Mr. Speaker, when the House was adjourned yesterday evening, I had put the contention to the hon. the Minister that it was my view and the view of this side of the House that he was possessed of sufficient legislation to deal with any emergency that we could see on the horizon in this stage of the political life in this country. I had stated that the Public Safety Act, for instance, made sufficient provision for the hon. the Minister to act, and that in terms of that Act such action could be made retrospective for four days. In other words, he has the opportunity of taking immediate action, even prior to a proclamation appearing in the Gazette. We believe that in days as these, unless there is some other emergency of which only the hon. the Minister is personally aware, it is not necessary to clothe the executive with such far-reaching powers as are contained in this Bill. We do not believe that it is necessary or correct, in our system of democracy, that the executive should be clothed with such far-reaching powers. It has taken many centuries for Parliament to reach the state where it is the arbiter of the affairs of the nation, and it is only over the last half century or less that the system has unfortunately suffered some erosion, because of pressing conditions that have arisen, and that the executive has been given certain additional powers which it exercises without having to report fully to Parliament or without having to obtain the sanction of Parliament.

I must immediately point out that under normal conditions the principles contained in this Bill are abhorrent. The provisions relating to internment, for instance, virtually place every individual in this country in the palm of the hon. the Minister’s hand. I say this because the Minister only has to satisfy himself, according to his own judgment, that a person has done something which affects the security of the State before he may intern him, and that internment is subject only to a review committee. I do not find that review committee sufficiently adequate. I do not think that review committee is sufficient to cope with the powers which the Minister will have, powers which I think are somewhat iniquitous in these days. If the hon. the Minister believes that he does need these additional powers, I believe that this measure should be referred to a Select Committee where the facts can be placed before it. In this way hon. members will be able to satisfy themselves that some situation exists which requires the sort of powers which the hon. the Minister says he needs. I do not think the hon. the Minister can ask for more than that. I believe that the Government’s persistence in introducing legislation of this kind reflects very badly on the standards which some hon. members opposite have tried to maintain are the standards of which this Parliament is proud.

I want to refer again to the point I made yesterday concerning contraventions. The section which I referred to, namely section 11 of the existing Act, only deals with penalties relating to contraventions by persons who are already subject to an order. In other words, the action of the Minister cannot be tested in any way whatsoever, except, of course, when it comes to a question of mala fides, which is an impossible situation.

That is the existing position.

Yes, that is the existing procedure. The contravention therefore only relates to a person who does not obey the actual orders which have been placed upon him, but the orders still subject the freedom of the individual to the pleasure of the hon. the Minister, and we are asking that situation be changed, and that we should have an opportunity of dealing with the matter in a more proper manner. I want to say, in reply to some of the criticism that has been directed towards this side of the House, that hon. members opposite have only indulged in certain emotional aspects of the question of security. That subject is one which is not of consequence at the moment. There is not a person in this country who is unconcerned about the security of the people of South Africa. There is nobody in this country who is not concerned about the security of our borders, or who is unconcerned about the state of the nation. We are all very much concerned about this matter; we are very much aware of it, and we are very much alerted to it. But because we are concerned about, are aware of and alerted to the question of security, it does not mean that we should sacrifice all the vital principles of the freedom of the individual or the vital principles of the maintenance of justice or the vital principles of a person having the right to be tried before a court of law. All these valuable principles should not be sacrificed simply because we are alert to the question of security. All countries in the world are alert to the question of security. There is nothing new about this and every hon. member knows that if you take Europe as it stands today, they should have legislation very much more stringent possibly, than what we contemplate here, because of the tremendous dangers with which they are faced. Reports tell us that by conventional war alone the whole of the communist world in Europe could almost annihilate the rest of Europe. It would not be a very difficult matter for them to do so. They are facing dangers which are inconceivable, but nevertheless the life of every nation must proceed normally, and we are endeavouring, as I said earlier, to keep a balance with all the powers in our hands today and with the security forces which we have in this country. That these are tremendous powers, the hon. the Minister cannot deny. But if the hon. the Minister can prove to us that the powers which he has now are not adequate—that is the point at stake—and that South Africa is in a position where we have to have greater and greater powers, where every person virtually has to look over his shoulder for every movement he makes, then he must state his case to this side of the House and not merely tell us that it is necessary to close up the gaps existing in the Acts which he seeks to amend. He must define what he wants.

We are merely asking that instead of presenting us with such a broad base which, as I said before, encompasses the very existence of every human being in this country, he should give us some detail, as is done in most countries and in most laws and even in many of our own laws dealing with the same subject. We must have clearer definitions of the actions against which the State must be protected. We must know what the harm is from which the State must be protected, harmful acts in which any individual may indulge. In these respects I think that we require a very much stronger case from the hon. the Minister before anyone, in the country as a matter of fact, could even contemplate going back again to a measure of internment. It was bad enough when we had it in respect of only one individual and when we were obliged year by year to pass a law in order to extend the detention of this person who had served his sentence. Previously the clause provided that a person had actually to be arraigned before a court and found guilty and only where there was some concern in the mind of the executive that he might still proceed with his attitudes and be harmful to the security of the State, was he retained. Now that is taken away, so that virtually any person whom the hon. the Minister feels should be detained, can be detained by the hon. the Minister and detained for all time without ever having to appear before a court of law, or without him ever having had an opportunity to put his case before a court. These things go to the very core of our entire system.

Therefore I shall conclude by saying that we on this side of the House do not deny the hon. the Minister, if it should be necessary, additional powers if there is any gap in his existing powers. But we ask for the normal, natural method of doing it, i.e. that members of this House should sit together in a Select Committee to consider the matter and to deal with it, to deal with the safeguards that should be provided with a view to retaining the confidence of the citizens, to retaining the loyalty of the citizens and to ensuring that there should be a proper balance between justice, the freedom of the individual and at the same time the protection of the State. I believe that there is only one method of doing this and that is not by placing these arbitrary powers in the hands of the executive, but rather by bringing forward a Bill constructed on an entirely different basis, a Bill with the necessary safeguards to ensure that the principles for which we stand are maintained. That is the vital issue which faces us today.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I should like to find out from the hon. the Minister of Justice whether he would be prepared to accept an amendment which will be introduced by an hon. member on this side of the House during the Committee Stage. The amendment is in connection with clauses 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill and in all cases reads more or less as follows—

I am not going to furnish a specific reply now to what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, as I shall deal with many of the matters which he raised in any event. Two aspects of this legislation have recently evoked rather wide-spread comment, inter alia in this House yesterday, and in the newspapers by outside bodies. I am now referring to clause 4(c), in other words to the new paragraph (a)bis which is to be inserted. This is an amendment of section 10 of the principal Act, the section which deals with preventive detention. I think this matter must be made very clear, for in the speeches that were made, this provision was wrested out of its context completely. This provision is not continuous, nor does it come into operation immediately. It is in fact a temporary measure which may be put into operation by the State President when he deems necessary. The new paragraph (bA) which is being inserted by clause 4(f), reads inter alia as follows—

It is therefore not a continuous measure. It is a measure which we are now placing on the Statute Book, keeping on ice for the time being and only putting into operation when it is necessary.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to the British temporary legislation on the prevention of terrorism, and also to Canadian legislation. She is always fond of running to England for examples. That British legislation is also of a preventive nature of course, and is only put into operation from time to time. However, it was drawn up by the British for British circumstances. The British are therefore keeping that legislation in readiness until such time as it is required. She said that the legislation has to be passed by the British Parliament every six months, and in that respect she may be correct; I have not read the legislation. The British Parliament, however, sits throughout the year. In South Africa Parliament sits for six months of the year only. South Africa is always prepared to learn from others if there is something to be learned, but basically we make our own measures according to our own needs and as we think they are going to suit us best. The hon. member has wrested matters out of their context completely with the sinister aspect which she wants to tie in with the proposed section. The proposed section is not coming into operation now; it will come into operation for a particular situation and only for as long as the State President, on the advice of his Ministers, deems it necessary to keep it in operation. When the State President suspends the operation of the section, all measures which were made in terms of it fall away.

Another aspect which was referred to and debated at length—it was also referred to outside the House—is the establishment of the review committee for which provision is being made in the proposed section 10sex. The Johannesburg Bar also had a great deal to say about it. The hon. member for Houghton slated this committee and the hon. member for Sandton unleashed his usual tirade about it. It is very clear to me that the critics are either reading into it what they want to read into it, or have not read the Bill at all. What is the proposed section 10sex going to establish? Firstly it makes provision for a judge or magistrate as chairman. The judge or magistrate will be assisted by two other persons, but the judge or the magistrate will take charge. The person who has received legal training will preside.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana saw fit to cast an oblique aspersion on judicial officers—specifically magistrates—of the State by saying that he prefers a judge because some query-mark or other is placed against a magistrate. The commissioners of his party who signed the minority report of the Schlebusch Commission state in their minority report that they will be satisfied with judges or senior magistrates.

What is the review committee going to do? The proposed section provides emphatically that the review committee investigates the action of the Minister. Surely this is stated very clearly and phrased very widely. In the process of their investigation they consider written or oral representations from any person, and after they have completed their investigation, they make written recommendations to the Minister. The hon. member for Houghton tried to slate the proposed section by saying that the committee is actually of no value whatsoever. She expressed herself very strongly on this matter.

What are the implications of the investigation into the behaviour of the Minister? It means that the committee has to be satisfied that the Minister had sufficient grounds to restrict a particular person. Should the Minister not have had these, I do not believe that the committee would make a recommendation to the Minister which would be acceptable to him. How is that committee going to be satisfied that the Minister had sufficient grounds for restricting that particular person? The committee must be satisfied that the restriction took place on sufficient grounds and it will only be possible to satisfy the committee when the Minister informs them of all the facts at his disposal. If the committee is not satisfied, then it submits a report to that effect to Parliament. If Parliament is not in session at the time, report has to be made to Parliament within a month after Parliament is again in session.

The hon. members who discussed the review committee and slated it, were, through their statements, in the first place casting reflections on the judicial officers of South Africa. What is more: They are casting reflections on Parliament as such, because they are saying by implication that Parliament will not listen to the report of a judicial officer on improper action by a Minister of the State.

I also want to refer specifically to the remarks made by certain Opposition speakers yesterday. I want to begin with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. That hon. member actually made a Committee Stage speech yesterday, with this difference, however, that he dealt with all the clauses in one speech. One of his complaints was that the Minister was defining the offence too widely in this Bill. He said that he wanted it defined “narrowly, clearly and concisely”. Actually this Bill contains no definition.

This Bill makes it an offence if any person endangers the security of the State or public order. As a former legal practitioner the hon. member ought to know how lawyers play with definitions and how definitions can frustrate the law. I want to tell him that in this way he is playing into the hands of those people who are bent on manipulating definitions. The subverted and saboteurs all have their advisers, and all they have to do, is to look at the way the definition is worded and then make sure that their deeds or actions are not covered by the definition. The position is no more and no less than this. We have not given a definition precisely in order that they could not try and get past a definition. Definitions are food for the subverter and a plaything for the lawyer. The hon. member, as a legal practitioner who knows the South African and the English criminal law, ought to know this very well.

The hon. member also referred to the USA in his speech. He quoted two clauses from the Committee on Internal Security of the USA. Both the clauses which he quoted, contain a blanket term which actually made all other specifications redundant. The two passages which he quoted, both contain the words “or any other unlawful means”.

I want to dispose of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I do not want to dwell on his speech for very long, except to say that the speech which he made yesterday, was typical of the image of his party and of the type of leadership which stems from that party. Let me quote from his speech to indicate the tenor of the speech he made yesterday. He said (Hansard, page B. 2)—

He went on to say—

This is the type of speech which will go down so well at the clubs in Durban, Cape Town and Johannesburg because one can interpret a speech like this as one wants. For instance he can say: “Yes, of course, old chap, I concede that there is a difficulty but, you know, on the other hand, old chap, I said this party has always been against preventive detention.” This Government no longer philosophizes about freedom on the one hand and the maintenance of freedom on the other. This Government’s standpoint in this regard is that it is close to midnight, and that it must and will clamp down on these matters. He also referred to the “English-speaking world” of South Africa which reacted so vehemently to the revelations about Nusas. If we had not had the “Afrikaans-speaking world” and the Schlebusch Commission—supported by the hon. member for Mooi River, the hon. member for Green Point and others—the “English-speaking world” would have known nothing about the cancer in the bosom of their children and of the universities, nor would they have been able to take the action they did. I want to tell the hon. member that in his speech yesterday, he ought to have thanked the Government, and the hon. the Prime Minister specifically, for the service they did South Africa by exposing Nusas and Wilgespruit to the view of the whole South African community.

I now want to direct myself to the hon. member for Houghton. I am not going to speak to her for long. We know her standpoint. She proclaims it like a cicada. However, I want to ask her and the Press which supports her—I do not know whether she dictates to that Press or if it dictates to her—to stop comparing legislation introduced by this Government with Nazi legislation, and describing it in Nazi terms and all types of other sinister terms. She refers to the present Bill as the “SS Act”.

I did not name it that. You called it that a moment ago. And it was called that by the newspapers.

You used that term, and you used it in connection with this Bill. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred, inter alia, to the earlier legislation which was dealt with here as the Piscom Act and the Boss Act. There is a continual process of disparagement of the laws made by this Parliament. Since she is now becoming such an “elder stateswoman” I should like to tell her: “Be your age”. [Interjections.]

That would be very unpleasant.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak seriously to the hon. member for Houghton. While she is sitting in this Parliament, and while she is attacking this Government and its laws, she has been enjoying all the benefits of all the laws of this Government since 1950. She and her party are enjoying them. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, they are enjoying the benefits of these laws. Like mosquitoes they are feeding to repletion on the economic benefits and wealth of South Africa, wealth which is a result of the prosperity created by this Government. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I now turn to the hon. member for Sandton. I do not want to speak to him for long either. Yesterday he referred to crises here. He said that his party is constantly warning against crises, but the Government keeps on insisting that no crises exist. According to him hon. members on this side of the House are themselves alleging now that there are crises. We have our crisis. I shall speak about it in a moment. However, they also have their crisis. Their crisis is one which the PRP is seeking in South Africa. In the first place their party consists of a group of hysterical little men. [Interjections.] They are seeking a crisis by means of which they can overthrow the policy which the NP follows with respect to South Africa. They are hoping for a crisis between White and Black. On the one hand they are trying to fill the Whites of South Africa with fear of the Blacks. Furthermore they are trying to transform that fear into a hatred of the Government. In this way they hope to cause the voters to stampede away from the Government and into their party at the polls. This is what it boils down to. At the same time they take the part of the non-Whites over so-called social and other injustices and foment bitterness and resentment among the non-Whites. In this way they are sowing dragons’ teeth in South Africa, day after day.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member that although he is making a Second Reading speech on a subject which is very wide, he nevertheless has to try to keep to the subject of the Bill.

Sir, I am referring to the crisis situation in regard to security to which the hon. member for Sandton referred yesterday. The hon. member’s party is hoping there will be a polarization between Black and White, and that in this way a confrontation crisis will be caused in this country. The hon. member’s party is trying to create a crisis psychosis in South Africa. This is dangerous, and the Whites and non-Whites of South Africa must be warned against the methods of the PRP. I just want to say this one more thing to the hon. member for Sandton, for I do not have more time to devote to him: If he says that a politician is not able to have an objective point of view with regard to a particular matter, and if this is the poor criterion with which he gauges himself, he must not gauge others with it. As for the speech the hon. member made yesterday, I feel compelled to tell him that I only have the greatest and utter contempt for his and his spiritual compatriot’s political point of view. If the hon. member does not like South Africa, I advise him to follow David Knight, one of the PRP’s candidates during the last election, to Canada.

I should like to tell the Official Opposition a little “home news” by referring to a publication of the Council of the Institute of the Study of Conflict. Leonard Shapiro is the chairman of this council and there are also a few vice-admirals and lords serving on it.

A certain Paul Wilkinson, a senior lecturer in political science at the University of Cardiff, presented a publication under the title “Terrorism versus Liberal Democracy—the Problems of Response”. He deals with the question of “Special powers: detention”. I should like to read what he has to say in this connection—

The hon. member for Houghton must listen to this. I shall repeat this sentence for her sake—

This document comes from England—

I skip a paragraph and continue—

That is what we have here: If detention occurs under the Act, then a judge or magistrate reviews the detention of a person from time to time. He then makes a recommendation to the hon. the Minister in this respect, a recommendation which, if necessary, may be referred to Parliament.

South Africa is faced with the greatest and one of the most decisive moments. If we can make a meaningful breakthrough in Africa, if we can ensure that the nations of South West Africa can work out a satisfactory constitution for themselves and if we can place the new young country, the Transkei, firmly upon its feet, then I do not see any limits in future to the growth, progress and freedom which will descend upon our country and the peoples of our country. For many people within and outside South Africa, those greatest moments will be their most despairing moments. They will be moments of immense frustration and disappointment. This will also be so for certain people in this Parliament. They will do everything in their power to prevent that moment from arriving and to frustrate it completely. To tell the truth, the closer that moment comes, the more desperate they are going to become. Two years ago in Abidjan Mr. “Soapy” Williams said more or less the following to South Africans—

But, he added, he no longer took notice of predictions of that kind. However, we have reason for concern. We know that if we do not take certain measures in time, a crisis will arise in South Africa. This is the crisis which we are referring to, namely a crisis which can be prevented. There are certain factors which give reason for concern. For example there is Angola, from which 15 000 Cuban soldiers, Russian tanks and other weapons have not yet been withdrawn. This presents Swapo with an ideal springboard, and indeed we hear from time to time about Swapo’s actions in Angola. There are people in South Africa who want to stir up trouble in the labour world. There are people who are trying to sow unrest among our White and non-White students. There are people who have been released, people who were convicted during the ’sixties in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act of terrorism, sabotage, murder, etc. We know these people have been released and that they have returned to their old ways. Against this background there is sufficient reason for concern. There are also sufficient grounds for introducing such legislation as this, which can be implemented when necessary to prevent unnecessary bloodshed in South Africa, so that home and hearth will be unassailed and so that our country will not eventually be plunged into utter chaos.

Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member for Waterkloof expressed himself in his usual bitter way, it was quite noticeable that he was rather quiet, that his whole tone was somewhat subdued. It is almost as if he was hoping that his colleagues at the Bar in Cape Town and at the Bar in Johannesburg—of which he once was a member, an associate—might not hear him express the views which he expressed today.

Why are you introducing that story?

I am quite happy. If you want to drag …

No, you are dragging it in.

Make no mistake, the views of the Bar Councils of South Africa are relevant to the issue which is now being debated by the House. It is therefore not a question of dragging it in. It is inside the public arena already and there is therefore no question of dragging it in. I think the hon. member for Waterkloof spoke in a subdued tone, subconsciously hoping that his colleagues at the Bar would not hear him. The theme of the hon. member’s speech is that this is legislation, in which there are provisions which we are going to use to keep things on ice. Well, Sir, since 1950 we have had an awful lot of legislation which has been kept on ice. The Suppression of Communism Act alone has been amended over 80 times and then there is all the other legislation which followed it. So we have so much ice that we need a whole refrigeration system to keep the legislation which the hon. the Minister wants on ice.

I would like to say just one thing to the hon. member for Waterkloof. I believe the public of South Africa are not worried about the cold or the ice. They are worried about the heat that is now being turned on in South Africa, the heat that is being generated by this type of legislation.

If I may, I would like to put my party’s view of this legislation. In the first place, there is no issue that all of us in the House agree that law and order need to be maintained in South Africa. Secondly, as far as change is concerned, we believe that whether the change is of a social nature or of the constitution, it must come about by lawful and constitutional means. For our particular approach to the problems of South Africa we certainly need a stable society. We cannot allow violence to be used to bring about change. We also fundamentally believe that the rule of law also means respect for the law.

One aspect of the legislation which is important to note is that the hon. the Minister and the Government have now realized that subversion is not only the work of the communists, that it is incorrect to label every subversive a communist and that the security threat to South Africa does not come from communists only. In the light of this we should specifically state what our view of this legislation is. Those who indulge in unlawful activity in South Africa, whether it be subversion or treason or sedition or public violence, or any of the other matters of such a nature, must be tried and punished. The judgment as to what should be the offence is the function of Parliament. In other words, it is for Parliament to define what the offence is. The form of punishment that is to be prescribed, is also something which should be prescribed by Parliament. We have, for example, the question of treason, sedition and public violence being redefined by the Law Commission. The Law Commission has defined these crimes, and it is now for Parliament to decide by way of legislation to decide whether those are definitions it wants. That is the function of Parliament. The decision whether or not action should be taken against any particular individual, or against any group or organization, is the function of the executive, and this is normally exercised through the Attorney-General. The determination of the guilt of an individual, of the organization or of the group, is to be and should be by the court, as is the punishment to be imposed, at a trial which should be conducted in accordance with the normal procedures of our courts. The enforcement of the punishment is again the function of the executive. These functions, as they are here prescribed, are fundamental to Roman-Dutch law and fundamental to all the thinking in democratic States. There is only one rider and that is that the normal rule should only be departed from in times of war or national emergency. When there is to be a departure from the normal rule, then there should be safeguards which, while they do not imperil the security of the State, should ensure that the innocent are not unjustly penalized. The one aspect which, with respect, neither the hon. the Minister, nor any other member on the Government benches dealt with, is the fact that it is the tactic of the communists and of other subversives to create issues as a result of which the normal rules are to be suspended so that they may then ignore the original issues and concentrate on attacking the authority which has suspended the normal rules and call that authority undemocratic. In the circumstances the original issue ceases to be of importance. What happens then is that the authority is attacked. It is then said that authority is undemocratic. That is why, in a democratic State, one only has recourse to these measures as a last resort.

One does not, as was advocated by the hon. member for Waterkloof, have a whole armoury of provisions, all standing on ice, ready to be used against anyone at the discretion, not of Parliament, but of the executive. Therefore we believe that by introducing this type of legislation the hon. the Minister is in fact giving another stick with which to beat South Africa and with which to beat the authorities, if they want to show themselves as being part of the Western democratic system. I want to repeat that we believe that such measures can only be introduced in time of war or during an emergency which is duly declared, and that the best weapons against subversion are the weapons of democracy and the rule of law. There is a further weapon which we cannot ignore, and that is that one must have and maintain a society in which subversion cannot flourish. What is also essential, and what we cannot overlook, is that in enacting measures to protect society, we must be sure that we do not permanently endanger the values which that society has. I believe that with this type of measure which is now being introduced, we are in fact putting a scar upon the society which we value and which we think is important.

