Mr. Speaker, the House will remember that on 27 January of this year, the Minister of the Interior, during the no-confidence debate, explained at length South Africa’s handling of refugees from Angola. Besides the mammoth task which different departments performed to house and care for these persons before their eventual repatriation to Portugal, there was also the matter of thousands of displaced persons whom the South African Defence Force had to care for in South Angola. It is known to all that South Africa has performed an enormous task in regard to those persons. South Africa did not shrink from this humanitarian task which made great demands upon it. On the contrary, South Africa went out of its way to help these people.

As far as the outside world is concerned, South Africa has attempted throughout to bring the international community to the realization that it, and in particular the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross, has a responsibility towards these unfortunate persons. South Africa addressed three direct requests, on 27 January, 6 February and 13 February, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to do something about the fate and the problems of these refugees. Except for the Red Cross, the international community did nothing. All that South Africa received for this humanitarian task was blame and abuse.

In order to prevent suffering when South Africa completely withdraws all its troops from these camps, an appeal was again made yesterday to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to do everything possible to ensure a smooth and orderly take-over of the task which South Africa has had to perform alone for so long. It was very clearly put to him that the alternative would be chaos and suffering and that South Africa wished to state unambiguously in advance that it accepted no responsibility for this. He was accordingly requested to consider sending representatives to assist in this task. We also requested the International Red Cross to help where possible.

We have done all and more than could be expected of us in carrying out this humanitarian task. Others must now assume this responsibility.

Furthermore, the South African Defence Force gave protection to the workers at Calueque in order to ensure the vital water supply to Owambo. In this connection it will be recalled that the hon. the Prime Minister, in a statement released on 21 March, referred to assurances which we had received through a third party—incidentally, the British Government—and which, broadly speaking, appeared to be acceptable to us. Before taking any final action on our side, however, we wanted clarity on our interpretation of these assurances.

Since then we have obtained the necessary clarification through the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Seen as a whole, the assurances by the Government of the People’s Republic of Angola amount to this—that it will not damage the hydro-electric project concerned or endanger the workers and that it will respect the international boundary. That Government has already indicated that it does not wish to harm the people of South West Africa by depriving them of the electricity supply.

In these circumstances, the Government has decided that all our troops will be out of Angola by Saturday, 27 March 1976.

South Africa’s only interest is that the Calueque and Ruacana schemes, in both Angola and Owambo, should be secured. It is expected that after our withdrawal and when conditions in the area are again normal, it will be feasible to arrange practical matters concerning the scheme with those concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Mr. Chairman, no reason has been advanced why clauses 1, 2 and 3 should stand over. It would appear to us that at least clause 2 is of critical importance and that a discussion thereof should precede a discussion of clause 4. Clause 2 is the trigger clause because that deals with the establishment of the commission. The succeeding clauses merely define its functions, its composition and its means of operation. In the circumstances I think it would be quite wrong for us to consider the powers and functions of such a commission without first having considered clause 2, by which this Committee will endorse the decision of the House at the Second Reading.

Question put and the Committee divided:

Question declared agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, clause 4 is the key clause in this Bill. It is the clause over which we clashed at the Second Reading; it is the clause that determines exactly what the scope of this Bill will be.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 5, to omit subsection (1);
2. (2) on page 5, in lines 18 and 19, to omit “Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (1), the State President may also” and to substitute:

The effect of the second amendment is to bring subsection (2) into line with what we believe the work of Parliamentarians should be. That has been the crux of the difference of opinion between the hon. the Prime Minister and myself, between this side of the House and the Government, in respect of this matter. The hon. the Prime Minister will see that I have moved that subsection (1), which gives wide powers in respect of what any such commission shall investigate, be deleted and that, as I have said, subsection (2) be brought into line with the proposals we have made, according to which the subsection will then read: “The State President may refer to the Commission for investigation and report any matters concerning existing and contemplated legislation and existing and contemplated administrative procedure affecting internal security. ”

I want to make it quite clear that even the amendments do not make the position ideal. As Parliamentarians, we should be working through a Select Committee and not a statutory commission of this sort which is not responsible to Parliament. However, with the Bill before us, this is the best way in which we can amend it because, as the hon. the Prime Minister will know, clause 3, which establishes the constitution of the commission, lays down that it shall consist of Parliamentarians. That is a principle of the Bill and as such we cannot amend it in the Committee Stage.

The attitude of this side of the House has been consistently throughout that the work envisaged in subsection (1) of clause 4 is not the work of Parliamentarians. We made that clear when the original Select Committee was appointed, the Select Committee which subsequently came to be known as the Schlebusch Commission. At that time we said we believed that this sort of investigatory work which did not have legislation in view, should be dealt with by a judicial commission and not by a Select Committee of Parliament. However, that Select Committee was appointed and we agreed to serve on it. Our commissioners, after their experience on that Select Committee, reported in their minority report to the fourth interim report that they believed that this was work which should have been done by a judicial commission and not by a Select Committee of Parliament. In the fourth interim report they made recommendations as to what they believed should be the functions of a parliamentary Select Committee. They laid that down very clearly. I shall deal with those recommendations later.

When the fourth interim report was debtated in Parliament, together with the fifth and sixth interim reports and the final report of the Schlebusch Commission, our commissioners made it clear that they believed that the work embraced by clause 4(1) was work that should have been done by a judicial commission and I was authorized to say in this House, as I did, that we believed that that was the work of a judicial commission and not of a Select Committee, nor of Parliamentarians. What were the reasons? The reasons, I believe, were, firstly, the attitude of the public, which was that they did not like commissions consisting of Parliamentarians inquiring into individuals or organizations. They much prefer that work of that kind is done by a judicial commission. It was felt that the background of the judiciary was such that it had experience in investigating facts, weighing the importance that should be attached to evidence and reaching conclusions from those facts. The type of work to be done in investigations, which might lead to executive action, was felt to be work which should more properly be done by a judicial commission rather than by Parliamentarians.

I believe that the real issue in this Bill and in this clause is what the role of Parliamentarians should be. Where should they fit into the security set-up in South Africa? We believe that their work should be legislative, that they should be responsible for the necessary legislation to give the executive the powers that it needs. With this Bill the hon. the Prime Minister wants to load them with work that rightly belongs to the executive and not to the legislature. What does this mean? It means that we have to decide whether Parliamentarians are here to legislate, to sit on Select Committees and obtain the necessary information to enable them to legislate intelligently, or whether they should have the further function which the hon. the Prime Minister envisages in this Bill, namely to be called upon to act as sleuths to investigate, for the executive, any matter which the executive thinks should be investigated for security reasons, and to carry out their investigations armed with a subpoena which will entitle them to force witnesses to speak. I believe that we should ask ourselves in simple language, whether we are legislators and are going to do the work of legislators, or whether we are also going to accept the responsibility to act as sleuths for the executive to inquire into anything which the executive thinks should be inquired into, whether it has to do with legislation in this House or not.

It is our belief that the set-up should be such that there is a Select Committee of this House sitting from time to time, or if necessary sitting permanently. It would only require an amendment to Standing Order No. 173, which allows Select Committees to sit when the House is not sitting, to also allow them to sit also in the recess. Such a Select Committee could go into existing and proposed security legislation and associated administrative procedures with a view to legislation or with a view to recommending legislation to this House. However, where the executive feels that there should be an inquiry, for security reasons, into organizations or individuals in order to have facts brought to light, that should be the work of a judicial commission presided over by a judge and possibly assisted by other legally trained people. Where such investigations could possibly lead to excessive action, or where executive action is taken involving the freedom of individuals or organizations, such decisions should be subject to review by a judicial tribunal of one kind or another, even if not subject to review in open court. That was the view expressed by the minority commissioners in their minority report to the fourth report of the Schlebusch/Le Grange Commission. They made it perfectly clear that they believed that where Parliamentarians were involved as members of the sort of commission envisaged in the first interim report, the work of those Parliamentarians should be to consider existing and proposed legislation and associated administrative procedures and not the other sort of work envisaged in clause 4(1) of this Bill.

I know that the hon. the Prime Minister takes the view that it is the duty of Parliamentarians to inform themselves, but to inform themselves of what? The answer is such matters as the executive thinks they should be informed about. However, what is the position of their colleagues in this House? If they sit on a permanent commission of the kind envisaged by this Bill, all their colleagues will have access to are the reports which may or may not be laid on the Table of this House in whole or in part.

That is a fig-leaf.

The hon. the Prime Minister says it is a fig-leaf. He and I have before considered a report and have had to agree about what should be tabled in this House. We know the problems we had. I can consequently foresee occasions when this House may not only not know what is to be investigated, because that will be fixed by the State President, but may also have very little idea of what the report contains. What is the difference, however, in their being informed by a report from their colleagues or by a report from a judicial commission? Surely, if they are informed by a report of a judicial commission they can accept that with the same confidence that they can accept a report from their colleagues. And to what purpose should they inform themselves? For the purpose of legislation, or for some other purpose?

In making these statements, I cast no reflection on the members of the Schlebusch Commission. I think they did a very good job indeed. But the Schlebusch Commission had a different origin. It started off as a Select Committee appointed by Parliament and Parliament decided what it had to investigate, and finally it had report to Parliament. The hon. the Prime Minister said that Parliament would decide what action should be taken. Then, of course, the hon. the Prime Minister allowed executive action to be taken as the result of one of those reports. With great respect, let me say that a judicial commission could have done that work and done it as well as any parliamentary commission. A judicial commission appointed under the Commissions Act could do this work as well as the sort of commission envisaged now by the hon. the Prime Minister. We have had judicial commissions in the past. We had them inquiring into what happened at Sharpeville, Langa and Paarl, and even inquiring into the Broederbond and the Sons of England. Hon. members on that side of the House said “yes” afterwards. What did they inquire into when they examined Nusas? They inquired into what had been happening in Nusas. When they inquired into the Christian Institute, they inquired into what had been happening in that institute. Why must we now all of a sudden have a commission of Parliamentarians because we are no longer satisfied with a judicial commission?

Order! I must point out that clause 4 deals with the functions of the commission, while the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now dealing with the constitution of the commission.

Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling. With respect, I am merely making the point that one portion of clause 4 should be a function of a judicial commission and not a function of a parliamentary commission or a parliamentary Select Committee. It is for that reason, since the Bill envisages a commission consisting of Parliamentarians, that I maintain that its functions should be limited to functions to be performed by Parliamentarians. The hon. the Prime Minister allowed executive action as a result of a report which came from that Select Committee which was converted into a commission. If at the point where that executive action was taken, it had been a judicial commission and not a commission of Parliamentarians, I believe the public would have been more satisfied, the hon. the Prime Minister would have been in a stronger position, and that the outside world would have been more impressed and more ready to accept the sort of finding that was made. Here we are faced with functions being given to a body which is not an organ of Parliament, a body which is not appointed by Parliament, a body whose terms of reference are not laid down by Parliament, a body which does not report to Parliament and something which is divorced from the duty of a legislature. Therefore I want to suggest that if this commission is to consist of Parliamentarians, then clause 4(1) should be omitted and the activities of the commission should be limited to those set out in clause 4(2), as indicated by me. I want to say that if that is not accepted, we on this side of the House cannot be associated with the commission or agree to serve on it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment which requests that clause 4(1) be omitted. Clause 4(1) is of course the essence of the entire Bill, and if I should agree that the amendment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has merit, I would of course be destroying the entire Bill. Consequently it will not come as a shock to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I cannot accept his amendment. I cannot accept it (a) because it will emasculate the Bill completely and (b) on the grounds of the arguments which my hon. friend has advanced on this occasion.

In the first place the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advanced the argument that it is not the task of Parliamentarians to serve on a commission of this nature. It strikes me as strange that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should now, in the year 1976, advance such an argument, for Parliamentarians have already been serving on a commission of this nature during the years 1973, 1974 and 1975. For three years they have been serving on that commission. If my hon. friend has material objections and objections in principle to a commission, I just want to repeat what I told him during the previous debate, namely that he should then have raised those material objections and objections in principle when it was reported to this House that the Select Committee was unable to complete its task and a request was made for it to become a commission. My friend should have lodged an objection when that commission sat during the 1973 recess, throughout the entire parliamentary session of 1974 and the entire parliamentary session of 1975 without ever being converted back into a Select Committee. If my hon. friend wants me to believe that this is to him a standpoint in principle now, my question to him is:“Since when does he adhere to this principle?” After all, he did not adhere to it in past years. It is not as though this was something which was simply done unseen; it was done in public. My friend co-operated in doing it; he nominated members. Very piously he is now alleging, however, that the members were nominated by Parliament in the first place. That statement is correct, for the members were nominated in the same way as those of all Select Committees. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made nominations for vacancies which occurred. Now, quite suddenly, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has objections in principle to it. He did not have them, for example, when Mr. Etienne Malan was appointed to the commission. Therefore that kind of argument from the Leader of the Opposition is simply not tenable.

