As Chairman I submit a report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders on the amalgamation of the staffs of the Senate and the House of Assembly. The full report will appear in the Minutes of Proceedings, as follows—

Your Committee, having conferred with the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements of the Honourable the Senate begs to report as follows:

1. (1) That in the opinion of the Committees the efficient functioning of Parliament as an institution will be promoted by the amalgamation of the staffs of the Senate and the House of Assembly to form a unified parliamentary service;
2. (2) that the Committees accordingly recommended—
   1. (a) that the two staffs be so amalgamated under a Secretary to Parliament, assisted by a Deputy Secretary to Parliament;
   2. (b) that control over the appointment of and all other matters relating to the parliamentary staff be vested in the Speaker: Provided that in respect of procedural and other domestic matters of the Senate, the Secretary to Parliament or, in his absence, his Deputy shall be responsible to the President of the Senate;
   3. (c) that the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to Parliament and such other Secretaries-at-the-Table as may be required, be appointed by resolution of the Senate and of the House of Assembly after such appointments have been considered at a conferring meeting of the appropriate Committees of the two Houses and reported upon by such Committees: Provided that at the coming into operation of the amalgamation of the staffs of the Senate and the House of Assembly the present Secretary to the House of Assembly, the Deputy Secretary and the Assistant Secretary shall be deemed to have been appointed under this paragraph as Secretary to Parliament, Deputy Secretary and Undersecretary;
   4. (d) that the legislation required to give effect to this resolution be enacted early in the next session of Parliament, after being approved by the Committee on Internal Arrangements of the Senate and the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders of the House of Assembly;
   5. (e) that with effect from a date to be fixed by the President in consultation with the Speaker, the Secretary to the House of Assembly be appointed as Acting Secretary to the Senate, without any additional remuneration, until such legislation has been enacted, and be authorized to undertake the reorganization of all parliamentary services during the forthcoming recess.

H. J. Klopper,

Chairman.

Speaker’s Chambers,

House of Assembly,

22 February 1974.

Mr. President will submit a similar report to the Honourable the Senate.

Unless notice of objection to the Report is given at the next sitting of the House, the Report will be considered as adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we object to this motion…

Order! No debate can take place on this motion, I am sorry.

Question put and the House divided:

Ayes—94: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Coetsee, H. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H. Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Weber, W. L.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

Noes—38: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cillié, H. van Z.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr.

Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I have to move this motion, but I am afraid there is no alternative.

What about the House? Are you not sorry for the House too?

Parliament must adjourn on Wednesday and these Bills must be passed by both Houses before Parliament adjourns. With regard to these Bills, I informed the Opposition at the beginning of the session, of course, which Bills must be passed. I realize that hon. members complain that these Bills were not introduced earlier this session, but the only excuse is that the hon. the Minister of Justice became ill and that his deputy, who had to take over, had to acquaint himself with all the implications of these Bills before he was in a position to introduce them into Parliament. That is the only excuse I have.

But the Prime Minister said that the one had been ready for months.

I am speaking about the Minister of Justice, not about the Prime Minister. The Minister of Justice and the Deputy Minister of Justice are under discussion at the moment, not the Prime Minister. I am giving the reason for the late introduction of these Bills. I gave hon. members ample opportunity of studying these Bills. I specially delayed the taking of the Second Reading until such time as hon. members opposite were ready. Mr. Speaker, I realize that when the Opposition oppose Bills I cannot expect them voluntarily to agree to more than one stage being taken at a sitting. That is why I am introducing this motion. I still think that with the necessary co-operation we can deal with these Bills and complete the discussions on these Bills before tomorrow morning. That will give the Other Place an opportunity of dealing with these Bills tomorrow, and Parliament can then adjourn on Wednesday.

We want to make it quite clear that on the previous motion we on this side were not consulted. It has been the practice right throughout the session and at all times when I have dealt with the present Leader of the House to give me advance notice of any steps proposed by the Government. I had no notice whatsoever of the previous notice until the hon. the Minister stood up in this House this morning. I submit, Sir, that that is not the way in which matters have been conducted in this House by the Leader of the House up to now. We should have been consulted and we should have been given notice of the previous motion as a matter of courtesy. As far as this one is concerned, what is the use of having rules of procedure if as soon as it suits the Government the rules are all thrown overboard? The rules are simply being thrown on one side and Bills are being bulldozed through the House. Hon. members have no time to study the Bills and to consider amendments. What has happened here indicates that the legislative programme this session has been badly arranged. If we had sat another week, we could have got through all the necessary legislation and the rest could have been dealt with later. Furthermore, Sir, only last week we had the experience of adjourning early on two days. At the beginning of the session the hon. the Minister gave us a list of Bills which had to be passed this session, but that did not include the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill. The Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill has been put on the Order Paper in the last few days. The Minister indicated to us that he wanted the General Law Amendment Bill, the Riotous Assemblies Bill and the Affected Organizations Bill dealt with this session, but there was no mention of the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill. It was placed on the Order Paper at the last minute.

That is how they treat us.

I hoped that we would get a better deal from the Leader of the House. As I said, we should as a matter of courtesy at least have been given notice of the previous Motion. Sir, this is not the way to conduct the business of this House, nor should the Government rely on its superior numbers to bulldoze Bills through the House in this way.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am not at all impressed with the speech of the hon. the Leader of the House. He has not justified this measure which he is taking today. What did he say? He says he does not like to force the Opposition, when they are opposed to a Bill, to deal with the different stages on the same day. That is the correct parliamentary procedure. It is not in accordance with parliamentary procedure to force different stages of a Bill on the Opposition. But, Sir, what excuse did he give for the late introduction of these Bills? At the beginning of the session we were told by the hon. the Minister that these are two of the measures that had to be passed during this session of Parliament. The Prime Minister has told us that these Bills are based on reports received early last year from the Schlebusch Commission. Why then were they not introduced before? If he could wait all this time—over a year—before introducing these measures, surely these Bills could have been held over until the next session of Parliament. If there was no urgency before, why have these Bills become urgent all of a sudden? We are very sorry to hear about the health of the hon. the Minister of Justice, but if these Bills were prepared so long ago and the hon. the Deputy Minister had them, he should have been prepared to handle these Bills. Surely he was au fait with the provisions of these Bills, or he should have been. I say that the excuse given by the hon. the Leader of the House is not satisfactory.

I am sorry to say, Sir, that the reasons given by the hon. the Leader of the House just do not stand up at all. What does that Government want? Is this House still regarded as the Legislature of South Africa? Is this still the place where we make laws? Is this still the place where amendments are moved and matters discussed so that we can make good laws in the spirit of the Prayer which you read this morning, Sir? Is that what our Parliament is still for, or are we to be subjected to the bulldozer of the Nationalist Party caucus? The hon. the Leader of the House says that these Bills must be passed this session. Why must they be passed this session? What is the hurry? He says that the Minister of Justice was ill and that that is why the Bills could not be introduced. Sir, what a lot of nonsense! What did the hon. the Prime Minister tell us on Friday? He told us that the Affected Organizations Bill was the result of the interim reports of the Schlebusch Commission, which were published in January last year.

Order! That point has already been made.

Sir, what is the big hurry? What has this got to do with the Minister of Justice? Sir, the object of this Parliament is to frame good laws for the good government of South Africa. How are we going to frame laws for the good government of South Africa if we are not going to be given the opportunity to consider what Ministers say in respect of Bills, and then to consider their explanations in the light of the provisions of the Bills, to frame suitable amendments and then, having framed the amendments, to give everybody concerned reasonable time in which to consider properly the proposed legislation? Sir, you find on the Order Paper a number of amendments, for example, to the Riotous Assemblies Bill, and there will be an amendment to one of those amendments. Sir, this is a very serious amendment which is being proposed to one of the amendments. I gave the hon. the Deputy Minister of Justice a copy of it as we came into the House this morning. This was the first opportunity I had to do so. I gave him copies of the other amendments last Friday. Sir, this is why we have an Order Paper on which amendments can be placed, not only so that the Minister and the Government can have an opportunity of considering them and giving attention to them but so that the members of this House can also do so. This is an absolute abandonment of the proper functioning and the proper spirit of the legislative function of the South African Parliament.

Then there is this other Bill which my hon. friend, the Chief Whip, the hon. member for Pinetown, mentioned, the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill. This Bill was published last Thursday. We had not idea, no indication whatsoever, that it was coming at all. It certainly was not on the list of Bills that had to go through and suddenly we get it last Thursday. Sir, what proper consideration can be given to this Bill? I want to say that there are going to be many suggestions in respect of this Bill, as to whether it goes far enough in one direction, and whether its objects could be met in other ways. How are we going to do it? We are going to start sitting from now until some time tomorrow morning. Mr. Speaker, really, I am surprised that this should come from the hon. the Leader of the House whom I have always regarded with respect as the one man in this House who had respect for and regard for the traditions and principles of this House. And if this is going to happen when he is gone, without anyone else having this regard, then God help this Parliament.

I want to adduce further reasons. I believe that this, of course, was a Cabinet decision. This is not the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the House. This is not the attitude we have learned to know on the part of the hon. the Leader of the House during all these years. He has been forced by the Cabinet to take this action. There is no doubt about it. Sir, I want to mention a further point regarding this whole question of these two Bills that we are now discussing and which are now to be bulldozed through. These were the two Bills which were singled out in the State President’s speech at the opening of Parliament. They were the only two Bills which received special mention, but notwithstanding this, this “kragdadige” Government was not able to produce them until a week before the session closed. If it is so that these Bills could not be introduced immediately after the State President had made his speech because the hon. the Minister of Justice was ill, why could they not have been published for information? That is a perfectly permissible method. They could have been published for general information, if there was any desire to tell this side of the House and the country what was in these Bills and what was planned. Sir, this is not the way to secure law and order in this country. This is not the way to get the co-operation of people. We get many pleas from the other side of the House that because South Africa is in a difficult situation, there should be co-operation among all the people, but when you get to a crucial test, when other people’s feelings and their situation should be considered, and their convenience and points of view taken into account, we get this sort of treatment. These Bills were held back for the political advantage of the Government and for no other reason. It was purely intended to gain political advantage, either because they wanted to give the Opposition insufficient time to prepare its case against these Bills or because it was designed to put this across the country before the country could look properly at these Bills. We can see even from the Nationalist Press that they are strongly opposed to these measures. We can see this in a paper like Rapport, and all honour to them for raising their voice. If these Bills had been made available for dissection, and had arguments been marshalled about them, there would have been even greater resentment among Nationalist supporters than has been yet registered today. For these additional reasons we object strongly to this bulldozing of Parliament in this way.

I am very sorry, Sir, that I did not specifically inform the Chief Whip about the late sitting tonight. I was under the impression that when I discussed the matter with him on Friday morning, I had said it might be possible that we would have to sit late tonight. Apparently there was a misunderstanding. I was frankly under the impression that I had done so. If I did not, then I apologize to the hon. member. He knows that I usually discuss these matters with him.

Sir, I am not curtailing discussion in any way. Hon. members will have ample opportunity of discussing these Bills. I have been told that the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill is not controversial. That is why it is on the Order Paper. I was assured by the Deputy Minister that there would be practically no discussion on this matter at all.

But we might want to improve it.

I know the hon. member is very anxious to improve all the Bills, but he will have an opportunity of doing so when it comes before the House. Now I want to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Justice was not Deputy Minister of Justice before the Minister of Justice became ill. He was Deputy Minister of Police, of Social Welfare and of the Interior and only when the Minister of Justice became ill, was he appointed by the Prime Minister as Deputy Minister of Justice. He had to have an opportunity of discussing these Bills and studying all their implications. That is the reason why these Bills were introduced so late. But I say again that no attempt is being made to curtail discussion. Hon. members can discuss these Bills ad nauseam as long as we get them through both Houses of Parliament by Wednesday. [Interjections.] There will not be any restrictions on discussion. Hon. members had the fullest opportunity of discussing the Second Reading of the one Bill and they will have any amount of time to discuss the Committee Stage of this Bill. They have the whole day to discuss the Committee Stage of the Riotous Assemblies Bill. Amendments have been placed on the Order Paper.

And all night to consider the other one.

If hon. members really put their minds to it and discuss these matters and they are concise and short and to the point I am quite convinced that we can get through all the Bills by 10.30 p.m. tonight.

Question put and the House divided:

Ayes—98: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Baden horst, P. J.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Coetsee, H. J.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. L.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Weber, W. L.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

Noes—39: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillié, H. van Z.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wain-wright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and W. M. Sutton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The International Sanitary Regulations Act, 1952, applied the international sanitary regulations, adopted by the World Health Assembly in Geneva on 25 May 1951, in the Republic as the Republic had endorsed these regulations. These regulations lay down, inter alia, requirements with regard to (a) notifications of epidemiological information to the World Health Organization to be made available to individual states in regard to diseases referred to in these regulations, such as yellow fever, plague, cholera, smallpox, etc; (b) the prevention of the spread of such diseases as a result of international traffic by the travelling public, goods, vehicles and vessels; (c) the health requirements to be complied with by the travelling public, supervision over persons who are not in possession of valid health certificates and the isolation of such persons; (d) the health requirements to be complied with by ports and airports; (e) inspections of trains, aircraft and ships on international journeys and voyages, and measures to be taken by individual states for checking the spread of diseases by such means of transport; and (f) health documents in respect of individuals and means of transport.

The necessity for these regulations for the protection of the inhabitants of individual states against being infected with communicable and contagious diseases, becomes very apparent from the cholera epidemics periodically found in certain countries.

These regulations have been revised and consolidated by the World Health Assembly. The Republic, too, endorses the revised regulations. The name has been changed to “international health regulations” and the provisions have been arranged more systematically and in a meaningful sequence. The principles differ very little from the international sanitary regulations. Since extensive amendments would have to be effected to the present Act and its Schedule so as to adapt them to the consolidated regulations, it has been decided to replace the present Act.

In principle the provisions of the Bill are for the most part in line with the provisions of the present Act. The customary definitions have been included in clause 1.

Clause 2 applies the revised regulations, i.e. the international health regulations, in the Republic.

In clause 3 the State President is granted the power to—

1. (a) designate, by proclamation, ports and airports for the purposes of the regulations and to amend the regulations;
2. (b) make regulations to give effect to the international regulations.

It is also being provided that the State President may prescribe penalties with regard to regulations which may be made by him. Any proclamation or any regulations made by the State President shall be laid upon the Tables of both Houses of Parliament, and Parliament may disapprove of them.

Clause 4 defines the jurisdiction of the court, and clause 5 provides that the Bill shall also apply in South-West Africa.

Clause 6 repeals the present Act, and clause 7 contains the short title.

The regulations are contained in the Schedule to the Act.

Mr. Speaker, our attitude towards this Bill has already been expressed in the Other Place, where it passed through its various stages. As the hon. the Minister knows, we supported it there.

The Bill repeals the present international sanitary regulations and is replaced by the international health regulations. This country cannot lag behind other countries in the world in regard to health matters. Most countries in the world have already instituted changes were necessary in order to bring them into line with the health regulations as determined in Boston in 1969. High standards must be maintained and to do this our health legislation must be introduced here timeously. If we are going to do this, it is strange to me that almost five years have elapsed between the time when the World Health Assembly had met to formulate these regulations and the time when this Bill was tabled. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell the House why it was necessary to delay until this date the introduction of the new regulations, which amended the previous regulations. Five years is a long time when we deal with health matters. There have been rapid changes ever since. There is, for instance, the different modes of transport and millions of people are moving from one country to another. Consequently, the regulations in our country must keep pace. I understand from the hon. the Minister that those regulations will be introduced immediately and for that reason we shall not delay the passage of the Bill in this House. We ask him to get on with the job.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

1. (b) prescribing fees, and providing for the recovery of any expenditure incurred, in connection with the application in the Republic of the International Health Regulations.

As clause 3(2)(b) relates to finances, the Other Place does not, under section 60 of the Constitution Act, have the power to consider this provision. However, the Bill was introduced there. This provision confers upon the State President the power to make regulations prescribing fees for the recovery of any public expenditure incurred in connection with the application of the international health regulations. At this stage it is not possible to indicate what the regulations will embrace, as this will depend on the need giving rise thereto. There is a similar provision in the present Act. I am of the opinion that we should at this stage also provide for such a provision in the Bill so that it will not be necessary to amend the Act later on. This is really nothing but a routine amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members are wellaware, the value of money has over the past number of years been steadily decreasing. One of the results of the decrease in the value of money is that the maximum fine which a magistrate’s court is empowered to impose, has become disproportionate to the court’s jurisdiction with regard to imprisonment. The penal jurisdiction of a magistrate’s court is, in terms of section 92 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944, limited to a fine not exceeding R200 or a period of imprisonment not exceeding six months in the case of a district court, and a fine not exceeding R600 or a period of imprisonment not exceeding three years in the case of a regional court. These fines were fixed in 1952. Figures obtained from the South African Reserve Bank show that an amount of £100 (R200) in 1952 equalled an amount of R393 in 1973. Similarly an amount of £300 (R600) in 1952 equalled an amount of R1 178 in 1973. In order to restore the proportion which existed in 1952 it would seem that the present maximum fines will have to be doubled.

The Department of Justice is preparing legislation to provide, not only for an increase in the penal jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts with regard to fines, but also an increase in the civil jurisdiction of such courts, in order to counteract the constant decrease in the value of money. Such legislation can, however, not be introduced during this session as consultation on certain aspects thereof must still be finalized.

In the meantime, however, the measures taken to combat the fuel crisis have given rise to a problem related to the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts. Section 351 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, provides for the payment of a sum of money which is generally known as admission of guilt. The procedure provided for in the said section is, however, only available where there is reason to believe that the court will not impose a fine in excess of R50. With regard to the sufficiency of evidence, section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a magistrate’s court may, when an accused pleads guilty, sentence him for an offence to which he pleads guilty, upon proof, other than the unconfirmed evidence of the accused, that the offence was actually committed. There is a proviso that, if the offence to which he pleads guilty is such that the court is of opinion that it does not merit punishment of, inter alia, a fine exceeding R50, it may convict and sentence the accused on his plea of guilty without proof of the commission of the offence.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will be aware, the fuel regulations provide for severe penalties in the form of fines. Offenders are only given the opportunity to pay admission of guilt when speed limits are exceeded by a small margin. For more serious contraventions no admission of guilt is fixed and the offender is obliged to appear in court. Because of the provisions of section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Act to which I have referred, evidence must in such cases be adduced even if the accused pleads guilty to the charge. This results, in the first place, in court rolls becoming congested. Secondly, it causes a great deal of inconvenience to an accused who wishes to plead guilty and pay his fine. Thirdly—and this, Mr. Speaker, is a very important aspect—it causes, instead of saving fuel, a considerable waste of fuel for the person who has to travel a long distance in order to attend the court where the offence was committed. Instances do occur where a person has to travel from the Transvaal to Cape Town or to Durban just to offer a plea of guilty because no admission of guilt was fixed in his case. For this reason alone it appears absolutely necessary that some measure of relief must be provided for immediately.

The relief, Mr. Speaker, is provided for in this very short Bill now before the House. The measures provided for in the Bill are self-explanatory. They provide for an increase in the maximum amount which may be accepted by way of admission of guilt, from the amount of R50 to R100. They also provide that an accused may be sentenced on his plea of guilty without other proof of the commission of the offence, to a fine of R100. I appreciate that these increased amounts will be disproportionate to the maximum fine which a magistrate’s court may impose. In view of what I have said earlier with regard to the contemplated amendment of the provisions relating to the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts, the disproportion will, however, only be of a temporary nature.

I wish to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill now before the House must not be seen as a relaxation of the measures for the saving of fuel. On the contrary, the aim of this Bill is to tighten up the application of those measures. It appears that the co-operation on the part of motorists to save fuel is waning. If this situation continues, the Government may be forced to take more stringent action. To avoid such action, it is imperative that all motorists should give their full support to the fuel saving campaign.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill will receive the support of the Opposition, if only for the reason the hon. the Deputy Minister gave, i.e. that the value of money has decreased at least by the proportion which is indicated in the Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister has made out a case here in respect of this Bill also in relation to the fuel crisis. The hon. the Deputy Minister quite rightly says that a number of those people who are charged under the Criminal Procedure Act in respect of speeding and thus in respect of the fuel regulations have to travel back to the magistrate’s court of the district in which they exceeded the speed limit. Examples have already been given in this House of people from Durban having had to go back to Beaufort West. Because the fine which is contemplated is going to be more than R50, they have to go all the way to Beaufort West and all the way back in their motorcars. Naturally, the object of saving fuel is negatived by this. The situation we have in reality at the moment is reflected by the formula I understand was applied in a Natal court recently when it was mentioned by a prosecutor to a magistrate that in the case of the 80 km/h limit, if one was caught travelling between 80 km/h and 89 km/h one receives a warning. If you were doing 90 km, you will receive a fine of R50. If you were doing 91, you will get a R55 fine. If you were doing 92 km, the fine will be R60. In other words, the fine goes up R5 per km over 90 km/h. I am not very good at arithmetic, but my arithmetic says that when you do 100 km/h, with that formula your fine will be R100. In terms of this amendment, you will then be able to pay an admission of guilt. You will not have to travel all the way from Durban to Beaufort West. But if you are doing 101 km/h, you will have to get into your motorcar and go all the way back to Beaufort West and use all that fuel. In other words, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister’s first case, viz. that a fine of R50 in 1952 could be fairly adjusted to R100 in 1974, is quite acceptable. But that is just a pure adjustment in relation to the value of money. If, however, he wants to do something about the fuel crisis—and the object of the operation is to remove the procedure of going back to the court in the area where the offence was committed, for example in the case of the Beaufort West offence—I do not think the figure of R100 in the formula I have mentioned, if it is to be applied, is going to meet the purpose of the Bill. It would seem that something else will have to be done. Having thought about the matter only this morning, and not having known that the Bill was coming until this morning, it seems to me that there are perhaps two alternative procedures which could be applied in this regard.

In the first place, in order to save fuel in respect of offences relating to speeding under the Procurement Act, it may be possible to make a provision that the magistrate in the area where the driver of the motor vehicle lives, could have jurisdiction in respect of such an offence and be able to impose a fine if the motorist concerned pleads guilty. I think that would save everyone a lot of trouble. That is one alternative.

The other alternative is to increase the jurisdiction of the magistrate to impose a fine without hearing evidence, and of course, the competence of the court to accept admissions of guilt over a certain amount, as this Bill is doing. I think consideration should be given to the fact that, only in respect of offences relating to the Procurement Act where the offence is one of speeding and thus wasting fuel—not as a general rule—the amount should be higher than R100. The formula I have indicated is certainly being applied in Natal. I have no experience as to whether it is being applied in the other provinces. In terms of that formula, if you do your homework, a fine of R200 in respect of Procurement Act cases where fuel is being wasted, or even of R250, might well be justified and would in fact serve the purpose this Bill is intended to serve. As it stands, I think this Bill does not achieve that object, because of the arbitrary application in respect of a speed of 100 km/h. I wonder whether this is a matter to which the hon. the Deputy Minister will give his consideration. This is precisely the sort of matter we were talking about this morning. We agree with the Government on the principle of the Bill, but we feel that to achieve the purpose in respect of the fuel crisis, an amendment is necessary. We are all anxious, obviously, to see that fuel is conserved in the country. This is an example in which it is going to be very difficult for us to reach Rapport and have an agreed, intelligent discussion, let alone improve the law as is our function, if we are not going to be able to have stages, if we have now to take the Committee Stage immediately without having had time to write anything down, without the hon. the Deputy Minister having had time to consider what we have written down and without the hon. the Deputy Minister having had the opportunity to ask those whose function it is to draft legislation and whose function it is then—the public servants in his department—to give their consideration to it. It is a great pity, Sir, that this is the state of affairs we are faced with and it is a great pity that we have to discuss the Bill in these circumstances. At this Second Reading stage, however, we give this Bill our full support.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to mention that the formula to which the hon. member for Durban North referred, does not have the force of law. It is administered according to the formula of rule-of-thumb. In the border-line case which the hon. member mentioned it would be possible in these circumstances for the magistrate to exercise a discretion, depending on how far away the event took place, and so forth.

The other suggestions made by the hon. member are valuable ones in my view. I shall definitely give further consideration to them and possibly introduce amending legislation next session along the lines indicated by him. We shall have, of course, to do this in conjunction with the other departments concerned before that happens. I may say, however, that the immediate need at the moment is to relieve the clutter in our courts. In actual fact, we just want to make it possible for spot fines to be imposed.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it is still an instruction to prosecutors not to accept admissions of guilt. That was the instruction given originally and I should like to know whether it is still in force.

Not that I know of. As far as I know, they can accept admissions of guilt up to a maximum of R50. We are now going to increase that figure to R100 and we are going to instruct the public prosecutors accordingly. We want to keep these matters out of the courts if possible.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Deputy Minister satisfied that the Bill as drafted will cover existing cases that have not yet been disposed of, in other words, offences that occurred prior to the enactment of this legislation? There could be an opportunity as far as prosecutors are concerned throughout the country of delaying proceedings until the provisions of this Bill become operative, for the benefit of…

Order!

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Once this Bill is placed on the Statute Book, I believe that we shall be in a position to take the cases that are already before the courts on dates still to be fixed.

Without making it retrospective?

We are not making it retrospective. That is not necessary.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister dealt with the question…

Order! I put clause 1.

I am trying to hasten on as the hon. Leader of the House wants us to do, Mr. Chairman, so I am even getting ahead of the Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I raised the question of the £25 now becoming R100 with the hon. the Deputy Minister. There must be dozens, if not hundreds of charges now being preferred in respect of speeding offences, which will have to be finalized some way or the other. I read in the Press that there were some 28 caught in one evening in Cape Town the other night. If, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, the only way that these can be attended to is administratively, is it not at least possible to give warning to magistrates throughout the country that this legislation is coming, so that they do not in the interim issue summonses with a penalty in excess of the present figure of R50, and cause all this fuel wastage to take place? I think that the only way it can be done is probably administratively. I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister might feel it necessary to make these provisions retrospective. I cannot quite see the necessity for the provisions of this Bill being made retrospective.

Sir, I think the hon. member has made out a good case, and I shall accede to his request.

Sir, I raised with the hon. the Deputy Minister the question of the acceptance of admissions of guilt. When this petrol restriction was first applied, I am pretty certain that the Minister of Justice appealed to the Attorneys-General and the prosecutors not to accept admissions of guilt, and offenders were then compelled to appear in court. That is where all the trouble arose. The Minister says that no such instruction was given, but I am certain that an instruction to this effect was given because I have had discussions with an Attorney-General on this very issue. I would be glad to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister that he as Acting Minister of Justice will correct that impression given to Attorneys-General and to prosecutors that they were not to accept admissions of guilt.

I think there was such an instruction at first, but subsequently we allowed admissions of guilt up to the maximum amount to be accepted. But it is going to be my policy, in any case, that the prosecutors may in fact fix the amount in accordance with the circumstances.

Will you give such an instruction to the Attorneys-General?

Yes.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Clause 1 of this Bill contains perhaps the most important changes in the character which this Bill will now give to the Riotous Assemblies Act in the sense that it is no longer, if this Bill proceeds in the form in which it is, a measure to deal only with public acts of violence or disturbances of the public peace. It now defines a “gathering” as being two or more people wherever they may be. Now, when I spoke during the Second Reading debate on this Bill I indicated that if the Minister’s difficulty was that there were certain private properties which did not fall within the definition of a public place in terms of the Act, and that these were places where disturbances of the public peace could begin and then spill over into the public sector, I believed that he had a case, and that I believed that the evidence was there, in regard to what had happened before, for some action to be taken and for the legislation in this regard to be amended to meet that case. One of the examples of such a place is the St. George’s Cathedral steps, which is a private property, but which abuts on to one of the main arterial exits of Cape Town. A disturbance on the steps must necessarily spill over to the public sector; and it is quite ludicrous, if such a situation occurs, that the authorities, the police, entrusted with the duty of ensuring public peace and order, should be powerless to prevent anything from developing there until it has got into the public street and has become a public disturbance. Indeed, the hon. the Deputy Minister during the Second Reading debate quoted what I had said—

Then the hon. the Deputy Minister goes on—

That is the hon. the Minister’s case. The hon. the Minister says that is precisely his case, the case which I have indicated. Now, because it seems that if that is so, taking the hon. the Minister at his word, we might be at one on this, I would like to move an amendment. Now, there is an amendment on the Order Paper, but that is not the amendment I am going to move. I want to move that amendment together with the insertion of certain other words, and I will therefore hand to you a new amendment. The effect of the amendment on the Order Paper is that we restore the definition of “public place”, with certain amendments to meet the situation where it appears that the hon. the Deputy Minister and we are at one. The amendment proposes to omit paragraph (a), namely the new definition of “gathering” and to omit paragraph (c), which refers to the definition of “public gathering”. In other words, we leave “public gathering” as it is and we do away with this new gathering of two or more persons anywhere at all, and we then restore in (d) the definition of “public place” with the following exceptions, that you now include “hall” and you also include a place “to which members of the public habitually, with the tacit consent of the owner, have access”, etc., and then you provide that if there are certain specified places that the Minister feels may well be places, although private property, where public violence could begin, where a disturbance of the public peace could begin, he will be able to declare them to be public places for the purposes of the Act and then deal with them under the Riotous Assemblies Act.

The great advantage of this is that it meets the very case that the hon. the Deputy Minister said was what he was aiming at and yet enable us to retain the Riotous Assemblies Act as an Act which deals with public violence and the disturbance of public peace and cannot, if dealing only with public places, intrude upon the private lives of people. There cannot be any doubt that it will do so. The difference between the amendment as set out on the Order Paper and the one which I shall move and of which I handed a copy to the hon. the Deputy Minister earlier on, is that instead of declaring, as is now indicated, by proclamation in the Gazette a place to be a public place for the purposes of this Act and for a period not exceeding 12 months, we put in after “Minister” the words “in the manner provided in section 2(2) and within a period of a month thereafter”. In other words, the effect of this will be that the Minister may declare any specific place to be a public place either by notice in the Gazette, or by notice in a newspaper, or by causing it to be made known over the radio, or by causing notices to be distributed amongst the public and fixed upon public buildings or, in cases of urgency, by causing it to be announced orally. All those options will be open to him and that will meet the situation of the urgency which the amendment as it appears on the Order Paper perhaps would not meet. The amendment which I am about to move will, I believe, meet the hon. the Deputy Minister’s case and it will certainly meet what we should desire to have. I therefore move the following amendments—

1. (d) by the substitution for the definition of “public place” of the following definition:

1. (a) it has been dedicated to the use of the public;
2. (b) it has been declared by the Minister, in the manner provided in section 2(2) and within a period of a month thereafter, by proclamation in the Gazette, to be a public place for the purposes of this Act for a period, not exceeding 12 months, specified therein: Provided that the Minister may at any time by notice in the Gazette withdraw such proclamation.”.

I am sure that in the light of what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in his Second Reading speech he will accept the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North, compels one to say: “How the mighty are fallen!” The only thing one can say about this legislation is that the Opposition has become frightened of its own protest against this security legislation. The Opposition comes forward here with an amendment which will still give the Minister the powers which he will have under this legislation, except that the Opposition is now attaching chains to the Minister’s legs. The chains are attached to his legs so as to render it impossible for him to take action expeditiously; his action must be slow and cumbersome. As regards the (d) part of the amendment which empowers the Minister to declare any place a public place, this actually means that the hon. member for Durban North is giving the Minister in his amendment the powers which he will have under this legislation, except that the amendment renders the exercising of those powers cumbersome and laborious. Apart from this, there is the further objection that if the Minister first has to take action to have any place declared a public place, the necessity which existed to act with regard to happenings at that special place, may no longer exist. In other words, a gathering or meeting may in certain circumstances develop in such a way that the public peace and order is disturbed, but the Minister is unable to take action unless he has first published a notice in the Gazette or has made it known in some other way.

He did not say that.

Why do you not study the amendment before you talk?

I did listen to the amendment and I am telling hon. members what this amendment really means.

You never listen.

The first part of this amendment is so wide that one can read anything into it. Therefore we do not need this explanation. The restriction on the Minister’s authority which already exists in the legislation states that he may only act when the public peace and order is being endangered. The public peace and order may be endangered in any way. Since this is concerned with the maintenance of the public peace and order only, I want to ask the Opposition why it wants to introduce this cumbersome definition, which will only serve to make matters more difficult and less clear. Surely this is not concerned with private parties and so forth; surely this is concerned with the maintenance of public peace and order. I can hardly see the hon. the Deputy Minister accepting this amendment, because this amendment will render the legislation cumbersome and will attach chains to the Minister’s legs. It is unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria Central is extraordinary. Throughout the Second Reading debate on this Bill we asked the Deputy Minister and Government speakers to tell us precisely why it was that the existing powers under the Riotous Assemblies Act did not enable the Government to deal with the changed circumstances which the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned in his reply to the Second Reading debate. We concede that circumstances have changed in the 60 years that the principal Act has been on the Statute Book. We are, therefore, not opposed to making changes to the principal Act; it is not our case that because this Act has remained on the Statute Book for 60 years it should not be changed at all. This is not our case. What our case is, is that it is for the Government to tell this House, first of all, why the existing provisions of the Riotous Assemblies Act do not enable the Government to meet these changed circumstances. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said he will deal with this and I want to quote from the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech. He referred to a passage in the introductory speech of the hon. member for Durban North. He quoted this at length and said that the hon. member for Durban North was putting his case, i.e. that of the Deputy Minister. He said: “Hy stel dan my saak vir my. Dit is presies die geval dat ’n openbare vergadering na privaateiendom kan oorvloei.” He quoted the following passage from the hon. member for Durban North’s speech—

Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult for me to speak when there is a continual rumble around.

Order!

… such as happened on the steps of St. George’s Cathedral, such as can happen in any open place…

Order! I request hon. members to be quiet.

… which is in fact private property, then he would have a case. This is the passage to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred and said that the hon. member for Durban North was putting his case. In other words, the hon the Deputy Minister was saying that this is the situation that the Government has difficulty in meeting in terms of the Riotous Assemblies Act as it is presently framed. Is this the Government’s case, or isn’t it? If it is the Government’s case the hon. the Deputy Minister must please tell the House why it is that he cannot accept this amendment and in what way this amendment will not deal with the precise difficulty which he said was the Government’s difficulty. The statement by the hon. member for Pretoria Central does not deal with the amendment in any way. It certainly does not deal with the amendment in the amended form in which it was moved by the hon. member for Durban North. In our view the proposed amendment will enable the Deputy Minister to deal with the problem which he faces of an assembly or a gathering commencing on private property and then escalating or flowing from there on to public property and creating a riotous situation.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is the hon. member of the opinion that the Bill as it stands does not deal with the problem that he has just described?

If the hon. member for Pretoria Central had listened to my speech during the Second Reading debate he would understand precisely why we say that the Bill goes far too far. In terms of the proposed new section 2(1 )(a) and 2(3)(a), as substituted by clause 2, the magistrate, in the case of the first amendment, and the Minister in the case of the second amendment, is given the power to ban all gatherings in a particular district. This is the effect of those provisions read in conjunction with the respective paragraphs (b), because these two paragraphs (b) deal with specific gatherings or gatherings of a particular kind. In the case of the respective paragraphs (a) the magistrate and the Minister would ban every gathering in the district. The point I made during my Second Reading speech is that it then means that a body of persons holding a gathering such as an assembly under the Industrial Conciliation Act, must decide for themselves whether they fall within the definition of the relevant portion of the definition of “gathering” which includes “common purpose”. But I pointed out during my Second Reading speech that in terms of the case Rex v. Lan, I think the reference is 1956 (3), an Appellate Division case, it was held there that a gathering of workers to discuss their conditions of employment fell within the definition of a gathering with a common purpose, and therefore such gatherings would be included under the blanket banning which the magistrate and the Minister are entitled to introduce under the proposed new sections 2(1)(a) and 2(3)(a). I would ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to look at this amendment carefully, especially in the amended form which was proposed by the hon. member for Durban North, because I do submit to him that this would meet the problem which he faces. If he feels it does not, let us debate intelligently. If he feels it does not meet the case which he is trying to meet, perhaps he could explain to us why it does not. Then we could perhaps put forward some other amendment which in our view would meet the case.

Mr. Chairman, before I come to the amendment, may I just say that I see that the hon. the Minister of Justice has again joined our ranks in this House.

Hear, hear!

I should just like to assure him, on behalf of this House, that he has our sympathy and that we hope his health will show a considerable and rapid improvement.

The hon. member accuses me of actually having admitted that what the hon. member for Durban North said during the Second Reading, met my case. What actually happened was that the hon. member for Durban North agreed in principle with this side of the House during the Second Reading when he made the remark—

I immediately said: “The hon. member is now putting my case for me”. Therefore it is so that he agreed with me in principle that it was not necessarily always in a public place where such a disturbance might take place. However, this does not mean that the hon. member covered all other possibilities. There are many other possibilities which had not even occurred to him and which are covered by this particular Bill. I am somewhat surprised at the amendment, because during the Second Reading, the hon. member for Durban North also moved an amendment. He rejected the Riotous Assemblies Amendment Bill because, inter alia—

Now the hon. member comes along and does exactly what his amendment objected to, because in this amendment he is giving the Minister arbitrary powers. In his amendment he says—

That is arbitrary—

He leaves it completely in the hands of the Minister to make such a proclamation, therefore arbitrary action by the Minister, and this is exactly what the hon. member was opposed to during the Second Reading and in respect of which he moved an amendment. In other words, this amendment which the hon. member is moving now, is in direct conflict to the amendment which the hon. member moved during the Second Reading.

This is not the only problem he has in this regard. In considering the amendment moved by the hon. member, I see he wants another definition substituted for the definition of a “public place” and the new definition reads—

He took the same definition which appears in the present Act, and he only added the words “or hall”. Therefore he only adds a “hall”.

I said so.

I know. But wait a moment; give me a chance. Surely the hon. members may rise again immediately after I have resumed my seat. The present Act reads as follows—

Now the hon. member comes along and repeats the whole story, except that he adds “hall” and he goes on to say—

1. (a) it has been dedicated to the use of the public.

†The original Act said “has not been dedicated to the use of the public”. Now the hon. member says it must be a place that “has been dedicated to the use of the public”.

That is a printing error.

I accept that. In other words, this amendment is not quite correct. Then he goes on to say that it has been declared by the Minister, etc. But, Sir, the Bill as it stands also gives a magistrate that right. Now he wants to take away that right from the magistrate. There may be circumstances in which the magistrate may want to act, and he will not be able to do so unless he goes back to the Minister to ask for the proclamation.

I am prepared to include “magistrates” in the provision.

Oh, now the hon. member is prepared to include “magistrate”. You see, Mr. Chairman, why—I want to tell this to the hon. member for Musgrave—I did make a careful study of the amendment? I made it quite sympathetically. I wanted to see whether it would meet our case, but it did not. I am telling hon. members why it did not meet our case. I am afraid that in the circumstances I am quite satisfied that the Bill as it stands does meet exactly the case we want it to meet. I am therefore not able to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has rejected our amendment without giving any indication whatsoever of why it does not meet his case. He has simply said “It does not meet my case”; but surely he must motivate it. He must say “These are the reasons why it does not meet my case”. He mentioned one reason, namely that the magistrate was excluded, and my colleague immediately accepted that. He said we would include the magistrates. In other words, we are prepared to co-operate to the maximum to give all necessary powers to deal with riotous assemblies. What we are not prepared to do, is to give arbitrary powers entitling the Minister to interfere with the private rights of private people in no way concerned or connected with a riotous assembly. We are prepared to go all the way where there is evidence that a power is needed to maintain law and order. This side is dedicated to the maintenance of law and order. However, we are equally dedicated to the freedom of the individual who is not a criminal and a law breaker, being inviolate. We are prepared to fight for the rights of the person who is not a criminal, who is an innocent, normal citizen; but we are equally prepared to give powers, wherever they are needed, in order to deal with subversion and with violence. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister owes this House and South Africa an explanation of where our amendment, with the inclusion of the word “magistrate”, falls short of any instance or circumstance which could be a danger to public order and which could not be dealt with under the definition we have given. That is the first step the hon. the Deputy Minister must take if South Africa is not to say he wants dictatorial powers, and not, in fact, the limited powers which he claims he wants to deal with violence. We now test the sincerity of the hon. the Deputy Minister. He has stated what he needs. We are prepared to give him what he needs. We place his honour and his sincerity on the line with an amendment which he must show either to be insufficient for his needs, or which will show that his protestations of a limited requirement were not genuine protestations. We would like to hear now where our amendments falls short of what the hon. the Deputy Minister needs to prevent public violence.

Mr. Chairman, I see the United Party is getting into difficulty. After having supported the principle of the Bill, it is now doing its best to go against it in the Committee Stage. It is much easier to stick to your line of argument and logic all the way through…

… and be totally irresponsible. It is much easier to be irresponsible.

Well, the hon. member says it would be totally irresponsible. One can then only assume that all the years the Riotous Assemblies Act has been on the Statute Book and has sufficed for South Africa, the Government of the day, be it the United Party Government or the Nationalist Government, was irresponsible. I do not believe anything has changed to justify giving the Government these powers for which they are now asking. I do not believe either that anything has changed to give the powers which the amendment of the hon. member wishes to give to the Minister. Of course the Deputy Minister will not accept that amendment. Of course it does not go far enough for his purpose. As I said during the Second Reading debate, there is one purpose to this Bill and that is to see that private precincts, premises, places, whatever you want to call them, like the university campuses, can be declared public places so that the police can go in and stop demonstrations that are non-violent and perfectly lawful by any normal judgment. The police can then go in and stop these demonstrations. The way hon. members talk about the demonstration on the Cathedral steps last year, one would think, Sir, that it started off as a violent demonstration. It was nothing of the kind. It was a perfectly peaceful, non-violent demonstration. The public were not being interfered with at all until the police decided to charge the students. That was when all the violence started.

It was provocative.

Order!

In other countries the police manage to maintain law and order, which everybody wants. In England and elsewhere, Sir, the police manage to maintain law and order by ordinary means and without the use of firearms, and they do not need laws like this on the Statute Book. But here, Sir…

Not in America.

In America, unfortunately, the same sort of thing occurred—and the same sort of thing might well happen in this country if we go on the way we are—on campuses with the police being allowed to draw firearms—that is the point—and invade campuses. But in England, Sir, there are large gatherings and the police, unarmed, have no problem at all in controlling those crowds. There was no violence on the Cathedral steps to start with; it only occurred after the police charged the students and followed them inside the Cathedral, actually inside the Cathedral. There was no question therefore of the demonstration spilling over from the Cathedral into the streets of Cape Town.

I do not want to give the hon. the Deputy Minister any of these powers. I am going to vote against this clause. I think he already has more powers than he requires. I have no desire to give him the right to declare certain places which are private places, public places, which is the gist of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North…

Specified places.

What specified places? You have not specified the places.

The hon. the Deputy Minister must do so when he declares them.

That he has to specify the places does not in any way commit him. He can still specify all university campuses. He can specify any place he wants. If the hon. member’s amendment had perhaps excluded certain places, the position might be different, but he has given the hon. the Deputy Minister carte blanche. All he has to do is to specify the places he is going to declare to be public places. I do not believe that he needs those powers. He made it quite clear that the whole reason for introducing the amending legislation was simply because the ordinary methods of dispersing a crowd were not being followed by the police. In all conscience they were simple enough. The crowd had to be warned three times in a loud voice and so forth. Those technicalities were not observed by the police and instead of the hon. the Deputy Minister just issuing an instruction that in future the police must in fact stick strictly to the letter of the law and give these orders to disperse, and so forth, before charging, he comes along here and changes the law. Well, I, Sir, am not about to help him. I am going to vote against this clause as no amendment will suffice.

Mr. Chairman, the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton to this Bill and this clause and to our amendment was predictable. In all debates of this nature which deal with the security of the State she indulges in the Progressive Party’s luxury of being completely irresponsible. We believe, as the official Opposition in this country, and as the alternate Government, that it is our duty to adopt a responsible approach to such matters and we have always done so in debates of this nature. The hon. member for Houghton takes the view that nothing has changed and therefore no further powers are needed other than those which exist under the Riotous Assemblies Act. Would the hon. member for Houghton not concede that in the modern context persons who are anxious to create disorder are using private property in such a way that they attract the public and that this can develop into a riotous situation, with the persons concerned addressing the public who themselves are situated on public property? I notice the hon. member does not reply to that. I suggest to her that she cannot deny that that situation is taking place and that it is a situation which needs to be dealt with if we wish to preserve public peace and order in this country.

You have all the powers in the world to do that.

Sir, the hon. member for Houghton is horrified at the fact that our amendment should deal with private property. I would point out to the hon. member that the existing definition of “public place” does in fact also enable private property in certain circumstances to be deemed to be public property. If she will read the existing definition, she will see that the last portion reads, “and includes any place described in this definition notwithstanding that it is private property and has not been dedicated to the use of the public”. Our amendment therefore is merely an amendment of that particular situation and enables a magistrate or the Minister to declare certain specific places to be public property for the purposes of the definition, but it does add this important proviso, that the Government, by proclamation in the Gazette, within one month after taking such action, shall state which private place or places it has deemed to be a public place, and in this way the actions of the Government can be scrutinized by Parliament and, if necessary, debated in this House. We believe that this is an important safeguard.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to come to the hon. the Deputy Minister and say this to him: When the hon. member for Durban North was speaking during the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Deputy Minister said to the hon. member for Durban North by way of interjection: “Tell me what it is that you object to; put up some form of amendment that you would like and I will give serious consideration to it.” I believe that he meant this genuinely, otherwise there was no point in making that interjection. Sir, I would ask him again, as has the hon. member for Durban Point, would he please tell the House what situation it is that he is unable to deal with under the legislation as it exists? He told us in his reply that one of the situations was that private property was being used or abused for the purpose of creating a riotous situation. We understood from the way in which he referred to this in his reply to the Second Reading debate that this was the only situation which he could not deal with under the law as it exists. We then put forward this amendment. He now says that this is not the only situation which he is unable to deal with under the law as it exists. Would he please then tell us what the other situations are that he cannot deal with? Surely there is no need to be secretive about it. If he cannot deal with it, he should let us know; this House is entitled to know. The Government cannot expect this House simply to give it blanket powers if it does not motivate or justify its request for such powers. The only point that he made in criticism of our amendment was that it gives arbitrary powers to the Minister and the magistrates, in terms of our amendment—the hon. member for Durban North has indicated that in terms of our amendment the magistrates will also have this power—and that we have complained about arbitrary powers in our Second Reading amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is an over-simplification. Would the hon. the Minister please look at paragraph (a) of our amendment? We stated specifically: “The Bill permits the exercise of arbitrary powers…” and if he goes to the end of the paragraph he will see the words “not necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order”. We realize that in legislation of this sort arbitrary powers of one sort or another have to be given to the Government. Our complaint is that the Minister and the Government should not require us or the House or the country to grant them arbitrary powers which are not necessary, which go beyond the bounds of necessity for the maintenance of public peace and order. Our amendment certainly does give the magistrate and the Minister certain arbitrary powers, but they are in a limited form and they are proposed precisely to meet the difficulty which the hon. the Minister claimed he and his Government have in respect of the Act as it stands at the moment. Now, could we hear from him precisely what situations the Government has to face which, in his view, in the view of the Deputy Minister, cannot be met under the provisions of the Riotous Assemblies Act as they are today?

