Mr. Speaker, the hon. House has, up to this stage, had a very interesting debate. The Opposition’s contribution has been especially interesting because they have been trying hard to find arguments for not wanting to participate in this parliamentary commission. I expect that during the course of this afternoon, hon. members on the opposite side will probably try to raise carefully worked-out legal arguments against the Bill before this House.

Before I deal with certain aspects of the Bill, I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout yesterday. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said a few things here which cannot simply go unanswered. He said among other things that the object of the hon. the Prime Minister with this Bill was to sow dissension in the ranks of the United Party. It was not necessary for the hon. the Prime Minister to do this. This has already been done by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout himself and by the hon. member for Yeoville when he was still a member of the UP. Was it not of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that the following was said in an article in the Rand Daily Mail?

Surely this is common knowledge. But now the question is: Where do some of the members on the other side stand today? These things were said two years ago. Ask the hon. member for Mooi River where he stands today. The hon. member for Green Point is going to participate in the debate today. Where does he stand? Where do those hon. members stand who are probably not going to participate in this debate because they do not have the courage of their convictions to stand up and state their case? I will mention their names. The hon. member for Albany is not prepared to take part in this debate. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition would not be able to bludgeon him into speaking in this debate. The hon. member for King William’s Town is not prepared to participate in the debate.

How do you know? [Interjections.]

We would like to hear from them. I can tell you even now that the hon. member for Simonstown will not participate in the debate either, and if the hon. member for Maitland is going to rise this afternoon to speak, I hope that he will speak from his convictions. [Interjections.] The hon. member must address me through the Chair, please. We must see where some of the members on the opposite side are sitting. How many of them have not already moved over to the other side, and how many of them are still going to move after this debate? To which side are they going to move? I shall keep an eye on them because I know there are people who are going to move to the left, and I should also like to see who is going to move to the right. I am not surprised that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who has already proclaimed himself to be the next leader of the UP, adopted such an arrogant attitude towards his leader yesterday. In his speech he mentioned several reasons why he thought the hon. the Prime Ministers considered it necessary to come forward with the legislation, and inter alia, he accused the hon. Prime Minister of only presenting the legislation after 37 months. “Why after 37 months?” he wanted to know. But surely the hon. the Prime Minister explained that the hon. member’s leader had asked him to hold back the legislation.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition nodded his head in confirmation of what the hon. Prime Minister had said. I saw him do so. After that the hon. the Prime Minister made it very clear once again that the hon. member’s leader had asked him to hold back the legislation. What was the hon. member’s reaction to this? The hon. member’s attitude was that the two should settle it between themselves. The hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Prime Minister could settle it between themselves. This is the sort of arrogance which he displays towards his own leader. One is, however, not surprised that this is the case. Is this not a party which due to defective communication with their own voters, are now sitting there as a small party? They have proved here that there is not even communication between the Transvaal leader of the party and the leader of the party. Therefore this type of thing does not surprise one. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, however, made the statement that the Prime Minister had never been a great admirer of our democratic parliamentary system, and added that he hoped that the hon. the Prime Minister would keep his hands off the parliamentary system as we know it. Does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout have any justification in talking about this? Who has, especially during the past 16 years, been the protector of the parliamentary system in South Africa? The hon. the Prime Minister. Who else?

All of us sitting here, know what evil militant and revolutionary forces have descended on South Africa during the past 16 years. We do not have to delve into the past. Who was it who then stood as a pillar of strength to protect the democratic system and the parliamentary system in South Africa? Who clamped down on those people? Who saw to it that people are today serving their sentences on Robben Island? Who ensured that law and order were maintained in South Africa? This all took place under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister. It was he who introduced that legislation, legislation which was specifically aimed at the protection of the parliamentary system. The hon. members of the Opposition themselves say—I am referring for example to the hon. member for Mooi River—in the report on which the legislation was based—

This is what the commission said in protection of the existing political order which could have been overthrown by revolution. What did the hon. the Prime Minister do then? The hon. Prime Minister then ensured that certain of the leaders who wanted to act in such a revolutionary way, were put in the cooler for a little while to cool down. They have now been cooling down for three years. Apparently they have another two years in which to cool down. I notice that one has cooled down sufficiently. He was released the other day.

The hon. the Prime Minister also went further. He said that he was not prepared to allow these people to obtain money from abroad in order to act in a revolutionary manner in South Africa. He then decided that they should be taken in hand, and therefore put the Affected Organizations Act into operation. By means of this Act, he took action against such organizations as Nusas and the Christian Institute. Can any hon. member on the opposite side find fault with any of the steps I have mentioned so far? There is not a single member who can oppose them. Were these measures not in fact taken for the protection of the parliamentary system in South Africa?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asks what result this commission will have on race relations in South Africa. He went on to say: (Hansard, 23 February 1976, page DD. 1)—

I am sure the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me that what was said here and the insinuation behind it, is scandalous. It is nothing but scandalous. It is not worthy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and it is not worthy of his party, and I am sure that there is not a member on that side of the House who is prepared to support the hon. member in what he said. This is not the first time the hon. member has ventured into this sphere either. We know that he said in this House only a few days ago that the people on this side of the House are the modem tsars in political life, that they are creating the breeding ground for a revolution based on the writings of Marx and other people. Sir, no one can tell me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other members on that side go along with this type of thing. I take up the standpoint that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, by continuing in this vein, and by saying this type of thing, is turning himself into a political security risk in South Africa—nothing else.

That is a scandalous allegation.

On a point of order, Sir: The hon. member says that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is making of himself a sort of political risk, a security risk. I submit that putting the word political into the sentence, does not make it parliamentary.

Order! The Deputy Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. The hon. member also referred to the question of compensation in his speech yesterday. He said that the principle whereby an hon. member is paid for special parliamentary duties over and above his parliamentary salary, was incorrect, and then alleged that hon. members would in any event be tempted to vote for themselves. Sir, can you believe that an hon. member of this House can make the insinuation, the assertion against other hon. members of this House that they would create work for themselves in a dishonest way with the aim of obtaining compensation for this? If the hon. member for Hillbrow is content with this, I am very sure that the rest of his party is not, because I should like to accept that all members of this House are people of integrity. But what of the hon. member’s own actions? He was a member of the Select Committee on Publications, and he knows that at the end of the session, when its task had not been completed, the Select Committee was converted, by request and by means of parliamentary procedure, into a commission of inquiry appointed by the State President. Surely he was also a member of that commission of inquiry appointed by the State President, and the members of that commission of inquiry were paid, according to the prescribed tariffs, for travelling and subsistence. The hon. member also received that remuneration and accepted it. When it suits him, he is prepared to receive that remuneration, but when it does not suit him, he makes insinuations against other members of the House.

What remuneration?

Travelling and subsistence allowance. What is this if not remuneration? [Interjections.] Neither the hon. member, nor the hon. Leader of the Opposition objected to the conversion of that Select Committee into a commission of inquiry and to this day, no one has objected to the fact that members of the commission were paid according to the tariffs which are calculated from time to time for this purpose by the Minister of Finance. Sir, the hon. members are apparently referring to clause 11 of the Bill, in which the word remuneration appears, and also to section 55 of the Constitution Act. The legal experts on the other side can argue about this if they like, but in plain Afrikaans it simply amounts to the fact that because section 55 in the Act exists and because it is necessary for the proper drafting of laws and for the sake of completeness that the section be stated in this way, it is therefore provided that a person who receives remuneration, whether a travel or subsistence allowance or any other remuneration applicable to a commission, it will not be considered to be an office of profit under the State. I hope that this is very clear to hon. members. And what is more, surely members of a commission are entitled to remuneration. Since when has this not been the case? Since when must a member of Parliament be employed on a commission at his own expense for months and years in Pretoria? There is not a single member of this House who expects this. They are entitled to it. The members of the commission which is established by this Bill, will be remunerated on the same basis as the basis on which members of the commission upon which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout served, were remunerated. There is no difference. However, he may receive remuneration by serving on a commission.

Why is this stated in the Bill?

It is stated in the Bill that members will be renumerated and I say this will be on the same basis on which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was remunerated. Do not be stupid.

Where is this stated?

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that occasional interjections are permissible, but I am not going to allow a running commentary during the speeches.

I now want to leave the hon. member for Bezuidenhout at that, and just in passing refer to the hon. member for Houghton. She did not even take the trouble to read the reports of the Schlebusch Commission. She even boasted about it in this House. Nevertheless she arrogates to herself the right to comment on it. Yesterday in this House she referred to the seven parts of the report as follows: “It is seven volumes of rubbish that the Schlebusch Commission produced.’’ That is what the hon. member said. This is something which can and will, with pleasure, be cast into the teeth of the hon. member and of her party. The hon. member and the members of her party are, after all, very keen, especially from this session onwards, not to make the mistake which the hon. members on the opposite side made, of building up an image of an un-South African attitude. They want to radiate a terribly positive image of South Africanism to the outside world, but this is, however, their second mishap this session. The first was when they voted against the amendment of the hon. the Prime Minister to the motion of no confidence by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. This is the second, for no responsible voter inside or outside South Africa refers to these seven volumes as “seven volumes of rubbish”. How could Wilgespruit, and everything that went with it, have been brought to public notice if this had not been done by this commission? Ask the hon. member for Pinelands how shocked he was to hear of some of the things which emerged during the inquiry into the University Christian Movement.

Then the hon. member will realize what was at issue. A commission like this was necessary to disclose the militant Black Power in South Africa. Does the hon. member now want to ally herself with the polarization as it emerged in the fourth interim report? Of course not, because it is her friends who are involved in this. It was her young friends who work for the Progressive Party who took the lead. Therefore she cannot pay any heed to this. In this way I can also refer to other cases. The hon. member will not now know what I am talking about now, but does she agree with the actions of the Christian Institute and the World Council of Churches in supporting so-called terrorist forces outside our borders? Naturally, for she does not know what I am talking about. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must refrain from making further interjections.

I would like to refer to another aspect before my time expires. I want to refer to the hon. member for Mooi River and to the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Mooi River and the hon. member for Yeoville were extremely worried, especially during the debates in 1974 and since, because, ostensibly, the English-speaking people would no longer occupy their rightful position in South Africa or receive their rightful opportunities. I would like to refer to what the hon. member for Mooi River said inter alia. He said the following (Hansard, Vol. 50, col. 877)—

He went on to say (col. 878)—

“Because it does not appear that there is a chance” are the words used by the hon. member. Here they are being offered the chance to participate in their own future destiny. They are however not prepared to make use of that chance. They have been saying this for the past three years. In col. 881 the hon. member said—

I ask you, Mr. Speaker! This party has already been in power for 27 years and it is offering them the opportunity to take part—they who as English-speaking people pour out their hearts so passionately towards South Africa. We are telling them to come and participate, but they do not want to make use of that opportunity. I should like to refer to the hon. member for Yeoville. What he said at the time, is surely still representative of his standpoint today. After all, we know the hon. member to be a man who does not change his standpoint. I presume that he still stands by these words—

I agree with this.

Mr. Speaker, what better opportunity than this is being offered to the English-speaking people by the hon. the Prime Minister? But their representatives are sitting here and engaging in a political game because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the hon. member for Yeoville and a few other leftists forced them into it two or three years ago. I do not have to repeat my speech of two years ago when I pointed out step by step how the UP, under the leadership of their hon. leader, turned away from their clearly conservative, responsible view of this matter within the space of two or three weeks. Today they are still as firmly in the grip of the few leftists in that party and of the others who have gone over to the Progressive Party. This is why we have this situation today. We are now offering those people the opportunity which they want. By means of this Bill this side of the House and the hon. the Prime Minister are inter alia saying the following things to them: Have the courage of your convictions, stand up and tell South Africa why you as one of the chosen representatives and leaders of the English-speaking people in South Africa, are not prepared to assume the leadership and, together with these people, participate in determining your destinies in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who has just sat down was one of the chairmen of the commissions which we served on. There one learned to have great respect and esteem for the hon. the Deputy Minister as a result of the way in which he did his work. One got to know him as a man who was capable of lucid thought in his capacity as chairman. Consequently the foolish remarks he made here are all the more incomprehensible. He maintained that by means of this Bill the hon. the Prime Minister was magnanimously offering the English-speaking people the opportunity to serve South Africa. This is absolute nonsense. It is unbelievable that a man can say such things. The hon. member spoke of leftists in this party. He said we should go from left to right. I should like to know whether he is a leftist or a rightist. The whole NP is a socialist party. How is it possible, then, for them to occupy a position to the right in the politics of this country today? This is just impossible. The hon. member spoke about leftists, but we can attack him on that. The hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs accused me and the hon. member for Green Point of having yielded to the leftists and the Press. [Interjections.] I would like to ask the hon. members on that side of the House who served on the commission and who hold forth so piously and sanctimoniously on the security and safety of South Africa: Who was there among their number who was slated as we were slated for the report of this commission? [Interjections.] Not one of them. The fact that that report enjoys credibility among the English-speaking people is due to us on this side of the House who advocated that report and defended it from platform to platform, to students as well. We were the ones who had to defend that report concerning the Christian Institute and other organizations, and not the hon. members on the other side. Then they hold forth to us on the safety of our country! They are the ones who say that we have yielded to the Press and the leftists in the party. This is trash, this is Naboomspruit trash … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is an hon. member of this House really entitled to make an unsavoury insinuation such as “Naboomspruit trash’’ while we all know what this means? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister gave the impression yesterday that the hon. member for Green Point and I, on this side of the House, had entered into a contract with the hon. the Prime Minister and members on that side of the House in terms of which we should be bound by the decisions of that commission in respect of the setting up of a permanent commission on security, to support the legislation introduced by the hon. the Prime Minister. I do not think for one single minute that that is an argument which holds any water. At the very outset, as soon as the joint first and second interim reports were tabled as a result of which the hon. the Minister of Justice took immediate action, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made it quite clear that, while the party accepted in principle the idea of a permanent body undertaking investigations relating to security, he refused to bind himself or his party in respect of the form such a body should take until such time as legislation was laid before the House and the party knew what the details were.

Did you not yourselves suggest all the details in the first interim report?

My hon. leader was in the position that a recommendation, undersigned by ten members of the House, of whom nine are left, was tabled suggesting such a body in outline. There were no details laid before my hon. leader or my party’s caucus on which they could give a judgment or commit the party.

You knew beforehand.

From whom? How could we know? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, is the Deputy Minister insinuating that I told my hon. leader the details of the negotiations carried out on the commission?