So that there can be no misunderstanding, I want to say that as far as we are concerned we will be found to support legislation which creates properly defined and reasonable offences such as subversion in respect of activities which endanger the security of the State, and which allows a court of law to determine the innocence or guilt of the individuals who are charged, and then to apply punishment. May I, on this issue, refer to the often quoted words from The Federalist—

I believe, Sir, that we are not even in times of heat and violence, and I therefore do not believe that this legislation is justified at this stage.

So you would also have supported the Terrorism Act at Second Reading in this House?

I do not understand the hon. the Minister’s question at all. I think he should listen to what I am trying to tell him. I think the hon. the Minister, who is so fond of asking questions, has a question to answer.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is talking to the hon. the Minister about Miss Reinecke, I want to point out that this is not the correct debate in which to do so. [Interjections.] The question which the hon. the Minister has to answer is why the courts should not be allowed to do what the Minister now wants the executive to have the power to do. That is the question which he did not answer in his Second Reading speech, and it is a question to which we are entitled to have an answer. If we go through the legislation in detail, I think it is clear that there must be activities which endanger the security of the State and the maintenance of public order, which must be punished. There is no question about that. What is interesting is that the crime of treason in fact includes any action which endangers the security of the State. May I here read from the Law Commission’s report to show what the state of the law is at the moment, and not in terms of the redefinition. It says—

In other words, it is sufficient in relation to the crime of treason. It states further—

Then, dealing with a different point, I quote further—

There is already as part of our common law a crime which makes conduct which endangers the security of the State punishable and punishable in the courts.

As far as the amendments are concerned, in the first instance they deal with the aspect concerning organizations, publications, gatherings and restrictions on movements. The amendments which are now being put forward, must be seen within the ambit of the principal Act, in terms of which it is not a judicial action which decides whether someone is to be restricted or is to be affected. It is purely to be an executive act. Secondly, in respect of certain organizations, and publications in particular, the action is taken without notice and without any hearing whatsoever. These are matters which quite clearly offend against the concepts in which we in these benches believe.

If I may, I should now like to turn to the question of internment. Even when there is a national emergency or a war, as we have indicated, safeguards are in fact needed. May I ask the hon. the Minister in his reply to deal with the following: Why should internment, for example, even during a time of emergency or war, mean that a man must be kept in prison or in prison conditions? Why should a man who has not been found guilty of any act have his family life destroyed, have his business life, his job or his career completely ruined?

Because he endangers the security of the State.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central says that it is because he is endangering the security of the State. That is the very point: It has not been shown that he has done that. It is merely a preventive measure. It is clearly demonstrated that if it could be shown, he would have been brought before the courts. What is happening is that without it being proved, without it being established that he has committed this offence—he may be entirely innocent—he is taken into custody. I took the trouble to go and look up the Hansards of the debates during the war. There is no better person whom I can call as a witness than the hon. member for Brits, because only yesterday I read about how he pleaded, and I believe correctly, for farmers who farmed in his area on an allotment and having their whole existence ruined as a result of being interned. Does the hon. member remember that speech? He pleaded for it and he made the same points that I am making today, and the hon. member knows it. I believe that he was right, because I do not believe that you must intern people and then not even compensate them when their whole livelihood, their whole existence—everything—is adversely affected by it. It is unjust. The hon. member was right in what he said and, remember, that was during the war. I believe that even then, if there is a possibility that a man is innocent, you have to see that he is compensated and that he is treated in the most humane manner possible and not treated as if he were a convicted prisoner.

You agreed with it at the time.

I did not agree with that at the time. I fought in the war at that time and that did not mean that I agreed that innocent people should not be compensated when they have been wrongly locked up. I have always adopted that view, and I adopt it now. I fought for what I believed in and I do not hold it against the hon. member, even though I think that he was wrong in his attitude at that time. But I do not hold it against him that he held that belief honestly. One thing that I shall say about the hon. member for Brits is that whatever belief he has, he has honesty. There is no question about that. So, this is what is involved here. There is no provision for compensation here and there are no safeguards. If we talk about having things on ice, we have all the legislation in the world on ice. Take as an example the Public Safety Act that gives the Government powers which are as wide as any which are now contained in this Bill.

The ice man cometh.

“The ice man cometh,” says the hon. member for Pinelands.

Let me now deal with the review committee. The question that has to be asked is whether the review committee is in fact a safeguard. Why—and I think the hon. the Minister must deal with it—does the review committee only deal with internment? Why does it not deal with other executive action? Why is it not a proper review of executive action in the true sense of the word, a review which is binding on the hon. the Minister? There is not a word in his Second Reading speech as to why he does not want this to be binding on him. The next question is: Why, in a serious matter such as this, do we not have a judge as the chairman and the other judicial officers as the remaining members? This is, after all, a very serious matter. How can one decide whether a man should be locked up if he has no right to a hearing and no right to test the truth of the allegations against him? Perhaps the hon. the Minister or someone else could also tell me something. The hon. member for Ermelo is one who always has so much to say across the floor of the House. Perhaps he can tell us how one answers a charge against one when one does not know what the charge is.

One does know what the charge is.

How does one know on what one has to give evidence? How does one know what one is alleged to have done wrong? There is another thing I want to ask the hon. the Minister. Why does he not immediately want to publish the fact that he has turned down a recommendation from the committee? Parliament might not sit for six months, and in the meantime someone stays locked up. I also want the hon. the Minister to tell us how we can debate that issue in this House when we do not know the facts and he is not obliged to give them to us. I think these are questions that have to be answered during this debate.

If the hon. the Minister wants to take certain precautionary steps in times of peace, should he not approach the matter in a way which would safeguard the basic concepts of our Roman-Dutch legal system? Should he not first have consulted the Association of Law Societies and obtained its views? If he did consult the various bar councils and the Association of Law Societies, I think he should tell us, because according to the newspapers the Natal Society of Advocates states that it has not even seen the Bill. Consequently it cannot even express an opinion.

They are not doing their job.

Now I want to deal briefly with bail provisions. I accept the fact that bail has to be refused in certain circumstances, but this cannot be done indefinitely. A trial can take a tremendously long time, so something has to be done to bring a matter to trial quickly if one is holding a man who is not entitled to bail.

Then I come to the question of witnesses. If it is alleged that this is a provision designed to protect witnesses, why should they be kept in gaol? Why should they be subjected to gaol conditions? They are not guilty of any crime. They are innocent. Why can provisions not be made for their custody other than subjecting them to gaol conditions? Surely if one is a witness one should not be treated as if one had been tried and convicted, but this is what is being done in terms of this legislation. Again there are no safeguards given. The man who is a witness in a case can have his family life destroyed because he has no right to see his family or lead a normal family life. He can also have his business career destroyed, let alone the fact that he is deprived of the ordinary comforts of life. Once he has given evidence, what happens then? Then he is let out and the State apparently washes its hands of him. Surely the hon. the Minister has a duty to see to it that the State does not simply wash its hands of the witness once he has given evidence.

How different might not the hon. the Minister’s reception have been, not only in this House, but also throughout South Africa, if he had approached the legislation quite differently; if he had provided for a judicial tribunal to which any person aggrieved by executive action could appeal; if he made all executive action restricting an individual or organization or publication subject to review; if affected persons could be given the complaints against them, could cross-examine to test the validity of those complaints and give evidence to answer the particular charges, with all the safeguards that are required in order to secure the safety of the State; if he had been willing to accept the findings of a judicial tribunal as binding on him; if the conditions under which internees and witnesses were detained were not prison conditions, but took into account the fact that they have not been found guilty of any crime and if adequate compensation were paid to persons against whom no guilt is established. If he would have provided for all this, would that not have been a more reasonable approach? I think the hon. the Minister owes it to this House to tell us precisely why each one of these items was rejected by him.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that at this moment of time South Africa needs confidence. South Africa needs confidence in our future and it needs the knowledge that stability can be maintained. This is needed not only on the part of our own people in order to encourage them to invest in South Africa and so to help build up our country. We also need the confidence of overseas investors such as bankers and other businessmen. Even a cursory glance at our budget shows how essential overseas loans and investments are for South Africa’s economy. We are told by one Government spokesman after another that there is no crisis in South Africa, that all is well and that race relations have never been better. In his speech the hon. the Minister gave no indication that in so far as this was concerned there was anything to the contrary in what was said by his colleague. The question which must be put to the hon. the Minister therefore is: Will the enactment of this legislation not harm our image overseas and may it not have an adverse effect on our ability to get the investments we need? May I put two further questions to him? Will it not be asked that, if conditions are stable as it is alleged, why then this legislation? Will this legislation not be regarded by those in the West who value democracy, as an inroad into democratic processes with the result that we will find that our image has been damaged? By means of an interjection across the floor yesterday the hon. member for Waterkloof said the NP was not interested in overseas opinion. This recklessness can only do South Africa harm. We as a people and our economy need overseas confidence and the ordinary South African may have to pay the price of this recklessness on the part of the NP.

The difficulty as I see it here, is that there is an issue of principle between the hon. the Minister and his party and ourselves sitting in these benches. That issue of principle is easily stated: We want to fight against subversion, but we want to use the weapons that the rule of law gives us, except if we are in war or we have to declare an emergency. That is why the principle which is at issue in this piece of legislation is not the small amendments which we may move or which others may move to try to improve the legislation, but that the rule of the law is the best weapon against subversion.

Mr. Speaker, I immediately want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that I cannot believe that he and the hon. member for Houghton are members of the same party. In the course of what I have to say, I shall indicate why I cannot believe this. I gained the impression that, while dealing with the legislation, the hon. member was careful not to refer to the various clauses. If the hon. member for Yeoville will give me his attention, I would like to ask him a few questions.

Ask your questions; I am listening.

The hon. member said he is told that there is no crisis. What does he think: Is there a crisis or is there not?

What do you say?

No, I am asking the hon. member.

But you are part of the Government; you ought to know.

Does the hon. member agree that there is a crisis or does he think that there is no crisis?

There is not a crisis which makes this legislation necessary. The legislation is unnecessary.

The hon. member says there is not a crisis which makes this legislation necessary. In the course of my argument I shall point out that it is necessary to take these measures in order to prevent the crisis which may develop for South Africa in the light of certain plans. There is another question I want to ask the hon. member. The hon. member said that witnesses can be wronged as a result of the manner in which they may be detained according to the proposed section 12B. The hon. member referred to one aspect only of the motivation of the hon. the Minister, namely that the life of the witness could be in danger. However, he did not read the clause fully. The clause provides that if the Attorney-General is of the opinion that “there is any danger of tampering with or intimidation of any person likely to give material evidence … in any criminal proceedings … or that any such person may abscond, or whenever he deems it to be in the interests of such person”, he may take certain steps. There is therefore a great many possibilities under discussion here.

But such a person did not commit an offence.

Why did the hon. member not refer to this? The hon. member himself said that we are here dealing with an illegal offence affecting State security. He referred to the report of the Law Commission which will possibly result in sedition and State interference being made a statutory offence. Does the hon. member mean to say that we should release a witness who may be of real importance in a criminal case? Is this what he wants?

He does not have to be locked up. There are other ways in which he can be protected.

This is done for his own safety, to prevent intimidation and to prevent him absconding. All three are possibilities we have to take into account. In this connection I also want to tell the hon. member that, for the sake of convenience, he forgot about the measures for which the proposed new section 10sex provides. Those measures deal with the matter being referred back to Parliament. The hon. member, just like one of the Bar councils, expressed considerable reservation about this measure.

Two of the Bar councils.

That makes it even worse. The fact of the matter is that under given circumstances—for example, after the Minister has refused to meet the review committee—the Minister must report to Parliament. Furthermore, in connection with the detention of witnesses—to indicate the reasonableness of this Bill once again from another point of view—it is a fact that, under certain circumstances, a witness must be visited at least once a week. There are also other measures to be taken in connection with visits. Why did the hon. member not mention these matters? Why are they not taken note of? These are definitely positive steps which are taken to prevent this measure, which is a drastic one, from affecting people in an unmerciful way. In this connection I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville: If he admits that we can apply these measures in times of need, does he want to suggest that a state of emergency can only be created by declaring a state of emergency? The hon. member referred to legislation which made provision for this. It is a fact that the Public Safety Act as well as the Defence Act provides for a state of emergency to be declared. The hon. members for Houghton, Yeoville and Umhlatuzana as well as others argued as if a state of emergency could only arise by declaring a state of emergency. The fact of the matter is that, as Mr. Justice Rose-Innes decided in 1915, the State has the inherent right to defend itself, and, as he stated further—

Are we in such danger now?

Listen carefully now. The judge went on to say—

There is therefore no question at all of a proclamation being a prerequisite. The fact that the measure concerning the proclamation of a state of emergency is embodied in two Acts, only means that we are taking particular measures in these Acts, on the one hand with respect to defence, and on the other with respect to State security. However, this does not mean that we have created a new right which must first be exercised by the State President before a state of emergency arises. The powers which the hon. the Minister is now taking upon himself, are therefore based on the basic principle of the inherent right of the State to defend itself whenever it deems necessary.

The hon. member for Yeoville further accused us of actually facilitating the tactics of communism by taking these measures. Furthermore, he asked why the hon. the Minister was harnessing the executive authority, while he could have referred the matter to the courts. The answer remains as it has always been: The courts have no preventive measures; it is the task of this Parliament to claim those powers and to exercise them. I want to conclude by referring the hon. member to what the hon. the Prime Minister said in 1962 when he introduced the General Law Amendment Bill in order to make it possible to take action against saboteurs—

The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say—

This is what the hon. the Prime Minister said.

The hon. member made one final point, to which I should like to react. It concerns the circumstances which contribute towards this Bill being used to broaden the whole base of the Suppression of Communism Act The hon. member himself furnished a reply to this to a large extent. He said that the threat does not only come from communism, but that it is a far wider threat. In the time at my disposal I should like to sketch to you briefly the circumstances and the situation in South Africa at present and what could lead to this basis having to be broadened with a view to the future. During the past years it was a case of brain power against brain power, of intelligence against intelligence, of our best against their best. Thanks to the excellent men we have had at the top, the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Yeoville could make their speeches today in this House in peace. It will continue in this way: Move against move, movement against movement. We shall have to realize that, if we want to make a certain move, the planners of the attack against us will make another move. It will compel us to determine once again whether our measures are adequate. We have made it to the other side. We are standing where we are today, very much stronger than 25 or 26 years ago, thanks to our ability of move against move, meeting brain power with brain power.

We are now asking for a measure which will enable the hon. the Minister to make another move if necessary. The NP will make that move if necessary. Today there are three groups in South Africa who are occupied with so-called changes. The first group involves the political parties which is trying to sell their policy successfully, for example the PRP and the UP. They are trying to bring about a change by means of the ballot-box. There is a second group, to which I shall refer as the internal group, a group which refuses to exercise their right to an equal say and participation in the activities of the State along constitutional ways. They prefer to go the way of violence. Last but not least there is a third group. This is the foreign group, the unknown factor, the Russian imperialism and other allied forces which also make use of internal groups and of other groups elsewhere in the world. The hon. member for Yeoville asked a question to which I am trying to furnish an answer. He wanted to know why we are broadening the base, why we now want to make the whole concept with respect to communism so wide. It is very important that we should take note that the foreign groups to whom I referred, cannot be successful unless the internal groups which move outside Parliament or outside the constitution, support them. The internal group cannot succeed unless a political party acts as their mentor and continually stands in for them and creates the idea that an opportunity exists for them to succeed in their evil plans. The question is who and what these groups are and whether their behaviour is a danger to the State. If so, is their action of such a nature that it falls within the framework of existing legislation, legislation in terms of which it is punishable? The problem is that their action is of such a nature that it seems to be legal and seems to be an isolated action which, should it succeed, would usher in the next phase. This is the dilemma which we have with the existing legislation. I am referring to the trial of the Rev. ffrench-Beytagh in 1972-’73. In that case a charge was laid against the Rev. ffrench-Beytagh and in it was stated, inter alia, that the Communist Party had certain goals in connection with South Africa and a particular plan and that it was well known that they were proceeding to carry out that plan. During that trial, the court—it was only a few years ago—found that the plan still existed and although the Reverend ffrench-Beytagh was found not guilty, he had material in his possession which fell within the purview of the Suppression of Communism Act. However, the Reverend ffrench-Beytagh was found not guilty because he supposedly did not have the intention and because the State could not prove that he had this intention. The Appeal Court, the highest court in the country, however, found that the plan does indeed still exist. This is the point which I am trying to make, that the plan still exists and that a large variety of methods are used to carry out this plan.

If we put together all our knowledge and look for a common factor among the internal groups, there is one war cry which they raise and this is “the redistribution of power, wealth and land”. It is also a fact that if one analyses the matter further, they tell one that, in order to bring about the redistribution of land, they must first obtain power. They propagate that they will obtain this power under all circumstances, but after that the propaganda disappears in the sand and manifests itself in a variety of other forms of behaviour. We can identify that which they want to achieve as socialism as propagated by Lenin, namely that a basis of power must first be obtained and after that a redistribution of land and wealth, which will eventually centre in the hands of the State, will take place. Opposed to this we have socialism in the Western sense which advocates a more equal division of the national income. Then we still have African socialism according to which political rights are ensured for all adult citizens and various forms of land tenure and property ownership, including private ownership, are established. Then there is also the Arabian socialism, which is similar to African socialism, with a strong religious element and which is opposed to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

If one analyses the strategy of the groups in South Africa, one finds that what they want to establish here, is the socialism of Lenin, and the hon. member for Houghton knows this very well.

What do you mean by that?

The hon. member for Houghton was lecturer in economics, not so? The groups advocating the redistribution of power, land and property, use of a variety of methods, inter alia, the creation of tension amongst workers, the creation of tension between students and the State and between the labourers and the State, between the church and the State and eventually also between the intellectuals and the State. We have dealt with all these phenomena from time to time and have eradicated them from our civilization. However, what about indirect strategy? What about strategy which is equal to a megaton nuclear bomb? If we knew that a person was going to explode a megaton nuclear bomb in Johannesburg, we would detain him without even having to declare a state of emergency. This indirect strategy alone is equal to a few megaton nuclear bombs. This is why it is so important that we should take note of the indirect strategy. In what spheres are they working? I want to identify a few of these spheres to hon. members. The first is the military sphere.

Which clause is that?

I am trying to explain to hon. members why we have a Bill on State security. What I am saying, applies to all clauses. In the first place it concerns military preparedness. We have all heard about the Hammanskraal statement in which the hon. gentleman Beyers Naudé challenged the chaplains in connection with their service in the Defence Force. Here we have a direct attack on the motivation of our Defence Force. What would happen if our Defence Force were not motivated? We would find that a lack of confidence in the State authority would arise, among its own people as well as from outside. These people also go to work in another way, namely through an arms boycott. It is well known how Curtis and a certain Ralekluta travelled abroad and made contact with other well known communists. We also know how they made contact with the people who eventually had to bring about the arms boycotts against South Africa. In recent times we have seen how people abroad react with respect to certain strategic equipment which is delivered to South Africa, when immediate steps were taken by the Anti-Apartheid Movement. People from South Africa have also made contact with that movement. Can hon. members see how broad the base is?

There is also another sphere in which, should it be sabotaged, we could experience many great problems. I am now referring to the economy. In this sphere we have found that these people acted as long as it was possible for them in the form of so-called advocates for higher wages. This alone was naturally praiseworthy. However, we read the following in connection with a proposed strategy.

In other words, here we have the creation of expectations for higher wages and if these expectations are not fulfilled, a condition of revolution arises. However, our economy has been tampered with in different ways in the past. These attempts were totally unsuccessful, and I am referring for example to so-called “engagement/disengagement” discussion. This discussion concerned the withdrawal of capital, but these people were quite unsuccessful. A little while ago 16 foreign companies decided that South Africa was a Utopia for the investor. This is not surprising because they received 16% to 19% on their investments. In very recent times people in well-known circles once again tried to discourage the foreign investor. I quote here a version of a statement by Mr. Gatsha Buthelezi and Mr. Beyers Naudé—

They went on to say—

What actually happened here is that a foreign investor already reacted to this and now wonders whether he should invest in Zululand.

I am convinced responsible people in Zululand take note of the fact that their own economy is being sabotaged in this way.

I want to repeat this and emphasize that as far as the legislation is concerned, we direct it at people in this country who act in such a way that they could have a megaton bomb in their hands with respect to foreign matters which could cause immense damage if they are not put in their place in time. Therefore, I want to tell hon. members that, if we should take measures to protect our economy and arms supply, then these are measures we consider to be in the best interests of South Africa which will amount to perpetuating the existing prosperity and security which the country enjoys. I say once again that it is not possible to do so in terms of the existing Act, because among the variety of actions there are actions which cannot be typified as the actions of the communists at all. Those forms of actions on their own seem isolated, but eventually flow together.

The hon. member for Houghton has unfortunately already left the Chamber. She said that she would like to testify abroad to a stable South Africa. I am very pleased that she would like to do so; we should all like to do so. The difference of opinion, however, concerns the fact as to whether we should allow conditions in the country to become unstable or whether we should take preventive measures. Our standpoint about this matter is very clearly and obviously defined. The hon. member for Houghton said on occasion that the PRP do not class themselves among those indulging in subversion. However, what did she do in her speech? She gave us the opportunity to say that she and the hon. member for Yeoville do not belong to the same party. In the final instance the PRP wants us to do everything in our power to afford the Black people equal opportunities so that they are in fact living in a community in which there are equal opportunities.

