Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has emerged from the Committee Stage without any material change whatever, notably to clauses 4 and 12, to which we had particular objection at Second Reading. Clause 4, which we fought very severely in the Committee Stage, remained unchanged. Because that is so it seems that, with the passage of this Bill, there will be an end to any chance of a bipartisan approach in a certain portion of the field of internal security. Admittedly it is not a very wide part of the field of internal security, but it is a part of that field where it might have been possible to find bipartisan agreement. What was significant was that in laying down his terms in the Second Reading debate, more particularly in his reply to the arguments advanced by this side of the House, the Prime Minister sought to introduce into the discussion his attachment to executive powers concerning individuals and organizations which are not subject to review by any court or judicial tribunal. That preference made one wonder what connection the hon. the Prime Minister saw between legislation before us and his use of those executive powers. It seemed that the inference was obvious, namely that he associated the two and that he saw them in some measure as being auxiliary functions.

No; that is where you are wrong. I never said that.

I know the hon. the Prime Minister did not say so, but I think it is a very logical conclusion …

As a matter of fact, I said the exact opposite.

No, Sir. The hon. the Prime Minister started off in his reply by drawing attention to this particular matter.

Mr. Speaker, the proper subject for discussion during the Third Reading of a Bill is the effect of the legislation. I think that when one looks at the effect of this legislation the debit side heavily outweighs the credit side, if there is any credit side at all. The first effect is one which we have already noticed, namely a breakdown of the bipartisan approach in a certain limited area of internal security. A second effect will be that because of that breakdown of a bipartisan approach it will not be possible for the Opposition to be accused of having any responsibility whatever for executive action arising from reports or findings of that commission. However unjustly that may have been done in the past and however clear it may have been that this was executive action, nevertheless one of the effects will be that the Opposition can take no responsibility whatever in that regard. A third effect will be that the executive will have offloaded on to members of the legislature a function which is essentially an executive function, because it is the job of the executive to get the information it needs in order to take executive action or to take the necessary administrative steps. This off-loading on to legislators of executive functions is a clear breach of the doctrine of the separation of powers, and a breach in a manner which will limit the control of the executive by the legislature. A fourth effect is that the traditional concept of the function of members of Parliament as legislators will have changed. They are no longer to be legislators purely, inquiring into problems requiring legislative answers.

They have always done that.

Yes, they have always done that, but now the hon. the Prime Minister wants them to do something more. He wants them to become sleuths acting at the behest of the executive, to investigate any matter which the executive wants investigated. [Interjections.] It is no good hon. members protesting, Sir. They only have to examine clause 4 of this Bill to see that it stands as plain as a pikestaff that that is what the hon. the Prime Minister wants them to do. I know it is said that the State President will direct them to investigate, but the State President acts on the advice of the executive, and at its behest they will have to investigate any organization or individual concerning which the executive requires information, not necessarily information in connection with legislation, but because the hon. the Prime Minister or the executive thinks it is right to find out what is happening inside that organization. A fifth effect is that members of this House will now be operating right away from the control and supervision of this House. This House will not appoint them. This House will not decide what they are to investigate. It may not even know what they are investigating. It may or may not receive, in whole or in part, the reports which members submit. That is in my opinion a most unhealthy state of affairs.

The sixth effect of this legislation is that the hon. the Prime Minister will have put on the Statute Book a piece of legislation which I believe will become totally unworkable. It will become unworkable because the commission will consist, in practice, of Government members only. With the best will in the world he will find it extremely difficult to persuade members of the public, the public at large, that they are not a partisan body. The fact that they will be armed with the power to subpoena witnesses and that those refusing to answer satisfactorily will be subject to a severe penalty, will only increase public unease and make the commission’s task of engendering public confidence more difficult than ever.

The seventh effect is that this legislation is going to create even more suspicion in the outside world as to the Government’s underlying motives. Western democratic countries do not like secret investigations, especially secret investigations whose findings may not become public, especially when those findings may lead directly or indirectly to executive action invading the freedom of individuals or organizations.

I believe there is an eighth effect, namely that it will increase the demand on the part of the public for a review of executive action invading the freedoms of individuals or organizations, if not by the court, then at least by an independent judicial tribunal. I believe these effects are all on the debit side. Are there then no credits? I do not believe there are. The Government may well claim that members of Parliament, because of their political background, may in investigating organizations, have a more developed sense of the desirability of allowing or disallowing certain activities and judging whether they are a danger to the security of the State. Whether they will be able to be as non-partisan as a properly constituted judicial commission and as accurate in determining the facts, is not something of which I shall be easily convinced, nor will the public. There will of course also be the argument that Parliamentarians will now have the opportunity of informing themselves. Who will be informed and with what object? It is true that the members of the commission will inform themselves, but their colleagues in this House will be no better informed by reading their reports than they will by reading the reports of a properly balanced judicial commission. With what object are they to be informed?

This brings me to the major difference between the hon. the Prime Minister and myself, between the Government and this side of the House, i.e. as to the function of members of Parliament. We believe their function is to legislate and by means of Select Committees to get the necessary information to legislate intelligently and responsibly. The hon. the Prime Minister believes they have a further function, i.e. to investigate on behalf of the executive any organization or matter which he thinks necessary. Our view is based not only on the experience of our commissioners, but also on the desirability of the acceptance of the doctrine of the separation of power as a principle. The experience of our commissioners goes back to 1972, when the Schlebusch Commission was first appointed as a Select Committee by this House. We then indicated that we believed this was work that should be done by judicial commissioners and not by members of Parliament. When the fourth interim report of that committee, by then converted into a commission, was tabled, our minority commissioners made it clear that they believed it was work that should have been done by a judicial commission. I was authorized to state in this House that we believed a function of this kind should be performed by a commission presided over by a judge and assisted by legally-trained people. We still firmly hold that view. But experience taught our commissioners something more. It taught them the necessity of limiting the activities of members of Parliament. That is why, in their minority report, they indicated that they believed that the activities of the commission envisaged in the first report, a commission on which members of Parliament were to sit, should be limited to reviewing security legislation, examining proposed security legislation and associated procedures. They also discovered something else. They emphasized the desirability of review of executive action by an independent judicial tribunal and they indicated the advantages of a judicial commission for inquiring into facts. That, in our belief, is the way security matters should be handled. There should be a Select Committee of this House for the review of security legislation, for examining proposed security legislation and associated procedures, a judicial commission to inquire into facts which the legislature wishes to inquire into and a review of executive action by an independent judicial tribunal. We on this side of the House have been patient with the Government in respect of this legislation. [Interjections.] We were convinced that the debits outweighed any credits there might be, and therefore at Second Reading we proceeded, by way of a reasoned amendment, to draw attention to our views in respect of this matter. We offered our co-operation on a Select Committee doing the sort of work we believed members of Parliament should be doing. We tried hard, in the Committee Stage, to persuade the Government to accept our views of the functions of members of Parliament, but the hon. the Prime Minister has clung adamantly to a view which is anathema to us and which experience shows is most undesirable and contrary to the principle and doctrine of the separation of powers. Despite our efforts in the Committee Stage, clause 4 was passed unchanged.

What did you do in the Committee Stage?

The hon. gentleman asks what we did in the Committee Stage. Did he not participate himself in the arguments on clause 4? Did he not accept the fact that clause 4 contains the fundamental principle underlying the whole Bill and did he not understand, when that clause was passed unchanged, that we simply washed our hands of the Bill? Did he not know why? The answer is that there has been a change between the position during the Second Reading and the position as it now stands. There is consequently only one course open to us, and I therefore move—

What is going to happen? The hon. the Prime Minister is going to be left with a one-party commission which cannot work satisfactorily. He will have to review his position when he or his successor, whoever that may be, gets round to asking members of Parliament to do the work for which they are elected, i.e. to legislate and by way of Select Committees to inform themselves of the facts in order to legislate intelligently and wisely, and deal with associated procedures. In such event, let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister, our offer of co-operation stands. He will know that in the ranks sitting behind me on this side of the House he has no security risks.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has tried by means of his amendment to express the strongest possible condemnation of the legislation before the House. He has every right to do so. However, having listened to the seven or eight points which the hon. the Leader presented as being representative of the debit side of the legislation, one cannot help pitying the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The simple reason for which one must pity him is that from the start he is depending very heavily on public opinion as far as this legislation is concerned. He is concerned about what the public outside wants or does not want. Other hon. members on that side have also stated that the the public does not want this legislation. The hon. the Prime Minister replied to that very effectively the other day by pointing out the position of the hon. members for Green Point and Mooi River as well as of other hon. members, except for one single member in Johannesburg who suffered at the hands of the hon. member for Yeoville and his party. The other hon. members were returned to Parliament with a much greater majority. There were even some of them who were unopposed. Having listened to the points made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I would like to tell him that he should not be concerned about having the support of the public in his opposition to this legislation, or about the resentment of the public concerning the fact that members of his party served on the commission in the past, causing the public not to vote for the UP and to blame that party. There are other reasons for this, reasons which are not relevant now and which may be debated in a general political debate. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not take any notice either of the remark made earlier during the debates on the Bill that the hon. the Prime Minister had introduced the legislation in the hope that it would cause a split in the UP. We know that the UP will not split. We know that the UP will only disappear. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that hon. members of this House who will serve on the commission in future will only be the snoopers, the lackeys, the yes-men of the Government. This is the basic implication of what he said. Is this what the hon. members of the UP were who served on the previous commission? I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Is this what he thinks of the action of the members of his party on that commission? After all, he himself praised them inside and outside this House for the work which they did. He himself had the greatest appreciation inside and outside this House for the work done by the commission and for the reports which were submitted. I do not say that he agreed with everything, but he identified himself and his side of the House with the work done by the hon. members of his party in that commission. Is this what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now thinks of those hon. members? Is this the thought which hon. members on his side would have to bear in mind if they were to serve on the commission one day? I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is allowing himself to be blinded by the results of the 1974 election. On top of that he is allowing himself to be led in the wrong direction by his new adviser, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has completely miscalculated public opinion in South Africa, and one election result after another proves that he is completely out of touch with public opinion outside this House.

We are now dealing with the Third Reading debate and have reached the stage in which some of the matters raised during the Committee Stage must be looked at. The hon. members of the UP and the PRP made the statement that the public is more interested in a judicial commission and that the public will be more impressed with a judicial commission. The general public in South Africa has had experience of this. Have there not been judicial commissions before which were criticized by certain members of the public? Must I refer once again to the Munnik Commission, the commission which reported in 1971 on certain conditions at Rhodes University? Do I have to point out to the House once again what can happen to a judicial commission? The Munnik Commission was under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Munnik, but there were nevertheless as many derogatory things said about that commission as have been said about the commission of inquiry which preceded this legislation. In connection with the commission of inquiry, the following has been said, inter alia—

What was said in several publications, in the public Press and elsewhere in connection with the judicial commission’s report which appeared in 1971? A senior lecturer at the university concerned said with reference to that commission—

In The Eastern Province Herald the following appeared—

This is the treatment which the judicial commission received and which hon. members on the other side would like to have. The following was also said—

We need not concern ourselves any longer with the question of whether a judicial commission inspires respect on the part of the public.

I just want to refer to another matter, a matter to which the hon. member for Sandton referred and which I believe must be rectified in passing. The hon. member referred to the so-called terrible methods applied by the commission, methods which, according to him, one may expect such a commission to use in the future too. He referred to an allegedly very honourable and innocent young man who had to give evidence before the commission. He referred to everything which happened to him, but as the hon. the Prime Minister said, many witnesses even have the jitters if they simply have to appear in a traffic court. I do not want to analyse or repeat the Second Reading speech of the hon. member for Sandton now. I would just like to quote a paragraph from the fourth interim report which refers to that young man. I hope that the speech of the hon. member concerned will then be seen in better perspective. I want to read para. 9.3.39 on page 180 of the fourth interim report. In that paragraph the commission comments as follows on that young man called Griffiths—

I may just mention that this witness was assisted by a well-known attorney from Cape Town who assisted him with his evidence at all times. I quote further—

I do not believe that I need take that aspect of the hon. member’s speech any further. The whole speech of the hon. member for Sandton was nothing more than a smear campaign against the existing commission and/or any commission of the future.

Other hon. members of the Progressive Party identified themselves with this. The hon. member for Sea Point and others said, inter alia—

We will have people’s courts. The Schlebusch Commission was a form of inquisition in South Africa. This will lower the status of this House in the eyes of millions of people who do not have the vote in this House. Citizens know their rights and could act in private as long as they do not commit an offence.

These people are making every possible attempt to present this commission in an unfavourable light. They are not concerned with other considerations or the merits of the matter. Why are the words “people’s courts” and “inquisition” used? This is only for foreign consumption. The hon. members know that these words are what many people abroad are very keen to hear, especially when they come from members of this House. But the hon. members also know that the reports of the previous commission showed that that investigation was necessary. No one knows this better than the hon. member for Pinelands. He knows very well that it was necessary to inquire into the University Christian Movement. They know what its basis was; it was exposed in the report. Its basis was the existence of a militant Black Power in that organization and the importation of such a militant Black Power from the USA by that organization. [Interjections.] If there was one reason why that investigation should have taken place, the hon. member knows that even if it was only for that reason, it was a very good thing there was an inquiry which exposed everything. [Interjections.] But the hon. member for Houghton, who is getting so excited now, did not take the trouble to read the interim report in respect of Wilgespruit. If the hon. member had done so, she could have agreed that if ever an investigation was necessary, then it was necessary at Wilgespruit.