That is what he insinuated! [Interjections.]

It is a disgraceful accusation.

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

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! I should like us to proceed with the business of the House. I ask hon. members to give the hon. member the opportunity to make his speech.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your kind words. I think I should get a little injury time. Feelings are running high in this House.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

What is suggested in the first interim report of the commission is that a joint body to deal with security should be established by legislation in this House. We signed that report in good faith. I do not think anybody can say that we have not acted in good faith throughout the piece. We signed another report, the fourth report of the commission, dealing with Nusas.

Conflicting with the first.

What is wrong with that?

We took certain other attitudes conflicting with those revealed in the first report, as the hon. the Minister suggests, defining further and refining our attitude, but is there anybody who can take umbrage at the fact that people after the experiences they have had and after thinking about things change their minds and attitudes to make the action which they are proposing more effective? [Interjections.] Every day of one’s life one is entitled to review decisions one has made and to take up a fresh attitude. Let us look at what is proposed. The commission proposed that there should be a permanent body established to act as an organ of Parliament. Such a body would then, as an organ of Parliament, deal with subversive activities and legislation. Right now as I stand here and other hon. members sit in the House, I can say that there are things which happened in that commission which cannot be told to this House. Other hon. members of this House who served on the commission will bear me out on this. We are bound by the security attaching to the commission not to tell the House all the things we know. We cannot tell the House of those things even though they may further the point which we wish to make in relation to this Bill. This is one of the problems which we face. Information which is gathered in a commission of that nature is neither available to one’s caucus nor to the hon. members of this House. By definition such information cannot be available. I would absolutely hate some of the information which we gathered to go further than the very small group of people who received it. Some of the information was of such a confidential nature that I am most unhappy about even the chance that it might leak out. [Interjections.] One is reduced to the position that one would like to see a permanent body which is going to deal with the things that matter such as practical matters of legislation, which is properly the business of members of this House. I want to make the point that an adequate body of legislation which deals effectively with and makes offences of activities which are subversive is going to eliminate and narrow down the area for investigation to a very, very major extent. This is one of the problems which we experienced in the commission. We were investigating activities and as we went along towards a final conclusion we knew that there was no legislation in existence in South Africa which made offences of the things which we saw going on, those very things which so perturbed me as a member of the English-speaking community referred to by the hon. the Deputy Minister. We heard of young people acting on behalf and in the name of our children in a grossly irresponsible and dangerous manner. At that time the whole legislative background against which we were operating as a commission was totally inadequate to meet what we needed to be able to bring people before the court.

What did you need?

The hon. the Minister of Justice wants to know what we needed at the time. I am not a lawyer and therefore I want a Select Committee of this House on which lawyers and other members of the House can be represented so that they will be able to define offences. They can use the experience which we got in order to define offences relating to subversion and relating to security so that it should not be necessary for a commission of this House to investigate the activities of people. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister says “quite right”, and I agree with him, but in the course of our investigations we saw the names of certain people cropping up again and again in different organizations. That is how it happened and we saw this happening time and again. The hon. the Prime Minister referred to the Breytenbach case. I must say that I wondered a while, when I first saw that in the paper, whether some clever member of the Security Police had not put Breytenbach up to the little trip which he took around South Africa, because I could have written a scenario for that. The hon. member for Green Point could have written it. We could have put our finger on a whole lot of the people who were seen by that person during his hare-brained attempt to come here and create some kind of disturbance in South Africa. The hon. the Ministers of Community Development and Public Works could have written a scenario which would have included the names of those people. What we need in this country is legislation which is adequate to the need of today. We need legislation which will define activities against the security of the people of South Africa or against the security of South Africa in such a way that people who carry out such activities will be charged in court. If you can bring such people before the court, if they can be charged and convicted, what need is there then for people or organizations to be investigated by a commission of the sort that the hon. the Prime Minister proposes? [Interjections.] I have a grave doubt as to the effectiveness of the body which the hon. the Prime Minister proposes. It is going to be a body of Nationalist members of Parliament …

That is not the way I prefer it; it is the way you prefer it. [Interjections.]

The report which I signed asks for a permanent body, a permanent commission and there are certain similarities in that it should be appointed by the State President and report to the State President, but I am not committed in detail to the commission as it is being set out in the Bill which is now before the House. [Interjections.]

Why do you not say that you were dragooned into taking up that attitude?

If the hon. the Minister says that I was dragooned into taking up that attitude, I should like to ask him, “By whom?”

By Marais.

How can anybody say that I or the hon. member for Green Point were dragooned inside this party into changing our attitude or to take an attitude which is different from the one which we took up in signing the report? We spelt out quite clearly in the fourth report what we thought the activities should be of that commission or Select Committee. It will be recalled that we proposed a Standing Committee of the House. There is no doubt about it at all.

You changed your stance in order to save your party unity. [Interjections.]

The hon. gentleman talks about party unity and about liberals in our party, but I want to say that it is a lot harder for a liberal to live in this party than it is for a member of the HNP to live in that party. [Interjections.]

Order!

What is going on in South Africa? What are the things we are trying to cope with? What are the activities we are trying to deal with? This is nothing less than an attack on the mind of White South Africa.

Why do you not come back to the Bill?

I am talking about the Bill. The Bill relates to the appointment of a permanent commission which I am opposing. I am talking to the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in which it is stated that this party will for various reasons not be associated with the Bill as proposed by the hon. the Prime Minister.

At the moment.

The reason why we believe …

At the moment.

… and why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition believes …

At the moment.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville will get an opportunity to speak.

There are reasons why we believe that a Select Committee is necessary and there are reasons why we are prepared to serve in a Select Committee of this House which will do many of the things which the hon. the Prime Minister wants done. It will draft legislation and in the course of drafting legislation it will have to investigate certain things. It will have to hear evidence from the law advisers and from the security people. It will have to take a lot of the initiative in investigating what is necessary to control what I say is an attack on the mind of White South Africa by people who are intent on destroying the will of this group of people to survive. What is going to be necessary for a Select Committee of this House to undertake this, is a very, very simple change in the rules of this House.

Why not?

The Select Committee must be permitted to continue with its work after a session of Parliament has been prorogued. It can do a great deal of the work that the Prime Minister has asked the commission to do. It can investigate all the legislation that is necessary. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister has done the cause of White unity in this country grave harm by persisting with this legislation.

You have an open invitation.

I have an open invitation. I think it is important that we realize one thing in this House. We, this little group of White people, are the real freedom fighters in this country and in Africa. There is no doubt that there is going to be an intense campaign launched against us. As the powers on our borders get closer and closer and grow stronger and stronger, we are going to hear the refrain “better red than dead” more frequently in this country. An attack will be launched upon us. To protect the mind of White South Africa, surely it is far better to have the offer of co-operation this party makes to the hon. the Prime Minister, to give the body the hon. the Prime Minister wants some sort of credibility and some kind of real standing in the eyes of the people? One of the things that worries me more than anything is that the same will happen to this commission as happened to ours. By refusing to give testimony people are going to frustrate the entire working of the commission and bring it into total disrepute. The fact that members of the Christian Institute refused to testify before the Commission was a grave hindrance to the bringing out of the report of the commission. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Information and of the Interior knows this as well as I do.

One of the things that perturbs me about the commission as proposed by the hon. the Prime Minister is the fact that he knew that this side of the House would not be serving on it. He can, however, do a great service to South Africa by accepting the offer that is made from this side of the House. We are prepared to serve on and we want a permanent Select Committee of the House. We want members to be informed to the very limit and as far as we can go. We want members to be informed by members of a Select Committee, who will explain the need for particular activities and particular legislation so that the members of the caucuses of all three parties in the House should know what is going on. I say all three parties, and I hope all three parties will serve on a Select Committee. It is a task of members of Parliament to investigate legislation and other matters of that nature. I hope all three parties will serve on such a Select Committee. This is the way in which we can express unity and get together, the way in which we can put our minds together and influence each other as we did in the commission. Let nobody be deluded: The fact that both parties were represented on the commission was a positive force for good. This is the offer this side of the House is making. We make this offer to the hon. the Prime Minister in all humility, and he should be prepared to accept it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made the hon. the Prime Minister a genuine offer. We are prepared to serve on a Select Committee and we are prepared to play our part in securing the future of South Africa, not only White South Africa but also Black South Africa.

Always the same story.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says: “Always the same story.” The poor hon. Deputy Minister sits there grumbling all day.

He has had his speech, and now he has to have a grumble.

It was wisdom on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister that in the last commission, when investigations were made, there should have been members of this party on the commission …

You were not on a Select Committee.

No, I was on the commission.

Yes, a commission and not a Select Committee.

That is right. However, it was appointed as a Select Committee and I was asked to take the place of the hon. member who sits in front of me.

So what is the difference?

You were the chairman of the Select Committee, but you do not know the difference. As I was saying, it was wisdom on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister because there were members of this side of the House who were involved in an investigation which affected the children of English-speaking South Africa. I for one am grateful—I say it in public as I have many times before—that we were able to serve on that commission which brought in a report on Nusas. You can imagine for yourself, Sir, the disturbances there would have been in the country if it had been done by hon. members of that side of the House only.

However, when one is faced with a situation like this where this side of the House is, for very good reasons, not prepared to serve on a commission as proposed by the hon. the Prime Minister, then, I believe, the hon. the Prime Minister would be well-advised, in the interests of South Africa and the interests of all of us, to accept the offer of co-operation which has come from this side of the House. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mooi River concluded his speech by describing the attitude of the official Opposition as a genuine offer to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government. Surely one does not make an offer after a contract has been concluded. The attitude of the hon. member for Mooi River, the Leader of the Opposition and the United Party with regard to the legislation, cannot be described as an offer; it constitutes a flagrant breach of contract, and it is of no avail to try to hide it behind emotion as the hon. member for Mooi River has done. For a full half hour the hon. member had one emotional outburst after another and in the process he failed to advance a single argument to explain why he and other members of the Opposition had changed their attitude. The hon. member called to mind a person who was trying to get away from his own shadow. He called to mind someone who had been muzzled and blindfolded by those in his party with whom he did not agree. I want to look more closely at some of the statements made by the hon. member. The hon. member said that they, the United Party members who served on the commission, were charged with having given way before the leftists and the Press. He demanded to know who it was who had run the gauntlet of the Press and who had to suffer. We concede that they suffered. Now, in one single debate, they are negating all the suffering and are cancelling out what they achieved by taking part. They are cancelling out the fact that they purified their party of a certain part of the leftist element in their party. Now they do not have the courage to kick out the few who remained.

Why did the hon. member and his party change their attitude in respect of this matter? They did not do so as a result of altered convictions. The hon. member for Mooi River did not indicate today that his convictions had changed. He did not say that he did not agree with the essence of the Bill. He tried to hide behind technicalities and emotional outbursts. We are waiting to hear from him whether he has changed his attitude or his convictions.

It is clear to us that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and like-minded people in that party have gained the upper hand. If the hon. member for Mooi River, as we know him, could have told us today that he stood by the attitude he had adopted at the time but that he abided by the decision of the majority of his party, then we should still perhaps have been able to understand it. However, he does not do so. The hon. member told us nothing today. He failed to indicate to us one single point in respect of which the Bill differed from the recommendations which he himself signed. He failed to tell us in what respect the body which this Bill calls into being was different to the body proposed in the first interim report, which he signed. The hon. member started the sentence as follows: “If we were able to start an investigation now …". but he never finished that sentence. After all, by having representation on this body they can have a say in the security of South Africa. He exclaimed that we needed legislation to prosecute people and find them guilty. Surely that is one of the main instructions to the commission in terms of this Bill. In terms of the Bill this commission may also examine security legislation, and probably will, otherwise this would not have been in the legislation. The hon. member said that when he signed that report “He was not committed to detail,” but he failed to contest the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement that this Bill corresponded in every respect to the report published then. To tell the truth, the hon. the Prime Minister issued a challenge to that side of the House which has not yet been accepted and which this hon. member in particular could have accepted if he had been able. The hon. the Prime Minister challenged any member to indicate in what respect this Bill differed from the report which recommended it. Thus far, not a single member has accepted that challenge, because they have been unable to.

Once again in this debate the official Opposition has displayed its ambiguity with regard to internal security. With one hand it is desparately trying to cling to the image of a party which is supposedly in favour of law and order and which places a high value on the maintenance of internal security, and on the other hand it conceals its uncertainty behind a smoke screen of legal niceties. We have seen from time to time how they adapt the rule of law to suit themselves. The judiciary is dragged in from time to time and then they are for a tribunal—as in this case. However, when it comes to publications control, then they are against a tribunal. They are for a tribunal when they need to get out of trouble and escape their responsibilities, and they are opposed to a tribunal when it does not suit them. Now they come along once again with this new astonishing legal technicality and all of a sudden they are the great champions of the separation of power between the executive authority, the legislative authority and the judicial authority. Suddenly this Bill constitutes a violation of that separation of powers. Surely they, too, studied Montesquieu’s theory and surely they knew at that time how our parliamentary system worked. Surely the hon. members, when they were sitting on the Schlebusch Commission—which later became the Le Grange Commission—at the time, knew how the separation of powers worked. Then, however, they were prepared to carry out precisely the same functions which are now being entrusted to the permanent commission to be established in terms of this Bill. What has changed? Nothing has changed.

I want to ask the hon. member to state to whom the Schlebusch Commission was responsible, to Parliament, or to the State President?

The report was submitted to the State President. Surely the hon. member knows it, and he knew it then, too. The report of the new commission will also be submitted to the State President. What, then, is the difference? At the time hon. members were prepared to serve on it, and in the meantime they have changed their minds. We know why. It can only be the result of pressure exerted by the Press or the result of the internal struggles within that party.