However, I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville a question. If they continue telling the Blacks, as the hon. member for Houghton does, that South Africa is a totalitarian state, how on earth can the Blacks make a choice between the offer from across the borders, from the real totalitarian state, and the offer which they are made in South Africa? If they disguise and distort the differences by creating among the Blacks the impression that we in South Africa have the same dispensation as Russia and others, how can we consider our Blacks to be informed? The members of the PRP are the people who are responsible for this legislation being essential to enable us to eliminate from the community those who may constitute a threat to us in future. The PRP and the hon. members of the party who are sitting in the House now, have so far enjoyed all the privileges of our orderly civilization. In fact they have used it in such a way that there are already capitalists among them. How does this tally with the fact that the people who are representative of the capitalist in South Africa can, with a clean conscience, refuse to support the measure with which we want to neutralize the attempts to create a socialist order in South Africa? How can we believe them if they tell us through the hon. member for Yeoville that they are in favour of the maintenance of law and order?

Mr. Speaker, time and time again when this hon. House is considering legislation which is not to the liking of hon. members of the Opposition, because they fear that the activities people with whom they have some connection may be curbed by or in terms of the legislation on account of their indulging in some unpatriotic or subversive activity or other, they advance arguments relating to the rule of law, as though that was the highest form of wisdom in the sphere of statemanship. In this way we had the hon. members for Houghton and Sandton taking up the same refrain yesterday. The hon. member for Yeoville, too, harped on the same note today. Therefore we have yet again had the phenomenon in this debate of the hon. members of the Progressive Reform Party in particular, trying to conceal their inherent lack of patriotism behind a smoke-screen. To be specific, they suggest that their opposition to the Bill is allegedly justified by the fact, as they put it, that the Bill allegedly offended against the rule of law.

It was pointed out by the hon. member for Barberton yesterday that the concept of the rule of law is as familiar in Afrikaans legal terminology as in English terminology. However, I want to refer specifically to the English term used to describe this concept as I want to make certain quotations at a later stage which identify and define this concept to the point in the English terminology.

The way in which hon. members of the Progressive Reform Party deal with this concept of the rule of law, is largely in accordance with what the author A. S. Mathews wrote in his book entitled Law, Order and Liberty in South Africa. I should like to quote from it.

What page?

I can give the hon. member the page reference, but he should not try to interrupt me now.

I simply want the reference so as to make sure that you are quoting it correctly.

I can give the hon. member the page numbers at a later stage. I have them. The hon. member should not think that I indulge in fabrication as he does.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary for an hon. member to say, “I do not indulge in fabrication as he does”, meaning another hon. member?

Order! It is a permissible parliamentary expression.

Mr. Speaker, I quote as follows from the said work—

Seeing this is how those hon. members deal with the rule of law, I think it is necessary and a good thing to take a closer look at the rule of law for a change.

In 1885 the British constitutional jurist, A. V. Dicey, laid down the rule of law as the norm of or the British constitutional law in his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. This rule of law he defined as follows. I quote from the said work by Dicey—

In evaluating Dicey’s approach to the rule of law, one must remember that he wrote against the background of his time on the subject of British constitutional law which has no written constitution. Hence the fact that the courts there had a much larger role to play in maintaining civil liberties than in countries with a written constitution containing a clear enunciation of civil liberties. Dicey himself acknowledged this fact in the final part of the passage that has just been quoted from his aforementioned work. To be more specific, it states specifically that countries with written constitutions, unlike Britain, did not have the same need as Britain for supervision by the courts. In this there is a world of a difference between British constitutional law and South African constitutional law. Therefore, no justification whatsoever exists for applying Dicey’s approach to the rule of law outright to the situation in the Republic of South Africa.

But this is not all. In the foreword to Dicey’s Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, Prof. E. C. S. Wade brings the author’s ideas into perspective. He says the following—

In other words, what is conceded here, is that it is necessary in the circumstances of these times, that the rights of the individual be made subservient to the rights of the community as a whole on occasion, and that one may not allow oneself to be obsessed with the rights of the individual to all forms of liberty to the exclusion of the right of the community to an orderly society and security.

I have already referred to what the author A. S. Mathews said on the rule of law. Let us look now at what more he and a few other constitutional jurists had to say on this concept. Therefore, I quote once again from A. S. Mathews’s Law, Order and Liberty in South Africa, page 3—

Norman S. Marsh in his work The Rule of Law as a Supra-national Concept, expressed the same idea as follows—

In this regard I quote in conclusion from L. A. Fuller’s work, The Morality of the Law, page 211—

Every one of these authors accept that Parliament, as the sovereign legislative authority, cannot, or must not, be tied down in its legislation by the rule of law. In fact, Dicey himself indicated the importance of the sovereignty of Parliament for the very maintenance of the rule of law, and I quote yet again from his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, and to start with, from page 411—

And then again, on page 414—

I want to charge the hon. members of the Opposition, and, to be specific, the hon. members of the Progressive Reform Party who are forever dragging the rule of law across the floor of this House as a red herring, giving the concept the interpretation which suits them, with not being engaged in any way in maintaining the rule of law. On the contrary, their conduct makes one feel like agreeing with the pronouncement of author R. M. Jackson in his work Machinery of Justice in England—

This, to be specific, is the impression one gains of the rule of law while listening to the interpretation given to this concept by those hon. members.

Viewed correctly, the rule of law embraces nothing less, but nothing more either, than the following:

In the first place, an established authority, as represented in this Parliament, for instance, established and supported by the politically organized community.

In the second place, a legal source of authority, once again as this Parliament, or, if hon. members want to take it further, the electorate of this country.

In the third place, general rules, previously laid down by the Government itself, as in legislation and other enactments.

In the fourth place, an independent judiciary.

I challenge any hon. member of the Opposition to prove that the Governmental and judicial dispensation in the Republic of South Africa does not meet these requirements. Until the contrary has been proved, this continuous bickering about the rule of law is nothing but a poorly disguised effort to excuse subversion and to complicate the Government’s task of maintaining law and order in the country. [Interjections.] I state categorically that the present legislation, too, meets the aforementioned requirements in all respects and therefore does not conflict in any way with the rule of law. On the contrary. This very measure is one which is aimed at maintaining the rule of law, law and order, in the country.

The concern of the enemies of the maintenance of law and order in South Africa is not any particular love for, or interest in, the non-Whites of Southern Africa, or the maintenance of the rule of law as they see it. Their first and last concern is purely and simply the destruction of the Republic of South Africa as an important stronghold of a Christian National view of life and of the world and as a bulwark against the advance of imperialistic communism on Africa and eventually on the world. This is what is at issue. To this end every situation or circumstance is abused and exploited to get at the Republic.

National security in fact embraces more than the inviolability of territorial area. National security also resides in the preservation of national identity, in the national character. For that reason wars are waged today, firstly, for the heart and the will of a people and only then for its country and its liberty.

Consequently international communism and its forerunners employ every means and method to undermine the character and the defences of our people so as to make them unwilling to maintain and to preserve. If we as a people wish to maintain our national identity and wish to see our home and hearth prospering in safety, we are irrevocably committed to watchfulness and preparedness.

And to the abolition of apartheid.

In the light of the existing threat, we cannot afford to be oversensitive about so-called individual liberties, or to allow ourselves to be put off by slogans like the rule of law. It is of vital importance that we take the measures which are required so as to enable us to deal successfully with the onslaught against us in all its subtle manifestations.

The hon. members of the Opposition aired all kinds of misgivings about the Bill before us. Especially the safeguards embodied in this Bill, were passed off as being insignificant and ineffective. Let us examine this in brief. Looking at the experience of the past and at the exercise of legislative authority of this kind by this hon. Minister and his predecessors, we see—I want to state this categorically—that there is not one iota of proof that any one of them having implemented any provision of such legislation unwisely or improperly. Whenever their actions were subjected to the searchlight of the courts, or of whomsoever, their conduct proved to be justified throughout. Therefore, I ask myself where hon. members, from the experience of the past, find any justification for questioning the bona fides of this Bill.

As regards the review committee for which provision is being made, I agree with other hon. members on this side of the House that the attitude of hon. members on the opposite side of the House amounts to contempt for the judicial officials who will be serving on the review commission. I ask myself once again where hon. members opposite find justification for doubting and discrediting these people in advance?

It should also be borne in mind that the actions of the hon. the Minister will have to be justified to the members of his own party and that his actions will be considered with him in the study groups of his own party.

Will this happen in public?

Do not anticipate me. I shall come to that. Do the hon. members opposite want to suggest that all hon. members on Government side are nothing but rubber stamps who will simply approve what the Minister did or wishes to do?

This has always been the case.

But what is more, the Bill provides that if the hon. the Minister does not accept the recommendations of the review committee he has to report to this House. Do the hon. members opposite, especially the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, who has so much to say, have so little confidence in themselves that they will not at least be able to expose the actions of the Minister if he has acted irresponsibly?

What use would that be?

The hon. member asks what use that would be. Does he have so little confidence in public opinion? After the result of the election in Durban North I can understand his party having no confidence in public opinion. The fact remains, however, that the fined test still is public opinion. Do those hon. members want to tell us that public opinion in South Africa will tolerate irresponsible or improper actions by this hon. Minister, or by any other hon. Minister, in terms of this authority? Surely not.

I want to state clearly that there are more than adequate safeguards contained in this Bill for ensuring that this authority, as well as the authority embodied in other similar legislation, will be exercised responsibly at all times.

The final question of the hon. member for Yeoville was: “How does one answer to a charge if one does not know what the charge is?” Surely this is a foolish question.

†Mr. Speaker, this hon. Minister can only exercise the powers conferred on him in terms of specific Acts of this Parliament. And when he acts, he must act in terms of a particular provision of a particular Act. The party against whom action is taken will therefore be aware of, or can easily establish, what he is being charged with.

How can he?

Mr. Speaker, now the hon. member asks, “How can he?” If the hon. the Minister acts against a person in terms of a particular section of a particular Act, surely the person concerned knows what he is being charged with. He can establish this simply by referring to the particular provision of the particular Act. [Interjections.] What these hon. members want, is that we tie the hands of the hon. the Minister in such a way which will render it possible for people to circumvent the provisions of the Act on technical points. I believe that times are too serious for us to occupy ourselves with such games any longer; especially when the issue is the security of the State.

I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the proposed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, who spoke just before the hon. member for Mossel Bay, gave a highly superficial analysis of the Bill and of what he believed was contained therein. I believe there is no real need for any direct answer to him, except to say to him that I am very sorry, but the UP cannot hold the same ideas on the action which is taken against citizens, as are held by him and by the hon. members supporting his party. I believe that this debate is again bringing to the fore the difference which exists between the philosophies professed by the NP and the UP, particularly that philosophy which pertains to the relationship between the individual and the State.

From what the hon. member for Mossel Bay had to say regarding the fact that the Government would act in terms of rules which it had laid down, it is quite apparent that that party believes that the individual exists for the State and that the State is supreme in all respects—the State, in this case, being personified by the hon. the Minister of Justice—and that it must not be touched.

The people of South Africa are supreme!

No, Sir, that is not what this Bill says. I wish that hon. member would get up and make a speech and say that the people of South Africa are supreme, not that the hon. the Minister of Justice is supreme. Let him say that the hon. the Minister of Justice should be fettered in some way in the exercising of the powers he is demanding. [Interjections.] That is exactly what we on this side of the House are asking.

There is no question of the loyalty of those of us who sit in these benches when it comes to the defence of the security of South Africa.

This has never been questioned and it never can be in question. Our history is absolutely clear and without blemish. South Africa has never found us wanting, because we have always been prepared to defend South Africa whether externally, on our borders, or internally. It is for this very reason that we have moved the amendment which was moved in this House yesterday by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and to which I will return in a moment.

I want to return to what I was saying to the hon. members. Their philosophy is that the individual exists for the State whereas ours is the exact opposite, because we believe that the State exists for the individual, the thought expressed by the hon. member for Mossel Bay in his interjection. It is the people who are supreme and it is the rights of those very people that we wish to defend and protect. I believe that is the duty of an Opposition in this Parliament, viz. to protect the rights of those very individuals in this country whilst not fettering the hon. the Minister to such an extent that the security of the State will be harmed.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay dealt with what he called certain guarantees which are built into this Bill. I presume that he referred to the clause providing for review. I will deal with that a little later, but I come back to the question which I asked by way of interjection: What does it help that we will be able to debate in this House the action of the hon. the Minister if he refuses to accept the decision of the review committee? What will it help the person concerned and what will it help the organization concerned? It will help them not at all. The circumstances must be remembered. These are that in terms of this Bill, which has been shown by speakers on this side of the House to be ill-defined, not to be specific in its definition of what somebody referred to earlier as “offences”, the hon. the Minister will make a subjective decision which will be subject to review by a judicial committee. We will consider the composition of that committee a little later. After the action of the hon. the Minister has been considered by the judicial committee, with full power to call evidence and to get all the facts before it, and that committee decides that the action taken by the hon. the Minister was injudicious or incorrect, or that the correct action had not been taken, what happens to the person concerned? The hon. the Minister will simply say that he does not accept the decision of the review committee and the person accordingly remains incarcerated or restricted, or whatever the decision of the hon. the Minister is with regard to him/her. This may happen notwithstanding the fact that judicial people who have applied a judicial mind to the application of the legislation have decided that the hon. the Minister’s action was wrong. That is why I say: What will it help that we debate this matter in this Chamber. It will help that individual or that organization not at all.

That is another reason why we on this side of the House have said to the hon. the Minister and have said to the Government: This is a half-baked measure which you have come with; we do not like what you have in here and we do not accept all the principles which you have put in here, in fact there is little of what is in here that we do accept; we believe, however, that there is a case to be made out, a case to be met; let us therefore, before we accept any principle, and before we fetter ourselves with anything that is contained in this Bill, go to a Select Committee. Let us go to a Select Committee where together we can find out what exactly is troubling the Government and what exactly they are trying to combat with this Bill. Let us then together find a solution which is acceptable to all the people without offending against what the hon. member for Mossel Bay termed, the rule of law. I agree with him that it is a rather nebulous concept, a concept which you cannot really pin down and which you cannot really grab hold of and tie down to examine and apply it.

I do not feel like playing the fool, and the hon. member should not play off the two sides of this House against one another in this way either.

There is no question of that at all.

That is a very bad argument and you know it.

It is quite obvious that the hon. the Minister is uncomfortable about the argument that he is listening to. As my hon. friend from Newton Park says, it also appears that the hon. the Minister is more worried about what he thinks is happening with this party than with the security of the State. Why does he not apply his legal mind to the question that we have put before this House? We have suggested that he must now discharge the order for the Second Reading, so that we can get together to discuss it and find a solution to, what he tells us, is a problem. The question has been asked whether we are in a state of emergency. I, personally, am not in a position to answer that question. But when we hear statements like that by the hon. member for Vereeniging, viz. that we have never had such peace and quiet in this country, we wonder whether this legislation is necessary. However, the hon. the Minister assures us that there are forces at work in South Africa which require the attention of the authorities. The report of the Schlebusch-Le Grange Commission tells us that there are forces on the loose inside and outside South Africa which need attention.

Do you not accept that?

Yes, I accept it. However, once again, as I said during the debate on the Parliamentary Internal Security Commission Bill—where I was misunderstood by the hon. the Prime Minister—it is stated in the report, but as far as detail is concerned, we know nothing about what exactly it is that we are trying to fight. The report Says that there is something and in this Bill the hon. the Minister says that we must take action against any organization “which engages in activities which endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order”. It is a laudable request, that we should take action against those bodies. Unfortunately, with the history this Government has, we have to question what exactly the hon. the Minister means when he refers to an organization “which engages in activities which endanger the security of the State”. [Interjections.] We had a death sentence this morning? [Interjections.]

Did you not read the newspapers? Two persons sentenced to death in SWA?

That is fine. But by whom was that death sentence passed?

By the court.

That is the very point. What the hon. the Minister is asking for in this Bill …

You said there was no subversion.

I did not say that for one moment. That hon. Minister’s knowledge of the English language is such that what he has just said, does him no justice at all, because he is now making himself guilty of a deliberate misunderstanding of what I am saying, while he knows perfectly well that it was not what I had said. Those hon. members on that side of the House who do not have his knowledge of English, might be excused, but not the hon. the Minister. He is playing politics deliberately, because he is uncomfortable and because he does not like what I am saying.

Show me someone who has been caught…

You see, Sir, as I have just said, when one opens this Bill for the first time one finds that what is written here, is an intention to act against those persons or organizations which engage in activities which endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. We in the Opposition had to decide what sort of attitude we would adopt to this kind of Bill. There were five choices open to us. The first course was to support the Bill, but unfortunately, when we went further, we found that this was simply being used as an excuse by this hon. Minister to extend and widen his powers of restriction without recourse to the courts. When we realized this, we found that we could not support it. There was no need to look into the Bill any further than that to reject the first course of action we had, i.e. to support the Bill.

Was it before or after the four-hour debate?

It was not a case of before or after the four-hour debate; it was during that four-hour debate where we did our duty as a responsible Opposition and as responsible South Africans and considered fully what action we should take in regard to this measure. We did not simply glance at it and then make up our minds. I know certain members of the NP who simply opened the Bill, saw that they were going to take action against these people, decided that it was good, closed the Bill and never thought any further. It also appears that there are some members in the House who opened the Bill, glanced through it and saw that it extended the hon. the Minister’s powers and decided that they would therefore reject it and move “this day six months”. They decided this without going any further and without considering what their real responsibility towards the people of South Africa is. I am not prepared to go as far as certain hon. members on the other side by saying that they are guilty of not being prepared to defend the security of the State. I believe that they have been irresponsible today and, particularly, will be tomorrow, when a vote is taken, if they do not support the Official Opposition’s amendment. They will show thereby that they are not interested in defending the security of South Africa at all.

The second course was to reject it in toto and to move that the Bill be read “this day six months”. However, because we are a responsible Opposition and because we believe and have been led to believe by the hon. the Minister and by members of the Schlebusch Commission that there is an evil to be fought, we accepted the third course that we should move for the discharge of the order for the Second Reading so that the Bill could be referred to a Select Committee.

I should now like to take our amendment a little further. Let us for a moment consider the question of the Bill being sent to a Select Committee. It has led various hon. members, for example the hon. member for Houghton and particularly the hon. member for Sandton, to ask that the UP must say whether they are in favour of the principles contained in the Bill or not. I want to refer these hon. members as well as the hon. the Minister to this particular amendment. I believe that when the hon. member for Umhlatuzana moved the amendment the hon. the Minister asked whether we were in favour of the principles contained in this Bill or not. How does the amendment read? It contains the words—

We moved that it should be discharged, because we are not prepared to accept any of the principles involved. I believe the amendment can therefore not be shown to be a weak one. It is as strong an amendment as to move that the Bill should be read “this day six months”, because in exactly the same way it brings to the notice of the House and to the people of the Republic that we are not prepared to accept any of the principles contained in the Bill. That is why we moved the amendment.

But we showed our responsibility. We went further and said that we believed that the Select Committee should be instructed to bring up a more comprehensive and effective Bill.

And more comprehensive.

More comprehensive, as my hon. friend says, and more effective. It should be more comprehensive in that what we should outline is what we are trying to fight. Let us know our enemy, because when we know our enemy, we know what we can do to fight him.

It is your amendment. You now tell us what we are trying to fight.

With tears in my eyes, Sir, I would like to know why the hon. the Minister is so touchy. We are offering him an opportunity for co-operation in the interests of the security of the State, and look at the answer he gives me! He is prepared to go his way and I am prepared to go mine. Is the hon. the Minister not prepared to consider any modification, any improvement, to the Bill?

I took the entire minority report into account.

I do not think the hon. the Minister has. It will be shown by another speaker on this side of the House that the hon. the Minister did not take the minority report into account. I do not think the hon. the Minister even did what the unanimous part of the report asked for. However, this will be dealt with later. I do not think the hon. the Minister has done what the Schlebusch Commission asked him to do. I could almost go so far as to say that this almost amounts to a dereliction of duty. The hon. the Minister has not gone far enough as far as they are concerned. And that is why we ask for a more comprehensive and effective Bill, a Bill which will be effective in combating the menace we have to fight.

I would now like to quote from the first leg of the amendment—

We are asked to look at any organization which engages in activities which endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. This is now to be subject to the subjective decision of the hon. the Minister or his successors. I want to give an example. In the words of the hon. member for Mossel Bay, it depends entirely on the Government of the day and the attitude of the Government of the day.

I never used those words.

He said that the acts of the Government towards a citizen should be in accordance with the general rules laid down by Parliament. I want to ask the hon. member and the hon. the Minister whether they accept this test in communist Russia. Does the hon. member accept that the rules of communist Russia are good because they are in terms of the rules laid down by the Russian Parliament? The same applies to Red China, East Germany and many other States of the same nature. Their Governments laid down the rules and their laws must be tested according to their rules. That is what the hon. member for Mossel Bay said.

I never said so. That is a complete distortion of what I have said.

It is what this hon. Minister will perforce do. Every time he applies his mind, he will do it on the basis of the rules which he and his party have laid down. But, Sir, if I were to decide whether an organization was engaging in activities which endangered the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, and in doing so I took into consideration some of the statements which emanated from Ministers on that side of the House, and particularly from the hon. the Prime Minister, I would say that one of the things which endangered the safety of the State and the maintenance of public order was the exacerbation of racial feelings. Another thing would by any attempt to polarize White and Black thinking in South Africa into separate camps which are going to snarl at and bite each other.

You understand the definition; you are quite correct.

The hon. the Minister says I am right. Then, Sir, any person who propagates such a polarization should be guilty of an offence. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. What about the hon. the Prime Minister, who says that the nationalism of the NP is to become the nationalism of the White people of South Africa?

You are talking nonsense.

No, it is not nonsense. The hon. the Minister cannot deny that the hon. the Prime Minister said it. What is the effect of this? The effect of this is immediately to create a polarization of the Black people to oppose that nationalism of the White people. Straight away you have a polarization and confrontation. Sir, I am applying a subjective test. In exactly the same way that hon. Minister will have to apply a subjective test, following his convictions, I have applied a subjective test following my convictions, and I came to that conclusion. That is why I believe that this has to be further defined. It has to be taken to a Select Committee where we can get together and find out exactly what the hon. the Minister is after. In that way we will be able to find the answer and draw up a more effective Bill.

The second leg of the amendment calls for a Bill which will create “such new offences and penalties as are necessary to meet that threat, so that miscreants will be dealt with through the courts and not by arbitrary executive action”. What do we find in clause 4 of this Bill? We find here an extension of the powers of restriction, which we have opposed all the way on every occasion. The hon. the Minister is aware of that. Nevertheless, we still had the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke getting up yesterday and saying that he had to throw away his prepared speech because he believed that the UP would support this legislation. Sir, he is a child in politics.