What was achieved by it?

The hon. member need not to ask: “What did we achieve.” She did not read the report. I shall argue about that later. Let me point out another essential element. The hon. members will surely agree, and I think the whole House will agree, that the Nusas report indicated in particular the danger which exists in respect of polarization between White and Black in South Africa and which is fomented by those members’ friends in South Africa. It was necessary that it should be investigated and exposed. [Interjections.] Sir, some of the hon. members on the other side of the House know that it was very necessary and very right that the wrong side of Black theology should be exposed in South Africa and that South Africa should take note of the propagation and application of Black theology by bodies such as the Christian Institute. How often this matter has been discussed. Should those things have remained dormant in South Africa any longer? Hon. members will agree with me that it was necessary that the part played by the World Council of Churches in the occurrences in Southern Africa should be exposed, as happened in the report on the Christian Institute. There is surely not a single member on the other side, except the hon. members of the Progressive Party, who do not agree that it was necessary that the Affected Organizations Act be applied to Nusas so that amongst other things, their funds from abroad could be cut off, funds which they received from organizations of which some were communist orientated.

They denied it.

One could go through those reports in this way, and all of us will realize how essential it was for those things to be investigated, because they were still dormant. How were those things to come before a court of law? The hon. members say, one should be able to continue in one’s private capacity as long as one does not break the law. Many of these things are not direct transgressions of the law, but what are these people doing? Must we just allow them to continue? No, Sir, we must fetch those people out of the dark, as the hon. member for Pretoria Central said. These people do not work in the open, and therefore it is necessary that there should be a commission to go and take hold of those people who are active in South Africa, bringing them out of the dark and into the light, because if one brings them into the light, one negates their entire action and prevents their strategy, and this is one of the things that will be done by the commission, to bring into the light those who act under cover of the dark. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Houghton knows very well that she need not fear that she or her little party will be examined. I think there are better things than that upon which to waste one’s time in South Africa. But she knows very well that this commission concerned itself in the past and will concern itself in future with an inquiry into those people who endanger the existing order in South Africa, not the National Party or the Government which is in power, but who endanger the existing order in South Africa. The party on this side of the House has never blamed a single political opponent in South Africa for being opposed to the National Party or to the Government, but we say that we are not going to allow people to continue with their work in the dark against the existing order in South Africa. This is the issue here. Do the Progressives object to that? Does the hon. member for Parktown, who is continually interrupting me, object to inquiries being conducted with regard to people who endanger the existing order in South Africa? Answer me on that. [Interjections.] Sir, I think that this debate has clearly shown that a judicial commission and this commission will follow exactly the same procedure. The procedure which is being followed or will be followed in respect of an inquiry is exactly the same. But we know that it has happened in the past and will also happen in future that even though a judge is the chairman of the commission, he will be critized just as much as Parliamentarians will be critized. Would it be right of us to allow a judge, who is not a public figure in the way that Parliamentarians are, to undergo the same treatment? Would it be fair towards the Bench of South Africa? This commission, and hon. members know this very well, those hon. members who kept on making speeches for outside consumption on Thursday and Friday and who made sure that they were tabulated point for point in certain newspapers in South Africa—they know that this commission was never a “people’s court” and will never be one. They know that the people who appear before the commission are not accused. There are no pleas before the commission. It is not a court case, criminal or civil. Is it necessary, Sir, once again to refer hon. members to what the Supreme Court itself said on the subject? I refer once again to the case of Bell v. Van Rensburg, N.O., 1971 (3) S.A. 693 (C), in the Cape Division of the Supreme Court and especially to page 710. There Mr. Justice Diemont says the following—

Sir, what more can one say to the hon. members? This is not said by us as politicians. It is said by honourable judges of our Supreme Court. I quote from page 731, where Mr. Justice Baker says the following—

Here, the judge is replying to the standpoint taken by hon. members in connection with the commission of inquiry, which they referred to as a “people’s court”. I only hope, Sir, that this message will be published just as effectively as the message which the hon. members delivered on Thursday and Friday in this House.

Another matter to which I would like to refer is that it cannot be expected that this hon. House should be able to give a commission its terms of reference directly. The terms of reference as envisaged in the legislation are terms of reference which will be given to the committee by the State President. If this House were to be responsible for giving its terms of reference to a commission directly, and we were to have the debates of the past few days all over again, with all the subjectivity with which they were conducted, no commission would be able to do its work properly, not if it had to start on such a subjective foundation as we have experienced from the other side of the House. Therefore it is correct that a commission of this type should receive its terms of reference from the State President on the advice of the executive. But what do we have now? We now have a commission with a very clear task, and clause 4—about which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now feeling so unhappy—is very clear in this respect. Clause 4 expressly states that this commission will inquire into matters concerning internal security and will report to the State President, and that the State President may on occasion refer to the commission for investigation and report any matters concerning existing and contemplated legislation and existing and contemplated administrative procedures which affect internal security. There is nothing else. Hon. members expressed concern and stated it as a fact that this commission would persecute and punish people. But what I have read out is the terms of reference of the commission according to clause 4 and the terms of reference go further in clause 5. Clause 5 expressly states what was originally intended, namely that this commission will be a commission of Parliament and that it will report to Parliament. I cannot understand how hon. members on the other side can vote against this sort of provision where the Bill expressly says that report will be submitted to Parliament. This is what was requested in the original first report, this is what was requested in the minority report of the hon. Opposition and this is what is now being granted, namely a report to Parliament and in consultation with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It cannot be in consultation with the Progressive Party members. Can one go further than that in legislation? No Prime Minister can give an unqualified undertaking that in respect of matters of security, everything will be placed before the House. Is that what hon. members on the other side expect? It cannot be done.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has the veto in terms of the legislation.

The hon. the Prime Minister is quite correct. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also has the veto in respect of this matter. The hon. the Prime Minister is even prepared to grant the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the veto, but this too is refused, in spite of the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following (col. 851 of the 1974 Hansard)—

This is what he said himself Sir, it boils down every time to what I said in the beginning, namely the advice which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition receives, the incorrect guidance which he receives and his actions as a result of that. After the hon. the Prime Minister had told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: “But I am even prepared to give you a Select Committee,” something which the members of the official Opposition had requested one after another, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition merely brushed aside that hand. It had been requested by responsible members of his party, it had been offered by the hon. the Prime Minister, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition simply thrust that hand away.

And he holds Helen’s hand.

Perhaps one cannot blame the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for doing so: At least it is a softer hand, but remember there is also a Schwarz hand in their ranks. Where do this side of the House and the hon. the Prime Minister stand with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if he acts this way in this situation? The UP requested a Select Committee and in the minority report the hon. members asked for a judicial commission. This was never withdrawn. The hon. Senator Horak requested a Select Committee to examine legislation and he requested a judicial commission to investigate certain organizations. He put it as follows—

After that the hon. member for Green Point spoke in The Argus of 25 March of the “proper functions of a parliamentary commission and Select Committee”. He elaborated on this, but he did not arrive at Senator Horak’s point. In the minority report an internal commission was requested. This was never withdrawn. They never returned to a Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately my time has expired. If one looks at the offer which one received from the other side, we find that the presentation of the matter is confusing and that it comes from people who are without a leader. None of us is surprised at the situation because throughout this debate the hon. members on the other side were divided into two distinct camps. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is the leader of his small group, sits on one side. The other group extends from the hon. member for Newton Park right around to the hon. member for Albany. They are among the most unfortunate people in Parliament because they know that what we are saying here is factually correct. What is our reply from this side of the House? I want to conclude with these few thoughts. We know, and so does the hon. member for Newton Park, that there are people in South Africa who desire a revolution outside Parliament. The hon. member also knows that there are people in South Africa who do not want to be included in the existing order in South Africa even on the basis of equality. The hon. member for Newton Park also knows very well that there are people in South Africa who want the existing order to be destroyed. The hon. members on the other side are not prepared to help to bring those people out of the darkness and into the light, Mr. Speaker. But there are such people on this side of the House. Every National Party representative who sits here says to the hon. the Prime Minister: We are all prepared to help you to go and fetch those people out of the dark. I personally am of the opinion that it is essential that this matter should in fact be dealt with by Parliamentarians and that those Parliamentarians should report to this House in terms of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has raised a number of issues, some of which I shall deal with. He said at the very last: “Ons weet van mense wat buite-parlementêre revolusie in Suid-Afrika beoog. ”

*I should like to tell hon. members on the opposite side that if that is so, it is their duty to make use of the police and of the courts to deal with these people. It is the role of the police and of the courts and not the role of the Parliamentarians of this Parliament to do that work on behalf of the executive.

†The hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the question of polarization between Black and White in South Africa. We in these benches share the concern of many people, both Black and White, about the polarization that is taking place. But the polarization is not taking place because of Nusas or because of organizations like that, the polarization is taking place because of the politics of this Government. It is taking place because of separate universities and separate political institutions and because this Government in fact is promoting Black nationalism as a counter to White nationalism in South Africa. If we want to get rid of polarization, then let us look at the root causes of the polarization that is taking place within South Africa.

I want to return to one important and cardinal point. Nothing will persuade this side of the House, nor the public outside this House, that party politicians are the best people to adjudicate in a matter like this. The party politician is subject to the pressures of the ballot box and to the pressures of the party to which he belongs. He is a person who has already adopted a partisan approach towards the very organization which he is investigating. Nothing which the hon. the Deputy Minister has said today has persuaded us to move any closer towards the acceptance of a Bill which we reject in toto. This Third Reading debate not only ends the debate on the Bill, but in a sense it ends a chapter in South Africa’s political history and I think a very unhappy chapter, the Schlebusch/Le Grange Commission era in South Africa. This Bill signs off the work of that commission. In its essence this Bill is the measure which was asked for unanimously by the commissioners who signed the first interim report of the Schlebusch Commission way back in 1973.

If there are two things which have been constant during the course of this 3½ year period, it has been the total opposition of the hon. members in these benches, including the hon. member for Houghton, who was on her own here for a period, and the stubborn determination of the Government to proceed with this measure against all opposition. I am delighted that after three years of active co-operation of the United Party with the Government on the Schlebusch/Le Grange Commission, the United Party has at last come to its senses and has abandoned the whole procedure of which it was a part. I welcome this because their action today, and especially the hon. Leader of the Opposition’s action, in moving “this day six months”, the amendment which we moved to the Second Reading of this Bill, is in fact a rejection of the unanimous recommendation of his own commissioners and a rejection of the 3½ years of work which his commissioners have done on the Schlebusch/Le Grange Commission.

No, it is not.

The hon. member for Durban Point says that it is not. I say that if it is not, then they should not be moving “this day six months”. If it is not a rejection of the work which has been done by the hon. member for Mooi River and the hon. member for Green Point over the last 3½ years, then they should be voting for this measure or they should be moving a reasoned amendment. But this is in fact a rejection of what they have been wedded to and what they have been doing for the last 3½ years. I, for one, believe that the South African opposition public will be delighted that at last there has been a rejection of their past actions.

I must return to a few points which the hon. the Prime Minister made during the course of the Committee Stage and say that he was on this occasion singularly unconvincing. Indeed, he tended to shift his ground of argument from one point to another as he beat a retreat in face of the arguments which were advanced from this side of the House. I refer to the question of secrecy, to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands asking that in addition to the provision which stipulates where the commission must sit, it should sit in public. The hon. the Prime Minister made great play of the fact. He asked whether the hon. member was a member of the United Party then and he went back to 1947. He said that this clause was taken from the United Party’s Commissions Act of 1947. It was only subsequently pointed out to him that there were other clauses in that Commissions Act.

I myself pointed out section 4.

No, Mr. Speaker. We went on to say that, if one wanted to take the sections from the Commissions Act, one should take all the sections. Why only select suitable sections and evade or leave out the others that do not suit one? Another point, which perhaps is of much more importance, is the whole question of legal representation, or the lack thereof, and the consequences to the individual flowing from the recommendations or the findings of this commission. Here the hon. the Prime Minister clashed with the hon. member for Houghton and with the hon. member for Yeoville. According to Hansard, he said (Unrevised Hansard, 26 March 1976, page K.3)—

These are the words of the hon. the Prime Minister: “Hierdie kommissie versamel eenvoudig feite. In die proses van sy feiteversameling dagvaar hy mense om voor te verskyn om inligting te verskaf.”

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that he knows this is not correct.

What is wrong with that?

The hon. the Prime Minister knows that this is not limited to fact-finding. He knows that it goes way beyond it. It goes into the whole field of judgment—“Om ’n oordeel te vel”. It also goes into the whole field of making recommendations for urgent action. If one reads the second interim report, there is a section in which the commission specifically said that it had come to certain decisions. What is more, it said that while other people would know that they could expect action to be taken, considering the mandate given to the commission, it would take the first step, the first decision, which was to name these people.

Where do we say that in the report?

[Inaudible.]