But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advanced another strange argument as well. He raised this argument without motivating it in any respect. He said: “The public does not like Parliamentarians to do this work.” On what grounds does my hon. friend say that? Surely there has been no referendum, no survey of public opinion in this regard. If we have to call a witness, we could call the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member for Green Point said that people had done everything in their power to oust him from his constituency because he had served on the commission—not the Select Committee. All around him the heroes had fallen in Pinelands, Rondebosch and Sea Point, but the hon. member for Green Point did not fall. In fact, the hon. member for Green Point boasted that he had returned stronger than before. I am just as active a participant in public life as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Who shapes the public opinion to which he is referring? Is it the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, The Cape Times, the Sunday Times, the Progs? Is this the public to which my hon. friend is referring?

We heard the United Party, we heard its speakers, inter alia the hon. member for Mooi River, say that serving on the commission had not hurt them in their constituencies. We heard them say this several times. Who are the people by whom they were abused? Surely they were not abused for serving on the commission by staunch United Party supporters. On the contrary. The staunch United Party supporters said to them: “Keep up the good work.” It was the hon. member for Yeoville, while he was still in the United Party, who abused them. The hon. member for Yeoville was not alone in this either; the other three hon. members who went along with him, also abused the United Party members for serving on the commission.

However, the hon. member for Yeoville also says that he knows and I know that there are still people sitting on the opposite side who joined him in abusing those members. To what public opinion is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition appealing? I am as well acquainted with public life as he is. I have addressed just as many public meetings as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has addressed, and I have never, on the occasion of a single public meeting in the normal sense of the word, or during the 1974 election, come across any sign of people taking it amiss of Parliamentarians because they had served on such a commission. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this question: Has he addressed any public meeting at which the people told him: “You, as Parliamentarians were acting outside your powers by serving on such a commission”? We received no reproach whatsoever on the part of the public. On the contrary. The public expects Parliament to do its duty in this regard. I have stated repeatedly at public meetings that it is not the task of the courts to combat subversion, but that it is the task of Parliament, and that that is why the voters send us here. I have never said this on a single occasion on which the public who were present, did not signify their wholehearted agreement. Even now there are members within the United Party who support that standpoint. I do not want to create unnecessary embarrassment for hon. members, but I referred to this in my reply to the Second Reading, and I could refer to it again i.e. that even now there are still hon. members sitting on that side of the House who believe that it is their duty to investigate organizations and who believe that it is right that they should investigate organizations. Let us again consider the first interim report and what the commissioners, among whom were the hon. members for Mooi River and Green Point, recommended. I am referring to para. 10, page 9, which reads as follows—

I referred to why this was the case. The Security Police do not have the power to summon a person to give evidence, they do not have the power to place a person under oath, nor do they have the power to instruct people to produce documents. They do not have that power in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act or any other Act which is applicable in that regard. They have certain powers, but those powers are so limited that they cannot act as effectively as a commission in this regard. The commission made it even clearer in para. 11, which reads as follows—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now saying that it was their standpoint from the beginning that one should not investigate organizations. But here his own members, the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Mooi River, had this to say on 23 January 1973—

Now, suddenly, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is saying that it is wrong for Parliamentarians to do this kind of work. Not only is he saying that it is wrong for Parliamentarians to do it; he is also saying that they should not investigate organizations at all.

I now want to tell the hon. the Leader in all kindness now that if that standpoint had not been adopted by the hon. member for Yeoville and others within his party, and if certain newspapers had not launched such a campaign, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would never have adopted that standpoint. In other words, he was forced to adopt that standpoint as a result of the agitation which arose. That agitation came from within his party, and is still there today; it came from certain leftist bodies and from certain newspapers in the country, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition took to flight. This is the naked truth of the matter. It was not a standpoint in principle which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanted to adopt. I stated my standpoint in full to the hon. members. I put all my cards on the table and I made my offer to them across the floor of this House. I told them that I was prepared to go along with them all the way and appoint a Select Committee—I am merely repeating this for the sake of the record—provided that that Select Committee would inter alia have the right to investigate organizations, a right which the hon. member for Green Point wanted, and which the hon. member for Mooi River wanted, and which he still wants, to judge from his speech which he made in this House during the present year, during the previous debate on this legislation, and to judge from speeches made by other hon. members on that side, a standpoint which I know is held by other hon. members on the opposite side of this House. For those reasons I am not prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, listening to the hon. the Prime Minister, it was understandable that he showed anger on the one hand and keen disappointment on the other. The hon. the Prime Minister gives the impression of a fisherman who has played a fish for a long time at the end of the hook, but at the last moment the fish has broken away. I can understand his disappointment, because the very bait that he put on the end of the hook was the bait that was asked for by the fish, and indeed, this commission is the commission which was asked for by the United Party and the Nationalist members of the Schlebusch Commission. In this sense I think it was an understandable disappointment as far as the Prime Minister is concerned. Mr. Chairman, the House has decided by a majority vote that this clause should take precedence over clauses 1, 2 and 3, and therefore I think it is appropriate that I re-define or re-state the attitude of those of us in these benches towards this clause and the other clauses which are going to follow it.

Sir, we do not believe that a parliamentary permanent investigating committee is the best way to go about ensuring security either for South Africa or for the South African society. We believe that, especially if one looks at the functions, the inquisitorial functions which will be conferred on this commission in terms of clause 4, this Bill is unacceptable. The Prime Minister must know, but I must re-state it, that this clause and the other clauses are totally unacceptable to us. This Bill, this concept of a permanent commission with inquisitorial powers, consisting of Parliamentarians, is unacceptable. We will oppose this clause, as we will all the other clauses of the Bill.

When one comes to the powers—and these powers are of critical importance because they are inquisitorial powers—I want to say that had the Prime Minister withdrawn this Bill and announced that he was going to appoint, a Select Committee, an ad hoc Select Committee, to review existing legislation and to change legislation where it intrudes or impinges on the rule of law, then I believe everybody in this House would have acceded to that suggestion. But this is not what the Prime Minister is suggesting. He is asking for special legislation and he wants that particular committee or commission to have inquisitorial powers in respect of the people of South Africa. Therefore we are opposed to this clause and to the powers because we are opposed to the whole concept of an investigating committee. We are opposed to the special machinery which will be set up under clause 4, subsections (1) and (2). We are opposed to this because we believe that in the long run the consequences of this clause and of the other clauses in this Bill are not going to help the real security of South Africa, but will rather aggravate the position of tension in our country. We believe that the effect of a commission having powers to interrogate, such as suggested in clause 4, will have a dulling inhibiting effect, on the wider South African political society and on the individual South African who wants to play a part in the political life of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has in recent days freely used the phrase “the free world”. He said that our involvement in Angola was that of the free world. I want to say that the powers which this clause seeks to give to a commission, take us one step further away from the free world and bring us one step nearer the totalitarian world which we claim we oppose.

This clause in particular introduces a new concept, a new dimension, into normal Government and governmental machinery in South Africa. In the past the relationship between the individual and the State, in terms of the Government structure in South Africa, was clearly defined and understood both by the Government and by the citizens. There were three elements. There was the legislature, where the representatives of the White voters enacted legislation in terms of the procedure that was known to everybody, and in the end these laws were to be obeyed by everyone. The second was the executive operating under the laws and under the powers given to it by Parliament and responsible to Parliament, and this executive had certain limited rights. Thirdly, there was the judiciary, where independent judges both interpreted the law and protected the individual against the invasion of his rights by the State or by anyone else. Although the difference between the executive and the legislature has become blurred, although there has been an intrusion into the basic rights of the individual in South Africa, nevertheless the ordinary South African still sees these as the three pillars of government in South Africa: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. But this Bill, this clause in particular, introduces a new element. It introduces the element of inquisition, the element of official interrogation as part of the whole paraphernalia of government, not just on an ad hoc basis, but on a permanent basis. From now onwards interrogation, inquisition of individuals or of organizations, is going to become part of the normal procedure of government in South Africa. It has introduced a radical new concept into the government of South Africa. Sir, I believe that the functions to be conferred on this commission under clause 4, are made even worse by the fact that they will be exercised by people who we know are not equipped to exercise them properly.

Is it your allegation that the Schlebusch Commission was a commission of the kind you have described now?

Yes, it was just that; it was an interrogating commission. It was a commission with power to interrogate, and what is more, it was composed of people with party commitments.

You went further and used harsher words.

It was composed of people with understandable political prejudices and who had a direct personal political interest in the causes …

You refer to it as an inquisition. Is that your argument?

Yes, the old commission was a form of inquisition in South Africa, and it looks as if it is going to be perpetuated if this Bill goes through. [Interjections.] Sir, very few of the members who are going to exercise these functions are neutral in this matter. Almost every member who is going to exercise the functions in terms of clause 4 of this Bill, is a person who is already partisan, a person who across the floor of this House and on public platforms has already attacked the organization or the individual who is going to be investigated. Every one of those who are going to exercise the powers of inquisition or interrogation under clause 4, is a person who is not unimpeachable, not a person standing outside public and political pressures. He is a man who is responsible to the voters; so we will then have people’s courts. We will have judges investigating matters in this case, judges who are responsible to their voters and who are subject to the normal pressures which operate in society. Sir, this is a grave departure from the normal rights under the rule of law even as we have understood it in South Africa.

I believe that the effect of these powers exercised by members of Parliament, is going to reduce the status and the esteem of Parliament in the eyes of many people, in the eyes of many of the voters who know that they can apply pressure on those members of Parliament who are also members of the commission. But perhaps much more important than that, I believe it will reduce the status of this House in the eyes of millions of people who do not have the vote in South Africa, and by reducing the status of this House it will also reduce the status of the legislation which emanates from this House.

So, Sir, we believe that these functions, and in particular the interrogatory functions, go far beyond what is required or what is necessary for good government in South Africa. Sir, in the past, with all the defects in the South African system of government, citizens have known their rights. They have known, as the hon. the Prime Minister has known, that unless they are deemed to be guilty of a crime, they could act in private, they could act confidentially, they could act outside of the public gaze. [Interjections.] Now, for the first time, he does not know where he stands. The time-honoured question of the privacy of the individual, his right of confidential action, of confidential behaviour, the privacy of people in organizations, is now completely at the mercy of the Government and of the 10 members of Parliament who will be investigating them and their organizations. I believe that this would be bad. It would be bad in any society. [Time expired.]

Order! Before I call upon the next hon. member to address the Committee, I must direct the attention of hon. members to Standing Order No. 63, where it is clearly stated that, in the Committee Stage, not the principle, but only the particulars of a clause can be discussed. It is a custom in this House to allow one member of every party to state its opposition to or its agreement with any of the clauses in so far as they relate to the principle of the Act. However, I cannot allow hon. members to discuss the whole principle all over again. The hon. member for Sea Point has discussed not only the establishment of the Commission, but also its constitution, and I cannot allow members to follow that line. I therefore want to remind hon. members that we are discussing, under clause 4, the functions of this commission and, of course, the amendment by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore I shall be pleased if hon. members will confine themselves to the particulars of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to abide by your ruling. Unfortunately you have thereby deprived me of a bit of fun. [Interjections.] I should have liked to deal with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. But I shall abide by your ruling, and because I am unable to deal with the Progressive Party properly in this way, I shall confine myself to saying that they reacted exactly as we expected them to.

In subsections (1) and (2) of clause 4, two aspects are particularly striking. Clause 4(1), to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment, chiefly concerns the powers of the commission to investigate organizations or carry out investigatory work. Clause 4(2) provides that the State President may grant the commission certain powers or address requests to the commission to investigate existing and contemplated legislation and contemplated administrative action. I must say that I find the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition strange, strange in that this clause, as it is worded at present, has in fact to my mind achieved exactly what is being asked for by the hon. members of the Opposition. This may sound strange, but I should like to take the matter somewhat further than did the hon. the Prime Minister by pointing out that clause 4(1) provides that the State President may refer matters affecting internal security to the commission.

For the purposes of the record, I believe that we should only refer to what the regulations were when the previous commission, the so-called Schlebusch Commission, received their terms of reference by way of a publication in the Gazette on 14 July 1972. Without spending too much time on this matter, I want to point out that there is a clause which contains inter alia the following provisions: “Any related matter which comes to the notice of the Commission and which in its view is cause for inquiry.” This was after the order had been given that the four organizations in question should be investigated and, to use the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, that their innards be looked at and, in certain cases, that a brief post mortem be held.

Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, that specific provision, promulgated at the time of the appointment of the Schlebusch Commission in 1972, goes much further than clause 4(1) of this legislation. Now I really want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in all earnest—and I want to address myself to my colleagues who served with me on that commission, my colleagues on that side of the House, and other good United Party friends of mine sitting there—to take note of how wide the commission’s terms of reference were in 1972, and to compare them with the terms of reference in clause 4(1) of this legislation. We must bear in mind that we have already put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a number of occasions. After all, he was aware of the content of the regulations relating to the original Schlebusch Commission. When the first and the second interim reports appeared, there had not yet been any final reports on Nusas. It was just after that that the restrictions, about which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is so concerned now, followed. What was the reason for the hon. the Opposition failing to object immediately when the Nusas people were restricted? This was a matter which the committee could investigate. On what grounds did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition grant his approval for the commission to continue with its work? It was not only the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who gave his approval for the continuation of the activities of the commission, but the hon. member for Yeoville as well. And they did this at a time when the commission’s terms of reference were very wide. I want to maintain that clause 4(1) contains a limiting provision at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, my argument is that a proclamation can be promulgated here by the State President in terms of which the commission is appointed. And just let the hon. member for Von Brandis come along again with his antics now and maintain that the State President cannot appoint a commission. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in his turn, maintained that Parliament was not informed of the appointments. However, we have precisely the same provisions in this Bill. The State President appoints the members of this commission and they report to the State President. My question now is whether the hon. members of the Opposition did not at that stage ask for precisely what is stated in clause 4(1) of the Bill. After all, they agreed and co-operated with us. Surely at that stage they asked for precisely what is now being provided for in clause 4(1) of the Bill.

Clause 4(2) is not under discussion at this stage, but I do just want to say something concerning that part of the clause. A minority report by the hon. members of the Opposition after the Nusas investigations had run its course, requests precisely what is provided in clause 4(2) This, too, is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition requested today.

As far as the issue of the powers of the commission, as envisaged by the hon. the Prime Minister, is concerned, I think that it goes without saying that the members of the commission must be parliamentarians. Clause 4(1) only concerns the powers of the commission, and the powers of the commission are exactly what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his members asked for from 1972 until last year. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, is there any justification for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition coming up with an amendment today? As far as his amendment is concerned, I should like to say that he has had since 11 March to place his amendments relating to this proposed legislation on the Order Paper. I believe that an hon. member on that side of the House should explain to us why we should have learnt only yesterday— and officially, only today—of amendments to this Bill. Sir, this Committee cannot take seriously the amendment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to delete subsection (1) when as far back as July 1972 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party requested that this subsection (1) be given effect to. Surely, therefore, there is no justification for his amendment. Similarly we cannot give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a hearing today, when he wants to alter subsection (2) as he has just proposed. Surely that cannot be done. He must tell the United Party today that they must forget about these stories, the scare stories that they will lose a few liberal votes. Be courageous and do what has been done and rightly done since 1972 with regard to the internal security of South Africa. Show that you have the courage of your convictions and say that what you asked in 1972 appears in subsection 4(1), and agree with the hon. the Prime Minister, and therby serve South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the argument of the hon.member who has just spoken. I heard him perfectly well, but I do not understand what he said. He and the hon. the Prime Minister deal with this matter as though the whole thing, as far as the Schlebusch Commission was concerned, stopped at the first interim report, as though nothing happened after the filing of the first interim report. It is like a student of the Bible stopping at the end of the Old Testament and writing a treatise on Christian ethics as though the New Testament had never been written. To state the obvious, the story, as far as the Schlebusch Commission and its recommendations are concerned, did not end at the first interim report. There were a whole series of reports thereafter and the gravamen of the thing is in the fourth interim report, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition has pointed out with such clarity. I do not intend replying to the hon. member for Sea Point, because as I understood him he made the speech in relation to clause 4 which he had prepared for clause 2. I do not propose to reply to that, save to say that it is a flight of exaggeration, to put it in its kindest form, to say of the Schlebusch Commission that it was an “inquisition”.

I shall attempt to reply to the arguments raised by the hon. the Prime Minister. His first point was that if he were to agree to the deletion of subsection (1) of clause 4, it would emasculate the Bill. I go partly along with him in that respect, but it will still enable the commission of Parliamentarians to perform a parliamentary function. If the hon. gentleman were to add to that “a judicial commission of inquiry” with any terms of reference that he pleases and relating to any organization that he pleases, then what he wishes to be done would be done. What I do not understand—and I have never understood it since we began the debate on this Bill and, indeed, on these matters—is the hon. the Prime Minister’s objection to a judicial commission of inquiry. The most well-established procedure that I know of in our public life, if one wants to get to the facts of a situation and if one wants an inquiry, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put it, “armed with a subpoena”, has always been a judicial commission of inquiry. I do not understand his objection. The hon. gentleman puts it this way—

It is not the function of the courts to fight subversive elements or subversion. I quite agree with him and no one will argue with him on that. But this is not the point at issue. The court’s function, and the hon. the Prime Minister knows it better than I do because he has longer experience, is to interpret and apply the law. The court is given a set of facts and if they amount to an offence, the court convicts and punishes. That is the function of the court. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made it perfectly clear that there is no difference of opinion on that. The arms which exist to fight subversion are the executive—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said it—and this legislature, which provides the sinews for the courts and the executive to fight that subversion. This is what we plead for and what we have been pleading for from the very beginning of the introduction of this legislation. The hon. the Prime Minister then went on to deal with certain of the arguments raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He asked: What about the Schlebusch Commission and the members who served on it? He came with a similar line of argument to the one which we already heard during the Second Reading. There are a number of distinctions, which we have already stated and which I now merely want to re-state, between the Schlebusch Commission and this commission. Firstly, the Schlebusch Commission was not a permanent commission, while this one is. Secondly, the Schlebusch Commission began as a Select Committee, with all that that means, e.g. that it was appointed by Parliament, had to report to Parliament and acted within terms of reference set by Parliament. What the hon. the Prime Minister does not seem to realize is that it was executive action following upon one of the interim reports of the Schlebusch Commission that has put this whole matter under the magnifying glass and which has, in a sense, changed the whole situation. It was that which has brought about a change, and I think that everybody in this House will admit that in the years that have passed since the debate in 1972, when that Select Committee was appointed, there has been a great deal of thinking, and far clearer thinking, on the functions of the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, the Police, and so forth. That appears no more clearly than in the fourth interim report, the minority report put up by the United Party commissioners where these things are carefully analysed and bisected.

Where in the final report are the recommendations of the first interim report withdrawn?

Of course they were not withdrawn, but they were amplified and modified, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made it perfectly clear that that was the result of a year’s experience of the commission and the result of executive action taken by the hon. the Minister of Justice following upon one of the interim reports. There is no magic in this; it is there for everybody to see.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that he has made an offer and that it has not been accepted, an offer of compromise in the sense of meeting the objections on this side of the House which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not accepted. I do not see it that way at all. All that the hon. the Prime Minister has offered is to change the name of the agency to be set up, but in every other respect it remains identical to what it was before. An offer was also made by this side of the House during the Second Reading and again more recently by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. That is the true way which this matter should be looked at but that remains unanswered.

There is a final point which was raised by the hon. the Prime Minister when he suggested that we were now going contrary to what was said in the Schlebusch Commission Report in that we were now saying that organizations should not be examined. That is not the case at all. What we are saying is that if they are to be examined, then let it be done properly and by a proper body. A proper body to carry out an investigation of that kind is, we say, a judicial commission of inquiry.

The hon. the Prime Minister dwelt at length on the statement by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the public does not like parliamentarians to do this type of work. There is no doubt at all that there is a substantial body of opinion that would prefer this type of work to be done by a judicial commission rather than by a commission of parliamentarians. There is no doubt about that at all. That is not to say that they will not vote for people like the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Mooi River. Nevertheless, that preference exists, and I am going to make a prediction, which I believe to be the truth. There are numbers of people in the hon. the Prime Minister’s own ranks whom he would wish to appoint to this commission should this Bill become law, but who are very reluctant for him to do so. [Interjections.] They are reluctant for the very reason that have been advanced from this side of the House. If we are to have a commission consisting only of Nationalist members of Parliament, why do we bother about this legislation? Why does the hon. the Prime Minister not simply appoint an ordinary commission of inquiry under the Commission’s Act, consisting of seven Nationalist members of Parliament? Sir, the answer is that that would not do, for the very reasons that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advanced, viz. that the public would not accept a commission of that kind. The hon. the Prime Minister is trying to disguise it be dressing it up as a parliamentary commission of some kind. I would not be a bit surprised if, once this legislation has been passed, to put it at its mildest, some considerable time elapsed before the commission came into being. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Umhlatuzana ended on a note which we on this side are not used to hearing from him. He attempted to cast suspicion in advance on this commission which is to be established in terms of this legislation. He adopted the premise that the aim of the legislation was to involve the Opposition cunningly in the safeguarding of the State by the Government. The simple question which this clause we are now discussing puts before the Opposition is the following: Do they or do they not want to share in the maintenance of internal security? It is as simple as that, Sir. The appeal made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that a commission of this Parliament should only be allowed to look at legislation, is not shared by all the hon. members on that side of the House. After all, during the Second Reading debate we sat and listened to them when they discussed this aspect of the functions of such a commission. We listened to the hon. member for Durban Point, and we heard how he struggled in this connection. Let me quote what he said on that occasion (Hansard, col. 1938)—

He used the word “pertains” in English.

I said “germane to”.

He said in English (Hansard, col. 1928)—

That is precisely what clause 4(1) states. He did not say that it should be germane to a specific Bill. He asked that it be germane to the responsibility of this Parliament to make laws, and clause 4(1) is germane to the responsibility to make laws. The aim of clause 4(1) is to maintain a system of laws which will ensure internal security in South Africa. I want to go further and refer to the hon. member for Maitland. He made a very fervent speech and ended it by saying the following (Hansard, 25.2.1976, col. 1909)—

You must read further.

That is the final sentence. Unfortunately I am unable to read further. [Interjections.] But, Sir, I shall go back and quote an excerpt from earlier in his speech. Earlier in his speech he said the following (Hansard, col. 1898)—

I want to ask him: Where is the evidence to come from if this Parliament shrinks from obtaining evidence? This is what clause 4(1) seeks to do. Clause 4(1) is aimed at obtaining evidence and acquiring knowledge enabling us to make a sound evaluation of legislation. [Interjections.] Sir, let me refer to another excerpt from the hon. member’s speech. He went on to say the following (Hansard, col. 1898)—

Sir, this legislation and this clause seek to provide Parliament with such an organ.

To make laws.

The hon. member did not say so in his speech. Nowhere in his speech did he refer to the function and say that it should be limited to the making of laws. He based his whole argument on the standpoint that the only thing that troubled him was the fact that this was not a parliamentary organ. We had the same standpoint from the hon. member for Mooi River. He said that the country was threatened and the only real criticism he expressed was that he did not regard the commission as a parliamentary organ. That objection was disposed of by the offer of the hon. the Prime Minister, despite what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has just said. He is prepared to consider those objections of those three hon. members and other hon. members opposite by making it into a Select Committee.

The real essence of the matter is that the members opposite shrink from the responsibility which this Parliament should shoulder, and that is to say: We are prepared to investigate organizations which attempt to carry on undermining activities in South Africa, outside the context, or seemingly outside the context, of parliamentary procedures, or the democratic process. Now the hon. member for Umhlatuzana states that he agrees that this should be investigated, but that it should be investigated, not by a parliamentary organ, but by a judicial commission of inquiry. He therefore admits that investigations are essential. We appreciate the admission and we shall hold him to it, too, in future arguments. If we are now to debate on who is to investigate, then we could greatly prolong this debate, but he has not indicated why this Parliament is not just as capable as a judicial commission of inquiry of carrying out a thorough investigation.

On the contrary. This Parliament has experience of this. It has the experience of the Schlebusch/Le Grange Commission which has carried out its investigation with great distinction. This Parliament has proved its ability, and the members of the commission have been praised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Once again during the debate on this clause we have heard praise for the outstanding way in which that commission carried out its task. If, through the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, they now admit that an investigation is necessary, and if they admit that the members of the Schlebusch Commission acquitted themselves of their task of investigation with distinction, why are they afraid now to give instructions to a commission again? The hon. member has now replied to the effect that there is another difference. Now it is because it is a permanent committee that they shrink from it. They say that the Schlebusch Commission was not permanent. Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout advocated a permanent committee on foreign affairs in this House, on which all parties should have representation, a committee which should assist the Government in its handling of foreign affairs. At that time not one hon. member opposite rose to say that it was not the function of Parliament to establish a permanent committee on foreign affairs. Sir, the Department of Foreign Affairs never handles legislation. There is no foreign legislation. What would the function of the permanent committee on foreign affairs proposed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout have been? It would have had no function whatsoever relating to the legislation. It would have had the function of investigating, of collecting facts and acting in an advisory capacity, supplementary to the executive. That is all that this function involves. The functions do not involve judicial functions. This does not mean that this commission will suddenly take over the functions of the executive or of the courts. All that the functions involve which are given to the commission in terms of subsection (1), is that Parliament will arm itself with facts and knowledge relating to undermining activities and that it will make recommendations on the basis of that knowledge to the executive as to how Parliament, together with the executive, can best guarantee the security of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow me a little latitude and allow me to deal with some remarks that have been directed at me. I should like to reply to those remarks. Before getting on to the serious aspects of this debate, let me just react to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Sea Point in his usual political scavenging, which does neither his party nor his person any good. I should like to remind him, if he is not aware of the fact, that it was the Select Committee that was appointed at the beginning of 1972 which came to this House and asked the House for permission to allow witnesses to have legal representation when they appeared before that Select Committee. Perhaps the hon. member for Houghton can enlighten him as to where in Hansard he can find the remarks made by Prof. Dugard about the conduct of the commission, remarks made in a letter which was quoted in this House. I will leave it at that.