I really did ask the hon. members opposite to move any amendments which would satisfy both themselves and this side of the House. Now they come along here, and what amendments do we get? We get an amendment which is exactly the opposite of what is contained in the old Act. “It has been dedicated…” are the words they propose, as against the words “it has not been dedicated” in the Act.

†I say there is a world of difference. If I had stood up in this House and accepted their amendment as it was, with typing errors and the lot, it would have made a tremendous difference. But it was not possible for me to accept it. In other words, I had to go and check on the work of the hon. member for Durban North before I could accept it. Now, is this the sort of reaction to my invitation, that I have to go and check even the wording and the typing errors? [Interjections.] And do not forget, it may not have been a typing error. I had to look at this amendment as it was before me. When I saw the tremendous difference that this amendment brought about, it was quite impossible for me to accept it. But I want to go further. I said to the hon. member that we are now giving arbitrary powers to the Minister, and that in this Bill the magistrate also has a function. Oh, he says, that is easy; just add the word “magistrate”. The hon. member is simply adding words to this amendment. Does he realize what the import will be if I have to add the word “magistrate” to this? It means that the magistrate can specify places far outside his own district; he wants to give the magistrate exactly the same powers as the Minister will have. [Interjections.] What happens now? Which magistrate is it?

*You therefore see that I cannot accept half-baked amendments. It is not possible for me to do so. However, I am still always prepared to accept an intelligent amendment. I think the hon. member for Musgrave knows what our problem is. Our problem is that the Bill provides that the Minister can prohibit any gathering in an area, a large area. According to the hon. members’ amendment, it must be a specified spot, which I must specify by way of proclamation. Seditious conditions, however, are not only encountered in small spots; such conditions spread further from such a small spot—even across a whole town or city and even across a whole province.

Where has that happened?

No, wait a minute. We are now making a law to make provision for various possibilities and not for things I have already struggled with. I am not speaking about that now. What I am speaking about is an intelligent possibility of sedition occurring and its manner of spreading. However, hon. members now want to confine me to a Minister’s proclamation and that of a magistrate. The magistrate now gets the right to extend this Act by way of proclamation. If ever there was arbitrary action, which the hon. member did not like, this would constitute such action. However, he moves such an amendment. In the circumstances I am not prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister can remember all the privileges and help that he as a Government member had with his work in this House when he was an ordinary Government member. Now he stands here as a Deputy Minister, as cocky as can be, as arrogant as he always showed signs of he might be…

A personal attack. Is that all you can do?

No, it is not. The hon. the Deputy Minister has just made a personal attack in saying that he has to correct the work of the hon. member for Durban North. Under what circumstances have we been working in this House? I make no apology if there is one word out of place here or there. I do not have a Government department working for me. From time to time we have to try to get something done in this House. If anything is an example of un-wisdom of the motion that was moved and accepted, that we have to take all the various stages of Bills on one day, this is the perfect example. As a result of the discussion over the floor of this House—I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will do us the courtesy of listening. The object of the Committee Stage of a Bill, is that we can talk about each clause one after the other. It is at this stage and this stage only that we are able to deal with amendments to the clauses. After the discussion we have had so far on this Bill, it is now quite clear that we could put into shape something and we shall continue to do this. Normally there would be a Report Stage, if an amendment to a clause of the Bill was accepted, and then one would be able to put forward an amendment which arose from the discussions during the Committee Stage. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he wants to accept the amendment. Never mind about all the little points, never mind about the commas, never mind whether the magistrate does the proclamation—never mind about all that. Is he prepared to accept the principle that is involved here? Is he prepared or is he not? Does he want to consider it? If he does, then we can let this clause stand over until after the last clause of the Bill so that the hon. the Deputy Minister will have time to consider it. Will he indicate whether he wants time to consider it?

I am not prepared to accept the amendment because it is too restrictive.

The hon. gentleman says it is too restrictive. I am going to move it again but in an amended form.

Order! The hon. member must first withdraw the amendment already moved.

Mr. Chairman, I say that I am going to and then I shall, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw the amendment which I have already moved. The suggestion that we make is that you take the old definition of a public place, extend it by including “halls” in it, extend it by including places to which the public habitually or by right or with the tacit consent of the owner has access and you further extend it by providing that if a place which is not a public place within that definition is in fact a place which in the opinion of the magistrate or the Minister concerned is a place in respect of which there will be a gathering which could cause a public disturbance or is that sort of place where this is likely to happen within the next year, he may issue a proclamation and declare such private place to be a public place for the purposes of the Riotous Assemblies Act. Then he can deal with the matter in that form. The hon. the Deputy Minister is talking about the minutiae of words. He is not talking about the thought that we have put forward. The thought we put forward is one which goes so far that the hon. member for Houghton does not like it. There is no doubt that she will vote against it because she has said that it goes too far. The hon. member for Houghton said that our amendment gives carte blanche to the Minister. Hon. members can see the different views there are on this amendment. She said that it gives the Minister carte blanche. The object of the amendment and of our approach is that if there is a likelihood of there being a disturbance of the public peace, someone has to act. For 60 years the law has been that someone has to act and that someone has to have the authority to say that a meeting shall not take place in such and such an area or that a meeting shall not take place. This has always been the law. What we say is that in the light of the experience we have had, the right to do this should be extended in respect of places. The St. George’s Cathedral steps is an example. It is pre eminently a place where matters of this sort could happen. It could happen that a disturbance starts there and then it must spill over into the street. It is an adjunct of the pavement of Wale Street; it abuts on to it. The hon. member for Houghton says that this amendment of ours gives carte blanche to the Minister. I should like to ask her to answer the following question. After what had taken place on “black” Friday, would she have advised the students to have a meeting again on the steps of St. George’s Cathedral on the following Monday?

Yes, provided that the Police held to the requirements of the Riotous Assemblies Act.

Would you have advised them to do so, knowing what was probably going to happen?

How can you know what can “probably happen”? Every meeting can get riotous anywhere in the whole wide world.

The hon. member has now demonstrated…

You cannot ban all meetings.

… the need for this power to exist because if I were the Minister I would have said that it could not take place because I would have had a shrewd idea of what was likely to happen.

You said that the Dean was irresponsible.

I agree that the Dean was highly irresponsible in allowing that meeting to take place on the St. George’s Cathedral steps on the Monday after what had happened on the Friday and having regard to the existing mood and having regard to the attitude…

Nothing took place on Monday at the Cathedral steps.

Did nothing happen on the Monday? My goodness! Where was the hon. member? I was in the library and I could smell teargas on that Monday.

I was on the steps with the people.

I do not know where she was.

She was inside the Cathedral.

Perhaps she was inside the Cathedral addressing a meeting.

Perhaps you should ask the colonel of the Police where I was.

The hon. member says that nothing happened on that Monday.

On the Cathedral steps.

I was in the library and I could smell tear-gas on that Monday with people running all around the place.

That was long after the Police…

On that Monday they had to use tear-gas.

Not on the steps of the Cathedral.

It started there.

It is not true.

It is true.

It is untrue.

At any rate, this demonstrates one thing, i.e. that if you anticipate that something like that will happen you have to stop it. That is the difference between the Progressive Party and ourselves.

Yes, that is the difference—you were in the library whilst I was on the steps.

We feel that these powers should exist under these circumstances. One would like to prescribe in some way how to deal with it so that you will not have the situation which you can have under the provisions of this Bill where a Minister or a magistrate can impose a blanket ban which is going to have the effect—whether they want it or not—of encompassing the activities of people he has no intention of encompassing. Then the hon. the Deputy Minister must come clean—because he has not come clean yet—and tell us why he does not like the amendment—that is to say if it is in the proper form to his liking with all the words in the right place and with the law advisers having looked at it. Why does he not want it if he says, as he did say, that our objection was precisely his attitude? He said his attitude was that he could not deal with certain private property. Now we suggest that we give him the power to determine which private property should be public property for the purposes of the Act, and he turns it down. Why? What does he really want? If he does not answer this, and he has not answered it yet, he lays himself open to the accusation that it is his intention with all these wide unnecessary powers and the effects it could have on the lives of private people who have nothing to do with the disturbance of public peace, to do so for a purpose which he has not specified. What we have suggested is perfectly reasonable. The proof of its reasonableness is its rejection by the hon. member for Houghton. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister get up and answer the questions that have been put to him and tell us why he will not accept this amendment? He has not done it yet.

Mr. Chairman, let me now tell the hon. member why I cannot accept this amendment. I have already told him, but he does not want to accept the fact. He had the whole week-end to draw up an amendment, but he nevertheless comes along here with a half-baked amendment.

Oh, no.

The hon. member for Musgrave acknowledged it to be half-baked. The hon. member for Durban North then throws in the word “magistrate”, and what must I now, in all honesty, give consideration to? From my bench I told him he is not giving me enough, that his amendment is too limiting, because trouble could occur at undefined places. One may expect trouble to occur in a large area, but one cannot specify exactly where. It could start on private property, in houses, too, and at all kinds of other places. One may have obtained information that there is trouble on the way, but one cannot find the place. Now I must be limited, and by way of proclamation cover only the specific place where there is going to be a meeting. That is the reason why I cannot accept this amendment. Hon. members opposite are terribly eager for me to accept one of their amendments. I am not unwilling to accept amendments, provided they are good ones. However, hon. members opposite concede all these points—they already did so on Friday—and grant me wide powers in their amendment. The hon. member for Houghton is right when she says they grant me wide powers. Why then can hon. members not give me the Bill? Give me reasons why the Bill, as it stands, cannot be accepted? I should also like to hear that. Hon. members cannot give me reasons. Let them tell us what is wrong with the Bill. There is nothing wrong with it. Do not simply move an amendment in order to have an amendment accepted, so that you may then go to the election and say: “We obtained an amendment of the Riotous Assemblies Act.”

Is that why you do not want to accept the amendment?

No, I am not saying that, not at all. The hon. member, who is now making that interjection, knows as well as I do that in the past I have accepted intelligent amendments, which were essential, from the other side. I shall also do so in future. I am quite prepared to listen to hon. members, but I am not prepared to accept a half-baked or unsatisfactory amendment—and that is what this amendment is. Let hon. members tell me what is wrong with the Bill. There is nothing wrong with it.

Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with great interest to the debate that has been taking place this morning on this particular clause. The reply which we have just had from the hon. the Deputy Minister is one which not only disturbs me, but will disturb the public generally if this is the attitude of the Deputy Minister of Justice in this country. He now says that he is not prepared to discuss or to consider the import of the amendment merely because it has not been correctly drafted. But what he is doing is to evade the basic questions which are implicit in the amendment. The basic questions are, first of all, that we have a clause before us which completely throws overboard the public aspect of the controls under the Riotous Assemblies Act. We concede, and we have conceded in this debate from this side of the House, that we believe that in the circumstances, the changed circumstances, there is some justification for extending the sphere in which this Riotous Assemblies Act can be applied.

Experience over the last two years has shown that, in view of the developments in the operations and manner of operations of those who would disturb the peace, one has to have more than there is in the Riotous Assemblies Act. At the same time, if one is going to curtail the existing freedom of individuals, one must be sure that that curtailment is only to the extent that is necessary to achieve the end, i.e. eliminating the danger of evil which we want eliminated. We have said to the hon. the Deputy Minister that, as far as this Bill and this clause is concerned, we cannot accept the global, the overall change that in future there will be no difference between private and public property as regards the administration of this Bill once it has become law. According to this Bill the whole surface of South Africa—I was going to say that it will be at the mercy of the Minister, but perhaps “mercy” is the wrong word—can now be controlled by the Minister or a magistrate. We are not prepared to go to that extent. We made it clear in our amendment on the Second Reading that we on this side of the House were prepared—

We accept as fundamental to the enjoyment of freedom by individuals that public peace should be maintained in the country. The hon. the Deputy Minister, instead of dealing with this question and seeing whether we can find common ground, and in the normal process of a Bill going through this House, we would be able to find some basis by which we can give the powers which are necessary to meet the problems the hon. the Deputy Minister has raised, says that we are now giving the magistrate powers to regulate throughout the country and outside his own district, but that is nonsense.

The amendment does not in any way affect the magistrate’s power in terms of this Bill to operate and have powers only within his own magisterial district. Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister raise a fatuous argument of that sort? The hon. the Deputy Minister talks about the necessity for this measure now because there might be a spill-over into the street which may then spread, that is why he wants to control the whole surface of South Africa. One wonders what he would say if the hon. the Minister of Defence were to say that, as we might be involved in a war at some time or another, martial law should be declared. The hon. the Deputy Minister is asking for martial law in the civilian sector under a Bill of this sort. He is doing so without the Government having declared a state of emergency and he wants these powers…

Do you want him to do it by proclamation?

I shall tell you what I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to do. The hon. member for Durban North has indicated that we would support powers for the hon. the Deputy Minister as far as they are necessary to meet the situation which he has sketched to us where gatherings on private property can become dangerous. In his opening speech in the Second Reading, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that this measure was really meant to control student demonstrations and to deal with student unrest. I may be incorrect, but I understood that to be one of the motivations for this measure.

If that is so, it is quite simple to say that the campus of a university will be a public place for the purposes of the Riotous Assemblies Act. It is quite a simple matter to cover that; it can be done without any difficulty—the Minister will have the powers—without at the same time having every other piece of private property in South Africa subject to the possibility that at any moment he or a magistrate can interfere with what goes on anywhere. That is what we are trying to bring home to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I believe that he has perhaps exposed his hand. We on this side believe that these two Bills which are being brought in now, are one of the election gimmicks which the Nationalists are bringing forward. It is an election gimmick, and he is a little frustrated, because right from the commencement we have stated unequivocally to the public of South Africa by way of our amendment at the Second Reading where we stand in regard to this issue. Because he does not feel that he is going to get any political mileage out of this matter, he now wants to…

Order! I have allowed ample discussion on the principle, which has already been adopted at the Second Reading. Hon. members most now confine themselves to the clause and the amendments.

Could I say, then, Sir, that the lack of that mileage brings him to reject the amendment on the facetious grounds which he offered to the House in reply to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members opposite are apparently very serious about the amendment they have proposed, but I should just like to ask them where they can fit into the provision of their amendment, for example, the problems in the case of The State v. Turrell? Let me just give one practical example. The Opposition is now asking the hon. the Deputy Minister to furnish the reasons why, for example, a university campus cannot simply be included in this provision. Hon. members are moving from one area to another, which actually amounts to the fact that they are telling us they are quite satisfied that any private area can be excluded. I think that is the standpoint of hon. members. It must be possible for any private area to be excluded by the Government. But now they want to prescribe certain procedures. There must now firstly be an announcement which must be proclaimed in a certain way.

What it basically amounts to is that the Opposition is now telling us they are also in favour of the inclusion of any private area, but—and this is where the problem comes in—according to what they have in mind they expect the hon. the Deputy Minister, his department and the police to go and act as detectives, and even private detectives, before that prohibition can be put into operation. That is the shortcoming in their amendment. I shall now give you an example. In the amendment they use more or less the words that appear in the existing legislation, and then they refer, inter alia to “any open space… to which all members of the public habitually or by right or with the tacit consent of the owner have access”, etc. In the light of that I also want to look at the case of The State v. Turrell which has to do with the problem we had on the Cathedral steps. I just want to refer hon. members to three sentences on page 253 of this judgment in which the hon. judge states the following—

Further he states—

In paragraph (g) he goes on to state—

If hon. members want to assist the House with their amendment, in what way then can they improve on what is stated in the Bill, i.e. that there should be a general prohibition and that “gathering” should be defined as provided for here? In other words, one is moving away from these narrower definitions which in the existing Act and which are, in actual fact, only more limiting. One is rather moving away from one’s problems. One does not expect the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Police to have to first act as detectives to know what steps here at the Cathedral are now public property and what steps are private property. Is the monument on the Cape Town University campus next to De Waal Drive public or private property? Is that something that could be included in the hon. member for Durban North’s amendment? Mr. Chairman, my standpoint is that it cannot be included. It does not fit in here anywhere, and it is not necessary for me to say why that is so; one can read this for oneself. It does not fit in here anywhere.

Let us take the third example which I used in the course of my Second Reading speech. This referred to the conduct of students of the University of the Witwaters-rand on the side of the street. Nowhere does this fit into the amendment moved by the Opposition. These are three practical examples which this Government has already been faced with and which are not even covered by this amendment that has been moved by the Opposition. That is why we agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister that unless they can come to the fore with something which is not as clumsy and half-baked as this amendment, this side of the House can certainly not look at it. Even the problems we have experienced to date are not covered by this amendment. That is why we on this side of the House agree fully with our Deputy Minister that this amendment simply cannot be accepted by the House.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down is the one who talked about absurdities on Friday. Anything more absurd than the argument that he has just advanced, I should not like to hear. I want to come back now to the provisions of the clause. I want to test the clause that is at present before the Committee against the protestations of the hon. the Deputy Minister and the speakers on his side when the principle of that clause was discussed. We have accepted the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill, as stated by the hon. the Deputy Minister, was that he had to have power to deal with certain private places. We said that this Bill did not give him that power only but that it gave him blanket powers to ban all gatherings, any two people meeting, a tea party, a bridge party or a chess party. [Interjections]. Listen to them, Mr. Chairman! One just has to dangle the bait and they take it hook, line and sinker.

Order! The hon. member must avoid repetition of argument.

I was just making the point, Mr. Chairman, that our argument was that this gives widespread powers. There is immediately an uproar of denial, a denial of our claim, Mr. Chairman, that the clause as printed and the Bill which is before us, give total blanket power to the hon. the Deputy Minister. When I say this, hon. members on the Government side deny it vociferously. Let me test the hon. the Deputy Minister. He has denied it. He says that these provisions do not give him blanket powers to ban all gatherings. He says that he does not want that power.

The Bill does not give them.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that the Bill does not give them. So now we say that we accept his word. We accept his word that in fact he does not want these powers. We say to him that through the medium of our amendment, we shall give him the power either as Deputy Minister or through a magistrate in an emergency, to declare any private property to be a public place for the purposes of the Riotous Assemblies Act. When we say this the hon. the Deputy Minister immediately says: “No, but then I do not have enough power”.

But then you may as well accept the Bill.

He says: “I want the power to ban a whole town or a whole district”. That was what he said. He used the example of a town. He said: “We do not know where they may be in a town, so I want the power to ban meetings anywhere in the town”. Surely, Mr. Chairman, if all gatherings in an entire town are banned, then you ban every tea party and every chess game and every meeting of a couple of people with a common purpose?

You must read the Bill. Before you advance such an argument, you must read the Bill.

You see, Mr. Chairman, when we test the hon. the Deputy Minister, he says: “You are not giving me enough power; I want more power”. When we say; “The Bill gives you too much power”, he says; “Oh no, it does not give me those powers”. But the hon. the Deputy Minister’s own justification for rejecting the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North is that he wants to be able to impose blanket bans. Sir, let us look at what we are prepared to give the hon. the Deputy Minister. We are prepared to give him an extended definition of “public place”, extending it to make it clear that pseudo public places are in fact public places even though privately owned. That is what the hon. the Deputy Minister wants. We are prepared to give him the right to proclaim any private place a public place for the purposes of the Riotous Assemblies Act. Sir, that means that all the hon. the Deputy Minister has to do is to come clean when he issues a proclamation and to say. “These are the places I am proclaiming”, so that the country and the world can see what he is doing. But he is not satisfied with that. He is not satisfied with being able to say, “These are the places I want to deal with”; he wants to have the total power without proclaiming anything, so that he in fact becomes a dictator of private property without having to proclaim it. All we say it this: “You can have the power if you want it, but you must tell people where you are going to exercise this power so that it shall be seen to happen”. Sir, when I say that it prohibits a private gathering and that it is an invasion of privacy, the hon. the Deputy Minister holds up his hands in horror and says, “No, it does not”. Why then is he not prepared to say what he wants to control?

Read the Bill.

I have read the Bill very carefully, and we will get to the other clauses later on; I cannot deal with the other clauses now; I can only deal with clause 1, and clause 1 is loud and clear. The hon. the Deputy Minister has a simple choice. He must either say, “In fact, I do not want specific powers, which I pretend to want; I want global powers, total powers,” or he must say, “I accept the spirit of the amendment of that side of the House”.

Sir, we did not ask for this measure to be steamrollered through the House with no break between stages and with an all-night sitting; the Government has forced that upon us.

Order! That point has already been made.

Sir, I want to say that one of the reasons why the hon. the Deputy Minister refuses to consider our amendment is that it is not within his power to consider our amendment. He has been told, “Make this measure so unacceptable that you will force the Opposition to vote against it so that we can exploit it on public platforms; make this measure repugnant to people…”

Why not vote for it then?

Because we have a conscience. We believe in the fundamental liberty of people, and we believe in the maintenance of law and order. Sir, I charge that hon. Deputy Minister with not wanting a measure to prevent riotous assemblies, but of wanting a measure with which they can play politics. I charge him with playing politics with the security of South Africa. That is what he is doing. He is forcing opposition to a measure by taking it beyond the bounds of reason in order to be able to play politics. Sir, we are prepared to support any reasonable power to permit of the control of riotous assemblies, and now we are testing the hon. the Deputy Minister with this amendment. Does he want reasonable powers, or is he playing politics with our security? This is the test which the hon. the Deputy Minister must pass. His acceptance of our amendment will show that he is sincere in wanting control of riotous assemblies; his rejection will show that he wants powers beyond the needs of security and therefore for political reasons only.

The claim on the part of the Opposition that the Government wants to play politics with the security of South Africa is untenable. It is not even necessary to go into that argument, but let us analyse for a moment the validity of the argument with respect to the clause. The Opposition says the Minister must obtain the power to declare any place a public place arbitrarily. I am stating this correctly, not so? This means one thing i.e. that the Opposition accepts that their own definition of a public place is inadequate. The other provision in the clause, i.e. that the Minister can declare any place to be a public place, means that the Opposition acknowledges that their own definition of a public place is insufficient to maintain law and order in South Africa. That definition is nothing more than an acknowledgement that they cannot define a public place; that is why they come to the Government with these powers. What is the effect of what they are saying? What is the effect of the amendment they are moving? The effect of the amendment is: “We do not want the Minister to curtail civil liberties”, as the hon. member for Green Point said, by virtue of the fact that he has the powers in the Act, “but we want the Minister to curtail civil liberties by proclamation in the Gazette”. Sir, what silliness is that now? In other words, according to their amendment the Minister has precisely the same powers he has today, except that he must first resort to publication in the Government Gazette. What silliness is that?

Or orally.

Is it necessary for us now to make laws according to which we tell the Minister he can do what he wants to in South Africa, if the United Party is giving that the correct interpretation, but he must just publish the fact quickly in the Government Gazette? No, we on this side of the House adopt a much more realistic attitude in connection with this matter, and that is that if it is necessary to have these powers—and I think the Opposition and the Government agree that it is necessary to have those powers—then we say “Give the Minister the powers and it is not necessary for him to have to run to the Government Gazette first”. This last portion of the Opposition’s amendment means only one thing—their definition of a public place is a deception. They now want to enter here a definition of a public place, but then there is the second part of their amendment and it virtually negatives the whole definition of a public place. I say this is a deception. They come along with this half-baked definition of a public place which they themselves know and must accept as inadequate to maintain security and order in South Africa, but then they want to include this in order to play some political games. This is no more than a political game, trying to dance to the tune of the liberalists and trying to canvas for votes at the Progressive Party’s door, and I think the hon. member for Houghton will probably agree with that. I now want to tell hon. members this: Could they not stop this political game with this security legislation? The hon. members opposite now come along with an amendment which means absolutely nothing. The definition of a public place means absolutely nothing. The definition of a public place, according to their own definition, is unnecessary. That is why I say that they are introducing the words “public place” here solely to play politics, and they are now playing politics with the security legislation of South Africa. They are asking this side of the House: “Why do you not come clean?” But I want to ask the hon. members on that side: “Why don’t you come clean?” Tell us exactly where you stand. If we are to accept this amendment as it stands, it means that we are falling between two stools. The one stool is defining a public place in advance and the other stool is giving the Minister complete arbitrary powers. Why must we include the first part of the definition? No, the limitation of the Minister’s powers is a clear limitation, and this is contained in the Bill, i.e. that the Minister can only take action with one purpose in view, and that is the maintenance of public peace and quiet. I challenge the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Durban North to tell this Committee why they refuse to accept the Bill as it in fact stands, i.e. that the Minister can only act for the maintenance of public peace and quiet. Sir, they run to the newspapers and go from side to side with only one purpose in view, i.e. to say, as we have again heard, that “tea-parties and chess games” are now being restricted.

Order! The hon. member may not make another Second Reading speech.

I am replying to what the hon. member said. This Bill and this definition of “meeting”, which is being applied in clauses 2 and 3, mean only one thing, and that is that the Minister can only act for the maintenance of peace and order, and that he does not have the ridiculous powers which the other side of the House says he has.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Pretoria Central gets a little too excited about the amendment. It is very certain that no one can accuse us of playing politics, because in its conception and implementation this whole Bill is a political game.

Order! I have ruled that hon. members may not make Second Reading speeches now. If hon. members are guilty of repetition, I shall put the question.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria Central levelled that accusation at us, and I only want to reply to it. The hon. member for Pretoria Central also said that the definition, as contained in our amendment, boils down to the fact that in paragraph (b) we ourselves acknowledge that it is not wide enough and that it is nothing more than a foolish definition. It is surely very clear what the idea behind this definition is. The first part of the definition will apply in all normal cases. It is wide enough for the normal state of affairs, and that is all it is aimed at. For those exceptional cases, those cases one does not actually expect will take place, but which could nevertheless possibly take place, the Minister has the powers embodied in paragraph (b), powers to use in exceptional cases and not simply every day. That is surely a reasonable approach. What is so dangerous in that? The hon. member says, however, that this is just a lot of silliness because it boils down to the same powers he now has. Surely it does not amount to the same thing except for the prolixity. It is not the same. When the Minister issues the proclamation in terms of his powers under paragraph (b), this means firstly that everyone will know what place he is referring to and secondly that when he has used those powers he can come under fire in this hon. House. We shall then be able to review what the hon. the Minister has done in terms of his powers. As the Bill reads at present, the Minister has overall powers covering the whole of South Africa, and if he uses some of his powers, we in this House cannot attack him in respect of any specific place.

What about section 9?

No, that is concerned with things other than a definition of a particular place. It is concerned with a report about something completely different to this.

It is concerned with his actions in terms of the Act.

It is about something completely different to this, because in this case he has, as the Bill reads at present, jurisdiction over the whole country. If our amendment is accepted, he will have to specify where he wants to make the proclamation applicable. The Act will then be specific. This is specifically one of the points on which we attacked the Bill at the Second Reading. We said we felt unsure about where these powers would be able to intrude. Hon. members opposite have never been able to tell us where the definition reaches too. The hon. the Deputy Minister has not been able to give us any indication of exactly what the circumscription is in terms of the definition. He says that the definition we are giving is not wide enough, but he does not tell us how wide his definition is. Where are the limits? I want to ask him where the limits of his powers are in terms of the Bill as it reads at present. Are there no limits?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am not prepared to answer questions now; I first want to complete my argument. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to spell out to us what he thinks the limits of his powers are in terms of the Bill. He has not yet told us. In the argument he advanced in rejection of our amendment, he has actually given two reasons thus far. He mentioned two reasons why he could not accept our amendment. He says that our amendment will not cover these cases. In the first place he said that we are limiting him to a specific place while these riotous assemblies can take place anywhere in a town—they can spread from place to place. That is how he put it. He says that such disturbances can spread from place to place throughout a whole town, and he would then not have the powers to issue a proclamation in respect of each place. Did I understand the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly as far as that is concerned, and was that his argument?

Yes.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says it is correct. The first idea that comes to mind is the following: If such a meeting occurs, spreading from place to place in a town, how can it spread from one place to another without, at some stage or other, going through a public place which can then be dealt with, [Interjections.] Then this surely falls under his jurisdiction. [Interjections.]

Order!

I do not know why the hon. members are getting so excited, because that is not impossible. If the riotousness spreads from place to place, it is in any case out of control.

Get yourself a better lawyer.

If the hon. members have an argument, I shall deal with it, but now they are simply talking into thin air here.

The second aspect the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned is that he knows there is going to be a meeting and in what area it is going to be, but he does not know exactly at what place it is going to be. He said he could then not exercise his powers because he could not specify the place. It is surely logical that one will know in what place a riotous assembly, which can adversely affect the safety of public peace, can take place, because two people holding a meeting in a house cannot really disrupt public order.

Why are you worrying about that? After all, it has nothing to do with the legislation.

It does have something to do with the legislation, because they will be caught in terms of the provisions of the Bill. The hon. member asks me why I am worried. I am worried about that because such legislation exists and the hon. the Minister says he does not have the powers to deal with that situation.

Have you not yet heard of Dudley’s case?

That argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot hold water, because it is surely possible to specify where something like that could possibly take place and where such a situation could occur. It is truly possible to see where it could possibly occur. Then one could surely declare that to be a public place in terms of the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister must go much further by defining for us what he thinks the limits of his powers are in terms of the present legislation. In the second place he must really show us convincingly what problems there are that he wants to deal with, but will not be able to deal with if the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North is accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I was very much struck by what the hon. the Deputy Minister said when he made the very broad statement that he wants power which could extend right throughout complete cities. He said: “Dit kan in ’n dorp wees, dit kan in ’n stad wees of in ’n provinsie.” In other words, he contemplates that he might even want to have a blanket prohibition of gatherings in a province.

Wherever public peace is endangered.

That is right, wherever the public peace is in danger. However he said that he would not hesitate to include even an entire province. It means that he can ban completely any gathering in an entire province. With that type of loose statement we have been able to elicit in the Committee Stage, I think we are justified in inquiring from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether there is any suspicion that there are going to be overall riots…

We are not dealing with the present situation.

… or other gatherings which are going to interfere with the public peace in the country. When the hon. the Minister sponsors a Bill, it is important to know what he has in mind. What is the Government’s intention?

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment I was remarking on the hon. the Deputy Minister’s statement that he needs powers because he might well have to impose a blanket prohibition over an entire city, even a province if necessary. This gives one an idea of the tremendous compass which the hon. the Deputy Minister envisages and the tremendous powers which he takes unto himself. If one visualizes a city of the magnitude of Johannesburg having a prohibition on every gathering taking place over a period of time one realizes that many legal consultations between many organizations must take place so that those concerned can satisfy themselves that they are not contravening the law by proceeding with their meetings. This seems somewhat incongruous. The Deputy Minister talked about a province. One would think that that type of action would arise when there is a serious threat to the country and that martial law would rather be thought of under those circumstances, or even some state of emergency. This is the impression one gathers when one hears the Deputy Minister not only talking about a town, but of a “stad, ’n groot stad, ’n provinsie.” This bears out exactly what we have in mind, viz. that we think the powers are far too wide.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central took the view that the definition as it stands now is our own definition and that we are therefore playing around because we are virtually bringing an amendment to our own definition. That is a lot of nonsense. I do not want to be repetitive, but one has to deal with the arguments that are put forward. It is clear what the principle is in regard to the threat to peace of a public gathering overflowing on to private property, but our objective in drawing up and presenting this amendment is clear; this amendment will certainly make it clear that we are prepared to grant under this Bill the powers that are required for that purpose. But if we take into account what the hon. the Deputy Minister envisages it is perfectly clear that he seeks something that goes very far beyond that. Therefore one must suspect this type of thing. First of all I want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he will obviously not act unless he has knowledge or information before him that it is necessary to ask for a prohibition of this nature. The only time that he would act without having the necessary information laid before him to consider, would be in a case of emergency, and provision is made here in terms of the proposed section 2 that a magistrate or the Minister can take certain steps and accordingly advise people immediately. It can even be done by a police officer coming along and making an oral statement to any crowd at any public place. That would be sufficient notice, and it would take effect immediately. There is no question of delay because of a proclamation having to appear in the Gazette, because that can be done in due course, as provided for in the amendment. That is really all the hon. the Deputy Minister wants. He cannot want very much more than that, because further than that, if he is dealing with a large city, for example one like Johannesburg, obviously he can never enforce a blanket prohibition unless he has information laid before him or unless he has motives or information known only to himself. It would have to be on information given.

There is another danger that arises from the very wide powers granted here, and that is why we ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept our amendment. An informant, in order to upset the equilibrium of a suburb, or even his neighbours or friends, could make certain statements to the police. That would go to the hon. the Deputy Minister. There is no limit to what can be done, because it is obvious that there must be information, otherwise the hon. the Deputy Minister has nothing to suspect. One hopes that he will not be so irresponsible as merely to enforce a blanket prohibition. If all that is borne in mind, why is it necessary to go beyond what he wants? Why is it necessary to have a Bill with other built-in powers which the hon. the Deputy Minister has been at pains, together with those members who have supported him, to suggest they do not require? They say they do not need these additional powers and that they only need powers for certain specific purposes. Why then not make it absolutely clear in the clauses we are dealing with so that we and the public are well aware of what the hon. the Deputy Minister wants? This must cause a sense of disquiet despite all the protestations we hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister and his other speakers. It must also cause a sense of disquiet amongst the public, amongst his own people, because there is one thing that we have built intrinsically into our South African way of life, and that is that we do not put so much arbitrary authority into the hands of one power, in this case the Executive, that no citizen will know where he is. This is part of our democratic system which is an in-built system. It is not something we on this side of the House have established or which we claim credit for. It is part of the in-built inherent respect of the average citizen for the law and the right to go to the courts to deal with the interpretation of the law and the right to be governed in a fair and just way. But when he finds that he is going to be circumvented by a law which puts so much power in the hands of a Minister or the Cabinet that action can be taken which is completely unwarranted, for motives which are not clear to the public, it must leave a sense of suspicion as to what the purpose is for having these types of powers built into a measure. That is our appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Our contention is that if reasonable powers are needed, we are prepared to grant them, as is provided for here. We support, as every good South African does, law and order and any nonsense that we hear from the hon. member for Pretoria Central must be dismissed as so much claptrap. This hon. member just rushes in as if he is talking on a public platform in the bundu somewhere to a handful of people who are not aware of what is happening in this country.

This party and, indeed, all parties, have supported law and order. This is one of the most vital matters and the public is desirous of maintaining it. There has been law and order in this country under the present Act over very difficult times in the past decade. Unless the hon. the Deputy Minister believes that something very serious is threatening the country, he should not ask for these powers, because he has these powers in any event in terms of other legislation. If he does not think he has these powers, let him do some homework to satisfy himself that he does. It can only cast a bad reflection both internally and externally to continue to pile on to the shoulders of this unfortunate community in South Africa more and more laws which the hon. the Deputy Minister says he does not really require to carry out his wishes. He says our fears are completely unjustified, but these are the fears which the ordinary man in the street has.

Order! The hon. member is going too far now.

Well, Sir, I am trying to convince the hon. the Deputy Minister that we have an amendment which reflects…

I have already ruled that no further Second Reading speeches may be made.

I am not making a Second Reading speech, Sir. With due submission, Sir, I am dealing with this particular amendment to the clause which supports a principle which the hon. the Deputy Minister stated clearly to the hon. member for Durban North he was prepared to accept. I refer to the principle that, especially in cases where there is a danger that a riotous meeting may overflow on to private property, there should be protection of private property with regard to the infringement of public peace and order. That is what we want to do here. In all sincerity I do feel that if the hon. the Deputy Minister really wants to carry out what he requires, it is his duty to give very much more serious consideration to this amendment if he wants to allay the fears of the public. In my submission, he ought to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that the hon. the Deputy Minister is not prepared to answer the points made by the hon. member for Jeppes.

He has already replied.

What do you mean by “he has already replied”? He has not replied to anything yet. [Interjections.] The hon. member has a right to a reply.

Since the hon. the Deputy Minister was hiding behind the flaws in the commas, semicolons and grammar of the amendments I originally moved, with the leave of the Committee, I now move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, following on that I now move the following amendment, of which I am sending a copy to the hon. the Deputy Minister so that he need not listen to my reading it—

1. (d) by the substitution for the definition of “public place” of the following definition:

1. (a) it has not been dedicated to the use of the public;
2. (b) it has been declared by the Minister or a magistrate, in the manner provided in section 2(2) and within a period of a month thereafter, by proclamation in the Gazette, to be a public place for the purposes of this Act for a period, not exceeding 12 months, specified therein: Provided that the Minister may at any time by notice in the Gazette withdraw such proclamation.”.

I do not believe there are any more technical problems with regard to language or punctuation behind which the hon. the Deputy Minister can hide as far as this amendment is concerned. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will now give us the benefit of his view of this amendment. What it does, is to meet the very case the hon. the Deputy Minister said was his case. In fact, he went so far as to say that what I suggested in the Second Reading debate was precisely what he had in mind, that his precise trouble was that there were certain private properties which did not fall under the definition of a “public place” in terms of the Act. He said that he could not deal with any situations that could arise there, or which might escalate into the public sector. Now, Sir, if that is his case, this amendment meets that case absolutely. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will now say why he does not want it. If he were to accept this amendment, he could do what he wants to do. He could then have blanket power. He could then say that in the whole of one town or province there may be no public meetings. This provision would then only affect public meetings. If he does not accept this amendment, he is going to find himself in the position, with the Bill as it is now, that if he does what he says he wants to do, viz. to ban any gatherings whatsoever in a town or a province—as the definition of “gathering” is now, that is in private or in public—he must of necessity, in applying the powers in this Bill, affect people whom he does not intend to affect. They will be affected, and they will not have any certainty as to whether they are affected or not. There will be uncertainty in the private sector as to whether or not they should have their “gatherings” as defined. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will now give us a reason as to why he will not accept this amendment. As opposed to the one on the Order Paper, it now meets the situation of urgency. Let me say that it did not result because the hon. the Deputy Minister suggested that magistrates should have this power whereas the original amendment did not; it was a suggestion that came from our side of the House. We have now had an opportunity to talk about it, brief though it may be, in terms of the new state of affairs which exists in this House as a result of the two motions by the hon. Leader of the House earlier today. But nevertheless, we have had the opportunity to talk about this.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

What was that?

Carry on.

Sarcasm is what? It is not sarcasm—it is a statement of fact. Does that hon. member there like the two motions moved by the hon. the Leader of the House? Does he?

What is wrong with them?

He does. Oh, really! Are you a member of Parliament or a Nationalist candidate?

Order! Would the hon. member please stop this dialogue.

Yes, Sir. In those circumstances, I confidently move this amendment, knowing that if the hon. the Deputy Minister’s statement in the Second Reading debate is worth anything at all, he will accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member. [Interjections.] I shall tell hon. members why. On Friday the principles of this Bill were argued. The fundamental principle of this Bill is that nothing happens unless the public peace is seriously endangered. This is a fundamental principle that goes right through the legislation. The hon. member said here on Friday that we were taking away one of the other fundamental principles of this Bill, viz. that it could only be applicable in public places. We voted about it. On Friday we said that as far as we were concerned private gatherings in private homes were covered and protected in this Bill. The hon. member then placed an amendment before this House in which he deplored the fact that the Minister or a magistrate could take arbitrary action. Now, for some unknown reason—I do not know what has happened in the interim between Friday and today—arbitrary action suddenly means nothing to the hon. member for Durban North.

I have already dealt with that.

The amendment states: “… it has been declared by the Minister or a magistrate, in the manner provided in section 2(2) and within a period of a month thereafter, by proclamation in the Gazette”. This is an arbitrary action.

But read our Second Reading amendment.

The hon. member has shifted stance since last week. Now suddenly an arbitrary action does not matter at all. I said on Friday, and I say again today, that as far as we are concerned private rights are covered by this definition. It contains an exclusion. The definition reads—

Those are the general prohibitions—

We believe that that “common purpose” must consist of a common objective and a concerted action. I believe that, in terms of this legislation, that concerted action must also result in a possible disturbance of the peace. That being so, the private rights of individuals are completely safeguarded in terms of the Bill. Now why must the United Party expect us to go riding on two chairs, just for the sake of keeping the word “public” in the Bill? They want to keep the word “public” in the Bill, but at the same time they give us extensive powers to declare private meetings public.

“Places”.

Mr. Chairman, this fiction that hon. members want me to adhere to, is not only ridiculous…

But you do not have your facts rights. We said “private places”, not “private meetings”.

In the present Bill the private rights of people are adequately safeguarded. That being so, why should we give these extensive powers to the Minister? He may declare all meetings in a private area prohibited. He may do so in respect of all meetings, apart from the question of a common purpose. What happens then? This amendment was placed in my hands only a few moments ago, but subject to that, it would appear to me that the hon. members want to go much further than our Bill goes. This is a possibility. I say, therefore, that in the circumstances I have no need at all to accept this amendment. Everything this amendment contains is already in the present Bill.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister is obviously determined not to reply to the arguments which we are presenting to this House, and the criticisms we are offering. He persists in dealing with the matter on the basis on which he wishes to deal with it. When I spoke before lunch, I dealt with his argument on the question of the granting of arbitrary powers. He has now repeated the argument, word for word, which he has used before, despite the fact that I put him right on this question before lunch. I asked him to read the whole of paragraph (a) of our amendment. Once again he has read only a portion of it, with a view to misleading this House. Our Second Reading amendment reads, inter alia, as follows—

I leave out words which are not relevant to my argument. The paragraph then continues as follows—

Our emphasis is on the fact that we are not prepared to grant arbitrary powers which are not necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order. I pointed out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that many laws which are passed by this House give arbitrary powers to Ministers and to the Government. This is the way in which the Government legislates more and more these days. Our attitude is that in dealing with security legislation, legislation which affects the public peace and order, it is inevitable that a measure of arbitrary powers must be given to Ministers if they are to act in emergencies; this is accepted. What we are not prepared to do is to give this Government powers which go far beyond the powers which are necessary in order to maintain public peace and order, and our criticism against this legislation is not that it gives arbitrary powers to the Minister, but that it gives arbitrary powers to an extent quite unnecessary for the maintenance of public peace and order, and I would point out, Sir, that despite the lengthy Second Reading debate and despite a lengthy Committee Stage debate on this first clause, the hon. the Deputy Minister has still not told the House what situations exist in this country which cannot be met in terms of the provisions of the existing law. We are still waiting to hear this from him, and until such time as we do hear it from him, we are entitled to say that they are taking powers which are quite unnecessary for maintaining public peace and order and for good government.

Sir, I now wish to come back to this question of private places.

You are repeating arguments now which have already been advanced.

Are you the Chairman?

Sir, perhaps the hon. the Minister might listen for a moment, and if I explain the position to him now for the sixth time he might be able to understand it. What he is saying is that for the purposes of the amendment introduced in clause 2(1)(a), a “gathering” as defined here means an assembly of a number of persons having a common purpose. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that so far as he was concerned, this meant a common purpose for concerted action. I pointed out to the hon. the Deputy Minister in my Second Reading speech and also this morning that in terms of the Appellate Division case of Rex v. Lan, 1956 (2) S.A.L.R., that has been interpreted to mean that a meeting of workers to consider their pay and their conditions of employment falls within the definition of a gathering with a common purpose. The hon. the Deputy Minister has heard me say this twice now and he has not dealt with that case; he has not refuted the charge which I make against him, that if he does ban all gatherings within a particular district, he is also banning perfectly legitimate meetings of this sort. He is also in my view banning, for example, a meeting of a board of directors because he cannot dispute that they have a common purpose for concerted action, their concerted action being intended to promote the welfare of their company. I would point out that those are two very clear situations which would fall within the ambit of the general banning provisions which this Government is introducing. Then he has the audacity, Sir, to insist that it does not affect private gatherings, as he put it. Sir, both these examples I have given him are examples of private gatherings which would clearly fall within the ambit of the amendment he is introducing. I am not now dealing with borderline cases, such as bridge parties, which could also fall within the definition, but I accept that he does not intend to ban those. But the point I have made, and which he refuses to deal with, is that if he introduces a ban in terms of the new section 2(1)(a), that is a general ban affecting every gathering in that particular district, then a gathering would include the two situations I have referred to and would certainly include other private gatherings which the Minister would normally not intend to ban. This brings me back to the point which I made in my Second Reading speech, i.e. if he has a blanket ban of that sort it is then for the people who are meeting to determine whether they can go on with the meeting or not, no matter how innocent that meeting may be. I have given the example of a board meeting. They then have to decide whether they can go on with that particular meeting or risk transgressing the provisions of the Act, and risk a prosecution. Sir, this is not the way to legislate. The citizens of South Africa are entitled to know precisely when they do and when they do not transgress the law. They should not be placed in a situation where a perfectly innocent meeting can, at the whim of the Minister or the magistrate or an official, be held to be a transgression of the provisions of this new Bill, simply because the powers are so widely framed. Mr. Speaker, unless the hon. the Deputy Minister is prepared to come clean with this House and tell us precisely what situations he cannot deal with in terms of the legislation as it stands, we are entitled to take the view which the hon. member for Durban North has already put to this House, namely that this is merely an election gimmick to embarrass this party. The hon. the Deputy Minister has told us of one type of case which he cannot deal with in terms of the Act as it stands, and that is a meeting which takes place on private property and escalates on to public property. We have met that situation, but what does he say? He says that is not the only difficulty they face under the Act; yet he does not tell us what the other difficulties are. Sir, this is not the way to treat the House, and it is certainly not the way to legislate. [Time expired.]