I shall read it out, Mr. Speaker. In para. 16 on page 17 of the second interim report of the commission, it says: “ … Die toedrag van sake hierbo geskets, verg volgens u kommissie se oordeel, dringende optrede”. But the Prime Minister says it is “slegs ’n feiteversameling”

*In the commission’s judgment urgent action was required. This is a judgment situation, not one of fact-finding. This is a judgment which they made. [Interjections.] The commission said that in its judgment urgent action was required. [Interjections.]

Order!

But I read further—

Yes!

Mr. Speaker, therefore this is not a matter of fact-finding. Here a judgment is made and certain steps are taken. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, but look at what the hon. the Prime Minister said when he clashed with the hon. member for Houghton. He again said that it was a question of determining the facts, and that the question of executive action was not the direct consequence of the recommendations or the findings of the Schlebusch Commission. The hon. member for Houhgton said (Hansard, p. S. 1 of 26.3.76).

I seem to recollect that the hon. the Prime Minister stood up in this House—and I shall rapidly do a little research to see whether I am right or not—and announced that such action had been taken following the recommendations of the commission.

That is not so and my Hansard is there for you to see.

Mr. Speaker, if one looks back to the tabling of the report of that commission, one finds that the hon. the Prime Minister read extensively from the report, which names certain people, and then goes on to say (Hansard, Vol. 42, col. 1489)—

[Interjections.]

“Consequently!”

Yes, Mr. Speaker, “consequently”! The hon. the Prime Minister tables the report, in the discussion of the report he reads out the report and he says “as a consequence of this, the Minister of Justice is going to act”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we should play with words. In this case the fact is that the banning of the students took place as a consequence of the report made by the Schlebusch Commission.

A direct consequence!

Not only does the hon. the Prime Minister repudiate the hon. member for Pretoria Central; he actually charges the hon. member for Green Point, because he said to the hon. member for Green Point (Hansard manuscript, 25 March 1976, page V. 1)—

This is the hon. the Prime Minister himself. “Geen grootmens …”. No grown-up person in South Africa, no adult person, could have thought anything else but that the recommendation was a recommendation for administrative action. [Interjections.] Then he must apply it. It must be utilized. He must say that this is a commission which is not only investigating, but which also recommends certain action, and that action will include executive action taken outside of the jurisdiction of the courts in this country.

Can the hon. member please indicate to the House where it was said by the hon. the Prime Minister or by anybody else that these people were restricted only for the reasons set out in the report?

Mr. Speaker, I have just read from Hansard that the hon. the Prime Minister said that as a “consequence” of administrative consideration of the report, these people were restricted. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister has chided the hon. member for Green Point and said that no adult person could think anything other than that the recommendation meant administrative action. I do not want to argue with the rights or wrongs, but that is what the hon. the Prime Minister said.

Mr. Speaker, it is time just to re-state our opposition to this Bill and to the consequences of it. Our opposition is, first of all, to the composition of the commission. We do not believe that members of Parliament, party politicians with political commitments, with their own prejudices in the fields of politics, are the right people, not only to assemble facts, but, in terms of this report, also to make judgments and recommendations. We do not believe that politicians are the right people to do that.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we believe that the functions envisaged in clause 4 and in clause 12 are far too wide. We do not believe that there is room in South Africa for a permanent investigatory committee of any kind. We believe that this adds a new dimension, a new concept, to government in South Africa. I believe that we are entering what is popularly known as “the era of McCarthyism”, where charges are not placed against people, but where other devices and other instruments are used in order to try to curtail legitimate political activities. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, in the third instance we are opposed to the procedures that are laid down, because we believe that in practice they amount to a denial of the normal rights afforded to citizens under the rule of law: The question of secrecy, the lack of right of cross-examination or re-examination, the lack of the knowledge of the evidence which is being brought against people—and it is no use the hon. the Prime Minister saying that evidence is not brought against people. Of course, it is brought against people, because in the end the judgment is made, and they are found to be acting in a certain way, and recommendations are made to the executive.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons we would oppose this Bill on the basis of the Bill as it is before us. However, we are also concerned about the consequences for South Africa. [Interjections.] We are concerned about the consequences for South Africa. [Interjections.] I believe that this Bill—and the experiences with the Schlebusch/Le Grange Commission reinforces this—is bringing into South African politics a new element of government, namely government by fear. Mr. Speaker, this is the effect.

You should be ashamed of yourself!

Mr. Speaker, this is the effect. There will be fear of victimization, because this is a system of victimization, fear in the part of the public to engage in on perfectly legitimate private activities, fear of the invasion of their private and confidential activities, etc. These are all factors which, I believe, will instil a degree a fear into any society, and in a society like ours, where the Government already has enormous powers, I believe that it is going to have a dulling, stultifying effect on political action.

Mr. Speaker, one thinks of the mass of legislation and executive powers which this Government already has. One can go back through the years to 1953, to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, to the Public Safety Act, to the Defence Act, the Departure from the Union Regulation Act, the Police Act, the six or seven General Law Amendment Acts, the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, the Riotous Assemblies Act …

Mr.Speaker, on a point of order: I want to suggest, with respect, that judging from the manner in which the hon. member refers to Acts of Parliament, he is reflecting on Acts of Parliament. Since those Acts are not being discussed at this stage by way of a substantive motion, I want to suggest that the hon. member is acting contrary to the rules of this House.

Order! I understood the hon. member as referring to the fact that adequate legislation already exists for repressing subversion.

Mr. Speaker, you understood quite correctly. If this Government cannot govern South Africa with all the powers it already has on the Statute Book, it should get out of office and make room for somebody else who can govern. [Interjections.]

There is general agreement among all sections of the South African community that we need to provide a sure and stable base for our South African society in what will be difficult days ahead. We want security and stability not to withstand the forces of change which operate within our society, but in order to enable us to negotiate and adjust to the forces of change which I believe will become irresistible in South Africa. We believe, with other hon. members, that we need defence against aggressors from outside and that we need security against subversion internally. However, I think that there is a profound difference between us on how you can achieve these purposes. We do not believe that you can defend South Africa unless you get the loyalty of all the people of South Africa. We do not believe that you will derive internal security in South Africa unless you allow people to participate directly in the decision-making processes in our country.

What is the nature of the threat which the hon. the Prime Minister says he wants to deal with through this piece of legislation? It is the threat of the subversion of our society. There is a risk in South Africa, there is a risk of subversion because of the very nature of our society. When one looks at the two areas in which this risk really forces itself to the fore, it is because of different kinds of nationalism within one community and different ideologies in one community. This Government is going out of its way to promote hostile and conflicting types of nationalisms within the total body of the people of South Africa and it is not doing enough to close the gap between the haves and the have-nots whether in the social or economic or political field of South Africa. This Government is to be charged because it is this Government which is creating a situation of polarization, it is this Government which is creating a situation which is becoming a danger to South Africa. Let the Government re-examine its security legislation and let it remove from that legislation all arbitrary action, anything which impinges on the rule of law. At the same time, if it really wants security and a stable society during this awkward process of change in which we are involved, let it not merely look towards negative measures. Let it look towards real reform and to the elimination of discrimination, the closing of the economic gap and the equitable sharing of power. This will do far more to ensure the security, the progress and the happiness of the total South African population than negative, repressive legislation of the type contained in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the excited speech by the hon. member for Sea Point proved one thing to us very clearly and that is that the members of his party are absolutely inflexible and are incapable of being convinced. What is the point of arguing with a person or with people who are not open to conviction? One wastes one’s time and valuable time is lost in this way. I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether he can mention any unjust action in terms of the Acts he has mentioned. The members of his party have taken part in the debate with one aim only, and that has been to make political capital out of the legislation. We found that the hon. member for Houghton devoted the first 14 minutes of her Second Reading speech to the United Party and made no contribution whatsoever to the Bill because she was attacking the United Party. On the other hand the hon. member for Yeoville came forward with the essence of the Progressive Party’s opposition to the legislation. At the end of his speech he said that they were in favour of a commission of inquiry only if that commission was a multiracial commission of inquiry. That is the essence of the Progressive Reform Party’s opposition to the measure. One can say of them what is being said about the West today, viz. that the West has become slack and that they have capitulated absolutely to the communists. One can say of the members of that party that they no longer see their way clear to governing South Africa as we have governed it up to now. They want to establish a Black Government in South Africa immediately. That is what this party is aiming for. The hon. member for Sea Point, too, said “the public outside will not accept politicians on this commission”. After all, we had politicians in the Schlebusch/Le Grange Commission. What was the result? We came back to this House in 1974 with a bigger majority. The general public showed their approval of the commission of inquiry by way of a general election.

If one is to deal briefly with the standpoint adopted by the United Party with regard to the legislation, I can only agree with what Fleur de Villiers wrote in the Sunday Times. She wrote the following—

That is exactly what happened. Up to this moment it has not been possible to determine exactly what the United Party had up their sleeve and where they wanted to go with us. There are two camps on that side, the camp of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. members who supported him, inter alia the hon. member for Von Brandis, and to whom there is nothing good in this Bill. They agree with the Progressive Party and are simply not open to conviction. It would be pointless to argue further with them. Besides these two hon. members who have been so bitter about the legislation, there have been other members who have agreed with us and would like to co-operate with this side of the House. After the speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, one came to the conclusion that the United Party had only one aim and that was that they set the interests of their party above the interests of the country. Two facts are as plain as a pikestaff as far as the whole debate thus far is concerned, and that is that if we take into account our particular position in South Africa and the threats against us, then there is a pressing need for such a commission of inquiry into internal security. In the second place the aim of this Bill is to obtain information for us as politicians to use in order to carry out advance planning after processing the information. Through the acceptance of this Bill this aim can be effected and a certain call, can be responded to as well. This call emanates from various quarters. In the first place I want to refer in this connection to the Schlebusch/Le Grange Commission which stated very clearly in its first report that such a commission of inquiry should be called into being. I know that the United Party is now harping on the fourth report, in which they brought out a minority report and stated certain conditions, but it has been pointed out very clearly that these conditions are merely supplementary to the first report, and nothing more. As I have said, there have also been calls on the part of the public by way of the general election of 1974, when the Government was given a mandate to continue with this commission of inquiry.

Sir, I should also like to refer to certain police reports. Looking at the police reports of recent years, we find that they are continually coming back to the question of internal security. I think it is of the most vital importance that we give attention to these police reports, too. Unfortunately I cannot quote from all the reports of recent years, but I should like to quote an excerpt from the 1971 report. I quote from page 7—

In a later report, that of 1974, the following is stated by the police—

However, Mr. Speaker, this vigilance on the part of the police is vigilance in the sense that they keep a check on whether real transgressions have not taken place. A more penetrating investigation does not lie within the scope of the duties of the police. We also have the report of the commission of inquiry into the security of the State, the Potgieter report, which has so often been discussed in this House. That report, too, is a call that such a commission of inquiry should be established. Just recently, again, there was the Snyman commission of inquiry with regard to the University of the North. In its report, too, it is very clearly intimated that there has been incitement of unrest and that there are deeper underlying causes the origin of which is outside the campus in this case. When we scrutinize this report we see very clearly that we are dealing with politics, internal politics, that we are dealing with internal security. The people best equipped to carry out an investigation into this and most skilled in this regard are the politicians. The United Party is only being technical with the technical and formal arguments they have advanced here. This will not contribute in any way towards internal security.

Sir, we ask ourselves: What is the further practical effect of the Bill going to be? In the first place this commission will become a permanent commission of inquiry. In other words, there will be continuity. One investigation will lead to another and there will be the necessary continuity so that those matters can be followed up. It will not be necessary to come back to this House time and again with fresh requests for ad hoc commissions of inquiry. In the second place I want to say that there are powers which are working towards the collapse of law and order in South Africa. They are infernal powers. They are using individuals and they are using front organizations which are sometimes very fine-sounding but which ultimately show themselves to be organizations attempting to create anarchy and revolution. This commission of inquiry will be able to carry out a survey of those subversive elements. By obtaining the necessary facts and checking and cross-checking, this will be the most effective way in which to become acquainted with the matter before an offence has been committed. In other words, the commission’s task will also be a preventative one, one of adopting measures in time before it is too late.

Sir, we are also getting efforts to undermine the spirit. This, too, is something which can be entrusted to this commission. This will also have to be looked at, because apart from subversion in the military sphere, there can be subversion in many other ways as well. This, too, constitutes a very serious attack on our internal security. I just want to say in passing that recently a great deal has been written about devil worship. It would seem that only a few people are involved in and practise this, but nevertheless one wonders whether this has not been planted here in South Africa in some way. One wonders whether this is not something which has been introduced here with deliberate intent. Perhaps it will be necessary to investigate an organization of this kind as well.

As is the case with other commissions, and contrary to what most people think, no one will be charged before the commission. No one will be prosecuted. There is no case before such a commission and no plaintiff or defendant. There is no prosecutor and there is no onus of proof whatsoever. This is something which has been proved time and again in previous debates on this legislation.

Sir, one cannot help thinking back to the sensational Rivonia episode which took place about 13 years ago. During that Rivonia raid documents relating to “Operation Mayibuye” were found, showing that these people wanted to cause bloodshed in the country by committing sabotage. And, Sir, they were not the first or the last organization which envisaged these things. We have had the ANC, the PAC and POQO. One organization leads to another. The moment one begins to pin down one, the next one appears. That is why I think it is essential that there should be such a commission of inquiry, capable of investigating these organizations and what they give rise to.