I want to say that we who served on the commission, obviously attempted to discharge our functions with the utmost objectivity. Whether everybody agrees with our conclusions is immaterial. The important question is whether those functions, properly, were in the hands of the persons who were charged with the inquiry. Were they the right people to undertake that inquiry? The hon. the Prime Minister again referred to the first interim report tabled on 27 January 1973. With respect, Sir, he does an injustice to the House and to himself when he glosses over the contents of the fourth interim report and our minority report. The hon. the Deputy Minister asked where we qualified what we had said in the first interim report. If the hon. the Deputy Minister will refer to para. 20.5.7.14 on page 520 of the fourth interim report, he will see that it says—

How much more clearly could we state that this was our view in relation to what was recommended in the first interim report? The hon. the Prime Minister also conveniently omits to recall what happened after the first and second interim reports were tabled in this House. He allowed—I have charged him before with this, since I believe it was an error of judgment on his part—action to be taken by the Minister of Justice, and in so doing, he contradicted his undertaking that the report of the commission would come before the House to be debated and that Parliament should decide what action should or should not be taken in this regard.

Action which you recommended.

The hon. member for Yeoville says that that was action which we recommended. We recommended that certain students should no longer be permitted to operate on the campuses of the universities. If the hon. member would try to get the accurate facts before making false statements, he would have learnt that the hon. the Prime Minister himself, in announcing the bannings, in fact said in the House that the bannings were not recommended by the commission. However, in the minds of the public the bannings were immediately linked with the actions of the commission in spite of the categorical statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister at the time.

I must say that I am deeply disappointed in the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister today. He has today made a speech which, I believe, is divisive of the people of South Africa at a time when the whole country is deeply concerned about security matters. The hon. the Prime Minister, this House and the country will recognize that we, as a party, have never failed in our obligations concerning the maintenance of internal security and of security against external aggression in so far as South Africa is concerned. The very experience my colleagues and I, who served on the commission, went through should be sufficient justification for our attitude, because we acted with the backing of the caucus of this side of the House.

Not with the backing of all the members of your party, though.

But, as I have said, the speech which the hon. the Prime Minister has made today has, in my opinion—and I say this with all respect to him—done a great disservice to a country which is deeply concerned about its security at the present time. I want to suggest, as we have already suggested at the Second Reading, that instead of asking that a commission of parliamentarians should be given the functions set out in clause 4, the hon. the Prime Minister should be seeking ways whereby he can promote a bipartisan approach to the question of internal security. He should do that, and he should not go ahead with a measure which he knows will wreck any possibility of a bipartisan approach to internal security. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that, in so far as the conduct of the affairs of this country is concerned, we as a party have consistently realized and accepted that there are certain functions and duties assigned to various arms of government and arms of control in this country of ours. The functions set out in this clause will offend against them. They offend principles that have been stated on innumerable occasions by members on this side of the House, statements which have been made both inside and outside of the House, statements which we also made in the minority report on 7 December 1973. We again stated what our principles were in regard to this matter in the statement that was issued yesterday evening by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to reiterate those principles briefly. I want to indicate why giving these proposed functions to a parliamentary commission is repugnant to me. In the maintenance of law and order, in the protection of the rights and liberties of the individual, in the maintenance of individual and collective security against external aggression and in the prevention of internal subversion, there are important and distinct functions and responsibilities which are vested, firstly, in the Parliament of this country; secondly, in the executive, the elected Government of this country; thirdly, in the judiciary; and, fourthly, in the police. These duties are separate but complementary. They are duties and functions which are fundamental to democratic government. When one of those arms of government is permitted to encroach upon or assume the functions of another, the very structure of good government is damaged irreparably. Public confidence is disturbed when once the judiciary interferes with the executive, when the executive interferes with the judiciary and so on.

Why did you then agree to the first interim report?

We agreed to it because we believed that such a commission, which was to report to Parliament for Parliament to decide what should be done, was the right sort of commission. However, when this commission …

You said nothing about reporting to Parliament; you said “reporting to the State President”.

Yes, but what happened? The hon. the Prime Minister knows that when we on this side took on that job, he had given an assurance that the Schlebusch Commission … [Interjections.] … would report to Parliament. Now who is hiding behind the fact that we were prepared to continue with our work during the recess in the only way open to us, i.e. as a commission, in order to fulfil the functions given to us as a Select Committee? Now the hon. the Prime Minister turns around and says: “Now you cannot argue: You have committed yourself to this principle,” a principle which we have always opposed. I want to say that when once the functions of one of those four arms of government interfere with those of one of the other arms, conflict among the people of South Africa will result because they cannot rely on one of those arms of government to discharge its duties irrespective of what is done by another arm of the Government. We on this side of the House today, as has always been the case, desire and are prepared to accept our full responsibility as members of Parliament towards the furtherance of internal security and in respect of anything that needs to be done by us, as members of Parliament, to combat external aggression. However, with these powers Parliament will be encroaching upon the functions not only of the judiciary, but also of the police. This would damage the very structure of good government, and for that reason I have no difficulty whatsoever in opposing a measure which is placing these functions in the hands of a group of parliamentarians, and I wonder why my colleagues on the Schlebusch Commission, who sat with me, are not able to search their hearts and have no difficulty, too, in opposing such a measure. Let me finish by reminding hon. members what the hon. the Minister of Community Development said in this House. He said that a Select Committee containing representatives of only one party would be a travesty of justice, and the hon. the Prime Minister knows that if he goes ahead with this Bill, he will be creating a one-party commission which will be a travesty of justice in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point and I have gone a long way together in the commission. We were together in the commission from the start. The hon. member for Green Point must excuse me, therefore, if I speak to him today as a politician and as a member of the United Party, and not as a member of the commission of inquiry on which we served together. The hon. member must excuse me if I now say that we are slowly becoming sick and tired of their political attacks on the Prime Minister and the fact that they then hide behind the fact that they too served on the commission. When has the hon. the Prime Minister ever given the assurance that the actions of the executive would be subject to judicial review? When has the hon. the Prime Minister even given the assurance that the executive would not take administrative action arising our of any of these reports? The hon. the Prime Minister has never given that assurance. The hon. the Prime Minister said that a report would be made to Parliament, and has a report not been made to Parliament? Hon. members must now reply to my question. The hon. the Prime Minister gave the assurance that this would be done, and was a report not made? Seven reports have been submitted to Parliament, and the matter has been debated for days on end. A report has in fact been made. Where is it stated that the hon. the Prime Minister said that there would be no executive or administrative action arising out of any reports before or after the report was published? Where is that stated? [Interjections.] In debate after debate the Opposition—and I am now referring to the hon. member for Green Point, too—has adopted this standpoint towards the hon. the Prime Minister, although they know that this is not so.

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister know that I raised that very point on 28 February 1973 … [Interjections.]

I am not prepared to listen to any question put by the hon. member now. After all, the hon. member knows what is stated on page 17 of the second interim report. In para. 16 the following is stated—

At this point various names are mentioned. The report then proceeds—

Has the hon. member for Green Point, in the discussion of this report, whether discussed before or after the taking of action, adopted a different standpoint to that to which he put his name here in the report? What steps would he have taken to remove these people from student politics?

We debated that in this House in March 1973.

The hon. member must not come and tell me now that they would not have agreed to the steps taken by the Government. I am now telling the hon. member to his face that the steps taken were agreed to. [Interjections.] We have now been engaged in this debate for three or four years, and the hon. member is still continually coming up with accusations of this kind against the hon. the Prime Minister. Let there be no more of this. What is the dilemma of hon. members such as the hon. members for Green Point and Mooi River? There are other members, too, whose names I have mentioned before and shall mention again. There, for example, sits the hon. member for Newton Park. He made a speech recently at Ottosdal. However, he will not dare to utter a word of the kind of thing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and certain hon. members have been saying here. Must I tell them now what their dilemma is? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was previously advised by a person in his party who knew what went on in his party and who took some of his party’s people along with him. Now, unfortunately, that hon. member is no longer there; now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is advised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout only has his eye on a few votes in the cities which might go to the Progs. Two-thirds of that party, as they sit there today, are inwardly unhappy about the fact that later today or tomorrow they will have to vote against this clause and in favour of the standpoint which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has adopted. After all, they know that this is so. What have hon. members said in the debate? This matter was never at issue in the debate to such an extent until the hon. the Leader of the Opposition saw an article by one of the spokesman of the party in The Argus of 6 March. It is an article written by Senator Horak. The standpoint adopted was that the United Party now stood for two things. It stood for a Select Committee to investigate legislation and for a judicial commission to carry out an investigation into certain security measures. This was also, more or less, the tenor of the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition here today. In the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Mooi River said the following—

What is he fighting? He is fighting the onslaught on the soul of the English-speaking youth in South Africa, and he expresses it as follows—

The hon. member for Green Point is now advocating a judicial commission so strongly, but just hear how watered-down is the following—

The hon. member is advocating a judicial commission so strongly, and he also strongly advocates that the investigation should be carried out on the instructions of Parliament and reporting to Parliament. In practice, however, this is such a watered-down procedure that in fact, it would not differ a great deal from what has been proposed here by the Government. That is the problem we face today as far as those hon. members are concerned. What, however, is stated in the clause? All that is stated there, is that an investigation must be instituted into internal security matters and that the report on this must be made to the State President. That is precisely what the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke said. Those were the original terms of reference. It is pointless to say that the previous commission of inquiry was first appointed as a Select Committee by Parliament and that this is now the difference between the commission in the proposed legislation and the previous commission which was appointed. After all, hon. members know that the Select Committee ceased to exist at a certain point in terms of parliamentary rules. At that point a commission of inquiry was appointed by the State President. Surely hon. members are aware of the terms of reference from the State President. Surely the hon. members read in the terms of reference that a report must be made to the State President. Have the hon. members, then, not read the other clauses of the Bill? After all, they state that a report must be made to Parliament. What is more, there is a condition that reads: “In consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. ”

Oh, really!

The hon. member for Durban Central says “Oh really”. However, he does not know what the difference means, even though he is an ex-teacher. He does not know what it means when it is stated: “After consultation” or “In consultation.” Subsection (1) therefore contains the same terms of reference in terms of which they acted and against which no objections were raised. However, the objection raised today does not arise from the points of law raised by the hon. members. I, too, now want to say to the other hon. members opposite, as the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke did: “Stand up and tell us what your standpoint is or leave the House and do not vote with your party, so that we can see where you stand; after all, we know where you stand.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I know I do not look like Alice in Wonderland, but I certainly feel like Alice in Wonderland this afternoon. To listen to the arguments of the two ex-commissioners as to what they meant or did not mean when both of them were sitting cosily together year in and year out, on the Schlebusch Commission, is really most extraordinary. Perhaps even more extraordinary are the tortuous legal arguments that one has had to listen to both from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition explaining why they are not supporting this clause. Why do they not simply come out with it in all honesty and say that they were wrong, that they should never have supported the Schlebusch Commission and that they would not make the same mistake once more? It is really as simple as that. It is no good the hon. member for Umhlatuzana trying to hide behind the flimsy legal argument that the one was a permanent committee and the other was not a permanent committee and that the one was a Select Committee and the other was a commission. In the first interim report all these things were examined. It explained why there had to be a commission. There had to be a commission because the rules of Parliament would not allow it to continue to be a Select Committee. It was also explained why it had to be a permanent commission. These things were explained in the first interim report which was signed by the hon. member for Green Point; in fact the report was unanimously signed by all the members of the United Party who sat on that commission. They have since changed their minds and they should be proud to say that they made a mistake the first time, and that they are not going to make one the second time. As I have said originally, I am very glad indeed that the Official Opposition is not going to support the setting up of a commission with the functions as laid down in clause 4. I am very glad indeed because now this new commission is going to be denied the spurious respectability which the Official Opposition at first gave the Schlebusch Commission when it agreed to serve on that commission. That respectability did not last long and that is why they have changed their minds.

Order! I hope the hon. member is not going to follow on the lines of the hon. member for Sea Point and discuss the constitution of the commission.

Sir, may I point out that I am following the arguments used by the hon.member for Umhlatuzana and the argument now used by the hon. the Deputy Minister who took the hon. member for Green Point to task for the fact that he has completely moved away from the first interim report of the Schlebusch Commission which he signed. However—never mind, Sir—I shall leave that to one side. I simply conclude that part of my argument by saying there is nothing consistent whatsoever about the attitude taken up by the United Party now and the attitude taken up by the United Party in 1972. I want to say one other thing about this. The UP is very lucky in having several interim reports to choose from—it pays its money and it takes its choice just depending on which attitude it happens to be adopting for a particular piece of legislation. If they wanted to get off the Schlebusch Commission because of the executive action taken after the first interim report of the commission appeared, there was nothing to stop them from doing so. However, they stayed on that commission until the bitter end. That is all I want to say about that.