I would appreciate it if the hon. the Deputy Minister would be a little more explicit in regard to the aspects of this amendment which he feels are unacceptable to him. The hon. member for Durban North has endeavoured to deal with this amendment, and we should look at the Act as it now stands. The Minister should disabuse his mind of the provisions of the amending Bill, now before us and should look at the Riotous Assemblies Act as it now stands. The problem the hon. the Minister has told us he has is to deal with the types of gathering which are already prohibited under the existing Act when those gatherings take place on private premises. Now what we have said to him in this amendment is simply this: We do not like you having control of all private property without any restriction whatsoever. We do not think it is necessary to achieve the objects of this legislation. But what we say is that the Minister or the magistrate can exercise their powers in terms of the law as it is to deal with a specific piece of property, as defined in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban. If the hon. the Deputy Minister tells us that he wants to have control, without restriction, to apply the Riotous Assemblies Act over all private property, irrespective of where it stands, at his discretion—obviously he still has the discretion not to make a blanket order—will he then also indicate whether he feels that it is necessary for him, in order to deal with the situation which he has outlined to us, to have the power—whether he exercised it or not is academic at the moment—to be able to control gatherings on all private properties on the surface of South Africa? That is what he is asking us to give him. When once that power is given, then the exercise of that power is in his discretion and in nobody else’s. From our side we say that we do not believe that that wide power is necessary in order to achieve the results which the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes to achieve by applying the Riotous Assemblies Act. We accept, as is pointed out in our amendment to the Second Reading, that there may be circumstances when certain property should come under the ambit of this Act. We are prepared to grant him the power to bring certain properties under the ambit of the Act, but now he suggests to us that we are giving him arbitrary powers. In terms of this clause he has arbitrary powers over every single piece of privately-owned property in the whole of the Republic of South Africa. We say to him that in discharging his duties under the Riotous Assemblies Act, if he keeps to the definitions of “gatherings” and “public place” as they are now, he is entitled to ask this House to give him the right, the power in his own discretion, to extend these provisions to specific private properties. This is a vastly different thing than the arbitrary powers which he is asking for in this particular Bill as it is before us. If the hon. the Deputy Minister says that he needs that power over every piece of every hectare of every square meter of private property in South Africa, then we know where he stands and we know where we stand. We cannot go further to meet him in any way whatsoever if that is what he requires.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand the problem of hon. members opposite. They would like me to mention specific instances. I do not think they are justified in expecting that of me.

Why not?

I shall reply to the hon. member. He asks: “Why not?” The reply is that there are as many possibilities as there are places in South Africa. It is simply impossible to imagine all the various possibilities and forms which incitement could take. It is just impossible, and that is why we are trying to pilot through a Bill which contains a principle. However, hon. members come along with an amendment by means of which they would like to restrict me to a place. One must now see how broad their amendment is. They state—

That is in the present Act.

I know, but now you say that it has to be declared by the Minister or magistrate in the manner provided. Such a private property could be a very, very vast area and it could include a lot of other private properties.

No, a particular property.

Oh, a particular property.

*I have told hon. members that there are many possibilities in this kind of action. I cannot allow us to be limited solely to the proclamation of a specific place. This amendment is already being embodied in the Bill. We want slightly wider powers than those provided for in the Act, but at the same time we are limiting ourselves by saying that there must be a common purpose. I believe that this definitely protects the rights of private people. Having respect for the courts as I do, I have no choice but to ask hon. members to give it a chance. Let us see what comes up in the courts. Very probably there will be a court case on this common purpose…

What an approach! I thought you were in a hurry.

Wait a bit, I am never in a hurry. I always give the courts a chance to look at the legislation. Let us now see whether the case of Rex v. Kahn is applicable in this instance, and let us see precisely what the courts are going to say about this. If necessary, I could come to this House again, but I do not think it will be necessary. I think that our Bill…

What a way to legislate!

No, it is not a case of “what a way to legislate”. Is that hon. member suggesting that the courts should never be in a position to have to look at one of the Acts of Parliament? Is the hon. member suggesting that at the moment? I should like an answer from the hon. member because it is very important. Does the hon. member think that our courts must never look at our legislation? That is what the courts are there for.

It is the first duty of the legislator to look properly at its legislation.

That is what the courts are there for. We have looked at this as properly as we can. I can assure the hon. member that we have probably looked better at it than the hon. member has. From here on we shall leave it to the courts.

The courts assume that the legislature has only…

I can take it no further than that. We have laid down the principle in our Bill and we must apply it as such. I believe that private rights are being protected in this Bill. In addition we must give the courts a chance to tell us precisely what the scope of this legislation is.

Question put: That paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—103: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

Noes—42: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—103: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan. R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, B. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

Noes—43: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs. G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

These two subsections contain the nub of our objection on this side of the House to this Bill. It is in respect of these proposed two subsections that we have said, in the first part of our amendment, that the Bill permits the exercise of arbitrary powers which could result in unwarranted and unjustified interference in the private lives and rights of individuals to an extent not necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order.

Let us have a look at these two proposed subsections once again. Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) enables the magistrate to prohibit any gathering in his district for a period not exceeding 48 hours. Now, Sir, as we have submitted in the Second Reading debate, the only interpretation which can be given to that subsection, if it is read in conjunction with paragraph (b) of that subsection, is that it enables the magistrate to ban all gatherings in his district. I do not think at this stage of the debate that it is in dispute whether the meaning of paragraph (a) is as wide as that. The hon. the Deputy Minister has not denied that it will enable the banning of all gatherings within a particular district. The same applies in regard to paragraph (a) of the proposed subsection (3). This provision enables the Minister to ban all gatherings in a particular area during any defined period, or any particular day, as the case may be. The Deputy Minister does not deny that those two subsections enable the banning of all meetings within a district. He says, though, that that must be interpreted in conjunction with two provisos. First of all, the magistrate must be satisfied that the public peace would be seriously endangered unless there is such a blanket ban. Similarly, the Minister can only act if he deems it necessary or expedient for the maintenance of the public peace. The Deputy Minister then went on to say that so far as the definition of “gathering” is concerned, for the purposes of paragraph (a) of these two subsections the definition means a concourse or procession of any number of persons having a common purpose, whether such purpose is lawful or unlawful. His interpretation or contention is that, because of these qualifying words “having a common purpose, whether such purpose is lawful or unlawful”, we are wrong in our interpretation that a blanket ban of that sort would affect normal, legitimate, private meetings which are in no way subversive and which cannot result in any riotous condition developing. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he is quite wrong in that interpretation. He must concede that any Act of Parliament must be interpreted by giving to the words used their ordinary, normal meaning. This is the way in which the courts interpret an Act. In relation to clause 1, he asked us a moment ago to let this Bill go through and then to see what comes of it once the courts start dealing with it. This is a most extraordinary attitude for a Deputy Minister to adopt towards legislation which he is introducing in this House. This is the highest legislature in the country. This is the legislature which lays down the law. In fact, Nationalist members are very jealous of the fact that the function of the court is not to lay down laws. It is merely to interpret and to give effect to what Parliament has passed. As I was saying a moment ago, the cardinal principle of the interpretation of laws by the courts is that the courts have to give to the words used their ordinary, normal meaning. If this is done in relation to the amendment that is being proposed, it will be seen, that in relation to the proposed subsection (1)(a), one has to read “gathering” in this way—

I now want to interpret the meaning of the word “gathering”—

he may prohibit any such gathering for a period not exceeding 48 hours. Mr. Chairman, I pointed out to the hon. the Deputy Minister the definition of “gathering” given in Rex v. Lan, and I would still like the hon. the Deputy Minister to deal with this case. I have referred to this case three times now during this debate and I have challenged the hon. the Deputy Minister to dispute the fact that in terms of this decision, which is an Appellate Division decision, a meeting of workers under the Industrial Conciliation Act to consider their conditions of employment, to consider their conditions of remuneration, falls clearly within the definition of a gathering with a common purpose, whether that purpose be lawful or unlawful—in the case of a meeting of workers to consider their conditions of employment, a completely lawful gathering. If the hon. the Deputy Minister, who wishes to rely on decisions of the courts in order to clarify this matter, disputes the contention that an ordinary meeting of workers would fall within the definition of “gathering” in the sense of a concourse with a common purpose, then let him get up in this House and say so and let him explain in what way the case of Rex v. Lan is not applicable. I asked him also to deal with the other example which I gave him and which is not far-fetched: An ordinary board meeting of the directors of a company to consider the affairs of the company is surely a meeting of a number of persons with a common purpose, the common purpose being the promotion of the interests of the company; they hold that meeting with the object of concerted action, which is the other test which the hon. the Deputy Minister said should be laid down. The object of their concerted action is to further the interests of the company in one way or another. Sir, that situation in my submission is clearly one which would fall within the meaning of a gathering as defined in this Bill. The point I make is that where there is a blanket banning which can be done by a magistrate and by the Minister in terms of paragraphs (a) of subsection (1) and of subsection (3), persons who wish to hold what would normally be a perfectly legitimate, lawful meeting, would either not be able to do so, or would be placed in doubt as to whether they can or cannot meet, that is to say, because it may be interpreted that such a meeting has the two ingredients which the hon. the Deputy Minister said the courts have laid down. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if we understand the hon. member for Musgrave correctly, then he is submitting inter alia that a blanket ban can affect all gatherings in the district of the magistrate concerned, and to intercept this he has come up with an amendment in terms of which he wants to delete paragraph (a) of subsection (1) and also paragraph (a) of subsection (3) in so far as they concern ministerial powers. But, Sir, just as in the case of the previous amendment under the previous clause, we want to point out to the hon. member that this amendment of his is irrelevant, and what he is trying to prevent is not affected by his amendment; because let us see what happens if we omit paragraph (a) only. If we remove paragraph (a), it is still stated here that the magistrate may prohibit for a period not exceeding 48 hours every gathering in his district or that particular gathering or kind of gathering at a particular place or in a particular area or everywhere in his district, as the case may be, except in those cases which he expressly authorizes in the prohibition or at any time thereafter. In other words, the hon. member’s amendment is irrelevant. It does not rectify the situation which he outlined to us here today for ten minutes.

If you say there is no difference between (a) and (b), why have you got (a)?

Sir, let us take the matter further. The first paragraph is necessary for this simple reason: If we want to determine a common purpose, that common purpose must refer to the test which the magistrate has to apply, and that is set out very clearly in clause 1, namely that the magistrate who wishes to apply either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b), must satisfy himself that the public peace and order is being prejudiced.

Of course.

In other words, the objection of the hon. member therefore falls away in so far as it concerns paragraph (a), because no bridge party, no other gathering of that nature has, as a common purpose, the disturbance of public peace and order. We said in a Second Reading debate that if a bridge party or a swimming gala were to result in the public peace being disturbed, the existence of either the gala or the bridge party would fall away and they would no longer constitute either of these.

What about the case of Rex v. Lan ?

We gave the hon. member an adequate reply on that point. If he really considers the matter, he will see that he requires a further amendment to cover the situation which he has outlined to us.

Sir, it is clear to me that, unfortunately, it is necessary to take up more time and in fact to place on record referred to by the hon. member for Musgrave. But I do not want to refer directly to the case of Lan. I want to refer to the case in the Appeal Court in which comment was made on the case of Lan. That was the case of Dudley v. Minister of Justice, 1963 (2) S.A.L.R., pp. 467 and 468. I want to place this on record expressly, since the hon. members of the Opposition want to make use of this in the context in which they quoted it. The relevant section is, I think, the following—

The judge went on to say—

The case of Lan, to which hon. members have been referring so freely, does not be-late in all respects to the facts applicable here. In the case of Dudley this was very clearly distinguished. Therefore, the hon. members should rather concentrate on the case of Dudley. But it is very clear that if the magistrate or the hon. the Minister were to prohibit a gathering in general, as it is stated here, “any gathering”, then it is logical that this means all gatherings, but a qualification has been added here, and the qualification protecting gatherings which should not be affected by the Act, is a twofold one. The first is: Is the public peace in danger of being disturbed? The second is: What is the purpose of the people who have gathered? It is true, admittedly, that it may happen that people who have gathered for an innocent purpose may be affected by it, but surely those people have no fear that the Act is going to be applied to them, in the sense that they will be taken to court or in the sense that they will be found guilty.

The moment the reason for their having gathered is clear, and the moment it is clear that their gathering does not fall within the provisions of the Act, then, surely, these people will not be hauled before the courts. I am afraid hon. members are really doing nothing but wasting the time of the House with their arguments. Their standpoint is not supported by the decisions they are referring themselves to; nor are they supported by the provisions of this Bill before this Committee at present.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to deal any further with the case of Dudley, to which the hon. member for Potchefstroom referred. Under the circumstances it is unnecessary for us to argue the matter any further, because I think the hon. member managed to a large extent to penetrate to the essence of our objections. Perhaps we can now reach the stage where we can crystallize further the point being argued. The hon. member concedes that if the hon. the Minister were to exercise his powers to impose a blanket ban, he would involve all meetings. But then, says the hon. member, there is a qualification which limits that power. He says that that qualification is that the intention to disturb the public peace must be present. That is the first qualification which the hon. member mentioned. Sir, if there had in fact been such a qualification, I would have agreed with the hon. member, but I am unable to find it in the Bill.

But it is a sine qua non.

No, in the definition of “gathering”, mention is only made of a common purpose. Nothing is said about what the common purpose must be.

What is the intention of the Act?

It could be any common purpose.

It must be read in the right context.

This is not a question of the context; the words in the Bill do not state that there has to be any particular common purpose. To disturb the public peace would be an unlawful purpose but, in point of fact, the Bill states “whether such purpose is lawful or unlawful”. That is why it means, not by implication but as a result of the actual interpretation of the words which appear here, any meeting where there is a common purpose. That is the real point we are arguing about here. Now, if we were only to argue about that point only, we would perhaps get somewhere, because this is the matter at issue. It does not matter what the purpose of a gathering is; that gathering will be affected by the provisions of this Bill.

In other words, it applies to a common purpose to play bridge, for example. That is where the story comes from which hon. members told here. If people have a common purpose to play a game by concerted action, whatever it may be, they will be subject to the provisions of this legislation. But now the hon. member says this does not matter, because the hon. the Minister does not want to prohibit such meetings. In other words, even though they may, technically speaking, fall within the provisions of the Act, the hon. Minister will not drag them off to court. That was the hon. member’s argument, if I understood him correctly. That is the very point I made in my Second Reading speech. Surely we cannot have a situation where the Act is of such a nature that people are dependent for their security on the exemptions granted by the Minister. It must be possible for people to be sure that what they are doing is lawful. They must know what their rights are. There must be no doubt. The example of the bridge party is perhaps an extreme one, but there are other meetings, such as ordinary political meetings and the branch meetings of political parties, where one would find a common purpose and concerted action. Such meetings are therefore covered by these provisions.

What assurance could there be that the hon. the Minister could not decide to act against such a meeting, for some reason or another, if there is nothing in the legislation to define precisely what is meant by it? That is why I want to know why the hon. the Minister does not come along with legislation which says precisely what it means. According to the argument of the hon. member for Potchefstroom we have now reached that agreement, because he says it has a different meaning from what it might possibly have. That is the point at issue. If the hon. the Minister’s intention is what the hon. member for Potchefstroom says it is, why then does he not come along with a Bill which says only that and not something else as well?

†I also wish to move the amendment standing in my name, except that I shall not be moving the amendment in line 17. Therefore when I move my amendment, this part will fall away, but the rest of the amendment will be retained.

You are not moving the amendment to line 17?

That is correct. This amendment has to do with cases where the Minister is satisfied that feelings of hostility will be engendered between the European inhabitants and the other inhabitants. In the first instance he mentions “any gathering in any area” in subsection (4)(a)(i). In subsection (4)(a)(ii) the other possibility is mentioned, namely “a specified gathering or any kind of gathering”. The first difficulty which arises is how in fact to interpret the two different subparagraphs. I believe that subparagraph (i) can be interpreted in two ways. It can be interpreted to mean that if the Minister is satisfied that feelings of hostility may be engendered at any gathering, he will ban such gathering. Therefore if any gathering at all is going to have that effect, the Minister can take action against such a gathering. That is the one meaning it can have. However, if it has that meaning—and it is the contention that it should have that meaning—one fails to see what the meaning of sub-paragraph (ii) is.

Which subsection?

Subsection (4). What I am explaining, is that I want to effect the amendment because I am having difficulties with the interpretation of sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii). I want to make the meaning of these paragraphs clear.

†If it has this first mentioned interpretation, subparagraph (ii) becomes inexplicable because if the Minister says that he is satisfied that “any gathering” will have this effect of creating hostility, then surely “any gathering” must include a “specified gathering or any kind of gathering”? Therefore the only other interpretation which can be put on the words is that if any gathering at all is to take place, feelings of hostility will be created. My amendment is levelled against this second interpretation, and will have the effect of altering subsection (4), from line 19, to the following—

This underwrites the first interpretation, namely that if the Minister feels that “any gathering” is going to have the effect of creating hostilities, he can ban such gathering. In other words, he will not be able to ban all gatherings because he believes that all gatherings have the effect of creating hostility. He will only be able to ban such gatherings as he feels will create hostility. This is the object of the amendment which I wish to move. I feel that if this coincides with the object of the Deputy Minister in this regard and if he believes that my interpretation is correct, he should accept this amendment in order to put it beyond dispute that he only wishes to ban such meetings as will create hostility and does not wish to drag into his net other meetings which are not going to create hostility. I move the following amendments—

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one point in regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave. In this regard we differ from the approach of the hon. member for Potchefstroom. There are two factors in regard to the powers which are to be given to magistrates and to the Minister. The magistrates’ reason for prohibiting must be motivated, and in terms of these provisions he is motivated when he apprehends that public peace will be seriously endangered. That is his motivation for prohibiting. For the moment we leave out what he can prohibit. So far as the Minster is concerned, in terms of the new section 2(3) the Minister may, if he deems it necessary or expedient for the maintenance of public peace, do certain things. In terms of subsection (4) the Minister may act “whenever in the opinion of the Minister there is reason to apprehend that feelings of hostility would be engendered between the White inhabitants” and other inhabitants of the Republic. What I am trying to put across to the hon. the Deputy Minister—and I hope he will deal with this—is the justification for action being taken. The motivation falls within these categories. But once that motivation has entered the mind of the Minister or the magistrate and he then prohibits, that prohibition has nothing to do with the motivation any longer, because it then becomes the object of his prohibition, which is any gathering. As the hon. member for Potchefstroom conceded, that means all gatherings within an area. The only limitation then is to be found in the definition of a gathering, viz. people gathered together for a common purpose. That is the whole gravamen of our complaint in this regard, viz. that once there is motivation on the part of the Minister and the magistrate, persons then have no power to meet in any way whatsoever if they are meeting for a common purpose. I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to deal with that aspect.

While I am on my feet, may I just raise one further point in regard to the new section 2(4). This is a provision which appears in the Act now, empowering the Minister to act when he has reason to apprehend that feelings of hostility would be engendered between the White inhabitants of the Republic on the one hand and any other section of the inhabitants of the Republic on the other hand. This is obviously an old approach which indicates the priority of attitudes towards race relations 60 years ago; it was then purely a matter of White/ Black relations. I believe the attitude was also one where there was a sine qua non that there could not be anything to worry about unless the Whites formed one part of the possibly hostile atmosphere. The exclusion of possible hostility where race or other groups are concerned, to the exclusion of the Whites, is something which I think should be considered afresh. In other words, there can be hostility between the various ethnic groups and communities, whether they be Coloureds, Indians or Bantu. I think that, while our ancestors or antecedents in this Parliament were all most concerned with Black/White relations in the sphere of race relations, today the position is different.

Order! I do not think the hon. member should take that too far because he is dealing with the principal Act now.

What I want to say, Sir, is that I have an amendment which I want to move in a moment in regard to this matter and that I think, since we are dealing with the principal Act, this is an opportunity for us to take cognizance of the fact that tribal conflicts or conflicts between ethnic groups can arise or can be fermented between different ethnic groups in this country. The hon. the Minister is not now empowered to act if that is the type of hostility or conflict which occurs because the Whites must form one portion of the opposing forces. I believe that today we are concerned with all contact between all groups and communities within the South African context. I want to move an amendment which, I hope, will indicate my views on this matter. The hon. the Deputy Minister may have some difficulty in dealing with it at this stage because of the nature of the amendment I am moving in relation to the Bill before us, but I would commend this matter to him as something that needs consideration. Consequently, I move as an amendment—

In other words, the hon. the Deputy Minister must be satisfied that the hostilities would be created not necessarily with the Whites forming one section and the non-Whites the other, but also between different communities.

Order! I must inform the hon. member that I have considered the amendment he has just moved. I have to point out that the amendment contained in this Bill before the Committee does not affect the provision relating to the engendering of hostilities embodied in section 2 of the principal Act. Accordingly, I regret that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 59(1), I have to rule that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment as it is not relevant to the subject matter of this Bill. I must also further point out that the amendment in any case introduces a new and important principle which was not contemplated at the Second Reading.

On a point of order. Sir, I was permitted by Mr. Speaker during the Second Reading to deal with the very question which is the subject of this amendment. I was permitted to do so on the basis, presumably, that it was relevant to the Pill. It was not out of order, but came within the confines of the amendments which were being proposed.

Order! I have given my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I am almost sorry about the last amendment which the hon. member wanted to get in but which is obviously out of order. I too thought that it would be out of order, but I think that it would in fact have been a good amendment. In any event, I can hold out to the hon. member the consolation that what he wanted to achieve by means of his amendment, can quite possibly be achieved in terms of the proposed new section 2(1), i.e. the general provision. If he looks at it, he will see that it refers to the case “whenever… the public peace would be seriously endangered”. That subsection could be used to achieve what the hon. member wanted. Nevertheless, as I have said, this is something which is out of order.

With reference to what the hon. member for Musgrave said, I want to point out that what is really involved here is social gatherings. It is obvious that hon. members are worried, and quite rightly so, about the possibility that social gatherings may be affected by this Bill when we place a blanket ban on all meetings. I think that is what the hon. member for Jeppes is concerned about. Am I right?

Yes.

That matter was decided for once and for all in the case of Rex v. Kahn. There is no doubt about it in that regard, and in the Kahn case reported in the South African Law Reports, 1955 (3), page 177, an Appeal Court case, this is stated quite categorically—

†That is the “common purposes” ingredient—

Then the following—

It could, for example, be a simple bridge party, although it may have the said ingredient. There is no intention to achieve anything by concerted action. Lan’s case was entirely different, because on the facts, it contained concerted action which had the objective to achieve something. So, in actual fact, it is not correct to keep on using Lan’s case here as an authority, simply as regards “common purpose”. What actually happened in Lan’s case was that the authority of Kahn’s case was applied in Lan’s case. On the facts of Lan’s case, it was found that those people were guilty of the offence. So this is the position with Lan’s case. It is no use the hon. member for Musgrave keeping on throwing Lan’s case at me, because Kahn’s case was applied in Lan’s case. It was actually mentioned by name in Lan’s case. These principles were taken out and applied to those particular facts. That is why I said to hon. members that I cannot think of all the various circumstances which can arise in terms of this legislation. There are umpteen things which could possibly happen. It is, after all, for the court to finally decide how the facts fit the law. It is their job; not ours. All I can lay down, is the principles we want to apply. So there is this one safeguard private people have that social gatherings are not included. The common purpose is already being applied by our courts not to include a purely social gathering. But there is a further safeguard, which is to be found in the wording of the Bill itself. I would just like to take hon. members back for a moment to the relevant provision. I quote—

1. (a) by any gathering in his district; or
2. (b) by a particular gathering or any kind of gathering at a particular place or in a particular area or wheresoever in his district,

That is referring to (a)—

This is referring to paragraph (b)—

Now the safeguard follows with these words—

In other words, the magistrate or the Minister can make exclusions.

Will he?

Of course he will! Why will he not?

I just want to hear you say so.

Of course, he certainly will. Would the hon. member like me to repeat it? If there is any possibility of this sort of thing happening in Sea Point, he is going to say that all bridge parties in Sea Point would be excluded. We do not want them to stop playing “klawerjas”; they can carry on. If they want to play “klawerjas” in Sea Point, they are welcome to do so. We do not mind.

Or a game of “jukskei” in Pretoria North!

Or a game of “jukskei” in Pretoria North, certainly! We will exclude that.

What do they play in Houghton?

Whatever they play there, we will allow it. But these are the two safeguards, quite clearly set out in the Bill.

Could you not specify what you want prohibited instead of giving exemptions?

No, but you must give an exemption. I will repeat what I said for the hon. member’s sake. You do not know where this thing is going to break out. You have information that there is going to be a disruption of the peace, but you cannot pinpoint the exact spot where the meeting is going to start, so you have to make a general prohibition first of an area. Then you could apply the normal exemptions of social gatherings if you like.

We say a specified area.

Then again, you can go one further. You cannot always confine it to a small area. This is one of these things that runs like water. One cannot stop them and so one has to legislate for them.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I come to the amendment of the hon. member for Florida. I cannot accept this amendment because I do not think that he has read this provision correctly.

He cannot understand it.

I want to quote it as he quoted it to me—

This refers again to the proposed new subsection (4)(a)(i)—

This, apparently, the hon. member did not see. It refers to any gathering in any area. That is the gathering referred to in the proposed new subsection (4)(a)(i) or a specified gathering as provided for in the proposed new subsection (4)(a)(ii). There is nothing wrong with that. It is exactly the same. I cannot see what the difficulty of the hon. member is in this regard.

He does not know himself.

In the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept his amendments. One has been ruled out of order and the other amendment is one which I do not really feel I should consider seriously.

Mr. Chairman, this is very interesting. The hon. member for Bloemfontein District has informed this Committee that the powers contained in the proposed new subsections (1)(a) and (b) and (3)(a) and (b) are the same.

That is not what I said.

They give the same sort of powers.

That is not what I said.

What did the hon. member say then?

I shall explain later.

I hope that the hon. member will do so because I am sure the Committee will be grateful for his views. If I misunderstood him, I hope that he will clarify the position. I shall not take the matter any further at this stage until I have heard the hon. member.

Now, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister has made the most interesting speech of all. During the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attitude was that we were talking nonsense, that there was no question of a blanket ban in this regard and that he had to apply his mind to specific bans in various places. The objection we have raised all along in this regard is that if you have a blanket ban with the kind of definition that exists in the Bill in respect of “gathering”, because it no longer applies only to public places, you could unwittingly, and I go so far as to say inevitably, if the blanket ban were to be applied, catch in your net all kinds of people having a common purpose and meeting in private who have nothing whatsoever to do with a disturbance of the public peace. The argument that was advanced throughout the Second Reading debate was: This is nonsense; we will not do such a thing. The word “all” does not mean everyone, it does not mean a blanket ban. If you look at the Afrikaans text you will find that “all” means “enige”, and “enige” and “all” are two quite different things. That was the argument. Now, however, the hon. the Deputy Minister has let the cat out of the bag. The argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister is now that blanket bans are possible in respect of all gatherings in respect of an area, gatherings or more than two people having a common purpose, in private or in public. Not only does he now admit that what we said during the Second Reading debate is so, he has proceeded, in the speech he has just made, to justify it. What does he say? He says that you find the situation in which you do not know where some unlawfulness will take place.

I said that all along.

He says now that you do not know where this is going to happen. You just have information—a marvellous word!—that it might break out at some meeting somewhere in Cape Town. He says that you have therefore to make a general prohibition first. These are not my words. Let nobody here think that I am exaggerating, as I was accused of doing during the Second Reading debate. These are the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister has told us that if he gets information that something might happen somewhere in Cape Town, then one has to make a general prohibition first.

The whole of the Western Province.

That is right; so he makes his general prohibition first. He has now admitted that in fact this can happen, but furthermore he says that it will happen. In fact, he goes so far as to say that if you have information that it may happen, you have got to make a general prohibition first. But, Mr. Chairman, what the hon. the Deputy Minister then goes on to say is this: Having imposed a general blanket ban on all gatherings in Cape Town or in the Western Province, he says that you can exclude certain meetings. The example that he gave was that you can exclude all bridge parties in Sea Point or any other kind of meeting. But, Sir, this begs the whole question. The hon. the Deputy Minister has now himself admitted that in fact he cannot apply the powers under paragraph (a), that is to say, the blanket provision, without bringing into the net people who should not be there, and he admits that by saying that having imposed a blanket ban he can exclude various people. This is the whole fallacy of it, Sir. How can he possibly think of all the lawful, legitimate meetings of people which are taking place in private and which have nothing to do with the disturbance of public peace? How does he know; what is he going to exclude? Is he going to exclude only bridge drives and beetle drives? Is he going to exclude only meetings of boards of directors? What about all the other meetings where there is a common purpose? The hon. the Deputy Minister has just admitted that our argument in the Second Reading debate was absolutely correct, and that in fact if you use the powers under paragraph (a) you inevitably enmesh lots of people who should not be in the net and he himself has admitted that he will then have to exclude people taking part in bridge drives and so on. Sir, this is no way to legislate. This is not the kind of legislation that you require to prevent disturbances of the public peace. Is it not much easier, Sir, to specify the kind of meetings that you wish to prohibit? Because if the hon. the Deputy Minister gets some information, then the information he is going to get is not going to be that there is going to be some kind of meeting about something, but that the purpose of the meeting is not known; he is going to get information that there is likely to be a meeting relating to a particular subject, or something of that sort, and then he can use these specific powers and either ban a specific meeting or a meeting of a certain kind in the area. That is the sort of information that one would expect him to have. Sir, it is much easier to do it that way—positively—than to put a blanket over the whole thing and then try to exclude all these situations of which he could never be aware. The hon. the Deputy Minister has now let the cat out of the bag and justified everything that has been said on this side of the House at the Second Reading. Having said what he said, it now behoves the hon. gentleman to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave.

My argument, in reply to the hon. member for Durban North, is that the hon. member for Musgrave’s amendment does not meet what he tried to tell us here, namely that he is objecting to powers granted to either the magistrate or the Minister to impose a blanket ban on gatherings. My argument is that if one chooses to ignore the existence of paragraph (a), one finds that it is still stated here—and we must only judge it according to what is stated here—that the magistrate or the Minister, as the case may be, may prohibit every gathering in his district. In other words, my argument is merely that the hon. member’s amendment, as it stands, is half-baked and that he should reconsider it, because it does not take the matter any further. The hon. member wanted to know from me just what the object of paragraph (a) was. My reply to that is that paragraph (a) and paragraph (b), as they appear here, form part of what must be taken into consideration by the magistrate or the Minister. The granting of powers is embodied in clause 1 and not in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b). In other words, my argument is that the hon. member for Musgrave’s amendment is fruitless; it does not help us in the slightest.

I would like to deal with the hon. member for Bloemfontein West’s argument right away. I frankly fail to see what substance there is in his argument. The point about the amendment is this, that the proposed amendment introduced by the proposed section 2(1)(a) gives the Minister powers to ban all gatherings in a particular district.

The hon. member for Florida has already made that point clear.

Sir, if the hon. member for Carletonville wants to take part in this debate, he is welcome to do so, but he must not do so by way of interjection because he does not know much about the Bill.

Be more specific.

The amendment introduced by the proposed section 2(1)(a) enables the magistrate to institute a general ban on all gatherings in a particular district. The amendment introduced by the proposed section 2(l)(b)—and perhaps the hon. member for Bloemfontein West would listen to me now so that he can understand the position—enables him to deal with specific gatherings, a particular gathering or any kind of gathering at a particular place, or in a particular area, that is to say, any kind of gathering in a particular area, and not just a blanket gathering in a particular area. You must read that subject to the words which went before, “any kind of gathering in a particular area or wheresoever in his district”. In other words, (b) relates to a specific or particular meeting, or to a meeting of a particular kind, and we have no objection to that. Paragraph (a) deals, however, with an entirely different situation. It deals with the blanket banning of all types of gatherings in a particular district. That is the difference. That is why I am moving the amendment standing in my name, which relates specifically to the blanket provisions under (a) of subsections (1) and (3).

Does the hon. member concede that if we remove from paragraph (a) the words “any gathering in his district or”, we still find in the body of paragraph (1), the following words: “may prohibit for a period not exceeding 48 hours every gathering”. Does he concede that “every gathering” is such a gathering as he has in mind…

The remaining portion of subsection (1) must obviously be read in relation to (a) and (b), because the test of the meaning of the gathering is different, whether it is a gathering under paragraph (a) or under paragraph (b). So you cannot interpret subsection (1) in he way in which the hon. member for Bloemfontein West is trying to do, because then you cannot give to the word “gathering” the two different meanings which it is given in terms of the definition. So, in other words, you have to read the rest of subsection (1) as meaning the gathering which he is dealing with under either (a) or (b).

Now I want to go back to the case of Rex v. Lan, which was dealt with by the hon. member for Potchefstroom. He referred to the case of Dudley v. the Minister of Justice where the case of Rex v. Lan was dealt with and he read the passage which says

I should be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister would listen to this. What I have just read out is this—

In other words, what is being stressed in this portion of the judgment in Dudley’s case is that the mere attendance at the meeting is not sufficient. Lan’s case was concerned with whether the charge set out the case.

I dealt with Fan’s case in your absence.

Yes, I believe so, but I am not satisfied with the explanation which I understand was given while I was away. What the Appellate Division is saying in Dudley’s case is that you must have more than a mere attendance at the meeting; you must have attendance with a view to concerted action—in other words, a discussion of some sort to take action of some sort. There is therefore no difference in principle between what is said by the judge in Dudley’s case and the principle enunciated in Fan’s case which is that a meeting of workers at which they discuss certain conditions of employment and conditions of pay with a view to taking action to get those improved, would fall within the definition of an assembly or a meeting with a common purpose intending concerted action. The point I make again is that the case of Rex v. Lan makes it perfectly clear that a meeting in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act which has no sinister object, which has no object of creating riotous conditions, but has merely the object of improving the lot of the workers, is, in fact, an assembly with a common purpose intending concerted action. It could therefore be banned in terms of the general ban which the magistrate or the Minister is entitled to introduce in terms of paragraph (a) of these two subsections.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal further with the remarks of the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to my previous amendments and I should like to refer to my first amendment, which reads as follows—

†It boils down to exactly the same thing, to what was said as regards the other amendment. It refers to the powers of blanket banning. It is perhaps easier to explain it in this particular context. The proposed sub-section (1) reads—

1. (a) by any gathering in his district; or
2. (b) by a particular gathering or any kind of gathering…

he may prohibit for a period not exceeding forty-eight hours every gathering in his district…

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave seeks to delete (a). Even if (a) is deleted, I wish to make clear the actual power that can be taken. You will have that qualified by the insertion of the word “such”. This means he may prohibit for a period not exceeding 48 hours every “such” gathering. “Such” refers back to every gathering or any kind of gathering that is going to endanger public peace. I think this is what the hon. the Deputy Minister wants. He does not want to hit meeting which are not going to endanger public peace. It is his avowed purpose to hit only meetings which will endanger public peace. Therefore if we put in the word “such” there can be no doubt that it refers to meetings which will endanger public peace.

I wish to come back to the amendment that I have moved previously. It seeks to do exactly the same thing. At the moment paragraph (b) of the proposed new subsection (4) read—

My amendment will delete the references to paragraphs (a)(i) and (a)(ii) and will only say “such gathering”. That is why I make reference to the two possible interpretations to paragraph (a)(i), because if “any” means “all”, the power is too wide. That will mean that he can in fact ban all gatherings. However, if “any” means any meeting which will engender hostilities, it will be sufficient to say “such” a meeting. That is the only purpose of my amendment. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister can see the point of my argument. I am in fact trying to make more certain of exactly what we are referring to so that we can reach some grounds of argument at which we can be ad idem.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand quite well what the hon. member means. In my humble opinion, the hon. member for Florida is correct, i.e. if I were to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave. If I were to accept that amendment, it would be necessary to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Florida. The amendment is consequent upon the amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave.

The hon. the Deputy Minister can accept the amendment even though he does not accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave.

I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Florida if I do not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave. I have already indicated that I do not see my way clear to accepting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave. I want to tell the hon. member for Florida that I am of the opinion that the wording, as it appears in the Bill, refers to any gathering. Therefore, it is still correct, but “any gathering” can also refer to any gathering which may disturb the peace. This is how it should be. We know that, in this respect, we may have to deal with cases when one does not know where they are likely to break out so that the entire area is, as it were, contaminated by such a possibility. The hon. member would like to tie me down to a specific gathering now…

Such gathering.

… or such gathering. To my mind this Bill, as it stands, means that that entire prohibition is applicable to gatherings in that area, because that is what is relevant here. It concerns with gatherings which may disturb the peace and nothing else. The hon. member has told us his problem, but my problem is that we are unable to know exactly where and when something of this nature will occur. In cases where we do know, we take action in terms of the new section 2(l)(b). When we do not know where it is going to break out, we have no alternative and have to take action in terms of the new section 2(1)(a), which refers to all gatherings. When that outbreak does occur, the same considerations as we have had up to now, apply. Therefore, I regret that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer to the new interpretation given by the hon. the Deputy Minister with regard to “any gathering” when he accepted the view that any gathering would really mean all gatherings within an area, but that the proclamation issued either by the hon. the Deputy Minister or by a magistrate, would make the necessary exemptions. This is a strange admission to make, because we had the hon. the Deputy Minister contesting very strongly the viewpoint of this side of the House. Now that he accepts it, one is led to believe that we will have a similar system as that in regard to job reservation under the Industrial Conciliation Act which is observed today more in the breach than in its observance. The hon. the Minister of Labour has admitted that approximately only 2% of our labour today is subject to job reservation; the rest are exempted. What is going to happen here? A blanket prohibition will be issued and applications will stream in either to the magistrate or to the Minister of Justice asking for exemption. Are we going to have a repetition of this sort of thing once again with another bureaucratic section established which is going to deal purely with exemptions whenever these proclamations are made? That is why we think the purpose is fallacious and we cannot understand the insistence on the part of the hon. the Deputy Minister in preserving these two provisions, because in any event, he concedes that there will have to be exclusions and that these will have to be announced by proclamation. The hon. member for Green Point put a question correctly to him, namely whether it would not be better to specify the area. I realize the difficulty, but if you want to have everything your own way, because there may be a difficulty here or there, you are really adopting a completely bureaucratic attitude. No Government in the world can make provision for everything. We realize that. You just make provision for what you believe is a situation that can occur, a situation which you know you must meet, but you can tie the whole community up in chains with laws such as these to provide for any instance which you have not been able to visualize. How can you run a country on that basis? Nobody could even run a business properly on that basis. There are businesses which amount to thousands of millions of rand in this country. Do they make provision for every possible contingency? I feel that is a very bad argument on the part of the hon. the Deputy Minister and that it completely justifies the case we have made, namely that you must deal with a specific eventuality as best you can. I cannot imagine another instance cropping up, because there are so many other laws to cover any excesses which may take place on the part of any subversive elements in this country. Surely the hon. the Minister’s department has all the powers in the world to deal with them. We are dealing with certain instances under the Riotous Assemblies Act and the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to make it absolutely comprehensive. Then we will have another department set up to deal with the exemptions. I believe this is a very poor way of handling the situation.

I now move as an amendment—

In the few minutes left at my disposal, I want to refer the hon. the Deputy Minister to the case of a person who does not know what has happened. In his case, there has been provision made that, if he is not aware of it, he would have a defence in regard to any infringement of the provisions of the proposed subsection 2(6). However, there is one further proviso there, i.e. “if the prohibition has not been published in the Gazette”. In other words, if it has been published in the Gazette, the fact that he is ignorant thereof is no excuse at all. I put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that on the average not many people in the community look at the Gazette. The Gazette is looked at by people who are interested in it, such as legal people and business people who have to deal with it in the course of their business affairs. The average man in the street, who might very innocently attend a meeting, will find himself technically guilty of having attended that meeting because the prohibition had been published in the Gazette. A large percentage of our community is non-White. I am not referring specifically to Bantu, but generally the vast majority of the people in this country—some 16 Million or 8 million—are non-Whites. These people certainly very seldom read the Gazette. The same applies to the average working man. Take the people of the hon. the Minister of Transport on the Railways. There are 230 000 people working on the Railways and I am quite sure that 200 000 of them never see the Gazette. They do not even know it, let alone read it. I do not think that this is a very vital matter in the Bill, but I think that the exclusion of this as a line of defence is not a sound measure. The moment a prohibition is published in the Gazette, it virtually makes everyone liable irrespective of the fact that he is completely and utterly innocent. Therefore I think that this is not an unreasonable amendment to put before the Committee and I think it is one to which the hon. the Deputy Minister should give very full and careful consideration. We all realize, particularly the legal people, that if there is a breach of the law, it must not go unpunished, but a man must have the right to defend himself; he must prove certain circumstances in terms of the law. However, this one provision whereby, in a sense, ignorance of the law is no excuse, puts the matter in an entirely different light in that, according to certain specific provisions which we have in our law, the innocent man has to prove he is not guilty and it is not for the prosecution to prove that he has committed the offence. This is virtually the type of category in which this person would fall. Under those circumstances, I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to give special consideration to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. members of the Opposition, as the hon. member for Jeppes has just done, make the issue of an overall prohibition by a magistrate in a particular district too absolute, and they forget that many other powers are being granted to the magistrate in the same clause as a result of which there are many other alternatives open to him besides placing an overall prohibition on a gathering. What is actually being granted to a magistrate in terms of this clause, is a discretion to take a decision according to circumstances and according to the facts compelling him to think that the peace is being threatened. He may decide to prohibit only a particular gathering, or he may decide to prohibit only a certain kind of gathering, or if he feels that the situation is of a serious nature, he may assume the widest powers to place an overall prohibition on gatherings. Surely, to conjure up spectres as if every prohibition of every magistrate is going to be an absolute prohibition affecting all gatherings in a district, is not what is going to happen in practice. Surely, our magistrates are sensible people. They are in any case going to consider the particular circumstances prevailing in every case and decide only then whether a case is of such a serious nature that they have to place an absolute prohibition on gatherings, or whether a case is of a less serious nature, as a result of which they may decide only to prohibit a particular gathering. That is the first point I wish to make.

Secondly, there is a point those hon. members do not want to accept, i.e. that a great number of the gatherings they are concerned about, do not qualify in terms of the definition, because there is no common object. Half the number of the examples they have quoted, therefore, do not apply because they are not, in terms of this clause, gatherings which are prohibited. This applies only in respect of exceptional cases and there one may perhaps appreciate their concern, but then the solution is that, as was indicated by the hon. the Deputy Minister, the magistrate has the power to decide that such a gathering may, in fact, take place. To take this clause out of its context and present it in their speeches as if the Government is contemplating an absolute ban to be placed on all gatherings in every district every now and then, is really to create a wrong impression among the public outside.

Huh, what a cheek, Mr. Chairman, to say that some mistaken impression will be created amongst the public outside! I do not know whether the hon. member was listening just now when the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke, but the hon. the Deputy Minister agreed with the points of view we expressed during the Second Reading debate, namely, that if you use the blanket powers provided for in paragraph (a), you will enmesh all sorts of activities which have nothing whatsoever to do with law and order. He admitted it here just now. In fact, the hon. the Deputy Minister went much further than we did. In fact, so far as misleading the people outside is concerned, if anyone misled the people outside, that hon. Deputy Minister and those hon. gentlemen did so during the Second Reading debate of this Bill. It is now quite clear from what the hon. the Deputy Minister said that, not only can this happen, but, to use the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister, it has got to happen. This is what he has said, namely that one does not know when something will break out. One gets information but one does not know where it is actually going to break out; so one has to make a general prohibition first. That is what he said. We never went as far as that but the hon. the Deputy Minister has now gone that far. You now “got” to make a general prohibition. Then he went on to say that you can exclude various things. He mentioned bridge parties. One is not concerned with bridge parties; one is concerned with all the myriads of private occasions where private people have a common purpose, as properly understood in Dudley’s case. Sir, think of all the gatherings there are! There are all sorts of church meetings, etc., which cannot be contemplated. Is the hon. Deputy Minister now going to say that the modus operandi in future is going to be to use a blanket provision whenever he hears that something is going to happen in Cape Town, for example? If he hears that there might be a meeting somewhere, is he going to put a blanket prohibition on all gatherings, and then excluding them? How many people will commit offences before he does? How will he know what to exclude? Just because he does not know what is happening throughout the length and breadth of Cape Town, or a province, as he suggested the prohibition might be extended to, how will he know what to exclude? How is he going to do it? Is everyone then going to have to live on the exemption of the Minister and feel they cannot have a meeting because there is so much doubt about the law as there would be if this Bill were passed, that they will have to ask for exemptions before they did anything? Is this the kind of restriction on lawful, proper, individual private activity with a common purpose that is desired by this Government? If it is so, let the Government say so so that people can understand what this Government in fact is after. That is our case proved. Let no other hon. gentleman ever say that we have exaggerated anything in this Bill and in those blanket provisions.

I hope that everyone will appreciate that we agree that magistrates are reasonable people. We are even prepared to go so far as to say that some Ministers are reasonable people. But the point is, and the fact is—this is what we said right from the beginning—no matter how reasonable you are, no matter how well intentioned you are, once you have exercised the blanket power, you cannot help enmeshing all sorts of people who should not be restricted. My chief witness for that is the hon. the Deputy Minister.

So far as the amendment of the hon. member for Florida is concerned, I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept that. The law at the moment, Sir… I beg your pardon, Sir, I mean the hon. member for Jeppes. He used to be the member for Florida, is that not so?

That is correct.

That is correct. When I first came to this House, the hon. member was the hon. member for Florida. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept this. The law at the moment—this has been the position for a long time—is that if you are charged in respect of any unlawful gathering, you have a good defence if you can prove to the court that you were not aware of the prohibition. That is a sensible provision—that you were not aware of the prohibition. And a fortiori, is it not a bood thing to have in your law now, because there are all kinds of new ways in which you can prohibit meetings? You can do this by means of the radio, you can do it orally, you can do it in all sorts of ways. What is provided in this Bill is that one does not have that defence—that one was not aware of it—if it was published in the Gazette. I want to say that one is more likely to know about it if it is broadcast over the radio or if it is in a newspaper circulating in the area, any newspaper, if it is done orally or if it is done by pamphlet or by notice on streets and buildings. One is much more likely to know about it under those circumstances than one is likely to know about it if it is published in the Gazette. I want to ask hon. gentlemen who get the Gazette, how many of the notices that appear in the Gazette do they read? It is quite impossible to read all of them in the same way as it is quite impossible for a medical practitioner to read all the medical journals. I hope therefore that the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppes because, in the new circumstances, the provision as it stands would be unreasonable.