*He is a stranger in Jerusalem, Mr. Speaker, if he thinks that we would support a Bill such as this.

I did not think you were so stupid as to believe it! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it was quite apparent when the hon. member spoke yesterday that he was unprepared. He waffled and hesitated all the way through his half-hour speech. In fact, I do not think he completed his half-hour. It was quite apparent that he had been caught literally with his trousers down.

Sir, I refer again to clause 4. Clause 4 contains an extension of the executive powers of the hon. the Minister in respect of preventive detention, and it is such a wicked extension, because in the past he did have the excuse—although we rejected the excuse— that the person who was to be further detained or interned had been convicted by a court in terms of either the Public Safety Act, the Criminal Law Amendment Act or the Riotous Assemblies Act. He had the excuse that such a person had been convicted of some overt act which endangered the safety of the State or the maintenance of law and order. If he then considered, in his mind—this was again a subjective decision—that that person was likely to advocate, to advise, to defend or to encourage the achievement of the objects of communism, in fact that that person would continue to do what he had been doing, all he had to do then was to continue to restrict him in a prison. Even that is now taken away. He does not have to wait for a conviction in terms of any law. He now can operate on his own, without giving any reasons, under the blanket, without advising anybody even that he is being investigated. He can now restrict that person in a prison. Again, this is not a restriction like house arrest which has existed before. He can now restrict that person in a prison. That person does not have to be a felon, a person who has committed an offence and who has been found guilty by a court. If the hon. the Minister can convince us in a Select Committee that these powers are necessary in certain circumstances—and we are prepared to concede that they are necessary where there is a national emergency—we can go along with him. But he must come and tell us about this in the Select Committee so that we can bring out a better Bill, a Bill with certain safeguards for the families and the relatives of the persons concerned. The hon. the Minister knows that there is no provision whatsoever that relatives and friends shall be advised when a person is apprehended and locked up. If he has been in gaol, they know where he is. They know that he is in that gaol, and in terms of the Act, as it is now, they know that he will stay in that gaol. But today people are picked up and simply disappear for a number of days. The hon. the Minister knows of the occasion in Pietermaritzburg where somebody simply disappeared for three days until a charge was laid against the Police for abduction because they were the last persons seen in the company of the person who had disappeared. Only then was an admission made that he had been taken away by the Police. I do not believe that this does our Police Force any good at all, let alone our country as a whole. This is another provision which the Select Committee should consider, namely whether we should place in this Bill a provision that if the hon. the Minister does exercise his rights, when he does exercise these powers, then at least he will advise the families of the persons concerned.

There is another question I would like to ask. In terms of the new paragraph (bA), a person may be removed from one prison to another, but there is no provision that the relatives shall be advised. These are the ordinary humanitarian safeguards that we ask should be placed in a Bill of this nature.

The third thing that we believe a Select Committee should look at in order to produce a more comprehensive and effective Bill, is that “in so far as executive action in terms of the Bill may be necessary, it be subject to the scrutiny of a judicial review committee and be exercised in so far as the freedom of individuals is concerned, only in time of war or national emergency”. I have already said that we accept that these powers can be exercised in times of national emergency, which include a war. We do believe, however, that they should be subject to review. The hon. member for Mossel Bay said that now for the first time we made provision for a review committee, and he was very proud of it. I want to say to the hon. the Minister here and now that I am prepared to concede that this is an improvement, because at least in respect of one type of action which he will take there is provision for a form of review, unsatisfactory as it may be. At last we have been able to get through to the hon. the Minister and to the Government. We are serious when we ask for some form of review of the actions which are taken by the hon. the Minister or by any of his colleagues. During the debate on the Parliamentary Internal Security Commission Bill, the hon. the Prime Minister said that he was prepared to co-operate with us. He was prepared to concede review. This is not conceding the review for which we asked. There are amendments on the Order Paper. They have been placed there as a formality. There are other amendments which I believe should be considered by a Select Committee. This is why we believe that the question of the composition of the review committee should be referred to a Select Committee. We believe that on that committee there should be judges, magistrates or people who, like the hon. the Minister himself, have had at least 10 years’ active practice at the Bar, people who know the law and how the law should be applied. That is the first point. Then I believe that the Select Committee should apply its mind to the question of subsection (6), that the hon. the Minister need not give effect to any recommendations of the review proceedings. I believe that the Select Committee should consider that point very strongly. Why, as I said when I started, if three judges, or a judge and two magistrates, three people versed in the application of the law in this country, have decided that the hon. the Minister has erred in his subjective decision, should the hon. the Minister not be bound by the review committee?

Then there is the question that no court of law shall have jurisdiction to pronounce upon the functions or recommendations of the review committee. The hon. the Minister knows that it is a fundamental principle of this side of the House that all persons shall at all times have free access to an independent court, and I believe this is something else which the Select Committee should consider. We shall in any event have to consider it at the Committee Stage of this Bill, and we shall certainly propose amendments.

Then I come to the last point of our amendment, i.e. that we believe that a Select Committee should consider in some way protecting witnesses without the need for their arbitrary detention. The hon. the Minister knows that any witness in any case can appeal to the police or to a magistrate for protection at any time. When we think of how other provisions in connection with the incarceration of witnesses have been abused in this country, and when I use the word “abused”, I do so in all seriousness …

No.

The hon. the Minister is shaking his head. Will he assure us, however, that not a single witness who has been locked up has been released without being brought before the courts to give evidence?

In connection with what must I give my assurance?

Will he assure the House that no person who has been detained as a witness has been released without being brought before the courts?

Of course some of them have. The Act allows for it.

The Act allows for it? Then let us read this Bill.

I am talking about the Terrorism Act. It allows one to hold people for interrogation.

That is not what I am talking about.

What are you talking about?

I am talking about the provision in the General Laws Amendment Act. In terms of that provision a witness can be held for his own protection. Now the hon. the Minister is nodding his head. I believe there are persons who have been held in terms of that provision without ever appearing in court to give evidence.

Of course, yes.

It is protection for that very thing that I believe must be considered by a Select Committee on this piece of legislation. The new section 12B states—

If the Attorney-General thinks a witness might abscond, the witness can be incarcerated for a period of up to six months. This is another matter I think we have to look at. The State owes it to its witnesses to protect them, not only before the trial but most particularly after the trial. However, there is no provision for that in this legislation. It is after the trial that that witness’s life is in the most danger. That is when he is going to be in danger, but there is no provision in this legislation to protect him.

How long must we go on protecting him?

For as long as the State is obliged to because the State has used him to convict somebody who was guilty of actions against the State. It is therefore the responsibility of the State to protect him. The hon. the Minister, however, asks for how long he must be protected. For ever and ever—it is no use using that kind of argument.

The UP has been absolutely loyal and responsible in its attitude to this Bill. We dislike what is in the Bill but we believe it is necessary for some action to be taken. We believe that powers are necessary, but let us refer the matter to a Select Committee made up of members of all sections of this House. There we could then solve these problems and come along with a Bill that will receive the support of every member of this House. It is my pleasure to support the amendment moved by the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to react to some of the standpoints adopted by the hon. member for Durban North. I want to deal with his last standpoint first.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North.

I beg your pardon, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. I hope there will be an opportunity to reply succinctly to a speech by the hon. member for Durban North. The hon. member referred to the protection of witnesses, and referred to the fourth point of the terms of reference of the Select Committee which had to investigate this Bill. This Bill before us at present is not, however, a Bill dealing with the protection and detention of witnesses. The issue here is something entirely different. To come back to the speech made by the hon. member and the points he stated, I want to point out that in the first place he referred to the difference between the philosophy of the UP and that of the Government. The hon. member arrogated to himself the right to state on behalf of the UP that the UP favoured the rights of the individual and that it was the UP’s view that the State was there to serve the individual and not the other way round. I do not object to the hon. member arrogating that right to himself; possibly it is so. However, I have very grave objections to the hon. member adopting the standpoint in the House that it is the standpoint of the Government that the individual exists for the State, that the individual is there to serve the State and that the Government of the day does not recognize or want to recognize the rights of the individual. Let me put this very clearly in this regard: The Government is sensitively geared to ensuring that the rights of the individual are upheld in South Africa. In this country we have the right of free speech, the right of movement, the right of association and we have Press freedom. All the rights we can think of, we have in South Africa.

The important question is: Why do we have this Bill? I shall tell the hon. members why we have this Bill. We have this Bill because only this Bill and similar legislation is necessary to protect those rights. We know that the enemies of South Africa are intent upon using those very rights of the individual to destroy the rights of the individual. Let me put it clearly: This Government and the hon. the Minister of Justice will not allow the rights of the individual to be abused in order that those same precious rights of the individual may be destroyed in South Africa.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North also said …

South!

I mean the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. Since his finger has been injured, one does not know where he comes from. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South also stated that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. In that connection he advanced the argument that the Government and the Opposition could then put their heads together so that a sound standpoint and Bill could be worked out. However, the UP does not want to go into a Select Committee with an open mind; it wants to go into a Select Committee with its hands tied behind its back, because the terms of reference of the Select Committee as set out in the amendment of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana impose stringent limitations on the powers of the Select Committee. In the first place the Select Committee must draft a Bill which will ensure that the offender against the security of the State will be dealt with through the courts and not by way of arbitrary action by the executive. I am aware of what is stated in the next paragraph of the amendment, but I want to point out that that paragraph does definitely create the impression that the UP wants to prevent preventive action on the part of the State the specific aim of which is to prevent an offence against the security of the State. Surely it is impossible for the Government to enter the Select Committee knowing that it will not be possible for it to make prevention action part of the Bill. In the next paragraph of the amendment it is stated that when it is necessary to limit the freedom of individuals, this must only take place in times of war or national emergency. If the hon. members want to refer the Bill to a Select Committee with such terms of reference, surely it is very clear that the Select Committee will not be able to discuss matters openly with the Government. I therefore want to accuse the hon. member for Umhlatuzana of having proposed the amendment that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee merely in order to obscure his own political problems a little.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South also spoke about polarization and in this connection expressed the ridiculous idea that the policy of this Government could in fact give rise to White and Black polarization. Is he unaware that polarization between Whites and Blacks is purely an expression of race within a political set-up? Is he unaware that the biggest problem for the advocates of polarization is specifically the national ties of the Black people of South Africa? Is he unaware that those Black people of South Africa who have national ties cannot all be placed in the same category and that it will only be possible to do so when the Black people of South Africa lose their national ties? Is he, then, also unaware that the greatest force opposing polarization in South Africa is specifically the development of the national awareness of the Black people of South Africa?

I should also like to react to certain of the standpoints of the hon. member for Yeoville. He delivered a lecture to us here on the task of the Police, the Attorney-General and the courts. As far as his exposition went, it was quite correct. There was nothing wrong with it. However, the hon. member made one important mistake. To be specific, he failed to define the role of the State in such a way as to include intervention for the sake of the security of the State. His argument is therefore inadequate in that it fails to take into account the fact that the Government of the day— irrespective of the government or the country it governs—has and must continue to have a duty and responsibility to protect the security of the State. This responsibility of the Government is exercised by the Minister of Justice who acts on behalf of the Government. Now the question is why the Minister of Justice has these powers. He has these powers, in the first place, because he has to act on behalf of the Government in matters of this nature. Let me put the matter clearly. The role of democracy is known to all of us. Expressed as clearly as possible, a democracy works as follows: The majority of the voters of a country elect a Government; they elect a Government which they trust; they elect a Government which they can trust to carry out the wishes of the people of the country. This Government was elected by the people of South Africa because it is trusted. The Government is trusted to ensure that when changes have to occur in South Africa, those changes are effected through the ordinary democratic channels in South Africa. The Government is trusted, but is also entrusted with maintaining the existing order in South Africa and ensuring that changes to, and the development and unfolding of, the existing order will only take place in accordance with the will of the majority of the people in South Africa.

Of the majority of the people in South Africa?

There is an important point I want to make in this connection. The role of the PRP is becoming very clear to us. What the PRP really wants to achieve by opposing this legislation, is to give a minority a right of veto with which to nullify the wishes of the majority. Not only do the PRP want to give the minority a right of veto against the wishes of the majority. They also want to use the Black masses of South Africa as a pressure group outside Parliament in order to be able to apply that right of veto effectively. I want to tell them that as long as this Government is in power those efforts will definitely remain unsuccessful.

However, I want to come back to the Bill at present before the House. As far as this Bill is concerned, I note that the question is being asked in newspaper articles—I read it the other day in an editorial in the Rand Daily Mail— why this legislation is necessary. What powers is the Government now acquiring which it did not have before? In this connection I should like to refer to a few aspects. In the first place I want to refer to the Public Safety Act. This is an Act passed by this Parliament in 1953, an Act in terms of which the Government is empowered to declare a state of emergency in South Africa. When a state of emergency exists in a country, certain conditions apply, the Government has certain rights which it does not otherwise have and certain special powers are vested in the Government, so that the threat of the day may be countered. The conditions in which the Government is obliged to declare the state of emergency are set out inter alia in section 2 of the Public Safety Act. In terms of section 2, the Governor-General may declare the state of emergency in any area, if—and I quote section 2(c)—

This means that when a country does not have acts in terms of which action can be taken against an existing threat to the State, then, and only then, the Governor-General—the Act still refers to the Governor-General; today, of course, it is the State President—is authorized to declare the state of emergency in the country on the advice of the executive. This only occurs when the ordinary laws of the land are inadequate. After all, it is certainly the duty of the Government to bear two things in mind. In the first place, it is the Government which must decide—when there is a threat— whether the state of emergency must be declared. The second thing the Government must bear in mind, is the alternative. In this regard the important question, when there is a threat, is whether the Government has sufficient power to deal with the situation without its being necessary to declare the state of emergency.

The people who are so quick to talk about the state of emergency do not know what a state of emergency is. Permit me to interrupt myself for a moment. Mr. Speaker, if a state of emergency were to be proclaimed in South Africa in order to avert a threat to State security, this would be an act greatly to the detriment of South Africa’s interests as a whole. A declaration of a state of emergency in South Africa would be world news. There is not the slightest doubt that a declaration of a state of emergency in South Africa would cause the outside world to have grave misgivings about the political stability of this country. A declaration of a state of emergency in South Africa would deter future investors in South Africa, would deter prospective tourists to South Africa. A declaration of a state of emergency in South Africa is a situation we must prevent from happening.

In this regard I want to reply very heavily on a remark made by the hon. member for Yeoville. Earlier in his speech he said that having the ordinary arrangements in a country suspended was just what the communists wanted so that they could attack the Government which had suspended those ordinary arrangements. That is what the hon. member for Yeoville said. I want to put it clearly that if a state of emergency had to be declared in South Africa, this would be a great victory for the enemies of South Africa. As the hon. member for Yeoville said, a state of emergency in South Africa would bring joy to the hearts of our enemies because they could then attack the Government which had proclaimed the state of emergency. I wish the hon. member for Yeoville could convince the other hon. members of his party of the correctness of his standpoint.

He is not a Prog.

Let us consider further why these powers are necessary. In the first place, the Bill amends the Suppression of Communism Act. In this connection it must be pointed out that wide powers are vested in the Government in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act. If the Government can use those powers, it can to a large extent act against the threat to South Africa and the state in order to avert the threat. The difficulty with this Act, however, is that the definition of “communism” as contained in that Act, imposes certain restrictions on the Government when it wants to act against people who are not communists. The Suppression of Communism Act regularly refers to communism and for this one has to read the definition of communism. In the Act communism is defined as the doctrine of Marxist Socialism as expounded by Lenin or Trotsky. It is a long definition in which communism is spelt out clearly in its philosophical and practical aspects. It limits the freedom of movement and the possibility of action in terms of that Act on the part of the Government. This Bill at present before the House widens the scope of the Suppression of Communism Act so that the Government may also act when persons are not communists. Consequently it extends the powers of the Government in this connection in an effective way.

We should also take a look at the Terrorism Act. This Act must be seen in conjunction with the detention to prevent violation of the security of the State as contained in this Bill. In terms of this Bill the Minister of Justice may have certain people detained in gaol. Certain hon. members, inter alia the hon. member for Houghton, pointed out that the Terrorism Act of 1967 already provided for this power. However, this is not true. Where detention is concerned, the Terrorism Act is limited in its scope because under section 6 this Act only applies in cases where someone has to be detained for questioning. The person can only be detained for questioning. However, the Bill at present before the House extends this power so that a person may also be detained, not for questioning, but in the interests of the security of the State, in order to prevent the person committing acts which may endanger the security of the State.

I should also like to refer to the statement by the Bar Council of Cape Town. There are certain things in the statement by the Bar Council which indicate to me a clear support of certain principles contained in the legislation. In the first place, the Bar Council’s statement reads as follows—and I quote from Die Burger which published it this morning in full—

I agree with this. It goes on—

I agree with this too. However, the important point is that the Bar Council wants a declared state of emergency. They want a technical-legal situation to prevail in South Africa before the State can act on its own. Then the Minister can act as he sees fit. However, the Bar Council does not want the hon. the Minister to act before there is a declared state of emergency. Why not? This standpoint— with all respect to my colleagues; they will understand that I do not mean it in an insulting way—is a stupid one. Their standpoint means

Are you saying that the Bar Council is stupid?

I say that this is a stupid standpoint. The Bar Council’s statement reads that it may be necessary to act as the hon. the Minister wants us to act, but they first want the declared state of emergency. I say that this is a stupid thing to demand. The hon. the Minister and the Government are trusted if a state of emergency is declared, but why are the hon. the Minister and the Government not trusted if a state of emergency has not been declared? I should like to know why this is so. I say that this is a stupid standpoint and that the declaration of the state of emergency is against the interests of South Africa. The Bar Council goes on to say that if it is necessary to depart from this, then it is necessary to have a protective measure such as a court of review. The statement goes on—

I want to explain to hon. members why the standpoint of the Bar Council is incorrect when it requests that the body of review should have the final say. It is wrong because what it would amount to would be that the hon. the Minister of Justice would have to delegate to a judge his responsibility and his duty to take preventive action and ensure that the security of South Africa was not endangered. Everyone in South Africa deeply respects the bench, but the bench does not consist of members elected by the people of South Africa. The hon. the Minister, on the other hand, has been elected by the people and he cannot delegate his responsibility to a person who has not been elected by the people of South Africa. That is where the fault lies. They go on to say in the statement that the reviewing body envisaged in the Bill is ineffective because the Minister does not have to take the finding of such a reviewing body into account. But the person who maintains that this reviewing body proposed by the hon. the Minister is ineffective, does not know politics. After all, we all know how great is the respect for the judiciary in South Africa. The hon. the Minister will most certainly see to it that when he detains a person, he will be able to justify doing so very clearly to such a reviewing body. If he did not do so, he would stand here in his bench in the House of Assembly accused and charged. The political effect would undoubtedly be to his and the Government’s detriment. That is why I am quite convinced that guarantees for the freedom of the individual built into this legislation afford important protection to everyone in South Africa.

However, it is inexplicable to me that the hon. Opposition as a whole should have voted against this Bill—which also makes provision for the reviewing body. Once again I want to fall back on a statement made by the hon. member for Yeoville when he was still a member of the UP. It concerned the rejection of the minority report of the Schlebusch commission by the hon. member for Houghton, the Progressive Party at that time. The hon. member for Yeoville had the following to say—

This is what both opposition parties are doing at the moment. They are rejecting what must be retained. That is why we must reject their standpoint entirely.

To conclude, I should like to come back to one question, viz. why it is necessary for the Minister to be able to act in respect of activities which undermine the security of the State. In this connection I want to refer to the standpoint of the hon. member for Houghton. I want to do so on the basis of an interjection by the hon. member during a speech about the Nusas report made in 1974 by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I quote (Hansard, Vol. 50, col. 963)—

At this stage the hon. member for Houghton made the following interjection—

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana then went on—

At this Mrs. Suzman asked by way of an interjection—

I now want to come to the point I want to make. Here we had a case of people who were busy creating a revolutionary climate in South Africa. If a person wants to create a revolutionary climate among the Black workers in South Africa, then I want to state categorically that he is engaged in actions which could undermine the security of the state. The standpoint which the hon. member for Houghton expressed by way of an interjection means two things. In the first place, it means that it is not illegal to create a revolutionary climate among the Black people. In the second place it means that because it is not against the law, it is permissible. Because it is not specifically against the law to do so and because she thinks it is permissible, she resents people who adopt a standpoint in opposition to that. That is why the standpoint of the PRP, as it has become clear from the debate, is of such a nature that the hon. members of the PRP will not associate themselves with the action which will lead to the security of the State. [Interjections.] I should be obliged if the hon. member for Bryanston who has such a big mouth would tell us whether he thinks that it would be regarded as a crime if anyone were to create a revolutionary climate among the Black people of South Africa.

Illegal actions must be investigated by the courts.

The hon. member refuses to answer my question and now talks about the courts, etc. The hon. member must not take the method into account, because we are dealing with a question of principle. Is it the standpoint of the PRP that it should be admissible to create a revolutionary climate in South Africa? If one wants to answer this question, one can only do so in one way, and we therefore understand why the hon. member for Houghton states that the Communist Party must be allowed in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South devoted his entire speech to the necessity for the appointment of a Select Committee. He dwelled on the four legs of the amendment of the UP. I intend to confine myself to the speech by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South relating to the necessity for a Select Committee.

Looking at the amendment, one sees that it is to be the function of the Select Committee to produce a more comprehensive and more effective Bill. I want to say that I simply do not understand the UP. Throughout this debate, and in previous debates, too— particularly during the debates about the appointment of the Commission on Internal Security—they were of the opinion—as the hon. member for Jeppe, too, was earlier this afternoon—that there was adequate legislation in South Africa in terms of which action could be taken against subversion and violation of state security and the public order. But despite that, the Opposition moved the amendment. However, in the United Party’s amendment we find that they ask that there should be a more comprehensive and more effective new Bill. Surely these two ideas are conflicting. Surely they do not tally with each other at all. Furthermore, the hon. members for Jeppe and Pietermaritzburg South went on to say—as other speakers did before them—that they were strongly in favour of steps being taken against any kind of subversion of the security of the State. Nevertheless, Sir, they are opposed to the principle of this Bill. I do not understand it, because the principle of this Bill is designed specifically to bring into effect more stringent and effective measures in order to cover the kind of subversion which cannot be covered by existing legislation. One can only come to the conclusion that the UP are taking refuge in a Select Committee in order to evade adopting a standpoint on principle at this Second Reading stage, so that they need not adopt a clear standpoint on this Bill.