Internal security is probably one of the most important components of infrastructure which any country could think of building. That is why it is really tragic that the Official Opposition does not want to participate in such a commission of inquiry. I think that at the next general election they will not merely lose another six seats but will, so to speak, be wiped out as a party, because they have shown in this debate that they do not have the right to see to the interests of South Africa. In fact, they have done South Africa a disservice.

Sir, they say, too, that this commission of inquiry must be established with the sole aim of investigating existing or future legislation. This is also one of the terms of reference which the State President can give such a commission of inquiry. That is why I think that they would in any event have achieved one of the objectives which they are so fond of advocating.

Sir, I really think that this commission of inquiry into State security is going to prove itself to be one of the most vitally essential commissions appointed in the interests of South Africa, particularly in view of the times we are living in and the enemies ranged against South Africa. Those enemies are growing in number every day, not only abroad but internally, too, in many forms.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my remarks I shall deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Potgietersrus and I particularly hope to make it clear to him once again what the requirements are as far as my party is concerned, for participation in a bipartisan approach to security matters. Speaking of a bipartisan approach, the party to the left of me seems to be divided, since there are only Progressives in this House this afternoon, and no Reformists. [Interjections.]

The establishment of a commission in the form and with the powers and functions outlined in this Bill will, in my opinion, lead to a situation which I believe will be highly undesirable in South Africa. I believe it will not contribute effectively to the combating of internal subversion. I also believe it will offend against the basic concepts of democratic Government. We have spent a good deal of time in the debate on this measure, arguing about who was right when and where in various statements and outlooks. Very little time has been devoted in this debate as to what is right in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of combating possible subversion of our internal security. Before I elaborate on the views which I hold in that regard, I believe that I should reply to questions, arguments and certain allegations which were directed towards me by the hon. the Prime Minister when, in the Committee Stage, we discussed the functions of this proposed commission. I think he expects a reply, I think he is entitled to a reply and, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly reply to the allegations which he made. The matters which were raised by the hon. the Prime Minister at the conclusion of the discussions in the Committee Stage relate substantially to my membership of the original Select Committee which subsequently became the Schlebusch/Le Grange Commission. That committee, which subsequently became a commission was directed to investigate specific organizations, i.e. Nusas, the Institute of Race Relations, the University Christian Movement and the Christian Institute, and to report on persons involved and matters related. Firstly, the hon. the Prime Minister referred to the banning of the eight Nusas students, following the second interim report.

They were restricted, not banned.

Well, choose the other word if you wish. That second interim report was signed by all the commissioners, including myself. In that report the commissioners referred to the eight persons concerned and I quote the following. We referred to them as—

It is a view which has been subsequently confirmed by persons who are in political thinking, to the left of me. In that report we called for urgent action as we considered continued participation in student politics by these persons to be undesirable in the extreme. The hon. the Prime Minister suggested that, as a lawyer, I should have been aware that the bannings would be a natural consequence of my signing that report and that I had no reason to complain about the nature of the executive action that was taken. What was the executive action that was taken? On 27 February 1973, simultaneously with the tabling of these reports, the hon. the Prime Minister announced details of such action in this House which have been partly quoted by the hon. member for Sea Point. The hon. the Prime Minister then said the following, and I quote from Hansard, col. 1489—

These bannings, as the hon. the Prime Minister knows, or these restrictions, were signed by the late Minister Pelser on 26 February 1973. They were imposed because the hon. the Minister of Justice had reason to believe that the students in question were furthering or were likely to further the interests of communism, in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act. However, that was not a finding of the commission.

Let me remind the hon. the Minister that the present Minister of Community Development, Mr. Marais Steyn, spoke in this House on that very day, 27 February 1973, and I quote from column 1509—

Does that justify banning under the Suppression of Communism Act? If the hon. the Prime Minister wishes to question my attitude—and this also applies to the remarks of the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior and the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke—he must challenge the credibility of his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I suggest the hon. the Prime Minister pays his money and makes his choice. Either he is wrong or the credibility of the hon. the Minister of Community Development should be questioned.

You are also making your choice now, that is clear.

So much for the first accusation the hon. the Prime Minister levelled at me.

The hon. the Prime Minister also made another allegation, however, attributing political expediency to my actions. I trust he will be fair enough to make amends when he speaks later in this debate. This is what he said, and I quote—

What, however, are the facts recorded in Hansard? I have already quoted what the hon. the Minister of Community Development said in February 1973. In the same debate, as the second speaker from this side of the House, I made my views quite clear. There had been no “bohaai” at that stage. The announcement of the restrictions had only just been made. This is what I said, and I quote from column 1565 of the Hansard of 28 February 1973—

I then went on to say—

I continued (Hansard, Vol. 42, col. 1566)—

Three years have passed but no action has been taken by that Government. They have not come to this House or suggested a Select Committee of this House to investigate the very matters raised at that time. The hon. the Prime Minister should know, being a senior lawyer, that submissions should not be made without prior verification of the facts upon which those submissions are based. In fact, let me put it more directly. He should not make allegations against me when he has been insufficiently briefed on the true facts of the situation.

I now come to a further point. The hon. the Prime Minister suggested that I had been inconsistent because I did not object to executive action being taken in respect of the funds from overseas for Nusas and the Christian Institute. Of course I did not, and why not? Because that action followed a judicial inquiry which, in terms of the law, had to be conducted by three senior magistrates who would report to the Government on what executive action had to be taken, and that executive action was taken under the Affected Organizations Act which we supported.

Tell that to the marines!

In view of his interjection, let me ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether those three magistrates did not independently fulfil their duty before the Government took executive action?

I am not calling your bluff now.

Did those three magistrates not take that action? Are we to assume that the hon. the Prime Minister acted without having complied with the law in having an independent investigation by three magistrates? [Interjections.] No, that action was taken in terms of an Act which we supported. I presume it was also done in compliance with the law.

I said initially that the commission to be established would not contribute effectively to the combating of internal subversion and would offend the basic concepts of democratic government as I see them. This commission will be charged with the duty of investigating the activities of organizations in so far as those activities relate to internal security. The commission will consist of members of Parliament. This will consequently not be an investigation entrusted to members of the judiciary.

Do not be so naïve.

I sat and listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Could he now just do me the courtesy of listening to me for a change? We know that members of Parliament—and none should know this better than the members of the Schlebusch-Le Grange Commission—are fair game for criticism by the Press and the public. It is part and parcel of the perils of entering political life that we must accept criticism and comment from the public. Nevertheless, however objectively members of Parliament may approach their tasks, and however objective may be their findings and conclusions, there is the right of wide-spread criticism—and we must expect this—throughout the ranks of those who take an interest in what is reported upon. However, I wish to remind the House that the Schlebusch Commission operated under certain regulations, and one of those regulations was identical to the amendment that the hon. member for Waterkloof placed on the Order Paper but did not move, I also want to say, for the benefit of the hon. member for Houghton, that this particular provision was included in the regulations concerning the Schlebusch Commission, not at the request of the commission, as she has suggested. It was inserted in the initial stages of that commission’s establishment.

But there were complaints and a statement was made.

The hon. member for Houghton is as slippery as an eel. She said in this House that the regulation had been introduced and promulgated at the request of the commissioners, and when I tell her that is not a fact, she says: “Oh, but you asked for something more later on.” I wonder who could ever satisfy the hon. member for Houghton. Regulation 14 reads as follows, and I quote—

I wonder whether this mattered one iota to any member of the public or to the Press when it came to what they said, did not say, inferred or alleged against the commission. I raise this because of the fact that criticism of the commissioners was not restricted and could not be restricted in any way despite this regulation since the commission consisted of members of Parliament who, as I say, are fair game to criticism on all actions which they take as politicians. I know that there has been criticism of the results and findings of judicial commissions in the past—I have seen that and I accept that—but I believe that the public at large would support action taken in terms of this regulation if it were taken to protect the dignity of the judiciary serving on a judicial commission. However, it will never tolerate a clause of this sort being applied in so far as a commission of Parliamentarians is concerned.

I believe the public is jealous of the pillars upon which our system of democratic government rests. We believe in the separateness and the integrity of each of the three pillars, namely, Parliament, the executive and the judiciary. Need I remind the House of the public’s rejection with contempt of Parliament’s assumption unto itself of the role of the High Court of Parliament in the 1950s? Need I remind the House as to what was the public’s reaction when Parliamentarians assumed unto themselves judicial purposes and judicial functions?

But we won the 1958 election with an increased majority.

That was an attempt by Parliament to encroach upon the sphere of responsibility of the judiciary.

Our opposition to this Bill has been made quite clear during these lengthy debates. We have been and we remain prepared as a party and as individuals in this party to accept our full responsibilities in matters both of external and internal security. We ask that those functions be exercised within the framework of the constitution of our country and we seek the acceptance of the Government of three principles. If the hon. member for Potgietersrus does not know them, let me state them again. We have said consistently that investigations of organizations and persons are the responsibility of the judiciary through a judicial commission. Secondly, we say that executive action by the Government acting with the specific authority of Parliament should be subject to the safeguard of a judicial review tribunal. Thirdly, we say that Parliament and members of Parliament should direct its and their attention to the function of law-making; i.e. the defining of actions which in the opinion of Parliament should be placed on the Statute Book as being actions which are subversive to the interests of our country. It is in the hands of the hon. the Prime Minister to establish the circumstances in this country in which we can all participate in a bipartisan approach in these matters of security. However, while the Government remains adamant that the lines of demarcation between the functions of Parliament and those of the judiciary may become blurred in the manner provided for in this Bill, the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement that he seeks co-operation with the official Opposition is meaningless. He offers a Select Committee, but he offers a Select Committee on his terms; i.e. that it should break one of the cardinal principles by which we stand and that is that the Select Committee should be empowered to investigate organizations and individuals. If he remains obstinate in his view, then it is his responsibility that any possible basis of bipartisan approach has been torpedoed during these weeks of discussion on this House. I say to him again, as I have said before during the course of these debates, that he still has time and the opportunity to restore conditions for co-operation. It is he who holds the key to attain that objective and it is his responsibility as to whether or not that key is used by him in the interest of the security of all of us in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point devoted the greater part of his speech to providing certain explanations in reply to questions put to him by the hon. the Prime Minister. However, in referring to public opinion he also referred, inter alia, to the then High Court of Parliament and used it as an example to show how public opinion turned against the Government of the day when the High Court of Parliament Bill was introduced. The hon. member will recall that what really happened there was that the Appeal Court declared the High Court of Parliament to be invalid. In spite of all those events the National Party has gained power with increasing majorities from that time onwards. When one holds a post mortem after the Second Reading and the Committee Stage of the Bill, one’s first and strongest feeling is one of intense disappointment at the attitude of the official Opposition. In the first instance, however they may argue about their change in standpoint from the First report of the Schlebusch Commission up to the present, their credibility in this matter has taken a terrible beating. In the second instance, they have left South Africa in the lurch once more. As far as the party sitting on the left is concerned, I do not think we should trouble ourselves about them any further. It has been said over and over again that they are in this Parliament and not of this Parliament and that they are strangers in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, it is droll and comical that whereas they reject the Bill in its entirety, nevertheless they made a tremendous fuss about the rule of law and the issue of cross-examination and re-examination at the Committee Stage. Very piously, with technical displays, and also displays of exhibitionism by the hon. member for Yeoville, they maintained that it was in fact their duty as Parliamentarians to play watchdog in respect of legislation before Parliament. Furthermore they long to have a copy of the records of the Schlebusch-Le Grange Commission. It is surely obvious that it follows that if they want to carry out their Parliamentary duties consistently, they can participate in the commission in order to ensure that the rule of law is maintained and that justice is done is respect of witnesses appearing before them. A member of that party could then also examine the documents of the commission. Surely that is elementary.

What have been the consequences of all the events that have occurred in recent weeks. They are that it is once again the National Party which will take effective action to ensure internal security in South Africa as it has since 1948, without co-operation on the part of the Opposition—yes, even in spite of resistance on the part of the Opposition. If there is anything of which the National Party Government of South Africa can be proud, it is its record of action to ensure internal security in South Africa. Right from the start, in 1950, with the acceptance of the Suppression of Communism Act and the legislation which followed it—the Terrorism Act, the overhauling of the Riotous Assemblies Act, the Security Information and State Security Council Act, the Affected Organizations Act, and so on, which enabled the Executive to act effectively and ruthlessly against persons and bodies that have attempted over the years to overthrow the existing order in South Africa illegally—steps have been taken to ensure our security.

It is your policy which has endangered our position.