I just want to tell the hon. member that the Gazette has generally been accepted as the manner in which to inform the public. I do not think hon. members will argue with me on this score. Whoever may read it or may not read it, is not at issue, as it is generally accepted that people should take note of everything published in the Gazette. In a great number of our laws we find the legal presumption that one has been aware of something once it is published in the Gazette. I can appreciate the argument of the hon. member, but when one deals with a riotous gathering and catches a number of the ring-leaders who have attended the gathering illegally, one has to be in a position, since one has made it known by means of the Gazette, to prevent these people from saying: “We did not hear it; the person did not speak loudly enough; we were not near the radio.” One should not facilitate matters for the ringleaders to get away. As far as the ringleaders are concerned, the people who try to stir up trouble, the people one wants to get hold of, one has to be in a position where one can say: It was published in the Gazette. This is normal way of making it known and if it is done in this way, one will have no defence. I may tell hon. members that in practice the position will be such that one will not be able to round up people indiscriminately. One will not be able to round up every person milling about at such a gathering. One will have to single out those people responsible for inciting others and stirring up trouble. In this case I do not think the provision is unreasonable. For these reasons I cannot accept that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the hon. the Deputy Minister is not prepared to accept any amendments.

[Inaudible.]

Well, I am glad to hear it, because I have an amendment on clause 7 as well. That is the only other amendment that I have, so I am glad to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister say that.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that it is an accepted fact that provisions of this nature are published in the Gazette. This is a maxim of law. It is a maxim of law—and everyone is presumed to know the law—which is followed by the direction that if it is to be law then it must appear in the Gazette. If it is not published in the Gazette, then it is not law. But, Sir, that is a different principle entirely from this. Here the principle is whether or not you knew of the prohibition of the meeting; it is simply that, and now it is a question of how best you can establish whether the meeting has been prohibited. The Bill itself provides for alternative ways of publishing the prohibition. We have the magistrate who may do so by notice in the Gazette, or by notice in a newspaper—that was there before—or by means of the radio—that was not there before, and we agree that it should be here—by causing notices to be distributed amongst the public or put in prominent places where the prohibition is to apply—that was there before as well—and by causing it to be announced orally where the prohibition is to apply. I may say in this context that before the law was that when you did it orally, it had to be by sufficient oral public announcement; now it simply says that it has to be announced orally. The word “sufficient” is excluded, but obviously this is going to be interpreted as meaning sufficient oral announcement. Sir, of all these methods of publication of the prohibition, publication in the Gazette is the one which is least likely to reach members of the public. In addition to that, Sir, we have the additional factor here that a new offence is created in respect of these exceptions, and the new offence is attending a meeting. One has the situation that anyone who attends that meeting commits an offence. How is a member of the public to know whether a meeting was or was not prohibited? If in fact he was in the vicinity when the prohibition was announced, he would know about it. If it appeared in the Gazette, he is not going to know about it. Sir, the other point I want to make in this connection is this: The Gazette is published either in Pretoria or in Cape Town. I know that my Gazettes do not arrive in Durban from Pretoria for four or five days, and we had this extraordinary situation in Durban the other day: When in the Government Gazette the speed limit was lifted, in terms of the fuel regulations, from 50 km to 60 km, the chief constable of Durban expressed the view that until the Gazette arrived in Durban, he was still going to prosecute people who exceeded 50 km an hour. In fact, once the Gazette is published, that is the law, and if it is intended to apply throughout the country, then it is the law right throughout the country, and if the Gazette is published in Pretoria and in Cape Town, then the people of Durban will not be aware of that prohibition until that Gazette reaches Durban. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister must know that this has happened before. When a state of emergency was proclaimed R. Ahrenstein was one of those whom the Police came to pick up in terms of the regulations. An application was made to court and he was in fact released. Habeas corpus was obtained for him because no one could produce a Gazette to the judge to say that in fact those regulations had been published. Sir, this is all very well for the people in Pretoria perhaps, and perhaps for the people in Cape Town, but this is quite unreasonable for anybody living in areas other than the areas in which the Gazette is published, and even in those areas it is not always resonable…

Especially if you have floods.

Yes, especially if you have floods. Sir, here we have this new offence which is being created, namely attending a meeting. If you have a Gazette published in Pretoria or Cape Town saying that all meetings of a certain kind are to be prohibited throughout the country—which is what the Minister has the power to do—then you can unwittingly go along and attend a meeting and break the law and you are not allowed to say you did not know it was a prohibited meeting, because it appeared in the Gazette, a Gazette which has not even reached Durban. That is point No. 1. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister, until he assumed this high office, was a practising advocate. He knows very well how difficult it is in any event to find out what is in a Gazette. It is absolutely impossible at times. He is aware of the case that went all the way to the Appellate Division in Bloemfontein, with two silks on either side, a case which started in the magistrate’s court about whether or not a certain levy had to be paid. They argued on the basis that it was something that had appeared in the Gazette and that that was the law. Having gone from there to the Supreme Court and from there to the Appeal Court, it was only in the course of argument in the Appeal Court, with silks on both sides, and with some £10 000 or £20 000 in legal fees having been spent, that someone discovered that that which they had been arguing about had been amended in one portion of a Gazette some 20 years before. That is the kind of problem we have. You are dealing here with people who are affected by blanket provisions, and I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give reconsideration to his attitude.

I want to return to subsections (1)(a) and (3)(a) and to seek information from the hon. the Deputy Minister. He has given us one example, one justification, for the need for these two Provisions. That justification was to quote the events on the Cathedral steps in June 1972. It is now February 1974. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us what events have occurred in the intervening 20 months with which the police have not been able to cope under the existing legislation.

I am not going to argue the principles of the Bill.

I am dealing with two provisions which we believe are unnecessary. We have accepted the principles of the Bill. That has been passed by this House, but we believe that these two provisions are unnecessary, and that they go beyond the requirements of the maintenance of law and order. What I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister to do is to tell us what events have occurred which make these two provisions, which we argue are unnecessary, necessary, and not only necessary, but so urgently necessary, so desperately urgently necessary, that this House has to suspend Standing Orders, take stages in one day, and have an all-night sitting, in order to get these two provisions on to the Statute Book as a matter of desperate urgency. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister (a) to justify that and (b) to reconcile it with the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister that South Africa enjoys a state of peace, law and order and that everything is under control. He said that we are in a state of peace; that we are in fact the only country in the world enjoying such security and peace as we enjoy here, and which cannot compare with any other in the world. That has been done under the existing provisions of the Act. We have had trouble in Durban, in Pinetown as well as in other places, labour troubles, where the police have acted with the utmost discretion, where they have been a model for any Police Force in the world. They have controlled those troubles, they have dealt with them and prevented unrest and uprisings, and they have prevented riots and other trouble, with the powers that exist. Now, surely if those powers were sufficient to control those difficulties, then the hon. the Deputy Minister should give us a justification for taking these total blanket powers to ban all gatherings. We accept the principle and we are not arguing about the principle of extending the provisions of the Bill to certain private areas, under private ownership. But what we want to know is what the justification is for these two particular powers. Up to now the hon. the Deputy Minister has not given us that justification other than something which happened in June 1972. The hon. member for Houghton says “This is to clobber Nusas”. I do not know why sh…

No, students; not Nusas.

Oh, students. Well, Nusas have not been so kind to her lately. I hear she is a racist representative of a racist party in this House. I can understand that that racist party must be a little sensitive about who gets clobbered. However, we do not have that guilty conscience and therefore we are not interested in defending Nusas like that. [Interjections.] We are interested in the broad mass of South African people.

I am interested in the broad mass of students.

I do not differentiate between a student and any other person. If a student commits an offence, then a student gets clobbered. If an adult commits an offence, the adult gets clobbered. I do not believe that youth is any excuse to be treated differently from any other citizen in South Africa. The law that applies to me and to any other person in South Africa applies equally to students. I do not believe that the fact that you are privileged to go to university gives you a right to do things which any other citizen would not enjoy and that you should have any greater protection under the law than any other citizen.

They should at least have as much…

We are dealing with the citizens of South Africa as a whole and the students should have as much as any other person and no more and therefore my concern is not a sectional concern; it is a concern for everyone. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Deputy Minister quoted students as the group who were to be dealt with under this clause and I am trying to find out what other justification exists or is this Bill to be passed only and solely for one group of people? In other words, is this Bill being aimed at one group, or is it a Bill to give security to the whole of South Africa…

[Inaudible.]

… and that has a lot to do with this measure. Well, then I challenge the hon. member for Potchefstroom to tell us the justification which we are seeking other than the reference, the repeated reference like a gramophone, to the Cathedral steps and the Cape Town riots. That is the only thing that everyone has quoted. We want to know what else, what other justification makes it so urgent. I am particularly interested in the urgency. I am not going to repeat any arguments or the question of urgency, but why this urgency? There is the conflict between what the hon. the Deputy Minister says and the alleged state of peace and quiet and harmony in South Africa. You cannot have both. Either there is peace, there is law and order which we believe there is and in which case you do not need draconian powers, or there is not. You cannot have it both ways. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will clarify that position for us.

Mr. Chairman, I have no intention whatsoever of making the Second Reading speech which I made on Friday in reply to the Second Reading debate again. I motivated this Bill and to the extent to which I was able to satisfy the hon. member I tried to satisfy him. The hon. member cannot expect me to sketch for him again from scratch what the political situation in Africa is. He is a student of politics. He is a professional politician and he ought to be able to work out for himself what this Bill is about. I am not going to help him with it again; I am sorry.

So I shall simply have to guess.

The hon. member can read it in my speech.

I heard it.

But then you have heard it; I cannot help you any further. The hon. member will simply have to work it out for himself; he need not guess. The hon. member must learn to read the signs of the times. The hon. member must consider the signs of the times with a little intelligence. He must then draw his own conclusions and he will know why we are introducing this Bill. Then he will not cross-question me about it.

You are panic stricken.

If one is interested in politics, one must be able to draw one’s own conclusions too. One must not simply ask questions here as if one were a child trying to catch the teacher out. In regard to the hon. member for Durban North. I want to tell the hon. member that as far as I am concerned, as a person who has a great deal to do with the Criminal Procedure Act, it is my view that when the matter of the Gazette is raised, the courts will consider whether the Gazette was easily obtainable by those persons. If the Gazette, for example, was not available on that day in Durban, I do not think the legal presumption contained in this legislation will succeed. In other words, the court will indeed consider whether the person was able to obtain the Gazette easily. Whether he has read it or not, is that person’s affair.

That is not what the Bill says.

That is my opinion. I told the hon. member for Durban North what my opinion was as to how the courts would approach this matter. I want to assure the hon. member for Durban North that the Minister or a magistrate will in any case use a combination of these methods of notifying people of a prohibited meeting. Quite probably they will publish it in the Gazette, but in addition use will be made of the radio and the people will be told by word of mouth that they should please take cognizance of the fact that the meeting has been prohibited. There can be a combination of these methods. This does not mean that the magistrate is restricted to only one method when there are five or six methods by which he can inform the public of what is happening. He can make use of all six methods, or he can make use of two. Quite probably he will always use the Gazette for the reason I furnished to the hon. member. The persons who are going to be caught will not be the people who merely stand there and listen, but will be the people who are stirring up trouble. In other words the ring-leaders will be sought out. I do not think that the hon. member for Durban North wants to make it too easy for the ring-leaders to get out from under the Act.

Mr. Chairman, I find the opinion expressed here by the hon. the Deputy Minister very difficult to understand. He said that he is convinced that a court will in such a case make 100% certain whether the Gazette was available or not at the time of the offence. This is all very well if one argues as the hon. the Deputy Minister does, but the point is that that defence is specifically excluded by this measure. It is being specifically excluded and stated that this will not comprise a defence. If evidence is adduced before the court that it did in fact appear in the Gazette, with what right can the court go into the question as to whether it was available to the person or not. If it appeared in the Gazette, he does not have the defence that he did not know about it. If the court should go into this matter, what it really amounts to is whether he knew about it or not.

The court cannot investigate whether he knew about it or not if it is proved in court that it appeared in the Gazette. This is after all the only framework there is. In view of what the hon. the Deputy Minister said at the start of this debate, namely that he was prepared to accept any reasonable amendment, I am astonished that he does not want to do so now. If there was ever a reasonable amendment it is most certainly the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppes. If the hon. the Deputy Minister wanted to show himself approachable in any way, if he wanted to show in any way that he was sincere in his intentions with this Bill, if he wanted to show that he was genuinely interested in producing a Bill which could achieve a reasonable measure of agreement in this House, he would at least have accepted an amendment such as this.

I want to say that the same applies to the amendment I put to the hon. the Minister. I cannot understand that the Minister can say on the one hand that he is convinced—he said this in his reply to me—that my amendment means precisely the same as what is stated at present in the Bill. But on the other hand he says that he cannot accept my amendment because it will restrict him and he must have wider powers than that. I cannot understand how the hon. Deputy Minister can make these two conflicting statements at the same time. I think he should make up his mind. We have now reached the stage when the hon. member for Durban North has stated that we are no longer discussing the interpretation of the measure. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already conceded to us in this debate that our interpretation of this measure from the beginning was quite correct. Now we can discuss objectives, and if the hon. the Deputy Minister says that he cannot agree with an amendment such as mine which provides that he will only be able to exercise his powers over “such gatherings”, viz. gatherings which could result in disorder, then it is in fact not a difference in interpretation between the two sides of the House but what it amounts to is a profound difference in principle. That is why I want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister in this way.

Now that we are no longer hiding behind possible interpretations, it has become quite clear that there is a very profound difference in principle. We want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we cannot under any circumstances accept that it is necessary to take such tremendously wide powers. Since the hon. the Deputy Minister is not in a position to control the situation in South Africa with normally reasonable powers such as a normally reasonable government ought to be able to do, and that he admits to such an extent that the matter has gone out of control and that he has to take absolutely authoritarian powers because he could not otherwise maintain himself in this country. I ask myself what he is trying to protect. Is he trying to protect democracy and the rights of South Africans, or is he trying to protect only the National Party? It seems to me as if the latter is what he is trying to do.

Question put: That paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the proposed new section 2 stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—97: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé,

G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—44: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Highes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

First amendment proposed by Mr. J. J. M. Stephens put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—44: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell. A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; King-will, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraen, H. A.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Noes—97: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Baden-horst, P. J.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison. G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. L; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer. A. J.; Rei-necke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw. W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk. Amendment accordingly negatived. Question put: That paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of the proposed new section 2 stand part of the Clause. Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—96: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer. A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—44: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher. E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hope-well, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw. W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wain-wright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Question put: That the words in lines 21, 22 and 23, page 7, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—97: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W. Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw E.; Malan, G. F.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison. G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé,

G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—44: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Stricher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Question put: That the words in lines 3 and 4, page 9, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—97: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—44: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—98: Aucampt, P. L. S.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—44: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. F.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the section of the Act which provides for the dispersal of prohibited or riotous gatherings. The main thrust of the amendments contained in this clause is that it is no longer necessary for the police officer who feels that it is necessary to disperse a meeting to say three times in each official language that at a time specified by him if they have not so departed, force will be used. The amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper is to provide that when the officer so orders them to disperse within a time specified by him, he shall also tell them that if they do not so disperse, then force will be used. The law at the moment is that he has to warn them to disperse within a time specified. He has to warn them three times in each official language and then he has to warn them that if they do not disperse, force will be used. Our attitude to this is that in so far as calling out three times in each official language is concerned there are circumstances where this is unreasonable. The policeman, after all, is there and he has to exercise his judgment in a very difficult situation. He has to make split-second decisions and an awful lot depends on what he says. If he has to say this three times in each of the official languages plus the vernacular, which they always try to do, then of course it may be too late and the scene may get out of hand. However, by the same token it also would not take very much longer if he were to say to the crowd in each of the official languages that they must disperse within three minutes and that if they do not disperse, force will be used. It seems to us that it is reasonable to expect that the officer should do that, as he has had to do for the last 60 years in our country. Apart from anything else there are people in these situations who do not know that if they do not disperse, force will be used. It seems to us that it would be reasonable and proper if that were to continue and I therefore in that spirit move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the unfortunate position again that I cannot accept in full the motivation of the hon. member for Durban North. The information I received from the police is to the effect that, in the cases they experienced, in particular the case in front of St. George’s Cathedral, they found that the people became worked up even further when the warning was issued that force would be used. Surely, the whole object is to try to ensure that the peace is not disturbed when trouble such as this occurs. I cannot understand the hon. member’s argument when he now says that it is better to follow this practice since it has been the practice during the past 60 years for the police to issue such a warning. When matters have developed to the stage where the police have to warn the people to disperse, the situation at the meeting has deteriorated to such an extent that it should be clear to everyone that, if the people do not disperse before a certain time, the police are likely to charge or use tear gas. I agree with the police that one should use as few extra words as possible which may cause the crowd, which has already become riotous, from becoming even more so. If words have to be used, it should be words that have a calming effect, rather than words warning people that force will be used to disperse them. In a situation such as this, when the feelings of people have been incited to such an extent, it is normal for them to say to the police: “Come and do it, and we shall see.” In this way a confrontation is being created. It means that it has been caused by the police. It is simply not a good thing for the police to issue such a warning. For that reason I do not see my way clear to accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, we agree that as few words as possible should be used. In other words, we agree that the warning does not have to be given three times in each official language which makes a total of six times. We concede that.

Not a warning but a threat.

Is it not desirable that you warn them that if they do not disperse, force will be used? You are warning them to disperse within a specified time. If they do not in fact disperse, what happens? Do you suddenly rush in and “donder” them…?

Order!

… without warning them that this is likely to happen? I think the value of telling them that if they do not disperse, force will be used, lies on the effect it may have of causing them to diperse as soon as possible so as to avoid the use of force. I cannot accept the hon. the Minister’s argument that this involves too many words.

It is not that it involves too many words, but experience has shown that those words may cause a further confrontation. It causes a further confrontation because it is regarded as a challenge by these chaps.

There cannot be a further confrontation when you have got to the stage where you say: “Look, I am sorry this meeting cannot continue; so now I am warning you to disperse within one minute.” All you have to add to it now is: “Otherwise force will be used to disperse you.” That means that they must disperse and if they do not they know that force is going to be used. Is it the experience of the police in respect of all such gatherings or just the gatherings of students which were dispersed during the course of the last year?

I have had a general report from the police saying that every time they use these words in these particular circumstances, it actually causes further confrontation. Now we are trying to avoid that.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that he has had a report from the police. Could he give us some indication as to the sort of situation which caused the experience they have had?

It is not a report on particular cases, but in general.

In the light of the explanation given by the hon. the Deputy Minister I shall withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Title put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—97: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan. G. F.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—43: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. Van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman. H.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and. J. O. N. Thompson.

Title accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has been introduced at the end of a short session and special provisions have had to be made to alter our rules to enable the Bill to be passed before Parliament is dissolved. It is therefore regarded as an emergency measure.

In countries ruled by fascists or dictators, they do not have to have laws of this nature to deal with riotous assemblies as they have other methods of controlling disturbances of that nature. We know, too, that in Nazi Germany riots were in fact encouraged if the rioters had the right motives, such as to quell opposition or to terrorize the population into accepting Hitler’s rule. In democratic countries there is provision for all Governments to take special powers to deal with emergencies, disruptions of law and order, and they can do so by declaring a state of emergency. If the matter is not so serious as to warrant the declaration of a state of emergency, there are other methods of dealing with riotous assemblies. All democratic countries make provision for laws of that nature. In this country, South Africa, we have our law which has been on the Statute Book now for over 60 years. We have no objection to laws of this nature to control riotous assemblies. In fact, we made it quite clear that we uphold that law and that we are prepared, if necessary, to change legislation to meet changing circumstances. However, it must be made quite clear to us what the changing circumstances are and why it is necessary to change the law. As I say, the existing legislation has been on the Statute Book for over 60 years, since 1914. Only small amendments have been made to the law since then. One would expect where legislation of this nature, which has stood the test of time, is to be amended, we would be given the clearest reasons for the necessity for the amendment, especially in the case where the amendments go as far as they do in this particular Bill.

What is the main object of this Bill? It has been made quite clear to us that the object of the Bill is to extend the provisions of the Act to private places. At the moment the hon. the Deputy Minister contends, as justification for that, that he can only deal with riotous assemblies in public places. He points out that an assembly can start in a public place and spill over to a private place and vice versa and that he then needs the necessary authority to act. That is the main reason he has given us for the amendment embodied in this Bill. He told us that and we, accordingly, moved an amendment to fit the case. The hon. member for Durban North has moved an amendment which would have fitted the case of the hon. the Deputy Minister. However, he is not prepared to accept it. The reason why he will not accept it, is that he wants the special provisions contained in the proposed new subsections 2 (1)(a) and 2(3Xa) which give him or a magistrate the power to ban any gathering—in the case of the magistrate, a gathering in his district and, in the case of the Minister, any gathering elsewhere. We are against control which will result in the unwarranted and unjustified interference in the private lives and rights of individuals to an extent not necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order. Because of that attitude, which we made quite clear also in our amendment to the Second Reading, we shall oppose this measure too.

We have questioned the hon. the Deputy Minister at length as to the reason for the changes he seeks. Why does he want to be able to ban any gathering? He, in reply, said during the Committee Stage that he had given his reasons in his Second Reading speech. I have read through his Second Reading speech again, but I cannot find his reasons. When the hon. the Deputy Minister was replying to the Second Reading debate, he dealt with the terrorist threat in the North, Communism and all the other insurgent movements which could perhaps threaten us. During the course of this speech, the hon. member for Musgrave interjected and said—

The hon. member for Durban Point and other members have repeated the question, but time and again we get no reply from him. In reply to the hon. member for Musgrave, the hon. the Deputy Minister said—

However, he never came to it. What did he deal with? He mentioned the case of the students in the Cape who had appealed and he said he was glad these students had appealed because it gave the court a chance to set out the law. He went on to say that he was now changing the Act to meet the circumstances brought about by the judgments in that case. But what was the judgment in that case? What was it about? It was about the number of people on the Cathedral steps. It had nothing to do with any meeting anywhere. I submit that the answer the Deputy Minister has given us, has not satisfied us on that point.

Sir, this is not the way to introduce important legislation of this nature in this House, legislation which is going to affect so many people so drastically. I submit that it is unreasonable of him to ask this House to give him power to pass legislation to be tested in the courts and they can tell him how it is to be interpreted. He should tell us what he intends with this Bill, so that we in Parliament know what we are passing and not take a chance and have the matter then taken to the courts for them to decide what the law is to mean. I am convinced that if the courts give judgment in favour of harsh action by this Government we will never get the chance again of amending this measure. This Deputy Minister will not come back to amend the law; he will only come to this House to amend the law when he finds that the courts have made it more difficult for him to take action and to apply harsher action. That is the only time when we will see him and this Government come back to Parliament on this measure.

It has been stressed that the measure has been introduced as a matter of emergency. Why? What is the urgency for this legislation?

The election.

There is an election coming, and the suggestion is probably correct. One hon. member on the other side said that we only moved the amendment—his insinuation was that it was a very reasonable amendment—so that if the Deputy Minister accepted it, we could go to the country and say that we were responsible for having the Bill amended. That was the reason given why we moved the amendment. I submit that that member let the cat out of the bag. The Government has introduced this legislation at this time, before an election, to try to embarrass the Opposition by saying that we, the Opposition, were opposed to the measure because we are not prepared to maintain law and order. Sir, they have introduced a Bill which is so far-reaching in its effect that it is impossible for us to support it, and then we have the attempts to turn it against us in the light of the election. Had the Deputy Minister accepted our amendments, especially the one moved by the member for Durban North, he could have met all the difficulties which he set out to this House. There was no necessity for him to press on by retaining subsections (1)(a) and (3) (a) of the proposed section 2. Because of this wide extension, which will have the effect of banning all meetings, we must oppose it. It is all right for the Deputy Minister to say that it is not going to affect bridge parties, games of chess or social matte’s of that nature. But, Sir, it could affect every board meeting of a company, where the directors meet with the common purpose to attain certain ends. It could affect church meetings. It could affect, for instance, meetings of the Institute of Race Relations or Sabra, or a multitude of organizations. No one will know for certain whether they are being affected or not. The Deputy Minister said that he wanted to introduce the clause for the following reason—

So, what does he do? He has got information that there are going to be troubles, but he does not know exactly where; so he will be able to apply a restriction to a whole city. The magistrate, as well as the Minister can do that. The Minister can go further and apply it to the whole province. It is all very well for him to say that boards or other institutions will know that it does not apply to them. How will anybody know for certain whether it applies to them or not? We know, because of certain judgments in the past, that it will not apply to social functions. But it can apply to all other organizations. I submit that we, in a democratic country, cannot possibly agree to give a Minister, or even a magistrate such powers to act in a district to give him blanket power to prohibit meetings, without knowing what kind of meetings are going to be affected. Why cannot he stick to paragraph (b), which stipulates “a particular gathering or any kind of gathering at a particular place or in a particular area or wheresoever in his district”? Why can he not, in promulgating the restrictions, make it clear what type of meeting or gathering he intends to restrict? If he did that, we could accept it, provided we had some definition of what he intends getting at. Sir, we will vote against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, since we have now, after a long debate, reached the Third Reading Stage and have to discuss the application of this Bill, there are a few basic facts we should all bear in mind. They are fundamental to this entire Bill. In the first instance we must remember that no Government dares gamble with the peace and security of the country and its inhabitants. It would be absolutely reckless of such a Government. Since the Opposition is now insinuating that this Bill is aimed at making election propaganda for the National Party, or at embarrassing the United Party, I want to bring it to their notice again that the peace and security of this country must come before everything else. The Government dares not ignore it.

Since this House adjourned last year event has followed even in rapid sequence, and the Government cannot afford to have a re-occurrence of any disturbances, demonstrations or riotous assemblies. It has to make provision for that. After all, the Government did receive a mandate from the people at the last election to ensure that peace and security is guaranteed. In fact, the individual entrusted his rights and his liberty to Parliament to ensure that these were protected in the interests of the entire community. In the second place, Mr. Speaker, we must also bear this important fact in mind. South Africa has its enemies, enemies of the National Party, enemies of the United Party, enemies of every inhabitant of this country. We must have no illusions on this score. As and when one examines the methods of these enemies, one sees that they are very subtle. They appear in various forms. We think of the trade union movement throughout the world. We think of the student uprisings and disturbances throughout the world. We think of the terrorists on our borders. We think of the communists. Since the United Party has frequently accused us in the past of harping on communism, we want to tell them that they can do so if they wish, but we shall nevertheless point out to them time and again the dangers of communism and its infiltration into this country and throughout the world. As I have said, these enemies are manifesting themselves in all forms. They have their methods. At first it was perhaps through revolution or the take-over of trade unions, but in subsequent years, when they did not succeed in that way, they became more subtle. Mindful of the statements of Mao Tse-tung and Stalin, viz. That a single sympathizer, or lecturer at a university, was better that an army of a 100, we cannot guard rigorously enough against these people subtly disseminating their propaganda here in South Africa. They will not do so themselves. They do so through the agency of other persons, such as students. These students may be incited to rebellion and demonstrations. We must take cognisance of this. It is, in fact the bounden duty of the Government to do so.

In the third place, Mr. Speaker, another fundamental fact we have to bear in mind is that conditions in the world have changed. We are now living in a changing world. There is a constant game in progress between the enemies of South Africa and South Africa itself. It is in fact a game of chess. Where their methods perhaps became a little obsolete, they devised new methods. They again became ingenious. We have to adapt ourselves to this changing world and take thorough cognizance of what is going on around us. Having stated these facts now, we want to see how this Bill is or is not going to help us.

The original Act, the Riotous Assemblies Act, originated in 1914. In 1956 a new Act, a brand-new Act, was substituted for this Act after it had been referred to a Select Committee. The Riotous Assemblies Act, 1956 was accepted unanimously by this Parliament. Even the hon. member for Houghton who was then still a member of the United Party voted for that Act. Now, Sir, from 1914 up to 1956 that Act was sufficient. It succeeded in its purpose. The Government carried out the mandate entrusted to it by the people, and our country’s peace and order was guaranteed. Since 1956 the agitators in this country have become ingenious again. They have become more clever. The year before last a demonstration was held at St. George’s Cathedral. Cape Town. We all know that the demonstration there then degenerated into a riotous assembly. The Police acted in terms of the present Act and we must praise them for having done this in a very restrained manner. They did excellent work. Sixteen persons were arrested and these were brought before the court, before the magistrate, and were there found guilty and given sentences varying from R50 or 25 days to R150 or 75 days. But these people appealed and on appeal they won their case. That case has been raised a number of times already in this House and it is therefore not necessary for me to do so again. Nevertheless, the State lost its case. But now it is very interesting to note that in this case of Turrel and others, 12 grounds of appeal were raised by the advocates of the appellants. Some of them had subdivisions and eventually it amounted to 18 grounds of appeal which these people raised. Surely this is a direct indication to us that this Act no longer complies with what was expected of it and that it was time that the Act was changed. That is why we have this Act before us today. Loopholes arose and these had to be closed, and the Act had to be made more streamlined. Now hon. members on the opposite side of the House say that this is an encroachment on democracy in South Africa. That is what they maintain. But now, in the same breath, one can ask them: In whose interests was that Act made? What comes first, the State with its citizens and its inhabitants, or the interests of the individual? I think the hon. member for Durban North, to a certain extent, provided himself with an answer to this question. He said, inter alia, that if one did not want law and order, one wanted anarchy. That is precisely what we want to prevent with this Bill—anarchy. We do not want it. On the contrary. We want to guarantee to the citizens of this country liberty, peace and order, for that is what they put us here for. The ultimate effect of the Act was explained by the hon. member for Durban North, and I should like to remind of what he said the other day in the Second Heading debate. He stated, inter alia—

But now the attitude of the hon. member for Durban North is that we have an Act which is 60 years old and that Act has been good enough all these years; why cannot it continue to be good enough? Sir, that is an extremely poor argument. It is poor in this respect, for we have had numerous statutes over the years which had to be adjusted and amended from time to time to adjust to the present day requirements, and consequently we have it in this case as well. The question also arises, they allege, whether the Government will not indulge itself in wilful actions after the Act has been passed? I think that to anyone this argument is ridiculous and it is ridiculous precisely because ridiculous conclusions have no place in our legal system. Any improper actions by this Government after this legislation has been passed can surely be exposed here at the next session of Parliament and the Government can be called to account. The citizens of the country in fact cede their individual liberty to Parliament for the common good. That is why I do not think this argument of the hon. member is a valid one. It is in fact a ridiculous argument. The hon. member for Durban North also insisted that an unnecessary number of people would be affected by this legislation. Sir, surely that is not so. If a thorough study is made of clauses 1 and 2 we will find that the legislation is only there to prohibit riotous assemblies and it is consequently only riotous assemblies which will be affected, and then not even all of them. I am thinking for example of dances, in public or private places. Surely it is ridiculous to want to bring such parties, bridge parties, etc., in under this legislation. It must be something which could endanger the public peace. It appears very clearly from the legislation that there should be a possibility of this being endangered and that there has to be a common purpose to endanger it. Over the years many other Acts have been passed to counteract certain of these disturbances of the peace in our country. The United Party opposed the principle of the Bill at the Second Reading. Must we actually accept now, in spite of the amendments which they want to effect here at a subsequent stage, that they regret having voted for the principle of this Act in 1956, when the hon. member for Houghton still voted for it as well? To us that often seems to be the case. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly has always been part of our democracy, and Mr. Justice van Zyl stated this very clearly and succinctly in this well-known decision. He said, inter alia, the following—

There is no encroachment upon these rights. They are only being encroached upon when a danger is created, when it is a riotous assembly. This is made clear to us in the legislation. Magistrates may now take action against a specific kind of gathering. This has always been fundamental to this Act.

To conclude, I want to say that I think there is something else bothering the United Party. This became apparent from the debates which have already been held. There is something else bothering them, and now they have tried to dish up minor technical adjustments in this legislation as major principles of the legislation while they have throughout overlooked the one major principle. This frequently puts me in mind of the old legend which all of us know very well of the father and the son who wanted fly and then made wings for themselves. They used wax in the construction of these wings, and they flew. They launched themselves off the top of a cliff and then flew around to their hearts’ content, but after a while the son grew discontented with that. He wanted to fly higher and higher, until he approached too close to the sun and the wax began to melt, and he fell to smithereens. I think this is precisely the course the United Party is now adopting. They are now trying with these debates to outbid the Progressive Party. They are trying to be better than the Progressive Party. We have noticed this. Every so often the hon. member for Houghton and the United Party are at one another’s throats. The one is trying to bid higher than the other. They are now trying to fly too high.

You obviously were not listening.

But it is very clear that on 24 April the wax will melt from their wings, and then they will also fall to smithereens.

I doubt whether the predictions of the hon. member who has just sat down, are likely to come true. But I do want to say this to him, that he is the first person in this debate who has attempted to tell us there are dire dangers facing South Africa. I listened very carefully right throughout the Second Reading debate to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply and to the hon. members on the other side, but here for the first time is this hon. member telling us about terrorists and communists and other undermining forces who are behind this Bill. We have had enough of that kind of talk. I am used to that from previous debates in which we were told of well-poisoners and agents from overseas who were busy sowing dissension among our people and clearing the way for subversive activities. However, listening to the debate on this Bill, I have not had to change my mind at all about the original impression I had. That was that this entire Bill arose out of the cases which the Government lost following on the student demonstrations a couple of years ago. The hon. member mentioned some of them and he stated that there were various grounds of appeal and because there turned out to be so many grounds of appeal it showed that the law was not functioning efficiently and therefore the Government had to change the law. I have to stick to my original contention and that is that there was nothing wrong with the law as it was. There was a lot wrong with the way in which the law was being administered by the people who ought to be upholding law and order. There were only three examples mentioned by the hon. member for Potchefstroom as to why he believed this Bill was necessary. All three of them were student demonstrations which he said could take place again on the steps of the St. George’s Cathedral, or, he said, outside UCT or inside the campus at the Wit-watersrand University. It is perfectly true that there were demonstrations at all those places and that all of them were deemed to be, and are in fact, private premises where meetings could not be forbidden. I maintain that if only the police had left those people alone, there would not have been any riotous behaviour whatever. In fact, there was no need at any stage for the police to enter the campuses at all at the University of the Witwatersrand and at the University of Cape Town. Here on the Cathedral steps the first day’s demonstration was a peaceful, silent demonstration and the police attacked those students.

Oh, come on!

On the Monday when I was there the demonstration was a reaction to the amount of violence which the police had, in fact, used on the Friday evening’s meeting. It was then that large numbers of people congregated on the steps and hundreds congregated inside the Cathedral. I was there and there was no violence. It was only late in the afternoon when another meeting erupted which was being held at Hiddingh Hall. The people present at that meeting came down the streets of Cape Town and that was where the tear gas was used to which the hon. member for Durban North referred. If those meetings had simply been allowed to proceed, with the police there to keep a watchful eye on things, but not being provocative, we could have continued in the ordinary way with student demonstrations and the old Riotous Assemblies Act which was perfectly adequate right up until two years ago. As anyone who was in Parliament on that particular Black Friday will remember, the police were doing practice exercises on the lawn just outside the offices of parliamentarians. They were practising their baton charges and were seen out of the windows of the offices. Everybody saw them. They were ready before they even knew whether there would be any “riotous behaviour”. The police were limbering up for this exercise. I say again that if the Government had not lost those cases which were lost simply because the police did not observe the law, the hon. the Deputy Minister would not be coming to the House today in order to change the law. I was interested to see the reasons for banning a procession last year. This is simply bearing out what I am saying. A mass meeting and a procession through the streets were called in protest against the alleged high crime rate in the western Coloured township. That was a meeting which was to be called in Johannesburg, but it was prohibited. What reason am I given by the Minister of Justice for the prohibition of that meeting? “It was feared that the procession would be attacked by lawless persons in that area, causing a grave threat to law and order and possibly resulting in serious injuries to innocent people.” I have never heard of such an extraordinary reason for banning a procession—that lawless people might attack it! Why do we have police? Are they not there to protect law-abiding people in a procession against the actions of lawless people? Instead, the Government takes the easy way out and the undemocratic way out by prohibiting the meeting. I am sure that there will be no more political processions, meetings or demonstrations of the kind that we have had in this country since time immemorial; the kind that helped to sweep the National Party into power after World War II. Those were protests and democratic expressions of the feelings of the people and they will no longer be allowed in South Africa. As I said during the Second Reading, this is just another link in this long chain which is gradually eroding the sides of the bastion of civil rights in South Africa. The Opposition is opposing this Bill and I am thankful for that because I have always believed that it does at least act as a slight brake on the enthusiasm of this Government—although no amendments are accepted and the measure is to go through—to place such measures on the Statute Book if it knows that the official Opposition in South Africa is going to oppose these measures or had opposed these measures. However, I believe that the official Opposition has to take a lot of blame for what has happened today in South Africa. The blame is largely due to the past actions of the Opposition when they have aided and abetted the Government in putting on the Statute Book pieces of legislation that have in fact undermined the rule of law in South Africa. Two of those are recent pieces of legislation namely the Gatherings and Demonstrations Act which was passed last year and the amendment Act which dealt with processions in the year before. Therefore I am glad that the official Opposition has opposed this Bill. It is a pity that they have not done this consistently over all these years. Had they done that, South Africa might not have been faced with the situation that it is faced with today, where the Government does not hesitate to take more and more powers unto itself. I simply want to move the same amendment that I moved during the Second Reading. I move—

Mr. Speaker, all the matters which were raised by the hon. member for Transkei were precisely the same as those which were raised, not only on one occasion but ad nauseam during the Second Reading debate. All these questions were properly replied to by the hon. the Minister and we cannot elaborate on them any further. The hon. member for Houghton referred in her usual manner to the student demonstrations. In her usual manner she claimed that it was the South African Police who acted without provocation and it was once again the students who were innocent in this entire situation. What is interesting is that there is now a confrontation with the official Opposition on the part of the Progressive Party which makes the situation for the official Opposition all the more difficult.

In this particular case I should like to confine myself specifically to the actual objectives of this Bill. I think that these are crystal clear. In the first place it is most certainly there to close loopholes in the existing Act, so that it may be applied effectively. Surely it is very clear that its entire purpose is that the objectives of the legislation should not be defeated, but that technical weaknesses should be obviated. In the second place it is very clear that the particular Act on the Statute Book, which has already been criticized by our Supreme Courts, has to be improved and adapted and made more effective. In the third place it is very clear that there are certain supplementary matters for which provision is not at present being made in the Act and which have to be covered by it in order to deal with certain situations which have arisen over the past 60 years. If we look at the events of the past two years it is all the more apparent why it has become necessary to make adjustments and take steps to counteract the activities of those persons who want to demolish the true object of this Act and who make it their main purpose to create an explosive situation, to try to defy public peace and order, to defy the Government, to defy the police, to defy the administration of justice and to defy South Africa. The spirit of this Bill is very clear and points to one thing: It puts the security of South Africa first. It can only be aimed at the maintenance of peace and order. It can only be aimed at restraining the wilful, deliberate disturbers of the public peace and giving them their just deserts. The United Party is now opposing all these things; they are opposing this in a qualified but at the same time ambiguous manner; they are opposed to the principle of this Bill, that principle which actually stands for South Africa first. That is how one may interpret the actions of the official Opposition up to this point in the debates on this Bill. They recognize the necessity for the present Act to remain in force. In their amendment to the Second Reading debate they admitted in so many words the need for that legislation to ensure public peace and order. They admitted that they are aware of the fact that there are certain loopholes which make the application of this Act ineffective. Now they admit once again in their amendment in so many words that sufficient power should be given to the executive in order to maintain peace and order, but they refused outright, with their amendment during the Second Reading debate, to submit in an unambiguous way, positive proposals to eliminate the present anomalies. They therefore refuse to amend the existing legislation effectively, except for the granting of reasonable powers to the executive for the maintenance of public peace, which is in fact a qualified and ambiguous provision of their amendment. They are therefore expressing themselves clearly opposed to the principle of this Bill. They want to maintain the status quo of the Act; they want to retain the defects of the existing Act, but with one strange and ambiguous added qualification, viz. the granting of reasonable powers to the executive for the maintenance of peace and order. Surely this fits in perfectly with the policy of the United Party; it fits in perfectly with the double standards which they serve. On the one hand the existing Act is good because it is aimed at the maintenance and insurance of public peace and order. That is the positive side of the matter. On the other hand this Act is also good because in its present form it cannot be applied effectively. This is again the negative side of this ambiguous amendment moved during the Second Reading debate. Consequently it causes the objectives of the United Party as far as this particular discussion is concerned to emerge clearly. The United Party is trying to justify this ambiguous action. They are trying to justify it with the old cry that they are acting as the protector of the rights and the liberty of the individual. Once again it was the old story that they are acting in the interests of the individual. In other words, they are implying that the Government cannot do so. They are then coming to the rescue of the rights of the individual. If it were not for the Opposition, a terrible thing would happen to them. That is the interpretation of what is happening here. In the process they have hurled a number of accusations at the Government which are irreconcilable and unacceptable. In the first place it is alleged that this Bill is supposedly an election ruse; secondly, this measure is a political measure; this measure is a sign of the strong-arm political objectives of the Government.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, what I was pointing out before the adjournment was this insane process of ambiguous and ambivalent action on the part of the United Party. I had pointed out how that side of the House had hurled accusations at this Government. In the first place they said that this Bill was an election ruse, that this was a political Bill. They said that the whole idea behind it was to stress the strong-arm attributes of the Government. Surely that was not the accusation which was hurled at the Government in 1956 when the original Act was placed on the Statute Book. Surely the United Party knows in their hearts that this is not the truth. Surely they acknowledge the necessity for the existing Act. They are aware of the loopholes in it. Logically one must, after all, expect them to have supported this amendment Bill, but it did not happen. Why are they doing this? Their performance in the no confidence debate was pathetic and it was not much better in the Little Budget debate. Now this party has to return to the political platforms of South Africa and they have to give an account of what they did in this Parliament during this session to the voters. All they are able to say now is that they protected the freedom and the personal rights of the individual. They will profess that they kept these things out of the claws of the National Party. In this process they are also disseminating the most arrant and most irresponsible nonsense in the world. Reference was made quite wilfully here to innocent bridge parties which are then prohibited. It was stated here quite wilfully that this legislation is an encroachment into the smallest flat in the country. Surely that is the height of reckless irresponsibility. Surely that is a search for propaganda to find an election platform.

A second accusation hurled at this Government is that it is said in so many words that this Government is throwing up a smokescreen, but this is an unspecified accusation which they cannot explain or define. They cannot say or guess at what it is. They are merely engaged in suspicion-mongering. They allege that the Government has ulterior motives.

In the third place, Mr. Speaker, it is said that this Government is a security risk. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, a security risk, when we are coming forward with this legislation for the specific purpose of furthering national security! Is this an honest and upright attempt to build up pubic peace and order amongst one’s people? In addition to that it is said that the Government is receiving too many powers and that these powers could be abused. It is then said that the powers they are receiving in terms of this amendment Bill, in conjunction with the powers which they received in the 1973 legislation in regard to the prohibition on certain gatherings and demonstrations, is making them too powerful and too strong. Surely it is far-fetched to allege that. They now want to make further political capital out of the ignorance of the man in the street by trying to make him believe that he is being deprived of a tremendous right here. They say that this Bill is interpreted according to the letter of the law and not according to the interpretation of statute law. This irresponsibility has already had its repercussions in the Press where it has already been stated in an irresponsible way that this Government is engaged in something quite different to and in conflict with the actions of other countries in the Western world when it comes to legislation of the same nature. It is very clear that the Opposition measures with a double standard. It is very clear that their actions during the Second and Third Reading debates testified to the pressure which is being exerted on them by their internal progressive, Turkish, liberal, leftist group. Surely it is very clear that this is a last attempt to try to win the student vote. Surely this is very clear now that this is another attempt to try to entice away a few votes from the hon. member for Houghton. The amendment which was introduced here, with its vague, extended wording, ambiguousness and vagueness—surely that is indicative of the dissension which exists in that party. They give with the one hand and take back with the other. They admit that it is necessary to take action against propagandistic inciters, but they refuse to accept these proposed methods of action, unless it is with this qualified motivation to which we referred before the adjournment. Sir, is it not time this party chose between the various wings it has under its wing, between the various wings it is trying to represent? Is it not time, when it has to decide between the conflicting party interests within its own ranks, it put national security first? In this process they hopped around from one interpretation to another. But soon they shall have to return and give an account to the conservative United Party supporters from the political platforms of South Africa. They will have to go and explain to their voters why they refuse to entrust this Government with the necessary security powers in an unqualified way. They will have to go and explain why they do not believe in a strong Government which is prepared to take precautionary measures in order to maintain public peace and order. They shall have to go and explain why they mistrust the Government in the application of the powers which will stem from this particular Bill. The more so, in fact, because in this is contained an exceptionally strong, protective and democratic measure, in terms of which the Minister in question has to give an account at every session in respect of those cases in which action was taken.

The United Party also hesitated for a long time with regard to the definition of a “gathering”, whether it should consist of more or fewer than 12 persons. Now perhaps their minds have been set at rest. But surely the issue is not the size of the gathering, whether it is 2 or 100. Nor is the issue where the people are appearing, i.e. on private property or in public. The issue is surely what they are doing and contemplating, whether they have a common purpose, whether they have as their purpose the disruption of the public peace and order or whether they have as their purpose the creation of a dangerous situation. This small group of people which gathers on private property, they who are acting mala fide with a common purpose to create a dangerous situation, they who are developing an explosive situation. That situation must simply be allowed to explode, and the property, life and person of the man in the street can be affected—that is of less importance now. This Opposition will have to go and explain to its voters why it does not want to prevent confrontation by applying preventive measures, in other words, why it first wants to wait until there is an outbreak, until damage is done to the property, interests, life and person of people. Only then will they want to come forward. They will have to go and explain why they kicked up such a row about the so-called “speed” with which this Government came forward with this Bill. Here they now had the golden opportunity of sharing in this initiative, where they could tell the people outside that they, together with this Government, were desirous of putting national security and public peace and order first. But now they have kicked up a fuss here about the “speed”. They had sufficient time to discuss this matter. This Opposition will have to go and explain why it is an accessory to resistance, to the dissemination in this House of distorted information touching the facts of this Bill, information which must inevitably have its repercussions in the foreign Press, information which must inevitably boomerang on this Government, on that Opposition and on this country, because it is detrimental and damaging to our country, South Africa. This Opposition will have to go and explain to the voters of South Africa why it supported the principle of the 1956 Riotous Assemblies Act, why it supported the 1973 Gatherings and Demonstrations Act, why it supported the former legislation on processions. These are Statutes containing basically the same measure, and which have the same objectives and aims as this particular Bill. In contrast to this they will have to go and explain why they are now opposed to the provisions and principles of this Bill, the more so in view of the events of the past 18 months and in view of the experience we have had with student marches and demonstrations which occurred.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to say that this Bill does not deprive any person of his orderly, disciplined right to protest in an orderly and disciplined manner. This he can do to the best of his ability at any time. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, specifically does not mean an interference in the peace-loving and law-abiding individual’s freedom and personal private rights. What Government could be so stupid as to want to commit suicide in this way? What is of cardinal importance is that this Bill contemplates only one specific effect, and that is purposeful action against those—whoever they may be—who want to create a dangerous situation of public unrest in the country; in other words, this Bill would like to ensure the public of it security, its freedom, its peace and order. This Bill contemplates, Sir, to bring to book the disturber of the peace as defined in the Bill, regardless of whether he is one of two or one of 100, regardless of whether he is operating on private property or on public property. It is the basic duty of any Government in the world to come forward with legislation, legislation of this nature, which puts national security first. For that reason it is also the basic, the cardinal and the central responsibility of this Government to come forward with this legislation here, and it ought in addition to be the primary task and responsibility of an Opposition which is in any way a responsible one to support a Bill of this nature. Before I resume my seat, I want to afford the hon. member for Musgrave the opportunity of saying that I am talking nonsense. But what I have said here is what they said; as well as the inferences from their arguments.