The hon. the Prime Minister tells us that it is the duty of Parliament to examine subversive activities and subversive organizations. That is why clause 4 gives the commission the function of examining any subversive activities. I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that we pay a lot of money to keep our Police Force going and we pay a lot of money to keep BOSS going.

It is money well spent.

Well, why do they not do their job if it is money well spent?

They are doing a good job.

If they are doing such a good job, why is it necessary to have an extraneous commission composed of Parliamentarians and which is going to cost the taxpayers even more money? Last year we spent R12,5 million on BOSS and we spent R153 million on the police. I say that the function of examining subversive activities and subversive organizations belongs to those two bodies and not to Parliamentarians who have no experience in this matter other than sitting on the Schlebusch Commission, and what a mess they made of that!

Order! The hon. member must confine herself to the clause.

Well, Sir, if I may say it, I am talking about the functions of Parliamentarians and clause 4(1) lays down …

Yes, but what has Bosch—I suppose that is the rugby player, is it not—to do with it?

No, that is the function …

Any how, what has that to do with the Bill?

No, it is the function of BOSS to do what the hon. the Prime Minister is laying upon the shoulders of Parliamentarians. That is the gravamen of my argument in this case. I do not believe it is the function of Parliamentarians. I do not think that any one of us was elected with that in mind, because otherwise, believe you me, the electorate would have chosen very different representatives from the ones who are sitting here today.

As my hon. leader has said, we oppose this completely. We shall oppose this whether it is a Select Committee or a commission. We shall oppose this whether it is a temporary or a permanent body. We are opposed to the setting up of a commission of this kind whose function it is going to be to examine day in and day out the activities of citizens, to bring them forward for interrogation, for investigation, for inquisitorial procedures. I fully support what my hon. leader has said in this regard.

It is all very well for the hon. member for Green Point to say that certain people had no difficulty in appearing before the commission. It is one thing to appear before the commission if you are a professor of law, but is another thing to appear if you are a trembling student …

But you have remarked on the procedures …

… or an ordinary citizen knowing that you have no protection as is afforded in the normal courts of law. This commission is going to drag innocent citizens before it and whether these citizens are ultimately declared by the commission to be guilty of subversive action or not, or whether ultimately they are sent to the courts for sentencing, the very fact that these people have been dragged before such a commission is going to be enough to condemn them in the eyes of a gullible public. That is one of our major objections to this commission. Its method, and the secrecy in which it is going to conduct its hearings—but make no mistake about it; the people who are going to be dragged before it, will not be protected by any secrecy clause. Their names will be known far and wide as indeed the names of the organizations and the individuals who were dragged before the Schlebusch Commission were known. We have no time for this sort of organization. We do not believe it is the function of members of Parliament to carry out activities of this sort. We object strongly to the procedures from which we cannot divorce the functions of the commission itself and we are going to oppose the clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member showed very little sympathy when she discussed the clause and the amendments in question. I want to react to a few points which she made. I shall begin with the last aspect to which she referred to, namely the procedure to which the hon. member objects. According to her it would take place in secret and there would be a black mark against people’s names if they should appear before the commission. This confirms a suspicion which we have had for the past three years already, i.e. that the hon. member never took the trouble to read any of the reports, for had she done so she would never have raised these ludicrous arguments here.

I read every one of them.

In those reports only the names of those who gave permission for their names to be published, appear. In any event the Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Public Works and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, in terms of the rules relating to the commission, offered those people the opportunity to indicate whether they wanted to testify in secret or not. The identity of those people was protected at all times and as a result this absolutely ludicrous argument of the hon. member falls away.

Absolute rubbish!

This member says it is absolute rubbish, but I challenge him to read any of the reports and show me any reference to a person who did not give his permission. Furthermore, the hon. member referred to the clause as it reads at present and suggested, just as the hon. member for Sea Point did, that inquisitorial procedure is built into the legislation. I now want to ask the two hon. members whether they initially said: Look, if something like this has to be done, it should be a judicial commission. Is that not so? It is. Now I want to refer hon. members to the set-up with a judicial commission. It is very interesting that a judicial commission in England was appointed in terms of the 1921 Act. There was then a commission of inquiry into the matter. Mr. Justice Salman reported on this matter and referred to this procedure as an inquisitorial procedure. This means in legal terms that there is no accused, no defendant, no parties in the case. It means that there is no cross-examination; it means that there is no charge-sheet, and it means that there is no chance of a person being convicted. This is the position in England with reference to a judicial commission, the procedure of which is known as inquisitorial procedure. In 1949 we had a judicial commission under Judge of Appeal Van den Heever and he referred to the procedure which he adopted as inquisitorial procedure. He said that he was not referring to it in the Spanish sense, but in the sense of Common Law. It is therefore a legal procedure. My conclusion is therefore that the hon. members tried right from the word go, to place the commission under suspicion by attaching the stigma of an inquisition to it. Therefore I say that they have no ground at all to do so, for although it is true that the procedure is indeed inquisitorial, it is an honourable procedure which is related to and was created by the British Act of 1921 in connection with tribunals. As a result, we reject this argument.

Furthermore, in my opinion the hon. member for Houghton walked right into a trap. She said, in regard to the Bureau for State Security and in regard to our Police, that R12½ million, respectively, was being spent per year. The hon. member asked why they were not doing their work. If these hon. members have any respect for Parliamentary procedure, they would know that the origin of the procedure—no one knows this better than you, Mr. Chairman—was, inter alia, that the national representatives were to ensure that the government did not spend money incorrectly. Parliament and its committees have been created amongst other reasons to ensure that money is spent correctly. A commission is being created here to afford this Parliament an opportunity to carry out its functions properly. It has to ensure that the executive carries out its functions properly in the spending of R12½ million and R350 million, respectively, on security services. How may we better ensure that this is done than by making inquiries into the security situation, and appropriateness of legislation and similar matters, as is being done? For this reason, the hon. member for Houghton in my opinion has walked right into a trap.

The hon. member made a fourth point and I agree with it. She said that the members of the official Opposition had so many reports that they could pick and choose the one that suited them. Unfortunately it so happens that they have chosen a report to hide behind which is a fig-leaf, thus calling their credibility into question. The question there is—and this is actually a matter between us and the official Opposition—whether they had so much to say in the fourth report that they could be justified in standing up in this House and moving an amendment limiting inquiry only to proposed and existing legislation. If this were the case, we have to consider what these hon. members said in the fourth report, for if they said anything else in the minority report, then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—I am sorry to say this, and I say it with great respect—has taken a fig-leaf to hide behind, and is going through what we may call a “face-saving exercise”. The hon. member for Green Point told us what they think the functions of the “standing commission” functions should be. He spelled it out i.e. that it has to refer to existing legislation, has to determine whether proposed legislation should be placed before Parliament, has to hear evidence on the necessity for any further legislation dealing with State security and has to inform Parliament from time to time in respect of matters into which the committee is inquiring. If it had remained at that, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the hon. Leader of the Opposition would have been correct in their arguments. The hon. member for Mooi River and the hon. member for Green Point, however, took their arguments further and said—I shall quote to you from para. 20.5.7.16, as follows—

1. (a) A proper flow of information in security matters to members of both the Government and the Official Opposition

This is exactly the motivation which the hon. the Prime Minister offered in his Second Reading speech—

1. (b) Effective participation by Government and the Official Opposition in the responsibility for the maintenance of internal security and control of subversion to the benefit of the State.

What do they say here? This is exactly what is said in clause 4(1) which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now wants to omit. Precisely that; no more and no less. Therefore we say that the credibility of the whole Opposition is now being called in question.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, tried to cast doubts on the minority report presented by members of this side of the House. According to him our whole credibility is now at stake. I should like to tell the hon. member that if he looks carefully at this minority report, at the portion in which the functions of this standing committee which we foresee are defined, then I cannot see how the hon. member can advance that argument. If one suggests that a Select Committee like this be appointed to examine future and present legislation dealing with security from time to time, then subparagraphs (a) and (b) of para. 20.5.7.16 would immediately flow from the work which will be done by such a Select Committee. Therefore I cannot see that sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) should cause the previous paragraphs to miscarry.

If the consequences which this minority report foresaw from such a procedure, did indeed result from the Bill as the hon. the Prime Minister presented it, do you have any objection to it?

Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that our objection to clause 4 goes very much further than this point alone. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that I think Parliament performs its functions very well. I also think the hon. members who served on the Schlebusch Commission, performed their functions in an excellent way. The point which I want to make, is that this Parliament, members of the House of Assembly and of the Senate, already have so many functions to perform in connection with legislation that I cannot see why the hon. Prime Minister has this obsession that a parliamentary commission should also inspect organizations.

But you asked for it.

Yes, that was the function of the Schlebusch Commission and we played our part in connection with the Schlebusch Commisoion and we are not ashamed of it. But if we as members also have to play a part in this respect in future, why can it not be left to a judicial commission to make inquiries into organizations if necessary? It is not necessary for a Select Committee of the Parliament to have that additional function as well. There are hon. members on that side of the House who tried to create the impression that there are some of us on this side of the House who actually agree with the hon. the Prime Minister’s legislation. My name was also mentioned as I was allegedly being one of those people, and that I had made a speech at Ottosdal in which I had created that impression. Sir, what did I say? I am not going to quote my actual speech, but I am going to quote from a report of what I said which appeared in the newspapers. On that occasion I said—

What are you quoting from now?

I am quoting from the newspaper report which that hon. member quoted. I am quoting from Die Burger. I hope that the hon. the Prime Minister is satisfied with this. I have nothing more to say.

I was only asking.

It is called in question whether we do or do not support the principle of the Bill before us. But I went much further than this … I added—

I went even further and said—

And the hon. the Prime Minister today received from the hon. member for Houghton exactly what I was alluding to, i.e. the most irresponsible language. If a judicial commission makes inquiries into organizations and a Select Committee only into legislation, the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Sea Point will never be able to use this sort of irresponsible language to cast suspicion on everything in South Africa. Therefore I say to the hon. the Prime Minister that he had a wonderful opportunity here, but he did not want to use that opportunity. He could have struck a tremendous blow here for South Africa, for our legal system and for our parliamentary system, and could have completely neutralized the hon. members for Houghton and Sea Point and their minions. But the hon. the Prime Minister is playing right into the hands of those hon. members who do these things not only to get at the Government, but also to get at everything which is good and decent in South Africa. We on this side of the House, including the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, adopt an absolutely responsible attitude in regard to this sort of thing because we are not in favour of people doing things under the cloak of so-called innocent organizations to endanger South Africa, its life-style and its security. Sir, we have read all the reports of the Schlebusch Commission and it does not make good, healthy reading matter for South Africa. We know that this is the case and realize that there may be organizations acting under the cloak of innocence in South Africa. But I believe that the best way to clamp down on these people, will not be by means of clause 4, but by means of a judicial commission. Then we will be able to fulfil our role as parliamentarians because we will be dealing with legislation which comes before the House. And then no one will be able to point a finger at South Africa or at the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. No one will be able to point an accusing finger at anyone in South Africa, because it will then be realized that we are doing these things in accordance with sound democratic principles and we realize where the dividing line should be between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary in South Africa, and this is all that we on this side of the House want. If the hon. the Prime Minister does not make use of that opportunity—and he had the opportunity once again yesterday; the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked him to withdraw this legislation and produce something else in its place in order to maintain a proper division here—then he would have had the greatest measure of unity in South Africa and the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Houghton would have been voices crying in the wilderness. But now there are scores of people who think that they are speaking the truth in South Africa. Therefore I say that the hon. the Prime Minister would be acting in the interests of South Africa if he accepted the amendment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, at Ottosdal the hon. member for Newton Park made an offer to the hon. the Prime Minister, i.e. that he should amend the proposal contained in this Bill, and appoint a Select Committee. That offer was accepted by the hon. the Prime Minister. Where was the hon. member for Newton Park when the hon. the Prime Minister replied to the Second Reading debate and said that he was quite prepared to appoint a Select Committee if the Opposition would help him for the Standing Orders were not in the best interests of the smooth functioning of Parliament as far as this matter was concerned. [Interjections.] The position is that the United Party spokesmen, several of them, said—and this is actually the basis of their argument—that Parliament’s functions did not include holding inquiries into matters of State Security. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that we had never progressed beyond the first interim report. But after four reports had been presented to this House and discussed, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition still adopted this standpoint, and I quote from Hansard, 1974, Vol. 15, col. 851—

Here the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was saying that that commission actually did very good work and the United Party was completely justified in having served on it.