I want to come back to the growing tendency on the part of that side of the House to defend the separation of powers. Last night in his speech the hon. member for Bezuidenhout negated the speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition because he admitted that that side of the House had asked for exactly the same thing in respect of other matters, inter alia, they made pleas in this House that committees be appointed which were not aimed at legislation but which would have had advisory functions or functions supplementary to the executive authority. I want to tell hon. members on what occasion the hon. member himself advocated this. I refer to the Hansard of 1972, when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had the following to say (Hansard, Vol. 39, col. 6454)—

At that time that side of the House did not hold the view that the separation of powers between the legislative authority and the executive authority should be maintained at all costs. They pleaded for a greater degree of involvement on the part of Parliament in the executive authority, for participation in a permanent commission to assist the Government and the executive in its handling of foreign affairs. They now have the same opportunity with regard to internal security and they turn it down because they say that it clashes with our parliamentary procedure. Later in the same debate, when the hon. the Minister did not want to accede to his request, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that we should not take Britain as an example because the traditions of the British Parliament were quite different. Nevertheless, among the hon. members opposite there are people who know something about constitutional law and political science. Surely they know that in a Governmental framework with a Cabinet system like ours, there is no absolute separation of powers. There is a greater degree of separation of powers in a country with a constitution like that of America. In countries with a basically British system the same degree of separation does not occur. I want to refer to two authorities. The one is Gettell in his book Political Science, who states the following on page 213—

Then he makes this important statement—

What is he saying here? He is saying that the separation between executive and legislative authority is by no means absolute in a government such as ours, but that they merge to a great extent. He goes on to say that there is in fact a great deal of separation between the executive-cum-legislative authority on the one hand and the judicial authority on the other. On the next page he makes this important statement—

This Bill affords a channel for so-called harmony. This Bill affords Parliament the opportunity to fulfil a useful function and to assist the executive authority in its all-important task of ensuring internal security and preventing riots, unrest, violence and threats. But hon. members on that side of the House turn down the opportunity. I also want to refer hon. members to the well-known book by Wade and Phillips—this is the last authority to which I am going to refer—who is regularly quoted by that side of the House when they discuss the rule of law. He states—

That is precisely the same as this other author I have just quoted. No, Sir, the United Party will find no backing for their opposition to this in the separation of powers. We do not find in this Bill anything strange and new which we are introducing, but something which they themselves have advocated in this House in the past with regard to other aspects, something which will give rise to valuable harmony and co-operation between the legislative authority and the executive authority. Sir, we and the electorate—and I think the United Party must begin to take note of the fact that this is the real reason for their dwindling support at the polls—are tired of seeing them adopting ambiguous attitudes in regard to important matters and always wanting to drag in the courts where security matters are involved. We are not impressed by their traditional evasion of their responsibilities. Sir, for a short time there was hope for the United Party as far as we were concerned, in view of the participation of the hon. member for Mooi River and the hon. member for Green Point, but they have now once again destroyed that hope and today they again stand exposed as a party without the courage of its convictions necessary to honour an agreement between its members and the Government.

The simple question which this Bill puts before every member of this House is a twofold one. The first is whether a permanent commission relating to internal security is necessary and the second is: If so, how is it to be constituted, what must its character be? On the basis of previous reports, judicial verdicts and other sources of information, it is surely clear that the strategy of the enemies of South Africa who want to see internal disorder and revolution is to use and abuse front organizations and front leaders in order to stir up unrest. This the hon. member and the commission on which he served proved to us. It was also proved to us by subsequent events. Because this is so, surely it is necessary to have a body, a body which we can keep informed at all times, keep informed of the activities of the organizations and persons which pose a threat to the maintenance of law and order. As far as the necessity for such a commission is concerned, I specifically want to address the Progressive Reform Party.

The official Opposition, at least, is still reasonably convinced that there should be something more or less in the nature of a commission. When we look at other countries of the Western world, we see communist infiltration in organizations of all kinds, such as trade unions and student organizations, and we take cognizance of the Bader-Meinhoff terrorist groups, of trains which are hijacked, of terrorist murders and attacks, of riots, of violent protests, and when we do this, we in South Africa have one lesson to learn from this and that is that a country which is not prepared to stifle and prevent undermining at birth, will reap the bitter harvest of unrest, rebelliousness, strikes and public violence. This Bill is not concerned with the suppression of people who do not agree with one; it concerns the maintenance of freedom, which is defined by Jennings, a well-known writer on constitutional law, as the right of a free Opposition to say what it wants to in Parliament. Ultimately, therefore, what is involved is our right to speak here and to come here constitutionally—to protect that right. Sir, freedom in a civilized country does not constitute freedom for anyone to do what he wants to, but freedom to strive for change within the framework of authority, within the framework of decency, within the framework of the rule of law, if, that is, he wants to strive for change.

The second question concerns the nature of this commission. We say that it must be a parliamentary commission. The official Opposition states that it must be a judicial commission, or something of the kind.

Or something of the kind.

Yes, or something of the kind, because that is how vague you are. Either we have to go to court or it has to be a judicial commission, but it must just not be a parliamentary commission, something which you yourself have recommended. Sir, I want to motivate the argument that it must be a parliamentary commission. In the first instance because this is not a matter for the courts. After all, the court is not a body designed to prevent crime. This commission will not hold hearings. The court is designed to try a case, to evaluate specific events, to pass a verdict and to pass sentence or issue an order which must be carried out. This commission will gather data and make recommendations. It does not have the power, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout insinuated last night, of fining anyone for anything. When a frontbencher who lays claim to the leadership of a party talks about a Bill without having read it or without being able to understand the simple language in which this Bill is framed, then the country is poor because then it has no real opposition. [Interjections.]

In the second place I want to argue that it constitutes an essential part of the task of Parliament to prevent crime in co-operation with the executive authority—as I explained a moment ago, the two together form a unit. It is not the task of the court to prevent crime and to prevent a case coming before it; that is our task and we must accept that task. Sir, when I tell you that there is such a thing as preventive justice which is a concern of the executive authority in Parliament, I have authority for saying so, viz. the finding of Mr. Justice Stratford in the case of Sachs v. Minister of Justice, when he used this term. He remarked that the provisions constituted a measure of preventive justice. In the course of his judgment, the judge stated the following—

Sir, we believe it to be the task of Parliament, together with the executive authority—which together form an indissoluble unit, although they have different functions—to see to it that South Africa is made secure against what threatens it, against what its enemies want to achieve here. Another reason why this must be a parliamentary commission is the fact that the issuing of an instruction to this commission is really something which falls pre-eminently into the province of members of this House of Assembly and of the Senate. I have not yet heard anyone say that the persons who will be appointed—members of this House and of the Other Place—are incapable of carrying out the functions entrusted to this commission in an effective, impartial, fair and just way. By that I am not saying there are not others outside Parliament who could not also do this, but why move a motion of no confidence in this House and in the Other Place if one is prepared to sit on all kinds of commissions concerned with all kinds of other important matters which have wide powers and which interfere? Do you not think that more technical knowledge than we perhaps have, is necessary in some of the commissions on which you are represented? But here we are dealing with a matter which does not lie outside our field of knowledge, a matter for which we are equipped, and you refuse to take part; you refuse to accept the opportunity created for the House of Assembly and the Senate to co-operate with the executive authority in serving the interests of South Africa in regard to internal security.

Why should a Select Committee not be able to do the same work?

Did you suggest that?

After all, you did not suggest that. [Interjections.]

No, Sir, we did suggest it.

Sir, I sum up. The functions which the Bill entrusts to the proposed commission are functions which a parliamentary commission is suited to carry out because constitutionally, they are parliamentary functions, since it is a basic part of the functions of Parliament to collect facts, form opinions and take cognizance of matters which affect internal security, and because there are no grounds for maintaining that Parliament is not capable of doing this. Furthermore, it would endanger the objectivity of the courts and the legal system if we were to entrust this to them.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate so far with great care and with great interest and I must say how disappointed I am at the level at which it has been conducted by the members on the Government benches who followed the hon. the Prime Minister.

What about your own colleagues last night?

We are dealing with perhaps the most important subject which could affect the country at the present time. I can think of no more grave matter which we could discuss than the internal security of this country at the present time. Every single member from the Government benches who has spoken so far, without exception, is a trained lawyer. The hon. member for Vereeniging, who has just spoken, the hon. member for Turffontein, the hon. member for Kroonstad, the hon. member for Potchefstroom and the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, every single one of them, including the hon. the Prime Minister, are trained lawyers. They are people who are capable of dissecting the truth from what is not the truth. They are people who are trained to present facts and a proper case. Where did this start? All these hon. gentlemen have followed the standard, the deplorable standard I regret to say—and I choose my words carefully—set by the hon. the Prime Minister when he opened this debate. What did the hon. the Prime Minister say? What was the gravamen of his case? The gravamen of his case was—and these were roughly his words—that he could hardly believe that the United Party no longer supported the permanent commission recommended by its members in the Schlebusch Commission. Then there was talk of “omgeswaai” and words to that effect. The whole gravamen of the case against us has been that we have changed our stand since the publication of this Bill which we are discussing here today. That is the case which every single lawyer on the other side has presented against us. The hon. the Prime Minister began this by saying that there was a contract as he saw it. An offer had been made by the nine or 10 members of the commission in the first interim report which he was now accepting and he proceeded to discuss the matter on that basis. I presume every person in this House knows that the story did not begin and end with the first interim report of the commissioners. There was a third, a fourth and a fifth interim report, far more comprehensive in their nature each of them, particularly the fourth, than the first interim report. The hon. the Prime Minister conducts an entire debate on the basis that the fourth interim report does not exist. He never mentioned it once, as to its contents. He has led this House to believe, and what is more important, the people outside, that the beginning and the end of the story is the first interim report and that the fourth interim report does not exist. Either the hon. the Prime Minister came to the House having forgotten that the fourth interim report existed, which I doubt, or, if that was not the case and he knew that the fourth interim report existed and he had refreshed his memory as to its contents—and I believe that that is probably the case—then I say quite emphatically that he has come perilously close to misleading the House and the people outside on a matter …

You come close to telling an untruth.

How else can he justify a statement which is misleading, viz. that the point of view of this side of the House is expressed in the first interim report? Let us look at this for a moment. Two years ago—and I have the Hansard here—in August 1974 we had a couple of days of debate on the reports of the Schlebusch Commission, including the fourth interim report. Two years ago we went through the whole of this exercise when we debated the change in the point of view of the members of the United Party on the Schlebusch Commission from the first interim report to the fourth interim report. The whole matter was gone through and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition set out the point of view of this party at great length in that debate and we debated it. Yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister, in order I can only assume to try to make petty party political capital out of the situation, pretended that that debate did not take place and that he did not know the point of view of the United Party as a result of the fourth interim report of the Schlebusch Commission. He also pretended that the point of view of the party is as expressed by its members on the commission in the first interim report. As a result we have an entire day’s debate of unreality from that side of the House on the basis that our standpoint is the first interim report of the Schlebusch Commission. This is a disgraceful state of affairs; it is no more and no less unless somebody gives me a reason for it. It is no more and no less than playing petty politics with the internal security of South Africa.

What is the true position? The real question at issue is not whether one’s party is in favour of this particular Bill or not. That is not the issue. The true issue is, what is the attitude of your particular party in regard to the internal security of South Africa? That is the issue upon which I wish to say something this afternoon. This Bill is merely a piece of machinery designed to assist in achieving the goal of an internally secure South Africa. It is one example of various types of machinery which can be used to bring about that desirable state of affairs. Whether its structure would best achieve that end is something which we can debate and which I shall discuss this afternoon. I want to come back to the main question which is, what is the attitude of the various political parties in regard to internal security? The hon. the Prime Minister, despite all his play-acting yesterday, has no doubts at all as to where this party stands in that regard. He has no doubts at all. He has the utmost confidence in this party and he knows that in respect of internal security, and indeed external security, this party can be relied upon. That is why he has spoken so well of us in the past in this specific context. He spoke so well in the debate that I have just mentioned, of 1974, of our participation in the Schlebusch Commission. That is why he, the hon. the Prime Minister, and other members of his party, have done their utmost to get the United Party to support the Bill. It will go on in this debate, the expressions of regret that we are not supporting this Bill and that we are not prepared to serve on the commission in question. All this, and I have emphasized it, is to demonstrate what I believe is generally accepted by the Government, that they can rely on this party when it comes to the internal security of South Africa. Nobody would be more pleased than the hon. the Prime Minister if we were to change our minds and give support to this measure and agree to serve on that commission. No one would be more pleased than the hon. the Prime Minister because he knows that when it comes to matters of that kind this party can be relied upon. It goes further than that because the hon. the Prime Minister knows that not only in regard to internal security but in regard to defence and I believe in regard to foreign affairs the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party can be relied upon. The hon. the Prime Minister, I understand, from time to time—indeed he has said so—takes advantage of that situation.

Now, Sir, to keep the country’s internal affairs secure, I believe, requires two things. I believe there are two situations that one must look at. The first, which is a matter I shall just touch upon, without elaborating at length on it, is to ensure that one has a just social, political and economic order in one’s country so as to inhibit the activities of the agitator. That is the first and important situation. In this respect, I believe, the United Party has a clear advantage over the other parties in this House. We have a clear and consistent approach, which is based upon the removal of discrimination, the safeguarding of a free-enterprise economic order and a federal political system in which power and responsibility are shared amongst all races, without their identity being destroyed and on the basis where there can be no domination of one racial group over another.

Who can believe that? No one will believe you.

I believe that that is the first basis that one must look at if one wants to …

You are bluffing yourself.

… if one wants to have regard to one’s internal security. I defy the hon. the Deputy Minister to deny that one cannot have a secure internal situation without a just social, economic and political order in one’s country. [Interjections.] I defy the hon. the Deputy Minister to deny that. [Interjections.] Of course, he cannot. He is evading the issue.

That is not the point at issue.

Neither the National Party nor the Progressives can claim success in that field. They cannot, because the Progressive Party follows, in that respect, a policy of surrender, while the Government follows a policy of rejection.

And “Rad” is the only one in step.

Unfortunately, that is correct. I shall be very glad to hear the hon. the Prime Minister, in his reply to this debate, or in the Third Reading debate, indicating how his party, at the present time and with its present policies, is creating a just social and political order in South Africa. [Interjections.] I would further like to hear him present the case that that is not a prime prerequisite to combat agitation and to promote internal security in South Africa. I feel quite satisfied that I shall not get the answer to that in either respect.

The second situation is the one which the Prime Minister addressed himself to in this debate, and to which the commission addressed itself in the fourth interim report. It is this: In every society, particularly at the present time, however just the social, the political and the economic order may be, there is the threat of communist subversion. I want to emphasize that. However just the social political and economic order may be, there is the threat of communist subversion. Any administration which is worth its salt will give attention to the combating of that. Even if one’s domestic situation is perfect, that threat exists. I believe that nobody could have illustrated that better than the late Gen. Smuts, in his address when he was made Chancellor of the University of Cambridge. This was said in 1948, by the then Leader of the United Party. I am going to quote this, because it has consistently been our point of view from that time until the present. He said this in regard to the communist technique:

Nothing was better shown in the reports of the Schlebusch Commission than the operation of, or the preparedness to operate, that type of technique in South Africa. That is why I differ so much from the view of the Progressive Party, who hold that the communist party should be free to operate in South Africa, provided it operates within the law.