Mr.

Speaker, I regret that I cannot take the speech of the hon. member for Malmesbury very seriously. The hon. member did not take part in the Second Reading debate on this Bill, he did not take part in the debate on the Committee Stage of this Bill, and he has only now come into the debate at this Third Reading stage. It is obvious that he does not understand the full implications of the Bill, not having listened to the full debate, and above all, Mr. Speaker, what is more important, he does not appreciate what our attitude towards this Bill has been. His whole speech has been based on what he has assumed to have been our attitude but which was not in fact what our attitude has been.

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the final stage of the debate on this Bill. Throughout the various stages, one thing has become quite apparent and that is the remarkable attitude of the Government to this legislation, above all, the remarkable attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister in piloting this Bill through the House. We have been told that the Government requires the amendments which are before this House because the Government is not able to control the situation which is developing in the country with the existing provisions of the Riotous Assemblies Act. We have endeavoured through speaker after speaker on this side of the House to get, above all, the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us precisely why it is that the Government is unable to deal with the existing situation under the provisions of the Riotous Assemblies Act as they stand on the Statute Book at present. What have we heard from the Deputy Minister?

We have heard, firstly, that the existing definition of “public gathering” which means a gathering, concourse or procession through or along any public place of 12 or more persons having a common purpose, creates problems for the Government in two respects. I believe, Sir, that what I am about to say fairly summarizes the case made by this Government to support the Bill which is now before the House. They say that they have a problem in regard to this definition in two respects, firstly because there is the requirement of a minimum of 12 persons to form a concourse or an assembly, and when it comes to a large group of people, who afterwards are arrested and brought to court, it is difficult to establish which 12, if in fact any 12, of those persons were actually stirring up the trouble or were merely passers-by who became involved in the events.

We concede that this could be a difficulty, and as the hon. the Deputy Minister well knows and as his side of the House knows, this is not one of the amendments which we oppose. We conceded that this could be a problem and that the Act may need amendment in this respect. The second basis upon which the hon. the Deputy Minister sought to justify this Bill was on the basis that riotous assemblies or gatherings often commence on private property and then escalate on to public property, and in terms of the definition of “gathering”, which I have just read out, it is difficult to get a conviction in a situation of that sort. Mr. Speaker, once again we conceded that this could be a problem in relation to the Act as it stands at present.

In fact the hon. member for Durban North, in stating our attitude to this Bill at the commencement of the Second Reading debate, said that this could well be a problem facing the Minister and the Government and that if it was the problem which the Minister had in mind, we would introduce an amendment to meet the situation, and in fact we did, and what was the result? The hon. the Deputy Minister did an egg-dance so that he would not have to accept this amendment, because it was quite clear from the Committee Stage that he and the Government had made up their minds, for reasons which I shall deal with presently, not to accept any amendments to this Bill but to press on with the Bill as it stands. The hon. the Deputy Minister then said that the problem whereby an assembly gathers in a private place and then spills over into a public place, creating riotous circumstances, was not the only problem with which they were faced and which was not covered by the Act in its present form. We then challenged him to tell us what other situations are not covered by the powers which the Government has at the moment.

To this point in time the hon. the Deputy Minister has not given us any other case which cannot be dealt with under the Act as it stands at present, other than to say that assemblies which could give rise to riots may gather in one spot and if curbed, gather in other spots and so on throughout a district. He said that this situation could develop so quickly that the magistrate would not be able to control it. The hon. the Deputy Minister is trifling with the House when he gives that as an example of a situation which cannot be controlled under the legislation as it exists, because firstly he has not been able to refer to any specific instance throughout the country in the last year or 18 months where that situation has arisen and secondly, if the situation becomes as bad as that, and riotous conditions pop up, as it were, in numerous places throughout a district or throughout the country, then the Government has an emergency on its hands and should then deal with the situation under the vast emergency powers which the Government already has. We therefore do not accept that this is a valid problem which the hon. the Deputy Minister faces.

We have come to this late stage in the debate faced with a situation where the hon. the Deputy Minister has not—I should be glad to have his attention instead of watching him speak to the hon. Deputy Minister next to him—told us precisely why it is that under the law as it is at the moment he cannot deal with the situation. We have pressed him on this, but he has not replied. Indeed, he has failed miserably to do so. He has not been able to justify the powers which he is seeking. What are these powers? They are blanket powers in subsections (1)(a) and (3)(a) of the new section 2 to ban every gathering within a district. We have been through the definition of “gathering” ad nauseam and therefore I shall be very brief. For the purpose of these subsections “gathering” means a concourse or procession of any number of persons having a common purpose.

When we first drew attention to these two subsections—this is another remarkable aspect of this debate—and told the hon. the Deputy Minister that this meant the banning of every gathering within the definition of that word in a particular district, the hon. the Deputy Minister and speakers on his side said: “Nonsense, you do not know what you are talking about. It is not every gathering; it is just certain gatherings which could result in disorder.” However, finally, as a result of debating this matter with the hon. the Deputy Minister and as a result of pressing him, he finally had to concede that our interpretation was perfectly correct. What did he then have to say? He said: “Oh well, there may be a situation which will make it necessary to ban every gathering in a particular district.” But the hon. the Deputy Minister said: “We realize that there are all sorts of meetings which should not be banned and therefore we shall make a general prohibition and at the same time we shall come forward with exemptions and exclusions for a whole number of meetings which we do not want to include, such as meetings of boards of directors of companies and the other examples we have given.”

Is this the way to legislate? Surely it is not. Surely the Government is capable of introducing a Bill which will not deal with this subject matter as widely as this Bill does, so that there need not be exemptions—many of which they cannot even contemplate at this stage—because it is stated precisely what they want in the Bill.

They are using a sledge-hammer on a peanut.

Exactly. We are then left with the question as to why the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Government are pressing on with this legislation in this form when it is obviously far-reaching, much more far-reaching than is necessary to meet the situation that has to be met, and when it cannot be put into effect without at the same time introducing a whole number of exemptions, like with job reservations. What is the real reason? We have not heard this from the Government.

I submit that at this late stage it is quite obvious what the real reason is. The real reason is that the Government wanted by this Bill, the Riotous Assemblies Amendment Bill and the next Bill on the Order Paper, the Affected Organizations Bill, to introduce an election red herring. They wanted to be able to make out a case that this is a strong Government in whose hands the future of the White man in this country is perfectly safe, a strong Government that is going to crack down on disorder. What have they done? They have deliberately introduced a Bill with such far-reaching provisions, which they themselves had to admit are not required, in order to force us into the situation of voting against this Bill. They wanted us to do this so that they can go on to the platteland with the usual election gimmick and say: “Here you are; we are the upholders of law and order in this country,” and “Here you are; the United Party opposed us in this legislation”.

Let us make our position very clear. We are as much concerned with law and order and with the maintenance of public peace as is this Government, but we believe in good government. We believe that it is quite unnecessary to interfere in the freedom and in the private rights of individuals beyond what is necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order. We have always shown ourselves perfectly prepared to give to the Government powers which are necessary for the maintenance of law and order. If the Government at this late stage is prepared to show us in what way they require this legislation, in what way the existing Riotous Assemblies Act does not enable them to deal with the situation which faces South Africa, they can have these powers although they are unable to show us and this House that these are justified. We can only come to the conclusion that this is one of these red herrings, these election gimmicks and this typical nonsense that we get from this Government just before an election. They are playing with the future of this country, and they are playing with the public peace and order for the sake of a few miserable election votes.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Musgrave who has just sat down has in the latter part of his speech forgotten his present forum. He must have imagined himself standing before his electorate in Musgrave and not before this House. He referred to a red herring which the Government now wishes to draw across the floor of this House, but it is not so. [Interjections.] He must be smelling something else. You cannot smell a red herring in the legislation which is before us. This legislation has been produced for a very good reason, a reason which has nothing to do with political matters. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the forthcoming election.

The point is that the existing Act, which we have had for such a long time, has been found wanting by the Supreme Court of South Africa and needs adjusting in the light of the decision of that Supreme Court. This is the position. This Government does not need a measure like this to bring it back to power. It can get back to power without legislation such as this. We shall get back to power on 24 April. But we need the amendment to the existing legislation in order to cope with the situation which has arisen as a result of a Supreme Court decision in the case Turrell v. the State. It is necessary, unfortunately, to repeat to the hon. member for Musgrave what was said by the hon. Justice Van Zyl in that case. When I have read it I hope that the hon. member will, at this late stage of the debate, understand what it is all about. Will the hon. member for Musgrave, who demands the attention of Ministers and other members on this side, now please give attention to what I have to say? Justice Van Zyl said—

The latter are the crucial words. The authority which now vests in the magistrate in terms of the existing Act is to prohibit a particular public gathering only and nothing more. That is the difficulty with which we are confronted. In the case which we have before us the magistrate attempted, as I have explained before during the Second Reading debate, to prohibit all meetings within a certain area over a certain period of time. The Cape Supreme Court found that the magistrate was acting outside his powers in this particular case. We have to remedy that. If hon. members opposite will not assist us in finding the remedy, we as being a responsible Government and party in this country, must find it ourselves. That is the difficulty with which we are confronted and that is the difficulty which we are going to remedy by the adoption of this Bill.

*We have heard from various quarters now what the effect of this Bill will be, from the Opposition side and from speakers on the Government side, and I think the cardinal question is what the effect of the new section 2 will be. This is what must be investigated and what is apparently giving the Opposition problems as to its scope. In this connection the proposed section 2(1) and section 2(3) should be considered. There are three points which should be considered if one reads these two proposed subsections. Firstly there is a requirement before action can be taken; in the second place there is specified action which has to be taken, the procedure of which is prescribed, and in the third place there are ways of avoiding the effect of that action. These are the three situations which have to be considered: There is a prerequisite, there is a particular form of action and there is an avoidance of the effect of such action. What is the prerequisite? Before action can be taken by the magistrate or by the Minister in terms of these two subsections, a situation first has to arise in terms of which the magistrate or the Minister apprehend that the public peace will be disturbed, either by a gathering, or by a particular gathering. The same applies to the Minister as applies to the magistrate. What does he do then? He then decides either to prohibit all gatherings within his district, or if it is the Minister, all gatherings within a specified area, which he declares, for a specified period. In the case of the magistrate it is 48 hours, and in the case of the Minister it is a period determined by the Minister himself. Instead of prohibiting all gatherings within a specified period, he may decide to prohibit a particular gathering or a particular class of gathering. These two groups—all gatherings or a particular kind of gathering—have different definitions in terms of the Bill. [Interjections.] I see six members of the Opposition marching in here. It seems to me Natal is on the march again! The “Alte Kamerade” march again! I want to explain that this type of gathering, i.e. where all gatherings may be banned, can be described as the so-called “common purpose” gatherings. For that gathering the requirement is that a common purpose should be present before they are affected by a prohibition in terms of the Bill. This common purpose excludes all kinds of meetings such as bridge parties, bus queues, other sports meetings and all social events of this kind. Such gatherings are completely excluded by the requirement that there should be a “common purpose”. This “common purpose” as we have already stated in this House stands on two legs. It must have a co common purpose, and the other leg on which it stands is that there has to be a pursuance of that common purpose. In other words, the two legs must be present before there is a so called “common purpose”. This requirement of a common purpose excludes most social gatherings which could be held during such a general prohibition.

On the other hand I can imagine—I want to concede this to the hon. member for Musgrave—that there could in fact be gatherings which do have a common purpose and which may unexpectedly be affected by this measure. I could imagine that a board of directors’ meeting could be held, or a special meeting in terms of the Companies Act, of the shareholders of a company who have gathered specifically to take a specific decision, on which an agreement was reached in advance. But, Sir, if they are brought up short by these cases where there is in fact a common purpose, by these gatherings which can in fact be affected by such a general prohibition, they must read the proposed subsection in question further. There provision is being made, firstly, for general cases which may be excluded by the magistrate or by the Minister from the scope of the particular prohibition. He may for example say: “I prohibit all gatherings except those which are held in terms of the Companies Act.” What is better or easier to say than that? In that case all these so-called board of directors’ meetings or company meetings, to which the hon. member for Musgrave referred will be excluded.

But what is more, if one considers the two proposed subsections in question, it is clear that, apart from the general exclusion, provision is also being made for special leave for the holding of specific meetings. Therefore, all that has to take place is that a person or group of persons who feel that they may possibly be affected because the meeting which they want to hold possibly has a common purpose as well and therefore falls under the scope of this measure, should, go to the magistrate and say: “Sir, but I must hold this specific meeting within the next 48 hours, these are the people who will be present at that meeting, and this is the purpose of the meeting. May I please have leave to hold it?” Then it lies within the powers of the magistrate, in terms of the proposed subsection 2(1), to grant leave for that meeting to proceed. What more is there to it than that? There is nothing sinister about this; there is no disruption of the company. It will still in fact be possible for such innocent meetings, which also have a common purpose, to take place. In any case there would have to be a prosecution if a person were to contravene this particular prohibition. I cannot imagine any state prosecutor or attorney-general instituting any prosecutions when a prohibition has been made in terms of this legislation and an innocent meeting occurs. I think the hon. gentlemen are conjuring up spectres.

But what is more, in terms of the proposed subsection 2(3), provision is being made which enables the Minister to exercise the same powers which the magistrate has in the case of subsection 2(1). He may grant leave; he can make the same exclusions; and he may grant leave to groups that wish to hold a meeting. What is more, he may even grant authorization to magistrates to consider applications for exempting meetings. Provision is being made for this in this legislation. Therefore, I cannot imagine that this legislation as it has been drafted and submitted to the House, having the harsh effect which the hon. member for Musgrave suggested to the House it would have. I want to suggest that we need this legislation, arising out of the decision in the case against Turrell and others, to which I referred. Other amendments which are being effected are also the result of that decision. I suggest that this is therefore a reasonable piece of legislation which will not have a harsh effect.

Mr. Speaker, I have spent a good number of sessions in this House, both in this Chamber and elsewhere, in the Press Gallery, and tonight was the first time that I have heard you referred to as “ladies and gentlemen”. This came in a very peculiar context because immediately before the hon. member for Bellville had called you “ladies and gentlemen”, Sir, he had accused the hon. member for Musgrave of having forgotten what his audience was. He suggested to that hon. member that he thought he was addressing an election meeting. I think this was a very telling slip on his part, a slip which in many ways betrayed the whole attitude of that side of the House in relation to this Bill. I think, Sir, if I may say so, that the attitude of that side of the House has been an extremely shabby one, shabby from the very first introduction of the Bill until this very moment. Let me tell you why, Sir.

Firstly, we have had a number of very serious anomalies. Let me quote the hon. member for Bellville again. He said to us that this legislation had been produced for a very good reason, a reason that had nothing whatsoever to do with the forthcoming election. I think he agrees with me that that is what he said. I am glad to see him nodding his head. Do the members of the Government not even speak to each other these days? Do they not even swop notes before they speak in debates? Let me just go back to what the hon. member for Pretoria Central had to say a few days ago. He came out with a threat. I do not see him here, but I am sure that other members will convey to him what I have to say.

He is here.

He is not in his seat, at any rate. He threatened this side of the House with the fact that Government members would go out to the electorate and that from platform to platform the Nationalist Party would expose the fact that the United Party was opposed to the preservation of law and order through its attitude in this debate. Sir, how can you reconcile the two? On the one hand you have the hon. member for Bellville telling us that this has nothing to do with election tactics; on the other hand you have the hon. member for Pretoria Central saying that this is what the debate is all about and what the Bill is all about. The left hand—I do not know which of those hon. members would be the left hand in this case—does not know what the right hand is doing.

The hon. member for Bellville also spent a lot of time making what one might refer to as the second apologia on the part of the Government for this Bill on legal grounds. He quoted us the findings of Mr. Justice Van Zyl, but again I wonder whether he even bothered to consult the hon. member for Potchefstroom, whose speech I have in my hand here. Where the hon. member for Bellville tried to give one set of circumstances as an excuse for this Bill, the hon. member for Potchefstroom who, during the Second Reading debate, gave us the only real motivation for this Bill, had this to say—

This is diametrically opposed to what the hon. member for Bellville said. I do not want to deal at length with the history of this matter because I have other things to say. Here you have two absolutely opposite points of view being presented to this House.

I should like now to come to the hon. member for Malmesbury who spoke earlier in this debate. I was quite surprised to hear him, Sir, because I had not actually noticed his presence during the proceedings on this Bill. I think that he was conspicuous by his absence during most of the proceedings.

What about you?

I was here and I spoke during the Second Reading debate. If the hon. member for Cradock had been here he would have heard me.

I did hear you, but then you walked off.

The hon. member for Malmesbury made three points, three main points.

So what?

He said that the Government was aware of the loopholes in the original Act. Again, did he not listen to the hon. member for Potchefstroom? The hon. member for Potchefstroom indicated to us that the real loophole as far as the Government was concerned was that in the year before last the police failed to observe the legal procedures that were expected of them.

No, I did not say that.

That was what he said. I have his speech here and if he wants me to I shall send it to him. We all know that this was a most unfortunate thing. We all know that it cost the Government something like R24 000 in damages. The hon. member for Malmesbury spoke of the Opposition trying to put up a smokescreen about this Bill. While we are on the subject of smoke-screens, let me come to the hon. the Deputy Minister in charge of this Bill. If ever this House has seen a smokescreen put up, and finally demolished, we have seen it in respect of that Deputy Minister.

Old smokey!

We shall come back to him in a moment.

Then we have the third question raised by the hon. member for Malmesbury, the argument that through this legislation the Government is seeking to arm itself with too many powers. I am surprised, Sir, that he should have been so rash as to mention this matter. At this Third Reading stage, Sir, we are looking ahead. We have to look at the application of the provisions of this Bill. And what else do we look at? We look at the record of this Government which, Sir, in matters of this kind, is a very shabby record indeed. It is a record of which no Government, no political party, can be proud. He himself must know how this Government has misused and abused the powers that have been placed in its hands. He himself knows, Sir, as indeed must the hon. the Prime Minister, who is smirking over there, how laws such as the Suppression of Communism Act have been misused…

Order! Did the hon. member say that the hon. the Prime Minister was smoking?

Smirking, Sir, the facial expression. He himself must know how the Government has gone counter to its own assurances.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir, I am replying to the hon. member, but I shall now come back to the Bill.

The hon. member may proceed.

That hon. member himself posed the question to us: How can they use the powers conferred under this Bill in a manner other than the innocent way in which it has been portrayed from that side? Sir, he has had his answer, and he has had his answer not only in these debates but he has had his answer in the record of the Government so far.

Now, Sir, I want to come very briefly to one or two things which have a very direct bearing on how this Bill is to be applied. But before I do so I feel it is necessary to draw the attention of the House at this Third Reading to what I believe has been a very grave dereliction on the part of the Deputy Minister in not telling us exactly what this Bill is all about. You see, Sir, he, supported by hon. members on his side of the House, made the claim that this Bill could not be used in certain specified ways; that it would not or could not make inroads on the privacy of people.

That is an old story.

I am glad that the hon. member over there says “that is an old story”, because at the Second Reading he told us that it was nonsense when we suggested it, and since then he has had to see his own Deputy Minister prove that he was wrong. He has seen himself repudiated by his own Deputy Minister. If I were the hon. member, I should think that as a parliamentarian and as a lawyer I would hang my head in shame. [Interjection.]

Sir, when the hon. the Deputy Minister replies to this Third Reading debate—in fact, it would be nice if he would listen now—I should like to hear certain specific things from him. We opposed certain provisions of this Bill at the Committee Stage. I refer particularly to the powers of a magistrate to prohibit any gatherings in his district, and to similar powers that can be conferred upon the Minister. Sir, we objected to this and we had a long debate in which we were told that our view was wrong. We tried to indicate to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the ambit of this legislation was very wide indeed and we tried to tell him, in the earlier processes of this Bill, exactly what “any” gathering meant. It is a matter of record that the word “any”, according to Stroud’s Legal Dictionary, excludes limitations or qualifications. Sir, this is very important when we look at the way in which this Bill, when it becomes law, may be used. Stroud says that “any” is a word which excludes limitation or qualification.

Even your leader is leaving; he cannot take it any more either.

He says “any” means as wide as possible. I also made the point, which was not accepted at the time, that the Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives other meanings to the word “any”. This is very important when we come to consider how this Bill is going to be used. [Interjections.] The Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives a number of definitions of “any”. One is—this is a very authoritative one—that it means “no matter which, of what kind or how many”. It also means “a quantity or number however great or small”.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

If I have time I might allow that hon. member a question. When this was raised at the time, we were told that we were talking nonsense. What a changed situation we have now? It was almost as though we had to draw the teeth of the hon. the Deputy Minister during the Committee Stage one by one, and very laboriously, until finally we ended up in the situation where we had him conceding that we were right and he, and hon. members on that side, were wrong. That is the situation today. I want to ask him one thing and this perhaps comes to the nub of the legislation before us today before we finally pass it through this House.

Georgie porgie pudding and pie!

Order!

Sir, I really do not mind these hon. gentlemen entering their dotage. If they want to go back to nursery rhymes they are welcome.

From this side of the House we proposed certain amendments. One amendment had to do with the question of public places. Another amendment had to do with the deletion of the very wide powers contained in subsections 1(a) and (3)(a) of the new section 2. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister about the area that must exist between what is envisaged by this side of the House and for which we voted and the original Bill for which he and his colleagues voted. I want to ask him to tell us something about this area because to me it sounds as though it is a very sinister area indeed. We on this side of the House have tried to set out our approach to the sort of things which have given rise to this Bill. I do not want to repeat what has been said, but we on this side of the House did accept certain factors. That is why we took the attitude that we recognized the need to ensure public peace and order as a foundation for individual freedom. That is why we stated that we were at all times prepared to give to the Executive reasonable powers for the maintenance of such public peace and order when circumstances warranted them. However, we then specified what our objections to this legislation were. Having done that, we came with specific proposals in the Committee Stage about how we would be satisfied in attempting to attain what we think the Government is trying to achieve by means of this Bill. I want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister exactly in what respect he now feels that what we have tried to do falls short of what he is doing. This is a very wide area, and if I may say so, a very grey area. I want to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be failing this House and be failing in his duty to the country if he does not tell us exactly what he is aiming at in between.

You have said that three times already. I have heard it.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is going to tell us, or whether he is going to try to evade this question again. I want to know this because he has been remarkably coy about telling us anything at all of what this legislation really means. All we have had so far has been the smokescreen referred to by the hon. member for Malmesbury. However, the smokescreen has come from that side of the House.

There are other things which I should like to refer to. When we consider how this Bill might be used, there are other things that I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister must explain to us. After all, this is our last chance in the closing stages of this session to probe what he intends doing with the legislation that is about to be passed.

George, you are verkramp.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central has had ample opportunity to speak in this debate, but now he seems to be very quizzical and very interested in making his speech by way of questions. That hon. member said that the amendments which we have proposed would have had the effect of chaining the Minister and would have prohibited or prevented him from moving fast enough in circumstances where speed was essential. Now we are in that grey area and I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain to us exactly how…

It is the fourth time you are asking it.

No, this is something entirely different, I am sorry if the hon. the Deputy Minister does not understand, but I am not prepared to spell it out for him. I should like him to explain exactly what was meant by the hon. member for Pretoria Central. What we still want to know is exactly what is the case of the Government, a case which we should have heard during the Second Reading, a case which should have been motivated and its practical processes explained at the Committee Stage, and a case we are still waiting to hear at this Third Reading. We want to know exactly what the case of the Government is in coming with this legislation. To us it seems as if a case does not exist. From nobody, from the shabby performance of the hon. the Deputy Minister who introduced the Bill, through all the equally shabby performances of speakers on that side of the House at every stage, have we heard anything that told us exactly what the Government was aiming at or trying to do through this legislation. All we have had, again on the authority of the hon. member for Pretoria Central, is that this is an election gimmick by which the Government is trying to show how “kragdadig” it is, how it can hit people and how it can produce all these strong-arm tactics that have been referred to as jackboot tactics. This, I believe, is what this Government has aimed at all along, and I believe there is nothing more to this legislation than those shabby ulterior motives.

Mr. Speaker, we are now approaching the end of this long discussion which I think has been a very fruitful one. The only conclusion which can be drawn from all the debates up to now, if one sees them as a whole, is that they constitute an absolute vindication of the United Party’s standpoint since the Second Reading. This has been one of the most interesting debates I have ever attended in this House. The hon. members of the Government have been driven back from one line of defence to the next. They have constantly been driven back, and every so often they had to throw up a different smoke-screen. First we were misinterpreting the Bill, but then it subsequently appeared that we were in fact interpreting it correctly. Then they said that the powers were necessary. Now, however, it appears that the powers are going to be used in a way which can only be to the detriment of the rights of the people in South Africa. We have it on the authority of the hon. member for Bellville that this Bill is there to remedy certain problems which arose as a result of the decision of Mr. Justice van Zyl. He quoted long extracts from this decision to us. But this Bill does not deal with the points quoted by the hon. member for Bellville. I want to quote another facet to the hon. member and put it to him that I think this is what the hon. the Deputy Minister tried to remedy with the Bill. The problems which the Government encountered with regard to the Van Zyl decision are contained in the following paragraph of the decision of Mr. Justice van Zyl—

It is because Mr. Justice Van Zyl read it against this background that the Government has encountered problems. It is this passage that has given them problems, problems which they are now trying to remedy. This is absolutely clear when we look at the only possible explanation which the hon. the Deputy Minister gave us. In the end he admitted it, he said: Yes, it is true, all meetings and gatherings will be affected by this, but we will not, after all, go and break up bridge parties, church council meetings, and so on. But in the same breath the hon. the Deputy Minister said that we needed these powers because we did not know where these meetings were going to take place; we did not know what meetings were going to be held, and we did not know when they were going to be held. He advanced this reason as justification for the extensive powers he is requesting. Surely it is logical that, if the hon. the Minister does not know where the meeting is going to be held, by whom it will be convened, when it is going to be held and precisely where it is going to be held, and places this total prohibition on meetings, how else is he going to do this but by interfering with every meeting which is held there? How else is he going to discover which one is the meeting in question? How else is he going to do this if he does not investigate every bridge party, every church council meeting, every soccer meeting and every possible meeting there is? Surely he does not know what meeting it is that is going to cause the dangers.

You are talking nonsense.

He said himself that that was his case. He will, after all, not know which meeting it is. For that reason he will have to send the police to investigate every possible meeting. That was the case which the hon. the Deputy Minister put to us. How can he then come to us and say that the rights of ordinary citizens who are proceeding with their ordinary lawful business, will not be affected by this? It is not good enough to try and bluff us and fob us off in this way. One thing became very clear as a result of this Bill. The hon. member for Malmesbury said that the United Party had said that the National Party was a security risk. He asked us how we could say this after such a Bill. However, this Bill is conclusive proof that this Government has become a security risk. The first point I want to mention in support of this…

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 68.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate we find ourselves in the position that the United Party is constantly asking what the reason for this legislation is. I want to place it on record that we are sitting here with a party of professional politicians… [Interjections.]… and they cannot, believe it or not, read the signs of the times themselves. They come forward in this House with nonsensical little questions. The general public knows precisely what is happening in South Africa and what the reason for this legislation is. The reason is that South Africa is a stable country, that is a country of progress, and that we want to keep it that way. The key words towards that end are contained in the Bill itself. We want to put a stop at all gatherings which seriously endanger the public peace.

What about my amendment then?

I am coming to the hon. member’s amendment. In the past we had gatherings and processions, and the difference between now and 1914, 1936, 1945 and other periods is situated in the fact that these people receive highly skilled legal advice before they hold a gathering.

Like the Ossewabrandwag.

That may be so. I want to state unequivocally that as a result of the disturbances which occurred not only in Cape Town but also in other parts of the country where the Police had to take action, it became clear that the Act contained archaic portions, as the hon. member for Musgrave has conceded. Those portions we have remedied. Now the United Party is coming forward with a lot of amendments. In this regard I should like to know something from them. They are coming to us with an amendment, but the amendment is of such a nature that it eliminates the proposed section 2(1)(a) in terms of which any gathering may be prohibited. If they should ever come to power which will of course never happen, how will they be able to prevent this disturbance if they do not know precisely where, how and when it is going to break out, although they have intelligence that unrest is being stirred up day and night. I maintain that if we had not introduced this Bill we would have been acting irresponsibly towards the people of South Africa. I say it again: Our men are on the borders; they are holding firm; they are busy; our Security Police are ferreting out the people who want to undermine our country day and night. When I say that our Police in the blue uniforms must put a stop to gatherings and incitement, these hon. members vote against each clause of the Bill.

Now I want to tell these hon. members that the Schwarz-hand of Transvaal has hung heavily over the United Party in the Cape. [Interjections.] Oh yes, where is the hon. member for Sea Point? Point him out to me in the House.

He is in hospital.

He is as much in hospital as I am in hospital. What does the hon. member for Simonstown have to say about this legislation? Where is he?

Could I ask you a question.

I tell you now that the hon. member for Simonstown agrees with this legislation.

Order! The hon. member wants to put a question.

I cannot answer questions; my time is limited, Sir.

All I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister…

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister does not want to reply.

All I want to tell the hon. the Deputy is that the hon. member for Sea Point is still under doctor’s orders and cannot be here tonight.

Where is the hon. member for Maitland?

Order! The hon. member for Kensington must listen. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

The hon. member for Maitland agrees with this side of the House on this legislation. Where is the hon. member for Albany? Disappeared! Sir, I tell you: They are split from top to bottom on this legislation. I shall tell you, Sir, they received a message from above: You must please oppose this Bill; the liberalists in Transvaal are going to lose you seats because of this legislation. Down here they get another message, from the conservative side: You must at least move amendments; it must seem as if you support the legislation, so that we can at least say on the platforms that you moved amendments. Sir, they are sitting on two stools. I want to tell them this evening that they are going to rue this. I shall tell you why. This legislation is conducive to stability. The English-speaking people of South Africa are not blind, they know that this Government can be trusted to ensure that no outbursts occur in Southern Africa as they did in the other parts of the world.

How much more legislation will you need?

Order! The hon. member for Durban Central must contain himself.

I want to say something about the hon. members who have performed such an egg-dance here. One wants this amendment and the other wants something else; yet another walks out of the House when the debate is in progress. The people of South Africa know that nothing can be entrusted to those hands—neither amendments nor legislation. If that party should come into power, I tell you now that South Africa will burn out within five years owing to their inner disunity. I want to give them a good piece of advice: South Africa is a country of conservative people; English as well as Afrikaans speaking. We set a very high price on our stability; we set very high price on progress in our country; we set a very high price on our industrial development; we set a very high price on the healthy, non-permissive life in South Africa.

Excelsior!

Yes, Sir, that hon. friend will not even be here any more to make more statements like that. Let me tell him now: I did not eliminate him, his own party is throwing him out. I do not even know any more what I should call the hon. member for Kensington, who can speak so much and who is such a fighter. Is he an hon. Senator; is he an hon. nothing, or what is he? There are many members sitting here who feel as we do, but they are too internally divided and are trying to the best of their ability to keep the fragments together. They are bluffing themselves, but not South Africa. Let me tell them now what has been said before, that we will go from platform to platform with this legislation. That is so. [Interjections.] We are proud of this legislation and the effect of this legislation is going to be that we will be able to prohibit any of the gatherings which endanger the public peace. I want to emphasize here this evening that the fact is being incorporated in this legislation that there will be no interference in the private lives of people. However, if there are disturbances, we will be able to eradicate these whenever they occur. That is what we are able to do with this legislation. The United Party did not help us with this. It stands on record that they opposed every clause. It may perhaps cause them to retain a few seats on the Witwatersrand…

That is also untrue.

… but not in the platteland. The hon. member for Musgrave referred so derogatorily to the platteland. The platteland will know that this legislation has been passed for the security of South Africa. And not only the people in the platteland, the townspeople will also know this. On 24 April we shall see whether this legislation was right or wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that I could play my humble part in the progress and stability of our country, South Africa. I am pleased to be able to say that I know that I am a member of a team which is of one accord on this matter. I just feel sorry for hon. members opposite.

Jimmy, are you thanking the Deputy Minister now?

I feel sorry for hon. members opposite because they are internally divided.

Question put: That the word “now”

stand part of the motion, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Question declared affirmed and amendment proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman dropped.

Main Question put.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—98: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—42: Bands, G. J.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and W. M. Sutton.

Main Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, the problems with which this Bill now under consideration deals and the evil which this Bill wishes to remedy is the question whether outside money should be allowed to come into South Africa to political organizations. It is as easy as all that. To this question the various political parties in South Africa must give their answer. We on this side of the House have no hesitation in saying immediately and outright that as far as we are concerned we think it is wrong—and we dealt with this a number of years ago when a Bill was passed through this House—that political parties in this country, and for that matter political organizations in South Africa, should be financed by outside sources. Therefore we have no hesitation in saying not only that it is wrong, but on the other hand that it is right that Parliament should under the circumstances now existing take action in this regard. I want to go further. I want to say that I do not think for one moment that there is any South African who will dare disagree with me when I say that it is absolutely wrong. Therefore the stand of my party is clear-cut. I am sorry that I cannot for one moment say that about the stand adopted by the official Opposition. So far we have had two speakers on the other side. We first had the hon. member for Durban North and after him we had the hon. member for South Coast. They spoke at length, and neither hon. member committed himself in any way as to the principle contained in this Bill. The principle is whether outside money should be allowed to come to political organizations in South Africa.

We stand by our amendment.

I am coming to the amendment and the hon. member for South Coast will hear a lot more about it as I go along. Apart from the words in the amendment not a word emanated from either my hon. friend, the hon. member for South Coast, or the hon. member for Durban North as to the desirability or otherwise of foreign money coming to political organizations in South Africa. I think that especially the hon. member for South Coast, who is an old member of this House, will agree with me that we on this side of the House are fully entitled to ask ourselves why the official Opposition refused, or why it has refused so far, to commit itself in regard to this issue. If the official Opposition had come along and advanced the following argument, then I for one would have understood it. If, in view of what the hon. member for Durban North had said, they had come along and said, “Look, we have not made up our minds yet whether it is desirable or not, and for that reason you, having appointed the Schlebusch Commission, must please hold your horses until we get that report so that we can then make up our minds as to whether it is desirable or not”, then I would have understood the position, but that was not their argument.

That is a tortuous bit of speculation.

The hon. member for Durban Point can argue, if he wishes to do so, and I shall be very pleased to hear him argue the merits of the case. Seeing that other members on his side did not want to do it, I shall be very pleased to listen to the hon. member for Durban Point.

Our amendment states where we stand.

We are coming to the amendment. If the hon. members, in view of their troubles and their difficulties, come along and say: “Look, some of us have made up our minds, but others are very hard to convince; will you not please hold matters over until such time as we have had the full Schlebusch Commission’s report on Nusas, then we can convince the doubting Thomases in our ranks.”

What about your promise?

Our report would be tabled.

We are coming to that.

Well, come to that.

I am coming to the hon. member for Green Point, too, for that matter. Let me tell him now that what I am going to say about him will be very complimentary indeed. It is not a secret at all that there are those hon. members sitting opposite who went into the Schlebusch Commission wholeheartedly…

On an undertaking from you.

On the other hand, there are those members who accepted the findings of the Schlebusch Commission so far unreservedly. However, it is also true that there are some members sitting on the opposite benches who are not prepared to take the word of their own colleagues.

About what?

The hon.

member for Transkei asks me “About what?” About the findings of the Schlebusch Commission.

If you have this report on your side, why don’t you Table it?

We shall come to that. The hon. member for Zululand knows very well that I am now talking about the reports which have been published by the Schlebusch Commission so far. The hon. member for Zululand knows that there were those members who openly said that until such time as they have read the whole report, they were not prepared to support the findings, the published findings, of the Schlebusch Commission.

Why not let us read the whole report?

You will get the whole report to read.

When?

After the election?

As far as I am concerned…

What about your promise?

I am coming to that as well.

Yes, you are coming to that.

Order! That question has been put over and over.

I am coming to that and I do not need the help of the hon. member as I reminded him on Friday. As far as I am concerned, certain reports were published and certain findings have been made by the Schlebusch Commission. I for one, accept not only that the members on my side of the House, but I want to place it on record that I also accept unreservedly that Messrs. Lionel Murray, Bill Sutton and Etienne Malan have judged the issues which were placed before them. They have judged the evidence placed before them on its merits. Furthermore I accept without the slightest hesitation the findings they have made so far. Instead of debating the merits of this Bill, what did we find from the hon. member for Durban North? The hon. member for Durban North is a senior member of this House and a lawyer. He advanced the argument that the hands of the members who served on the Schlebusch Commission are tied and that they cannot take part in this debate, because they might incriminate themselves if they did.

Might commit an offence.

Yes, it is the same thing; he said that these members might commit an offence if they did. I say now, as I have said by way of interjection to the hon. member for Durban North, that that is nonsense and he should know it. The hon. member, to substantiate that they dare not take part in this debate, went so far as to state as a fact that they cannot take part, that they will commit an offence as Jaap Marais committed an offence by speaking in this House.

I concede I was wrong about Jaap Marais.

Now the hon. member says—and this is very noteworthy—that he was wrong about Jaap Marais. The hon. member did not speak off the cuff; he had a prepared speech. He came to this House prepared and with a prepared speech and he is on record…

But I did not use my prepared speech.

Now I take it, Mr. Speaker, with your leave, that the hon. member for Durban North will tell us that his speech is what it is. You will allow me, Sir, to quote what he said because unfortunately the hon. member for Durban North is on record—and I must put the record straight because this is a very serious matter—as saying—

Mr. Jaap Marais was charged for what he had said in this House.

Of course that is not true. I then, by way of interjection, said to the hon. member for Durban North—

Not for what he said in this House, but because he had a document in his possession outside.

Mr. M. L. Mitchell: The offence was not that he had this document in his possession, but that he disclosed this information, and he did not disclose it outside; he disclosed it in this House. That was the offence—the fact that he disclosed it. The hon. the Prime Minister is wrong.

Now he comes along and says he made a mistake and that he did not use his prepared speech.

Don’t you want me to concede it when I am wrong on one point?

Now that the hon. member has conceded that, I am certainly entitled to ask him why he employed that argument. Surely he could not have been under the impression at the time that it was wrong. As a lawyer he could not have had that impression. Then I think he owes me an explanation as to why he used that argument at all.

Louis le Grange agrees with me that he should not disclose it because of the regulations.

Now the hon. member wants to crawl out of it.

Not at all.

I want to put the record straight because it will stand in the hon. member’s Hansard—and it is not to the credit of this House that that sort of thing should stand on record in Hansard…

Like your promise.

We will come to my so-called promise, Sir.

What about your libellous statement about the hon. member for Newton Park and myself?

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I asked the hon. the Prime Minister what about his libellous statement in this House about the hon. member for Newton Park and myself.

Order! Will the hon. member withdraw that allegation?

Sir, it was found to be libellous and his newspaper paid…

Order! I do not want any arguments from the hon. member. Will he withdraw those words?

No, Sir.

Order! I order the hon. member to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

Mr. Oliver thereupon withdrew from the House.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if in fact the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister was libellous and the hon. member refers to it as having been libellous, what then, Sir, is the objection?

Order! I have given my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, it is a question of understanding your ruling. If, as I understand the position, according to the hon. member, the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister was libellous and it is referred to…

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. member must abide by that.

Well, then I do not understand your ruling, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. member reflecting on the Chair?

No, Sir, I am simply stating a fact. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

As I have said, I am entitled to ask the hon. member for Durban North why and for what purpose he advanced that argument, if he knows that that was not the position?

The fact of the matter is that you commit an offence, but you may not be prosecuted for it…

No, Sir. The hon. member is a lawyer and he should have known what every member of this House knows, that section 8 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, 1963, reads as follows—

He knew that, Sir. In spite of that, he came with this argument, when all he had to do—and I am sure he had read that case before—was to walk over to the Library of Parliament, which is a couple of paces from the place where we are now, and there he would have found what the charges against Mr. Jaap Marais were. I am sure he knows it too; he knows that Mr. Marais was not charged with what he had said in this House, but that he was brought before court as a result of what he had said to one Mr. Wessels, a journalist of The Sunday Tribune.

I subsequently discovered that you were right. I conceded that I was wrong, and that is all. [Interjections.]

We are interested to hear about the promise you made.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether the implication is that a member is not bound by the pledge of secrecy on a commission and may disclose in this House the contents of a report which has not yet been tabled?

Surely the hon. member knows that the Standing Orders provide for that and that a member is not expected…

Or permitted.

… is not expected to disclose the contents—and it is in Mr. Speaker’s discretion—before a report is tabled. But surely the hon. member will also know that when the first report of the Schlebusch Commission was tabled, hon. members on that side went beyond the scope of that report to justify certain findings. The hon. member can refer to Hansard, and he will find that that is the position. In fact, a report had been tabled, and I will come back to that report.

The hon. member for South Coast wanted to know from me whether I had no sympathy or understanding at all for those members who suffered because they served on the Schlebusch Commission. In the context in which he said it, he naturally referred, first of all, to the members on his side. That was the question he put to me. I, in turn, want to put this question to the hon. member for South Coast: At whose hands did they suffer? They did not suffer at the hands of members such as my hon. friend, the member for South Coast, and others. They did not suffer at his hands at all. They did not suffer at the hands of the Leader of the Opposition. At whose hands did they suffer? They suffered at the hands of the Progs, the ultra-leftists…

That is not suffering—that is nuisance.

Well, my friend, the hon. member for Green Point says it is not suffering at all to suffer at her hands. I want to go further. They did not suffer at the hands of any right-thinking South African at all. No, Sir, they suffered at the hands of the leftists and the ultra-liberalists in South Africa. The question is, do we want to satisfy them? I want to say in all sincerity, as an objective observer: If anything benefited the United Party, it was the fact that they served on the Schlebusch Commission. Instead of being a drawback, and, to use the famous words of the hon. member for South Coast, instead of being a millstone round the neck of the United Party, it was the one saving grace as far as the United Party was concerned that they in fact served on that commission. I want to say that they benefited from the fact that they served on that commission. The hon. member knows that as far as I personally am concerned, I appreciate, not only the work that was done by hon. members on my side of the House, but, as the responsible Minister, I appreciate the fact that all members who served on that committee, which later on became a commission, fulfilled their task in the way they did—in an exemplary manner.

You had better strike a special Schlebusch medal for them.

No, Sir…

Order! Is the hon. member sitting up or is she lying down?

Let me say to the hon. member for Houghton that it is not necessary to have a medal struck for the gentlemen who served on that commission. They will get their reward and that reward will be the thanks of good South Africans for the services they have rendered to South Africa in this regard.

They have got “stank vir dank” so far.

While the hon. member for Durban North was developing his argument, I said by way of interjection that I did not know why he had only mentioned the report on Nusas and the other report that he did mention. Why he only mentioned two and not the others, I do not know.

That was what I read about in the newspapers, a statement by the chairman of the Schlebusch Commission.

The hon.

member for Durban North knows very well that four organizations were being investigated. It was not necessary for him to read about it in the newspapers. If he had listened intelligently in this House, he would have known that there were four organizations to be investigated. I said at the time…

I said that two reports were in your hands.

If that is the argument, why did the hon. member not argue that this Bill should not come before the House at all until all the investigations had been completed? Why only two? I said by way of interjection that it was irrelevant and I want to advance a number of arguments why it is in fact irrelevant and why it is not necessary to have the full report.

The first and obvious reason is that this Bill does not deal with a specific organization or with specific organizations as such. This Bill deals with an evil in general. For the sake of argument, and only for the sake of argument, let us look at the four organizations. Although they do receive funds, they are not the only organizations that receive funds. My authority for this is the hon. member for Houghton, apart from the Schlebusch Commission.

It is in their annual report.

Yes, that is about the only thing on which we two agree. They are not the only organizations which receive money from outside sources. There are other unmentioned organizations as well that receive money from outside sources. Let me say here, Sir, that we know the Communists and the Leftists. If there is one thing they are past-masters at, it is the creation of front organizations. They have front organizations all over the world. They have them in this country and they will create more of them as time goes on; there is no doubt about that, and especially in these coming months and years it is on the cards that they will create front organizations, organizations which certainly will not get financial backing from South Africans, and therefore they have to get the money from outside. Sir, I know what I am talking about; it is my business to know that that is the position, and because that is the position, apart from these four organizations, don’t hon. members want to pause for one moment and think what the price would be that we would be called upon to pay ultimately if the Government just closed its eyes to this evil and did nothing about it? Therefore I say that this Bill does not deal with specific organizations; it deals with a general evil, and as far as this side of the House is concerned, we will root out that evil, and I have every right as a fellow South African to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and those in his party who support him and those who think like the hon. member for South Coast: Why don’t you support us in this matter, too? What is there in this Bill that you cannot support. What is there in this Bill to which you cannot subscribe as a South African, and I know that you are one? What is behind it all; why are you fighting this Bill in the way in which you are doing? Where does it take us, Sir? I want to say in all sincerity, Sir, that the interests of our country demand that in matters of this kind we must speak with one voice. There is absolutely no reason at all why hon. members on this side of the House and why most—I say “most” advisedly—of the members on that side of the House cannot support this Bill.

If you felt like that, why not give us the full report? I think you do feel like that. Why then not give us the full report?

Sir, I will deal with that immediately. The position is that I received the final and full report of the Schlebusch Commission late in December last year. [Interjection.] It was, as hon. members who served on that commission well know, in one language only. It is a very lengthy report. Immediately I received that report, I gave instructions that it must be translated forthwith.

It is being censored.