In spite of the whining of the hon. member for Orange Grove, this is an undeniable fact: There would not have been a Rivonia, and Slovo and Fischer would not have been exposed, if they and their leftist allies had governed this country. Methods have been found by means of legilation piloted through Parliament to identify and put paid to preparatory operations before they become tentative operations and later, active, open operations to undermine the authority of the state. What is more, in the days when the hon. the Prime Minister was Minister of Justice, with the aid of the best security police in the world he saw to the security of South Africa when the country was facing the greatest danger ever to threaten its existence. In 1972 the appointment of the Schlebusch Commission, which started as a Select Committee, was announced. Let us just refer to a few good results of the activities of this commission. Firstly—this is one of the most important consequences—it resulted in the iniative against the powers of evil in South Africa being firmly back in the hands of the Government. In the second instance, it caused Nusas to see matters in a different light. The silent majority of students at English universities started to come to the fore. We have begun to hear very fine and positive sounds from the campuses of English-speaking universities. This event, this leaven which is taking effect on the campuses of the English-speaking universities is going to be of vast significance for South Africa in the future. Just think of the sober testimony that has come from a man like Clive Keegan who has just been freed from restriction. The third consequence is the fact that the Christian Institute is no longer able to obtain funds from abroad in order to do evil here in South Africa. The fourth consequence is that the work of the devil which was in full swing at Wilgespruit was effectively stopped. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already mentioned the position of the University Christian Movement. The success of this Commission is in fact itself the best and most convincing evidence in favour of the establishment of a permanent commission. The chief objection of the UP to the establishment of a permanent commission is the fact that it is Parliament’s job to make the legislation. Our reply to that is simple: When the rugby sprinter slips through a gap, we do not stand back and discuss among ourselves who should do the work—it is everyone’s duty to tackle that man. It is the calling of all of us to ensure security.

In addition, serious misgivings have been expressed by the Opposition as to whether a commission made up of members of Parliament is capable of an objective approach to facts specifically relating to the security of the State. However, when the first report of the commission was discussed here, the UP members did not say: No, we are not capable of expressing an opinion in regard to this matter; we do not regard ourselves as capable of making a finding; we are not able to ensure that justice is done.” I do not want to quote what the hon. member for Green Point said in this connection, but I can refer hon. members to Hansard, 1973, Vol. 42, col. 1596, where he said that justice had been done to Nusas, to the 5% of the students who belong to Nusas and to the other students as well. Why should a permanent body of this nature not cause justice to be done? What, after all, are the guide-lines by which one should allow oneself to be guided in one’s decision as to whether the matter poses a threat or a potential threat to internal security? It is that any organization or structure which is aimed at taking over the Government without the process of a legal election a threat to internal security. It is true that it is sometimes difficult to judge when a line of action is constitutional and when not. However, this remains a political question, and who is better equipped to tackle this than politicians themselves, who work with these problems day and night? Quite apart from one’s equipment, surely it is one’s most important duty to be a watchdog with regard to the security of one’s people. It is the politicians who must be informed with regard to these matters, and it is they who must give the executive and the judiciary instructions to follow up these matters.

Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said about an inquisition, by the Progressive Party in particular. Reference has even been made to McCarthyism. Snide references have been made to the Committee’s un-American activities and to the House Committee for Internal Security. Listening to the hon. member for Houghton, one thinks of what theatre critic, Mr. Brooks Atkinson, said in The New York Times in 1950 when he even held McCarthyism responsible for a poor season on Broadway. He said that McCarthy had driven all good playwrights to silence and insignificant achievements. What is more, in the heat of the initiation period when men students were in the habit of occupying the bedrooms of women students, the following heading appeared in the New York Herald Tribune—

In the article in question the following was said—

It is as if when one refers to McCarthyism, one has reached the absolute climax of one’s argument and logic. Who was Senator Joseph McCarthy? He was an American Senator and demagogue who asked certain friends what he had to do to be re-elected as Senator, and who then took certain steps on their advice. A certain friend of his said: “Tackle communism.” Then this demagogue, by means of lies, drama, exaggeration and all the dishonest methods he could think of, began, on his own initiative, to paint people and bodies red. He had a so-called system of investigation which extended throughout the world and by so doing he caused turmoil in American society in the period between 1950 and 1952. In spite of all the unsavoury publicity which McCarthyism and the activities of the various committees in New York, California and other states and the House Committee for Internal Security itself—were given, the work continued until 1975. In 1975 the files concerned were transferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. There is nothing to stop that committee from continuing with the activities of the original committee if circumstances should demand it. Who can dispute that that committee did outstanding work? One calls to mind, for example, the case of Alger Hiss, President Roosevelt’s chief adviser at Yalta, who ensured that Russia achieved one of its greatest diplomatic victories in post-war history. One calls to mind, too, the research carried out by Messrs. Brent Bozell and William F. Buckley over a period of 18 months, into the real essence of the McCarthy story. On pages 262 and 263 of their book McCarthy and his Enemies they wrote—

Here, too, the ultimate responsibility falls on Parliament. There are other authors, too, who are in fact extremely critical of the whole McCarthy era and the un-American Activities Committees, but who nevertheless drew certain conclusions which one would be justified in taking cognizance of. I refer to the book The Tenney Committee by Edward L. Barrett, concerning the Legislative Investigation of Subversive Activities in California, on page 11—

Sir, my time is expired. I can give other references, too, concerning the thorough and positive results of the activities of these various committees. But at the last, this one question remains: Why does the official Opposition refuse to be represented on the commission when it is invited to do so? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition criticized me for quoting certain passages from his speech in the Committee Stage. Sir, I know that the United Party would prefer a judicial commission to be established, but the aim of my quotation from the speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was to prove that in spite of the objections raised by the United Party and in spite of the experience they had of the Schlebusch Commission, it had nevertheless made the concessions to which I referred in the Committee Stage. I might mention in passing that even the hon. member for Yeoville fully agreed with this; he agreed with every word of it. (See Hansard, 1974, Vol. 50, col. 933). I have in mind, for example, the sound arguments advanced by Mr. Etienne Malan in Hansard (Vol. 37, col. 790) in favour of participation in such a commission. For example one has the advantage of seeing the witnesses; one can evaluate the evidence given by the witnesses against the background against which it was given, one can make suggestions as to which witnesses may be called, one can even examine the witnesses oneself and obtain a copy of the records of the proceedings. What, then, has become of all these sound arguments advanced by the Opposition? Sir, in spite of everything that has been said and done, it is the bounden duty of every member of Parliament to serve on a commission of this nature. I repeat that if the constitution of the Republic of South Africa, and section 31 in particular, gives the Senate the power to appoint permanent committees to investigate any matter, why can this function not also be entrusted to the sovereign Parliament of the Republic of South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me to give a long reply to this Third Reading debate. Most of the arguments advanced from the opposite side were effectively and adequately replied to by colleagues who spoke from this side of the House. I am simply replying in passing to the most important arguments which were advanced from the opposite side.

I wanted to begin with the hon. member for Sea Point, but I shall wait until he returns to this House. I expect that he will return in a while. Consequently I come in the first place to the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member finds himself in this difficulty that he has to get himself out of a situation which he got himself into and, in the second place, that he has to seek protection—and here my sympathy goes out to the hon. member for Green Point—against one of the most merciless attacks a leader ever made on one of his followers. I am referring to the speech which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made in regard to this Bill today. I do not think the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Mooi River deserved that speech. But I shall come to that later when I reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I was saying that the hon. member for Green Point now has to get himself out of a situation, and once more I want to make it very clear. The executive has certain functions which it has to perform in terms of law. Those functions cannot be performed for it by any commission, whether a parliamentary commission or a judicial commission. The executive has to carry out those functions. In the past, when the executive took action, the reproach was always levelled that the executive was acting in the dark, that it had information at its disposal which was shown to no one else—in short, that the executive was able to make or break as it pleased, without anyone being able to do anything about it. Let us take this case of Nusas now. The executive did not need the Schlebusch Commission if it had wanted to take action against these Nusas leaders. It was able, by following the procedure prescribed in various laws, to take action against them, and consequently it did in fact take action against them. After studying the information the executive arrived at a certain conclusion which compelled it to take action, and what is interesting, Sir, is that the commission arrived at precisely the same conclusion. Let us now look at page 31 of the first interim report, para. 22. After dealing at length with the lecturer, Turner, the commission—including the hon. member for Green Point stated as follows—

Then, immediately after this, it is stated—

The hon. member for Green Point cannot demand the best of both worlds for himself, and that is the weak point in the hon. member’s entire argument. It was not the task nor the function of the Schlebusch Commission to restrict people or even to recommend that they be restricted, and this would not have influenced the executive either, for the executive has to arrive at its own conclusion after having followed a certain procedure. But I want to tell the hon. member that no objective person could have arrived at any other conclusion but that, having regard to the fact that the course for the executive has been marked out by legislation, the recommendation made by the hon. member meant inter alia that the executive had to consider whether that course should not have been adopted.

Looking at the debate conducted on Tuesday, 27 February 1973, we see that we were able to have a short debate only. This House then had to proceed to the consideration of private member’s business, and the debate on this matter—as the hon. member will recall—was continued the next day. The only speaker on the Opposition side that Tuesday was the then hon. member for Yeoville, at present the hon. the Minister of Community Development. What did this hon. member say at the time with regard to the standpoint of what was then his party, that they were not in favour of executive action? He did not condemn the action of the Government that day. All the hon. member said about this matter at the time was, and I quote (col. 1509)—

That is as far as he went.

No, what I quoted a moment ago as well …

I am coming to that. I am coming to all these things. Over the years there has been a difference in interpretation between the Government and the Opposition as to what communism is and what it is not. The hon. member is aware of this. This has been the case over the years. Over the years there has been this difference between the two sides of this House on the actions of the executive. The hon. member for Green Point quoted today what the then member for Yeoville said at the time, but he did not read far enough. He should also have read out to this hon. House what the hon. member for Yeoville also said in col. 1509, viz. that “we did not find this”, i.e. that they were communists or were furthering the ends of communism. For there was a political difference of opinion in that regard. The hon. member for Yeoville then went further and said (col. 1509)—

And the next sentence?

Then the hon. member went on to say that it could have been coincidence and that one should not condemn them on those grounds. Then the hon. member went further and in col. 1510 he dealt with the evidence. I quote (col. 1513)—

Sir, we are not children. If one is dealing with such people, and one has a law in terms of which certain instructions are given to the executive, what executive that has such evidence at its disposal—for it had the same evidence as the commission had—would refuse to take action under those circumstances? We cannot have the best of both worlds.

What is more, the hon. member is a jurist, as I have said. Why, if he now wants me to accept his argument, did the hon. member, who is a jurist, not define in this recommendation that the people should be charged? Surely that was the easiest thing in the world. What is more, when the minority report was presented, why did the hon. member not, in order to clear up any misunderstanding, say in the minority report: “We ill-advisedly submitted an interim report. We have now learned a lesson and view these matters in a different light. Therefore we retract the recommendation which we made in the interim report.” But that was never said in the minority report. There is no reference whatsoever to any retraction of the recommendations which the hon. member made in the first interim report. One cannot even read it into that minority report by implication, and I want to ask the hon. member this question: Why, since he knew precisely what they had recommended, did they not state in the minority report that they withdrew it unconditionally, and suggest a whole new system? Sir, one is able for a time to demand the best of both worlds for oneself, but there comes a time when this catches up with one, and unfortunately it has now caught up with the hon. member for Green Point, and I am sorry about that.

The hon. member for Sea Point objected to the fact that the commission will not sit in public. There will, as far as one can see and as long as the Marxists are active, be subversion in all parts of the world, and all Governments in all countries will have to take preventive action against it. All Governments will have to do everything in their power to take effective preventive action against it. They will have to hold investigations, and it would be foolishness on the part of any Government to hold those investigations in public, as the hon. member wants us to do, foolishness from various points of view firstly, because one would in that way be disclosing to one’s enemies precisely what one know and secondly, because one would never get certain witnesses because they would be victimized. The hon. member is just as aware of this as I am.

The hon. member devoted most of his speech to the fact that he was very excited and pleased that the official Opposition were at last endorsing his standpoint. I concede that he is right about that. I do not want to argue with him about that now. Then, at the end of his speech, he again arrived at the usual arguments that one should not do these things, that there are so many other things that one can do, and that there would then be no communist subversion. I do not want to debate the folly of that argument any further, because it has been debated repeatedly. However, the hon. member again came forward with an argument this afternoon on which I should like to question him a little. The hon. member said that the solution lies in the fact that we, and I quote him—

I now want to put this question to the hon. member across the floor of this House: Is it true that leaders of the Progressive Party are telling people in this country that if they come into power they will take away the property of some people and give it to other people? [Interjections.] The argument which the hon. member for Sea Point advanced here was not that we should endeavour to achieve equality as regards salaries and wages, that we should equalize them. That was not his argument. His argument was that there are the rich and the poor. There are haves and the have-nots. And the only way of closing that gap would be to take from some and give it to others.

Redistribution of wealth!

On that the hon. member for Durban Point and I are in full agreement I want to level the accusation at the hon. member in the words of the hon. member for Durban Point that they are adopting the standpoint, the so-called standpoint, of “a redistribution of wealth”. Is that true or not? That is a very fundamental argument. I realize that the hon. member cannot argue about it now. There is no time for that. However, it is a statement which the hon. member will still have to explain during the present session of this House. I am inclining more and more to the standpoint that this is what the hon. member wants to convey. If he is not saying it in so many words, he is doing so by way of insinuations.