However, I want to go back to 1962, when a senior member of the UP, the late Senator Pilkington Jordan, adopted the same standpoint in the Other Place. This was on the occasion of the discussion of the General Law Amendment Bill in the Other Place on 13 June 1962. The Minister of Justice, who was responsible for that legislation at the time, is now the hon. the Prime Minister. That legislation dealt with sabotage, measures of restriction, etc. On that occasion the late Senator Pilkington Jordan quoted section 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa—

This is the proposal which former Senator Pilkington Jordan put forward at that stage. The then Minister of Justice said that there was a lot to be said for that argument. This once again shows the consistency of the hon. the Prime Minister. Then Senator Pilkington Jordan went on to say (Senate Hansard, 1962, col. 5077)—

This is, inter alia exactly what clause 4(1) provides—

Mr. Chairman, if according to section 31 of the Constitution, the Other Place has these powers at its disposal, why cannot the House of Assembly have the same powers too, why cannot the sovereign Parliament of South Africa have these powers at its disposal too? Mr. Chairman, in the case of Ndwlana,N.O. v. Hofmeyr and Others, in an Appeal Court judgment of 1937, the court had already found that:“Everything is at the mercy of Parliament.” In other words, Parliament is sovereign and we do not therefore have to argue about it. If Parliament is indeed sovereign, and if Parliament has all these powers at its disposal, it is obvious that it must necessarily exercise these powers. If we do not perform this task, if we do not keep watch over the safety of our people, Parliament is not fulfilling its task as Parliament, and we, as Parliamentarians are not fulfilling our duty either.

Therefore the hon. the Prime Minister is completely correct when he says that a fundamental standpoint is not being shirked here, but that a standpoint is being shirked out of fear. In the first place they shirked it because they took fright after the appearance of the interim report of the Schlebusch Commission and when action was taken against members of Nusas, and in the second place they took fright when their Press turned its back on them and launched an unprecedented attack on them. They did not have any medium in which to answer those attacks. Not only did the Press take action against them, but it stuck in their own craw. Even at this stage it is still sticking in their craw, preventing them from supporting this measure. This is their problem. They were correct all along but they did not realize that they were correct because they were overwhelmed by unsavoury publicity on the part of their own Press which turned its back upon them, as well as on the part of their own people which secretly turned their backs on them too. The result was that the whole conservative section of the United Party was thrown into confusion.

Nevertheless, at this late stage, we still want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and members of his party that—even though they do not feel happy about this measure—

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the speech by the hon. member for Brakpan. I think we have here a perfect example and illustration of what has been taking place for over two hours now in this Chamber. That is expressed in the words of the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, namely that the real debate, the real argument, is not on clause 4 of the Bill, but really on the history of the Schlebusch Commission and the involvement by the United Party in that commission, on the one hand, and its attitude towards clause 4 and towards this Bill, on the other hand. I think this was very well summed up by the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior when he referred to the dilemma of the official Opposition. We have listened to this, almost ad nauseam this afternoon, and also during the Second Reading of this Bill. No one has demonstrated this better than perhaps the hon. member for Newton Park. He is well known as someone who is a great and strong supporter of the Schlebusch Commission, of its ideas, of its procedures, of its methods and of its findings. Since he used this opportunity, not to debate the clause, but to attack members of this party, I think that I have the right to respond. The hon. member for Newton Park, many other members of his party and members on the other side of the House are continually making sly insinuations that the members of this party—they even make outright statements to that effect—do not have the interest of South Africa at heart … [Interjections.] Quite predictably, Mr. Chairman, there we have it again! It is being said that we are not concerned about the internal security of this country … [Interjections.] … and as a result, of course, in an attempt to overshadow the involvement of that party in the nefarious Schlebusch/Le Grange Commission they attack us and suggest that, if only the hon. the Prime Minister had acted differently, if only his strategy had been different, if only he had been wise enough to bring different legislation, he would have been supported by this side, and we would have been left in the desert. [Interjections.] Unfortunately, we have here, of course, the hon. member for Newton Park and his party drowned in the floods of remorse and in the floods of the past that have caught up with them. For them there is no future whatsoever. [Interjections.]

What about the UCM?

The hon. member has read about the UCM, or parts of it. The dilemma of the United Party has been clearly demonstrated in the debate so far, but there is still a further dilemma, the dilemma which the hon. the Deputy Minister for the Interior has referred to. When one looks at clause 4, one becomes aware of the dilemma of the Government as well. That is that they have taken a chance, that they are going to introduce a permanent commission in terms of this Bill, and in particular in terms of clause 4, in the hope that it will get the support of at least the official Opposition, or the majority of the members of the Opposition, and split that party wide open—which, of course, is very close to happening right now. [Interjections.] The dilemma is, of course, that it has not happened. What can the hon. the Prime Minister do now in order to save the situation? What can the Opposition do to try to save themselves? Our own record in these benches is absolutely consistent, and that is that we have rejected this approach from the word “Go”! We have rejected the Schlebusch Commission, we have rejected its whole procedure and whole method of operation, and therefore we are consistent in our rejection of the legislation. I want to say, together with the hon. members for Sea Point and Houghton, that we reject clause 4 in toto. I want to refer to a few of the words in the actual clause. As far as the words “The Commission shall investigate matters …”are concerned, we are not at all sure as to how these matters are going to be investigated, because it will be a secret commission.

If you are not interested, why do you want to know?

I am arguing against the clause; just listen and you might learn something. We do not know how and what is going to take place, because the meetings of the commission will be in secret, and therefore we reject it utterly. The second aspect is the matters which are going to be investigated. We are not at all sure what these matters are going to be. They could cover a very wide range indeed. It is not a mere coincidence that the four organizations, which have been investigated so far, have all been very strong in their opposition to the Government and its policies. If we take that as a yardstick, are we to be blamed if we begin to wonder if this kind of permanent security commission will be used to “investigate” and pursue also other groups who may well be in direct opposition to the policies and procedures of the Government, including members sitting on these benches? We have no guarantee whatsoever that the commission will start at a certain point. We also disagree strongly with the extension of the powers in subsection (2) of this clause. When we think for example of the investigation of the Institute of Race Relations, one realizes that because of its stand we, in these benches, face the dilemma that we know that to oppose the Government is to take a definite stand on the destiny and future of this country. We are divided as to what that destiny is and because we may be divided on this, it may well be that we too are regarded, as is so often interjected in this House, as enemies of South Africa whereas what we are talking about is best for the future of South Africa. My last words on this Clause is to say … [Interjections.]

Order! I can hear the hon. member but I cannot see him because the hon. member for Johannesburg North has crossed the line.

I would therefore urge the hon. the Prime Minister to think again about the way he is going about promoting the internal security of South Africa. This clause of the Bill before us is an example of how we have our priorities wrong in South Africa. If we would have a commission to really start changing that legislation which discriminates again and again against the majority of its people, then we would be using the taxpayer’s money far more wisely. Then we would have internal security as we have never seen in this land before. A commission, which is to be made up out of Nationalist politicians, who is going to operate on a permanent basis, is not a commission which this country can afford, and we therefore reject this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands deemed it fit to enter into this debate and said that this permanent commission, having the functions set out in clause 4(1), had wide powers and could undertake investigations of a diversified nature. I think the hon. member for Pinelands will concede that the investigations referred to in clause 4(1), as I have already said, are similar to the investigations undertaken by the Schlebusch Commission. Since the hon. member is conceding this now, surely he has very good experience of precisely what the work is which was done by the Schlebusch Commission and of what they investigated. Let us be frank with one another today, because I think we should speak frankly: Did the hon. member himself not say before the commission, when we confronted him with certain matters which were being investigated against the University Christian Movement, that he had not seen the matter in that light at the time, because if he had seen it in that light he would not have gone along with it? In the same manner I want to come back to the hon. Opposition. We are dealing with the matter of conducting investigations in terms of clause 4(1), and I should like to point out to hon. members that the hon. the Prime Minister went out of his way in his reply to the Second Reading debate to leave certain openings for the Official Opposition. Before the hon. the Prime Minister replied to the Second Reading debate, the Official Opposition announced far and wide that they were the great disciples of a Select Committee, as the hon. member for Newton Park said at Ottosdal on a visit to see the flood damages. It surprises me that the hon. member for Durban Point is not here today, nor the hon. member for Mooi River and that the hon. member for Albany has been “zipped” and cannot say anything at all. These are all hon. members who waxed lyrical about their willingness to accept a Select Committee.

Then what did we find? The hon. the Prime Minister then said that they could have a Select Committee. They only had to say how they wanted to have it. The only condition made by the hon. the Prime Minister, was that the Select Committee was to investigate the inner workings of certain organizations too. The hon. the Prime Minister went further and said to the hon. Opposition: The ball is in your court; if you stand with us as far as the matter of internal security is concerned, you must come forward with proposals. What is happening today in pursuance of the hon. the Prime Minister’s offer that the hon. Opposition was to come forward with proposals? What proposals did we get from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? He proposes that we delete clause 4(1) and does not offer anything in its place. The hon. members were correct when they said they would accept a Select Committee. Let us consider this for a moment. The hon. member for Vereeniging referred to it, but this illustrates the illogicality of the argument of those hon. members, viz., if they are so keen to have a Select Committee to investigate legislation, I have to ask hon. members this: On what grounds does a Select Committee investigate legislation? Are these not investigations which were conducted by other commissions with regard to legislation which come from departments and from the executive? Is it not hon. Ministers who rise in this House and refer legislation to Select Committees for further investigation? Investigations are conducted and then the legislation follows. We cannot understand their point that legislation be investigated if no investigation is conducted first in order to obtain a basis for the legislation. I should like to tell the hon. member for Green Point that I know him and that we worked hard together on that commission, but that I bitterly regret the attitude of the hon. member today. Against the background of what we had discussed together, which I am not prepared to divulge today, I did not think the hon. member would adopt this running away attitude in this House. I say that I deeply regret the fact that the hon. member is doing this. In this regard I should not like to refer to the things which we discussed together in confidence and which resulted in the hon. the Minister of Community Development being on National Party side. Those hon. members themselves stated in their minority report that certain things were a subject of discussion among the commissioners throughout. Would the hon. member deny that this is stated in their minority report? But what do we find today? That hon. member and the hon. member for Mooi River go against the weight of their convictions and fall in with a standpoint of the Leader of the Opposition that organizations should not be investigated. And, Sir, this is even worse; those same hon. members, and other members of the Opposition, were secretly, and at times not so secretly, but openly grateful for the fact that these investigations were being conducted. Some of them said to me: “It is time we clamped down on these Nusas boys. Something must be done.” I see that the hon. member for Newton Park is smiling. I leave it at that. Those hon. members were as convinced as we were that organizations should be investigated. They hinted at it. The hon. member for Mooi River participated in the Second Reading debate with his tongue in his cheek. Afterwards he still made Press statements. He even went as far as saying that he wanted to have organizations investigated, and this is what clause 4(1) wants us to do. He said he wanted this, because he has to report back to his voters, and if the Press reported him correctly, he said he would perhaps have to leave politics.

What clause are you discussing now?

I am dealing with clause 4(1), which deals with the investigation of organizations and the authorization for investigations. Sir, I should like to tell the hon. member for Green Point that the standpoint he is taking up today, is not worthy of him, in the light of the long way he has come with us in this matter.

Mr. Chairman, what we have been arguing about in this debate is what the duty should be of Parliamentarians, and whether they should serve on the permanent commission which the hon. the Prime Minister wishes to create, or not. Our argument has been that those duties should be confined to investigations in connection with proposed or existing legislation or associated procedures. The attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister has been that they should be very much wider, and that they should be able to investigate organizations, persons and other matters. In conducting that argument we have heard a lot about what has happened in the past. We have heard very little about what should happen or what would be in the best interests of South Africa. The point I want to make, and make very strongly, is that the attitude that we are taking up on this side of the House is that we are acting in accordance with recommendations made by our commissioners after their experience on that commission. Not only was it their recommendation after experience on that commission, but it was the line which we took at the very beginning when the first Select Committee was appointed in this House. We have had no help whatever from the Progressive Party in this respect, except for their continued prating that they have been right all the time and that we were wrong. The one person who was not right all the time was the hon. member for Houghton, because she felt that these organizations should not be examined or looked into at all, by a judicial commission or otherwise, so the less we hear from her, the better.

Then, Sir, the hon. member for Brakpan came up with the suggestion that I had said that this work could not be done by the police, and that the commission had done good work. Of course I said that the commission had done good work, and of course I said that the work could not be done by the police. But why did the hon. member not refer to all that I had said? In the very speech which he quoted, I said (Hansard, Vol. 50, col. 839)—

Then, a few lines away from where the hon. gentlemen quoted me, in col. 850, I had this to say—

Sir, that has been our attitude. No one has attacked the use of a judicial commission. No one has said why we should not have a judicial commission to do this sort of work. No one has said that a Select Committee would be better than a judicial commission, or that a Select Committee converted into a commission or a commission of Parliamentarians would be better than a judicial commission. No one has told us why legislators should take on work which is essentially the work of the executive. The hon. the Prime Minister stands up here and says it is the duty of members of Parliament to inform themselves. Yes, Sir, it is their duty to inform themselves in order to legislate intelligently.