I was then informed that it would be impossible for the department of the Civil Service dealing with translations to do it immediately, and I then said that if that was the case outside help must be called in; that it must be given to outside people to translate because I wanted the translation as soon as possible. That was done and the translation is in fact being done with the utmost speed. But for reasons which I will furnish the hon. member now, he will appreciate why the report cannot be tabled now. Hon. members will know that I said to them across the floor of the House last Friday that if they wanted the report in one language only and without the necessary copies, then I could lay it on the Table the next day; and if they say so to me now, Sir, then I am still prepared to lay it on the Table, but hon. members on that side did not take me up on this. Sir, what is interesting to me, too, is the fact that hon. members on the other side know that my door is always open; that my door has been open to them in the past and that they have made use of this. But nobody even bothered to come to me to ask me whether this was impossible and whether that was impossible.

When was this Bill drafted?

I can also tell the hon. member that. The principle embodied in this Bill was approved in November last year. It was then sent to the Law Advisers. It was drafted over the holiday period and it came before the Cabinet when we met here in January.

Was it drafted before you had the Schlebusch Commission’s report?

I had the one report which was of importance as far as this issue was concerned. Now that he has raised the matter, I shall refer to the report. What did I have before me at the time? I had the first and second interim reports of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations. I read this on page 3, and my hon. friend would have read it too if he had read this report. Paragraph 7…

The first or second report?

The first and second reports are contained in one volume. I quote from the first report, page 3. Paragraph 7 of this unanimous report, signed by members of this side of the House as well as by members of that side of the House on the commission, reads as follows and the hon. member for South Coast must please mark this extract—

1. (a) studied the evidence, memoranda and exhibits which had been submitted to the parliamentary Select Committee on Certain Organizations;
2. (b) held sittings on 37 days;
3. (c) heard evidence from 58 witnesses, the vast majority of whom had legal representation (the transcript of the evidence covers 3 388 pages); and
4. (d) studied the documents submitted (this documentation runs to about 13 000 pages).

This is how far this commission went. I say in so far as this Bill is relevant to the Nusas report—we have it on record; it is a public document—hon. members sitting on this side of the House together with hon. members on that side of the House know that they did not just submit a report for the fun of it. They did not submit a report only after having heard one or two witnesses and after having glanced through certain documents. In fact, they held sittings on 37 days; they heard 58 witnesses; they took evidence covering 3 388 pages; and they studied 13 000 pages of other documents. After they had done that, they felt that it was necessary in the interests of South Africa to submit an interim report. This report which they submitted dealt amongst other aspects, with the finances of Nusas. It is to that extent and only to that extent that Nusas is relevant. For purposes of the record you will allow me, Sir, I am sure, to quote extensively from this report because in view of what has been said and in view of what will be said, this must be on record in fairness not only to members on my side of the House, but in fairness also to the hon. members for Green Point, Mooi River and Orange Grove. Having examined so many witnesses and having listened for so many days to the evidence, they come to the following conclusion (subpara. (iv), page 7)—

Then in subparagraph (v) the report goes on to say—

These are strong words and these words must surely make each and everyone of us think. Here you have a South African student body which has to go for its funds to those people who are subsidizing terrorism against South Africa. That was not a finding which this commission has made lightly, and it was not a finding which they made without any evidence at all; it was a finding, and they tell us so in no uncertain terms in this report itself, which had to be made on the evidence which was submitted to it. What is more, the findings were made on the evidence given by Nusas office-bearers themselves. This is what this document tells us. What more do we want? Let me go on. I quote further—

We have read that; come to the promise.

That is what this commission found after they had heard the evidence. I say that it gives us food for thought. I want to say that in so far as the Nusas report is relevant to this Bill at all, it is not necessary to come to a conclusion; it is not necessary to make up one’s mind only after having the full report because everything you can possibly want is contained in that interim report. Having dealt with these matters since 1961, having an intimate knowledge of all these matters, I want to say that the members of that commission had come to the right conclusion on the evidence submitted to it. I have not the slightest hesitation to say that they acted like honourable men under all circumstances. The hon. member for Mooi River says that nobody doubts that, but is that a fact? Are there not members on that side of the House who said openly in public that as far as these findings were concerned, they were not prepared to accept them until they had seen the final report?

Who said that?

The hon.

member for Bezuidenhout was one. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said unhesitatingly that as far as the merits of this issue were concerned he was not prepared to take up a stance until he had read the whole report. But if it is true that nobody on that side doubts this at all, I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House why they then have any difficulty at all in supporting the principle contained in this Bill. If my argument is wrong, why do you not support the Bill?

Let us come back to the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North. He spoke for 30 minutes in this House, never touched the merits of this Bill at all, and only at the end moved this amendment in such a manner that it can never be quoted that the hon. member for Durban North said this or that or the other thing. Let me read this amendment again:

Why, if you say, as you do in your amendment, not only that you are opposed to a thing, but that you are totally opposed to money coming into South Africa and money coming into South Africa not only to organizations, but you yourself specified the type of organization, and it is against that type of organization that this side of the House wants to act, namely politically activist organizations…

That is not what the Bill says.

I am sure the hon. member is not the very best judge in this House as to what the Bill says and what the Bill does not say. I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who will no doubt follow me in this debate, whether he will explain to this House what is behind all this. Why, if you profess that you are totally opposed to political interference in South African affairs and you are totally opposed to the receipt by politically activist organizations of financial assistance from abroad, can you not support the principle of this Bill? Because that is what this Bill wants to kill. This is the aim and object of this Bill. Instead of arguing the merits of the case, what did hon. members do? Hon. members tried to smear me. Instead of arguing the merits of the Bill, the hon. member for Durban North, of all people, went so far as to accuse me of practically committing contempt of Parliament. He then went on to say that I had given a promise, but he did not advance any proof whatsoever in this connection. It was left to my hon. friend, the hon. member for South Coast, to produce the so-called promise.

I quoted your Hansard before you came into the House.

I shall read to you, Sir, what the hon. member for South Coast quoted, and how he can infer from that, Sir, that I gave a promise in regard to this Bill, only my friend will know. I shall again read it to the hon. member and to other hon. members in this House so that they can judge. This is what the hon. member for South Coast had to say—

That is what I said, Sir. Now how on earth the hon. member can infer from that that I made a promise that no legislation would be introduced into this House making it an offence for outsiders to hire people in South Africa to do their dirty work against all South Africans, I would not know. There is no promise, explicit or implied, in this. There is no promise that this House will not act if it comes to our notice, and we have the evidence, that people are being hired in this country not only to do the dirty work of outside leftist organizations, but to pave and prepare the way for South Africans ultimately to be murdered in this country, and to play the game inside South Africa that the terrorists are playing outside South Africa. I resent the fact that that accusation has been made against me, Sir, because there is no promise whatsoever, explicit or implied, in this statement of mine that Parliament would not act under these circumstances. It would be foolish, and worse, it would be criminal of me to give such an assurance. I say that I gave no such assurance I want to say again that, in so far as the hon. member might have understood it—and I am not conceding that he could have understood it, but I say this for argument’s sake—has not Parliament spoken in this regard? Indeed, Parliament has spoken in this regard. What are the facts? The facts are that the commission, consisting of members from this side of the House and members from that side of the House, heard evidence, as I told the hon. member; they heard it for days and they were so perturbed about what they heard and at what they found that they did the right thing towards South Africa by coming to Parliament and saying: “Look, it is going to take us ever so long before we can produce a report and therefore we find it necessary to come to you now to tell you what is going on and what we found, and as far as the money side of this whole issue is concerned, we found that there is a certain student organization which goes to the very people who subsidize terrorists and get money from them because they cannot raise the funds in South Africa itself.” They go on to point out that they must then talk the language of those organizations because they are competing for funds with the terrorists. As we say in Afrikaans “Wiens brood men eet, diens woord men spreek”. That is quite obvious, is it not? So I say, with regard to this Bill, if the argument is raised that Parliament should have spoken first, I say Parliament in fact has spoken because this report was laid on the Table of the House, and not only was it laid on the Table of this House, but it was accepted by the whole of this side of the House and by the majority of members on that side of the House. It was not a question of keeping Parliament in the dark or of acting behind Parliament’s back. It was not a question of by-passing Parliament. We have gone through all the necessary channels and all the necessary machinery came into action and functioned as Parliament should function.

Where is the permanent body recommended in the interim report?

I am glad that the hon. member asks me that question. It is true that a permanent body was recommended. It is also true, Sir, that I wanted to introduce legislation with regard to that permanent body last session. Now, unfortunately the hon. member forces me to say something I did not want to say, namely, that I was requested not to introduce legislation last year, and it was not by this side of the House that I was requested to do so. The hon. member has now the audacity, after having smeared my name across the floor of the House, to ask me this question !

What about the three magistrates?

I say that, as far as this issue is concerned, the hon. member knows I came to this House and put all my cards on the table. My Handsard is there for everybody to read. I want to say to my hon. friend, the hon. member for South Coast: You have done me a gross injustice to insinuate in your last speech in this House that I had made a promise to this House which I did not keep, because I had made no such promise and no promise is to be found in my Hansard. No such promise can be attributed to me on the strength of anything I have said inside or outside this House.

After the joint work on the Schlebush Commission, the Nationalist Party brought this Bill before us. It is not Parliament which brought the Bill.

Parliament cannot bring a Bill before this House.

Oh yes, it can!

It is the Government and the Government alone which can bring a Bill before this House. I will tell the hon. member where I have made a mistake. I candidly admit that.

Now you are like the hon. member for Durban North.

I candidly thought that the issue was so clear-cut that, having read these reports and having taken into account what is planned against South Africa—and that is something which not only I know, but which hon. members on that side of the House know too—I took it for granted that, when it came to matters of this kind, the Opposition would side with the Government. That is the mistake I made. I am sure I will not make that mistake twice. No, Sir, it is idle for the hon. member, my friend from South Coast, to say that Parliament should have brought this Bill before the House. Parliament cannot introduce a Bill; it is the Government’s job, and the Government would have fallen down on its job if it did not bring this Bill. I want to give credit where credit is due, I do not for one moment want to say that, in so far as these reports are relevant—and they are only minutely relevant, as far as this whole big issue is concerned, as I have tried to explain to hon. members—it is only members on this side of the House who warned of the danger. Members on that side of the House did so, too and I want to give them all credit for it. I want to give credit to Messrs. Murray, Sutton and Malan for what they did. I do not for one moment think that they, together with members on my side of the House, Messrs. Schlebusch, Le Grange and the others, deserve the attacks of the leftists in this country, because they have served South Africa, and they have served South Africa well. That being the case, I for one do not have the slightest hesitation to ask this House to accept the principle of this Bill, to do the right thing for South Africa, to stop money coming in, not only to Nusas, this, that and the other organization, but to all front organizations in South Africa with the object of undermining the very foundations of South African society as we know it. That is all to be found in this report.

I would like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he can assure this House that there is nothing in the final report of the Schlebusch Commission which adds anything or makes any recommendation in connection with the subject with which we are dealing at the moment.

This report, as I have said, was handed to me late in December. I have only glanced through the report. I have not studied it in depth. I just did not have the time to do so. Consequently—I am being very fair to the hon. member—I cannot tell him whether there are such findings or not. I am not aware of such findings. If there are, I am not aware of them. But I want to say again that that cuts no ice whatsoever. The fact is that the evil we want to remedy, not only as far as Nusas is concerned but as far as all front organizations are concerned, is that they should be financed by outside sources, sources who are seeking the downfall of South Africa. They are not seeking the downfall of this Government only, but the downfall of the Opposition on the other side as well. Hon. members know to what extent this is going on. Hon. members this morning took note of the news item in which Nusas said that, as far as this Government was concerned, as far as the Opposition was concerned and as far as the hon. member for Houghton they call her “Auntie Helen” behind her back—was concerned, none of us is acceptable. None of us is acceptable, Sir, because they want revolution in South Africa. That is to be found in these reports as well. Under those circumstances I find it very difficult indeed to understand the attitude of the Opposition.

Mr.

Speaker, it has been my privilege to be in this House for a number of years and during that time to engage in debate with a number of Prime Ministers. I must honestly confess, Sir, that I cannot remember a Prime Minister making as irrelevant and illogical a speech as that which the hon. the Prime Minister has made just now. Instead of debating the merits of the Bill, the hon. gentleman, as did the hon. member for Durban North, dealt at some length with the question as to whether members of the Schlebusch Commission could or could not reveal what was in the third interim report. Mr. Speaker, with great respect, the hon. member for Durban North said that he had made a mistake. The same mistake appears to have been made by the deputy chairman of the commission, the hon. member for Potchefstroom. In any event, Sir, what has this to do with the Bill? The hon. the Prime Minister practised as a lawyer. I want to ask him whether he won all his cases or whether he in fact lost some too. Then, Sir, when we had finished it all and the hon. gentleman had spent ten or 15 minutes trying to prove that the hon. member for Durban North was wrong, which he admitted that he was, then the hon. the Prime Minister said that under the Standing Rules and Orders the Speaker would use his discretion as to what may be said concerning the report of a commission that has not yet been tabled. So we are back exactly to square one. What did we waste our time for?

The hon. the Prime Minister had a great deal to say about the principle underlying the report. We have yet to hear exactly what that principle is. I have yet to hear from the hon. gentleman such a clear definition of that principle that anyone will know exactly what one is voting for in this House.

But I have given it to you.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that he has given it to me. There will not be much left of it when I have finished with him, Sir. Now, Sir, let us see what the situation is as it stands at the moment. The hon. gentleman said that he was speaking about a general evil. What is that general evil? Do you know what he reminds me of? He reminds me of a man who says: “You are against larceny, I am against theft. You support my Bill against theft with the penalty that anyone caught stealing will have his hands cut off”. The hon. gentleman knows that there is a difference between theft and larceny but he is not very sure what it is, and he does not know quite what the penalty should be. That is what the hon. the Prime Minister is doing tonight. What is the long title of this Bill? It is—

Which organizations?

It is in the Bill.

Yes, it is in the Bill, so beautifully defined. We shall come to that in a moment.

When we go through what the hon. the Prime Minister has had to say this evening, and what he said the other evening, before the debate was adjourned, it amounts to two things. He said that he did not make a promise that this House would decide on the results of the commission which he had appointed. He said that he did not make such a promise and that when he said that there would be a fact-finding commission that would come before this House and that this House would then decide what ought to be done or what ought not to be done, was not an undertaking or a promise to the House. We know, Sir, what importance to attach to his words in the future. What did these words mean? Did he not mean that he wanted a commission which was to find facts, present those facts to this House which would then be debated by this House and that the House would then decide what steps should be taken?

They gave it to the House and it was debated. [Interjections.]

That was his defence—that he did not make a promise. His second defence, which has become more evident this evening, is that our amendment indicates an agreement with the principle of the Bill and the knowledge of what is meant by “politics” as defined in the Bill. Let us deal with those two defences separately. First of all, has the hon. the Prime Minister kept his promise? When the first and second reports came before this House, certain facts were revealed by those reports. Was there a debate in this House before the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Government took action? No, there was action first and then the Government came to the House and presented the report. That is what happened. What does the hon. the Prime Minister say? He says that he has never made a promise and it was not for this House to decide what should be done. What do those words mean? This is what we want to know and it is what our commissioners sitting on that commission want to know. It is what I want to know. I put them on that commission and I take full responsibility for them. I do feel however that the hon. gentleman has not been fair to them in the way that he has acted in response to the reports that have been tabled so far. [Interjections.] No presumption exists, no intention will be implied, but let us see what the position is and how far the hon. gentleman proves his case. In respect of this Bill the hon. the Prime Minister says that he has tabled the first and second interim reports.

And the third.

Yes, and the third report but which happens to be irrelevant. Those two reports have now been tabled for about a year. Well, let us look at them. The hon. gentleman says that everything that justifies this Bill is to be found in those two reports. I wonder why the commission is still sitting. What has it been doing the last year or two?

That is not the only aspect they are investigating.

The terms of reference of the commission clearly contain a reference to the financing of certain organizations, which is what this Bill is about. It is really interesting to notice that neither of those two commissions’ reports makes any recommendation at all in respect of the financing or restrictions on the financing or what should be done about the financing of these organizations. What is very interesting is that in so far as the second interim report makes any recommendations at all, it makes recommendations as to persons,—not as to organizations. It makes recommendations as to eight persons. This Bill deals with organizations and not really with funds going to individuals, to persons. What is so interesting about the second interim report is that in so far as it deals with an organization, it deals with Nusas and it does not recommend its banning. In its report it promises further recommendations in the final report. This is what it says—

In other words, the report foreshadows a further report dealing with Nusas, dealing with the organization. That is the report which the hon. the Prime Minister has. That is the report which he has had for some time since last year but which is not available to us and which under the Standing Rules and Orders will be very difficult for the commissioners to debate in this House. Why must we have to consider this legislation without having the benefit of that final report? If you take the first interim report to which the hon. the Prime Minister has referred, you will find the following on page 11:

They referred to a permanent commission which would possibly be doing this work, but which is now to be done by the commission as it is sitting at the present time. We have not the benefit of their views at the present moment. Surely, the hon. the Prime Minister is not suggesting for one moment to us that the final report is not going to deal with matters of that kind, that it is not going to deal with how an organization such as Nusas can be controlled, that it is not going to deal with how its finances can be controlled and how the very evil which the hon. gentleman talks about in this Bill should be dealt with? In this report, for the first time we have a reference to three magistrates making an investigation. No mention is made of this in either of the first interim reports. Is there any mention of it in the final report? Where does the idea come from? Surely Parliament, like a court of law, is when it is asked to legislate entitled to have the best evidence before it.

Hear, hear!

Why is that evidence not available to Parliament? This Bill quite clearly is designed to cover a wide variety of organizations. The hon. the Prime Minister said so himself.

Of course.

But there is yet another report. The terms of reference dealing with the Institute of Race Relations also deals with the financing of that organization. Why are we not entitled to see that report as well before we legislate? The terms of reference call upon the commissioners to investigate the financing of these organizations. Why are we not entitled to those reports? This House has to make up its mind. If you take the first report, what do you find? On page 5 of the English version you will find that it speaks of:

Where is it? It is in the final report which is not here yet. We cannot have it. We go further. On pages 8 and 9, subparagraph (vii) of the report you will find the following:

Is the hon. the Prime Minister going to tell me in all honesty that he believes that this final report will not have reference to matters of this kind to which their attention has already been drawn? What interests me is that we have all agreed that murder is an evil. We combat it with properly drafted laws which have been carefully defined. The same goes for drug control, treason, theft, fraud and so on, to see that those misdeeds are carefully defined. If we decide to amend the Companies Act we see to it that we have the report of the commission. When we decide to amend the Stock Exchange Act, we see to it that we have the report of a commission. When we are going to amend the law concerning money coming in from overseas to be put to undesirable uses in South Africa, we can get on without the final report of the commission; we can work on our own and very soon I will show how that work has been done. Now the Prime Minister says that everything is based on the first two reports. He sat on them for a year.

I did not say everything; I said in so far as it was relevant.

I accept it; in so far as it was relevant it was based on the first two reports of the commission. The hon. the Prime Minister sat on them for a year. Now in a short pre-election session he tries to rush them through Parliament sitting until all hours of the night and probably through until tomorrow morning. What is the hurry; what has suddenly happened in the last year to frighten the Prime Minister? I was waiting when the hon. the Deputy Minister introduced the Bill to see what case he made out for the hurry and the rush to get this Bill through. We got nothing from him, so we waited to hear the reason from the hon. the Prime Minister. But you heard him yourself this evening, Sir, and what case has he made out for rushing this Bill through? What new dangers have suddenly appeared? Or is it nothing more nor less than bluff because there is an election coming and he is trying to put the electorate on the run as far as he can? That is what it is; that is where that leg of the hon. gentleman’s defence fails completely. Now let us have a look at the other leg. He says that our amendment indicates agreement with the principle of the Bill in the knowledge of what is meant by politics. The word “politics” embodied in the second clause of the Bill, of course, covers a very wide spectrum of activity. I took the trouble of looking up the word in the Oxford Dictionary to see just what is involves. “Politics”, it will interest the hon. gentleman, is said to be “the science and art of government, the science dealing with the form, organization and administration of a State or a part of one and with the regulation of its relations with other States”. That is politics. Obviously, in this Bill it has a somewhat restricted meaning but both sides of this House have agreed that we are not prepared to see funds from outside South Africa used in the party political struggle in South Africa. That is in the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, section 3 of Act No. 51 of 1968, which lays down that the receipt of financial assistance from abroad is prohibited for any political party or member of such a party. That loophole is therefore stopped up already. Our existing law covers in addition the question of funds which are brought in and used in the preparation of a crime or a misdeed under the very wide security legislation we have in South Africa.

We must remember that as far as some of these Nusas students were concerned, the commissioners felt that there was a prima jade case against them in respect of certain misdeeds. If funds were used for those purposes the State knows how to act. What else does the Prime Minister want to cover? Money cannot come in to be used by political parties in the party political battle. Money cannot be used for the crimes generally covered by the terms subversion, treason, terrorism and things like that kind. What else is it that the hon. the Prime Minister wants to cover and where do we get a clue in this Bill of what he wants to cover? Here is the problem we are faced with, Sir. There is no indication in the Bill. Unless we are agreed on what he wants to cover, there is no agreement in principle between the Prime Minister and ourselves. Once again, Sir, I am against larceny and he is against theft. Will he vote for my Bill against larceny, not knowing what it is, but knowing that the penalty is that you will get your hands chopped off if you are guilty of larceny? Where in this Bill, Mr. Speaker, do we know what it is that the hon. the Prime Minister wants to cover? Where is the agreement in principle between our amendment and what the Prime Minister says is the principle of the Bill? What is the principle of the Bill? Sir, may I ask another question first? Are we really expected to believe that the commission on which you, Mr. Speaker, served in another capacity has sat for two years and has not examined this very evil, and is not going to make recommendations on this very evil, which will enable it to be defined properly so that it can be dealt with?

Let us take a few examples and see how far we get with this Bill. This Bill lays down that if politics are being engaged in by an organization with the aid of or in cooperation with or in consultation with or under the influence of an organization or person abroad, then it is illegal for that organization to get money into South Africa. I wonder what exactly the hon. the Prime Minister is thinking of. I believe that an organization which is advocating an arms boycott of South Africa should be penalized. I believe that an organization which is advocating a trade boycott of South Africa, which is tantamount to treason in many respects, should be penalized. But where in this Bill do we get an idea of where the line is going to be drawn? The hon. the Prime Minister talks about undermining activities. Undermining what, Sir? Law and order?

Incidentally, you.

The hon. the Prime Minister says incidentally, me. The hon. the Prime Minister has been trying to do that for years! [Interjections.]

If that is the position, I was very successful indeed! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that if that is what the hon. the Prime Minister calls success, then he must be satisfied with very little.

Sir, let us examine a few more things. Money comes in for a missionary society. It does good work, but one or other of its missionaries starts preaching political sermons, starts preaching that the people should support the Government’s separate development policy, starts saying that apartheid is correct. Is that politics, Mr. Speaker? Should that organizations be prohibited from getting funds from abroad?

Let us have another try, Sir. A small church gets money from abroad. In due course we have parsons preaching political sermons. I take it one or two sermons would not mean that they are engaged in politics. But if it becomes a custom in the church for them to preach in this way, is that going to be regarded as being engaged in politics? What is going to happen if certain legislation comes before Parliament like we had some years ago when the church clause was brought before Parliament when various churches called on the members of their flock to resist that clause? Is that being engaged in politics, Mr. Speaker? Is the hon. the Prime Minister going to say that they can no longer get funds from abroad?

Let us take something else. You have certain organizations engaged in research and welfare in many parts of the world. South Africa had a wonderful experience of that when the Carnegie Commission came to South Africa in the early 1930s. This commission investigated the Poor White problem with foreign funds. On that commission sat South Africans and members from overseas. It came out with the report on how that problem was to be dealt with. Was that a political report, Mr. Speaker? Would funds be allowed in for that today, or is that “being engaged in politics”? There are various organizations in South Africa which do wonderful research work. If they publish the results of their research and that research shows that they should undertake or suggest reforms in a certain direction, is that going to be regarded at being engaged in politics? I have put just a few cases. Under this Bill, who is going to decide? The Bill lays down that the State President will decide and that he will do so after consideration by the Minister of a factual report by three magistrates. Presumably, the magistrates put in a factual report. On that factual report the Minister decides whether politics is being engaged in or not and he then makes a recommendation to the State President. What guide-line does the hon. the Minister have in reaching that opinion? There are no guide-lines laid down in this Bill. There is nothing whatever to show when the Minister must decide that politics is being engaged in and when not. In other words, what is the hon. the Prime Minister asking us? He is asking us to embark the Minister on a whole sea of new legislation based on precedents as established by him from time to time. He will take ad hoc decisions which will become the sort of precedents for the future. A whole new body of law will be developed…

Are you against the principle of the Bill?

The hon. gentleman asks whether I am against the principle of the Bill. He must tell me whether he is against theft or larceny, or does he not know? The sort of problem we are faced with at the present time is that one is going to get a whole series of precedents adopted, but what control will this House have over those precedents. We are not going to see the report from the three magistrates. We are not going to see the facts on which the Minister takes his decision. We are not going to know the motivation of the Minister’s decisions. Here we have him on this new sea of legislation with no compass, no chart and no control by Parliament at all over what is happening to him. What is so tragic, is that the decisions which that hon. Minister takes involve the principles of this Bill, because the decisions which are taken by him will determine what is understood by “being engaged in politics”. That is where the principle of this Bill is going to be found. The hon. gentleman asks whether I agree with the principle. Let me tell him that the principle of this Bill is going to vary with the length of the foot of every Minister who from time to time has to administer this measure, and that is an absolutely ridiculous situation. Heaven knows, we on this side of the House are not going to tolerate foreign interference in the politics of South Africa and we are not going to tolerate funds being sent in to be used for activist political purposes in so far as we can define them, but if we are to put legislation of this kind on the Statute Book, we are not going to leave it to this Minister and this Government to decide at will just what they like to do.

Shall I tell you, Sir, what this legislation is about? It has nothing to do with the security of South Africa. This legislation is Nationalist Party organized politics for the coming election. It is using a hammer to crush a nut—a 25 lb. hammer to crush a peanut. Where are we, Sir? No principle is clearly defined. There is no idea, but an hon. Prime Minister in a previous debate in this House waxed quite excited, because he said he was in the same position as Mr. Heath in England—he was fighting extra parliamentary pressure. Here is the evidence: this sort of Bill, to combat extra parliamentary pressure. It is nothing but election propaganda. It is nothing but a piece of legislation designed to frighten people, legislation which is going to be found almost impossible to apply because of the looseness of the definitions which are involved in it. You know, Sir, when I see the word “politics” in this Bill, I am reminded of the words of what was the anthem here once—

That is what I feel about this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, if there is anyone in this House tonight who can tell me whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is in favour of or opposed to the principle that money should enter this country for political purposes, I should very much like to hear it. What did we get from him? At the outset he admitted that he was opposed to money entering the country for party political purposes. But subsequently he demolished the provisions of the Bill clause by clause. Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not learnt yet that when he is in the responsible position in which he finds himself, he must adopt a standpoint one way or the other? What did he do? In the idiom of the hon. member for Pinelands, he was “approximately” in favour of the legislation and “approximately” opposed to it. He gave “approximately” a little guidance, but on the other hand he gave “approximately” no guidance. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not want to learn that his party can make no contribution to the security of this country when he evinces a standpoint like that, when the Leader of the Opposition is afraid to adopt a definite standpoint one way or the other?

It was clear to us on Friday afternoon already that the Opposition had found itself in a major dilemma. In a half-hour speech the hon. member for Durban North made no mention of the principle of this Bill. But, Sir, that was not strange. It happened as a result of one or two reasons. In the first place we were reading in the Press on Thursday already that the Opposition supported the principle contained in this legislation, i.e. that they were opposed to money being brought into the country for political purposes, but on the other hand we also read that they were concerned about certain aspects of this Bill. What happened in the meantime? On Friday morning a leading article appeared in The Cape Times, the mouthpiece of Mr. Harry Schwarz here in the Cape, in which this newspaper expressed vehement opposition to the whole principle of the Bill. They then found themselves in the dilemma that they were unable to adopt any standpoint. Either they had to listen to The Cape Times, or Harry Schwarz cracked his whip. We know, after all, that when matters of this kind are at issue, and Harry Schwarz opens his mouth in the Transvaal, there is a major crisis in that party.

Sir, it is strange that it is now being argued that because the final report of the Schlebusch Commission has not been tabled yet, we do not have all the facts before us. The Prime Minister dealt very effectively with that argument. When a commission such as the Schlebusch Commission reports as follows to the Government—

—surely something is amiss. Here this commission is stating that this organization is a danger to the State. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants this commission to make a definite recommendation first, before the Government dares take action in this regard. Sir, surely that is quite ridiculous. Let us consider the kind of politics which these people are engaged in. This has nothing to do with ordinary party politics. These people think absolutely nothing of the ordinary political structure—and the same applies to the hon. member for Houghton—for their own chairman, Paul Pretorius, had this to say—

We know who these “arm-chair radicals” are—

Sir, when the chairman of an organization uses words like these, is it necessary for us to define in legislation what politics is? Are these not the most drastic and revolutionary politics which one can find? Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes forward with the naïve argument that we should define politics more precisely.

I now want to come to the speech by the hon. member for Durban North the other evening. During this debate he made at least three mistakes, which the hon. the Prime Minister indicated very clearly. In the first place, he made a very serious mistake in respect of the Jaap Marais case. In the second place he made the major blunder of simply accepting that the legislation now before the House is based on the final report of the Schlebusch Commission which was handed over to the hon. the Prime Minister at the end of last year. That was a completely false premise. The hon. the Prime Minister proved that this legislation had been prepared in November of last year already, long before that report was in the hands of the Prime Minister. But the hon. member made a third mistake. He made a speech here which he should have made at the First Reading. He did not attack the principles of this Bill; in fact, he did not comment on this Bill at all. He was advancing reasons all the time as to why the Government should not come forward with this type of legislation. I maintain that he, as he accused the hon. the Prime Minister of doing the other day, came very close to displaying contempt of this House through his actions and the speech he made. In a previous speech he levelled the accusation at us that the provisions of a certain Bill was symptomatic of a sick Government. Sir, the attitude of the Opposition in this specific case can only be the attitude of a mortally sick Opposition. We know that that party is mortally sick. That is why it cannot adopt a standpoint, and that is why it has to blow hot and cold in respect of legislation of this nature. The hon. the Prime Minister rose in the no-confidence debate and spelled out the dangers threatening South Africa. The hon. the leader of the Opposition, however, asked why the haste with this legislation, and why this legislation should be at this juncture. He called it an election gimmick. We must remember, Sir, when we come forward with legislation which is fundamental to the security of the country, to prevent money from other countries, which have no good intentions with it, entering this country, that he who buys the dynamite or pays for it, also lights the fuse. We have had experience, and we know, that when that money comes here from abroad, it is not utilized here for lawful purposes but is utilized for undermining the authority of the State. I am not saying that this is true of all cases. A great deal of money comes from abroad for lawful and good purposes, and this Government is certainly not so ridiculous as to try to prohibit that kind of money from entering the country. However, when that money is utilized to attack the lawful Government in an unlawful manner, it is time this Government took action against those people. Surely this is no new principle in the Act. As long ago as 1968 in a speech in this House the hon. the Leader of the Opposition admitted that money should not enter the country for political purposes. Why then, when attempts are being made to stem the flow of money for unlawful political purposes, oppose it? Why do they not say, if they are not satisfied with the way in which this is being done, that they would prefer it to be done in some other way? We are dealing with the security of our country. We are adopting measures which will ensure the security and the future of our country. This measure is being adopted for the sake of our internal security. With reference to the donation of R300 000 by the World Council of Churches to terrorist organizations, it is naïve to believe that attempts will not be made to divert some of that money to this country as well. After all, it is of no avail fomenting revolution only on the borders or just beyond the borders of a country; it is being done internally as well. If we were to imagine that attempts would not be made to find points of contact in this country as well, we would be deceiving ourselves.

I am disappointed. We find ourselves on the eve of an election where we have to put our case to the voters with responsibility. However, the Opposition also has a specific responsibility in respect of the security of this country. They have failed this country hopelessly in this respect.

Mr. Speaker we have listened to very interesting speeches tonight and perhaps the most interesting of them all is the one which we have heard from the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister thundered away in his good, old melodramatic style which I, for one, was very used to in the 1960s when the hon. the Prime Minister was the Minister of Justice and was introducing all sorts of Draconian measures onto our Statute Book from the 90 days Act onwards. He was enjoying himself in his good, old style. However, there are one or two questions which I feel the hon. the Prime Minister has not answered. The most important one is one that was put by way of interjection by the hon. member for Durban North. The hon. member for Durban North whispered rather shyly to the hon. the Prime Minister: “Why have you not introduced the Internal Security Bill?” That Internal Security Bill was recommended in the first report of the Schlebusch Commission and it was recommended as long ago as February last year. The hon. the Prime Minister promised us that that Internal Security Bill would come before Parliament last session. It never appeared. It did not appear this session either. I want to know exactly who it was now asked the hon. the Prime Minister not to introduce the Bill.

Was it you?

No, it was not I. It certainly was not I, but I would not at all be surprised to find that it was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or his party. Indeed, the hon. the Prime Minister has as much as suggested that this is the case and if he comes back into this Chamber before I have completed my speech I shall ask him to verify whether that is the case. If that is the case, I would like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister why he has not introduced the Bill this session. Is it also because he has been requested not to do so by the Leader of the Opposition or perhaps the members of the Schlebusch Commission who belong to the United Party? I want to say at once that I do not at all miss the appearance of the fourth part of the Schlebusch Commission’s report. I can do very well without this document. I have already had the benefit of seeing Parts I, II and III of the Schlebusch Commission’s report. Part I recommended the internal security committee. Part II gave us a long and detailed exposé of the nefarious doings and goings on of the NUSAS students. Part III had a lot of nonsense about Wilge-spruit, as the Denby Young commission of inquiry has subsequently proved. As far as the Schlebusch Commission is concerned, I want to say at once that I place no value whatever upon its procedure and its findings, for the simple reason that the people who appear before it are not allowed to see the evidence which is being led against them. Furthermore, their counsel is not allowed to cross-examine witnesses, and the conclusions which are drawn by the commission remain a secret which nobody has the right to examine, certainly not at the present date. As I said, I do not miss the appearance of that I 500-page report—as I understand it to be—because, indeed, I can do very well without it. I was rather filled with despair at the thought of even having to look at it. I can wait an indefinite time for the appearance of the next instalment of this very unexciting serial of the Schlebusch Commission.

I want to come to the Bill which is before the House. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quite correctly said—and it was pointed out again by the hon. member who has just sat down—that in fact the principle of not allowing money from abroad to be used for political parties was adopted by this House as far back as 1968 when the Prohibition of improper Political Interference Act was passed. At that time…

You fought against it.

No, in fact I accepted the principle that political parties should not be allowed to use funds from abroad. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did the same, and so did the hon. member for Green Point on this particular section, section 3 of that Act. I accept it for the very simple reason that the aim of actually changing a Government of the country is a domestic affair. Therefore I agreed that political parties per se should not be allowed to get money from abroad. However, the official Opposition and myself were at one in disagreeing over one part of the Prohibition of Improper Political Interference Bill, namely clause 3, and that was in regard to the inclusion in that clause of a vegue sentence which stated—

We were at one in trying to remove that offensive, ambiguous and ill-defined sentence from clause 3. Of course we did not succeed in doing so because the hon. the Minister, in introducing the Bill, said that as far as he was concerned if the door was closed it must be closed properly. In other words, he was not concerned with having so wide a definition of what is meant by “combating the aims or the principles of a political party”. He wanted to leave it all as wide as possible. There, from 1968 onwards, we have had law on the Statute Book which was wide and undefined, which could allow the Government to take action against any organization which has been getting funds from abroad to combat the aim or principle of any political party. To the best of my knowledge, section 3 of the Prohibition of Improper Political Interference Act has never been used by the Government. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he can tell me why the Government has not used these wide powers which were given to him, against the will of the official Opposition and myself, in 1968. The powers have been there for a long time, but he has not attempted to use them.

They have so many, they have forgotten all about it.

That may very well be true. They have so many that they might well have forgotten about them.

You must remind them, Helen.

Of course, they are not going to use them. They would much rather use the Bill which is presently before the House. Today we have a Bill before the House which has equally vague and ill-defined terms, terms such as “politics are being engaged in”. Under such terminology all sorts of bona fide organizations can in fact be deprived of much needed finance from abroad. It includes all kinds of organizations and, I might add, individuals who could also be drawn into the purview of this Bill and crippled financially. It is not going too far to say about South Africa, because colour plays such a very important part in our politics, in fact is the overriding part of our politics—we spend more time in this House discussing racial policies than we do any other 10 subjects put together—that almost every aspect of life in South Africa has a political content. A sporting body that campaigns for multi-racial sport can be said to be taking part in politics. Trade unions that work for Black membership can be said to be taking part in politics. Universities that uphold the principle of academic freedom and want to admit Black students can be said to be taking part in politics. All of these could fall foul of this Bill, not to mention church bodies, student bodies and research organizations which inter alia criticize the Government, but also do a great deal of research work. Politics is concerned with society as a whole. It is concerned with the way in which society organizes and governs itself. This is what I see politics to mean. It is precisely because politics is concerned with every aspect of the way in which our society is organized, that the term “engaging in politics” is a phrase which is almost completely encompassing. It can refer to any and every aspect of social involvement. It can mean absolutely anything from propagating multi-racial sport to attempting to overthrow the State. All this could come under the expression “engaging in politics”. It is so vague that I believe it gives absolute carte blanche to the Government to intervene.

This, of course, is a piece of enabling legislation. The direct effects of the Bill will be to stop organizations from obtaining money from abroad, but I now want to turn to the indirect effects which I believe to be even more sinister and really to be the Government’s chief objective behind this Bill. This Government believes, as Disraeli’s father once put it, that “politics is the art of governing mankind by deceiving them”. I believe that this Bill is a deceptive little Bill for the reason I have mentioned already, viz. that the Government already has wide powers to deal with organizations, political organizations, that are bringing money in from abroad to combat any aim or any principle of any party. The real objective, of course, is so to smear any organization that the very fact of it being declared, first of all, to be affected, or to be more correct, afflicted, will damn it in the eyes of the public. Not only will its overseas funds dry up, but of course it is hoped that the funds that it gets from inside South Africa will also dry up, that the local funds will also dry up. What is more damaging in South Africa, which is so punch-drunk already from all the Bills we have had over all these years dealing with communists, terrorists and every kind of so-called subversive agents, than to have been branded as unpatriotic or subversive? That is exactly what will have happened to an organization when the State President, in terms of this Bill, has declared an organization or an individual to be affected, acting of course on the consideration by the Minister of a so-called factual report by three magistrates, a report, incidentally, of which he need take no notice whatever. There is nothing in the Bill which states that the Minister, before he makes his recommendation, has really got to take notice of the factual report which the magistrates lay before him. As for the basis of the State President’s declaration, that is just as vague.

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

A little later, if I have the time. Sir, it is in terms of this clause that the State President has to make his recommendation. Now, what do the expressions “with the aid of or in co-operation with or in consultation with, or under the influence of an organization or person abroad” mean? I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister exactly what this means.

It means exactly what it says.

He says it means exactly what it says. All right. Let me now put a couple of propositions to him. Supposing a South African politician goes overseas and visits the central office of the Conservative Party, or Transport House, which is where the Labour Party has its headquarters, and consults them about how to run an election. Does he or his party then fall foul of this Bill? As I see it, this terminology is so wide that that person or his party could fall foul of the Bill. Let me now come to the position of members of any party who may receive grants from that dangerous organization, Ussalep. This organization has already been labelled as subversive by the hon. the Minister of Defence. If Ussalep, the United States—South Africa Leader Exchange Programme, pays for the fare and finances a trip to America of any South African politician, or anybody else for that matter, to examine how an American presidential election is run, or to study methods of party organization as they are practised in the United States, are these persons then acting “with the aid of or in co-operation with…” a foreign organization? Do not forget, it can be any foreign organization.

No, an outside organization.

Well, Ussalep is an organization. The Bill states that any person who co-operates with an outside organization, or rather any organization inside which co-operates with an outside organization or an outside person, can in fact fall foul of this Bill. The State President can then declare such a person to be affected.

No, an affected organization.

Yes, your organization is then declared an affected organization. You then may not get funds from outside. As I have pointed out, the effect of that is of course that funds from inside South Africa are also likely to dry up.

Perhaps even more damaging than being declared affected or infected, or afflicted, or whatever you would like to call it, by the State President, is being placed under suspicion by the Minister and subjected to what I can only call a humiliating process of interrogation by the authorized officer. That, Sir, is another thing which serves to condemn anybody in the eyes of South Africa. “After all”, people say, “there is no smoke without a fire”. “After all”, they say, “the Minister must know more than we do”, when heaven knows, he in fact very often knows a good deal less than anybody else in this House.

You probably know more than I do.

I am not interested in the Deputy Minister’s sly little innuendos, Sir. I shall just ignore them. He has done this for years. Of course, he never has the guts to say those things outside because he knows perfectly well that I would take him to court on the dot, without any hesitation.

You said…

I said the hon. the Deputy Minister often knows less; I did not say “about these organizations”. He often knows less about anything than members in this House. As I was saying, exactly the same smear will attach itself to any individual or organization which is brought under the beady eye of the authorized officer; exactly the same sort of thing will happen to any organization or individual as happened in America when any person was hauled before the McCarthy Committee…

The Bill mentions organizations and not individuals.

The Bill throughout mentions individuals. The point is that as soon as an organization or a person is brought under the beady eye of the authorized officer, the same smear will attach to that organization or person as attached to anybody who was brought before the McCarthy Commission in America in the 1950s. The very act of being brought before the committee to answer certain charges was enough to ruin the lives of many people in the United States. It all becomes quite clear—this is, I believe, why the Improper Interference Act has not suffice. It does not serve the same purpose as the purpose which the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister wish this measure to serve. Mere prosecution under section 3 of that Act—and, as I say the Government has never used it to my knowledge although it has been on the Statute Book since 1968—despite its wide terminology, could never really have the same devastating consequences as being hauled before the authorized officer, whom I believe to be a one-man inquisition with absolutely unlimited powers of snooping. He reminds me of the comic opera character in Gilbert and Sullivan, who sings the following lines—and the House will be glad to hear that I am not going to sing them—

One glance at clause 6 of this Bill exposes the humiliating way in which the authorized officer is going to draw up his little list. He can interrogate any person at any time in any place, ask any questions and seize any document. I may say that the only protection that is really provided by subsection (3) is that the afflicted person need not answer incriminating questions. However, since this person need have no knowledge of the law at all and can be examined when alone by the authorized officer, I wonder just how much protection that is going to give him. In effect, a secret inquisition is going to be held in terms of this Bill. Sir, I think this Bill has vicious penalties and objectionable retrospective clauses. I think people ought to realize that there are clauses in this Bill that make money which was collected while the organization was still not affected subject to confiscation. Alternately, that money is frozen or it must be donated to a welfare organization, and I see that there is an amendment on the Order Paper to the effect that that money will have to be donated to an organization designated by the hon. the Minister, one of his little pet organizations. In other words, money which was collected when it was legal so to do, is retrospectively simply pinched by the Government—that is all it amounts to. I want to say that the retrospectivity alone, makes this Bill thoroughly objectionable as far as I am concerned. In the meantime, it is of course a very useful bogey to dangle before the public, just before the election. It is the usual bogey of “communists at work”, “leftists at work” and “subversive organizations at work undermining the State and threatening our security with the aid of sinister agents”. I wonder if the Government does not think the public is getting just a little bit sick of these tactics, since we have had them year in and year out, election in and election out. People, you know, Sir, are just beginning to get a little wise to this Government. Even the official Opposition is getting wise to the Government and is beginning to oppose such Bills. I believe that this Bill had to be introduced during this session because of the election. That is why it could not wait for the fourth report of the Schlebusch Commission. That is the only reason. It is a very useful bogey to talk of “dangerous subversives”, “leftists”, and of terrorists operating in South Africa. While all the sound and fury is being directed at the non-appearance of the Schlebusch Commission’s report, I say South Africa is slipping more and more into the control of a growing body of secret men, the Special Branch, Boss and now authorized officers—the whole ugly paraphernalia of an authoritarian society of who shall be allowed to determine, who shall be allowed to do what, who and what shall function, where and how. That is what is happening in South Africa. While people are bothering about the Schlebusch Commission and things of that nature, South Africa is, slowly but surely, slipping into this morass. We are all being controlled, whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not, by a secret body of men making secret investigations and making secret reports on our lives and on our organizations. Under the guise of stopping alleged foreign influences in our domestic policy, the Government is busy creating machinery through which it can wield full powers to destroy perfectly legal and innocent organizations, as well as individuals, who will, as usual, have no right of appeal against legislation of this kind. Only the old, useless mala fides type of appeal will be allowed. So, again—I regret having to do it twice in one day and—I am getting a bit bored with it myself, but I have no alternative, as the Government will come with these pieces of legislation—I am going to move an amendment which is the strongest form of parliamentary objection that I can muster. Mr. Speaker, I move as a further amendment—

Now, Sir, if the hon. member for Potchefstroom would like to ask me his question, I would be glad to try to answer him.

I would like to ask the hon. member why the Oppenheimer organization is not prepared to finance Nusas.

Well, Sir, that is not for me to answer. He must ask Mr. Oppenheimer. I am afraid I am unable to answer for Mr. Oppenheimer. I do not know in fact whether or not Mr. Oppenheimer does or does not give financial aid to Nusas. Now I would like to ask the hon. member something. I suppose this is part of the fourth report of the Schlebusch Commission? He has an advantage over me; I have not read the fourth report of the Schlebusch Commission. I must say that it fills me with horror to think I am going to have to. I presume that the hon. member there is going to be the chairman-elect of the Schlebusch Commission. We will soon be calling it the Le Grange Commission. He has the advantage over me. If he wants to know for sure whether Mr. Oppenheimer does or does not give money to the Nusas organization, he can jolly well ask him himself.

What about your own party?

That is my own business.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton began her speech in a very commendable way. It is a pleasure for me to quote her with approbation and to say that in this regard I agree with her. She said—

This is the spirit and the attitude implicit in this legislation, and this is what this Parliament and this House must decide on. It is a great pity, though, that we must hold it against the hon. member for Houghton for subsequently becoming so carried away that she destroyed her own argument.