I come now to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I listened to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with astonishment, for he condemned all the work which the Schlebusch/Le Grange Commission had been doing for 3½ years more effectively than all the other critics had done over the years. Today he summarized all the leftist arguments which have over the years been hurled at that commission in his condemnation today of the work of that commission.

Congratulations Japie! You have won!

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it is interesting that this unequivocal condemnation which came from him today was 3½ years late. Consequently I am entitled to say this to the hon. member again: If this has been your standpoint over the years, surely you were grossly neglectful of your duty, your duty to your party and to your members on the commission. After all, if that had been your view as leader of the party, and had been the view of your party, you could and should never have allowed your members to have served on that commission for 3½ years, for if your arguments are true, it was wrong from the outset for your members ever to have served on that commission, and they should never have performed the task and the function which they did in fact perform over the years.

Japie, jump up and shout hurrah!

Let us consider some of the arguments which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advanced. Even today he stated, as one of his reasons why he is up to the present still opposed to the commission, that a report could be brought out “which may or may not be reported to Parliament”, i.e. which may or may not be submitted to Parliament Surely that is not true. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows—as I also told the hon. the Deputy Minister by way of an interjection— that this legislation provides that the reports of the commission shall be tabled, unless the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition decides otherwise.

What does that mean?

Yes, what does it mean?

In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is in effect the person who is able to determine whether or not the report in question shall be submitted to Parliament. Unless he opposes the tabling of the report, it has to be submitted to Parliament. That is what “in consultation” means. Why does one argue in this way, while one knows that he is the person who has the key with which the door to Parliament may be locked or unlocked? Surely that is not correct. Apart from not being correct, it is not fair either.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition levelled a reproach at me in regard to the argument concerning judicial reviews. Surely we have differed on this matter over the years, and in this debate I reiterated that the question of whether or not there is a judicial review of administrative action has nothing whatsoever to do with this commission as such. The two things have nothing to do with each other. A person may have both, or only the one. Surely that is the case.

If the hon. member feels so strongly about this matter now, he could turn to clause 4(2) of the Bill, which provides in fact that present, as well as future legislation may be referred to this commission. If the hon. member feels so strongly about this matter that he wants to agitate about it again now, surely he ought to demonstrate via that commission that it is necessary to go into that aspect thoroughly. That is then the place where he could agitate for that, and where his members could agitate for it.

Then why not in this House?

Mr. Speaker, for the simple reason—and I have explained this to the hon. members—that at present the rules do not make provision for that Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition began his argument by saying: “It is the end of any bipartisan approach in this field,” I want to tell him that this side of the House is not to blame for that. [Interjections.] It is not only I who think so. It is not only this side of the House that thinks so. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself knows that this is the case. Every possible objection which came from that side of the House I accommodated across the floor of this House.

Except the most important one.

Except the important one on which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I differed, i.e. that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition argued that it was not the function of parliamentarians to undertake investigations of this kind. However, he allowed his members to do work of this very nature for three and a half years.

And as a result of the experience decided that it should not be done.

No, Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.] We shall come to that. In spite of the fact that that is the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—the standpoint which he is now trying to gloss over by saying “as a result of the experience …”—hon. members argued in this debate that a member of Parliament ought to be able to do this kind of work, that a commission consisting of members of Parliament ought to be able to do it. And even today there are still members within the United Party who are in fact in favour of this kind of work.

I know that that is not the case at all!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can deny this as much as he likes, but I say that he knows and I know that it is in fact true.

I know that that is not the case at all.

After all the arguments which we have already had on this matter, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition reiterates that what we are dealing with is that the executive is shifting its duties on to members of Parliament. I have never—and there is the hon. member for Green Point and all the other members who served on the commissions—instructed members to perform functions which were in reality the task of the executive. Such an instruction has never been given to them in the past, and such an instruction shall never be given to them in future either. It would be a foolish executive which rid itself of its responsibilities in this respect in such a manner. Mr. Speaker, I still maintain—as I said in the very first place— that the primary object is to keep Parliament informed through members of this Parliament, for it is otherwise not possible, owing to a lack of time, to keep all members of Parliament informed at all times. If it were possible to allow all members of Parliament to participate in the matter, this would naturally have been best. But what is being requested now is that representatives from Parliament should undertake certain investigations and draw up their report, a report which is then, in turn, submitted to their colleagues. After all, in what other way could Parliament be kept informed?

By appointing a judicial commission and tabling its report in Parliament.

Then we come once more to the argument which I have repeatedly stated to the hon. member, viz. that it is not the task of the courts to combat subversion. The task of the courts is to punish subverters. To combat subversion is the task and function of this Parliament, and if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition differs with me on this, then we shall simply have to differ on it. However, I want to submit to him for consideration that for three and a half years he allowed his members to assist, in a particularly effective way—for which I want to express my thanks to them again—in combating subversion. The result of their work is there for everyone to see. The admission that they were right came indirectly from Alan Paton and others. My authority for this is the hon. member for Green Point, and I agree with him …

The same members are today saying that the work ought to have been done by a judicial commission.

I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Mooi River and I never heard him say that when he was participating in the debate. I shall leave it at that.

I want to conclude by saying that I, on my part, have done everything possible to accommodate any objections from the Opposition side. However, the Opposition has chosen not to co-operate in this regard. As far as the Government is concerned, having regard to the fact that it is possible to do very thorough work in the interests of South Africa by way of a commission, it will proceed with this matter. It would be a pity if it has to proceed alone, but in the absence of support from the Opposition it shall do so.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—104; Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clause, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cruywagen, W. A.; 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. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; 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.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and C. V. van der Merwe.

NOES—37; Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, J. L.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; 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.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van B.; 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.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As is prone to happen with legislation, certain deficiencies sometimes come to light in its practical application. The Forest Act, 1969, as amended, is no exception in this respect and the Bill which is now before this House aims exclusively at rectifying certain deficiencies in the existing legislation.

Gratifying progress is being made with the laying out of the national hiking way system in respect of which legislation was approved last year. However, effective control over the hiking way system is being regarded as an absolute necessity, and in this respect honorary forestry officers have a very important role to play. Also, there must be no doubt about the fact that the assistance of these honorary forestry officers will have to be relied upon to a large extent to ensure that control over the hiking way system will be of the highest order throughout. At the moment honorary forestry officers are only able to exercise their authority in State forests and in areas where a prohibition in terms of sections 12 and 13(5)(a) is of force and effect. Therefore, the idea is to make provision for this, and it is being envisaged by clauses 1 and 6 of the Bill for honorary forestry officers to be able to exercise their powers along the route of the hiking way system in future and for them, as well as any magistrate, justice of the peace, forestry officer and police officer, to be able in future to enter upon private land across which the hiking way system has been laid out in terms of an agreement with the owner concerned in order to exercise their powers in terms of the Forest Act, 1968. As a matter of fact, forestry officers, magistrates, justices of the peace and police officers can already exercise the powers afforded them under the Forest Act, 1968, over the hiking way system in terms of existing legislation, but in this regard they are confined to the route of the hiking way where it crosses private land.

It is a fact that this statutory adjustment will result in more persons now having the right to enter upon private land across which the hiking way system has been laid out, but if the persons concerned were to be restricted to the route of the hiking way, they would be frustrated in the practical exercise of their powers and effective control would be hampered. The further access rights and therefore aimed, in the first place, at further protecting land-owners over whose property the hiking system goes. I may mention for the information of hon. members that the South African Agricultural Union has been consulted on this matter and that the proposed amendment enjoys the full support of that Union.

Mr. Speaker, section 4A of the Forest Act, 1968, as amended, provides that plantations may only be established with the approval of the Secretary for Forestry on land which was not previously afforested. This approval is transferred to land-owners by means of a permit which, inter alia, indicates the approved surface area for afforestation on the farm concerned. Individual cases have now come to our attention of persons proceeding to afforest land without obtaining the necessary permit. The Attorney-General was not prepared to institute a prosecution in the cases concerned, since he was of the opinion that the State would be unable to contest the court cases successfully because of certain deficiencies in the wording of section 4A of the Forest Act, 1968. The Attorney-General pointed out that the term “not previously afforested” is somewhat vague in that the period of previous afforestation is not clearly apparent from it. Since the legislation is tantamount to a restriction of the common law liberty of the individual, courts will probably apply the section in such a way as to affect the rights of the individual as little as possible and to burden the individual as little as possible. The word “previously” will in such a case then be interpreted as being at any time before the coming into operation of the Act. This interpretation will place an impossible onus of proof on the State, because owners would be able to contend that land was afforested in the past without the State being able to refute such a statement with proof. Furthermore, the State Attorney had doubts as to whether a contravention of section 4A of the Act constituted an offence. This doubt is based upon the fact that the word “may” instead of “shall” is used in the English version which was signed by the State President and is, therefore, decisive. It is essential for new afforestation in critical catchment areas to be subject to strict control. The amendment contained in clause 2 of the Bill ought to eliminate the existing obscurities and confirm the desired control over injudicious afforestation.

†Mr. Speaker, in terms of sections 12 and 13(5)(a) of the Forest Act, 1968, extraordinary precautions may be taken during periods when a severe fire hazard is prevailing. I wish to stress in particular that these measures, which are of an extraordinary nature, are not applied lightly. I also want to refer to a recent incident which is still fresh in our minds, when a member of the public, in spite of the prohibition of the making of fires in the open air which was in force in the Cape Peninsula at that stage, and which is still in force, made a braai fire on the slopes of Table Mountain while a strong wind was raging. It could perhaps be advanced that the person concerned was unaware of the existence of the prohibition but, as I was given to understand, a forest officer was unable to obtain his co-operation after several requests to extinguish the fire. Mr. Speaker, irresponsible behaviour such as this cannot be defended in any conceivable way, and must be opposed with all the means at our disposal. We do, however, find ourselves in a situation here, which almost verges on an anomaly, that the penalty for the contravention of such a prohibition appears to be somewhat out of proportion to the serious nature of the offence. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill now provide for the imposition of a substantially more severe penalty on persons who contravene a prohibition in terms of section 12 and 13(5)(a) than was hitherto the case. I trust that this deterrent will in the interest of our plantations and the assets which nature has to offer, have the desired effect.

The littering of State forests is becoming a more topical problem as these areas are opened up to the general public to an increasing extent. I find it a pity, Mr. Speaker, that legislation is necessary to combat the detestable practice of dumping or scattering litter and I would have preferred to see that the enjoyment of nature went hand in hand with an increased appreciation thereof. Be it as it may, it is imperative that we should guard against this evil; hence clause 5 of the Bill adds the scattering and dumping of litter to the offences under the Forest Act, 1968.

Mr. Speaker, we, the official Opposition, support this Bill at Second Reading. It contains amendments to the original Act which we believe will bring about an improvement. We support the stricter control which will be exercised over afforestation, the breaking of new soil, the protection of our flora and fauna, the wilful and often indiscriminate destruction, and the cultivation, the burning and the pollution of the countryside. We are particularly pleased to see that in terms of one of the clauses a period of five years has been introduced in the place of the period of two years, which was contained in the original Act, within which ground cannot be afforested without a permit being issued. This I believe is a very wise move.

In regard to the appointment of honorary forest officers, whilst they are being given certain powers, I believe that those powers are not wide enough in view of what the hon. the Minister has already told us in his Second Reading speech. I believe that possibly later we could give the honorary forest officers even more powers than are contained in the old Act and in the amendment to that Act. It is very necessary that we should have more honorary officers in view of the wilful destruction taking place throughout the country, particularly in forests and the vegetation on our mountain slopes.

The two clauses dealing with penalties are, I believe, correct. I agree that the penalty should be increased to a fine not exceeding R1 000 and imprisonment not exceeding two years. I believe this is also a wise move.

Clause 5, we believe, contains one of the most important amendments to be effected, and deals with the dumping and scattering of litter. This has become a very serious problem throughout the country. Only a few days ago I was speaking to one of the high officials of a foreign State and I happened to ask him what impressed him about South Africa. He said the first impression he had gained of our country was that our people were self-disciplined. He admired the South African people for being so disciplined, and the second impression he gained of our country was that we were all conscious of our vegetation and of afforestation in general, and he said that he believed South Africans were very interested and very conscious of the protection of nature. This impressed him very much indeed. We, on the other hand, feel that we could tighten up the legislation against the wilful destruction of our vegetation. One only has to move along our country roads to see the wilful dumping and scattering of litter. There are today very few mountain streams where one can, on a hot summer’s day lie down and drink water because of this wilful dumping of litter and rubbish and cans in those streams.

Sir, we will probe one or two of the clauses in the Committee Stage, but at this stage we have pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am merely rising to say thank you on behalf of this side of the House for the considerable progress which is being made with the hiking way system by the Department of Forestry. We are very grateful for the zeal displayed by our Minister, as well as our previous Minister who initiated the system, but we are also very grateful to the Department of Forestry and its officials for the enormous task they are performing to open up our forests, our mountain catchment areas and our wilderness areas to the public. The hiking way system is making fine progress, but it has also demonstrated that more control is required than we had in the past. This Bill will ensure improved control and also confer greater authority on our honorary forest officers. Sir, all these people appointed as honorary forest officers are very responsible people, people who will be able to fulfil very successfully these duties that are being entrusted to them as honorary forest officers.

