in putting them back over the border are not effective. Within a week or so they simply come back again, and to the country that is attacked to such an extent about its faults! The hon member came to a valid conclusion in that employers can play a great part in helping us in our effort.

The hon member for Green Point referred to the deserter. He was a deserter; he abandoned his ship twice. I want to ask the hon member in this case not to discuss allegations without being certain of his facts. The hon member himself said he did not know whether this was true, but it had been suggested. However, I invite the hon member to come and speak to me or to the Director General in a case such as this so that we may give him the details. This is of course a sensitive matter but there are certain drastic steps one has to take; otherwise there is no control or discipline. I shall consider the hon member’s standpoint in respect of marriage and the effect it has, and I shall liaise with him in that regard.

The hon member for Durbanville referred to some very good examples. He obviously has a great deal of insight into the problem with which are dealing. I thank him, too, for his contribution.

The hon member for Stilfontein referred to videos. It is true that practical problems do exist. We have taken cognisance of his problem here and I shall write to him and provide him with a comprehensive reply.

I thank all the hon members who participated in the debate. We certainly have received some good hints and ideas, and I thank everyone for them.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.