[Inaudible.]

I cannot hear you.

I said do you want it controlled by the courts.

That is correct. The difference is, however, that we do not believe it should be free to operate in South Africa, whereas the Progressive Party does. I take it that is still their point of view, judging by the answer given me by the hon. member for Houghton.

Do you believe in banning?

No, I do not believe in banning.

Why then do you want to ban an organization without a hearing? [Interjections.]

That has never been the point of view of this side of the House. The hon. member knows that as well as I do.

What is your point of view? Tell us. [Interjections.]

I have indicated that even in a country which has a just social, political and economic order, the threat of communist subversion is still real, and that a Government which is worth its salt should address itself to that problem. It is on this aspect of the matter that I should like to speak now. It was the realization of this problem which has motivated the United Party in the debates dealing with security over the past 25 years, to take the standpoint which it has taken. It was the realization of this that caused the United Party to agree to sit on the Schlebusch Commission, although, then and now, we would have preferred a judicial commission. It was also this realization which made the United Party commissioners elaborate on this very field in the fourth interim report, that aspect of the report which the hon. the Prime Minister chose not to tell this House about.

I am still waiting for you to tell me where it repeals its previous recommendation.

The hon. the Prime Minister wants me to tell him where it repeals its previous recommendation. It does not repeal its previous recommendation. [Interjections.] What it does, is to make modifications, changes to the point of view expressed in the first interim report, which are material and which are entirely consistent with the point of view we have adopted in this debate. These changes are also consistent with the amendment proposed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. These changes were explained at great length in 1974, when we had a debate on that report. This is what I cannot understand. [Interjections.] When the fourth interim report was signed in 1973—that is three years ago—the United Party commissioners set out at length their point of view, a point of view which has been consistently followed, both by the United Party commissioners and by this party during the three years which have passed from then until now. It was followed consistently, on every occasion. Having done that, we had a completely unreal debate which was put forward yesterday by Government members, and to a certain extent by the hon. …

May I ask you a question?

Please, not at this moment … by the hon. member for Houghton as well. It was consistently put forward that with the advent of the Bill which we are presently discussing, the United Party changed its point of view. That is completely untrue.

You are the only people in the world who have not changed your policy.

We are used to untrue remarks by that hon. gentleman, of course, but not from the hon. the Prime Minister.

Do you mean to tell us that you have not changed your minds?

Now, Sir, …

Your own people said they changed their minds.

Exactly! Of course they changed their minds from the point of view of the first interim report in 1972, to the fourth one in 1973. They were quite entitled to do so.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to say that he has come to expect to hear untrue remarks from that hon. member, referring to the hon. member for Bryanston? [Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon. member imply that the hon. member knows that the remarks were untrue?

I did not say so, nor did I imply it, Sir.

The hon. member may proceed.

Let us now come to the fourth interim report, which is the situation we ought to be discussing this afternoon. The difference between the Government and the UP, as far as the fourth interim report is concerned, lies in the question of what machinery is best employed to bring about an agreed aim. I have demonstrated’ I think that the UP’s anxiety for and desire to see a secure situation in South Africa stand second to none in this House, and I do not think this has received any opposition from a single member on the Government benches. From that basis, the question that arises is: What machinery can best be employed to bring about that desired aim? An interesting fact emerges from this. Until the UP’s commissioners produced their minority report in the fourth interim report, not one of the three political parties, and that includes the hon. member for Houghton, raised any of the constitutional issues, particularly the issues arising out of good parliamentary practice, which have been raised by this side of the House in this debate. I do not believe that at the time of the first interim report there was an appreciation of the difference in function between the executive, the legislature, the Police and the courts, and particularly an appreciation of how these matters of commissions and committees fitted into good parliamentary practice. That appreciation developed in the time between the first interim report and the fourth interim report. Although the hon. member for Von Brandis did his research on parliamentary practice—which not a single lawyer on that side of the House has touched upon—only in the last few days, it is interesting to see that nothing he has said in any way conflicts with the recommendations of the UP commissioners in the fourth interim report. If one goes through all the debates that took place at that time, particularly the debates in 1974, one finds that nowhere have these points been raised, certainly not by the Progressive Party. As I said earlier, the point is: What is the best machinery, consistent with good parliamentary practice, to combat the evils of communist subversion? The hon. member for Von Brandis set out the requirements of good parliamentary practice. I doubt very much if anyone will even attempt to contravert what he said in that connection. The minority report in the fourth interim report of the commission has done exactly the same. What is required, then, and what does the minority report in the commission’s fourth interim report say? It states firstly that there should be a Select Committee to investigate existing and proposed security legislation and associated administrative procedures. Precisely the points made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday were made by our commissioners in their report in 1973. This is a Select Committee on which, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, the UP was prepared to serve and is prepared to serve. If there were a genuine desire—and I wish I could have the hon. the Prime Minister’s attention for a moment—on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister to get bipartisan action on internal security matters, why does he not accept the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s offer? It is only a question of machinery. It is only a question of a difference of approach with regard to machinery.

It is not a question of machinery only.

What else is it then?

He wants clause 4(1) to be scrapped.

He wants clause 4(1) scrapped? That involves the machinery and how it works. That is the investigatory aspect.

Read clause 4(1).

Well, if the hon. gentleman wants that done …

Read clause 4(1).

I know clause 4(1). If that is the hon. gentleman’s worry, why does he not have a Select Committee to go into present and proposed legislation and associated matters? There is a bi-partisan approach offered him on that. Why does he not also appoint a judicial commission on the investigatory aspect? Why does the hon. gentleman object to a judicial commission on that?

Because you want it now.

That is no answer. The hon. gentleman answered that way because he knew what was coming. I have here the report of the Commission of Inquiry into matters relating to the Security of the State. It was a judicial commission, appointed not ex post facto as all the hon. gentlemen said yesterday. It was appointed before the event. It was tabled in 1972. And what about terms of reference?

That is not true.

I beg your pardon?

It was to determine the functions of the various departments.

Well then, let us look at the terms of reference. The terms of reference of this judicial commission included the following: The potential threat of conventional and unconventional war against the Republic—before the event; the threat of terrorism and potential guerrilla war on our frontiers and in the interior—before the event; the continued possibility of internal subversion—that is both before and after the event; the necessity of the Government’s being fully informed and kept abreast of matters relating to security—which is before the event; the security set-ups of other comparable democratic countries and the security of the State in general, whatever its nature and from whatever direction it is threatened, etc. There is a whole list, but I shall not quote them all. I am told I am speaking an untruth, so let us take the fourth term of reference. This states: Whether and to what extent present legislation or portions thereof concerning the Bureau of State Security should be amended in the light of the recommendations and report on the above matters.

And now?

Not only is there now a judicial commission to inquire into security matters in general, but specifically into legislation that may be required in that regard. The hon. gentleman would like, I believe, unanimity on this issue. We have said that our standpoint on internal security is without question. That has been demonstrated. We are prepared to serve on a Select Committee where legislation is concerned and we are prepared to support the hon. gentleman with a judicial commission in regard to the rest. What more does he want? Is he going to break down what he says is the most desired principle of bi-partisan approach, simply over the question of machinery, by sticking to machinery which has been demonstrated to be not in accordance with good parliamentary practice and is objectionable in other respects as well, when he can be offered and is offered a Select Committee and judicial commission to deal with all those things we all agree should be done? If the hon. the Prime Minister refuses this offer and our approach to each other breaks down merely on the question of machinery, one is tempted to doubt the sincerity of the offer the hon. the Prime Minister has made.

Mr. Speaker, we have always admired the rather incisive brain of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. We have always admired his ability to come to grips with the case at issue, but we have also observed this afternoon his ability to avoid the real issue. The real issue—and we know this—is Durban North and a few more votes in his constituency. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana has levelled an accusation at the hon. the Prime Minister, an accusation which cannot be left unchallenged. That hon. member suggested that the hon. the Prime Minister had deliberately ignored the fourth interim report. This is an accusation which I reject on very good grounds. It was not necessary for the hon. the Prime Minister to refer to the fourth interim report because that report confirms the views of the UP members that were members of the commission.

I refer you to page 520 of the minority report. From paragraph 20.5.7.14 it is quite clear that they abide by their original recommendation that a permanent commission should be established. In the very next paragraph they set out what the functions of such a standing committee should be. In paragraph 20.5.7.14 they say—

In other words, this refers only to the committee envisaged in the first interim report and nothing else. What did they propose should be the functions of that committee? I quote from paragraph 20.5.7.15—

I challenge the hon. member for Umhlatuzana to deny that they visualized that one of the committee’s functions should be “to receive evidence as to the necessity for any legislation relative to State security’’. If the Bill before the House stipulates that this inter alia will be the task of the commission, that is still in line with the original recommendation. Let me quote what they proposed the committee’s fourth function should be—

The hon. member has now seen fit to charge the hon. the Prime Minister with ignoring the report. The fact is that the hon. members who were on this commission abided by their original recommendation. There is only one difference. They said they were rather in a hurry to come forward with the recommendation in regard to the tribunal, but this tribunal was not to be an instrument of investigation; it was visualized as an instrument of review. In other words, they had in mind two different commissions. On the one hand they envisaged a judicial tribunal to review executive action, and at the same time they abided by their original recommendation to the effect that there should be a standing committee. Mr. Speaker, we insist that the hon. member should withdraw the accusation he levelled at the hon. the Prime Minister.

What it more, the hon. member for Green Point, in a speech he made on 6 August 1974, defended their approach as I have just outlined it above. I think we should leave it to the hon. gentleman to live up to his reputation as a gentleman who, as we have got to know him, does not hesitate to speak his mind. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana also challenged us to reply to the hon. member for Von Brandis, who yesterday, if I may put it mildly, cast doubt on past proceedings of Parliament. He questioned the right of the State President to appoint commissions to complete the work of Select Committees that were not able to finish their work during the parliamentary session. It is obvious that in this regard two questions should be put to the United Party. The first is: Do they abide by the report on marketing, for instance, a report which I believe will be tabled shortly, if it has not been tabled already? Secondly, will the United Party refuse in future to sit on a commission appointed to complete certain work during the recess? I think they ought to reply to these questions.

Let us become technical and reply to the hon. member for Von Brandis in the same vein in which he advanced his arguments. He has called this Bill a “curious creature” because it extends Parliament into the executive. He said it constituted a deviation from the much-honoured principle of the separation of power, viz. the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. He arrived at this conclusion on the basis of certain reasons to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also subscribed. These are, firstly, that members of the commission will be or may be entrusted with administrative functions and will be on the payroll of the executive; and, secondly, that members of the commission will be appointed by the State President to whom the commission has to report in the first place. I want to emphasize that I do not subscribe to the views of the hon. member for Von Brandis. However, since the United Party’s approach to and criticism of this Bill is entirely based on the argument that the functions of the commission extend into the field of the executive, we must argue the case from his point of view. We must do so critically. We have to challenge this argument and expose it as invalid. To commence with: Suppose the hon. member is correct in stating that the commission will be transgressing in the field of the executive by working closely with the Government, giving opinions on administrative matters and other advice of which notice may possibly be taken by the executive. The question that arises is whether such a state of affairs would be sinful or wrong. The hon. member for Vereeniging advanced penetrating and devastating arguments, which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana did not counter. I want to subscribe to the views put forward by the hon. member for Vereeniging. I want to enlarge on what he said. This state of affairs, the extension of the powers of a body into another field, is not foreign to parliamentary procedure. Indeed, it is an acceptable procedure in certain democracies. Therefore this state of affairs is not sinful.

The hon. member for Von Brandis has been very eloquent in his condemnation of the commission, but he has referred only very sparingly to authorities to support him. I want to quote Paton to him. I am not referring to Alan Paton, so the hon. member for Houghton need not leave now. I am referring to George Whitecross Paton, who is an author on jurisprudence and who expressed himself as follows—

Let us consider, in the light of what I have said, our own legal order. Is there a clear-cut division of power between court and legislature? The answer is obviously “no”. Lawmaking in our country is not the function of Parliament alone. By their system of precedents, the courts are daily creating law. In recent years, for instance, the courts have evolved various rights pertaining to the individual, such as the right to privacy. Parliament may, in its position of supremacy, exercise certain functions of the judiciary. Thus Parliament may in terms of section 10 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, 1963, summarily punish for contempt a member or any other person. Parliament may, in other words, exercise judiciary powers.

The next question is whether there is a clear cut division between the legislature and the administration. Again the answer is “no”. In theory there is such a division, but the delegation of limited legislative authority to the executive has obscured the theory. Whether hon. members opposite like it or not, this Parliament has often in the past delegated some of its power to legislate to the executive by empowering them to pass regulations. This will also be done in future. Parliament has neither the time nor the desire to be involved in the passing of the smallest regulation and yet a regulation is an enactment within the power of Parliament. Therefore, the need for flexibility and speed have demanded that there should be an extension of various powers into other fields.

What about the division of powers between the courts and the administrative process? Suffice it to say that the evolvement of administrative law, for instance, proves very clearly that this division does not exist.

If there is any substance in the argument of the hon. member for Von Brandis that this commission transgresses into the field of the executive, then I say that it is justifiable since it is a concept that is not foreign to modem constitutional law. That is also my answer to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Once again I want to emphasize that I do not subscribe to that point of view. I shall now proceed to deal with that aspect to prove that it is a fallacious argument in respect of this commission. It is quite clear that it is envisaged by the Bill for the State President to appoint the commission. It is clear that the hon. member for Von Brandis assumes that the State President, when he appoints a commission such as the one we are dealing with now, acts in an executive capacity. It is true that, according to section 16 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, the executive government is vested in the State President, acting on the advice of the Executive Council. However, section 25 of the Act empowers the State President to appoint such times for holding the sessions of Parliament as he thinks fit, and also to prorogue Parliament. Does this imply that Parliament is a tool of the executive? Definitely not. However, when the State President so acts, he acts as the senior partner of Parliament, as head of the legislature and not as head of the executive. Section 24 of the Act clearly states that the legislative power of the Republic is vested in the Parliament of the Republic which shall consist of the State President, the Senate and the House of Assembly. Therefore, when the State President appoints a commission to continue with and complete the work of a Select Committee, he does so as head of Parliament, because he is also Head of State. He does so because he has the prerogative to do so by virtue of section 7(4). That section provides that—

One of those prerogatives is to appoint commissions. In this connection there are numerous court cases, inter alia the Bell case, subscribing to this view. Mention has already been made here of the Bell case, and this case leaves no doubt whatsoever that the prerogative to appoint a commission is the inherent right of the State President. I want to emphasize again that he appoints a commission as Head of State, as head of Parliament, and not as head of the executive.