Sir, the issue here is change which is coming and is busy taking place in South Africa. Every party in this House is geared to change. The National Party wants to change South Africa; the United Party wants to change South Africa; the Progressive Party also wants to change South Africa. But there are a few requirements which a good, patriotic South African will set in regard to every change. That change which has to take place in South Africa will firstly, be made by South Africans, for South Africans and in the over-all interests of South Africa. However, the last part of the hon. member for Houghton’s argument amounts to there having to be a change in South Africa with the assistance of the outside world, and for the overall interest of the outside world, and not South Africa. Sir, what ought the name of this Bill really to be? It ought really to be: The Patriotism Bill. It is very easy to know whether one wants to support this legislation or not. One’s instincts as a South African citizen ought to tell one this.

I want to deal with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s argument on the question of politics. The hon. the Leader has problems concerning what he word politics as it occurs in the Bill means. He cannot understand the word politics. The only problem is that the hon. member apparently did not have the problems which he has today in 1968. In 1968, when the Opposition supported the then Prohibition of Political Interference Bill, the term politics was also used in the Bill. Mention is made there of political parties. I want to put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition across the floor of this House that the word politics is not defined. Mention is made of political parties, but the word politics is not defined. It is this word which is giving difficulty in the application of that Act. Mr. Speaker, the word politics in this Bill means the same as it means in that Act.

Why have they not defined it in this Bill?

Mr. Speaker, the word politics in that Act means the same as in this Bill. The only difference is that there one is dealing with a political party in the formal sense of the word and here one is dealing with an organization in the wider sense of the word.

Why do you not read what we had to say at that time…

If the hon. member wants to argue that it is only the political parties which are geared to a change of government in South Africa, I want to tell him that he is being naïve, and he ought to know it. Hon. members on that side of the House ought to know that it is not only the formal political parties in this country that want to change this Government. Hon. members know that there are political organizations which are working for a change of government in South Africa, and to bring about what those members do not want in South Africa. Why should we now sit with folded arms when an organization wants to bring about this change, and take action when a formal political party receives money from abroad. Surely that does not make any sense.

Let us consider this Bill for a moment. In the first place let us ask ourselves: What does this Bill not state? I shall tell you what is not stated in this Bill. It is not stated in this Bill that this Bill is directed at Nusas. It is not stated in this Bill that this Bill is directed at the Christian Institute. It is not stated in this Bill that this Bill is directed at any particular organization. This Bill does not express an opinion in respect of any factual situation.

It is a vague Bill.

This Bill contains a principle. This is what is stated in this Bill. Stated in this Bill there is a principle which the hon. member for Von Brandis ought not to find difficult to support, provided he is a patriotic South African citizen. This Bill contains no facts. This Bill contains a principle which we can support or which we can refuse to support. What have we had from the Opposition up to now? What have we had from the hon. member for Durban North? The hon. member for Durban North tried to kick up a dust-cloud here because the final report of the Schlebusch Commission had not been before this House. I want to challenge hon. members on that side of the House. They should rise and tell this House what facts there are which they want, facts which they do not already have, in order to be able to form an opinion on this principle? It is not a question of facts which they require to be able to form an opinion on Nusas. We are not forming an opinion of Nusas this evening. We are not sitting in judgment on Nusas. We have many facts which condemn Nusas. We have a great deal of evidence which condemns Nusas. The issue this evening is not Nusas only. The issue is a principle. I challenge hon. members on that side of the House, a clear and unequivocal challenge, to tell us what facts are relevant with regard to this Bill which they do not already have in their possession. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted passages from the report of the commission in regard to matters on which they will still have to reach a conclusion in future and on which they are still going to bring out reports. Sir, what is the relevance of that to this Bill, as the hon. the Prime Minister has already indicated in such a competent way? No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. members are kicking up a dust-cloud. They are kicking up a dust-cloud in regard to this very important matter.

Twelve o’clock Midnight.

Tuesday, 26 February 1974.

One of the most important and also the most unsavoury dust-clouds which they kicked up concerned the alleged promise the hon. the Prime Minister was supposed to have made. According to his Hansard the hon. member for Durban North said—

What I want to know, not in order to form an opinion of Nusas, but in order to form an opinion of this Bill, is what facts the hon. members still require. The hon. member then went on to say—

Let us now once again analyse the hon. member’s personal and unsavoury attack on the hon. the Prime Minister. The relevant portion of the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, referring to Nusas, was—

This is supposed to be the position when the final report is tabled—

What the hon. the Prime Minister said here, still holds good today. When the final report is submitted, Parliament will decide whether or not it wants to do something in that regard. At that moment Parliament will decide; not today. When the final report is tabled, Parliament will decide whether it wants to do anything in particular with regard to Nusas. That is a logical statement of facts, but does it contain a promise? That is the question I ask myself and which I asked the hon. members to ask themselves. Does it contain a promise to the effect that the Prime Minister had allegedly said that nothing would be done with regard to Nusas until such time as the final report had been disposed of? Does it contain a promise that until such time as the final report has been published and tabled, this Government will take no action whatsoever against Nusas; that Nusas will enjoy a kind of immunity from prosecution if it cannot be arraigned and dealt with in any way, in spite of what it may do? Surely that is not the issue. What is the issue here? The issue is a very simple principle, a principle based on a set of facts which were wonderfully illustrated by abundant evidence in the first report of the Schlebusch Commission. The hon. the Prime Minister quoted those facts, and I shall not refer to those facts again. However, what do those facts mean? Those facts mean that we need a Bill such as this one. I challenge the hon. members on the opposite side of the House to say that this country does not need such a Bill. I challenge the hon. members on the opposite side to say, in the light of the facts contained in the first report of the Schlebusch Commission, that this country does not need this Bill. Is it the argument of that side of the House that this Bill is not necessary, while they have to face up to the facts and the factual findings as contained in the first report of the Schlebusch Commission? Here we have facts which state that here we have an organization which is receiving money to the detriment of South Africa. The question before this House this morning is: Is this Bill necessary or not? I suggest, with all due respect, that in the light of this report of the Schlebusch Commission this Bill is necessary.

Was it necessary last year?

It is necessary today. The hon. member for East London City who has now asked that question must honestly ask himself today whether the Bill is necessary or not. Is it necessary that this Bill be piloted through Parliament today, yes or no?

Is it necessary now?

Yes, you can have nothing to say because you are not a member.

Order! Who is making the speech there?

It we consider this Bill now we must return for a while to the word politics, for it is very important. In this amendment of the Opposition the following words are used. They say that they are opposed to political interference in South African affairs from abroad and to the receipt by politically activist organizations within the Republic of financial assistance from abroad. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a major issue of asking the hon. the Prime Minister what politics means. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether this was politics, or whether that was politics. Now I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. members on that side of the House what the word politics in their amendment means. What are politically activist organizations according to the interpretation of those hon. members? Those hon. members come to this House, and throw up their hands, and say that they do not know what politics means. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes to this House and asks what cases the hon. the Prime Minister wants to cover with this Bill.

Black peril.

Perhaps the hon. member for Hillbrow could tell us what is meant here. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked what cases the hon. the Prime Minister wants to cover with this legislation. We are asking him across the floor of this House what he and the Opposition had in mind when they spoke of “politically activist” organizations. What does the word politics mean in their amendment? If they tell us that the Bill is not clear to them, then surely their amendment cannot be clear to them either. If they are uncertain about what politics means in our Bill, how can they move an amendment of this nature and use the same word without defining it? I want to challenge hon. members of the Opposition once again to tell us what the word politics means to them. Tell us what the words “politically activist organizations” in your amendment means In my opinion the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was nothing but a kicking up of a dust-cloud and an attempt to run away from the Opposition’s own official amendment. He scarcely referred to this amendment. I do not want to give offence to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now, but if I remember correctly he ignored this amendment. He did not mention it at all. Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition satisfied with this amendment? Did he know that this amendment is the one which was being introduced on behalf of the Opposition before it was tabled? Why did he not discuss this amendment? Why did he not tell us how he differed with us in this regard? There is another challenge which we on this side of the House want to issue. In the light of the amendment proposed by the hon. members, the hon. members on that side of the House must tell us in what way they differ with us. That is the first question. I want to put a second question. To what extent can the objections which are applicable to our Bill not also be applied to their amendment? They must remember that we are now discussing only the principle of this Bill. Tell us how you differ with us. During the past few days we have had attempts on the part of the United Party to regard any actions on the part of the Government and this side of the House as “election gimmicks”. What must we tell the voters of South Africa? What must we tell our voters? What must I tell the 1 600 United Party Supporters in Pretoria Central? Must we tell them that when we streamlined and improved the security legislation of South Africa, the United Party said that it was “election gimmicks”? Must we tell them that the Opposition laughed at us when we wanted to place security legislation on the Statute Book? Must we tell the voters that the Opposition thinks it is a farce when we come to this Parliament with security legislation? I want to tell the House what the problem of the United Party is.

We have no problems.

The United Party has serious problems, with this matter as well. Why has the hon. member for Wynberg not been here since we began to deal with this security legislation? Why is she not here to enjoy her last day in Parliament? It ought to have been the hon. member for Wynberg’s leave-taking tonight. This ought to have been her last opportunity tonight to sit on the greet cushions, except for the formal closing ceremony which will probably take place on Wednesday. She and the hon. member for Bezui-denhout are internally divided with other members on this matter. Where is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout? The United Par-Party is a two-headed organization and those two heads are devouring their own body. On 24 April the voters of South Africa will reject it completely.

Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. member for Pretoria Central, one wonders whether he appreciates the question of the security of South Africa as a matter of vital concern to all South Africans. When one listens to him one wonders whether security is not merely a political election gimmick which he can use for election purposes without any depth of sincerity. It is too vital an issue to be utilized for party political manoeuvring and, for election purposes to be thrown around at a time of election. I can see no other reason for the Bill being before us than that it is part of election tactics. The hon. the Prime Minister tells us that it is based on the first and second Schlebusch Commission reports, which have been in his hands since 12 February 1973. Is it necessary to bring in a Bill in the dying days of this session, is the matter so urgent? A Bill is presented to us in the broadest generalities without any attempt at being precise as to its contents. The hon. member for Pretoria Central asks us what we mean by political activists, but I want to ask him what this Bill says politics mean. Further, the measure is brought before us, and I want to say it with due deference to the hon. the Prime Minister, that he has not fulfilled the intent of what he said, namely that the Schlebusch Commission would report to Parliament and that Parliament would decide what should be done and what should not be done. One appreciates the hon. the Prime Minister’s comments and remarks about the work which has been done by the Commission. It has been a heavy and long task and has not been work which one has enjoyed doing, but we find ourselves today having a Bill which we must argue in a vacuum. When I am asked the question which I was also asked by the hon. member for Pretoria Central, who was a member of the Commission, as to what politics are, I want to say that that is a subject which was thoroughly investigated by the Schlebusch Commission. I want to avail myself, because I think it is right that the country should know, of sections 2 and 8 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, and I am going to inform the country of what has been done by the Schlebusch Commission as far as this final report is concerned. The hon. member for Pretoria Central knows that we on the commission posed a question to a “deskundige”. This was the question—

Hon members who served on this commission with me know that we dealt with that subject. They know that there are 30 pages in this report dealing with the waustion as to how one defines politics, as to how one differentiates between active politics and politics in the ordinary sense of the word. The hon. the Prime Minister thinks that this is not material to this debate. Let me just quote one of the replies to this question. This “deskundige” said—

*The chairman then asked—

The professor replied—

†And then, Sir, we have a Bill before us and we have to decide what is politics. We are asked to vote for a Bill of this nature when this report is in the hands of the hon. the Prime Minister. I believe that I can go further. I think the country and Parliament should know what the recommendations in this report are. There are some thousand pages in this report, but I shall deal only with the recommendations, the “aanbevelings” of this commission. I believe that Parliament and the country should know these, when we have legislation brought before us at this stage, for the possible political gain of the other side, and in order to discredit this side of the House as being unconcerned about security. I refer to the recommendations of the commission, and I quote from Chapter 20 of the final report—

That was the purpose of our report, Sir. I continue—

Read the part dealing with funds.

All right. I quote—

[Interjections.] To explain all of this, there are 30 pages in this document on political activities.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question

No, I do not have the time. There is a great deal which I still have to read out.

Did you sign that part?

What I am going to quote, was adopted unanimously by the commission. I shall come to the minority report shortly. I quote further—

Then we went on to deal with other persons who are not bona fide students. In that connection it was recommended that the Minister concerned and the university authorities should go into the matter. We also investigated the wage campaign by Nusas. This part of the report is also unanimous. I continue (paras. 20.2.62 et seq.)—

What is the relevancy of that?

The relevancy is in the hands of Mr. Speaker; not in yours. This then goes on further to deal with other aspects. There is talk here again dealing with Nusas and the political activities of this body which is covered by the Bill. I quote (para. 20.2.6.4)—

*This part of the report was unanimously adopted by the commission.

Now I come to another aspect of the recommendations—for example, the one dealing with the handling of the matter, which is covered by the Bill before us. The majority report in this regard reads as follows—

†That was not referred to a “veiligheids-komitee”. We have it now before us in the Bill. I want to go on to the minority report and quote as follows—

I refer to the paragraphs I read of the majority report—

Order! Does the hon. member want to deliver a speech, or is he just reading the report?

I am reading this, and I intend commenting—I have almost finished it—on what is the fact which I want to put before Parliament this evening. I have dealt with the relationships. This Bill is dealing with attempts to prevent certain political activity being conducted by certain organizations covered by this Bill. We suggested in the minority report that the responsibility for dealing with that type of curtailment of activity is the responsibility of Parliament to explicitly and clearly define what actions are actions which are to be stopped. I mentioned this, because it is the minority report of this commission. We sat for two years, considering these matters. We have made certain recommendations, which are not now before Parliament when we are asked to deal with this particular legislation. It is for that reason that I attempted to read this to you. I believe that it is vital that in dealing with matters which affect the individual activities or the activities of groups of persons, whatever is done of an executive nature, should be subject to some judicial control. Now, Sir, what has happened in this Bill? This Bill has introduced, at a low and soft level, the three magistrates to deal with inquiries. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that that is not in accord with the recommendations contained in the first report of the Schlebusch Commission. It is a departure from it, and it is a correct departure. We say in these recommendations of ours that the investigation of organizations is not the function of a parliamentary committee; it is the function of the judiciary. I personally welcome the extent to which the Minister of Justice has in this measure made provision whereby the investigation and the reporting of facts should be done by magistrates. I personally welcome that. We go on to say in this report that the function of a parliamentary committee should be to consider a Bill of this sort before it comes to this House, to be able to see the evidence that is here, the recommendations contained in this lengthy report as to the necessity or otherwise of the legislation and then for that Bill to come back to Parliament for consideration after it has been considered in the light of the report. The position is quite simple. The problems are simple, but they highlight the difference that exists between that side of the House and ourselves. That side of the House is prepared to legislate in general and in respect of generalities inasmuch as the encompassing of the word “politics” is then left to the administrative discretion of a member of the Government and not subjected to any objective test. Our approach on this side of the House has always been—and we have emphasized this again in this report—that the crime must be defined. Define what we do not believe a man should do as a South African if it is directed towards…

Have you defined that yourself in your amendment?

No. What we have said here is in regard to the financing of a politically activist organization.

What is that?

The hon. member asks: What is that? If this Bill could stand over, then the hon. member would be able to read these 30 odd pages in this report.

What is the meaning you give to that phrase?

The hon. member for Potchefstroom knows that that is one of the biggest problems that we had. It is a problem upon which we have reported, not to have it stuck in the archives, but in order that Parliament could see what the position is and so that Parliament, through a Select Committee, could consider how best that set of circumstances could be defined.

Why do you run away now?

That is the problem that we have. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I see a faltering step towards putting the basis of his investigation on to the right footing, but it does not go as far as this report does and a unanimous report as well. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that if he wants to show the country that he is not playing at politics with this legislation, that this is not an election stunt, then he will say tonight: “I shall not proceed with this Bill; I have not been able to table the Schlebusch Commission report, the final report because of publishing problems that I have had. The matter can stand over until the report has been tabled and the Bill can be considered when the House next meets.” That, Sir, will indicate the sincerity of the hon. the Prime Minister. It would indicate his sincerity and will be the answer which we will ask him to give when he turns to this side of the House and tells us that we are not sincere in our attempt to deal with subversion and the maintenance of order in this country. The next step is in his hands. If that is what he wants, if he wants us to find a measure in regard to which hon. members on both sides of the House agree in broad principle—my hon. leader has said that we agree on the broad principle, but we cannot agree on the form which it takes in this legislation before us this evening. The proof, the demonstration to South Africa, must come from the Government side. They must say: “We shall not go on with this legislation until Parliament has had the opportunity of considering in full the fourth report of the Schlebusch Commission.” It also affects very widely the report of the Schlebusch Commission in respect of the Institute of Race Relations. I have mentioned merely in passing the reference of one person to the objective and valuable political work in a technical sense that the Institute of Race Relations has conducted. This was revealed in the evidence given to the commission. One has to look at that in the whole picture of South Africa and the conducting of political affairs in South Africa. We cannot do it in the form in which this Bill is now before us For that reason I support the amendment which has been moved that this Bill be not proceeded with until such time as we have the full report of the Schlebusch Commission before us. It will be appreciated that there are still many pages to which I have not referred, which are material, if not directly material, to the measure which is before us. It is, however, not necessary that I should quote them. What I have quoted, I think will indicate the extent to which this report deals with the problem relative to the measure which is before us.

Mr. Speaker, I felt extremely sorry for the hon. member for Green Point this evening because the hon. member gave the most pathetic performance he has ever given in this House. The reason for that is very clear. The hon. member was speaking with his tongue in his cheek, for just as I and other members were concerned about the large sums of money which were entering this country and which were being used for political subversion, so, too, was that member as a good South African concerned about that phenomenon. But this evening, to speak out his allotted time, he lost his head completely. In his frustration, embitteredness and bitterness he read from a report which had not yet been tabled. He quoted from a report which was in no way relevant to the Bill we are at present discussing. What he proved from that was firstly that he had signed the recommendation which stated that the receipt of money from abroad for political purposes should be stopped. He read it out, and he had signed it, and he admitted that he and his colleagues had signed it. In the second place he proved, by what he read out, that there was no motivation in the final report which indicates a Bill of this nature and which is differently motivated than in the first, second and third reports. The motivations in the first, second and third reports which were tabled, were proved by him to be stronger than what he tried to demonstrate there from the final report. The hon. member said that this was an election tactic. My goodness gracious me, that I should now, in the early hours of this morning, have to discuss this with you! What party needs to display an election tactic in this way before the election? Is it this party or is it that party which, with a last convulsive effort here, is forcing a night sitting on a matter in regard to which three-quarters of them are full in agreement with us? This is a very clear and truly childish election tactic, and I shall point out in the course of my speech how this is being revealed in what is said here. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, when I asked him whether he agreed with the principle of the Bill, said that the principle would constantly be changing depending on how the Minister of Justice interpreted the word “politics”. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not do his homework, or else the person who wrote his speech for him did not do his homework. Clause 8 stated very clearly that three senior magistrates shall decide whether action should be taken. It will only be possible to take action after a factual report from three magistrates. That factual report has to be submitted to the State President. Surely it is not the Minister of Justice who will decide about this. Clause 8 of the Bill is very clear in this regard. Never before in the history of this House has the United Party ever displayed its draconian Hydra many-headedness to such an extent as it has with this Bill, has demonstrated so blatantly and clearly that they are trying to sit on two stools. What do we have here? We have here the pathetic helplessness, the pitiable inability of a party to adopt a public standpoint in respect of a principle which they support. That is the position which we have. The pitiable helplessness of a party to say to the world and to the country: We support this principle. Because I know they support it. They admitted as much in their amendment. The principle is very clear, regardless of what embellishments the hon. members are trying to attach to this Bill and what wrappings they are trying to put around it. The principle is as plain as day—it is to prohibit money which comes from abroad being used to finance political activities in this country. That is the principle of this legislation. To make all kinds of excuses will simply not avail. It is a principle which those hon. members supported in 1968 when this Act passed legislation prohibiting political parties from receiving money from abroad. They supported it. It is a principle which any child can understand, and it is a principle which they will support in their heart of hearts tonight. This principle is supported by that faction of them who think conservatively, and it appears in their amendment. Now one asks why is there such a tilting at windmills, why this sanctimonious, pontifical display of outrage at the fact that the final report has not been tabled? Why this forced outrage? Why this play-acting? What is behind it? On whose command are hon. members reacting? For every person in this House and for everyone outside, this game is so transparent and so clear that it is not even funny anymore; it is really pathetic. It is pitiable, it is regrettable, for it shows once again the ambiguity, the doubled-heartedness, the helplessness and the indecision of that party. It illustrates at its clearest the unbridgeable rift which has been opened in that party, for it adopted this attitude in respect of this Bill firstly to say to its liberal wing: “No, but we opposed this Bill; we are opposed to it and we fought it all night.” To its conservative faction they say: “No, but look, we support the principle. Go and read our amendment and you will see that we support the principle. We were only opposed to the over-hasty way in which the matter was being dealt with.” This is the double-talk. Let the United Party admit candidly that it suits them down to the ground that the report has not yet been tabled. It suits them down to the ground, for it has afforded them the opportunity of offering an excuse as to why they cannot support the Bill. If the report had been tabled, they would not have had any excuse, for the hon. member for Green Point let the cat out of the bag when he admitted that the members who had served on that commission had supported the principle. Surely they would not have abandoned those three members and stabbed them in the back. Then they would surely have had to support it. But what would they then have told their liberal faction? What would they then have told Mr. Harry Schwarz? Would he not perhaps, in his rage, have lopped off a few more heads? Would he not perhaps, for a few more weeks, have adopted the pose of a political martyr, like a child who had not been given his own way? If one strips the United Party bare of its transparent attempts to hide its true self, if one strips it of all the wrappings and embellishments it has tried to hang about it in this debate, it stands there in its true manifestation, in its nakedness and its shame a two-headed donkey the body of which has been dead a long time and on which only the ears on each head are still twitching slightly.

Let us now consider the argument that the hon. the Prime Minister allegedly broke his promise to Parliament. That is a childish argument and is proof of political bankruptcy. The hon. the Prime Minister demonstrated here this evening that he had never made any such promise. The hon. the Prime Minister said that he wanted Parliament to investigate those organizations. He wanted Parliament to acquaint itself with what is happening among those people. He wanted Parliament to examine the internal workings of those organizations. If the Government had introduced a Bill this evening to the effect that Nusas or one of those organizations should be banned or finally condemned the Opposition’s argument would have been a valid one, for then we would first have had to read that report. However, this case was stated very clearly and that is why that argument of theirs is wrong and invalid. Do hon. members want to deny that these various organizations are engaging in politics? It is not necessary to read the final report on Nusas in this regard, for all of us know and daily we find every newspaper shouting it out from the roof tops that this organization is politically active. There is only one reason why hon. members are opposing this Bill, and that is because they are afraid to adopt a standpoint before they hold an election. In the second interim report the commission wrote as follows with regard to Dr. Rick Turner, lecturer at the Natal University—

This passage which I have now read is a very important part of that second interim report. What does it indicate? It indicates that these campus politicians, these people who engage in politics on the campuses of English-language universities, are not only allowed to receive large amounts of money from abroad to finance their activities, but also enjoy protection against existing political parties. They enjoy protection in that their arguments cannot be questioned by other politicians and in that counter-arguments cannot be stated because other political parties are not allowed on the campuses. These campus politicians therefore have special privileges. Firstly, while ordinary political parties cannot receive money from abroad, they can. While ordinary political parties are constantly subject to the penetrating questions of its opponents, no such thing applies to them. But they have other protection and privileges as well. They enjoy the facilities of the university buildings. They have the halls at their disposal. In particular they also have a very special audience at their disposal. They need not incur great expenses to find audiences. They have a special audience, an audience which consists of interested, developing young people who listen with great awe to the great wisdom and erudition of post-graduate students and lecturers. All these things these people have and what do they do with them? They bedevil the sons and the daughters of parents who also belong to that party. They continue their subversive and indoctrinating work with a philosophy which is aimed at destroying the existing order in this country. That is what they are doing. They are pursuing their political activities with a philosophy with which they are indoctrinating these young people to destroy the existing order in South Africa. In addition they also have a constant, inexhaustible source of finance at their disposal, for they receive thousands of rand from abroad. They need not thrust their hands into their own pockets as the ordinary politician has to do. They have this source of finance to sustain them. They drive around, and they fly around from campus to campus with money which they receive from abroad. Sir, this unequal struggle between the political parties and the person engaged in politics on the campus, is being terminated with this Bill. This person will no longer be able to receive assistance from abroad. He will now have to thrust his hand into his own pocket if he wants to engage in politics there.

But, Sir, that party does not see its way clear to supporting this principle in the interests of the children of the parents who belong to their party. I now say to them: “We shall go from platform to platform, from town to town and from city to city and we shall proclaim this standpoint of yours.” [Interjections.] The little support which they still had, we are now going to take away from them. We shall strip them bare, for a political party which does not have the courage of its convictions to adopt a standpoint on such an absolutely important matter as this in our country, does not deserve to survive in South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: “This legislation has got nothing to do with the security of South Africa.” I say that it is a very dangerous statement which the hon. member made. We shall use that statement of his at the next election.

Mr. Speaker, we have had the interesting spectacle in this House this evening of members of the Committee on either side of this House debating a matter on national security which is now before the House, all of us knowing a great deal more than we believed at one stage we were able to say. If ever there was convincing proof of the validity of the amendment of the United Party on this Bill, it has been that very fact. Those of us who have been members of the Commission for two long years have sat on the Commission, have reached conclusions, have debated points, and have gone into all sorts of aspects, but when we come to discussing legislation which deals with the national security of South Africa, the collective wisdom of the Schlebusch Commission is denied to Parliament. For what reason, Sir? For what reason has the Nationalist Party at this stage brought this legislation before Parliament, when they could have awaited a matter of three or four months until Parliament meets again? Had they waited a while longer this report could have been translated and printed, and this matter could have been referred to the Schlebusch Commission. One of the very ideas in the first interim report of the Schlebusch Commission was that this commission or a commission of the same sort should be used to make recommendations to Parliament regarding suitable legislation. This type of legislation could then be taken out of the political arena where it is now, and where it has already become a party issue. Every single member on the other side is already committed to every single word in this Bill. Surely the sensible, common sense thing, the thing which would be best for South Africa, would have been to try to keep an issue like this out of the political arena and to try to get it into the calmness of a commission or another body of some sort, such as was proposed by the commission, through which we could make recommendations to Parliament which would be agreed on so that politics would not be played with the issue.

We have agreed on this Bill.

The hon. member says we have agreed but what has happened is that the Nationalist Party has come to this House with a Bill which, they know, does not accord with the recommendations of the Schlebusch Commission. They know too that ultimately when it is reduced to its final point, it depends on the judgment of the Minister as to what constitutes politics and what organization should be allowed to continue and which should not be allowed to continue. This has been done for one reason only. It has been done because the Nationalist Party, for its own selfish, political advantage has tried to pre-empt the report of the Schlebusch Commission. It has come along with legislation which pre-empts that report because there is an election on 24 April. I want to say that what is going to happen—I know it is going to happen and every member knows it is going to happen; in fact the hon. member for Algoa said it was going to happen—is that they will go to all the platforms in the country and say things about the United Party, but they were going to do that anyway. Whatever our attitude had been towards the Bill they were going to say this. The hon. member for Pretoria Central said here the other day that the United Party was soft on Nusas.

Of course you are.

I want to say that there is not one single member in this House who can say on any platform that I am in favour of foreign funds coming into South Africa or that I am in favour of foreign interference, because I and my colleagues have signed reports to that effect, some of which have been tabled and some of which must still be tabled. I refer to the reports of the Schlebusch Commission. We who served on the commission, have been supported by our party through thick and thin. Whatever it has cost this party, we have been supported by the party without the knowledge of the facts. Our party has supported us, the United Party members of the commission, the three of us on this side and the hon. member for Yeoville when he was on this side. We were supported through thick and thin by the United Party. I want to say that any Nationalist who goes to the platforms and says that this party was in favour of funds being brought in for Nusas and other organizations to carry out politics in this country, is a deliberate, rotting liar and nothing else. Such an allegation will be made deliberately with the knowledge that this party has supported the members on this side of the House who were members of the Schlebusch Commission. They were supported through thick and thin without having the facts.

When we come to the question of legislation, here we have legislation being introduced which flows directly from the investigation which has taken place over two years by the Schlebusch Commission. Why does the Nationalist Party deny this House the knowledge of what is in those final reports? What has happened with this Bill is that the Nationalist Party has deliberately cut the throat of the Schlebusch Commission for its own selfish, political advantages. If ever there was a party which has trifled with the security of South Africa, it is the Nationalist Party with this legislation which is before the House. Here we had a commission which was investigating all sorts of matters relating to national security, but what has the Nationalist Party done? They have deliberately, for their own selfish, political advantage, made it impossible for the commission’s reports to be considered in any other way than in a party political way. Had this not happened, had the reports been tabled, this side of the House would have been able to consider all matters arising from that report in the same way as they were discussing by the commission. I wish to put it on record here and now that I believe that, as far as that commission is concerned, we have done something which I regard as being of the utmost importance to South Africa. I believe that with that commission we have reached to a very large degree a bi-partisan approach regarding the question of internal security in South Africa which boded the most tremendous good for South Africa. If we cannot keep the question of internal security out of party politics, Mr. Speaker, how are we going to survive? Here we had a commission appointed on which we served and by which we stand, but what has happened to it? What has happened to all the days, the months, the years we have spent on that commission?

Not to mention the money.

Not to mention the money, as the hon. member for Houghton reminds me, the taxpayers’ money. What has happened is that the Nationalist Party has pulled the rug out from under any report the Schlebusch Commission may make, its final report on Nusas or any other of the organizations, and any legislation that may arise from such a report. I am absolutely sick at heart tonight, I tell you with honesty, because I had really felt that with this commission we were getting to the point where it was possible to be a South African in this Parliament without the background of party politics, which inevitably…

I’ll show you that you are one.

The condescension of the hon. member for Newcastle slays me! What happened to this report and the whole attitude that we built up? At the first tickle of political temptation the Nationalist Party shot away downhill like a herd of Gadarene swine, running down to get their back-feet in the top of political advantage in the bottom of Hell. That is what happened, and nothing else. It was for the pure political advantage of this Nationalist Party. The other day the hon. member for Rissik asked me something.

*“Am I concerned about the Afrikaner?” In all fatherly love I want to say to my friend from Rissik over there that one cannot help being concerned about the Afrikaner if you see what people are being sent to represent the Afrikaner. Of course one is very concerned about that.

†I want to say something to the Nationalist Afrikaner supporters of this Nationalist Party. There is an interest revealed in this Bill which is the vested interest of the Nationalist Party. It has nothing to do with the interest of South Africa. It has nothing to do with the interest of “Nasionale Afrikanerdom”. It has everything to do with the selfish political interest of that Nationalist Party, as they sit there in those benches like fat cats licking the cream from their faces. That is what the motivation is behind this Bill. I believe that the Nationalist Party, if they go on to the platforms, as they promise they are going to do…

Can you not be even more abusive? Go on, be more abusive.

One of them has got a tender hide. Sir, if they go out, as they promise they will do, to the platforms of South Africa and attempt to use the security of South Africa and the part that has been played by this party in the biggest step that has been taken towards a bi-partisan approach to national security, the Schlebusch Commission, against the United Party, they are going to come very, very short indeed, because the people outside know the attitude this party has taken. They know the support we have had. They know that throughout the course of the work, the United Party has stood up and been counted as a South African party, participating to the full in an investigation of which one can only say what I want to repeat about it again: I had thought that there would be honour from the side of the Nationalist Party towards the attitude that our party has taken up towards the report of the commission. Then you have a Bill which has been introduced in this way. We have moved an amendment which says we are not prepared to accept the principle contained in the Bill, which is the principle that the Minister shall decide who is practising politics on the recommendation of a panel of people. [Interjection.] Well, it will be based on a factual report. People are going to be prevented from receiving funds on the grounds of a factual report. The factual report will be made to the Minister and the Minister will decide whether those shall be regarded as affected organizations or not. Surely, we as a party are entitled, we deserved it, to have an opportunity to consider the final report of the Schlebusch Commission on this matter before the introduction of this legislation? I can only say again that what happened was that the Nationalist Party, the organizers of the Nationalist Party, looked at the coming election and said to themselves: “How can we get the U.P. against the wall”? This is the one way in which they figured out they would do it, but it is not going to work. [Interjections.] That grin on the face of the hon. Chief Whip is a grin of admission of guilt, Mr. Speaker. I want to tell those hon. members that this will not do them any good. The record of this party throughout this particular investigation and of national security as a whole will stand against the record of any other party anywhere in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, let me say at once to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that I have great appreciation for all the work done by Opposition members on the Schlebusch Commission. The hon. the Prime Minister made it very clear this evening that this Bill…

You do not mean a thing; you are just a bunch of…

Order! What did the hon. member for Musgrave say?

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Minister may proceed.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill goes much further than the Schlebusch Commission went. This has been explained very clearly to hon. members in this House, and I have said this before—someone took this amiss of me—that I receive information which is far more extensive than the information which was submitted to the Schlebusch Commission, which is investigating four organizations. There are many organizations which have to be investigated and in regard to which we are receiving information. I can give hon. members this assurance that this Bill is necessary at this juncture. The hon. member knows from his Schlebusch Report and from the activities of the commission why I am saying this. I am saying that this goes much further than only those four organizations. There are far more organizations which are involved. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this measure has nothing to do with the present report of the Schlebusch Commission. The Schlebusch Commission is quite entitled to continue and bring out its report. Its report may still be considered, but this legislation is imperative at this stage of South Africa’s history.

The hon. member for Green Point said that it is the Minister who has to consider the report of the three magistrates. That is true. Let the hon. member for Green Point suggest something else to us. Those three magistrates are after all what the hon. member for Green Point wanted, not so? He wanted such a report. Now the hon. member has such a report, why is he complaining now?

Do they make a recommendation?

Of course they make a recommendation. They give a factual report. What more must a magistrate do than give a factual report? As Deputy Minister I take full responsibility in this House for the decisions which follow on that factual report. Let me go further. You will see that it is being provided that the State President must be satisfied that politics are being engaged in by or through an organization. It is not the decision of one Minister only. It is a Cabinet decision which is submitted to the State President. It has to be considered by the Cabinet. The Minister merely receives that report from the three magistrates and then it is forwarded and discussed properly by the Cabinet. The full Cabinet, consisting of all the Ministers, then takes a decision to submit it. [Interjections.] That is not what? I beg your pardon? The hon. member must be careful, Mr. Speaker. I want to tell him this evening that the Ministers on this side, and any Ministers in this Parliament whether of the National or United Party or whatever, are responsible people. I tell him they are responsible people who will not lightly take a decision which is contrary to the report of the magistrates. [Interjections.] If the hon. members had taken the trouble to analyse the Bill, they would have found that there are many provisions in it which ensure that the rights of individuals are not encroached upon. Take for example the registrar who is entitled to examine the finances of such an affected organization. What does he do? If he suspects that there is affected money, he must submit an affidavit to the registrar. The registrar then has to issue an order prohibiting the utilization of the money. The police served the order and only after the police have served it does the registrar make application to the courts. He then alleges that it is affected money. However, it does not end there. The court then has to confiscate that money unless the affected person is able to satisfy the court that it is not affected money. Therefore the money is not merely being taken. There is a proper court case before the Supreme Court of South Africa. This means that the registrar eventually has to appear in the court where he alleges that this is money which is affected in that it reached the organization from abroad. The person concerned then has the right to say that it is not affected money. If he is able to prove it, the money is paid back to him. In this way we can go right through this Bill. The same applies to the magistrates. After all, we all believe that the magistrates will present us with a proper, factual report. The hon. member for Houghton complained that an officer is present, but even that officer cannot do what he pleases. I am referring to clause 6(3) in which the following is stipulated—

What are these privileges? These privileges are that he is entitled to legal representation. If he appears before the Supreme Court and is questioned there, he is entitled to say: “But my attorney or advocate must listen to this, and he must advise me on what I have to reply to and what I do not have to reply to.” The audi alteram partem rule applies, and he has that right, for in terms of clause 6(3) the rules of the Supreme Court are applicable to him. He has the right to say that he should be tried, or that he has the right to state his side of the case. What is more, he need not reply to any questions which would culpably incriminate him. Those are the rules of the Supreme Court. If he is asked a question and he could with the reply to that question commit an offence, then he can say that he does not want to reply because he does not want to incriminate himself. He has all those rights. Over and above this, there are still the three magistrates. They go into the facts which they receive from such an officer. They sift those facts and ascertain which facts are corroborated, and they thereupon draw up a report which goes to the Minister. The Minister in turn examines the question of the politics, and only after that is the matter submitted to the full Cabinet which then submits a report to the State President. Now the hon. member for Green Point must really not come and ask us in open Parliament what politics is. What is politics? How can one ask a politician what politics is? This is beyond me. [Interjections.] Why is he sitting here if he does not know what politics is? [Interjections.] Of course he knows what politics is. Let me now inform the hon. member on the opposite side of the House who is so fond of looking up definitions what the Concise Oxford Dictionary gives as the definition of political:

Surely that is not difficult to understand. It is easy to understand that. Here we have a group of politicians and then the opposite side of the House comes along and says that they do not know what politics is. Let me now inform the hon. gentlemen that if there is one thing which I am going to proclaim from the platforms, then it is that the United Party until tonight did not know what politics was. I ask myself why they are sitting here? Hon. members must pardon me if I say that it is clear to me now why the hon. members on the opposite side of the House are once again sitting at the top of a pole while they do not know to what side they are going to fall. I have here a short article written by Jan Nettle from which I should just like to quote. I am addressing this anecdote by Nettle to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition:

There is a group of people in that party who want to support this Bill in full. I quote further—

Then the hon. member for Durban North came forward with his “suitable amendment”. He went on to say—

There is just one other passage which I wanted to read, because it is late in the morning. I quote—

Half of the members on that side of the House agree absolutely with us on this point. Now they come here…

Do you believe that?

Of course I believe that. You cannot deny it either [Interjections.] I am asking the hon. members whether this is true or not.

*This is entirely true, the way in which these hon. members are laughing tells us that it is the absolute truth. They are split in two on this entire matter. I can say tonight that they made a mistake in opposing this Bill. We expect more responsibility from them in the light of circumstances in South Africa. I would have had more respect for them if they had said: “Look let the Schwarz hand do what it pleases, here we are going to support this measure.”

Question put: That the words “the Bill be” stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—98: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—41: Bands, G. J.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan. E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell dropped.

Mr. Speaker then put the Question: That the word “now” stand part of the motion, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Question declared affirmed and amendment proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman dropped.

Main Question accordingly agreed to. Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Mr. Chairman, this clause relates, as far as the Bill is concerned, and as far as we are concerned, to clause 8. I therefore move—

I hope that that will be acceptable, since our attitude to clause 2 will depend upon the outcome of our discussions on clause 8.

Agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to move any amendments to this clause. I originally gave the hon. the Minister my amendments to this clause, and then decided that I would not move them. In order, however, to attempt to improve the Bill, I shall now move them after all. They are not very difficult amendments; even the hon. the Deputy Minister will find no difficulty in following them. I therefore move—

The object of these amendments is to remove the onus of proof from the accused and, place it firmly where it belongs, and that is on the State. It is as simple as that.

Amendments negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

The object of these amendments is to reduce the penalties, which I feel are absurdly high, and to bring them in line with those provided for in the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. I cannot see any reason for these enormous penalties, and I ask the Committee to consider reducing them.

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to accept these amendments because we are dealing here, in reality, with people who are working with millions of rand. To impose a small fine here is therefore ridiculous.

Amendments negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

The idea, of course, is to narrow the scope of this clause. I am trying to limit the power of the authorized officer. It is as simple as that. I do not want the authorized officer to have the power to inquire into the activities of people who indirectly take part in any activities, because this can be practically anything. If anybody simply subscribes to a magazine issued by an affected organization which is being investigated by an authorized officer, such a person may be said, indirectly, to be taking part in such activity.

Again, also with regard to my amendment asking for the omission of “at any time enter upon any premises whatsoever”, I consider that that gives powers which are far too wide and I am trying to limit it to reasonable times in accordance with the phraseology contained in many of our other pieces of legislation dealing with security. The authorized officer should not have the power to burst in on premises at any time of the day. I am trying to bring this into some sort of line with what I would call civilized behaviour.

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to accept it, because it would too greatly restrict the work of officials.

Amendments negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I move… [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, that hon. member sits there and does not do a stroke of work. He does nothing but hinder other people who are working extremely hard. It would be very nice if he would just keep quiet for five seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

I think this is self-explanatory. The idea is again to reduce the penalties in every case. More particularly, it seeks to bring the penalties in line with those applying under the Criminal Procedure Act for a person who fails to appear as a witness.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I cannot accept these amendments because the amounts are too little for persons committing an offence of that kind.

Amendments negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, this is a clause which in our view, goes together with clause 2. I move—

The effect of these amendments, if accepted, will be that the clause will read as follows—

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members in the cross-benches. It is very difficult for me to hear the hon. member from here if hon. members speak audibly over there.

Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment is that, as clause 2 now stands, if the State President is satisfied that politics are being engaged in by or through an organization, and so on, after receiving a factual report in terms of clause 8, he may then do what that clause empowers him to do. But, Sir, nowhere in the Bill is “a factual report” defined. No one knows what “a factual report” is. On what matters, on what facts does this body have to report? So the amendment seeks to insist that that body should in fact report, not only on fact, but also upon the fact as to whether or not this body, the organization being investigated, is one by or through which politics are being engaged in, etc. When that body has made that finding, on those facts that report will go to the State President. The State President will then have before him, not only a report on facts vaguely, but a factual report on whether or not this is an organization engaging in politics and holding the hand of some organization abroad.

The other part of this amendment provides that the report or the findings of the report, shall be laid upon the Table of this House within 14 days. So that if any action is taken by the Executive, this Parliament and especially this House, will be able to judge whether or not that action was taken capriciously or arbitrarily. I think, Sir, that hon. members on that side of the House have to be reminded, despite all the happenings of today, that it is one of their main functions, apart from their legislative function, to ensure that any powers that they give to the Executive are exercised properly. The maxim of the Nationalist Party in Parliament should not be the maxim of their members of Parliament, namely, we have our Minister, we trust our Minister. As my hon. leader has pointed out, one of the great difficulties that exists is that there is no definition of expressions such as “engaging in politics”, “under the influence of” and so forth. If there is one thing that one requires if you want to take action, it is facts on which to act. In its own way the Bill seeks to achieve this in clause 8. It seeks there to provide that there must be a factual report but it does not specify what factual report is required. It seeks to get this body to investigate the facts relating to an organization, including the requirements provided for in clause 2 (1) of which the State President has to be satisfied—

In respect of those matters it must also make a factual report. This is very important, Mr. Chairman, because if there is no one to guide the State President, the Executive, the Cabinet when such a decision is made, a decision is going to be arrived at which will be entirely one of opinion. I must say that one of the things that disturbs one is to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister say, as he did in his reply to the second reading debate, that he was surprised that the hon. member for Green Point should have asked him what is politics? He said that he was surprised that a politician could ask that question. I think that there lies the danger. When you let a politician—a party politician say what in his opinion is engaging in politics, his opinion in regard to what politics means, you are not achieving what should be the object of the legislation. If one puts words into a Statute, those words should have a certain meaning. It is the function of the courts in the normal course of events, to say what those words mean which the Legislature has inserted in that legislation. I do not think that anybody here knows quite what is meant by these provisions. As is stated in our amendment, we believe that the chairman of this body should be a judge of the Supreme Court and that there should be two magistrates as well. That body, with the judge as chairman, will be a body comprising people whose job, whose life, whose work and whose experience is to find on fact, to find whether in fact this is such an organization or at least give a report of fact on all those matters in respect of which a decision has to be made by the Cabinet. Armed with a factual report which will deal with all the matters which will require the decision of the Cabinet, the Cabinet will be in a position to make a decision. If they make a decision and that report is tabled in this House, we will be able to judge whether or not the decision that was taken was capricious, proper or justified in relation to the findings of fact which that body has produced. I think this is an important principle to establish. The Bill establishes a factual report but we say that it must go further than a factual report as defined. We say that it must be tabled and we say that we as a Parliament should then be able to judge what the Executive does. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the argument of the hon. member for Durban North, but I have a few problems with it. The factual report which has to be drawn up by the three magistrates must contain facts which indicate whether the organization is receiving money, from where it is receiving money and what it is doing with the money. The magistrates must, in other words, draw up a factual report. They must determine whether money is being received, where it comes from and where it goes. They must therefore establish what the work of the organization is. I am of the opinion that when they have performed that task, they will have done everything that one may expect from three lawyers. One cannot expect from those lawyers that they should determine whether it is politics or whatever it is. We know that the organizations which we have in mind are all camouflaged front organizations. It is therefore going to look as if it is welfare work in which they are engaged. It will be very easy for people who are not skilled in politics to say that it is welfare work the organization is doing. I think that the best skilled people to decide on this are the people who deal with this thing from day to day, namely the full Cabinet. It is not only the Minister in question. The Minister in question makes his report; he makes it to the full Cabinet. In the Cabinet a detailed discussion among all the members of the Cabinet takes place in order to establish whether it is politics or welfare in which the organization was engaging. Under those circumstances I do not think we should take it as far as the hon. member wants to take it, for he wants the lawyers as well to determine whether or not such an organization is engaging in politics as a fact. All one can expect from the lawyers is that they string the facts together for us; they must give us corroborated facts. That is all we want from them.

Another question was whether we should make use of judges or senior magistrates. In this Bill we use the procedure followed in the Suppression of Communism Act, i.e. to make use of magistrates. Our experience has been that that procedure works very well. The magistrates are entirely responsible officials and are also specially skilled in sifting facts. I think that under those circumstances we need not burden the judges of the Supreme Court with this. We already have a precedent in the Suppression of Communism Act and we know from experience that that procedure works well. I should very much have liked to have accepted something from the hon. member, but I do not see my way clear to doing so in this connection.