In 1962 a Bill relating to sabotage was discussed in this House and on that occasion that side of the House voted in favour of the Second Reading of that Bill. Today we are dealing with a Bill relating to the promotion of state security, and now that side of the House is adopting a standpoint opposed to the Second Reading of that Bill. I simply do not understand it. Why did they not ask in 1962 that that Bill be referred to a Select Committee? Are the actions of the saboteur so different to the actions of the subverter of the security of the State? Both in the case of the Bill relating to sabotage and in the case of this Bill, we find that provision is made for arbitrary and for preventive detention. Nevertheless they adopt diametrically opposed standpoints in connection with these two measures. I think the hon. Opposition must explain these differing standpoints to us. In 1967 a Bill relating to terrorism was introduced and again we find that that side of the House expressed themselves in favour of the Second Reading of that Bill, in other words, the principle of that Bill. That Bill, too, was not referred to a Select Committee. Therefore I can put this question to the Opposition again: Is there really such a difference between the consequences of the actions of the terrorist and those of the subverter of State security? In the Terrorism Act we also had the principle of arbitrary action and of preventive detention, just as in this Bill, but once again we find this incongruity in the actions of the Opposition. Sir, if preventive detention is the reason for that side of the House opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, why did they not adopt the same standpoint during the discussion of the Sabotage Bill in 1962 or the discussion of the Terrorism Act in 1967? We must also bear in mind in particular that those Bills did not even have the safety valve of a reference to a judicial review committee to check action taken.

Sir, I can only think that the hon. members for Maitland, Newton Park, Green Point, Albany, King William’s Town, Mooi River and so many others have been forced into a comer and forced to adopt a standpoint opposed to this Bill against their own better judgment, because by adopting this standpoint, they are in fact intimating that they are not prepared to prevent bloodshed, chaos and disorder in this country. One can only come to the conclusion that owing to its internal division the UP now has to resort to evasion in order to project an image. Not only is that side of the House in favour of the Bill; they are opposed to it, too. They are inconsistent, and when one considers their actions during the discussion and passing of all security legislation since 1962, they are pro-right and pro-left, they are ambiguous in their statements, and nowhere is there to be found any continuous thread on which to base anything. The left wing of the party, it is quite clear, has won a very solid and very major victory, and they cannot deny it. Those who are in the right wing have been driven into a comer and now have no choice but to accept this cover-up measure. The effect of this entire peace effort is that they are being forced, against their own better judgment, to adopt a standpoint in opposition to principles which, basically, they do in fact support.

What is, in fact, the key question posed by this whole Bill? The key question is undoubtedly whether the UP is prepared to oppose direct or indirect, communist or non-communist subversion of the security of the State, yes or no. No other reply is possible and no other middle way can be adopted in this connection. I can apply the subject of the Bill to the UP and ask: When will the UP realize that there are organizations and factions within the party which carry on activities which endanger the security of the party and the public order in the part. ? When will that side of the House realize that its progress backwards is going to accelerate in the years that lie ahead. When will that party realize that their situation is virtually a state of emergency similar to that for which provision is being made in this Bill and that they can only emerge from that situation if they take preventive measures and that if they take preventive measures, it will pay them to make them subject to revision by a judicial tribunal? Because if the leader of that party is not afforded the opportunity to take strong, vigorous and direct action, they will never be able to maintain a standpoint of their own or get rid of the undesirable elements in the ranks of their party. I could also just add that if the hon. leader of the party is not in agreement with the recommendation of the judicial tribunal he will not, unfortunately, be able to table it, but he may state it in the press so that the general public may take cognizance of the fact.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to the various subdivisions of this amendment and in particular I want to dwell on … [Interjections.] Those hon. members are getting hurt and they are ultra-sensitive about their internal division when one talks about it. That division gets so much worse when the provisions of this Bill are being discussed. I should now like to come back to the four legs on which the UP’s amendment stands. The first leg provides that the activities of persons and organizations with regard to State security “must be clearly and properly defined”. But how on earth can one define clearly an activity which is unknown, an activity which has probably not yet begun, but an activity which, when it has taken place, can result in the worst form of subversion, an activity the form and planning of which one is unable to anticipate in advance? Surely that is not logical. Surely it is impossible to do this. How does one define an organization which has probably not yet even come into being, or an organization which, although it exists, has not yet begun its subversive activities? How on earth does one define it other then by placing the discretion in the hands of a capable person, a responsible person, just as this Bill places it on the shoulders of the Minister? I want to maintain that these definitions of activities and organizations which the UP may propose can never in fact be clearly defined.

Now I should like to deal with the second leg of the amendment by the UP. We see that it creates new crimes and prescribes new punishments for those new crimes. A legislator certainly cannot define degrees of subversion. Surely it is not logical to define various kinds of subversion, quite apart from the fact that it would be entirely impracticable. As soon as one is faced with the definition of a crime, as soon as one links a crime to a penalty, one links it to an act which has already taken place. In fact this means that one only acts after the subversive act has already taken place. The public order has first to be affected before action can be taken. However, must preventive measures not be taken with the specific aim of putting a stop to the crime and thereby also doing one’s duty towards the community, the nation and the country by affording protection and security?

It is an irresponsible Opposition which states, in the second leg of its amendment, that the new offence must be defined, must first take place and must subsequently be dealt with by the courts. In other words, the Opposition is opposed to the prevention of an uncommitted crime, because the Opposition is in favour of the punishment of a crime that has already been committed. This is the basic principle behind the dispute between this side of the House and that side of the House. This side of the House wants to protect the people of South Africa by adopting preventive measures, but that side of the House wants to protect the people of South Africa by introducing punitive measures after a subversive act has already been committed.

Now I come to the third leg of this amendment. It provides that so far as may be necessary, executive action should be subject to review by judicial review committee. With this the UP does in fact admit in so many words that executive action can in fact be necessary, but immediately the whole force of this provision is emasculated by linking it to an important qualification, viz. that it must only apply in times of war and national emergency. Surely, therefore, this third leg of the amendment, too, means absolutely nothing. Surely we have the Public Safety Act of 1953 to provide for a state of emergency. If necessary, a state of emergency can be declared if the situation which arises cannot be dealt with on the basis of the existing laws of the land. However, surely we do not want to use this envisaged Promotion of State Security Bill unnecessarily in order to declare states of emergency. This is what that side of the House is maintaining by implication. If this were to happen, however, it would mean that it would be necessary to declare states of emergency regularly, and this could lead to a state of extreme panic among the population of South Africa. Our aim is specifically to take precautions by placing on the Statute Book the necessary legislation in respect of new crimes which occur from time to time in a changing world, so that effective action may be taken against the persons who commit those crimes.

It is for this reason that we require this new Bill. We must be able to act in situations which do not necessarily justify the declaration of a state of emergency and we must be able to act against those activities carried on by underminers who are not necessarily communists, because provision has already been made for communists in existing legislation. For this reason we need this legislation as a supplement to our proud system of law, whose constant aim it is to protect the community in as just a way as possible against the wilful acts of the underminer.

Now I come to the fourth leg of the Opposition’s amendment. The UP wants witnesses to be protected without arbitrary detention. In this connection I cannot understand the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. He wants witnesses to be protected for long periods. However, the hon. the Minister said yesterday in this House that there were methods in accordance with which these people are protected. There is no other method of doing so. The only alternative is to detain the witness permanently. Surely this is diametrically opposed to the principles. If the hon. member wants another way of doing it, a bodyguard will have to be appointed for that person who will have to look after him for the rest of his life. The hon. member must therefore accept the word of the hon. the Minister. Surely the word of the hon. the Minister is honoured in practice. What the hon. the Minister is suggesting works well in practice and it affords the necessary protection. The hon. member ought to know that in our country we have a heterogeneous population. There are various ethnic groups and virtually all are at different levels of development. Surely the hon. member knows from his own experience that many witnesses fall prey to intimidation and blackmail. Surely he knows that some of them are even threatened with death. I therefore believe that it is in the interests not only of the witness but also of the necessary administration of justice that that person be safely detained so that he may give his evidence and the court and the other bodies concerned may acquire, unhindered, all the necessary information relating to the special circumstances of the case or the circumstances in which the offence was committed. That information is necessary because it concerns the security of the State and the maintenance of law and order in the country.

I fear that the UP’s amendment is a very weak attempt to lay down irreconcilable and meaningless conditions which must be complied with. If all the conditions are read together, one realizes that the UP’s effort amounts to nothing but an evasion of the true principles on which is based the primary duty that the security of the state be put first at all times. In fact, the point of view of that side of the House is a mockery of the whole concept of state security.

I listened to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, and as far as his speech is concerned, there is only one aspect with which I am able to agree. I refer to his statements concerning the long and traditional history of the UP. I believe that he sketched it quite correctly and in my opinion that is the only aspect concerning which he spoke meaningfully. However, I believe that he omitted to say that the greater the tradition and the longer the history, the smaller the party has become. I think that this is a good text for the UP to ponder at its next caucus meeting. If they are so right, why does the party keep getting smaller?

Various speakers of the PRP and the hon. member for Yeoville this afternoon in particular, strongly attacked this side of the House. They used strong arguments with which to attack this side of the House. The crux of their arguments can be summarized as follows: In the first place they accuse the hon. the Minister of wanting to arrogate to himself too wide arbitrary powers to use against persons, organizations and publications. In the second place I maintain that preventive detention means in fact that there is no opportunity for the detainee to stand trial in an open court. In the third place they state that the whole principle of the rule of law is being violated and that the individual suffers in the process.

Surely it has been repeatedly stated by this side of the House that the Government does not qualify its support of the principle that the rule of law is to be recognized and upheld in South Africa. This implies all aspects of the rule of law, for example the inalienable right of every person to demand legal representation, the right of the accused to be fully informed of the charge made against him, and his right to stand trial in an open and impartial court. However, if there is a serious threat to the security of the state, and at the time of such a crisis the Government has to choose between the security of the state on the one hand, with a view to the safeguarding of the lives of thousands if not millions of people, and the interests of the individual or the group of subverters on the other, surely it is logical that the State must see to the interests of the people and the country. What is most weighty must surely weigh most heavily and it is in accordance with this that a decision must be reached. I therefore believe that there may be times in the future when it will be necessary to deviate from the upholding of the rule of law, but only because this will be in the better interests of South Africa as a whole and its population groups. After all, who maintains order in South Africa? Surely it is not the UP or the PRP. Surely it is not group A or group B that maintains order in South Africa. Surely it is not the right of individuals to say what laws they will and will not obey. Similarly, individuals cannot lay down which legal procedures will be complied with and which not. In the nature of the matter, order in this country must and will be maintained by this side of the House because we are the Government. Furthermore it is its basic duty to all the people in this country to do so at all times. That is why it is important for us to note that the rule of law does not begin with the individual but that in fact it begins with the legislator. That is why it is only right that it can never be expected of this side of the House to hand the future of South Africa on a plate to those who are engaged in subversive activities in this country. Surely it is clear that virtually all countries throughout the world have adopted measures which may be implemented in the event of subversion and sabotage. This dates from the days of the Roman Empire, when the various tribes also adopted extraordinary measures under extraordinary circumstances with the specific aim of maintaining security.

We must bear in mind that South Africa forms part of Africa. In Africa, we know, a slumbering war is in progress. I want to let that suffice and say that there is most certainly adequate justification for us in this country not to dare remain inactive, but to remain vigilant and be prepared at all times, when necessary and as often as necessary, to take steps to ensure that security within the borders of South Africa is maintained. It is surely strange that usually it is the underminers and the leftist elements who are most vociferous about the rule of law. They cannot get away with that so easily. After all, one can never place a higher premium on the rights and freedom of the individual than the premium that must be placed on the rights and freedom of the State. When it is in the interests of the State, and when circumstances demand it, arbitrary action is most definitely justified as long as one is convinced that it is reasonably and honestly applied. In those circumstances it must necessarily take precedence over the maintenance of the sovereignty of law, specifically because the issue here is the safeguarding of the people and the safeguarding of the future of the people.

I just want to dwell for a few moments on the safety valve built into this legislation, viz. that any action relating to arbitrary preventive detention will necessarily be subject to review by the review committee in question under the chairmanship of a judge or a magistrate. The criticism that it will not be necessary for the Minister to give effect to the recommendations of the review committee is undoubtedly justified to some extent; but when we scrutinize this matter, three vital elements come to the fore. The first is that we are dealing here with a wilful underminer. The second is that owing to his position, the Minister will probably have more information relating, not so much to the person concerned, but to the circumstances of the case and the circumstances in South Africa which could have an effect on the decision which is eventually taken in the case in question. Since this important task and responsibility is imposed on the Minister, surely it is clear that he certainly will not be able to reject summarily a well-justified recommendation because he realizes that in that case he will have to table a report in this House, which is a most responsible task and not a matter of no importance. To conclude, I want to say that I do not believe there is a single person in South Africa who can feel dissatisfied about the arbitrary action of the Minister under the provisions of this Bill. If there is any person who does feel dissatisfied about it, it must be a person who has subversive intentions and it is that very person that we want to deal with in terms of this Bill. That is why it is essential that this Bill be placed on the Statute Book so that South Africa may be further safeguarded thereby.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durbanville will forgive me for not reacting to his speech in detail. It seems to me that the tactic is more or less that of fillibustering. For every Opposition member who speaks, there are two Government members who reply. Mr. Speaker, and if …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that allegation. This is the way things are arranged between the Whips of the various parties.

Then I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. In any case, it seems to me that the same argument is advanced over and over again by different speakers. I should like to refer to something which was mentioned by the hon. member for Pretoria Central. He began very well and spoke on the legislation itself. Gradually, however, he built up some steam and went off the track a little. At the beginning of his speech he said that this measure was required for protecting the rights of the individual. If the objections of the Opposition could be put in a nutshell, I believe that they would amount to the fact that this measure is already creating a problem because it is a measure which is being taken to protect the rights of the individual and which therefore also infringes upon the rights of the individual. A second point which was raised by the hon. member for Pretoria Central was that the hon. member for Yeoville had not made it clear what the responsibility of the Government or of the State should be as far as the fighting of subversion is concerned. He concluded his speech by asking whether the PRP was in favour of instigation to revolution.

I want to state unequivocally that the PRP has told people from platform to platform that it is strongly opposed to any form of revolutionary change in South Africa. We have said this repeatedly. However, I want to ask a question. The hon. member for Pretoria Central is not here at the moment. I really wanted to put the question to him. I shall put the question after having read a quotation from the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech. This is what he said—

The question I actually want to ask is this: Does South Africa also have that characteristic? I believe that this is what the hon. the Minister means here. In other words, one could go further and say that from a certain point of view, South Africa has the potential for revolutionary change and for subversion. This is one of the problems we have to contend with. I believe that there is no point in conducting a debate about the question of whether or not a crisis exists. On the one hand South Africa has the problem that the complexity of its population composition and the problems that flow from this do create a revolutionary potential. On the other hand, we also have the problem that all political parties—at least, all of them in this House— agree that there must be change, that there must be a movement towards objectives which are more or less acceptable to all people, to all groups, and that the status quo in South Africa cannot continue indefinitely. Precisely because of the status quo, we believe, there is a revolutionary potential. This is the dilemma which South Africa has to contend with, that, if it wants to change in an orderly manner— given the problems with which it is faced at the moment—there must inevitably be security legislation.

I want to emphasize again and again that any person—given the necessity for an orderly change in South Africa—who suggests, against the background of the complex situation in which we find ourselves, that security legislation is unnecessary in such circumstances, is out of his mind. The simple reason for this is that an attempt must be made with the aid of legislation to bring about orderly change. Where are the sources of unrest and of possible subversion? On the one hand they emanate from those groups in society which are dissatisfied with the tempo of change, which want to see a more rapid change, which advocate change through revolutionary or violent methods. This is one source of subversion, and I want to concede that we have a society with that potential. On the other hand, a source of subversion and unrest is just as likely to be created in our community by those people who want no change, those people who really want to return to the position as it used to be. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that his problem in the future will be just as much concerned with those persons who want change to take place too slowly as with those who want change to take place too rapidly. Those persons who want change to take place too slowly will create just as much of a problem for orderly change in South Africa as those who strive for revolutionary change.

The question immediately arises of what the nature should be of the security measures one should take and what the nature should be of the security legislation which is essential in a situation such as the one South Africa is faced with today, where one has revolutionary potential on the one hand, but where, on the other hand, the need for change is generally recognized. Let us look at societies where major changes have had to take place. We may look at communist societies and at what happens to the security measures applied in those societies. It is a characteristic of all communist societies that the first thing which is violated after a successful revolution has taken place is the rule of law. Why? If one reads what Marx, Lenin and these people say, it appears that the principle of the rule of law and democratic politics is nothing but the ornamentation of a superstructure which has been created to oppress people. For that reason they consider it to be essential that this ornamentation, the appearance of justice and of democratic politics, should disappear. Why? So that one will eventually have two conflicting interest groups in society: The haves and the have-nots. These two groups will eventually confront each other in revolutionary circumstances of naked violence or the pursuit of violence. This is the point and I shall repeat it. In all communist countries and in countries where communist strategy is planned, one of their first targets is the principle of the rule of law. Why? Then they can go to the oppressed people and say that there is no judiciary any more to which they can appeal, that they might as well forget it; it is a question of naked confrontation, i.e. the interests of one group against the interests of the other.

While the rule of law exists, no matter to what extent, the argument is that it is only the ornamentation of oppression, because the judiciary, the legal system and the courts are nothing but a part of the whole system of oppression in the society concerned. Therefore it is clear, if we read the works of someone like Solzhenitsyn, that one of the principles about which he feels very strongly indeed and to which he keeps reverting is the right of the individual and of groups in society to be tried and heard. His works The First Circle and Cancer Ward are concerned with precisely the whole principle of the powerlessness of the individual who is confronted by a situation in his own society in which he cannot gain any access to the judiciary or to any audience because of the way in which a communist state monopolizes all power for itself.

The second case in which drastic changes have taken place in the structure of society is Africa. What is the typical pattern of the pre-independence stage? An internal interest group emerges within society which makes utopian promises. This group promises everything the people desire in order to mobilize their support. Then when they come into power, chiefly as a result of the enthusiasm excited by the promises, they find, however, that they cannot keep the promises, and then they concentrate on destroying the opposition in that society. One of the best ways of destroying the opposition is simply to violate the rule of law so that one’s opponents have no access to the judiciary. Then one is forced, in the dilemmas, problems and conflicts of that society, to rely on oneself alone in establishing what is true, what is right and what is good in that society.

The standpoint adopted by us is in direct contrast to these two cases I have mentioned. In fact, we are the very people who are denounced by the official Opposition and by that side of the House for trying to uphold the rule of law. I am trying to show that we are attempting to oppose precisely those people who want to violate the rule of law or who are trying to destroy it, i.e. those people who have communist plans and who are trying to encourage revolution and violence. The point we are trying to make is this: What does the true security of the State consist in? Security legislation is undoubtedly important, but just as important as security legislation is the fact that one must have a Government in our society which is able to formulate national objectives in which the majority of interest groups and leaders can truly believe and which they can believe to be capable of realization. This is absolutely essential. Once those objectives have been formulated, we can tell one another that the road ahead is going to be difficult, that it will be a struggle, that we shall have to adapt ourselves, to give and take, but that we shall come through. Then one can appeal to these people’s loyalty and cooperation. However, if the objectives have not been clearly formulated, we can forget about it. Therefore I ask whether this Government is satisfied in its own mind that it has in fact formulated the objectives.

Yes.

In that case, let me ask: What is the objective they are holding out to the urban Blacks, to the Coloured people and to the Asiatics? What is the objective they are holding out with regard to the economy? If we cannot clearly formulate the objectives, even if they are difficult to realize, then we are creating a source of internal tension and internal subversion in our society. However, once we have clearly formulated the objectives—this is the responsibility of the Government and of the Opposition as well—then the security of the State must be ensured, to put it in simple terms, by means of just security measures for the combating of subversion. What do I mean by the concept of “just”? This is not an empty moral concept, but can be demonstrated in terms of three principles. One’s security measures must not be arbitrary. By “arbitrary” I simply mean that the implementation of the security measures must not depend on one person, but that the possibility must exist for that person’s judgment to be examined. We believe that this must be done by a court. This does not imply any criticism of the hon. the Minister of Justice personally, but we want to suggest that there may be a different Minister of Justice in the Government of South Africa in 20 years’ time.

He will be a Nationalist.

He may be a Nationalist, but he may be a very strange kind of Nationalist. Suppose that Minister of Justice took decisions which endangered the security of society, in terms of this legislation, then we would have an example of what arbitrary judgment really means. The second principle is that it must take place in public. I do not want to be misinterpreted on this point. What I mean by “public” is not the public platform so that any person may have access to it. I believe that it must be public in so far as it should not be accessible only to an individual or a group of persons with executive power. Our judiciary should have access to it. The third point is that it must be independent. There must be no possibility of its being a reflection of vested interests.

If these three principles form the basis of security legislation, one can look in all sincerity at the objectives which have been formulated with a view to change and any subversion which may exist can then be fought in terms of this principle. I think the population would accept this as being reasonable. But if, in drafting our security legislation, we undermine these principles, i.e. if we create a climate for uncertainty as to what security measures are, how they will be enforced and what the nature is of the judgment that is going to be passed, then our attempts at resolving conflict are really counter-productive, for in this way we shall create more conflict than we shall solve and eventually we shall have a situation in which those who feel that they have been wronged will say that there is no rule of law in South Africa and that it is only a question of naked conflict between the haves and the have-nots. This party has said from the outset, and we shall persevere in this standpoint, that we must avoid such a situation in South Africa at all costs.