As head of Parliament?

I have already explained to the hon. member that in terms of the Constitution the legislature is comprised of the State President, the Senate and the House of Assembly. Therefore, where the Bill provides that the State President should appoint the commission and that it should be called a parliamentary commission, it does so on the grounds that the State President is the senior partner of the legislature. He appoints the commission in his capacity as the most senior person in our country, as Head of State and hence also as the head of Parliament. The position is quite clear. The argument advanced by the hon. member for Von Brandis, casting doubt upon the validity of previous commissions, is therefore a fallacious argument. When the State President appoints the commission in terms of clause 3 of the Bill, he does so not as head of the executive, but as head of the legislature. When the commission reports back, it reports back to the State President and the State President receives that report not as head of the executive, but as Head of State, as the senior component of the legislature according to our Constitution. I challenge the hon. members to meet this argument. I maintain, therefore, that this commission is a parliamentary commission and that this is the only and true construction that can possibly be placed on these clauses. I challenge the hon. members opposite to counter this argument.

For the purpose of this debate, it is necessary to look at the attitude of the hon. members of the Opposition over quite a number of years.

*They are not prepared to condone any subversive activities, according to one statement. They are also prepared to support certain preventive measures, according to certain statements. They say that if the existing legislation is not sufficient, new laws must be made. This argument was raised again this afternoon by the hon. member for Mooi River. The hon. member for Mooi River said this afternoon that one impression had been created in his mind, and that was that in his opinion the existing laws were not sufficient. In other words, these hon. members subscribed to this one important principle, namely that if a situation is identified which indicates that there is a need for certain legislation, that legislation must be provided. But how on earth can Parliament identify such a situation if it is unable to investigate? How on earth can Parliament determine whether its legislation is sufficient or not? For that reason specific provision has been made in this Bill for an inquiry into matters affecting the national security in general, and specific provision has also been made for an investigation of the legislation affecting the national security. These two aspects must be read together; they cannot be read separately. The hon. members of the Opposition want only the legislation to be investigated. My question is how on earth it is possible to ascertain whether legislation is necessary if one does not conduct a general and continuous inquiry. It is an absurd argument, after all, to say that it is just the machinery that is not acceptable to them. If that is their argument, that they are prepared to serve on a Select Committee, then we ask whether they are prepared to allow a situation where the Select Committee has to suspend its activities at the end of each session, because it is not possible—according to their argument—to appoint a commission to continue the work. Is the national security to be suspended for six months each year? Is that their argument? Apparently it is. We want to tell you, Sir, that the experience of this commission indicates that the preservation of national security is a task which must receive attention 24 hours a day. The previous commission concluded its activities at the beginning of the development of a political world which is unknown to this Parliament. When we stopped, we had come to a movement called “programme for Social Change”, which envisaged certain developments.

Sir, does such an organization suspend its activities for six months every year? Is this what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana wants to suggest, or the hon. member for Mooi River, or the hon. member for Von Brandis? Our reply to this is definitely “no”, and that is the reason for the first part of clause (4). That is why clause 4(1) is the focal point of this legislation. The hon. members of the Opposition want to remove this focal point. Our attitude on this matter is very resolute: in the light of the knowledge we have, this must be subjected to constant scrutiny. Sir, I think we have indicated very clearly that a commission of this nature must in fact be a parliamentary commission. We have also indicated, Sir, that according to the parliamentary traditions it is possible for such a commission to continue its work in the recess, if it is authorized to do so by Parliament. Consequently we reject the two legs of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Von Brandis. We were challenged to reply. In the first place they say that this commission transgresses upon the field of the executive. We reject that. We have proved that this is not so. Secondly, we reject their standpoint that if the commission is appointed by the State President, it will become a puppet of the executive. We have proved to you, Sir, that the State President is part of the legislature and that as such he has a function to perform.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to get involved in the somewhat legalistic cross-fire between the hon. member for Bloemfontein West and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I should like to make only one point of comment. In the speech of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, he said that as the result of a study of the parliamentary practice at the time of the writing of the fourth interim report, the recommendation as set out in the first interim report was amplified. Sir, surely he cannot ask the House to believe this, because, after all, the fourth interim and the minority report were written for an entirely different reason, i.e. to get the United Party back into the main stream of Opposition politics. That is what it was written for. It was written to get them off the hook. It was not written because the hon. member for Mooi River had changed his mind. In fact, if I may be so bold as to say it, from the speech that the hon. member made today, it is quite clear that he has not changed his mind. If ever we saw a tortured soul being bared before this House, we saw it today in the speech of the hon. member for Mooi River. He spoke about wanting more legislation, tighter legislation. But has he thought through what this could mean? What new laws is the hon. member for Mooi River asking for? What new offences does he wish to be defined? How is he going to define these offences, and what punishment must eventually be meted out? Surely this is an ominous suggestion, and even if it is not meant ominously, it is still not a suggestion which should have been made unless it was thought through right to the end.

Sir, I want to say that I have listened carefully to the points made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Information. There is one aspect of his speech which I do not think has been fully canvassed at all. That is his reference to the dramatic turn which this debate took yesterday afternoon. During the time when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was speaking and was attacking the hon. the Prime Minister for delaying the bringing of this legislation to this House, the Prime Minister interjected to the effect that the delay had been requested by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Until yesterday that fact was not public knowledge. I want to say that until yesterday it was not even private knowledge. Certainly the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not know it. He was thoroughly alarmed when the hon. the Prime Minister made that disclosure. When I was in the United Party I did not know of it, and when the United Party went into the general election of 1974, that fact was not placed before the public of South Africa. This clandestine—if I might call it that—collusion was kept a close secret until yesterday. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was flabbergasted. I say that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Leader of the Opposition owe South Africa at least an explanation. What was the motive of the Leader of the Opposition in going to the Prime Minister and asking for this delay? Who in his party knew about it? Why did the hon. the Prime Minister agree to this delay when according to his own commissioners, the establishment of this commission was supposed to be of an urgent nature? What was this strange contract which was concluded so quietly? May I speculate, Sir? Was it that the Leader of the Opposition went to the hon. the Prime Minister and said: “If you can hold this back and give me time to settle with those people in my party who are ‘trouble-makers’, perhaps we can get consensus on this?’’ And did the Prime Minister, in order to get that consensus, hold the matter back? Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has reneged. I want to ask him a further question. Did he consult at least some of the members of his party when he made this approach, and are those members whom he did consult, if any, going to speak in this debate? Are we going to hear from the hon. members for Albany and Simonstown and King William’s Town, or are they going to be muzzled in the face of their party’s volte-face?

The arguments during this debate over the last day or two have been in some respects largely legalistic, and I think it is time to bring it down to more human terms. I would here like to tell you a story, Sir. Twenty-three years ago a young man rather nervously started his schoolboy career in Pretoria. He was a tall fellow, fair-haired, a nervous and timid sort of boy, an average student, keen although not very skilful at sport. He was just an ordinary boy. He was no schoolboy activist, no ball of fire, no spoilt little rich boy, just an ordinary child. On leaving school this young man sought employment. He eventually took employment with a bank. He took up a permanent post as a bank clerk in one of the larger banks in South Africa. A quiet job, a secure job. He then met and married a young S.A. girl and he settled down and purchased a home.

It was in 1969 I think that I met this man again. He was living in the area where I was living. At that time, as any politician would, I tried to interest him in joining my political party, but without success. He was happy in his life and was not politically aware nor motivated. During 1972 he found himself in charge of the Witwatersrand University agency of his bank. In that capacity he handled students’ banking affairs. Included in this was the Nusas account.

One day he came to see me. He was nervous and obviously very upset. He had been called to give evidence on Nusas’s financial affairs before the then Schlebusch Commission, a body which by then was already bathed in unwanted and unhappy publicity. He was required to be in Cape Town within a day or two.

I had a detailed discussion with him. It was clear that transactions were recorded in the books which, whilst not being illegal, were administratively untidy and, perhaps even technically irregular. He was innocently and inadvertently connected with transactions which, as far as I know, were within the bounds of the law, but which incurred the interest of the commission, interest which was translated into a summons to appear before it. It was transparent to me that, even if there did exist an illegality, this man did not know about it at the time he spoke to me. To say that he was intimidated by the summons to appear before the commission, would be an understatement. He was a very frightened person. I did not have the heart … [Interjections.] I have not finished yet, my friend. I did not have the heart to let him go to Cape Town alone. I therefore arranged for legal representation through my brother in Cape Town. I arranged for him to stay with my family in this city while he was here. My family told me that on the night before he was to appear before the commission, he was physically ill and did not sleep at all. [Interjections.] Members of this House who are used to holding the reins of power, laugh at the fears of the ordinary man. That is what they are trying to do.

Some days later, when this man returned to Johannesburg … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I ask your protection against this noisy rabble over here.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member entitled to refer to the hon. member for Waterkloof as “noisy rabble”.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I do, Mr. Speaker. Some days later, when this man returned to Johannesburg, he told me the story of his appearance. His evidence should have been straightforward. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. members for Waterkloof and Pretoria Central must stop making interjections.

Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, they are very rude.

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

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. I have here the written statement of this man made shortly after the time relating to the formal steps which he took in the normal course of his business as a bank clerk. There was nothing to the matter. From what I gather, the whole business should have been over within an hour. However, it was not. It did not end within an hour, but went on and on. The first question put by the commission did not relate to Nusas and not even to the banking business, but to a Press report in which he was quoted in his naïvety—he had probably never spoken to a pressman before—as having criticized the commission some time back while publicly stating that there was nothing wrong with the Nusas accounts. He told me that he was pointedly made aware of the regulations and that he felt threatened by this point being made to him. He said he had visions of being incarcerated. He was obviously intimidated by and afraid of those forbidding men behind the table, men of power, power which they held and exuded. Perhaps these gentlemen did not even realize the effect they had on this man. The hearing progressed …

This is nonsense. He had a fair hearing.

I am relating the story told to me by this person.

What has it got to do with the Bill?

It has a lot to do with the Bill. The hearing progressed, as did his grilling. His attorney, in the role he was allowed to play, was almost completely emasculated in his efforts to protect him. To say that his evidence before the commission was disastrous, would be an understatement. It was a jumble, he said; it was bad evidence. It certainly could not have been of much help to the commission. He was interrogated until, as he related, he felt as if he was being regarded as the criminal, and not just as an ordinary witness. He felt that he was suspected of being a willing party to the activities of Nusas, and not just a bank clerk doing his job efficiently or inefficiently.

The lunch break came and went, but he ate nothing. His apprehension heightened as did the blind, insensitive lack of understanding on the part of the commissioners, a lack of understanding which permeated the atmosphere.

Which clause of the Bill is covered by this?

This story has reference to the commission that is before us. The hon. men of the commission, all of them, some of whom are reputed to have had legal training, were happy to allow the cross-examination, happy to participate in it, and pleased to accept the evidence thus solicited without allowing a re-examination, even to the extent of bringing forward further points. Where is the legal ethics in this? Where is the common justice which ordinary South African law allows? If I am told that I am talking nonsense, then I say that hon. members should disprove it. They must have the courage to print the full unabridged record of the proceedings of the Schlebusch Commission. Then they can prove that we are speaking nonsense when we criticize the commission. Let the public see the commission for what it is. Let the public see what this new commission is going to be like. Hon. members may well ask me what the result of all this was. My friend returned home, a nervous wreck for several days, and almost certain that he would be named in the commission’s report and punished somehow for he knew not what. His experiences before the commission bore and bears out his and thousands of other people’s fears about the workings of commissions of this type.

The new commission will be a political court run by politicians—no more, no less. Within months this bank clerk—who was no leftist liberal, no Progressive, no United Party man, no Nationalist and certainly, as far as I know, no supporter of Nusas—had left South Africa with his wife and four children for another country, where he believed, rightly or wrongly, he would find peace and freedom from fear. His only sins were timidity, inarticulation and na�vety. You may all say: Good riddance to such a man. I do not say that. I say: What a waste for South Africa! So much for those who said on 10 February 1972 (Hansard, Vol. 37, col. 800)—

What do we learn from all this? What do we learn from the debate so far? I accept that in the times we live in, the Republic is not free from danger. I accept that there are certainly people outside South Africa—and, for all I know, within the country—who mean us harm. I accept … [Interjections.] Please listen. I accept that communism in all its atheistic evil poses a threat to order in southern Africa. I accept that there is potential for unrest in our part of the world, but I am not certain that this Government is entirely blameless in the situation. I believe that the Nationalist ideology has at least contributed to the problem and continues to aggravate race relations in South Africa. I want to put it this way: The dilemma of the fair-minded and honest citizen of South Africa is whether the rule of law should be insisted upon in dealing with people whose avowed object it is to overthrow the constitution by violence. That is the dilemma of the honest man. In thinking about this, I have asked myself: Have we come to this choice? Is the choice finally before us—that of conscience or chaos, or conscience and chaos? Is that the choice which is before us today? I believe that it is not the position here now in the Republic of South Africa. The proposed commission will not, in any event, solve this problem, nor will it resolve that dilemma.