We argued that as long ago as 1972.

Exactly, Sir. We have argued it on many occasions, and no one has yet answered my question. What have we had from the hon. the Prime Minister? He has said that we do not want organizations investigated. We never said that, Sir. We said that if you are going to investigate an organization, it is the job of a judicial commission and not the job of members of this House. The hon. the Prime Minister says that he made an offer to us across the floor of the House. That was referred to by the hon. member for Brakpan. What did the hon. the Prime Minister say? He wanted a body consisting of Parliamentarians to investigate organizations, and he did not mind whether we called it a Select Committee or whether we called it a permanent commission. What offer is that? Our whole objection from the start was that we did not feel that this was work which should be done by members of Parliament. That is still our feeling, and that is why I have moved this amendment to clause 4. I have done so in order to make it perfectly clear that if the hon. the Prime Minister wants a Select Committee or a body consisting of Parliamentarians to do work in connection with existing or future legislation connected with security, or associated procedures, he has had our offer from the beginning. We will assist him and we will help him, because that is the job of legislators. However, if he wants them to do something else, for instance to investigate any organization indicated by the State President, who is advised by the executive, or to investigate any organization or person he wants to know about, then I say that that is not the job of legislators in this House. Our job is to legislate, to pass laws and to have the right information when we pass those laws.

When did you first find that out? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I read to the hon. the Prime Minister what I said in 1972 when he first appointed this committee. I said then that it should be a judicial commission. However, we agreed to serve because we thought we could help. After our experience we said that we had been right at the beginning, that it should have been a judicial commission and that it should not have been a Select Committee. We stand exactly there today.

Now, does the hon. the Prime Minister want this matter of security handled efficiently in South Africa, or does he not? If he does, and he wants a Select Committee to do this job, he will have the full co-operation of the Opposition in regard to legislation, existing and proposed, and associated procedures. If he wants to know about organizations or he feels that things are happening which should not be happening and he wants to appoint a judicial commission to investigate those matters, the Opposition will support him. He can then examine those matters and he can bring back his report. Then we will know what the position is. But if the hon. the Prime Minister wants to stand on his right to take executive action without recourse to the courts, then we say he should have those matters reviewed by a judicial tribunal. It is as simple as that. That, very largely, is the effect of this amendment. If this amendment is not accepted, we want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister now that we will not serve on this permanent commission and we will have no further interest in this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, with all respect, I cannot follow the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He did in fact refer to the speech he had made in 1972, but after that various reports have appeared. What happened to those reports? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s caucus supported the members who served on this commission. What is more, they had it endorsed by their congress. But now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest to us that he adopted a consistent attitude. Our argument against him is that the attitude he adopted, has not been consistent throughout. Our argument is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and those who supported him on this commission, deviated from their original viewpoint. This remains the standpoint of the House. We have not yet received a satisfactory reply to it. As long as we do not receive a satisfactory reply to it, we are unable to move closer to one other. For that reason we have to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again to consider the reports published by the members who served on the commission, and to consider especially the fourth interim report. Then the question is simply whether or not the amendment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is in accordance with that report. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana and other hon. members said the amendment is in line with the report. In fact, they took it amiss of the hon. the Prime Minister for not mentioning this report. This causes us to come to the justified conclusion that those hon. members stand by the fourth interim report.

Let me put the matter to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in a different way. Suppose, for example, that the commission he wants to instruct, in terms of his amendment, only to investigate proposed legislation, is instructed to investigate an institution such as Nusas to determine whether certain of its members have violated the State security measures. If the commission were to find that certain laws had been violated, the matter would of course, as far as the commission is concerned, be settled by means of a report. Suppose, however, the terms of reference were to go further and state that, should the commission be of the opinion that the institution constitute a danger to the country, the commission would have to recommend whether legislation was needed. The hon. member for Mooi River maintained that sufficient legislation should exist and the hon. member for Green Point supported him. When the hon. member for Durban Point was still here, he said he would always support the idea that sufficient State security legislation should exist. The question arises as to whether the commission should recommend which measures are needed should it be found that sufficient measures did not exist. To arrive at this point, the facts should be considered very carefully.

We have had numerous Select Committees here. For instance, we had one investigating the question of town planning and development. The terms of reference of that Select Committee were to investigate the relevant circumstances and eventually to recommend legislation should they find that further legislation was required. That Select Committee never recommended any legislation. However, certain reports were laid upon the Table of the House by means of which information was made available to the hon. members, information which led to further discussions with various planning authorities.

Therefore, here we have a very fine example of what could happen if the general terms of reference are that investigations should be conducted whether or not legislation is required. Something of this nature cannot be tackled without considering the facts. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to my mind, is making the mistake of wanting by means of his amendment to limit the interpretation of this legislation for more than the furnishing of information to Parliament. He wants to interpret it in this way. However, when he wants to fulfil his duty in terms of the following clause one day and has to consider reports in conjunction with the hon. the Prime Minister, he will most probably say that legislation is absolutely necessary when recommendations are made; any other information, although it is in the interests of the country, should not be raised. This is why clause 4(1) is the crux of the whole matter. We concede that this could give rise to legislation. Of course, we want to consider laws dealing with actions affecting the State, but everything starts with investigations and information. Hon. members of the Opposition who still have to participate in this debate must please state whether they object in any way to steps which have been taken concerning information which was revealed in the fourth report, i.e. that the information concerning State security was made available to Parliament. The hon. members did not reply to that. How can one debate a matter if they do not reply when one confronts them with hard facts? As long as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s interpretation is that only information concerning legislation is relevant, this section would be rendered completely useless. This would also prejudice those State security measures which have to be taken by the executive from time to time. The amendment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition indicates that he wants to make political capital out of this, in this sense that he can say that he will not concede fully to the requests of the Government. However, he underestimates the situation. What are the facts? The facts of the matter are that the reputations of the hon. the Minister of Public Works and the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior would been prejudiced if the activities of this commission concerning State security and the reports had come under suspicion. However, the image we have of them was not prejudiced in any way. On the contrary. They have grown in stature. In 1974 the electorate was able to indicate at the ballot-box whether those hon. members were in disfavour, but they did not. In other words, what happened was a confirmation of the medium of investigation which had been created for the broad consideration of the matter of State security. Everybody concerned with this, therefore completely underestimated the electorate. They read the electorate wrongly.

Order! Before I call upon the next hon. member to address the Committee, I must draw hon. members’ attention to Standing Order No. 63. I hope they will observe that Standing Order.

Mr. Chairman, I shall do my best. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West urges us to read the reports of the Schlebusch Commission. I do not think that is necessary advice for anyone. What we would really like to read is the evidence that was given to the Schlebusch Commission. That is something we have been waiting for for years and years. Is there any possibility that we are ever going to get that evidence? Until we have that evidence, I certainly cannot reply to the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke’s attack on my colleague, the hon. member for Pinelands. I shall have to leave that to him.

Mr. Chairman, what interests me in clause 4—and I trust you notice how pertinently I am observing the ruling—is to know which matters, which this commission of parliamentarians is going to be empowered to investigate, do, in fact, affect the security of the State. We have to look at precedents otherwise we cannot discuss this matter. Now, if I look at the use that has been made of the Government’s Draconian powers, ostensibly in the interests of the security of the State, and we recall some of the names of the people banned year after year, it seems to me that there is hardly any matter whatsoever that would not qualify for investigation in terms of clause 4. I sometimes gain the impression, when listening to hon. members on the other side describing the activities of this party of which I have the honour to be a member, that they think we need investigating. How absurd can this kind of situation get!

My mind goes back to the investigations of the Schlebusch Commission—and here I am quoting a precedent again—into the activities of the Institute of Race Relations. I take it this is the kind of activity this commission is going to investigate. If there was ever a Simon-pure body in this world, dedicated to evolutionary change and implacably opposed to any form of violence and revolution, it is the Institute of Race Relations. I know because I have been associated with it for more than a generation. It was nevertheless investigated, and I take it that the commission that we are talking about today is going to do the same kind of thing to other bodies. The institute’s staff and officers were put to infinite trouble and expense and they were placed under tremendous strain. It is no good telling us that this commission, which is going to be set up here, is only going to investigate people who are guilty. How does one know? The fact that the commission found absolutely nothing against the institute is not the point, and neither is this the point of any future investigations either. The point of that investigation was that in the eyes of the stupid, the prejudiced and the malicious the institute was smeared and brought under suspicion, and to that extent it was damaged. This is what I am afraid could happen to equally harmless individuals, organizations and bodies if this witch-hunting tribunal of party politicians comes into being. That is one of the reasons why I am utterly opposed to this commission. On the basis of past experience, I argue that in terms of clause 4 the way is going to be open to well-nigh indiscriminate persecution of individuals and bodies, and I am choosing my words carefully. We are being told by hon. members on the other side that it is necessary for the State to act before a crime is committed, and that is why we are going to have the investigations of this commission referred to in clause 4.

The hon. the Prime Minister has told us that anyone who imagines that the courts alone can keep South Africa safe is being naive. With great respect, the reply to that, if I may say so, is that under this Government the courts have to a degree already been bypassed when it comes to security matters. There have been bannings, detention without trial, people held incommunicado and house arrests. All this and more bypasses the courts, so the courts have already been bypassed as far as this is concerned. Now we are to take the process further by investigations that will almost inevitably, I submit, foster a climate of suspicion, fear and hostility. We are told that a commission of this nature must come into being to act before crimes are committed. “Hulle moet in die kiem gesmoor word” is a phrase that has been used, I think, to describe this. The investigations for which clause 4 provides are clearly going to involve compelling people to divulge their intentions whether these intentions are innocent or otherwise, and the only way this can effectively be done is by a form of political third degree—what else? How else is this going to be done? I submit that the investigation of matters which are thought to affect the internal security of the State will, under the circumstances, involve a degree of compulsion. Even if it is only psychological compulsion, it will nevertheless be compulsion. This is another reason why we object to this clause. Once one starts along that road, and one really persuades oneself that the security of the State is involved, where does one stop? Where does one draw the line? In all seriousness are we really, in the year 1976, going to go back to the Star Chamber methods of centuries ago? That is the essential issue involved in clause 4. This is the sort of thing, I fear, that the civilized world is going to say about this clause, and the consequences of such suspicion, I submit, need not be elaborated upon.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to reply first of all to the hon. member for Sea Point. I want to take the greatest exception to the fact that the hon. member for Sea Point referred to the Schlebusch/Le Grange Commission as an inquisition. Not one iota of evidence has been produced in this House that that Commission in any way acted wrongly or illegally, that it did not give each and everybody who appeared before it the opportunity to be represented by an attorney and counsel and that witnesses were not at all times protected as if in a court of law. I think it was grossly irresponsible of the hon. member to stand up in this House and, without producing any evidence whatsoever, to smear members who served on that commission by calling the commission an inquisition.

The smear went further this afternoon when the hon. member for Pinelands insinuated that one of the aims or objects of this commission would be to investigate, among others, the PRP. I am very tempted to say to the hon. member that he need not have any fear that the PRP will be investigated, because this commission will only investigate organizations which have a policy. [Interjections.] Therefore, right from the word go, the hon. member’s party is out of it. In a serious vein, though, I must point out that it is certainly not the intention of this commission, as it was not the intention of the Schlebusch/Le Grange Commission, to investigate political parties.

*The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is losing sight of the fact that we debated the question of the participation of parliamentarians in a commission of this nature in 1972 already. Sir, in terms of the rules of this House you will not allow me to argue this matter again now, but you will allow me just to say that I spelt it out at the time—it is recorded in Hansard—that apart from the object which was attained with the investigations and the good work which commissions of inquiry have done and are doing, one of the objectives is to keep Parliament informed. The hon. the Leader will also recall that I said it was an impossible task to keep the entire Parliament informed. One can, however, keep a committee of Parliament informed, and the entire object is to keep a committee of Parliament informed as that when the matters are subsequently discussed in this House, directly or indirectly, there are members who will have acquired an intimate, personal knowledge of these matters. Surely this is, inter alia, one of the objects.

But hon. members threw up all kinds of smoke-screens in this regard. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana spoke of a “substantial opinion” which was opposed to participation by parliamentarians. Where is that public opinion reflected at its best? It is reflected at its best in the draft resolutions before the congresses of political parties. This matter has been before the public continuously from 1972 to 1975. I have never seen it mentioned in any newspapers, but hon. members could set me straight by telling me whether there were ever any draft resolutions before the congresses of the United Party to the effect that it was wrong of members of the United Party to participate in the Schlebusch Commission.

Yes.

Were there draft resolutions condemning the actions of the hon. members for Green Point and Mooi River because they had participated, not in such a Select Committee, but in such a commission with the widest possible powers? The powers of that commission—as is apparent from the Gazette which established the commission in July 1972—were as boundless as the grace of God. If there was such an uproar among the public and if public opinion was so opposed to it, why were there no draft resolutions in this regard before the party congresses of the hon. members, or did they conceal them?