Mr. Chairman, the only problem I have with the speech of the hon. member for Rondebosch is that I cannot understand why he refuses to vote for the principle of the Bill. If one compares his speech with the speeches made by the hon. members for Houghton and Sandton, respectively, one notices that there is a world of difference between his speech and theirs. Everything he said about the sense of a Bill such as this, is in fact contained in the Bill. I can give the hon. member the assurance that this is so. He said there could be some potential for subversion in South Africa. We agree with the hon. member that there is some potential for subversion in South Africa. He said that any Government which does not pass security legislation under such circumstances must be out of its mind. But here we are in the process of establishing security legislation. The hon. member said that there is one important test, and that is that we should determine our objectives. Does he not know the policy of the NP? There is not one policy aspect which is not clearly defined in the programme of principles of the NP.

Are they all acceptable?

The argument of the hon. member for Rondebosch does not deal with the acceptability or not of the principles. The only other comment I am able to make in respect of the hon. member for Rondebosch is that I shall be surprised if he does not at least vote for the principles of the Bill.

When one considers the speeches made by the other hon. members of the PRP, the thought that occurs to one is that the present progress the party is ostensibly making does not herald in the dawn of a new political dispensation in South Africa. This does not usher in any new political dispensation. It only means that the Eglins and the Suzmans and the Friedmans and the Lawrences who caused the UP to split in the fifties, are in the process of winning the struggle. We are watching the UP unfold before us in its venomous, prior-1948 manifestation.

On what clause are you speaking now?

I am discussing the principle of the Bill. The hon. member, who entered the Chamber a moment ago, proves again that he has no political acumen whatsoever. He has no political feeling, and this is proved by the stupid remark he made. I want to refer again to the time when the tail was wagging the dog. The tail was subsequently chopped off, but since then it has developed into a mongrel again. In the place of the De Beers and the Oppenheimers came the Van Zyl Slabberts and the Waddells. In the place of the Friedmans came the “Schwarz” hand of Yeoville. Listen to what Mr. Harry Lawrence had to say in 1943—

These were the words of Mr. Harry Lawrence, the spiritual compatriot and precursor and later the co-founder of the PRP. In 1950 the hon. members of that party voted against the Suppression of Communism Act. On that occasion Dr. Friedman had the following to say (Hansard, Vol. 73, col. 9024)—

Yesterday the hon. member for Sandton and strangely enough and sadly enough, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said exactly the same thing. Dr. Friedman went further and said the following—

That was prophetic.

The hon. member must listen now. I want to show how characteristic this is of the circumstances as they are now. Dr. Friedman proceeded as follows, and we must bear in mind that this was said in 1950—

On 11 May 1976, in other words yesterday The Cape Times wrote the following—

This was what Dr. Friedman said in 1950 and The Cape Times says in 1976. I can quote further examples which prove that, as far as the PRP is concerned, we are returning to those disconsolate days in the life of the Opposition when, blinded by venom and frustrated anger, they sometimes raged and sometimes fretted, but always failed like a dung-beetle struggling uphill with his little ball of dung. In this way they opposed the Suppression of Communism Act, and, believe it or not, the Act banning the ANC and the PAC as well. But, Mr. Speaker, where are the things Dr. Friedman warned against in 1950 when that Bill was introduced? Where is the “totalitarianism”? Where is the “Nazism”? Where is the “Gestapo” they referred to? What became of “Vote for the right to vote again”? This parrot-like hon. member for Yeoville, who spoke again this afternoon, fulminated about certain aspects of what the UP is doing at present. Sir, he supported the UP when they accepted the Terrorism Act. At that time he was a member of that party. He was a supporter of General Smuts, when innocent people were interned without trial. Now he tells us in a very pious way what a frightful thing it was they did in those days. He is the so-called champion of the rule of law. Sir, we do not listen to such a turncoat like the hon. member for Yeoville.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to call another hon. member a “turncoat”. The hon. member must therefore withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. I say we do not listen to a person who changes from one party to another like a chameleon. [Interjections.]

I should like to approach this Bill against the background of the circumstances of 1950, 1962 and 1976. In 1950 the war had just ended. A few years prior to that General Smuts, most probably at the instance of Mr. Winston Churchill, referred to the “Russian colossus”. As long ago as the ‘forties the National Party, with its acute political instinct, issued warnings and asked in vain in this House for a clamp down on communism. However, soon after this party had come into power, the National Party closed the Russian embassy. There was no further advantage to be had from making friends with the Society of the Friends of Soviet Russia. It is to the lasting credit of the NP that it grabbed this monster by the throat and joined battle with it at that early stage. Even at that stage it was realized that neo-colonialism and imperialistic expansionism were being planned, which aimed and is still aiming at the swallowing up of South Africa herself. It was then that we came forward with the Suppression of Communism Act. We were proved right.

I now want to deal with the period of 1962, just after Sharpeville. Fresh communist-inspired onslaughts were made against public order in South Africa. The hon. member for Potgietersrus referred to it yesterday. There were Poqo, the ANC, the PAC, the Rivonia trial and the infiltration of communists into every facet of our society. Slovo and Abram Fischer were exposed. One shudders to think what the consequences for South Africa would have been if the legislation of the ’sixties had not been piloted through? Therefore, we were proved right once again.

Then I come to the milieu against which this legislation has to be seen. We are aware of the fact that in 1974, when the Portuguese régime in Mozambique collapsed, major welcoming functions were arranged for Frelimo at Curries Fountain. New opportunities were seen to create chaos and doubt among our people with the aid of Frelimo. We saw States which were ill-disposed towards South Africa arising across our borders. Hon. members have taken cognizance of recent occurrences on the borders of Swaziland. Furthermore, the Angolan affair and the widespread activities of Swapo raised fresh hopes for those who seek to achieve the downfall of South Africa. A further aspect which has to be taken into consideration, is the uncertain conditions still prevailing in Rhodesia. The unrest and sporadic outbursts of terrorism taking place there, create a background which obviously makes it essential for us to be on our guard, as we were in 1950 and during the sixties, against any contingency. Russia is standing at our gateways. This session we were reminded once again that Karl Marx had said that the road to Paris and London runs through Africa. Only the day before yesterday Adv. Mann, president of the Jewish Board of Deputies, said at a function held here in Cape Town in honour of the hon. the Prime Minister that we have here within our borders, a microcosm of the most important challenges facing mankind in the twentieth century. He went on to say, and I quote—

Yes, but accompanying that also a microcosm of all the dangers, thorns and potential for uprising and disruption facing mankind in this century. We were proved right through circumstances and occurrences after 1950. We were also proved right by occurrences during the sixties. How much more do circumstances prevailing today, compel us to take the precautionary measures created by this Bill. As the hon. member for Rondebosch said a moment ago, only a fool would tacitly allow a potentially dangerous phenomenon to manifest itself before measures are taken for combating it.

I now come to the arguments of the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member for Houghton. They maintain that circumstances in South Africa do not justify legislation of this nature. In the first place, we have to consider the principle. Do we agree on the principle that a person is justified in taking certain measures under particular circumstances, as it is the case here? If we agree on that principle, the question arises: Are there really, in these times, circumstances which make it necessary to apply this legislation? Canada says “yes”, India says “yes” and England, to which the hon. member for Houghton referred yesterday, definitely says “yes”. I have a report here in front of me which has been compiled by people of University of South Africa. This is a report on detention without trial in Western democracies. I now want to refer to the provisions of the Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act of 1973 which was before the British Parliament—the mother of Parliaments. I now want to quote what these people have to say—

1. (a) It is a commissioner who makes the detention order if satisfied that the conditions of detention are met. A commissioner is not a judicial officer in the accepted sense of the word; therefore, as in the case of an interim order issued by the Secretary of State, the ordinary courts are not involved in the detention of suspects under the Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act.
2. (b) Proceedings before the commission may take place in private.
3. (c) Although the suspect is entitled to make representations to the commissioner, and may be represented by counsel or a solicitor, it is impossible for the suspect and his representative to be excluded from the proceedings.

The schedule also contains provisions in respect of appeals and reviews but these are not really our direct concern for the purpose of this report.

This, then, is the principle. If one is entitled to adopt a measure of this nature under particular circumstances—and the answer is “yes”—it is obvious that hon. members of the Opposition and the PRP should vote in favour of this legislation. If circumstances are of such a nature that one may assume such powers, it is a factual issue, and the matter may, quite safely, be left to the Government of the day. In the nature of things, the Government of the day is in the best position to determine whether circumstances prevail which make these powers essential.

We in the NP Government have maintained through the years that the safety of the State is, in the first instances, the supreme right. In the second place, for the sake of the maintenance of public order one has to take drastic steps to create the milieu without which the rule of law cannot flourish. In the third place, the taking of these steps has ensured peace, the maintenance of law and order, a stable economy and phenomenal progress in South Africa in all spheres. In the fourth place it is futile to argue that one should create such a society in South Africa which makes it an impossible breeding ground for communism, sabotage and terrorism, because why does one find it in Britain? Why does one find it in Ireland, in the Netherlands and in even in those countries in which the first priority is the development of the highest force of freedom of the individual? As we have voted increased funds for the defence of our country in the past and during this session as well—in the past this has been described as a premium on a security policy we pay to ensure that South Africa remains safe—so this Bill is an instalment which is paid for the creation of the very atmosphere without which progress in our economy would become quite impossible and without which the appropriation of funds would be thwarted.

Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the Bill, it is apparent that the debate has centred around two aspects in particular. The first aspect is the question of preventive detention and the second is the question of the review committee. When one looks at the Bill in the light of the discussion, one cannot but notice that it has had a long period of gestation. We have been ensuring the security of the State since at least 1950. The fact that we have peace and order in our country, must not cause us to say that further legislation is not necessary, because we all know that the communist aim is a continual or long-lasting revolution. That aim is always being stated, and with a view to achieving it, these people’s methods of subversion are being perfected. Therefore we must continually be looking at our legislation with a view to overhauling it. The greater the communist influence in the world becomes and the greater its power becomes, the more people there are who would like to co-operate with the communists. Sometimes it happens that they do not want to co-operate openly, but then they do so in such a way that they can always run with the hare and hunt with the hounds should the worst happen. This, in my opinion, is why the hon. the Minister said that there are friends of the communists in high places who make it difficult for their activities to be curbed.

Since the legislation was passed, certain amendments have been made from time to time and a report was made, too, after the investigation by the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations. I should like to refer briefly to the fourth interim report. When one refers to this, one can really say that the UP also sees things clearly sometimes. I should like to refer to a few aspects in regard to which they did, in my opinion, see clearly. I refer to paragraph 20.5.7.7 in which the UP commissioners say in their minority report—

By implication they approve of preventive action.

… to forestall contemplated acts …

and what follows is also an important aspect—

The third important aspect in this single paragraph is—

As soon as there is a criminal offence, the courts are clearly involved and a case can run its course. If the criminal offence has not yet been completed, but is only an attempt at an offence, then, too, the criminal law can deal with it. The question is indeed as it is expounded in the courts: “Is it the end of the beginning or is it the beginning of the end?” When does an attempt to commit a crime begin? This is the watershed with which we are faced. In this legislation our problem is not to combat something which is already an offence or which is stated to be such by an Act; our problem is to combat what is not yet an offence. Our problem, therefore, lies in the grey area, the area in which one finds oneself before the attempt is carried out. In this connection I think it will be as well to refer to what Gardiner and Lansdowne, the great authorities in this field, have to say—

This is the problem with which one is faced today when one is in fact convinced that the security of the State must be ensured: Where is one going to draw the line as regards curbing the activities of people who have not yet got as far as the attempt as such in legal terminology?

Let us take an example. Someone wants to make a bomb. He obtains all the various ingredients necessary for the bomb. He measures them out in the correct quantities and places them upon a shelf. Now only two or three minutes will probably suffice to make that bomb, and after that the bomb will be ready. If the Police have to take action in such a case in terms of the usual criminal law, it would mean that they would have to make their appearance there within the two or three minutes in which the mixing took place. If they were not there, the effect would be a bomb on Johannesburg station. I am now speaking of the Harris case years ago. Obviously we cannot allow something like this. We may not play around with it. In my modest opinion the only way to rectify this matter is to cover the grey area which precedes the completion of the attempt. Any practical politician—I want to make bold to say that we in the NP are practical politicians—will realize that it is necessary to rectify the matter in this way.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Before the adjournment I made the point that the commissioners of the UP did very well when they suggested preventive detention as a possible means of action.

I want to refer to the fourth interim report once again with respect to the following point which I want to make. In paragraph 20.5.7.9 the commissioners of the UP said—

In the first place the “discretion” of the Minister is referred to here. Further—

As I have already explained, there is a wide grey area in respect of which there are in fact no crimes. This applies for instance, in the case where the crime as such has not yet been committed. For that reason it is obvious and very clear that in this case nothing can be brought before a court. Therefore it is indeed necessary for someone to have a discretion. With respect to this aspect of discretion, the commissioners of the UP clearly took the correct decision.

As far as the tribunal which must review executive action is concerned, I listened to what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said, namely that they are against the principle of this Bill because someone could be put preventive detention “without recourse to the courts”, to use his own words. I have read this minority report and I simply could not find the statement that it had to be referred to the courts. The nearest I could find, appears in paragraph 20.5.7.18, in which “the opinion of an independent judicial tribunal or will have access to the courts” is referred to. Therefore there has never been the exclusive idea that such a case would have to come before a court. One asks oneself how the matter can be taken to the courts, as those commissioners wished, if no offence or attempt at an offence had been committed. The important point is that it is not so easy to describe an offence in this grey area.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said, “We must effectively define crimes endangering the State.” After all it is obvious that one cannot describe such crimes in this grey area. Therefore I should like to hear how the committee which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana proposes, goes about “clearly and properly defining the activities and organizations” and, in the second place, “creating such new offences”. He wants new offences to be created. If it was so easy to create those “new offences”, I ask myself why preventive detention is at all necessary in countries like England and Ireland. After all, they could very easily have created an offence there without any problems. Clearly this argument simply does not hold water.

The hon. member for Green Point said that they were opposed to the principles of the Bill.

[Inaudible.]

I want to tell the hon. member for Sandton that he should be cheerful, because when I get to him in a moment, he may perhaps not feel so good any more. He may as well be cheerful now, while I am busy with the UP.

See how scared he is getting!

Yes, it seems as if his hair wants to fall out. The hon. member for Green Point said that they did not support the Bill; that they were opposed to the principles contained therein. Now I find that I agree with the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. I am just as amazed as he is that the UP does not support this Bill. I cannot understand the difference between their recommendation and what is contained in this Bill. The UP’s approach—it is neither fish nor flesh; in certain circumstances favourable, then unfavourable—indicates precisely where the UP’s problem lies. That party is prepared to sacrifice everything for the security of the state as long as they are not asked to do so now. “Caution” is their watchword, and caution is overruling sense.

As I promised, I shall now deal with the PRP. One can describe PRP as an abbreviation for the “party of the retro-progressives”. I shall try and indicate why this is so. These people—if anything can be said in their favour—are at least consistent. Mr. Speaker, they voted against an amendment moved by the hon. the Prime Minister; namely (Hansard, 1976, col. 396)—

The last part is the operative part of what they did. They voted against us safeguarding our country and our borders. They voted against the appointment of a permanent commission and against the Schlebusch commission. To tell the truth, I should like to know what they did vote for, what positive aspects as regards the security of the state they did indeed support. The PRP is negative; the vote against aspects which affect the interests and security of this country.

At least we know where we stand with this retro-progressive party. Some of their speakers are going to have a turn. I should like to ask them once again to indicate where and when they have made any suggestion to improve the security of the State, to give our actions more impact, to condemn insurgents who protest against the “rule of law”, and take vigorous action against it. We should like to know in what respect they have taken positive action with respect to the interests of this country.

I also listened to some of the arguments which those hon. members raised during this debate. When one listens to their arguments, one discovers that in the first place no real arguments exist. It was a case of smearing. As the hon. member for Yeoville is want to say: “It was a smear.” It was just ordinary “common abuse”, abuse of the Government and of this Bill. There were no arguments at all. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton said—

I agree!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says, “I agree”. These are smear tactics directed against the hon. the Minister. It is a slander against the hon. the Minister and an insult which he does not deserve. To tell the truth, I think that the person who said it, ought to withdraw it. Naturally the laws which the hon. the Minister must apply, are laws which are agreed to by this Parliament and which vest certain powers in him. If he does not apply these laws, he is not doing his duty. To say of a person who is doing his duty that he has “a greedy lust for arbitrary powers” is disgraceful to the utmost degree, so disgraceful that Parliament’s authority is being tampered with because it is said that this Parliament “gives arbitrary powers to a man who is full of lust for arbitrary powers”. This is said by, of all people, a man who makes a great fuss about “the rule of law”. They are the people who despise these laws in this way. I would like to mention a second example. Reference has been made to an “SS-Bill”, and I should like to ask what the innuendo behind such a statement is. What is the ulterior motive? I do not believe that the hon. member for Houghton did not have an ulterior motive when she said this. When she does something like this, does she do so to benefit South Africa or with the intention of depicting South Africa as a police state?

In the third place I want to mention the hon. member for Yeoville as an example. That hon. member said that “witnesses can be kept in gaol”. That hon. member pretends to be a lawyer and I should like to ask him to look at the proposed section 12B which deals with witnesses. He must tell me precisely where it states that a person will go to gaol. I want him to tell me this, and he must compare it with the other provisions relating to gaols. If it says nothing about a person going to gaol, I, as a lawyer who has read the section, want to ask him how he could say something which is not stated there. What is his ulterior motive? What is the statement he is trying to make? Does he want to say that South Africa is a police state and that people who are witnesses, must go to gaol? I shall be obliged if he would indicate where this is laid down in the legislation. However, it is highly irresponsible to say something like this if it is not in the legislation.

I should also like to talk to the hon. member for Sandton. That hon. member is a man who speaks quickly, a great deal and very loudly. However, I hope he will give me a chance to say my say, too. He said that “laws to be honoured are laws to be respected”.

I did not say that.

What did you say?

I said that if a law deserves to be honoured … [Interjections.]

No, that is not what you said. You said, “Laws to be honoured are laws to be respected”. Those are the notes I have. A corollary of this statement is that if a law is not respected by an individual he need not honour it, and honour is another word for obey. If he does not respect it, then he need not obey it. That is what the hon. member said and he admitted it just now. In the next breath, however, he says that the rule of law is the most wonderful thing in this country.

*In the first place he said that if one did not like the law, one did not have to honour it at all, but that one had to remember that “the rule of law” was a very important thing. I must honestly say that when I consider those hon. members’ speeches and see that there is not sufficient respect for the security of the state, that it is not discussed with circumspection, and that furthermore reference is also made to an “equitable sharing of potential wealth” then I want to agree with the hon. member for Rondebosch when he says that there is a potential for subversion here, because these statements and this behaviour constitute a potential for subversion. For this reason the legislation came just in time, and is timely and welcome. But I have now given enough attention to that party.

As far as the NP and its policy is concerned, I want to tell those hon. members that we are political realists who believe that prevention is better than cure.

Prevention is also much cheaper than cure. I ask: If Ireland and England had had this approach, would they perhaps not have had fewer problems in their present situation? We are realists and I repeat this quotation from Conflict Studies—

However, we all know this, this is the case. I continue—

I repeat that prevention is better than cure—

I say again, prevention is better than cure. We in the NP do not underestimate our enemies in the slightest. The gentlemen who underestimate our enemies are sitting over there. We have the greatest respect for our enemies, because we know that circumstances in Africa are changing rapidly. The last six to nine months have proved this. If the six months arrive and this Parliament is not in session, then our enemies must not be able to misuse this. Therefore I want to point out a few further aspects for consideration. From 1950 to the present day the enfranchised citizens of the nation of South Africa supported better and more stringent security measures 100%. Every piece of legislation which was introduced in this Parliament ensured that the majority of this party rose. We are introducing this legislation, too, with the approval of the people of South Africa. I challenge any hon. member on that side of the House to say that the electorate of South Africa do not want the existing legislation to be righted up. I challenge them, but I know they cannot say this. We must not play games with the Select Committee here, but get straight to the point and say that we stand for the highest right of a person, namely the right to his safety and continued existence. I want to tell the UP, with all respect and conviction in my heart, that this attitude they are adopting to this legislation will be their death knell. The death knell has already begun to toll for them in Durban North, and if the UP is not going to vote for the principles of this legislation during the Second Reading, then I am telling them now: Their days are numbered. The hon. gentlemen who sit there and for whom state security is important, must now decide where their political salvation lies. For the PRP, too, this legislation is a nail in the coffin, because their deeds are now being to speak louder than words. Their deeds speak louder than lip service and the money they can spend. I want to put it clearly that the NP—we are practical critics—have no choice but to place this legislation on the Statute Book now, in good time. The UP has no standpoint in this connection. One moment they are in favour of something and the next they are against it; one moment they are all for a commission and the next, a Select Committee. However, they are barely a factor any more, depending on how they are going to vote in respect of this Bill.

The PRP is not a practical group of people, politically speaking. They are a group of theoreticians, political theoreticians. They worship the freedom of the individual. It has become a cult with them. They are fanatical about it. They have made it such an absolute that the freedom of the individual is equated with licence of the individual. The rights of the State are not important to them. I want to read to those who make such a fuss about the “rule of law”, what Judge Galgut had to say in one case. He said—

This is the “rule of law”.

Where did he say that?

He said it in the case of Brink and Others v. Commissioner of Police (1960 (3) p. 69 Tvl.). The PRP said that they also stood for the security of the State, but that nothing should be done to protect witnesses so that they could testify against the subverter. They are a group of theoreticians. They do not want to charge anyone in court, but prefer to utter fine sentiments here in the House.

The Government is acting positively by proposing this legislation. It is a notification to the fellow traveller of underminers and communists, whatever their profession that the people of South Africa are sick and tired of their unholy pieties. It also constitutes notification to people abroad that we are going to maintain law and order in South Africa, and also a climate of prosperity. It constitutes notification to the developing nations in South Africa that their urge for freedom will not be undermined and disturbed. In the final instance, it constitutes notification to the electorate, the inhabitants of South Africa, that their future is safe in the hands of the NP. For this reason I support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria West, as well as other hon. members, inter alia, the hon. member for Durbanville, on the opposite side of the House dealt with the amendment of the UP as if it were an attempt to evade the report of the commission on which we had served. I am going to reply to these hon. members in the course of my speech in order to prove that the amendment we moved through the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, flows from the very report of the commission. I want to address a few words to the hon. members who served with us on this commission. They failed to do what was to my mind their duty. I regard it as their duty to join us in pleading in this House the case I am going to put to the hon. the Minister.