The Alan Paton-Lionel Murray exchange has elicited comments in this debate. In December of last year the hon. member for Green Point, no doubt with his tongue in his cheek, cited Mr. Paton’s views as justification for the commission’s findings. His arguments have been used in this House by the hon. the Prime Minister to support the adoption of this Bill. The objections to the commission then, if I may say so, are today as valid now as they were three years ago. What were the features of the previous commission and what will be the features of this commission? Evidence was and will be heard in private. It consisted of, and will consist of, politicians having well-known subjective views. Suspected persons were not, and probably will not be, appraised of the accusations before them. The accusers were, and probably will be anonymous. Proper legal representation was, and no doubt will be, denied. Finally, recommendations made and to be made, did and will carry awesome results for the individuals concerned. The road to true and lasting security is not through this commission. What is needed is something more far-reaching and tangible. Permanent peace will be established by a new constitution, not by this new commission. Moving towards a social order is far more urgent than an investigation into any organization or individual. Finally: Should it be shown to this House that a matter of vital State security requires investigation and report which cannot, for a really valid reason, be carried out by the existing organs of State, then if such investigation is to bear the stamp of impartiality, or authority, it should be carried out by a judicial officer appointed for that purpose. Nothing short of this will satisfy the requirements of a democratic South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we have just been required to listen to the very dramatic tale told by the hon. member of the experience of a certain witness who had to give evidence before the Commission of Inquiry into certain Organizations. Hon. members will appreciate that this happened a long time ago and that one’s memory of the details of what happened when this person had to give evidence becomes hazy. The hon. member also knows quite well that we, as members of that commission, do not have the power to divulge any evidence not contained in our report. That witness was heard and examined and all this may be found in Chapter 9, page 164, of the Report. The whole story is there and hon. members can judge for themselves whether there were any irregularities. What happened here, was that money was transferred irregularly from one banking account to another banking account, which at that stage had already been closed. This is all I want to say in this regard now. I now want to ask the hon. member: Is the experience that witness was supposed to have had before the Schlebusch Commission only limited to that commission? Would he not have had the same experience had he appeared before a court of law? What is wrong with that?

He would have put his case properly.

I reject that allegation with contempt, because no witness is able to say today that he was not treated with the greatest respect and courtesy and was not afforded every opportunity—witnesses did have legal representation—to put his case in a proper manner. No incriminating questions were allowed; a quite genial atmosphere prevailed throughout. We wanted to get at the truth. I see nothing wrong with that. The details of this case are to be found in chapter 9 of the Fourth Interim Report.

Except for this I definitely have no intention of reacting to anything any member of the Progressive Party has to say about this legislation. The Progressive Party stands discredited in the eyes of the Republic of South Africa, as far as State security is concerned. I therefore question their right to have any say in this matter. As far as I am concerned, their standpoint is totally irrelevant because they have proved in the past that they do not speak with any authority on these matters and have no contribution to make to State security in this country. After all, it is on record that that party refused to express its deep concern at the communist aggression perpetrated in Angola by Russia and Cuba with the intention of establishing a Marxist State. It is on record that that party refused to admit that it is the unmistakable object of such aggression similarly to subject other areas and states, inter alia South West Africa and South Africa.

Rubbish!

The accusation is now being levelled at me that this is rubbish. The facts may be verified in Hansard. That party also refused to empower the Government, in view of these aims and threats, to take the necessary steps to frustrate this aggression and to safeguard our country as well as the regions for which we are responsible. Was it not the hon. member for Houghton who rose in this House to say (Hansard, Vol. 47, col. 423) that the Communist Party should be allowed in this country with the naïve proviso that they should act within the law? Was it not the hon. member of that party who made a fervent plea in this House last year for the release of the enemies of South Africa including Mandela? This is recorded in Hansard and if the hon. member is interested, he will find it in the Hansard of Friday, 18 April. At that time he made a fervent appeal for the release of Mandela, a person who had been found guilty of subversion in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act, a person who wanted to undermine the existing order in this country. That is the kind of person they want to let loose on South Africa. That is the concept of State security we can expect from that side of the House. For that reason I say that they are totally irrelevant to the situation, and that they have no say and no right to claim to have any say in this matter.

We have been accused by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana of having made no attempt as yet to reply to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Von Brandis yesterday afternoon. But my hon. colleague of Bloemfontein West succeeded quite effectively in tearing the technical aspects of his argument to ribbons. As a realist I want to say, as far as his standpoint is concerned, that three-quarters of what he said had nothing to do with the legislation before us. He gave us a theoretical exposition of Parliament and of his views on parliamentary Select Committees. What has the conversion of a Select Committee into a commission of inquiry to do with this legislation? It has been the practice for years. This is a practice which is being applied for the sake of convenience and to my mind it is a very sound practice.

The traditions and practices of Parliament as an organism are valuable and should be jealously guarded. I take second place to no one in this hon. House when it comes to the respect and loyalty I feel for the traditions, values and norms of this hon. House, of which we are privileged to be members. Many of the traditions and practices of Parliament have withstood the test of time. We should not tamper with them, for the simple reason that they are effective and that they meet the demands made upon Parliament under specific circumstances. We dare not allow Parliament to become its own prisoner. We dare not allow ourselves to make a monster of Parliament which will eventually devour itself. Outmoded traditions and practices should no longer be tolerated if they give rise to inefficiency and sterility. Parliament does not exist for its own value, but as an institution of the State to assist in maintaining law and order. That is the function of Parliament. Parliament has a responsibility, not only in the spending of funds, as is suggested by hon. members on that side of the House. Parliament does not merely make laws, but also interprets the feeling of our people, of the general public. A member of Parliament has a duty to assist in making laws, but sometimes it is also his duty not to make laws. There is the time for making laws and there is a time to be far from making laws. Parliament is very definitely, too, an instrument of the Government to maintain law and order. This is a practical, realistic point of view which ties in with the technical exposition we have had from my hon. colleague from Bloemfontein West. Parliament has one very important function, and that is to inform the Government of the feelings of the people outside, how they feel about things that are happening outside. Parliament also has the additional function of warning the Government and pointing out the dangers that exist. We hear this every day. Therefore, it is quite in order if the Government asks members of Parliament to inquire into security aspects which constitute a threat to our country. Now objections are being raised because certain things are not done by Parliament alone. When we consider this institution from a practical point of view, an institution all of us are very jealous and proud of, we ask ourselves from whom the initiative goes out for actions taken in this Parliament. Is it not from the executive authority? Is it not the executive authority which comes to this Parliament with legislation, in other words with recommendations that the country should be governed in this or that way? Then Parliament is asked to express an opinion on it. That is the practical viewpoint; this is how it happens in practice. In a democratic system we cannot enclose Parliament, the executive, the Opposition and all the other agencies co-operating within that framework, in watertight compartments. If we did this, we might just as well close this Parliament, to use the words of the hon. the Prime Minister.

What is the hon. the Prime Minister doing now? The Prime Minister is following the best parliamentary tradition when he comes to Parliament with legislation recommended by a Select Committee which was subsequently converted into a commission, and this is important. In other words, this legislation serving before Parliament now, was recommended by an extension of an integral organism of Parliament, i.e. a Select Committee which, for the sake of convenience, was subsequently converted into a commission of inquiry. In this legislation, in the best parliamentary traditions, the powers and the functions of the commission are being determined—everything this commission may do: Its powers, what it may decide upon, what its functions will be, and so on. In other words, the Prime Minister is requesting members of this hon. Parliament to assist in investigations pertaining to the safety of the State. We dare not stare ourselves blind any longer at the Victorian concepts of what a Parliament ought to be, as has been said here this afternoon by the hon. member for Von Brandis and also the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Parliament is an institution, an instrument of the Government in terms of which it plans and implements its policy. The initiative proceeds from the Government. What was it that the hon. member for Von Brandis really wanted to hold out to us here yesterday afternoon? What he held out to us, was a straw effigy of what he thinks Parliament ought to be. He then tried to destroy this effigy by means of arguments within this framework. We dare not allow our view of Parliament to become so narrow and stagnated that all progress, all steps which are being done to meet the needs of the time, are frustrated. The security of the State and its continued existence are the highest calling of any Government. The security of the State is closely tied up with the political policy which the governing party maintains or implements at any given moment. Because such policy is not static, because such policy is a dynamic concept in which there is a shift of emphasis from time to time, specific onslaughts, which also differ from time to time, are made upon that policy. This shift in emphasis necessarily has its effect on what can be regarded as a threat to the State at any given moment.

By way of illustration you will allow me, Sir, to refer to the policy of separate development, which really forms the basis of the whole form of government, the philosophy and the pattern of life prevailing in this country. The onslaught against us, from outside and from within, is really aimed at this policy, not aimed at this policy as a political policy, but as a pattern of life, as a form of government. That policy is being undermined, and the subversion is aimed at the existing order in its entirety. The aim is to destroy the existing order and to replace it with a new order.

And a new Constitution.

Nobody has any objection to this policy being opposed in a constitutional manner, in the normal, recognized manner. In fact, this is being done in this House every day. No one has any objections to that. When that policy, that pattern of life, that philosophy of life, which is peculiar to this country, is, however, being attacked and threatened in a subversive manner, and when attempts are made to establish a Marxist State in its place, it is high time that we took cognizance of this as has been done in the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations.

Because the Republic of South Africa, with its distinctive ethnic composition, is a country with conflicting interest groups and a diversity of cultural forms, it goes without saying that the onslaught against the prevailing political system really constitutes an onslaught against the safety of the State. It is not only the political system that has to be destroyed. As a matter of fact, the entire body politic has to be destroyed. Because this is so, politicians are pre-eminently people who are in a position to determine where and how this onslaught is aimed at this particular political system. With this I do not suggest that the Bench, or a judge, would be able to deal with such an investigation as well as a group of politicians will be able to do so. However, a judge cannot be expected to experience political tendencies, political complexions and political realities so intensely at any given moment. Only politicians have the ability and the experience to make such an intense involvement possible. This follows from the nature of their work. Therefore, I believe politicians are pre-eminently suited to investigate these tendencies, these currents, these onslaughts against the existing policy. It makes no difference whether they are politicians of the National Party or of the United Party.

As long as they are not Progs!

I deliberately excluded them. It goes without saying that politicians are better equipped to perform such a task, to identify and diagnose an onslaught on the political dispensation. After all, it is a fact that certain areas are more sensitive to onslaughts than others. It is the politicians who can identify, evaluate and form an opinion about those onslaughts and those sensitive areas in our politics. Because the onslaughts in our particular political dispensation are aimed at the security of the State, it is unfair to involve in this matter judiciary officers, who are supposed to be above politics. As a matter of fact, we have already had a case where a court of law declared that the court did not regard it as its function to become involved in spheres in respect of which other more competent bodies have already come to a decision. In fact, we had a debate about this matter in this House last week. In this case the court itself declared that there are certain areas in respect of which it is not competent to express an opinion. I am referring to the debate last week on the S.A. Medical and Dental Council. In that debate attention was drawn to a court decision, the outcome of which was that the court was not prepared to express an opinion on matters in respect of which the S.A. Medical Council had already made a decision. The court declared that it did not have the necessary power to do so.

Exactly the same applies in the sphere of State security. I believe it will be unfair to subject judiciary officers—such as judges, advocates or magistrates—to the kind of criticism the relevant commission was subjected to. No one will convince me that the criticism was levelled against this commission because of its composition. Such an allegation would be absolutely untrue. Reference has already been made to a judicial or a quasi judicial commission, which sat in Grahamstown. I should like to refer to statements which had been made in this House in respect of judicial commissions.

I am referring to the Commission of Inquiry into Universities which was presided over by a judge. This is the kind of commission the hon. Leader of the Opposition expects us to accept. According to Hansard, col. 2104, the hon. member for Durban Central had the following to say on 7 March 1975 in connection with a judicial commission—

This is what this hon. member had to say about a judicial commission. Should we really allow our judges to be denigrated in this manner? Surely, we can expect the relevant commission to cope with this same kind of criticism irrespective of whether it is presided over by a judge, or a member of this House, or a member of the Other Place.

There is an English saying: “One should be judged by one’s peers.” When someone attacks the security of the State, I, as a politician, have the right to evaluate and judge it in terms of my way of thinking. Please note that I use the word “judge” and not “condemn”.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend entering into the argument between the hon. member for Cradock and the Progressive Party. In fact, I believe that far too much importance has been attached to that small group of people in this House. I must, nevertheless, cross swords with the hon. member for Cradock. He says it is wholly in order for Parliament to be asked to investigate matters of security. That is exactly in agreement with our view, as has been expressed by all the members on this side of the House and particularly by the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member went on to say that State security was top priority for all the people in South Africa. I cannot argue with him on that point either. He also said that the policy of the party in control was closely bound to security. He further said that separate development was “’n Staatsvorm”, part of the Government …

Oh no, you do not understand Afrikaans. Rather leave it alone.

He then went to say: “en hy word ondermyn. Dit word op ’n ondermynende manier aangeval”.

This is the whole argument which this side of the House has had with this Government—this party, the Nationalist Party, over the years. It is manifested also in the Bill which is now before this House, namely this complete equating of the policy of the Nationalist Party with the Government of the country, the complete equating of criticism of the policy of separate development with criticism of South Africa. One is unpatriotic immediately one attacks the policy of separate development. I am certain that that is what is at the back of the hon. the Prime Minister’s mind in coming forward with this legislation. He wishes to deal with people who will do precisely that. The hon. member for Cradock said so; I call him as my witness. That is exactly what the hon. member for Cradock said. That is one of the doubts in our minds about this sort of legislation.

I now want to place on record that I do not believe I have to support the Nationalist Party to be loyal, true and patriotic to South Africa. I believe that I can be, that I am and that all my colleagues are also as loyal to South Africa, although we treat this particular policy of the Government with abhorrence. I do not think it is necessary to deal any further with that hon. member.

However, in passing I do want to refer to the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. He also called our loyalty into question. I feel that the allegation he made was unjustified and I further feel that his allegation was unparliamentary. I also think it was not fitting for a member of this House to have spoken in the manner in which he did. I repeat that we do not have to be members of the Nationalist Party to be loyal South Africans.

What is the real purpose of this Bill? The purpose of the Bill is to bring into being a commission, but what is the real purpose of the commission? The hon. the Prime Minister has said its purpose is to investigate such matters, affecting internal security, as are referred to it. He has said, too, that its purpose is to inform Parliament. The hon. the Minister of Community Development said the same and so did the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior. However, nowhere in this Bill is this provided for. I think a question should now be asked of the hon. the Prime Minister, who is piloting this Bill through Parliament. Is it truly his intention to have this commission inform the members of Parliament? Will he allow the members appointed to this commission to report to their respective caucuses? Will he allow members of this House to sit in on the hearings of this commission? If the answers to those questions are in the negative, we cannot accept what the hon. the Prime Minister says his motive is, i.e. to inform Parliament. We have had the Schlebusch Commission, and nine members of this House served on that commission. Yet to this day I know nothing of what happened in that commission. All I have is a report which makes certain recommendations and draws attention to certain evidence that was received, but I have nothing like the full picture. I am no further informed on the question of internal security than I was before the Schlebusch Commission was appointed. Unless the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to remove that shackle from the members of this commission, how can he expect members of this House to serve on that commission with the intention of informing this House of what the true position is?