It is unfortunately the case that as these wilderness areas and these forests are opened up to the public, the danger exists that they may become polluted, because people simply have not learned yet to keep everything clean and tidy. I think the mere threat that there is going to be more people dealing with this matter, ought to be sufficient. Rapid progress is being made with the hiking way system and we therefore have to protect it in all respects. We find in clause 1 of the Bill that honorary forest officers are being granted the right to enter upon private property. It is essential for them to be able to do so, in order to protect as well, those private owners over whose property the hiking way system passes. We have to thank the private landowners who agreed that the hiking way system may cross their land, because this will mean that we are going to have one of the longest hiking way systems in the world. For that reason we are grateful that the owners of private land are being included in this system. I think it is a splendid idea that we should make our natural areas available to the public in this way and that we should appoint people to teach the public to appreciate nature and to ensure that it is being properly cared for.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches should like to support the Bill. In the first place we commend the use of honorary forestry officers to police the national hiking ways, because that is certainly a very good idea. We should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the whole system of honorary forestry officers be extended. We should like to see more of these officers appointed. I think it is a very good idea that this should be done.

In addition we support the heavy penalties for a contravention of sections 12 and 13. Carelessness which causes serious fires must be severely punished. We hope that a deterrent such as this will help to do this. Certainly, as the department opens the hiking ways, considerable problems are going to be experienced. When members of the public use these hiking ways, the danger of fires is likely to be increased. There is also the problem of litter. So many people in this country seem to throw litter in all directions. That will become a problem along the hiking ways as well. This amenity that is being provided by the department may well be spoilt if people do not control themselves and if they throw tin cans, bottles and dirty bits of paper everywhere. We certainly support the hon. the Minister in his efforts to control this littering by bringing the scattering of litter within the ambit of section 21 of the Act. That is to be commended. All in all we support the amending Bill. We think that the provisions contained therein will help to make South Africa a good deal better looking as far as the litter situation is concerned. We hope that it will help to control fires as well.

The control of afforestation is also a necessity. One has only to see the damage that has been done in various parts of the country where this sort of control has not been applied, to realize just how important the new provisions contained in this Bill are.

Mr. Speaker, I want, very briefly, to express my appreciation to hon. members who gave their support to this measure. I do not want to elaborate on it any further. It is very gratifying to receive such support when we are dealing with matters which affect our natural scenery and our forests, which are not only playing such an important economic role, but is of such great aesthetic value to our people.

Particularly as far as the hiking way system is concerned, I think that my department and the Hiking Way Board involved in this system, have really done very good work. I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Humansdorp. He referred, inter alia, to my predecessor, the previous Minister of Forestry, who displayed particular interest in this system.

I want to say that the question of littering the development of our hiking way system, the control of fires in our forests and all these matters cannot only be left to the authorities and the officials alone. It is essential that these matters should also involve the general public. I think the hiking way system will be of particular value to our youth and to everyone who still sees his way clear to hiking and relaxing in the open air, and of becoming familiar with our nature and our forests. I think our problem is that our people cannot appreciate or love something which they do not know. As has been said by the hon. member for Humansdorp, in opening up this hiking way system we are affording people the opportunity to pay more frequent visits to our places of natural beauty and the forest. However, this involves the problem that the greater the number of people visiting these areas, the greater will be the amount of littering that will take place. For that reason we have to introduce the relevant penal provisions. I regret very much having to do so, but unfortunately the position is that, when a community is being afforded certain benefits, it also results in certain disadvantages. Consequently, we have to take steps to combat the problems which result from this.

Allow me once again to express my appreciation for the support I received. Allow me, finally, merely to say that we, in our private capacity, should encourage our youth to use these facilities. Forest fires and littering are matters which should receive particular attention in the educational field. One really regrets having to increase the penalties and to use legislation as a deterrent for people not to dump or scatter litter or light fires haphazardly. Unfortunately this is the position. I want to emphasize the fact that we should co-operate with the department and the boards and organizations dealing with this matter in doing our duty to acquaint our people with and propagate these matters among them. If we do this, I have no doubt that we will achieve far more by means of this legislation than merely placing it on the Statute Book and feel satisfied that we are now able to prosecute people. The co-operation of people is always far more valuable than when one has to exercise compulsion.

Are we doing enough in our schools?

I can tell the hon. member for Carletonville that we are giving considerable publicity to this matter. In view of the combating of inflation, we have had to curtail our programme a little this year, but the department and those involved in this matter disseminate information to our schools and distribute publications. I discussed this matter the other day with one of the officials dealing with publicity. It is very important that these matters be brought to the attention of our youth, but, of course, it is another matter to introduce it in our schools in a formal manner. We are in the process of bringing it to the attention of our children in an informal manner. I want to leave the matter at that.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I am being very serious now. If we impose penalties on adults, could we not also try and make the dumping and scattering of litter within our schools a punishable offence?

Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate that this does not fall within the jurisdiction of my department. This is a matter which could perhaps be given attention to by the education authorities. In any case, I have just said that we should rather try to educate people than to compel them to do something. Spontaneous co-operation is always far better and easier than exercising measures of compulsion.

I should like to put another question, but I shall do so at a later stage.

This matter may possibly be raised with the relevant authorities dealing with schools, which, of course, is not relevant here. I leave the matter at that.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to something which really should have been raised during the Committee Stage. Clause 6 reads—

This brings me back to the discussions which we had in the past with the previous Minister of Forestry. Those discussions concerned the emergence of independent Bantu homelands in general and the Transkei in particular. We know that there are many indigenous forests in the Transkei and we should like to learn what is being done to educate the Bantu people to preserve and protect the forests in their areas. I am referring especially to indigenous forests. We are also aware of the fact that new ground is being broken for afforestation in the Bantu reserves. I should like to remind the hon. the Minister that this is a matter which causes great concern to this side of the House. In this connection I want to mention the name of a previous member of this House, Mr. Douglas Mitchell, who has retired from public life. He was always very concerned as to how much is being done to educate the people who will be taking over indigenous forests in the Transkei and many other reserves. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us how much is being done in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the extension of the powers of honorary forest officers will to my mind, have a very sound effect, especially as far as the national hiking ways are concerned. Any person has walked along these hiking ways, appreciates the problem which exists to exercise proper control especially where they lead across private land and through private forests. The Department of Forestry has a fairly large responsibility in this respect, because it has to see to it that there are no unauthorized fires and that the forests or vegetation are not damaged. I am of the opinion that honorary forest officers can do excellent work in this respect if they could assist in patrolling such hiking ways and seeing to it that these hiking ways are not used by people who do not have the necessary permits or permission. They could even be of assistance to see to it, that where hunting is permitted along the hiking ways, hunting is done only by people who have the necessary permits.

Another aspect I regard as particularly valuable is that it is being laid down that after a forest has been felled and the land has been laying fallow, a permit should be obtained again only after five years have expired. I can appreciate the problems of the Department of Forestry, and I can understand that only new areas should be afforested under permit. Very sound reasons exist for this and the principles in this regard have been accepted in the past. For instance, care should be taken that forests are not planted in a haphazard way in the catchment areas and there should also be a maximum flow-off. Furthermore, care should be taken that transpiration is not increased unnecessarily in such an area. The ecology should not be disturbed unnecessarily either. Therefore, it should only be possible to afforest such areas under permit.

It is a fact that owners sometimes allow the land to lie fallow for two or three years after the forest has been felled. In the past they were not certain whether they would again be able to undertake afforestation without obtaining a permit on land which had previously been afforested without a permit. The provision that, if the land has been lying fallow for a period not exceeding five years, afforestation may again be undertaken there without a permit, will to my mind solve this problem.

The Bill also provides for heavier penalties to be imposed for the burning of branch waste and for the burning of fire breaks especially at certain times of the year when a severe fire hazard is prevailing. I believe that such heavier penalties are justified and for that reason it is being welcomed. In the past we often had the problem that a cattle farm was for instance completely destroyed by fire as a result of an accident when fire breaks were being burnt at a time when they ought not to have been burnt. There is always an excuse when this happens and it is very seldom admitted that it was burnt wilfully. I feel that if the penalty is increased to R1 000 as is set out in the Bill, it may perhaps have the necessary inhibiting effect because the damage those people are caused in that they have to purchase fodder as a result of the fact that their farms have been destroyed by fire, could really assume very serious proportions. If no attention is paid to the education and motivation to indicate why burning should not take place at certain times, I feel the penalties should be increased. I also welcome the combating of the dumping and scattering of litter by including these activities as offences as well. The large majority of the public are aware of the fact that this is not being permitted, but in spite of this there are still people who take chances and dump the litter from their backyards under vegetation on the slopes of Table Mountain, on Table Mountain itself and also in Tokai. They do not only dump litter here in the Peninsula, but also on slopes of the Magalies Mountains and in catchment areas. I feel this is a practice which should be condemned most strongly. As a matter of fact, I feel heavy fines should be considered at this stage. Perhaps this would be a step in the right direction. However, it is not yet being considered applying such severe measures, but we do hope that those measures will be considered in future, as is the case in many other countries. This dumping of pick-up or lorry loads of litter in our beautiful natural or cultivated forests should be strongly condemned, and I feel that the start which is being made with this legislation, shall have the required effect. Therefore, we welcome the legislation.

Mr.Speaker, I think the hon. member for Benoni is perhaps interpreting clause 2 incorrectly. According to my interpretation of the clause as it stands, the matter amounts to the following: If a person wants to undertake afforestation on a piece of land again after it has not been afforested for a period of five years, he has to apply for a permit. If this is what the hon. member meant, I agree with it. The clause creates a far better and clearer definition of the situation, but I nevertheless want to draw the Minister’s attention to a certain matter. In the past the problem was to prove the offence, and the onus of proof the State had to discharge. As the hon. member indicated in his Second Reading speech the problem also existed to prove that the piece of land had not previously been afforested or had not been afforested for a period of five years. My own view of the situation is that the legislation, as it reads at present, does not yet eliminate that problem completely. Proof should still be furnished beforehand. If the legislation does not provide for that at the moment, I want to suggest that the insertion of a clause in the legislation be considered in terms of which the accused or offender has to prove, only on presumption, that the land has never been used for this particular purpose or, otherwise, that it had in fact lain idle for a period of five years.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to what the hon. member for East London North asked me in connection with nature conservation and afforestation in the Bantu homelands. I want to point out that those people do have available to them trained officials from the Department of Forestry. They are seconded to do this work. While I was attached to that department we also succeeded in introducing a course at one of the colleges in Natal. There are courses in nature conservation and forestry. These people do take a fairly keen interest, but we nevertheless have to encourage them. Hence we have started with this training.

*Having said this, I am not trying to mislead the hon. member by saying that we are making rapid progress. There are large numbers of these people, and in our homelands there are beautiful natural forests and there is an enormous potential for afforestation in some of the homelands. Here we have a clash of approach, it is not an easy task because to convince Black people that it is better to plant a forest in a certain area than to keep cattle. I want to contend myself by saying that the Department of Forestry is rendering a major service in the homelands and that they are constantly expanding afforestation, especially in the Transkei, KwaZulu, as well as other homelands. I should like to say that they are playing a very important role in the conservation of our indigenous forests there and we hope that this meets with greater response from the indigenous population. I should just warn that this difference in approach could lead to it that we sometimes meet with some antagonism if we want to progress too rapidly. It is a question of having to persuade these people. However, I should like to give the assurance that the Department of Forestry is continuing with this work and that they also make the officials available to the various homelands. This does not yet apply to the technical sphere, but on the technical level we provided for these people to be trained, and the interest does exist.

The matter raised by the hon. member for Benoni is to a large extent a repetition of this question of the hiking ways. However, I should like to thank the hon. member for his contribution. He is particularly interested in this matter, and when this system was announced earlier and legislation was introduced, he also displayed a particular interest in it. I should like to express my appreciation and the appreciation of the department for the positive attitude of the hon. member and the suggestions coming from him regularly. Where possible, we shall certainly make use of them. As I have just said, we ask the hon. members to discuss this matter with the public a little and not to preach to those sitting here who do not need any preaching.

The same applies to the question of littering which could most certainly become a serious problem in view of the increased number of people using the hiking way systems. It is a great pity that this is happening, but it is a fact. I foresee that with the threat which exists now in that it has become a punishable offence in terms of this legislation, the people will perhaps think twice before contravening the law. In this respect I may just mention that one of the hon. members said to me privately that in the case of a motor-car full of people from which parcels containing litter are dumped somewhere, it would be difficult to determine by whom such parcels were dumped. I have not yet ascertained from the department in which way we are going to solve this problem. I do not know how we are going to prove which of the people travelling in a motor-car or in a bus are guilty when an offence of this nature is committed. It seems to me it is not all that easy to take legal steps either, because it is often difficult to discharge the onus of proof.

May I ask the hon. Minister what a person must do in a case like this? I am not an appointed ranger or an officer of any sort, but if I personally catch people in the act of scattering litter, bottles, etc., what function can I perform?