We knew that the work which the committee was doing was only temporary. [Interjections.]

Must I deduce from that that there were no draft resolutions? Were there none? Then the hon. member’s benchmate said “yes” too soon.

There were in the Transvaal.

That the hon. member says there were draft resolutions in the Transvaal, I find interesting. Were they adopted?

No.

The hon. member says that the draft resolutions were not adopted. If such a draft resolution is not adopted, surely there is no public opinion in that regard. Sir, now you can observe how every straw is clutched at and how ridiculous arguments are advanced when one has had a fright. The other ridiculous argument which has now emerged, is this: For 3½ years we served on the commission, but because it was temporary, the principle was not wrong. This is the argument that is being advanced, as if a principle is influenced by temporariness or permanence. If one only steals temporarily, one is not a thief. [Interjections.] One has to steal permanently to be able to be a thief. What kind of argument is that?

Some hon. members on the opposite side say that this thick report contains a great deal of information, and I agree with that. They say it contains a vast amount of information, but the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South says that it meant nothing. This is how they blow hot and cold and sit on two stools. This is the kind of conduct we had from the hon. members opposite. But I have asked this question umpteen times: Where does the minority report recommend the omission of the appointment of a permanent commission that has to report to the State President? I am still waiting for the answer. Nowhere in the minority report is it recommended that the appointment of a permanent commission that has to report to the State President be omitted.

You are arguing like Harry Schwarz.

No. However, I do find it strange that the hon. member is now referring to the hon. member for Yeoville with so much contempt. There was a time when you applauded him. What is more: There was a time when you even swallowed Mahlabatini for his sake. You should not, now that he has left, cast suspicion on him. After all, he is the only one among you who has remained consistent. I want to say that to his credit. Sir, all the minority report did was to prescribe a different function for the permanent commission, and that function you find in clause 4(2) of this Bill. If I had introduced this legislation in January 1973, when the recommendations were made to me, subsection (2) would not have formed part of the Bill, because it became part of the Bill as a result of the recommendations of the thick, final Nusas report. Therefore the hon. member is correct on the one hand when he says: “It amplified the first report”. I then added that it did not withdraw what had originally been recommended. Sir, if we had introduced legislation in January or February of 1973, it would have been a permanent commission, and not a Select Committee, and that hon. member would have voted for it.

Sir, the hon. members are at liberty, they have every right to do so, to change their minds, but in heaven’s name why do they not tell us? Why do they not say: “Look, we have changed our minds as a result of the strife in our own ranks, as a result of the blows meted out to us by the hon. member for Bezuiden-hout.” Just look at the reasoning of the hon. member for Newton Park. He is concerned because the members of the Progressive Party will make propaganda out of this matter. Good heavens, Mr. Speaker, surely we know them. Surely they will make propaganda out of any good cause. That is what they are here for. One need not tire oneself unnecessarily over those hon. members, over a temporary phenomenon in this House. And now the hon. members are being stampeded by a green pea that is being shot at them through a peashooter, and they are fleeing because this is being done to them by the hon. members over there. But in a more serious vein: I do not mind hon. members changing their minds, but the hon. member for Green Point should not ascribe motives to me and level insinuations at me. The hon. member acted very piously today. The hon. member is a senior jurist, and I now want a very clear answer to this question from him: Why does he refer only to the actions of the executive in respect of the members of Nusas? After all, the executive also acted in other ways with reference to these reports. Surely the executive also took action after the Wilgespruit report. Does he condemn that as well? Surely the executive also took action against the Christian Institute, and the executive also took action of a different kind against Nusas. What is more, and it is time I said this across the floor of this House: Surely the hon. member, as a senior jurist, ought surely to know that the courts have on innumerable occasions said that any adult is deemed to have willed the consequences of his deeds. Let him now go back and read again what he recommended in regard to the eight members of Nusas against which the Minister took action at the time. I protected the hon. member; I protected him at all times by making it very clear that it had been the executive which had taken action and not the commission. But now I want to tell the hon. member across the floor of this House that if that propaganda had not been made, the hon. member would not have said a single word about the action taken against Nusas.

What is more, and I want to make this very clear to the hon. member: No adult person who was acquainted with the politics of South Africa, who was acquainted with the legislation that had been piloted through this House, and who knew the circumstances under which and in what way administrative action had been taken against people, would have thought otherwise but that these factors were a recommendation for administrative action. There is no doubt about that at all. Therefore I want to tell the hon. member that if he changed his mind, it is his business; it has nothing to do with me, but then he should not rise piously to his feet in this House and hurl insinuations of breach of faith, etc., at me. If that agitation had not immediately developed, the hon. member would not have acted in the way he did. One need only look at Hansard in that regard, and I am prepared to argue the matter on a subsequent occasion. My standpoint is that it is the right and the duty of Parliament.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana made the insinuation that this commission should simply be left at that. There is another argument as well which I want to refute and which I am now becoming a little tired of. It is the argument that the commission was supposedly respectable only because hon. members on the opposite side participated in it. Hon. members will recall very well that it was I, in the first place, who proposed a Select Committee; hon. members opposite rejected it, but I proceeded with it in spite of that. I was pleased that they served on it, but if they had not served on it, I would have proceeded with it nevertheless. Now I want to tell hon. members that I have asked them very nicely to participate again now, in the same way as they participated in the past. But they are now saying “No”. I am not going to beg them to do their duty. If they do not want to co-operate, there are hon. members in this House who will co-operate. There will be hon. members of this Parliament who see it as their duty to co-operate. When hon. members stated in the first place that they did not go along with this, I never reproached them when they subsequently did go along with it. But I am in earnest about this matter, and I am grateful for the good work which this commission did. I want to go further by saying the following: By virtue of its composition and in view of the fact that we were dealing here with people who are able to form an opinion of political organizations, this commission did better work than a judicial commission could ever have done, seen in the light of the circumstances and of the matters we were dealing with. Therefore I am not ashamed that this Parliament wishes to avail itself of the advice of hon. members who will furnish this House with a report after they have investigated certain organizations, just as I was not ashamed of the report which Messrs. Murray, Sutton and my hon. friends on this side of the House furnished in regard to the various organizations they investigated.

For that reason, and the other reasons which I have mentioned, I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and under the circumstances I am proceeding with the Bill. I am aware—and I believe the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is also aware—that there was a lot of random and undisciplined talk and that people said that the only difference between him and me was that he wanted to do by means of a Select Committee what I wanted to do by means of a commission. There are hon. members who made it widely known that the only difference between them and us was that if I were to make the concession of a Select Committee, there would be no difference between us. I made my offer to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition openly across the floor of this House. It is his responsibility if he does not wish to accept that offer, or does not wish to co-operate in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that no senior member of the official Opposition rose to reply to the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to say that the members in these benches agree with the hon. the Prime Minister on one point entirely, namely that it is obviously clear that when words such as “urgent action” are used in a report, in a background of an investigation which, as the hon. member for Green Point has put it, wished in the end to put an end to activities of certain students on a campus, that it was quite clear at the time what was intended by those words. It was quite clear at that time that all the commissioners in fact intended that administrative action should take place. I found it very interesting that the hon. the Prime Minister took exception to the word “inquisition” being used. I also noticed that various other members had something to say about that during the course of of this debate. The hon. the Prime Minister said they were harsh words. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said they were an exaggeration.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West said there were no grounds for calling the Commission an inquisition. Later the hon. the Prime Minister took grave exception to the use of the words by the hon. member for Sea Point and said that no evidence had been presented that witnesses had not been fully protected. I now ask hon. member, in the light of what I said in the Second Reading debate: How is it possible to bring evidence of what happened to witnesses before that commission to this House if this Government refuses to publish the full and verbatim record of that commission? How is it possible to bring evidence of what happened before that commission when the people who were interrogated by the commission—some of whom have already left the country in fear, and others of whom are too frightened to speak today—how can one call upon any person to bring evidence of malhearing before a commission when the rules of that commission are such that one may not reveal what went on inside? I think, therefore, it is absolutely wrong to make a statement such as has been made tonight.

The word “inquisition”, in relation to this commission which is proposed and in relation to the proceedings as set out in clause 4(1), is a very apt word to use. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines “inquisition” as: “the action or process of inquiry, the searching into matters; a search, an investigation, an examination, a scrutiny, an inspection.” Of course, the 13th century definition, some 600 years ago, was “an ecclesiastical tribunal for the suppression of heresy and political opponents”. I found it very interesting to listen to the hon. the Prime Minister saying now that it is his belief that the Schlebusch Commission did far better than a judicial tribunal could ever have done. Let us look at what could have happened in a commission, such as we have experienced and will experience, and what would have happened before a judicial tribunal or in a court of law. In a court of law, a person who has to appear knows whether he is an accused or whether he is a witness for the prosecution or for the defence. He knows this in advance. In this Commission it is not known by the person who appears. Secondly, a witness in a Court knows that he cannot be convicted and that he cannot be sentenced without being convicted. He also knows that when he goes into a court …

A judicial commission cannot sentence anybody either.

That is correct, but a commission can make recommendations from which actions are taken by the executive of this Parliament. He knows that if he is an accused person in a court of law, evidence is led by his own attorney, or by the State attorney if he is a witness for the prosecution. He knows that if his evidence is not entirely satisfactory, his own attorney can re-examine him to bring forward his evidence in a better light and to give it greater credibility. He knows that his attorney has the right of cross-examination. None of these things is done as of right within this commission. In a court, for instance, he knows the identity of his accuser, whereas in a commission such as this, he may not even know that. He would not even know the origin of the documents which are put before him; he would not know their origin, their history or their significance. In a court he could not have quotations thrown at him without his knowing where they come from.

If he is unfairly treated in a court of law, his attorney can intercede on his behalf. His attorney can see to it that the law is followed. His attorney can even sum up his arguments, which, indeed, before this commission is not allowed. Mr. Chairman, I say there is a vast difference between a judicial commission and this commission and between this commission and a court of law.

Years ago, some 600 years ago in fact, an inquisition was an ecclesiastical institution organized to detect and to punish heretics, unrepentent heretics. Heresy later became known as treason. The procedure—and I may utilize the clause for this purpose—of investigation was that the inquisitors called for statements, that the judges were high priests and bishops. Today they are Parliamentarians.

All these things go to show that there is in fact a relationship between this commission and an inquisition as such. I think that it is quite wrong to take offence. If we are talking of honesty, why do we not just call this The Inquisition Bill? [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I noticed … [Interjections.]

Order! I know it is difficult to listen to yet another hon. member at this stage, but hon. members should please give the hon. member a fair chance.

I noticed, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Kuruman during the course of this debate said on several occasions: “Your only reason for opposing this Bill is that you want to protect communists.” That was the sort of thing that was said here. I want to say that a commission of this sort, with these investigatory powers, is not necessary to detect, find and punish communists. There is sufficient legislation for that. The Schlebusch Commission, with all the fanfare, detected no communists in any of its investigations.

I want to say that it is not the purpose, in opposing this clause, to protect undesirable, alien communists. It is a principle which is at stake, the principle that the individual, if he is accused of anything, has the right to appear before an ordinary court of law and is not punishable, except for a distinct offence. Mr. Chairman, unless that principle can be adopted and unless that principle can be protected by this Parliament and by this country, we are going to see a situation develop in which the rights of individuals are going to be submerged in the interests of an all-powerful State. Once that stage is reached one is going down the road of authoritarianism, on a road which will only lead to the direct opposite of what one seeks to protect, i.e. the freedom of the individual and of democracy, in which we all say we believe.

On amendment (1) moved by Sir De Villiers Graaff,

Question put: That the subsection stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—87: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.,

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—38: Aronson, T.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—87: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, Z. P.; Lighthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treumicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—38: Aronson, T.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and T. G. Hughes.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

I now put clause 5.

On a point of order: Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not moved that the Committee revert to clause 1 after having disposed of clause 4?

The procedure is that when it has been decided that any clause or clauses of a Bill stand over, such clause or clauses have to stand over until all subsequent clauses have been disposed of.

In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 5, in line 27, to omit “after” and to substitute “in”;
2. (2) on page 5, in line 32, to omit “after” and to substitute “in”.

Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated to you, the amendment to clause 4 having been defeated, we have no more interest in this Bill and I doubt whether we shall debate any other of the clauses.

Mr. Chairman, as the leader of my party has indicated, it is our intention to oppose every clause of the Bill in order to show our complete rejection of this Bill. Therefore we intend opposing clause 5 as well. We do not believe that the amendment moved by the hon. the Prime Minister makes a great deal of difference to this clause. I know he did it in an effort to entice the official Opposition to join him in his new permanent Schlebusch Commission, but that has been rejected. In any event, I do not think that it makes very much difference whether the hon. the Prime Minister decides with or without the advice of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to table or not to table the reports of the commission or to table or not to table portions of such reports. We shall therefore vote against the clause.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.