The last point which has to be considered is whether this report should be tabled in the House of Assembly within 14 days. I want to tell the hon. members that my first reaction at first sight was to say: “Yes, let us throw it open to debate.” However, I do not think it is fair to the persons involved to throw it open immediately in a report. I think that the hon. members of this House must exercise their normal rights. They may ask whether such and such an organization as been declared to be an affected organization. Give them the right to debate it, then it at least gives us the opportunity, if it should be against the public interest, to disclose these facts, to say so. Where we feel that it may be debated to good effect, we can do so. If one makes it a general rule that it should come before the House of Assembly immediately, with all the facts exposed, it may prejudice the people involved and it may cause irreparable damage to the organization involved. If this is done, it may also be harmful to the national interests. Under those circumstances I am really sorry that I cannot accommodate the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister says that he is sorry that he cannot accept the amendment, and I want to tell him that we are even sorrier. We are sorry, for I believe that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North would really effect improvement to this Bill. I do not think it is being implied in any way that the Bill would be perfect if this amendment were effected, but it would be a great improvement to this Bill if it could happen. Much of the objection we have to it would be eliminated if the amendment were accepted. As should be clear to the hon. the Deputy Minister at this stage, one of our major objections is that the word “politics” cannot be properly defined. I was really surprised that the hon. the Deputy Minister could dismiss this entire matter so lightly with the statement that we are politicians and yet we do not know what it means. Surely the hon. Deputy Minister knows that they have been arguing about the definition of politics since the days of Aristotle.

Order! The hon. member must deal more specifically with the clause. We have nothing to do with that definition now.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, the problem which we have with the definition relates to the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Durban North, and I am trying to motivate why he has stated it as he did state it. The hon. the Deputy Minister also used as an argument the words that it was easy to do. It is easy to say what politics are in certain cases, for politics are like a large dot. It is easy to say what is in the middle of the dot, but it is not easy to say where the boundaries run. It is for this reason that we do not want the definition of politics to be in the hands of the Cabinet, for they are themselves politicians. They are people from whom one cannot expect an objective attitude to be adopted in respect of this matter when they consider the report of the three magistrates. They cannot, for they are, after all, party politicians. They simply cannot do so, although they are responsible people as the hon. the Deputy Minister says. That has nothing to do with it. They see it from a particular point of view. Now the question is how there can be any kind of certainty. If they consider the facts submitted by these three magistrates, they have to decide while there is no basis on which they are able to decide. During the no-confidence motion for example I discussed the matter of crime prevention and now the hon. the Deputy Minister will concede that that was a political debate. I would even go so far as to say that I thought it was a political speech. If crime prevention could then be politics, what about an organization such as Nicro, which is after all not a political organization in the normal sense of the word? But supposing, for some reason or other, they brought upon themselves the displeasure of the Government. Then surely there is absolutely nothing which could prevent them from falling under the provisions of these measures. [Interjections.] I object to the interjections which the hon. member here is making. They make absolutely no sense. I am prepared to debate a matter with him, but if he makes such interjections, it is senseless. I am really trying to debate a radical problem, a problem which could have an effect on every person in South Africa, in a proper manner here. It is because we want this decision to be made by an objective person that the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North requests that the chairman should be a judge. Let it be as it may, a magistrate is nothing but a public servant. He is directly employed by the State and stands under the direct control of the Minister of Justice. Although I am in no way casting any doubts on his law, capacity and experience in reaching a finding on the facts, since a decision in this connection has to be reached as to whether certain activities constitute politics or not, I think it is absolutely important that this decision should be made by a committee or a commission which will be guided by a person such as a judge. For that reason it is of importance that that part of the amendment be accepted. Even if it is only one judge, the guidance which he will give on that commission is of the utmost importance. Over and above this final checks and balances are built into this amendment, for example even where a report has been submitted, it shall be submitted to Parliament. I am sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister, under these circumstances, does not want to accept even the last portion of the amendment. The problem is that it is all very well to say that there will be a report, but the point is that no one will ever know what is stated in the report. It is of no avail the hon. the Deputy Minister saying: “If we think it can be debated to good effect, we shall submit it”. My experience of hon. members on that side of the House is that when they say something may be debated to good effect, it means to their good and not to the good of South Africa. That is only when there are political advantages for them in it. That is all it means, and for that reason these reports should at least be submitted to this hon. House where they may be properly debated. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider this amendment in this light, for it is not one which will water down his Bill in any respects. In the first instance, the hon. the Deputy Minister told us that the word politics is easy to define and that all of us know what it means. I now want to ask him whether, if it is so easy to define, why he did not define it in the Bill. Why did he not give the definition of it? He quoted the following definition from the Oxford Dictionary: “to do with the State or Government”. But a simple test will prove that this definition is not valid. After all it is true that when a person purchases a stamp at a post office that person has something to do with the State and the Government. Yet it is not a political act by any manner of means. That is why I say that one should not poke fun at this definition as the hon. the Deputy Minister did. It is a matter of profound importance. If the hon. the Deputy Minister feels that he cannot find a proper definition of “politics”, and I do not think that anyone has, since the time of ancient Greece, ever found a proper definition of politics, that decision must be left to the person who is able to reach an objective decision in this regard. Such an objective person can only be a judge, and not the Cabinet. It could never be the Cabinet. I am therefore asking the hon. the Deputy Minister to review his attitude in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the personality of the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot change from Bill to Bill. Therefore I expect him to have the same approach, in dealing with this particular Bill, as he has displayed in connection with other Bills which he has placed before this House, particularly during the course of yesterday and this morning. Clause 2(1) is actually the crux of the entire Bill. Clause 2(2) deals with the question of money being received from foreign sources by political organizations or bodies engaged in political work. These are in fact the bodies which would be the affected organizations and, as has been stated clearly on this side of the House, there is no objection to that whatsoever. In fact, we are completely in accord with this provision and have supported it at all times. In order for that to be effective, however, the organization concerned has first of all to be declared an affected organization. The method of declaring it as such appears to me to be completely and absolutely arbitrary. The whole question of the courts—I know this is part of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s thinking—is completely left out. There is no appeal; there is no body to which recourse can be had; it is completely within the power of the Cabinet, the Executive, to come to a decision. The reports that are called for in terms of clause 8 have been described by the hon. the Deputy Minister as dealing with three factors only, namely, Was money received? Where did it come from? In other words, did it come from abroad? What is it being applied for and where does it go? “Waarnatoe gaan die geld?” was, I think, the way he put it. That then leaves the whole issue as to whether the organization concerned is adjudged to be a body which is influenced or persuaded from abroad or is engaged in political activity, purely within the discretion of the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Cabinet. Nobody is given an opportunity of inquiring into or adjudging the fairness or the justification for that decision. Having come to that decision that an organization is an affected organization, there is still not only the question of the receipt of money, but also many other strictures and impositions which are described in the remainder of the Bill. Now, Sir, What is the purpose of the amendment? The purpose of the amendment is to enable the matter to be adjudged by Parliament itself.

Have you read the Bill?

Sir, he keeps asking the same silly question: Have you read the Bill? Of course I have read the Bill.

The Supreme Court gives a judgment on the matter.

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister explain this to us just now?

I do not see provision being made for that. All I can see is that before…

I am asking you.

No, you must explain it because this seems to be the manner in which this Bill is being dealt with. If you object to it and you point out a clear weakness in the Bill, then the hon. the Deputy Minister merely says: “Have you read it, because it is all provided for”. Clause 8 states that the power of the State President, i.e. the Executive, to declare an organization to be an affected organization, shall not be exercised unless the Minister has given consideration to a factual report made in relation to that organization by a committee consisting of three magistrates appointed by the Minister. What is the factual report? The factual report deals with three questions which he clearly stated to us: Was money received, where did it come from and where has it gone to? How does that bring it to any court? There is nobody to give any judgment on that. The report is drawn up on those three factors, as has been explained, and is then submitted to the Executive which makes its decision. There is no question of any courts coming into the matter. If the hon. the Deputy Minister expects us to believe that, one might as well discard the discussion on this Bill altogether because that is fantastical! It is fantasy, a mythical approach. In fact, this has been his attitude throughout in regard to all the amendments that have been moved. In other bills, too, that we have dealt with on this last day, his attitude has also been: “I cannot accept the amendments because, if I do accept them, I cannot carry out the duties, which I wish to carry out”. The amendment asks for one simple thing, and that is to lay it on the Table of the House. The hon. the Deputy Minister has another reason why this should not be done: It will expose people. But they are already exposed. Once they have been declared an affected organization, they are completely exposed. Officers can come and examine their books or take possession of them or of any other items which they deem desirable, they can analyse the funds, investigate their balance sheets and anything else. In short, the organization is completely exposed and it is nonsensical to say that, by Tabling it in the House, you expose people or organizations. Parliament itself is the one right and proper place for such matters to be dealt with. It ought not to be left to the discretion of the hon. the Minister to decide whether such a matter is debatable or not. Since when has the hon. the Deputy Minister suddenly adopted this rather fine, sensitive approach that he does not want to expose anybody when already, by his action, he has practically destroyed an organization?

During the Second Reading debate the argument has mostly centred around the point that this side of the House is opposed to the principle of money being received from abroad. It has been said that it is not because the crux of the Bill is not that particular principle; the crux however lies in the question of how the affected organization is brought into being which then becomes subject to the question of funds being received. That is brought into being as the Bill now stands by the completely arbitrary action of the Executive body of the country. I think that that is a completely unjustified and unwarranted power for the Executive to take. It is further evidence of the taking of complete, arbitrary powers which leaves the Executives as the sole judge of whether to declare an organization, an affected organization or not, denying any right of debate on the matter, of any appeal or of a protest. Surely, that is not the way in which we want to administer the law in our country. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to show some sense of confidence in the public. We are well aware that, as was originally suggested, if the body is a politically activist one, it must not receive funds from abroad. That decision can be made, but that body must have certain rights of protest. We have heard lots of talk in this House that even the Nationalist Party, the Government party, has always been a party of protests. Who has ever stopped it from protesting? This is a case where completely arbitrary action is being taken by the Executive. This amendment serves two functions. Firstly, it asks the judicial body, which the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes to appoint, to report on the very facts of which it must be satisfied in order to declare a body an affected organization. Furthermore, it asks for the report to be placed upon the Table. The hon. the Deputy Minister can now show his co-operation, his genuine concern in this matter, by at least adopting a portion of this particular amendment. Either it must appear on the Table, or it must be guided by a proper report. We would prefer to have both, as stated in the amendment: Firstly, to have itself guided correctly by a completely independent judicial body, and secondly, to give Parliament the opportunity to deal with it. Should Parliament find that the Executive has exceeded its authority and acted in a completely arbitrary manner… [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to go on record, for the information of the hon. member for Durban North, that after two years we can reconsider the question of laying the report before Parliament. Because by then one would have had an opportunity of seeing some of the affected organizations having been thoroughly dealt with. One would be in a position then to be able to assess whether it is in the public interest or not to lay it openly before Parliament. If it is, I would then be prepared to suggest that we do it with retroactive effect. I think the hon. member understands my difficulty, namely that we are starting off with this measure and wo do not exactly know what the position is.

As far as the hon. member for Jeppes is concerned, he stated that the money would be confiscated without going to court. That, of course, is not so. Did the hon. member say that?

No, I never said that.

That is what I thought the hon. member said. The factual report is another matter altogether. The hon. member will appreciate, of course, that no money can be confiscated without going to court.

I have dealt with that. I also dealt with the three points on which the compilation of the report must be based.

The position is actually that once an organization is declared an affected organization, the registrar takes the money. But that is dealt with by the Supreme Court. Nobody loses any money without a court order. [Interjections.] I am just pointing out to the hon. member what the facts are. The hon. member just keeps on talking in any case, and I have difficulty in trying to find out what it is all about. But this is the position, Mr. Chairman.

I must say that I do appreciate the compliment I have just been paid, namely that I keep on talking. But the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that he also keeps on talking, because that is the vocation on which we both embarked. Our job is to keep on talking. If the hon. the Deputy Minister was fair, he would have appreciated what I was trying to bring home to him. I would like him to listen. If he then says that he still does not understand it, I will have to send him a written note, or my Hansard. He stated that a factual report expected from the judicial body would deal with three factors: Was money received? Where did it come from? For what purpose is it applied? That is all I said. I never talked about the confiscation of money. I dealt with the three points and said that if that was all that was required, the Executive would then be left with completely arbitrary action, because it has no other report to go on, except what it thinks itself. That is the point I want to make. I also said that a judicial body, as suggested here, should not only consider the facts that are presented to it, but should give a report on the matters which would guide the thinking of the Executive to take that decision to declare an organization an affected organization. Once an organization is declared an affected organization, that is the end of the story. The crux of the Bill lies in that subsection, not in the receipt of moneys from foreign bodies for political purposes. On this last aspect we are all agreed. A great song and dance was made about the fact that we are opposed to that principle. The hon. the Prime Minister said that we were opposed to that principle. It is quite clear from the discussion now that that is not a correct statement, because the crux lies in the declaration of the body as an affected organization. That is the point to which I wanted to direct the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is in that respect that there is no right of protest. There is no body of appeal at all. There is no platform for protest. Everyone seems very concerned because I am talking. But I am not talking time out; I am trying to impress the Deputy Minister because the Deputy Minister comes back—I say so with courtesy to him—with fatuous statements when one addresses him on a particular subject. It was a very disappointing reply.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister, in explaining the field of investigation of this committee, has given us a very limited field indeed. The investigation is limited to whether they have money, where it comes from and what they have spent it on.

I was trying to emphasize the fact that it is a factual report. I was not limiting it to that.

I accept the fact that it is a factual report, but the inquiry must go much further if there is to be an adequate investigation. If for instance this committee finds that an organization has several branches of activity and one of those branches is involved in politics, whatever “politics” may eventually mean in the mind of the hon. the Deputy Minister, there appears to be no provision in the Bill to enable one to say that as far as that activity is concerned, it is out, but that as far as the question of welfare work, for example, is concerned, that organization can continue to receive funds. It seems to me that there is the danger, if there is not a very much wider investigation than the hon. the Deputy Minister has suggested in this regard, that an organization might be found to have absolutely nothing wrong with 75% of its work but that it may have one undertaking which is a political one, separately financed. I trust that this is a matter which would be investigated by this committee of magistrates. What worries me is that once this committee has reported on the facts and the Cabinet has decided that an organization is an affected organization, the fact that it is an affected organization is gazetted, it is made public. This, by the way, rather negatives the objections of the hon. the Deputy Minister to laying these reports on the Table on the grounds that it would give publicity to these organizations. The fact that an organization has been classified as an affected organization is published in the Gazette in any case and immediately thereafter its entire undertaking and its work become subject to surveillance by the registrar.

I said during a previous stage of the discussion on this Bill that this is a very, very timid step towards establishing what we be-live should be established in respect of all aspects of administrative action of this kind. We believe that there should be a fully established judicial tribunal which would investigate the matter and make its report in regard to the relevant aspects. The hon. member for Durban North is quite correct when he says: “Give this body the status of a judicial tribunal with a judge as chairman and with two magistrates or senior counsel as assessors.” Without that being done, this looks like a little, unimportant exercise that will be undertaken by three magistrates. What are they to base their information on? This Bill before us is quiet silent as to how that committee is going to function. Is it going to function in terms of the Commissions Act? Is it going to be allowed the powers, and so forth, of investigation that are provided for in the Commissions Act? The only real powers of investigation are the powers of the inspector, whom the hon. the Deputy Minister will appoint. He is the one who actually does the investigating. As this tribunal, this committee of magistrates, is established here it does not even have the power of examination or cross-examination, according to the Bill. What does the hon. the Deputy Minister envisage? One knows full well that if an inspector goes out on an investigation and he merely lays a report before this committee of magistrates, they must be empowered to investigate it and test it in depth to see whether the deductions of that investigating officer are quite correct and that he has really produced the end result, the proper statement of the facts. This is another one of the aspects which one realizes was not thought through before this Bill was brought to us. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell me what powers the members of the magistrates committee have. May they call for evidence and examine witnesses, or are they entirely in the hands of the inspector who is appointed by the Minister himself if he feels that some organization should be investigated

Mr. Chairman, I feel that I should point out to the hon. member that the three magistrates must make a full and factual report. In other words, they must make a full inquiry into the facts. I may have mentioned three matters, but I actually have in mind that they should go into the whole organization to present a factual report. They must do everything necessary which will make it possible for them to give such a report. This, I think, is quite clear in the Bill. As I have said before, this procedure has been tested before and it works in the other Act. We have every expectation that it will work in this Bill too. The provisions we have here are taken from the Suppression of Communism Act of 1950. They are exactly the same.

What powers will they have?

They will have all the powers that they really need. They also have an investigating officer who will look at all the documents and bring those documents to them. In actual fact they will have a full investigating officer who will help them.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Deputy Minister now says that he wants this body, this trio of magistrates, to make a full inquiry into the facts and not merely into the three matters that he mentioned, then he must accept the one part of this amendment which says that included in the facts on which they must report must be those matters in respect of which the State President must satisfy himself in terms of clause 2(1). If the hon. the Deputy Minister says he wants them to do a full report, then surely one of the things he wants them to report about factually is the question of whether or not politics are being engaged in by the organization, whether or not this is being done through an organization abroad or with the aid and/or co-operation of an organization abroad or under the influence of an organization abroad?

In so far as they are facts?

Yes, in so far as they are facts. Then the hon. the Deputy Minister will have no difficulty in accepting the first part of the amendment; that is to say to insert after “report” the words “including a report upon matters in respect of which the State President must satisfy himself in terms of section 2(1)”. Surely, this is the object of the operation? If you are going to have a factual report, then it must be on facts.

It is covered by the words “factual report”.

No, it is not covered by that. A factual report about what? The first thing the hon. the Deputy Minister did when he was invited to tell us, was to say that it would deal with the question of money. [Interjections.] Yes, there were three things indeed: Whether or not the money had been received and if so, where it came from and thirdly, what it was spent on. That was his first reaction. He now says that it covers everything; it even covers this. However, it does not. It is a factual report, undefined, about the organization. Anything they want to report must be facts about the organization. The crux of the whole matter is that it does not matter what else happens; nothing happens to you until you are declared an affected organization. That is done by the State President. The Bill says that the State President may not exercise that power until he has considered a factual report. Well, surely if the State President is going to consider a factual report he must consider a factual report in respect of that matter upon which he has to decide? The matter which has to be decided upon is whether that body is in fact a body which engages in politics or whether it is a body that is affected, associated with or influenced by someone overseas. This is a fact. Surely on those facts, on those issues on which the Executive is to decide, they would like a factual report as well? As the provision stands at the moment they do not have to report upon that. I think that the first part of the amendment is reasonable, because that is what the hon. the Deputy Minister wants. If it is what he wants, the hon. the Deputy Minister must indicate in his reply that this is so. I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs who is talking to the hon. the Deputy Minister at the moment will not be able to help him in this regard. When the hon. the Deputy Minister replies he must indicate whether he wants a report on the facts as to those matters which are referred to in clause 2(1).

The question of where money comes from and from whom it is received, etc., is a matter which will be dealt with by the authorized officer in terms of clause 6. If the hon. the Minister suspects that an organization may be such an organization as is envisaged in clause 2(1), he may appoint an authorized officer who then has the power to investigate what is going on, especially in regard to the money which is being received. This person can call for the books and he can call in people to interrogate them. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept the first part of the amendment, because it deals with what I believe he has now said he wants done. I hope that he will indicate this to us in his reply.

The other point the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned earlier was that what was wanted in this amendment in respect of the fact-finding body was that it should be decided whether or not it was such a body as was envisaged in clauses 2(1). This is not the intention of that amendment. There are two alternatives available to one. The one alternative is to say that there should be a judicial body which will find as a fact whether or not an organization is such an organization as is envisaged in clauses 2(1). If it is such an organization, those findings are binding upon the Executive. That is one way of doing it. That is not the proposal in this case. In other words, it is not the proposal that the Executive should be bound by the judgment of the judicial tribunal. What is proposed is that the judicial tribunal will make findings of facts in relation to specified matters and those matters must include the questions on which the Executive must decide in terms of clause 2(1). Then, regardless of this report, they do or they do not declare the organization to be an affected organization. There must, however, be some check upon what the Executive does in respect of that factual report. That is why one says that the report or the findings of the report should be laid upon the Table. Then one can judge whether or not that executive action was properly taken or not properly taken. It is not a case of the Executive being bound by that judicial body’s findings; it is a case of that judicial body making findings of fact upon the issues upon which the Executive will make a decision so that the Executive can in fact make a proper decision on the facts. This has been our complaint so often. So often this question arises, for example, under the Suppression of Communism Act. What happens? The hon. the Minister gets a file, usually a police docket, containing one-sided information. I know that the work the police do in this regard is magnificent, but so often the conclusions in a police docket are not correct, not because of the policeman’s fault, but because that evidence has not been tested against any contra evidence. It has not been sifted and has not even been subjected to the de cuius’s own statement. This is what happens and why it is so important, even in those matters where he has a police docket in respect of a prohibition under the Suppression of Communism Act, at the very least, when he makes this decision, to have before him the facts which have been sifted and tested by persons whose job it is in fact to sift facts, like a judicial body.

Mr. Chairman, in my humble opinion the words “factual report” mean a full factual report. With all respect to the hon. member for Durban North, these words he used, viz. “upon matters in respect of which the State President must satisfy himself”, are merely an addition. Once the full factual report has been submitted to the Cabinet, the Cabinet is in possession of everything it can possibly obtain in respect of a case such as this. It is covered by the words “factual report”. Now, what more does one want? Surely, it must be those facts required by the State President to decide whether it is an affected organization or not.

Then why do you not accept the amendment.

Because it is mere verbiage, with great respect.

Well, accept it then.

I am not going to accept it, because it is already embodied in the words “factual report”. This phrase contains exactly what the hon. member’s amendment implies. It is a full factual report.

On what?

On everything. On what they do; the money they get, etc. It contains all the facts required by the State President to make a proper decision as to whether or not it is an affected organization.

Why do you not say that in the Bill?

Because it is already in the Bill.

Nonsense.

It is not nonsense.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I cannot agree with what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said. He talks about a “factual report”, but let us have a look at the provision. It reads—

What powers does that body have?

That is an entirely new point; it has nothing to do with the report.

Let us start with the factual report, a factual report about an organization. Let us say that the three magistrates decide only to make a factual report in regard to A, B and C, for example the three matters mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister. Let us say they do not put it up in respect of those matters referred to in clause 2(1). Then what? How are they going to become apprised of facts if they do not have powers to call witnesses, to subpoena witnesses and oblige them to come before them and interrogate them? How can they do it? The hon. the Deputy Minister has not answered this point. All he says is that there is going to be a factual report and that it is going to include all these matters. I want to say that it is not going to, unless he says so in the Bill. If it is in fact going to include those matters in clause 2(1), why does the hon. the Deputy Minister not accept that amendment?

So far as the composition of the tribunal is concerned, I want to say that I have the greatest respect for senior magistrates and the work they do. They do a great body of work and in fact do most of the court’s work. But I think the hon. the Deputy Minister, if he were to accept the second part of the amendment, namely to make a judge the chairman of the tribunal, would place greater public confidence in this body, Judges, in the nature of things, are persons held in the highest esteem by the public. They are persons of the greatest independence and integrity and they have a tradition of complete independence, which is recognized and respected by the public. I think he should give consideration to that as well.

The third and last point in this amendment is the question of whether or not the findings in respect of an organization, without the whole report, should be laid upon the Table of the House. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that I would understand his position, and that he would like a period of two years before considering whether to lay such findings upon the Table of the House or not.

I may then be in a position to do it.

What do you mean by saying “in a position to do it”? Sir, if he has not laid anything on the Table of this House within two years, how is anybody going to judge whether or not these powers are being properly exercised?

How many people will he put out of business in the meantime?

Yes, that is very true. Sir, why will he not put the findings in the report on the Table of the House? Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister has confidence in the decisions that are going to be made, especially since this is going to be a factual report which will be referred to him? Surely, if these findings are placed on the Table of the House, and the decisions that are made by the Executive are in fact proper decisions, having regard to the facts, the decisions that are taken under this Bill will have public confidence? Surely that is what the hon. the Deputy Minister wants? Surely this is what the Government wants? It surely wants the public to have confidence that the decisions it takes are not only good decisions, but decisions in accordance with the facts and decisions which the public will back. This is half the problem; many people are dealt with in accordance with the other powers of restriction which this Government has, and there may well be a very good cause for so dealing with them, but nobody is aware of whether a good cause exists or not. The fact that the Minister refuses to give information and to furnish the facts upon which this action will be taken, undermines the public confidence. Here we are not dealing with individuals; we are dealing with organizations. According to what the Deputy Minister has said, and also what the hon. the Prime Minister said here this evening on the subject of these organizations, they are doing the public a great service. Surely, if you are doing the public a great service, the findings of fact in relation to such an organization could be made public so that the public will then have that confidence. I do not understand the hon. the Deputy Minister’s argument. He says he will come back here in two years and decide whether or not he will lay this information on the Table. Why does he need two years? Can he tell us? Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister has not advanced any reasons at all for his attitude.

We are about to have an election; within a few months we shall be back here again.

Well, we are not coming back to Parliament in two years time; we are coming back to Parliament in three months’ time. So why must we wait two years? Sir, I do not understand the hon. the Deputy Minister. Now he is giving another reason. Now he says there is about to be an election and we shall be coming back to Parliament soon. What is the relevance of this remark that we are about to have an election and that there will be a new Parliament? Sir, if the Deputy Minister does not want to answer the question, he does not have to.

I have made you an offer. You can take it or leave it.

What? An offer that in two years’ time…

I said I would reconsider the matter.

You will reconsider it in two years’ time? What a big deal! Boy, oh boy, that is a big deal! You mean if I do not accept this and if I am not nice about it, you will not come back in two years’ time; you will come back in three years’ time? Oh, dear me! Shame, the poor hon. Deputy Minister, Sir, He is reduced to this.

I now put the amendments moved by the hon. member for Durban North. Basically his amendments consist of three parts, but I am going to put them together.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, one of the amendments is to omit and the other two are to add or insert certain words. Can the three amendments then properly be put together?

I was going to put them together, but if you wish, I shall put them separately.

First amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—41: Bands, G. J.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw. W. V.; Stephens. J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Noes—97: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Amendment negatived.

Question put: That the word “three” stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—97: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha. S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager. P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Vander Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen. P. J. van B.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—41: Bands, G. J.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst. H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill. W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman. J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw. W. V.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten. H. A.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Third amendment put. Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—41: Bands, G. J.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell. A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Noes—97: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J (Brakpan); Le Roux. F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan. R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht. N. F.; Van Breda. A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F Kotzé, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 2 (standing over):

Mr. Chairman, we asked that this clause stand over because it was related to clause 8. Clause 8 is the clause we have just disposed of. It deals with the question of the judicial committee giving a factual report for the guidance of the Executive when it has to make its decision in terms of clause 2(1) before us. Every one of the amendments which we moved to clause 8 has been rejected with the result that, firstly, there is no guarantee that there will be a proper factual report before the Executive when it makes its decision.

Mike, old chap, you have been talking nonsense since yesterday.

What is that? [Interjections.] It did have the effect of waking him up, anyway. Clause 2 has now to be applied without the benefit of proper factual report. Had the other amendment been accepted, there could have been a report on the facts relating to the matter which the Executive was to decide upon. No one will know what that Executive has decided and why it has decided that, except that one will know that an organization has been declared an affected organization. Parliament will never be able to know how those powers are exercised.

What we have here in clause 2 is a vague definition of an organization with no definition of politics. It will be exercised just in the opinion of an Executive with no guide-lines, as my hon. leader has said. No factual information will be guaranteed. Without the guarantees which we propose in clause 8, which have been rejected, we are now in the position that we are obliged to vote against clause 2 for all the reasons my hon. leader gave when he spoke in the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move two amendments to this clause which will have the effect of removing the retrospectivity thereof. I move—

This, in fact, means that the retrospectivity will be removed. In other words, moneys can only thereafter be frozen and later confiscated by an order of the Supreme Court if the registrar so decides. This means that the moneys will not be affected afterwards if it is legally declared an affected organization. I dislike retrospective clauses anyway, and I think it is quite wrong that money which an organization collected when it was legal and before it has been declared an affected organization—it may be moneys that it has received from abroad for research—should now be forced to surrender that money. My second amendment refers to the latter part of the clause. This is merely consequential to the first amendment which I have moved.

Mr. Chairman, we have not yet discussed the amendment of the hon. the Deputy Minister as it appears on the Order Paper. I wonder why it should be that the Minister should designate the welfare organization to which the funds should be paid should the organization be declared an affected organization. Surely, that is one thing that such an organization must decide for itself. They must decide that for themselves if they have to dispose of the funds. I should think that they should give it to a welfare organization of their own choice. I wonder what has made it necessary for the hon. the Deputy Minister to move an amendment at this late stage of the Bill. Can the hon. the Minister please explain the necessity of his amendment?

Mr. Chairman, it is done to avoid the possibility of having a welfare organization to which they wish to give money registered. It can be done. If the organization is a front organization, it can be done. Another front organization can be developed to which the money can be given. Therefore the money must be given to a welfare organization which has been designated by the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, this is an extraordinary…

I say this is a possibility. I did not say it was the case.

I am wondering what has happened to the administration of the Welfare Organizations Act in this country if the hon. the Deputy Minister suggests that it is so badly managed that a most undesirable organization could be registered as a welfare organization. Surely we cannot take this seriously? What worries me even more is the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister is the Minister responsible for the administration of that Act. As Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions he is responsible for the administration of that Act. All I can say is that that amendment makes this clause even more objectionable than it was before.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply to my amendment.

I am sorry, but I did not hear the amendment of the hon. member.

I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question. I think he has front organizations on the brain. Why cannot he simply state “any existing welfare organization”, but not one that he designates. Does that not get him out of that dilemma?

Amendments proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Amendment proposed by the Deputy Minister of Justice agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—96: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G, F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—40: Bands, G. J.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman. T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray. L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we now come to the end of what must be one of the most unfortunate, shabby means of passing a Bill that I have had the misfortune to experience in my time in this House. It came without notice, suddenly this morning…

Yesterday morning.

Yes, sorry; it came yesterday morning suddenly without notice that we were going to sit until we were finished. Immediately afterwards came the motion that we cannot take stages. If the Government really intended to have any proper discussion on this Bill, it certainly would not have introduced it under such circumstances. If it wished to have any co-operation at all on a subject such as this, the shabby performance of today, one of the shabbiest parliamentary performances I have experienced, would not have occurred. The whole attitude of the Government is, as has been said by my hon. leader, just a party political trick, dealing with a subject about which there is and, if there is not there ought to be, accord. At the second reading we put our position very clearly in our amendment—

This was made clear from the beginning; it has been clear all along. The United Party’s attitude in this regard is beyond reproach. As the hon. the Prime Minister said, we sought in our Second Reading amendment not just to state our attitude but to embrace the whole House so that we would associate everyone with the thoughts that we are against both those things. Our record shows that we are against them. If anything shows this desire to co-operate on matters of security, then it was the agreement of our hon. leader to allow our members to sit for so long on the Schlebusch Commission. When it comes to co-operation and sacrifice in the interests of security, I think one might just pause for a moment and consider what our members of the Commission have had to endure in terms of public vilification such as I think our political history has never known before as far as some people are concerned.

By whom?

Generally, this was the message that was noised abroad. Why was this the case? The reason is that they wanted to co-operate on those very matters of security.

Now we find ourselves at the Third Reading and at the end of the debate on this Bill. What is quite clear is that the amendment which was moved by this side of the House at the second reading, is completely justified. The indecent haste with which this Bill was suddenly brought here and the upstaging of the Schlebusch Commission bear this out. What did appear conclusively from the speech of the hon. member for Green Point is that there is not only a great deal of material but also that there is new and most relevant material in the report of the Commission in regard to this Bill.

The hon. member disclosed that there was also a minority report by the members of the Commission on this side of the House. But surely, the House was entitled also to see the minority report? Most certainly, it was relevant. Here you have a Bill now, an extension again of executive action in the affairs of organizations and individuals without the proper checks and counterbalances. If anything, one would have expected the maintenance of the spirit in which the members on both sides of the House took part in the Schlebusch Commission. What has emerged tonight from the speeches of my hon. friends from Green Point and Mooi River is that they went into it with that spirit and hoped to have co-operation. Suddenly, they were absolutely betrayed by the production of this Bill, without there being any report in regard to which they have had to bear the cross they have had to bear in the interests of the security of South Africa.

The hon. member for Green Point has indicated that there was concern about the type of tribunal. If we had had that report, we could have had a proper discussion on the type of tribunal. If the hon. the Deputy Minister and this Government had really wanted co-operation on internal security in a matter such as this, quite apart from the way in which the Bill has been handled in this House, they would have accepted the amendments which we moved to clause 8. If they had accepted the amendments which we moved to clause 8, which the hon. the Deputy Minister intimated were not really matters about which he had any great misgivings, we might well have found ourselves in the position now where we could have supported this Bill at the Third Reading. But, Sir, it was not to be, not because we did not try to have an approach founded upon the principles which my hon. friend from Green Point told us were contained in that minority report, but because this Government came here with this Bill, determined that it was not going to be altered, determined that it would in the form in which it was presented, be their little political trick. But, Sir, I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that the public is not so stupid as to believe what is going to go out from this House. The public still believes in co-operation on basic matters, such as security, and they still believe in the basic values of Western civilization which we hope to ensure will survive by our presence here. In the circumstances, we will vote against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that nothing in the world would have made me vote for the Third Reading of this Bill. The whole principle of the Bill at the Second Reading stage, was repugnant to me. The acceptance of a few amendments at the Committee Stage could never have been in conflict with the principle of the Bill, because the Chairman of Committees would never have allowed it. So, under no circumstances would I have voted for the Third Reading of this Bill.

But I listened with considerable interest to what the hon. member for Durban North had to say as well as the hon. member for South Coast. Both of them were, and are, very indignant about the manner in which the Government has “betrayed”—I use the word in quotes—the United Party members on the Schlebusch Commission. They feel that they have been let down very badly, that their members have come in for a great deal of insult and calumny ever since they joined that Commission. Quite a lot of it has come from me. I am quite prepared to admit it. I hate to say “I told you so”, naturally, as hon. members can imagine. But, Sir, I did tell them. I told them right at the beginning not to have anything to do with the Schlebusch Commission, not to touch it with a bargepole. But they did not take my warning. Now they are paying for it. They have gained nothing from it. They have lost the respect of thousands of their own supporters, and they have lost any reward they may have hoped to receive from the Government. They should have know that. They were playing around with a lot of political “experts”. I was going to use another word, but I had better stick to that at half past three in the morning! They are playing around with a lot of political experts and they are likely to come off second best and that is what has happened to the United Party in this case. I have a suggestion to make. The Schlebusch Commission has already cost the country R50 000 in taxpayers’ money, up to time of going to Press. Goodness knows what it is going to cost by the time it has completed its report concerning the two remaining organizations. Why does the United Party not take this opportunity of getting off the Schlebusch Commission? This is their golden opportunity. They have been let down, they have been betrayed, the hon. the Prime Minister has broken his promises and they themselves have lost all faith in the whole ugly exercise. I do not know whether they will take my advice this time, but I should like to suggest that it would not be a bad idea, just for once, to listen to Auntie Helen, just for once, and get off the Schlebusch Commission. I suggest they do this now before it is too late and before they all get murdered by this whole exercise. I leave that thought with them. It is jolly nice of me to do so, but I do so. I give them this bit of advice free, gratis and for nothing, which I think is very generous at this stage of the session. I think they ought to get right off that Commission. The object of this Bill is to throttle by slow strangulation or, if you like, to weaken by slow starvation the organizations which the Government somehow does not want to ban outright. I do not know why. Perhaps it thinks that even its reputation could suffer still more. So instead of banning outright, organizations like Nusas and the Christian Institute—I mention the four organizations that have already been referred to but I do not agree that they should necessarily be “affected” organizations; I do not believe that any organization should be an affected organization—the Institute of Race Relations and the University Christian Movement. The latter organization, of course, died some years ago. It is no longer in existence. I say that I should be very surprised indeed if even this Government went ahead and banned an organization like the Institute of Race Relations which, after all, consists of fuddyduddy old ladies like myself and respectable old gentlemen like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We are both long-time members of the Institute of Race Relations. I have always thought that that organization had been thrown in as a sort of decoy duck. You know, it could be exonerated and then everything brutal that is done to the other organizations would bear some credibility. I do not want to anticipate the findings of these commissions or registrars or the snooping old authorized officer. We will no doubt learn all about this within the next few months or years or however long it is going to take to decide which bodies are going to be affected organizations. The idea is, as I have said, to strangle these organizations to death. Once you have declared them affected organizations and they have lost all their overseas’ funds, there is absolutely no doubt that in many cases funds from South Africa will dry up as well because the taint will have been set on these organizations and a lot of people will decide to withdraw support from them.

The point is they cannot get support from South African sources. They have no appeal here.

Well, that is a reflection on South African generosity, I am afraid. That is all. I am not going into details about the organizations. I have not made a study of them but I know something about some of them. I do know that some of them do very valuable evangelical work, valuable research work and valuable developmental work. They might do other things like criticizing the Government; they might do other things like making statements that the Government does not approve of and perhaps even I, in some instances, do not approve of either. But that is not the issue. We are supposed still to be operating in a free democracy in South Africa, and I for one would like to keep it that way. We have a mass of legislation on the Statute Book. Many of us in this House have had ringside seats over the years watching law after law being placed on the Statute Book and giving the Government all the powers it needs to control subversive organizations and so forth. Here on the Estimates I see that there is an amount of R9 million—no, excuse me, that was the original estimate. The revised estimate is R9 916 000, close on R10 million, and for what? As a contribution to Security Services Special Account under the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote! Here we have R10 million being voted for security. Heaven only knows how much we are spending on other organizations and the Police and the ordinary Special Branch and everything else. For all that, we cannot keep this country secure. All I can say then is that we do not deserve to be secure. With all the money that has been voted, with the hon. the Prime Minister devoting his very special talents to security, as he has told us, and for all these years—after all, he has been in charge of that since he was made Minister of Justice which, if I remember correctly, was as far back as 1961, or 1962 anyway—we have had the benefit of his expertise, we have had this enormously expanded security service in South Africa and now all of a sudden we have to have a Koko from the Mikado setting up his snooping service to be the authorized officer to go around passing judgment on organizations which, inter alia, have some political content to them. I challenge anyone to find a single, solitary occupation or organization in South Africa which some way or other does not have a political content. Everything we do in this country is permeated with politics. As I have said earlier, everything we do is permeated with the whole question of racialism. That is the major problem that undermines South African politics. Racialism and racial policies are politics in South Africa while they may not be so in other countries. For all these reasons—nothing in the world would have made me support this Bill even if every amendment which I had moved during the Committee Stage and every amendment which the official Opposition had moved during the Committee Stage had been accepted—I am moving at this Third Reading exactly the same amendment that I moved at the Second Reading. Furthermore, no principle could have been changed during the Committee Stage. I therefore move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, as we reach the end of a debate which has been prolonged not by our choice or of our making, but by the decision of the Government, I find myself in the position in which we on this side of the House have often found ourselves before being attacked from the left and from the right. Of course, if anything makes me happy, it is when I am being shot at both from the left and from the right, because then I know that I am standing for that real South Africanism which represents the broad mass of the people of South Africa. That is why I say to the hon. member for Houghton, the hon. member whose physical stamina we may admire…

Is that all?

At this time of the night—or rather of the morning—one could perhaps look for other things to admire, but not her political philosophy. When she says to us: “Get off the Commission before you all get murdered”, I want to say with all sincerity and with all earnestness that I would rather face the political murder of the Progressive Party, of the far left and of their Press than physical murder by terrorists or anarchy and revolt in South Africa. If that was my choice, then my choice would be to fight the real murderer and to brush aside the political murder which the Progressive Party has been trying to commit on us for nearly two years. Let me say too that the Progressive Party and at one stage almost the whole English-language Press tried hard to break the United Party over this issue. When we got to our Bloemfontein congress where there were over 1 000 delegates, they carried a vote of thanks to my colleagues the hon. member for Green Point, the hon. member for Mooi River and the hon. member for Orange Grove.

And the hon. member for Yeoville.

No, they did not. They carried a vote of thanks to those hon. members and a vote of support and acceptance of and agreement with the decision of the United Party to play its part in a commission contributing towards the security of South Africa. That motion was carried with only a handful of dissentient votes among those thousand delegates. I might add that the Natal congress carried a similar motion unanimously in Durban. In other words, the rank and file of the party through their elected leaders backed the decision of our leader, of our caucus and of our members who regarded service on a commission trying to work together on security as a duty to South Africa and above our own political comfort. They placed this above the easy escape route which there could have been. We could easily have avoided the attacks on us, but it was more important to us to do our duty to the country—and thereby suffer some of the filthiest and most distorted attacks I have ever had the misfortune to experience in politics. However, we took it and we saw it through. So I say that if after these two years the hon. member for Houghton and her party have failed to dent us, let alone break us, this is not the time that we are going to take her advice. We shall take our decisions in the interests of the country and according to what we determine and not what the hon. member for Houghton tells us to do.

The best of British luck to you.

Let me just ask the hon. member for Houghton, had it not been for our presence on the Schlebusch Commission, does she for a moment think that the organization of Nusas would have been cleared and not banned entirely?

What do you think is happening to them now?

I want to come back to this strange measure before us, one which the hon. the Prime Minister said we should support because we had all the information from the Interim Reports of the Schlebusch Commission. The principle was laid down in the Schlebusch Commission’s Interim Report. But the hon. the Deputy Minister in charge of the measure has said that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the Schlebusch Commission. So we have the hon. the Prime Minister saying that we must support the principle because it flows from the Schlebusch Commission and the hon. the Deputy Minister telling us very emphatically that it had “niks hoegenaamd met die Schlebusch-kommissie te doen nie”. So here we have a complete conflict. What has been shown in this debate is that from interim reports and other knowledge a case could probably be made out for preventing foreign funds reaching Nusas. That is all that has been proven by all the quotations we have had, by all the reading from reports and by all the dark deeds that have been referred to. All these things had to do with one organization, but this Bill which is before us is not a Bill which deals with financial aid to one organization. This is a blank cheque to say to the Deputy Minister of Justice: “You and your Government can do what you like in order to prevent funds reaching any organization. Every amendment we have moved and every suggestion we have made to try to bring about some control over the total power of the Cabinet to take decisions as to whom and what organizations should be declared to be affected organizations, was simply brushed aside by the hon. the Deputy Minister. So where a case was made against one organization we now have a weapon aimed at all organizations without any control over it.

Then we find from the hon. member for Green Point—who exercised his parliamentary privilege in order to do so—that in fact the final report of the Schlebusch Commission is going to have some 30 pages dealing with the definition of politics. We find that it has given its attention to this matter in depth and in detail and yet we are asked to pass this measure without that information which is available to the hon. the Prime Minister and which he withholds from this Parliament and from South Africa. If ever there was an insult to Parliament, this is an insult to Parliament. If ever there was contempt for Parliament, it is the bringing of a measure before this House on which vital information is available, and yet deliberately withholding that information from this House which has to decide upon it.

We are not prepared to play this game with the Government; we are not prepared to play the game that they wish to play in order to give them a weapon to use and abuse—and I emphasize the word “abuse”—on the political platforms during the election campaign. There is something that this Government and the Nationalist Party must remember: You cannot bluff all the people all the time. There sits the hon. the Minister of Defence and I think he will acknowledge that our record in regard to the external and military security of South Africa is one of which we do not have to be ashamed. The hon. the Minister of Police would acknowledge that in the field of border security he has had the full support of my colleagues and of this side of the House. In other words, when it comes to real security, the real fundamental security of South Africa, externally and internally, this side of the House plays its part and will continue to play its part. But when the Government plays politics with a measure which according to the hon. the Prime Minister was ready months and months ago and was based on the interim report of the Schlebusch Commission tabled in February 1973 they cannot expect us to support it. That measure was put into cold storage and brought out every now and again to see how it could be dollied up and how it could be prettied up as an election measure. Then it was held back until these dying hours of a dying session and then forced through this House in all its stages, with the abandonment of the rules of Parliament and with stages forced on us, plus the suspension of the automatic adjournment rule and a night sitting taking us almost to dawn, the hon. the Prime Minister admitted that this measure was ready months and months ago.

He did not say that.

I want to ask the hon. member over there to please rub his eyes and wake up and then to read the Hansard in the morning. He will find that I am right. If this measure has been ready all the time, why was it handled in this way? We very much regret the illness of the hon. the Minister of Justice and we are all very pleased to see him so well recovered. He was back here today. But he has not been out of action for the whole session. If he was not fit at the beginning of the session, why did the hon. the Prime Minister wait until now before appointing a Deputy to handle this measure, if it was a desperately urgent measure? As I have said, it is a measure which has been kept in cold storage; it has been kept in deep-freeze, waiting for this moment. And, Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the public of South Africa are not going to be bluffed. The public are not going to be bluffed because their slip was showing. They should have pulled their petticoats up. The motive was showing at the bottom of the dress. The motive behind this has been exposed by the way in which this measure has been handled. The public will not believe the stories which they will tell. They will not believe those stories, and what is more, they will hold it against that Deputy Minister and this Government, this Government which has treated this measure as a political trick.

Here we are, at this stage, at the end of a session which will be remembered not for the debates on serious crisis, the crises which face South Africa in the economic field, in the field of the cost of living, in the field of maladministration, and in the field of corruption. The major things will be forgotten, because this Government will be playing on the emotions of people, trying to work up their patriotism and their fears, and trying to exploit them. But the public will not be bluffed. That is why we have no hesitation in doing what we believe is right. We shall oppose this measure until we have before us the report of the Schlebusch Commission, the full report, from which we, this House, and South Africa, can get the facts on which it is possible to make a proper judgment. We therefore are not prepared to co-operate with the Government in this trick of theirs.

Mr. Speaker, at this last stage of this Bill we are in a position to tell foreign organizations that want to influence, finance and regulate our organizations in South Africa, as this Bill tells them very clearly: “Keep your noses out of our affairs. We are prepared to keep our noses out of your affairs. When we argue with one another in South Africa and when we differ with one another in our country, it is our affair. You need not finance us; you need not interfere with us; we do not want this.” That is what this Bill says. This is the final word, as far as we are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, if you would permit me, I want to say that in our humble opinion it was important for the Government that this Bill should be piloted through finally now, before the end of the session. You will permit me, Sir, to express personally my sincere thanks for your patience and the way in which you handled this very tiring late sitting. We appreciate it. To all the members who have made a contribution, and for the patience which they displayed, as against my impatience, for which I apologize, I want to say express my sincere thanks. I also want to express my sincere thanks to all the officials who had to stay here until such a late hour. That applies in particular to those connected with the catering department. We appreciate it. And then, to the members of the Press, who had to sit here all night in order to be able to report what we said, and to all our members, I say, “Thank you very, very much.”

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Question declared affirmed and amendment proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman dropped.

Main Question put and the House divided:

Ayes—97: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bandenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Sohlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—41: Bands, G. J.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Main Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.