†This evening one thing is quite clear to me. We who sit on these benches of the House are in an extremely difficult position. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite need not titter so nervously, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to the fact that it has been announced in the Press that a deadline of one week has been set for those of us on this side who wish to be considered as candidates for the PRP in the next election. [Interjections.] I must say, Sir, that I have often wondered what the reaction of the hon. member for Yeoville and one or two others would be if I came along there and knocked on the door and asked whether I could be considered as a candidate for the PRP. Fortunately, however, I am sure that I do not have the kind of money which would be necessary to buy the goodwill of the hon. member, and I am sure that I shall not be considered.

I want to deal tonight with the nature of our problems. What is the problem which we are facing and which this legislation is intended to cope with? In this connection I want to pose this question: Are we dealing with a physical threat to South Africa? Is that what this legislation is intended to cope with? I think we have to accept one thing, and that is that there is a physical threat. There is a threat of armed insurrection. There is a threat of infiltration by armed terrorists from beyond our borders. There is the threat of communism, which is designed to feed people into the body of South Africa who will subvert the economy and peace and order in the country. Also, there is a spiritual and moral threat which this country faces and which is designed to break down the values which we hold, to break down the determination that we have to resist, to break down our whole Christian background, the whole set of values that makes us what we are and that makes us the hope that we are tor the Black man in this country and for the Black man beyond our borders. This is the sort of threat which we face and I think we must ask ourselves whether this legislation is designed to meet that threat. To what extent will it meet that threat and to what extent might it pose problems in coping with that threat? That is the question that I wish to address myself to this evening.

One thing we have to face is, and we have heard from the mouths of responsible leaders, that there is a distinct possibility that aggression from beyond our borders appeals to some sections of the Black population of our country. It has been said by people who do not associate themselves with those sentiments that there are Black people who feel that way about aggression from beyond our borders. The fact that they should adopt that attitude is perhaps a measure of our failure, so far, to put across the message that we have to Black South Africa. I know that the hon. members who served on the commission will agree with me when I say that the problem which we face is not only the threat of communism. One of the most striking findings of the commission was that, in relation to communism itself, the law which we are now amending, the Suppression of Communism Act, which was designed to root out or suppress communism in our country, is no longer adequate to deal with the problems which we face in South Africa, because communism itself has been abandoned by the radical movements, by the New Left, by the new student radicals and by people who have moved away from the classic Marxist/Leninist doctrine of communism and have given themselves over to subversion, to radicalism, to an altogether new approach, to the continuing revolution, to Maoism and that kind of thing. The need which we have at this moment and which emerged from the report of the commission, is to define activities undertaken by people of that sort, who are not communists and are therefore not covered by the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act. The need is to define activities which can be declared offences in order that those activities can be brought within the purview of the law. The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs knows and agrees with me that that is what the need of the particular moment is, and that was precisely the request of the commission. We must discuss the nature of the law and we must discuss the guarantee of White security that respect for the law gives.

Why only White security?

An hon. member asks, “Why only White security?” I agree with him; this relates to security as a whole. But where one has the supposition and the idea that there may be aggression from beyond our borders carried out by Black people, then I say White security specifically in that context, but I shall include Black security as well; the security of our whole country. If there is going to be security for the Whites who are primarily the property owning people, for the whole free enterprise system which is enshrined around property, then respect for the law is going to be the greatest weapon, the greatest safeguard that there can be for all the things that we stand for, including our security, our property and everything else. I want to say again to the hon. the Minister that it is necessary for us to have laws which will define offences which are today threatening the security of the State, and it is for that very reason that it is necessary now to define those activities so that those who undertake such activities may be prosecuted. I think that the hon. the Minister will accept that it is his prime responsibility to ensure that offences are defined to cover activities which are undermining and are dangerous to the security of the State. That is the first responsibility that he has, and in the course of my speech I want to question whether the hon. the Minister in this Bill is in fact not evading his responsibilities. Every single commissioner who served on the commission will agree with me. The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and the hon. gentleman who sits next to him, the Minister of Public Works, know precisely what the commission wanted, and we face precisely that problem. There were activities going on in the organization known as Nusas which we found undesirable and dangerous. The commission reported some years ago and there has not yet been an attempt on the part of the hon. the Minister to define those activities in terms which will render them a crime and which will bring them within the purview of the law so that a prosecution can be founded and so that a conviction can follow. Our whole discussion in the commission was directed to that end. We discussed the matter backwards and forwards. We talked around the point. We wanted to get to the stage where we could come to a decision and one of the reasons why we recommended a permanent security commission was that there should be a discussion on precisely those points where a problem could arise. Nobody on this side of the House says to the hon. the Minister that when there is a time of emergency or a war is declared he cannot take action, but the desirable thing to happen is that when executive action is taken, consideration would immediately be given to the defining of activities covered by executive action, so that the attention of this Parliament can be directed in that direction immediately. That is what I regard as being the key to the whole of that commission’s report.

May I ask the hon. member why it was decided by the commission at the time to recommend action being taken against the Wilgespruit members and the whole Wilgespruit set-up without a trial being held?

The decision taken by the commission to recommend action against members of Wilgespruit, was taken because we regarded the actions of that organization as undesirable, because it was tampering with the minds of people. Our recommendation basically asked the Government to investigate it. We referred the matter to the Council of Churches in South Africa so that they could take urgent steps to put that matter in order. I want to say that my service on that commission is something which I regard as having been probably the only thing that I have done that was worth while in politics. I have been in politics for many years, since 1959, and having been in Opposition one knows what little chance one has to get something positive achieved, but I want to say that whatever happens—if, for instance, an election is held at the end of this year or whenever it might be—and I have to fold my tent and tip-toe quietly from the scene, I shall know one thing and that is that I regard the activities of that commission as having been well worth while. It was something that brought home to our people, the English-speaking people, activities that were being engaged in by others on behalf of their children, actions we regarded as being totally undesirable. When I heard that there was going to be an amendment made to the Suppression of Communism Act, in biblical terms I was glad when they said unto me there was now going to be action taken to amend the Suppression of Communism Act, because it became clear, from the evidence of people who knew, that the Suppression of Communism Act itself was one of the greatest stumbling blocks to the combating of subversion in this country, since the actions of persons could not be related to communism as defined in the Suppression of Communism Act, i.e. the Marxist-Leninist doctrine. Subversion has moved to a totally new field of activity, to a totally new ideological base.

And disguised itself.

That is correct. That is my whole point. It was our desire to see the position regularized. When the relevant Minister had to take executive action at the time, he took that executive action, but we wanted to see the specific acts defined in law as offences, and I think the hon. the Minister has failed to do that.

I have justified the action of that commission throughout my constituency, and wherever I have gone outside my constituency, by telling the people that whatever anyone may disagree with, the understanding of what was going on, which arose from the commission’s report, would lead to amendments to the Suppression of Communism Act which would make it impossible for people to engage in that sort of activity without placing themselves in danger of prosecution. However, I regard this as being a problem which the hon. the Minister has not yet met.

I now want to refer to the activities of organizations such as Nusas, the UCM and the Christian Institute, organizations which have been mentioned and named in the commission’s reports but have nevertheless been protected at every turn, explained away and supported by the PRP. The activities of Nusas were laughed off by the hon. member for Houghton as “student pranks”. However, it is an organization which the Nusas students’ peers themselves—i.e. English-speaking students at the universities—have judged and found wanting because they have been found to be engaged in radical policies which in no way reflected the ideas of the students themselves. I regard references to “student pranks” as indicative of an absolutely irresponsible attitude in relation to those organizations and those people our commission found it necessary to report on. It is an absolute, proven fact that radicals throughout the rest of the world—and no less in our country—would use all the trappings and slogans of democracy and all the cynicism in the world, to subvert the very democracy for which they are pleading, and with the deliberate purpose of doing so. In this particular case the PRP has a lot to answer for supporting and pleading the case of those organizations …

That is what the former member for Durban North thought too.

One remembers Peter Randall saying that he was preparing himself, as was the Christian Institute, to facilitate Black change. They would see to it that the Black take-over took place easily and smoothly, and they would be the ones to facilitate this in every way possible. I regard this as something which is as undesirable for the Black man as it is for the White man, if not more so. This would lead to the kind of Black socialism we have seen in other countries in Africa, inhibiting the growth of every single one of those countries and proving incapable of leading them and giving them the kind of direction they so urgently need. I believe this is something we have to recognize. These organizations have been engaged in activities that ought to be defined. I come back on this point to the hon. the Minister. These ought to be defined. When you get this slogan of the radical redistribution of land, wealth and power being bandied about …

I am quite prepared to hand all the security legislation which we have to the commission of the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

That is not an answer. We are saying to the hon. the Minister by means of the amendment which we have moved that we must put our minds together so that we can sort out the problem. Let us put together the formidable minds which are present in this House to find a solution. That is what we want. We want a Select Committee which is a part of this House, a part of its activity and a part of every single one of us in this House. I think that the UP has played a vital part in bringing credibility to the report of that commission.

Yes, and it played that part in a commission, not in a Select Committee.

I wish the hon. the Minister will listen to me. I am saying to him that we played a very, very important part indeed in bringing home to the English-speaking parents of English-speaking students what was going on. Action was taken in terms of this Act against the students and this is the place to amend the law so that it will define those activities. Our amendment is designed to enable us and all the hon. members—even the hon. members of that party will be eligible—to be members of the Select Committee. It will be the task of that Select Committee to define the sort of problems which we have. [Interjections.] Whether those hon. members will accept an invitation to do their parliamentary duty by serving on a Select Committee I do not know. However, if the amendment which we have moved is accepted by the hon. the Minister, that situation will be created.

Are you for or against the Bill?

Oh, really, what a question! We have moved an amendment because we do not accept the Bill. We do not accept the Bill because it does not go anywhere towards meeting the problem as we see it. There is indeed a problem and there is nobody in this House in his right mind who says that there is not a problem to be met. However, what we want to do is to see that the hon. the Minister gets the right advice, gets the right amendments and takes the right steps to tackle the problem. We feel that this can best be done in a Select Committee. What is necessary? The hon. the Minister will be the first one to appreciate that what is necessary is to fine down, to narrow down the field where executive action is necessary. Surely, the whole purpose of the hon. the Minister’s portfolio is to narrow down the field where executive action is necessary. This should be done by going through activities and defining them to create offences which can be dealt with by the courts so that the activity of the hon. the Minister in executive action can be narrowed down.

You should know that you cannot narrow down this type of action. [Interjections.]

We should try to. I do not accept for one moment that the combined wisdom and knowledge of this House, together with all the advice we can get from our legal departments, cannot create offences out of things which are subversive, which are dangerous. Why does the hon. the Minister chicken out …

I am not chickening out.

Well, why is the hon. the Minister not prepared even to try to take the direction we have indicated?

The hon. member for Mooi River is of the opinion that the legislation is too mild. [Interjections.]

It is not a question at all of the legislation being too mild. The legislation is inadequate. I do not say that legislation can be too severe if it is going to impose penalties upon people who tamper with the security of South Africa. I am not prepared to say that for one instant. I think the hon. the Minister is given a chance by way of the amendment we have moved. I want to say further that not a single commissioner disagrees with me. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, who is smiling like a Cheshire cat, knows that the prime purpose of our report was not to ask the Minister to take more powers upon himself of the same nature to be administered with a bigger spoon. What is the point of that? We wanted the Minister to take action to narrow down his field of executive action. He knows it and so do all the other members. I want to know why they are not standing up to be counted at a time like this. They know what we want. They ask us very piously whether or not we are going to support the legislation. But they know what we want. They have introduced legislation which they know is absolutely unacceptable to us.

Mr. Speaker, I am a conservative. I believe in the individual and I believe in the law. I believe in respect for the law and I believe in the courts, and so do the other members of the commission. I know they believe in the courts and that they feel as bad as I do about this legislation which merely extends the power of the Minister to act outside of the courts. I want to know why they are not prepared to support the amendment of this party.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke spoke about other legislation which may become necessary. He spoke of legislation in connection with economic affairs and in connection with Christianity and the Churches, which legislation he believes may be necessary for the security of South Africa. On what basis is that legislation going to be introduced? Does the hon. the Minister agree that that sort of legislation is going to come forward?

I shall first have a look at what this legislation can do.

In other words, the hon. the Minister is going to go on banning before he seeks to establish whether legislation can cover such cases. In that case, I regard the hon. the Minister as failing in his duty!

Why?

Because he is not putting his mind to investigating the sort of actualities that were mentioned by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke.

The hon. the Minister himself mentioned labour agitation, organized agitation within the most sensitive field of labour. We know that the report of Vic Feather and the report issued by TUV delegations pointed to the involvement of certain people in that activity. What has the hon. the Minister done to create offences which will cover that? Why does the hon. the Minister not relieve himself of the necessity of using the powers he has when he can investigate offences and initiate legislation to cover those activities?

I want to say that I served on that commission for many years out of conviction. I want to say, too, that I hoped that this Bill, which I regarded as being the outcome of the commission’s report, would contain amendments to the Suppression of Communism Act to bring that Act up to date and to create offences to cover the kind of problem we are faced with. However, the Bill has simply not come up to my expectations. I must say to the hon. the Minister that I am glad that I have two chances to vote against this legislation: I shall vote for the amendment moved by the official Opposition and I shall also support the amendment of the PRP that this Bill be read this day six months. I believe the hon. the Minister has failed entirely and that the members of the commission, who ought to have advised him, have also failed entirely to do their duty in respect of what is required at this particular time.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mooi River made a speech in which he made certain statements with which many of us—so I believe—are able to agree. I wonder, however, whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is also prepared to go as far as the hon. member for Mooi River now. I wonder whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would not care, by a mere nod of the head, to indicate to us that he is prepared to support everything the hon. member for Mooi River said.

The hon. member for Mooi River has already on occasion been called the Agrippa of South African politics. [Interjections.] At one stage this evening he was a greater HNP than any of the HNPs in my constituency. At another stage he was, on the other hand, more Progressive than the Progressives in my constituency. However, the hon. member now wants a definition to be given of a threat to State security. In the same breath he says that on the commission on which he served days were spent deliberating on this. The commission sat for three years. They were unable to find a definition. Now I want to know how a Select Committee could suddenly, as if by a wave of a magic wand, come by such a definition. Actually, the fact of the matter is that the hon. member, who is now a Whip of his party, also seems to have taken fright at another whip-crack which has sounded in that party. I think that it came from the left-hand side of the hon. member.

It’s old Japie!

But I want to return to the Bill. It is being said that this is a Bill which introduces a drastic measure into South African law. Many other unflattering adjectives are also being used to describe this Bill. One need only read the English Press to come across such descriptions as the following—

These are but a few from the almost inexhaustible source from which the English Press draws its adjectives. Of course, this is being done in a subtle and calculated manner, with a view to discrediting this Bill, but actually, in essence, to discredit the Government, the National Party, particularly among the English-speaking voters in South Africa. The English-language Press is simply unable to believe and accept yet that the NP received the support of 28% of the voters, most of them English-speaking, in Durban North. For them it remains a bitter pill to swallow.

It was a smaller percentage than in 1966. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, that poor hon. member, who at that time was not even in the House yet, still does not understand that this was a new constituency and a new delimitation. [Interjections.] This is of course the reason why the Rand Daily Mail published the following concerning the Bill—as we could expect, of course, it referred in the caption to the “SS-Bill”—

After they had analysed and condemned all the security legislation, they went on to say—

This is the Nationalists—

And then there was this little sentence in conclusion—

One can probably understand the fear of the English-language newspapers if one interprets it in the light of the success of the NP, among English-speaking people as well. Consequently, it is the case that this so-called monster will soon begin to conquer predominantly English-speaking constituencies as well. When one takes cognizance of these statements by the English-language Press— particularly in regard to South Africa’s security legislation and particularly, too, in regard to this Bill—one wonders why, if it is so terrible, people are voting for the NP. Is it out of fear for the NP, or are these people voting for the NP in spite of the smear campaigns and the smear journalism of the English-language Press? Are these people voting for the NP despite the mischief-making and the conjuring up of spectres and the bogeyman rumours which are being disseminated by the PRP, or are the people voting for the NP because they are beginning to realize that the NP is sincere in its policy, because they are beginning to realize with what earnestness the NP is tackling the problems of South Africa, including its security problems? Are they perceiving the success which is in fact being achieved in the sphere of the preservation of law and order in South Africa?

This Bill has been introduced at a stage at which such a measure was extremely necessary. It is extremely necessary for South Africa to improve and adapt its security legislation. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that there is appreciation for the difficult and ungrateful task which he and his department have to perform. Those of us who had the privilege of being able to work in Durban North, also found this appreciation, gratitude and understanding among those people. We found it in particular among those people with families. We also found it among people who had relatives on the border. These are people who have a love for South Africa. We found that these people, regardless of whether they were English-speaking or were not even able to speak either English or Afrikaans, had appreciation for the measures which this Government is taking against insurgency, sedition and subversion. We must make no mistake about it, for the people to whom one was able to explain this, voted for the National Party. Of course, one also found the disloyal persons, people who were not concerned about State security, people with a fatalistic philosophy of life. These are people who told one: “Do not waste our time, we are going to vote Progressive. But surely it does not really matter for whom we vote, for South Africa is also going to go under, as has happened to all the other Whites in the Black countries to the north of us”. It is not strange either that they voted for the Progressives. However, I do not wish to allege that all those who voted for the hon. member for Durban North are disloyal South Africans. I do not want to say that at all. There were of course those who attended the cheese and wine parties, and those whose children received balloons. One can understand that they would also vote for the PRP.

However, I want to tell the hon. member that he does not represent the views of the voters of Durban North in this House. The hon. member represents only 37% of the votes that were cast. That is all. The hon. member cannot say that the voters of Durban North do not support this legislation. [Interjections.] I shall deal with the hon. member for Yeoville at a later stage.

I did not think that the hon. member would attack the hon. member for Durban North before he had made his maiden speech.

I am not attacking the hon. member; I am stating a simple fact. I make so bold as to say the the English-speaking people who voted for the National Party in Durban North were people who were concerned about the security of South Africa. These are people who had to make a radical choice. These are people who had to decide whether they were going to follow the course of certainty, the course of security, the course indicated by the National Party. On the other hand, they had to choose whether they would follow the blind alley of integration of the PRP. Those people chose correctly and will in the days to come, come to realize this to an ever-greater extent.

The passage which I have just quoted from the Rand Daily Mail happened, quite by chance, to appear on polling day. Day after day the voters of Durban North had to endure this provocation and suspicion-mongering on the part of the English-language Press. If there is one fact which is indisputable and on which all of us are ad idem in this House, it is that the English Press has never had a good word to say about the National Party. They have never had any love for the National Party. We cannot argue about that.

And for us?

I can tell the hon. member for Simonstown that I can assure him …

The hon. member for Durban Point made the remark.

Yes, the hon. member for Durban Point made the remark, but it was after all the hon. member for Simonstown who gave us an analysis of the English-language Press a long time ago. But he is not alone, for there are others as well who have the same affinities towards that Press. I should like to mention a second fact, viz. that since 1948 the English-language Press has never been a friend of legislation that was introduced here for the security of South Africa. Surely this has been the case in the past, it is still the case this evening and it seems as if matters will continue in this way. I am simply saying this because they are, after all, not concerned about South Africa and because they are not friends of South Africa. That is the reason why they write such things.

Personally I believe in the freedom of the Press, and I am a champion of that freedom, but then the freedom of the Press must be in the democratic sense of the word. Surely that means that the freedom and the rights of the individual extend as far as they are bounded by the freedom and the rights of fellow-individuals. Surely there is no such thing as unbounded freedom. Surely that does not exist; surely that is a basic fundamental principle of democracy. Another basic fundamental principle is the fact that the majority govern. Surely the majority takes the decisions, and that is democracy. Surely this Government is saying this evening that not only is it the majority party with the majority of representatives, but it also represents the majority of the people in South Africa, the voters who have returned all of us to this place. Those people charge the Government with ensuring that their home and hearth and families will be safe in South Africa.

We are now discussing internal security, but what is at issue is not only the security of the Whites—and I am pleased the hon. member for Mooi River corrected himself—but what is at issue is the security of all of us, White, Brown, Black, as well as citizen and noncitizen. What is at issue for the English Press? Is it not true that the hon. the Minister of Defence and the hon. the Minister of the Interior, recently expressed their concern over the manner of reporting by certain English newspapers? Not only did they refer to the inflammatory reporting and the distortions which are taking place, but also to the flagrant anti-South African reporting. Flagrant lies are being published. Surely it is no secret that many members sitting on this side of the House are not entirely happy—and I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it is no secret either that the voters of Pretoria East feel the same way—about the fact that newspapers are not subject to the restrictions of the Publications Act. One should be able to seize these people by the neck if it should be necessary.

It is not always clear to me who gives the lead and who is being led when it comes to the PRP and the English-language Press. It would seem to me as though the English-language Press gives the lead, and the PRP are merely the echoers. It seems to me as though this is the case, too, with the legislation before this House this evening. I should not like to make such a statement blindly; I should like to adduce proof to this effect. I want to make use of a very recent experience which had a bearing on our security legislation. I want to refer briefly to the Breytenbach case. According to the PRP we could have charged Mr. Breytenbach when we caught him without a passport. We could in fact have done this and could have told him that he had entered the country illegally. We would then have deported him or we would have waited a few months, after which he would probably have disappeared. How would we have been able to establish that this person was the driving force and the venom behind the organization Atlas Okhela if he had not been in detention and if we had not been able to collect his friends together to give evidence? How would we have known that this person had a close and intimate relationship with the ANC? Surely it was essential that this should have happened.

I have said that the English Press prescribes to the PRP. Let us consider what is being said about the security legislation. I want to quote from the Rand Daily Mail of 30 August 1975. One could have expected it. The report, “Public Unease”, appeared shortly after Breytenbach had been locked up—

And then comes the sting—

It goes further—

This was said in great bravado, for an innocent man was after all being locked up, a man who had consistently spoken out against South Africa. He had had freedom of speech, but now he was being locked up.