It is a fact-finding commission.

A fact-finding commission! For whom? I intend dealing with this whole question.

Facts for the commission.

Facts for the commission, the hon. member says. Who is right? Is that hon. member right or is the hon. the Prime Minister right? Is that commission to find out facts for Parliament or for the commission?

For both.

But how does it tell Parliament what it has found out?

In a report.

But the Schlebusch report is so thick and yet it tells us nothing. There sits the ex-chairman of that commission and when he spoke he himself admitted—and I am sure he will admit it again because he is an honourable gentleman—that there is an awful lot of other information they received in that commission that has never been reported to Parliament. I am referring to matters affecting security, the very thing the hon. the Prime Minister says this House should be informed upon. We have never been advised. However, if this were a Select Committee investigating the application of the various laws, all of us, as members of this House, would be entitled to sit in on the deliberations of that committee and then Parliament would, in fact, be advised and informed. However, it is not going to be informed with this hybrid animal which the hon. the Prime Minister now wishes to introduce.

The hon. member talks about fact-finding. How will this commission carry out its investigations? If we take as an example the Schlebusch/Le Grange Commission, we find that the sole witnesses for the prosecution—let us call them that for want of a better term—were the Bureau for State Security, the Security Police, our intelligence forces, the Special Branch, the S.A. Police and witnesses which they produced. Those were the sole sources of evidence they had before them until such time as they asked the bodies concerned to react and give evidence.

Lionel, you must listen now; he is attacking you.

Now what does this mean? It means that all the evidence for the prosecution presented before the Le Grange Commission was already available to the State and I submit that if this commission is to continue along the same lines, we will find exactly the same situation. The State will already be in possession of all the facts which it is asking this commission to investigate, except the reply to be given by the particular organization to be investigated by the commission. I submit that this commission will therefore be unnecessary. It will not really investigate matters; it will only hear evidence which will be presented by these organs of State I have mentioned and then it will hear the evidence of the bodies being investigated. If we analyse the situation we find that the State will already have this evidence at its disposal, and of course any other evidence which the other body may produce. I submit that the Government will be able to come to its conclusions without having any such commission to investigate the matters the hon. the Prime Minister wishes to have investigated. I submit that the hon. the Prime Minister is using this Bill simply as a ruse to lend respectability to executive decisions which will be taken by Ministers and which are going to be taken anyway whether the commission makes any recommendations or not. The record of the Government in these matters is such that that is the only conclusion to which this House can come.

Do I understand your argument correctly? Are you saying that the Schlebusch Commission was as waste of time?

No, I have not said it was a waste of time at all. However, I will say this: For the purposes for which the hon. the Prime Minister will use this commission, he does not need it except to lend an aura of respectability, because he will continue to ban and restrict people whether he gets a report from the commission or not. He will restrict them on the evidence that he will produce for the commission through these other State bodies. This is evidence which is already available to him. He does not need a commission.

Is it your argument that their report was worthless from that point of view?

No, I have not said so at all. I believe they did the job of work they were asked to do by the hon. the Prime Minister, but I believe the hon. the Prime Minister broke faith with them. He also broke faith with this House because of what he did when the commission did report. The record of this Government in these matters is such that this is the only conclusion to which we can come.

We have the case of the Christian Institute which was declared an affected organization before the relative section of the report of the Schlebusch Commission was even tabled. We also submit that this was done without complying with the proper legal requirements. The Prime Minister’s record in this is well known, commencing with his wartime record when he was against the authority of the day. Later there was his period as Minister of Justice when he wielded the big stick of authority, and now we have his period as Prime Minister when he has become highly sensitive to any criticism and opposition. All of a sudden he wants an aura of respectability and that is why he now introduces this Bill. I therefore reject the Bill totally and support the amendment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

What do we find in the amendment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? We find in it an offer to the hon. the Prime Minister to achieve exactly what, according to his introductory speech to this Bill, he said he wished to achieve. A parliamentary committee, as proposed, could investigate security legislation, it could test it against the known facts and it could listen to all the evidence the hon. the Prime Minister wishes to lead. It could also test the legislation against the evidence that would be brought forward. This Select Committee could consider the shortcomings of that legislation and it could then report to Parliament. Parliament would then in fact be informed and advised. Such a report would be of inestimable value in the fight against subversion and to the maintenance of our internal security. Its reports could form the basis for amendments to existing legislation, or for extensions to this legislation where shortcomings are brought to light by the evidence presented to the Select Committee. The Select Committee could also have the power to review executive action, as is contemplated in clause 4(2), and report to Parliament on that. Not only should it report on the desirability of taking such action, but also on whether or not it was justified.

The hon. the Prime Minister wants respectability. At the moment doubt exists regarding many of the executive decisions that have been taken. Here is a chance for him and for the Government to gain respectability for its many bannings, house arrests …

Is the hon. member now quoting his leader?

No, I am not quoting my hon. leader’s speech. The hon. Chief Whip must be reasonable. When I say such actions could be justified, let me hasten to add “if they can be justified”. This is the hon. the Prime Minister’s opportunity to have them justified. Why does the hon. the Prime Minister reject this offer by Sir De Villiers Graaff? The question arises whether the hon. the Prime Minister really wants these bannings and restrictions investigated.

If one looks at paragraph 12(e) of the first interim report, which hon. members have quoted at length, we find that that paragraph refers to the investigation of “executive action” by this commission. However, if one looks at clause 4(2) of the Bill, one finds that what is intended will be investigated is “existing and contemplated administrative procedure affecting internal security”. Does the hon. the Prime Minister envisage that the words “procedure”—in Afrikaans “werkwyse”—should be interpreted to include “executive action”, the action of banning and the actual restrictions which will be placed on people by the hon. the Minister of Police, the hon. the Minister of Justice or the hon. the Prime Minister himself? If it does not include that, once again this constitutes a breach of faith on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister.

Cobler, stick to your last.

Sir, when the hon. the Prime Minister introduced this measure, he disclaimed parenthood for it. He claimed that the Bill had, in fact, 10 fathers, they being the members of the commission. He went further and claimed that there was a contract between himself and these 10 members, a contract to establish this commission. He said that, in introducing this Bill, he has concluded his side of the contract. The Bill establishes a body which he claims to be a parliamentary organ as requested by the commission. He now asks those 10 members and, in particular, the two members sitting on this side, to honour their side of the contract by supporting the legislation. I know full well that the seven members sitting on his side will support him—they have no option. However, I believe that before the hon. the Prime Minister asks the two members sitting on this side of the House to honour what he calls their side of the contract—if, in fact, such a contract does exist—he must examine his own record in this matter first. What has the hon. the Prime Minister done about the contract he made with 170 members of this House on 10 February 1972? You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that on that date the Prime Minister moved a motion (Hansard, 10 February 1972; col. 723)—

He wanted to appoint a Select Committee. This House, in its wisdom, approved of the hon. the Prime Minister’s motion to appoint such a Select Committee, but the Select Committee had to report. To whom did it have to report? It was inherent in that motion that that Select Committee had to report to Parliament. I know it will be argued that the Select Committee did report to Parliament, but what did it report? It reported simply that it had been unable to complete its work and that it had been converted to a commission. The Prime Minister wanted the Select Committee to go into certain matters, but he went further and said (Hansard, 10 February 1972; col. 726)—

He was referring to Nusas—

This is what is significant—

Inherent in that, if the hon. the Prime Minister wants to talk of contracts, was a contract entered into with the members of this House that, if such a committee was to be appointed, this House should decide what action should be taken, as a result of the findings of that Select Committee.

That was a stillborn contract.

This commission reported, not to the House, but to the State President. I think we must get it straight that, whenever this Bill refers to the State President, it refers to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. The commission to which I was referring reported to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. The Cabinet, unilaterally, without honouring its undertaking to come to this House and ask it to take any action, took certain executive action—I refer to the restriction of certain students and other people. Only then did the Prime Minister, through a member of his Cabinet, advise this House of what had happened. That was the first this House knew of any action being taken. The House was never consulted or asked to decide what should happen. In fact, I believe that, when this Bill was introduced to the House, it was the first occasion on which the hon. the Prime Minister has come at all close to honouring his undertaking, because for the first time he is asking the House to do something as a result of the findings of that Select Committee which subsequently became a commission. The hon. the Prime Minister, with his record in this matter, must not come here and claim that the members on this side of the House have got to honour any undertaking which they have given him. The hon. the Prime Minister’s record of broken undertakings is one of the main reasons for the change of heart of our commissioners, if he really wishes to know.

I do not believe I have to go any further to show to the hon. the Prime Minister and members of this House that I am totally and implacably opposed to this legislation. I believe this legislation is going to result in something that is going to be to the detriment of South Africa, that we are going to have here a type of commission which is not going to work in the best interests of South Africa. I believe, however, that the Select Committee suggested by my hon. leader is the sort of body we should have, and I therefore support his amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has not really advanced his party’s cause. He merely repeated what had been said earlier, and he did not even do so accurately. However, I must react to just a few of the points he mentioned. The hon. member declared inter alia that no information had been submitted to Parliament. In the first place, it is clear that he did not read the various reports. In the second place it is clear, too, that he did not listen to the speech by the hon. member for Mooi River this afternoon, in which he explained the circumstances in which not all the details which came to light during the investigation were made public for security and other purposes. To me this is merely another indication of lack of mutual cooperation among the hon. members of the official Opposition. The hon. member also said that the sole evidence for the prosecution were the Bureau and the Police. Once again this shows an absolute lack of understanding of the aim of that commission. After all the discussion that have taken place it is truly incomprehensible that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South should still associate the commission with a court. After all, it has been stated clearly time and again—and the hon. the Prime Minister restated this when he introduced this Bill—that the Schlebusch/Le Grange Commission was not a court and that the envisaged Parliamentary commission is not a court either. There will be no such thing as a prosecution. Then, too, the hon. member said that through its police force, the State was in any event capable of submitting that evidence to this Parliament via the executive authority. But I just want to refer again to paragraph 10 of the first report, the report which was unanimously accepted. I quote paragraph 10—

Sir, it is very clear that the hon. member has no real grasp of this whole matter. That is why it is understandable that his reference to the Prime Minister this afternoon was unworthy. The fact is that the hon. member, like the other hon. members of the official Opposition, has not yet replied to the questions put by the hon. the Prime Minister, by the other hon. Ministers who have spoken here and by other hon. members on this side. For example, there was the question which was beautifully sidestepped by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who is an able lawyer, viz. in what respect the minority report in the fourth report amended or rejected the unanimous first report. No reply to this has yet been furnished, and we trust that the other hon. members of the official Opposition will nevertheless still reply to that. It is true that while this matter is being analysed so carefully, we should also investigate what takes place in other parts of the Western world under similar circumstances. The hon. member for Houghton made a sneering reference to the McCarthy commission, but nevertheless I believe that it is necessary to consider the situation which has developed in the USA through the years.

The USA, too, has its legislative body, its executive authority and its independent judiciary. Its history is of course a long one and it is very interesting to note what the courts in the USA had to say about the function of Parliament, viz. their Congress, with regard to matters such as those under discussion here. Of course, through the years the opponents of the investigatory committees of Congress in the USA made enormous efforts to undermine the activities of the committees. The usual criticism was to the effect that a specific event or organization which was to be investigated could not be investigated by the investigatory committee of Congress because that would be unconstitutional—arguments which hon. members of the Opposition have raised here, too—or that the procedure would not be effective. It is interesting to note that the criticism that has been advanced through the years has not been at all consistent. When the investigation was carried out thoroughly, the committee members who carried out the task of investigation were accused of having started a witch hunt.

However, when there had been no dramatic highlights in the course of the investigation—of course, the investigation there took place in public—the committee was accused of having been engaged in whitewashing. It is also interesting to note that in earlier years, until the end of 1940, say, the Congress investigations were in general more progressively oriented. For example, there were investigations into the Wall Street stock exchange, into malpractices with regard to lobbying and into human rights. Of course the liberal elements were pleased as Punch about this and lavished praise on the activities of the Congress committees. Since the forties, however, the emphasis has shifted and the investigations have been more conservatively oriented. Consequently there has been a shift from the liberal to the conservative side. For example, there was the un-American activities committee. Former outspoken supporters of the Congressional sub-committees then became outspoken opponents and bitterly attacked the work of the committees.

It has occurred to me to wonder what the hon. member for Houghton would have said if there had been a Bill before the House today in which the appointment of a parliamentary commission to investigate human rights had been requested. I wonder whether the hon. member would not have been tempted to argue passionately in favour of it and vote for it.

But people could not be found guilty by such a commission.

No, people are not found guilty. If we had a Bill which established a commission to investigate, not internal security, but human rights, would she then have agreed with us that a parliamentary commission was capable of investigating the factual circumstances relating to human rights in South Africa?

[Inaudible.]

I cannot quite hear what the hon. member had to say in reply to that, but I think that just as the wheel turned in the USA it would have turned here, too, and that the hon. member for Houghton and those who think as she does would have wholeheartedly supported such a parliamentary commission. Clearly it depends entirely on what is being investigated.

I think I have mentioned that it is interesting and useful, too, to look at what the American courts have to say concerning the powers of Congress—viz. the American legislative body—to appoint investigatory committees. I want to put it clearly to the hon. members of the Progressive Party that I am not concerned now with the question whether those subcommittees were efficient or not.

I now want to deal solely with the legal aspect, and in particular I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton not to interrupt me too much by hurling accusations of McCarthyism at me. In investigations carried out in America, it is clearly necessary to consult American legal writers on the matter. There is an exceptionally good summary and analysis of the American court decisions in the book The House Committee on Un-American Activities by Prof. Robert Carr, who quotes things which I, too, should like to quote. I shall provide the page references for any hon. members who want them.

With the exception of one case which occurred in America in 1881, the American courts decided that Congress was empowered to establish investigatory committees to institute investigations. With the exception of the verdict in the 1881 case, the verdicts all pointed in this direction. Later, the 1881 case was not followed as a precedent.

In order to bring to the attention of the House the arguments used by the courts in general, I first want to refer to a case which appeared in the American Supreme Court in 1927. This was the case of McGrain v. Daugherty. In the book to which I referred, the verdict by Mr. Justice Van Devanter is quoted on page 410. It concerns the right of Congress to institute an investigation—

It does not exist any more.