One does the same one does when one sees a person committing any offence. One can identify the person by asking and taking down his name and afterwards lay a charge with the police so that prosecution can take place. A case such as this could also be reported to a forest officer, who will possibly take the matter further. We normally have the problem that a person will have to appear in court, and many people do not want this inconvenience, because it means a person will have to give evidence in a court of law, that one did in fact see this person doing what he is being accused of. However, I am very glad the hon. member mentions this point. This is the procedure he should follow. He should report the case and then steps will be taken, because the necessary provision now exists in the Act.

In respect of what the hon. member for Ermelo said here concerning the matter of onus of proof in connection with land which had already been afforested, the matter is, according to him not quite clear. It is possible for us to have further problems in future when the department will have to take steps against people who undertake afforestation without a permit and then maintain that it had in fact been afforested before. I should like to discuss this point with him. The hon. member comes from an area where there is afforestation and he also had legal training. If he could suggest a solution, we could perhaps, in future, effect more amendments to incorporate this matter more successfully in the law. I think I have now dealt with all the matters and I leave it at that.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it would not be possible to use aerial photographs available at the department, to see whether or not certain areas have been afforested in the past.

Yes, I think aerial photographs may be quite useful. I am not very sure about this matter, but we can discuss this matter with the Attorney-General. In certain cases one shall perhaps be able, by enlarging these aerial photographs, to prove in a court of law that an area had not been afforested before. Aerial photographs, which are available, have been taken of practically the whole of the Republic and we shall perhaps be able to make use of them. My department will take cognizance of this. It seems to me to be a very useful suggestion.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the modem economy, where particular emphasis is laid on efficient planning by the authorities as well as the private sector, meaningful statistics indicating the nature and extent of the activities in many spheres of society, and especially tendencies in these activities, are indispensable. For this reason we need to have an efficient organization which will be able to supply the necessary statistics.

The Department of Statistics is the central organization which is responsible for the collection, processing and publication of statistics for South Africa and this statistical function is prescribed by the Statistics Act, 1957, and the Census Act, 1957. Both Acts are almost 20 years old and have been amended several times.

As a result of altered circumstances, especially as regards the establishment of the Department of Statistics in 1969 and the organizational and administrative powers of the Secretary which this entailed, and the fact that there is considerable duplication in the provisions of the two Acts at the moment, it has become necessary to review the Acts in their entirety, to bring them up to date and to consolidate them into one Act.

The Bill is essentially concerned with the basic requirements for the collection, processing and publication of statistics provided for in the existing Acts, and I shall confine myself to a few of the more important amendments and additions.

Clause 2 provides for the establishment of a Statistics Advisory Council which will be substantially the same as the existing Statistics Council. As far as the provisions regarding members of the Advisory Council are concerned, it is deemed necessary to lay down specific requirements in connection with their appointment.

Clause 3 grants the power to collect statistics relating to any matters which the Minister may think fit and to take a census of the population of the Republic in 1980 and every ten years thereafter. This clause differs from the existing Act in the sense that the Minister will now determine the matters concerning which statistics are to be collected, while at the moment the matters are prescribed in the Act. Since the department is collecting statistics concerning almost all the matters mentioned in the Act at the moment, regulations will have to be made as soon as this Act comes into operation to declare these matters to be matters relating to which statistics may be collected. The amendment will merely mean that the Minister will be able to add or to amend matters in the future when it becomes necessary to collect statistics relating to new matters.

†Clause 6 is a new clause and provides that the Secretary shall, in consultation with the Minister, frame a questionnaire, notice or other document. These documents do not have to be published by way of regulation, but such regulation can be drafted if the Minister deems it necessary. In clause 7 it is proposed that the Secretary shall decide on the manner of publication of statistics, whilst the existing Act entrusts its function to the Minister. The publications of the department have increased to such an extent that it would burden the Minister if he had to decide on the hundreds of tables which are published annually.

Clause 8 provides for the secrecy of data contained in individual statistic returns and the conditions under which individual information can be divulged. In view of the fact that in the practical provision of the statistical service a need does at certain times arise for the publishing for general statistical use of address lists, of persons or establishments based on information arising from the results of the particular census or survey, clause 8(c) provides that if notice is given in a prescribed manner certain data, but with the exception of financial informational data, can be divulged.

Clause 14 deals with exemption from criminal liability in the case of refusal to furnish information concerning certain matters. Besides the provisions regarding religious belief or denomination, the provisions have been extended to make the furnishing of particulars and information concerning a person’s political convictions, if called for in a census, voluntary.

Clause 17 provides that the Minister will promulgate regulations instead of the State President, as at present provided for in the Act. It is felt that this is not a task with which the State President should be encumbered. In terms of the existing provisions, the regulations shall prescribe the particular information which has to be furnished. This legal requirement has over the years presented considerable practical problems because of the fact that whenever regulations of a particular census or survey are promulgated, the whole statistical questionnaire containing all the questions in detailed form, has to be included in the regulations. This is not only a cumbersome practice; it is also time-consuming and expensive. Therefore the relevant provisions in the proposed Act have been framed in such a way that only the most relevant aspects of the statistics which have to be collected, are prescribed.

I should like to thank hon. members who have furnished me with suggestions on possible improvements in the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is concerned, as is the hon. the Deputy Minister who introduced it to us, with two matters, i.e. census and statistics. We are dealing here with a combination of previous legislation, with a certain measure of streamlining and also with a certain measure of modernization. Consequently we have no objections concerning matters of principle and we shall support the Second Reading of this legislation. Since we are really providing the department with a new manifesto here, hon. members will allow me to make a few comments.

As far as census is concerned, it has been found over the years to be an extremely useful instrument, especially as far as planning is concerned. This legislation provides that census has to be taken every ten years. One would like this to be done more often, of course, but I am told that to take such a census in the future may cost R10 million. Under these circumstances one must be realistic. In any case, a census, is intended not so much to determine the present position as to enable projections so much to determine the present position as to enable projections to be made and tendencies to be ascertained. Under these circumstances, ten years may often be sufficient. One would like such a census to be as comprehensive as possible, but naturally there are limits, for if one casts the net too wide, one will end up with so much information that eventually it cannot be processed. Statistic data which is not up to date means nothing to us, of course. This data is usually of a comparative nature and therefore it is important that one should retain the same kind of basis or foundation, because if the foundation or basis changes, anything can be proved by means of statistics. It is said that a few young chaps recently proved in Scandinavia that there was a statistic correlation, a significant statistic ratio, between the number of storks and the number of babies born in Scandinavia. From this one can conclude, as they tried to do, that storks are there to bring babies. I mention this just to show that one can use figures to prove anything at all.

As far as the aspect of statistics is concerned, I want to make a few remarks. We use the word “statistics” in a specific sense here, of course. We are not talking about mathematical statistics. I think the dictionary would call it “the science of counting”. Once again this may not be quite correct, because when we speak of statistics in this connection, we do not mean the function of calculating, because we are concerned here mainly with estimations. The kind of statistics we are talking about is not always mathematically correct, because we are actually concerned with estimations. They are not always accurate, but they are accurate enough for our purposes, all the same. A certain Professor Marshall once said: “Statistics are the straws out of which political economists have to make the bricks.” In other words, we must have enough information to be able to plan for the future. In this kind of statistics it is the relativity that is important, for if that is lacking, one can very easily make mistakes. In this sense statistics are usually comparative.

One is not concerned with absolute quantitative data, but rather with determining the tendencies and the changes which may come about in the future. In compiling statistics, we must remember that the people who use statistic data are mainly academics, either from the public sector or from the private business sectors. This means once again that the statistics we compile must be available as soon as possible, because nothing is as dead as obsolete statistics. In this sense the modem sampling method becomes very important to us, because these days one can often include a thousand people in the survey, depending on how the sample is composed, and predict from this what the circumstances among a few million will be. The question of sampling has become such a science in its own right these days, that information can be collected quickly and easily by means of the sampling method, in a form in which it can be assimilated.

I should like to refer to the advisory council which is being established here, and to recommend that we should not only appoint experts on it, but that provision should also be made for the consumers, i.e. people from the private sector, etc. Provision is made for ten members, and I think one could involve a wider range of interests in this body.

Finally, I want to say that from the nature of its work, Department of Statistics tends to be a backroom department. They are seldom in the limelight, but we are giving them new machinery here, we are making certain equipment available to them and we hope that they will be able to make reliable information available rapidly, as they did in the past. I want to wish them every success in the important task that lies ahead.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow has made a positive speech. The hon. member is fond of statistics, because he often uses statistics to make predictions. It would have been interesting if the hon. member had given us some statistics about the United Party and what the party will look like in two or three years’ time. The subject of statistics is an interesting one, and if the hon. member for Yeoville had been here, he could probably have laid claim to having set up a record. His statistics are that if he has attended three sessions of Parliament, it has been as a member of a different party every time. If one analyses his statistics further, one finds that during the first session he was the provincial leader of his party, during the second session he was the national leader and during the third session he is the chairman of the party’s congress. It will be interesting to see the course that the statistics will take in the future.

I should like to refer to the question of the advisory council, which was referred to by the hon. member for Hillbrow as well, and to say that these people are normally appointed on the council by virtue of their knowledge. The other aspect raised by the hon. member was when he said that these statistics were not mathematical statistics, but often took the form of estimates. The position is that the department concentrates on handling statistics in a highly scientific manner and on making the results available accordingly.

As a result of the nature and extent of a population census, it has been necessary every time in the past to establish a separate organization which led to a very expensive and problematic situation. The Census and Statistics Office really functioned as a subdivision of a Government department and did not even have the power to appoint census controllers and employees to give effect to the provisions of the Census Act. However, the Department of Statistics became a full-fledged department in 1969, and because there was duplication between the two Acts, and because of the acquisition of a computer, amongst other things it became necessary to consolidate the various provisions in the legislation which is before us today.

I should like to refer to a few important provisions in the legislation. The activities of the department are particularly dependent on the private sector, which is in fact the source and in any case the major supplier of statistics, and for that reason the department endeavours to maintain a good relationship with the private sector. Clause 3 of the legislation is a provision which substitutes section 2 of the Act, which listed a considerable number of matters concerning which statistics could be collected. The list of matters in section 2 of the Act is now being omitted and it is being provided in clause 3 of the legislation that statistics may be collected relating to any aspect of any matter determined by the Minister from time to time in the Gazette. The second part of the clause provides that a census of the population shall be taken in the year 1980 and every ten years thereafter. Clause 3(1)(a) corresponds to section 2(q) of the existing Act, which provides that statistics may be collected concerning any other matter prescribed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette. To include a list of matters in the legislation is not practicable. Statistics cover a wide field and the matters concerning which statistics are collected are subject to constant changes. Statistics collected and published concerning demographic matters, which include population and the events of life, statistics on agriculture, mining, the manufacturing industry, construction, transport, commerce, finance and other subjects, all have a specific use in the administration of the national economy. Different ranges of statistics are already distinguished in respect of each of the matters concerning which statistics are collected, and the Department of Statistics published a total of almost 200 statistic ranges to meet the demand for statistics. These ranges have been built up over a long time. A few of them date from 1895, and quite a number came into existence before 1920. The statistic processing of the department’s own activities presently involves 4 million questionnaires or returns a year, and when the next population census is taken in 1980, it is expected that an additional 30 million returns will have to be processed. All statistics are collected in the national interests and are dealt with in a scientific manner by the department. South Africa’s statistics and its statistic service compare very favourably with that of foreign countries and offer good international comparisons and evaluations of our country’s circumstances and its status. I believe that the above considerations provide additional motivation for the provisions of clause 3.

Clause 7 provides that the Secretary shall collect statistics under this Act, which he shall also compile and process. The Secretary is being authorized by law to determine the manner of publication, something which is in fact already being done in practice.

Clause 8 concerns the preservation of secrecy in respect of the particulars furnished in individual returns, and it provides more expressly for secrecy, because it is essential that secrecy be preserved as to the contents of returns. The clause creates certain exceptions, but I believe that these could be more profitably argued during the Committee Stage, also in the light of an amendment which has been placed on the Order Paper.

Clause 14 contains exemptions from criminal liability in case of refusal to answer questions in connection with religion and political beliefs. It is interesting to note—I speak under correction, but I believe that this is so—that the position in England is that one is obliged to reply to every question which is put. I believe that the situation in Germany is the same.

Clause 17 authorizes the Minister to make regulations. Up to now it has been necessary to publish the whole statistic questionnaire in the Gazette. It was a list which contained all the questions in detailed form. This was not only a cumbersome procedure; it was also time-consuming and very expensive. The questionnaire will now be drawn up in such a way that only the relevant aspects of the statistics to be collected will be prescribed by regulation. I believe that this, too, is a considerable improvement.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to me to support this Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department with the way in which they went about bringing this legislation before this House. With the publication beforehand of a draft Bill, and giving us an opportunity of looking at it, as a result of which various amendments took place even before the Bill came before this House— something which very much meets with our approval—we would like to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister. We would also like to congratulate him on this way of operating, because it has certainly been of very great help. We would like to see more hon. Ministers doing a similar sort of thing.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches support this bit of legislation. We have various amendments which we shall move during the Committee Stage, amendments which have specifically to do with personal privacy. We believe that individuals are entitled to privacy in certain personal matters but at this stage we would like to say that we shall vote for the Bill. We also want to convey our thanks to the department for doing what they did before this Bill came before this House.