The hon. member for Houghton said: “It does not exist anymore.” That is beside the point. She is referring to a body which came into being in 1971 and which, according to the hon. member, came to an end last year. But that I still want to see.

Possibly the hon. members of the official Opposition would have used this judgment to indicate that here specific reference was being made to the investigations by Congress with the exclusive aim of introducing legislation. However, in an analysis the learned author clearly indicates on page 411 that—

In America, therefore, it is not only limited to the specific aim of acquiring information and piloting through legislation on the basis of the information. After analysing all the cases, the author comes to the conclusion that in all cases the courts found the investigatory committees to be constitutional if there was a possibility—I repeat: if there was a possibility—that the investigations and the findings would give rise to legislation.

There is another case dating from 1947 which I wanted to quote but I do not have much time left. I shall therefore pass it over. Another attack aimed at the Un-American Activities Committee was based on the allegation that it was in conflict with the American Constitution. The attack was chiefly based on the first amendment relating to freedoms, which refers in particular to the freedom of speech, the freedom of the Press, religious freedom and the right to assemble. The freedoms are of course fully upheld. There was an attempt in the courts to show that the investigatory committees of Congress were unconstitutional because they infringed the freedom of speech, for example.

In such a case, according to American law, such cases could only be legal if the exercise of the right of freedom of speech, for example, posed a danger to the State. It was also argued that the investigatory committees were illegal because in fact there was no clear and immediate danger to the State. In this regard I want to refer hon. members to the judgment given in the Barsky case. It appears on page 428 and the hon. judge states—

I do not hesitate to say that the American judicature clearly indicates that the Congress of the United States of America, which comprises the House of Representatives and the Senate, has the power to appoint investigatory committees consisting of their own members in order to undertake investigations, particularly into State security. This is upheld by the courts of America, and I do not believe that any hon. member will regard those courts in anything other than a good light. Here, then, we have a clear indication that what is being proposed in this Bill is entirely acceptable. It cannot be argued that the American constitutional system is different to that which prevails here. Basically the elements of a separate legislative body, an executive authority and a judicial division are present.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down referred to the American system, in which Congress has a number of committees which deal with the work of Congress. Those committees are appointed by Congress and are responsible to Congress only. They are not responsible to the executive which is an entirely different arm of the constitutional set-up in the United States. Very often there are clashes between Congress and the executive when Congress virtually holds back a great deal of the powers which the executive apparently has in respect of certain measures that it wishes to put into force in the country. We had a very interesting example of this recently when the executive gave aid to Angola and Congress, through its committee which examined the matter, refused to permit the President, as head of the executive, to proceed with that particular form of assistance. It is an entirely different system and cannot be compared with the system in South Africa at all, irrespective of the HISC and the other committees which existed at the time.

I should like to deal with a different aspect of this matter. There has been some confusion here in that it has been suggested that this commission is no different from other commissions that have been appointed in the past. In the past, commissions have been appointed by the State President, to whom they were responsible and to whom their reports had to be handed. I maintain that this Bill, in establishing this Internal Security Commission, creates a completely new precedent in the country. After all, we must adhere to the traditional working of Parliament, the traditional constitutional position as we have enjoyed it over many years. We have heard such pronouncements from previous Prime Ministers including the predecessor of the hon. the Prime Minister, none other than the late Dr. D. F. Malan, who stated, after the Separate Representation of Voters’ Act was declared invalid by a high court, that it was essential for Parliament to be the sovereign body in the country, that Acts of Parliament must not be subject to any review by a court of law. I believe that that is the essence of our approach to parliamentary life as we know it today in this country. Parliament is, must and should remain the sovereign body. Members on the Government side have extolled the hon. the Prime Minister for his attitude in that respect, and that is all that we are pleading for: That Parliament should continue to remain the sovereign body, that Parliament should take the decisions, that Parliament should take the necessary actions and that Parliament should have the opportunity to be critical of what the executive does, debating what the executive does before the executive can say to itself that they have the authority of Parliament.

What is your point?

The point I want to make is that the particular commission that is represented in the Bill before us, is not responsible to Parliament, as has been fully explained by to the hon. the Prime Minister. It takes matters out of the hands of Parliament, and its report need not even be tabled if the executive feels that it should not be tabled.

Nothing is being said about the executive in the Bill.

The State President, the Cabinet in consultation with the Head of State constitutes the executive, and that represents …

There is nothing about the State President either …

The hon. the Prime Minister does not know the Bill then. The Bill is very simple. It states that the reports must be submitted to the State President and …

And must be tabled unless …

… and the Prime Minister need not table it. He can after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, if he is of the opinion that it is not in the public interest to disclose the contents, refuse to lay it on the Table, or he can table only portions of the report. In other words, this will be an external body, which will not be responsible to Parliament, and may not bring any report to Parliament. I want to go further and mention the fact that the Potgieter Report, to which reference has been made, was presented to Parliament in an abridged form. The Potgieter Report was presented to Parliament in an abridged form, in consultation with—not after—the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition. That is the issue which I think is paramount in this House.

If that worries you, if you move an amendment to that effect I will consider it.

If the hon. the Prime Minister will permit me to continue, much as I appreciate his courtesy and his favourable attention, I again want to remind him that at the time when the Schlebusch Commission, out of which this Bill arises, was appointed, the hon. the Prime Minister thought then, and gave an assurance to the House, that Parliament must take the necessary action upon the report to be presented. Let me finish the question which I have raised initially with regard to the appointment of the commission. We have had many commissions appointed in this country, commissions with outside people participating and commissions which were headed at times by senior officials in the employ of the State, others with representative sections of our community—the professional, industrial, commercial and agricultural—participating. We have had commissions of inquiry appointed by departments themselves. These commissions of inquiry always had their reports tabled in the House. Then we have had Select Committees, too numerous to mention, which have been converted, at the suggestion of the Select Committee in question, into a commission. These commissions have carried out their activities within the limits of their terms of reference of the Select Committee, and brought their reports to the Table of the House. That has been the course of conduct over many, many years, more years than we care to remember. That is the tradition of this House, the tradition of Parliament.

Let me add something more to that particular point of view, and let me answer something which the hon. member for Vereeniging raised in regard to the division between the executive, the judicial body and the legislative body. In Britain, from where we take our traditional precedents in regard to the making of parliamentary statutes, for years now there has been concern about the question of the executive taking far too much power to itself and denuding Parliament of its normal, traditional role which it must play in the life of the community. They have, for instance, tried to develop something known as specialist Select Committees. It has not worked too easily yet, as it is in an experimental stage, with the object of keeping members of the House, all those members who serve on specialized Select Committees and through them by report the members of the House, more informed of what is going on and what is taking place. They have for instance instituted a system called the “Green Paper”, a paper laid on the Table of the House giving an indication of the future programme of the executive—or the Government or the Cabinet or whichever synonymous term you wish to use. They all mean the same thing. This paper is tabled so that members can be aware of what the programme before them will be for the next two or three years. They have done it in the field of finance and they have done it, I think, in the technological field. It is in these respects that one or two specialized committees have been established. There was one for technological activity and one for what they called race relations and immigration. These are specialist committees established with the objective of involving the House more and more in its traditional role as the representative of the people, and maintaining as far as possible the sovereignty of Parliament without the executive gaining greater control unto itself of the powers which should be the power of Parliament. Obviously the executive, representing the majority group in Parliament, is charged with the administration of the country. That is, of course, obviously clear, but Parliament has a role, and it has a role which should be fulfilled. That is what we ask the hon. the Prime Minister to respect.

The hon. the Prime Minister was presented with two appeals in this particular debate, one by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and one by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. It was not only an appeal; it was a genuine, sincere offer to the hon. the Prime Minister for a bipartisan approach to the question of security. The hon. the Prime Minister is aware of the fact that despite the failure of the Government to establish a bipartisan defence committee, this side of the House has cooperated in every way, as is its duty to do in regard to the defence of the country. This session has given ample evidence, not only of our interest, but also of the fact that we are fully aware of what is going on, that we are alert to all the implications for the security of our country. There can be no question of any weakness in our approach to security as far as this side of the House is concerned.

On the question of internal security, we believe that it is important and vital in the interests of the people of this country that there should be a bipartisan approach. We should not have a political approach in the matter, and there should not be political differences on a vital issue of this nature, because it affects the future existence of our country as we know it today in all its implications. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister should again exhibit what we have seen of him in the past, and that is a sense of statesmanship and that there should be no question of scoring a political point when he said: “That is what you want.” The public of this country would appreciate a gesture from the Government of the country in accepting something which will bring us together, to secure what belongs to all of us and not to any section of the country. In this we all want to play our part, but we want to do it through Parliament, through the Select Committee system that we suggest. The rules of the House make provision for a Select Committee even to do its work in secret and not to publish all its evidence, if it thinks it wise to withhold such, and even to sit beyond the days of the sittings of the House. In fact, we can do anything we like to empower a Select Committee to sit for longer periods. They may even sit right through the year. There is nothing to prevent a Select Committee from seeing all the people necessary and hearing all the evidence it wants to hear.

The Potgieter Report makes the terms of reference of the Schlebusch Commission almost look like a little child’s game; clearly and succinctly it refers to a threat of terrorism, potential guerrilla warfare …

That was not to be investigated. The Potgieter Commission did not investigate that …

But it is clear. It asks them to take into consideration the potential threat of conventional and unconventional warfare against the Republic, the threat of terrorism, potential guerrilla warfare on our frontier and in the interior, the continual possibility of internal subversion, the necessity of the Government being fully informed and being kept abreast of matters relating to security, the security set-up of other comparable democratic countries, and the security of the State in general, whatever its nature and from whatever direction it is threatened, to inquire into and to submit recommendations and to report on the following. It goes on to give in detail much more than that. If anyone can say that that bears the slightests comparison to what appears to me to be almost a child’s game in comparison with the Schlebusch Commission’s terms of reference, then I will be very amazed. This went through a judicial commission of one judge …

Have you read this report?

I have read the report, and out of that flowed a lot of legislation.

Read paragraph 6, and it will make nonsense of your argument.

I do not think so, but I will read it to satisfy the hon. the Prime Minister. I read—

These are some of the conditions. It says—

Read paragraph 6.

I must read it in context. [Interjections.]—

What is wrong with that?

Read paragraph 6.

Do you want me to read the interpretation and analysis of the terms of reference?

Yes.

Right, Sir. I do not have the time to do it at this moment, but … [Interjections.] I am glad the House appreciates the humour of the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] Let me say this further …

The Prime Minister wants to be given a reading lesson!

Let me say further that it does not in any way detract from what the House wanted to know.

It makes nonsense of your whole argument.

It does not make nonsense of it. I do not think so. I say this: Here is an opportunity of doing something worthwhile, an opportunity for the country to be given the confidence that it should have, not only with regard to which party people should support, but also with regard to Parliament as a system, as an institution. They must have the confidence that their fears, their sense of concern and their insecurity are being cared for by all their representatives.

Mr. Speaker, during the past two days we have seen the official Opposition doing an egg-dance such as has not been seen in this House for many years. One of the less graceful dancers was the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. For instance, at the start of his speech he made the statement that the Opposition would like to see Parliament remaining a sovereign body whereas the commission to be established by this Bill, would not form part of the sovereignty of Parliament. However, the commission to be established by this Bill is in its nature a creation of this Parliament. Parliament makes use of legislation to establish the commission. Moreover, Parliament makes the commission an organ of Parliament statutorily. The manner in which the members of the commission are designated and the manner in which the commission makes its report, are simply aspects of procedure. This does not detract from the fact that the commission has been created by this Parliament and that the commission bears the seal, the stamp, of Parliament.

The hon. member made a further incorrect statement. This was that the State President was merely a member of the executive. Does the hon. member not know the Constitution? Does he not know what is stated in section 24(1) of the Constitution? It reads as follows—

This is one of the most elementary principles of constitutional law. As soon as one begins to learn something about constitutional law at school for the first time, one knows that the State President is a member of the legislative power of the Republic of South Africa. The State President is there in an executive capacity as well, in which capacity he in fact appoints the members of parliamentary commissions. No fault can be found with this.

In addition to these statements, the hon. member made a third flagrant suggestion. It is evident that he, because of his background, still clings to the British traditions. According to him this Parliament models its precedents on those of the British Parliament. I wonder whether the hon. member has ever read the foreword of the Standing Orders, Volume 1. This states inter alia—

I think we have been an independent Republic for a sufficiently long period for us not to need to run back to the Parliament of Westminster for all our traditions and all our precedents. [Interjections.]

As I have said, the Opposition started doing an egg-dance as soon as they spoke their first words in this debate. This is what we have had to look at all the time. Unfortunately the hon. member for Von Brandis is not present at the moment. He changed from an egg-dancer into a shadow boxer. I was never able to discover exactly what he was trying to say, except that he was arguing with himself about what would be better, a Select Committee of the House of Assembly or a commission. In the end it seemed as though he had decided on a Select Committee of the House of Assembly.

One thing did strike me, however. This was that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had moved an absolutely negative amendment to the Bill. He simply tried to shy away from the Bill in its present form, without his offering any positive alternative in its place. I was waiting for the Opposition to come forward with a positive alternative, whether a Select Committee or a tribunal, such as the one to which they referred in their minority report. However, they kept on shying away from it. Therefore the only conclusion which I can draw, is that the hon. member for Von Brandis was talking through his hat. It is very clear that his party shrinks from any form of investigation into internal security, any investigation by means of which they could possibly land in the same fix as the one they were in during the last election. It is this that they are guarding against.

If one agrees in principle that there should be a body of members of Parliament in South Africa to keep an eye on internal security, one is not going to fight this Act in principle tooth and nail, but rather going to come forward with amendments concerning the composition of the commission, the procedure which the commission ought to follow and the manner in which the commission ought to report. In that case one would not oppose the principle, as the Opposition is doing. If one’s attitude concerning the creation of the commission is positive, form and procedure do not matter. Then one pays attention only to finding the best, the most practical way in which the proposed body, the organ of Parliament, can function. Once finality has been reached in that regard, and once this has been given form, one has the body to which one has been endeavouring to establish. Factors which must be taken into consideration, are the type of work to be done and the time to be devoted to this. One thing we have learned from experience, is that we cannot have a Select Committee which operates during sessions of Parliament only and which is functus officio during recess. This would utterly wreck the activities of and the task and duty resting on a commission such as this.