However, let us consider for a moment who this person is. At that stage a report also appeared in Die Vaderland on what Breyten Breytenbach’s brother had had to say about him. It read as follows—

This was the person who had been wronged. This was the person whom the English language Press used to say that great dissatisfaction prevailed over the security legislation, over the “use and abuse” of the security legislation in South Africa. But then came the shock. Then came the admission of guilt by Mr. Breytenbach. One would have expected them to sing a different song. However, what happened then? On 27 November 1975 we read in the leading article of The Cape Times—

This was immediately dismissed as not being dangerous—

In spite of the fact that Breyten Breytenbach was a self-confessed subverter, he was no danger whatsoever. No, the danger was allegedly the following, and it was spelt out—

Sir, this is a fool’s paradise, but everything is condoned. Is this not the refrain we hear daily from that small group? Is it not the same theme song? There is not even a variation. Something is written in The Cape Times and then it is proclaimed here the next day as though it were original.

Sir, I want to address a request to the hon. the Minister this evening, and I accept the full responsibility for that request. On behalf of my constituency, Pretoria East, I want to ask the hon. the Minister not to hesitate a moment, when this legislation has been piloted through Parliament, to seize those newspaper editors, columnists and reporters who cause a security risk, smoke them out and lock them up. We are sick and tired of their actions. For how much longer do we want to turn the other cheek in South Africa? For how much longer does the Government want to placate our people when our people say: “Get rid of them, it does not make any difference whether they are English or Afrikaans speaking; this is a cancer and a poison.” Sir, surely we have already forgiven more than until seventy times seven. The time has arrived for these people to display a greater sense of responsibility, or else they will have to bear the consequences of their deeds.

Sir, I said that I believe in the freedom of the Press, and that I advocate it, but I believe only in the freedom of the Press for those who place a premium on the freedom of the Press, those who are worthy of it and those who use the freedom of the Press in its true idiom. However, we are sick and tired of those who merely provoke and irritate, and of those who only want to write subversively. We must get rid of them.

Sir, I want to spend a little time on the UP. Since the Second Reading of this Bill has now been moved, the UP is requesting that a Select Committee be appointed. To do what, Sir? The leader of the UP said: “Let us elevate the security aspects of South Africa above politics. ”

Let us now test whether you are in earnest.

Yes, the hon. member for Durban Point also requested it. They said: “Let us establish a body, consisting of members of the Government and the Opposition, and discuss the security aspects there.” However, we have a problem in this regard. The Prime Minister even went so far as to say to the Opposition: “Listen, we do not want you to become extinct. Please do not throw in the towel too quickly. We want to keep you with us.” As governing party we now have a problem with the UP. I want to tell them that, somewhere along the way, they lost three things. Firstly, they lost their Press. They lost the English-language Press and we must not make a mistake here; the English-language Press sold them out. In Durban North the Press sold them out. In the second place they have lost votes. Somewhere along the way they lost contact with the people. After all, we have seen this on three occasions now. In Middelburg they came third. In Alberton they came third. In Durban North they were unopposed at the previous election and now they have lost that seat. As a result of that the United Party, the UP, have lost a third thing. They have lost their credit-standing and credibility among the voters. Sir, I must say that we feel sympathetic towards them, because we are a tradition-bound people.

We are so accustomed to having the UP as Opposition, and we do not, after all, change our ways very easily. However, they are eliminating themselves, and that is our dilemma. How can we sit down with them around a committee table if the voters do not want them? How can we sit down with them if their newspapers write them off? This little English-newspaper party, better known as the Progs, is fundamentally following the disloyal course of their monitors; that is all. They are simply the echoes of the English-language Press. I have respect for most of them as elected members of Parliament—even if it is between quotation marks—except for four, namely the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Randburg, the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member for Bryanston. After all, these people do not represent anyone here. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville is always “yap-yapping” [Interjections.] He rises to his feet and shouts in a high falsetto voice, half English, half Yiddish, that a Minister should not question his patriotism now. What patriotism? Who is this man? It is an hon. member who does not belong here. This is an hon. member who tells the hon. the Prime Minister: “If you are still Prime Minister in 1975 and I am still a member of the UP, then you must resign. But if I am not still a member of the UP, then I shall resign.” What is he still doing here? [Interjections.] The hon. member knows full well that he does not belong here. This is a person who wants the voters of Yeoville to believe him and also wants us to believe him. The country must also believe that he is in earnest. Surely it is unethical to sit here. It is unethical to vote on this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it not unparliamentary to allege that an hon. member is unethical? [Interjections.]

Order! I have listened to the hon. member and I have been under the impression all the time that he was speaking in a political sense. Therefore I did not take it to be unparliamentary. However, I must now ask the hon. member to return to the Bill.

This hon. member is voting against this Bill. And that is not all; he takes upon himself the right to speak against it. He is speaking against the Bill which concerns the security of the country and he does not belong here. If the hon. member wishes to discuss the security of the State he must do the honourable thing. He must resign tonight, he must return to Yeoville tomorrow and present this Bill there.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville has every right in terms of the law of the country to be here.

I want to quote what the hon. member for Barberton said in his speech. In his speech he put the following question: “Is the PRP prepared to offer the people who want to overthrow the existing order in South Africa by violent means the protection of the law?” Just like that, the hon. member for Houghton then said: “Yes, until they are found guilty.” When it comes to security legislation and to this Bill, this is the difference between us: We should like to protect the innocent people, we should like to ensure that they are safe. The hon. member and her party would like to protect the criminals, the subverters. She says: Yes, these she wants to protect, no one else.

I said until they are found guilty. Why do you not say exactly what I said?

Mr. Speaker, my good friend and bench mate here put a few interesting questions to the hon. member for Yeoville and I take it that the hon. member for Yeoville would very much like to reply to them. However, I shall not torpedo him further. There are so many leaders in that party that we should like to see which leader is going to stand up now. The hon. UP reminds me of a robot that has got stuck on amber, because they no longer know which way to go. When it comes to legislation, security legislation in particular, with them it is a case of “slow”. The PRP, too, reminds me of a robot, because they want to handle all the political traffic in South Africa. Sometimes they are on green, but then the arrow indicates left only. Sometimes they are on amber, but as most motorists will confirm, the robot is usually red.

In her speech yesterday the hon. member for Houghton intimated that this legislation was unnecessary. Like other members of her party, she pretended to be unaware of any threats, subversion or activities aimed at bringing about a disorderly situation here. However, I believe that the hon. member, and probably other hon. members of her party, too, are fully aware of what is going on in our country. She is aware of the movements of many people, and there is a communications link with those people who are not interested in the welfare of South Africa. When we look at the questions put by the hon. member here in the House, we can only deduce that they are fully aware of movements and also threats against South Africa. The questions asked in this House and the speeches they make in this House constitute an effort to assist these people. They do not stand up for the rights of the citizens of this country. On the contrary, they champion the rights of a small group of people who could not care less about this country or its people, the small group which is in no way part of this country. One sometimes gets the impression that these people would welcome the declaration of a state of emergency in our country. She states that we do not need the legislation, and yesterday she came up with the statement that South Africa was a stable country. However, they have never before made an admission of this kind. In fact, it is this party which has pointed out crises in this country to us from time to time. Now, however, they join the UP in opposing this legislation, and as one of the basic arguments they use the issue of the rule of law.

I want to quote what a former judge president of Natal, the hon. F. M. Broome, said in connection with the issue of the rule of law—

The underminers, the people who threaten the security of the State, are not people who act in the name of the rule of law. Nor do I believe that these people expect for one moment that they should be dealt with on the basis of the rule of law, except, of course, that it suits people with such motives to adopt the guise of people who have to be dealt within terms of the rule of law. I have also noted that there has been a reaction among certain clergymen who are concerned about the legislation. It is interesting to take note of the phenomena which come to the fore in an effort to give these people the semblance of people who should be protected by the rule of law.

Through certain of its speakers, the PRP maintained that the Bill would cause tension in our country. I believe that tension will occur, but that it will be confined to those who are engaged in such unholy activities. It is they who will probably need a tranquilizer or two. Surely every individual knows when he can sleep with an untroubled conscience. It is my contention that there will be no tension in South Africa as a result of the Bill.

I believe that under a PRP government there would be little hope of the “rule of law” operating. This is a basic difference between the PRP and ourselves. Ever since the NP was formed we have put South Africa first. As the hon. member for Barberton rightly pointed out yesterday, the security of our country, our state, is our highest right. The security of our state is absolutely imperative, because without it there is no security for any inhabitant of the country. One’s whole being and the expression of one’s being is dependent on having security in one’s country.

While I am dealing with this point, I should like to address a word of appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the firm way in which he has been acting against underminers and those who threaten our country from time to time, for some time now. I want to tell him that the general public greatly appreciate what he is doing.

In their approach to the Bill we find that the PRP is prepared to live dangerously. The question occurs to me whether there are not undertakings in this regard as well. The Opposition parties are always referring to the so-called human rights, the right of the individual, the right of the citizen which may not be tampered with. Indeed, the individual is in a relationship of authority vis-à-vis the State, in the sense that he may lay claim to certain rights in and protection by the state, but in return for this he, for his part, owes the State faithfulness and loyalty. The citizen or individual has a right to protection and the great certainty of the individual is specifically that he will enjoy protection from the state in all respects. Then, however, I as an individual must remain within that relationship of authority and carry out my part of the relationship positively too. Furthermore, I must exercise my rights and my civil freedom with responsibility. We in South Africa have a far greater degree of civil freedom in regard to, for example, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of conscience and religious freedom, than is afforded by the so-called entrenchment of human rights in most modern constitutions. I therefore believe that the people in our country can lay claim to the protection which the Bill will afford them. In fact, the people expect to be protected.

I want to ask the hon. Opposition what person who lives his life in an entirely constitutional manner, whether in political parties or in other spheres, will have his freedom threatened by this legislation. Yesterday the hon. member for Vereeniging asked what rights were being taken away from these people. We do not get answers to this from the Opposition parties. Nor did the hon. member for Mooi River reply to this this evening or suggest a solution with regard to the problem they raised again. This hon. member, who served on the commission for years, must surely have struggled with the question for a long time. In fact, since yesterday, there has not yet been an effort on their part to say what the solution is. They are still showing amber and driving slowly.

The Opposition parties are suddenly seeing all kinds of principles in this Bill which appear to be suspicious to them. I am tempted to say that they see just as many principles in this Bill as the number of fabrications they serve up. They come along with fabrications and try and give them the status of principles.

Basically, this Bill contains two principles. The one is that a threat to the security of the State can emanate from others just as much as from the communists and the other is that powers allowing preventive detention of people when a state of emergency has not been declared, are necessary. This afternoon the hon. member for Rondebosch spoke along these lines when he conceded this, but in the end he just moved left again. The UP was unable to advance any other principles in regard to this Bill or indicate grounds for not being able to support the principles of the Bill.

Yesterday the hon. member for Sandton referred in particular to the issue of preventive action. He discussed attempts at crime and said—I quote from his unrevised Hansard—

I concede to the hon. member that the attempt itself is an offence. In the light of the methods used by these people, however, it will be of no avail to wait until such an attempt is made. After all, an attempt pre-supposes that a certain act or action has taken place in advance. It seems to me that that that hon. member and his party first want to see the results of these plans. Apparently they want to see physical acts, too, before taking such a person to court. However, there is a stage of brainwork, a stage of planning. Surely one must get hold of such a person before he does something. It is pointless merely to lay one’s hands on the pawns while the “brain” gets away. If the members of the PRP were to have their way, and actions or deeds were to be committed as a result of which peoples’ lives were ruined and chaotic conditions were created, they would be the first to reproach us with not having ensured that it did not happen. In that case we should have to listen to endless reproaches. Yesterday the hon. member for Sandton said: “This Government is arming itself with the weapons of despair; they are weapons of despair.” The hon. member is making a big mistake. This legislation specifically indicates that this side of the House and the Government is absolutely determined. The Government has a responsibility towards South Africa and its people, in contrast to the PRP which has no responsibility. They draw comparisons between our country and other countries. This is a new game of theirs in order to distract attention. After all, recently it has been the fashion among them to compare us with Russia with regard to the laws that are passed. In our country we go to the polling booth. There are many other countries where, nowadays, the polling booths are closed, definitely and permanently. The hon. member for Rondebosch, too, spoke along these lines. After all, he knows how things are done in our country.

Another point raised by the opposition parties with regard to this Bill is that if anyone were to be detained in terms of this envisaged legislation, he should know what the offence is. Everyone who is detained on the strength of this Act will know, and ought to know, why this has happened. In my opinion this is a ridiculous statement to make. Such people will of course pretend to be innocent. This afternoon the hon. member for Yeoville all of a sudden became concerned about the fact that the family life and private life of anyone who was to find himself in these circumstances would be destroyed if he were detained. I really find this strange. Such a person never thinks about his family when he is engaged in his malpractices. In fact, at such a time his family is very low on his list of priorities. After all, we know of a recent case of a woman saying that she was quite unaware of the fact that her husband was no longer in the country where she thought he was. The hon. member for Yeoville expressed his concern about the fact that “action could be taken without notice”. I note that the hon. member for Orange Grove is nodding in agreement. Apparently he, too, is concerned about this. However, I want to ask him whether he and his party really expect such a person to be notified in advance. I take it that the hon. member would want to see such a person being notified in advance by registered post.

I just do not want any misunderstanding as to what democratic rights are. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was unable to hear everything that the hon. member for Orange Grove said. [Interjections.]

Order!

However, if the hon. member wants to express himself in favour of democratic rights, I wish I could see him with his policy in power. [Interjections.] I do not believe that as far as the concept of democracy is concerned, he would ever … [Interjections.]

He is really like a wilted pumpkin leaf on a hot day!

This is merely an indication that the hon. member really does not understand what this Bill is about. I want to suggest that the hon. member gets hold of another hearing aid for his other ear, too. Perhaps he would be able to hear better then.

He hears, but he understands nothing! [Interjections.]

In almost every speech by an hon. member of the PRP they have hammered upon the supposedly popular statement that legislation of this nature does not belong in a modern society. This is a fine idea, but it is specifically a modern society which is in danger of being undermined. It is only possible to maintain a modern society if its modern underminers can be contained. In fact, it is one characteristic of the underminer that he is always modern; he is always up to date with his methods, his ideas and his planning. One will not catch the underminer with old-fashioned methods. The Opposition parties are concerned about the fact that the provisions of this Bill relating to witnesses are unreasonable. Apart from the fact that there are many people who would be overjoyed if they were detained—people who fear for their own lives, fear intimidation—it is a fact that a witness who is detained in connection with matters of this nature cannot maintain that he knows nothing about it. Such a witness is already in possession of specific knowledge relating to a particular dangerous matter.

The Opposition has repeatedly asked what the motives are for the introduction of this legislation. I should like to refer them—it seems to me, however, that it does not penetrate—to what the hon. the Minister said during the Second Reading. I quote—

Mr. Speaker, the Minister subsequently referred specifically to areas in which further subversive activities are expected in the future. A previous speaker on this side of the House has also referred to that.

I should like to conclude by saying that no-one has anything to fear from this legislation. I should like to give that assurance. However, I can do no better than to say this by way of a quotation from a speech made by the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and of Tourism in this House on 23 February 1976.

On that occasion the hon. the Minister spoke about the Parliamentary Commission for Internal Security. I quote (Hansard, 1976, col. 1794)—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klerksdorp did not really say much that needs a reply. All of us accept that the issue of State security is a very serious business. In this debate it does not really help much to hurl insults this way and that way in the House. We have listened to many speakers on the Government side today. Their comments have really consisted of one abuse after another of hon. members sitting in these benches. Quite frankly, when one looks for something of substance to which to reply there are very few instances to which one can really reply. What I want to do, is to try to define the difference between the attitude of the Government and that of the PRP to the issue of State security legislation. In order to do this, I would like to classify the situations of vulnerability in regard to subversion, in which a State can find itself into three broad categories. The first category is that which exists when a state of war or a state of emergency is declared. That is obviously the highest level of vulnerability.

The second category is when times are absolutely normal and when it is generally accepted that there is no real threat to the internal security of the State. The third category is the times when things are obviously not normal and when it is generally accepted that there is a real threat to State security, although war is not declared and there is no state of emergency. In the first two categories there is actually very little difference in the attitude of the Government and the PRP to State security legislation. Both of us agree that in times of war or in times when a state of emergency has been declared, the rule of law may have to be compromised and abrogated and that executive action may be necessary to deal with that situation. That is accepted.

Secondly, if one is to believe what many members on the Government benches have said, particularly the hon. member for Vereeniging, when times are absolutely normal and it is generally accepted that there is no threat to our internal security, then one would leave the handling of State security to the courts. I think that clearly reflects not only the attitude of the Government, but also of the PRP. It appears that the difference between us comes in the third category, in other words when a state of war is not declared and when a state of emergency has not been declared, but yet things are obviously not normal. It is when we move into that category, that the Government feels that it is essential to rely on executive action in order to deal with safeguarding the security of the State and we believe that executive action should not be used but that the courts should rather be used. Having accepted that, it is possible to draw some logical deductions. Firstly, both the Government and the PRP accept that it is preferable not to use executive action if it can be avoided without jeopardizing State security. Secondly, State security must take precedence over a rigid adherence to the rule of law. Obviously, if the PRP did not accept that principle, then we would not say that in times of war or in times of declared emergency the rule of law might have to be compromised and executive action might have to be taken. Even in respect of that basic point there is therefore very little difference between the attitude of the Government and ourselves. Why is it, then, that the PRP believe that when a state of war is not declared and when a state of emergency is not declared, the Government must not have the right to exercise executive action, while the Government believes that you must have executive action? There can be only one valid reason, and that is that the PRP believe that the interests of State security are best served by not having executive action, while the Government believes that in those times the interests of State security are best served by having executive action. That, as I see it, is the difference between the PRP and the Government.

In listening to the arguments that have been put forward in this debate and in previous debates as to why the Government feels that executive action is necessary, the only point which they put forward really consistently is that you must close the stable door before the horse has bolted, that you must stop the subversive action before it takes place. This seems to be the whole case put forward by the Government for executive action. From our point of view, we first of all do not accept that executive action is needed in order to do that. We believe that it can just as effectively be done through the courts. The most important thing, however, is that the Government in making these deductions, have not actually thought of the other consequences of taking executive action. They have not thought of the disadvantages to State security which go along with this sort of action. They have not thought of the adverse impact it has on the general social scene and the general political scene. Take the example of a person being detained. What happens when a person is being detained? There is no information given as to why he is being detained. All people know is that he is being detained under the Suppression of Communism Act. It is a fact, whether we like it or not, that for the vast majority of the people in this country and for virtually the whole international community, that person is not seen as a subversive person; he is seen as a political prisoner, a martyr on the altar of apartheid. That is how he is seen.

That is how you present him.

Not at all; that is how he is seen. There is no information at all about what he has done. All one knows is that this man has been detained under the Suppression of Communism Act. What now happens is that such people who, if one assumes that the hon. the Minister is doing his job correctly, are subversives, become political heroes. The impact of this on our State security is obviously detrimental. It is obviously not desirable, in contrast with having a person in a court where the hearing is all in the open and where people can see what has happened, because that person can then be roundly condemned as a subversive. He then loses this mystique and goes to gaol as an ordinary criminal. I do not believe hon. members in the Government benches give this aspect proper recognition.

The second point I should like to make in this connection, is that by arresting and detaining people under the Suppression of Communism Act, the impact of that is to give the impression to Black and Coloured people who, perhaps, believe that some of the people who have been detained are people who have been fighting for their rights, for freedom, for social justice and economic justice, that these people are automatically communists, because they have been arrested under the Suppression of Communism Act. I believe that this has given a very dangerous credibility to communism, because they have seen people who they perhaps have believed have been serving their purpose, being detained under the Suppression of Communism Act. This has created the impression that communism is related and equated with the endeavours of these people. One thing which can perhaps be said for this Bill, although it is a dreadful piece of legislation which we are obviously not going to support, is at least that the emphasis has been taken away from communism to overall subversion, where we believe it should have been in the first place.

The hon. the Minister mentioned certain countries which relied on executive action in their legislation. However, what the hon. the Minister did not tell us is which of those countries which have that legislation to serve them over a period—as the hon. the Minister told us this legislation is to serve us over a period—have ever retracted that legislation. If the hon. the Minister looks into the matter, I think he will find that there are very few—in fact, I do not think there are any—countries that have brought in executive action and then taken it off the Statute Books again. A very simple reason for this is that normally countries that bring this legislation in when they are not in a state of war or when they do not have an emergency, do so because there is something structurally wrong in the fabric of their society. This is what happens. It becomes a vicious circle, because before these measures were brought in people felt that they could at least have an independent hearing where they could put their case so that, if they were innocent, they could be released. However, once they do not have that opportunity, then they start to despair, and they are told by agitators that as they no longer have access to an open court, that they have no rights at all, that there is total confrontation, and that all they can do is to treat it as such. That brings the necessity for more restrictive security legislation. It becomes a vicious circle and what happens is that once one starts on this slippery slope, one gets more and more executive action and eventually one finds all the internal disruptions one wants to avoid happening despite all the legislation on the Statute Book. This is a major reason why we think that it is absolutely wrong to have executive action particularly when one is not in a state of war or emergency. The hon. member for Pretoria Central asked what the difference is between having executive action when one is in a state of war or declared emergency and having it when one is not in such a situation. He pointed out quite rightly that it would be a bad thing for South Africa to declare a state of emergency, because it would have adverse consequences for South Africa. I accept that situation, but the big difference is that when one declares a state of war or a state of emergency, then the whole country unites to face a common enemy who can easily be recognized. Political differences disappear as the country pulls together to face this common enemy. When executive action is used in that situation, there is no suspicion that it is being used to act against political enemies. It is quite clearly accepted that it is being used against a common enemy which everybody can see. Secondly, it will be terminated, because once the war or emergency is over, then the executive action and all the powers which have been taken in that situation disappears and the position goes back to normal. That is the real reason why executive action is possible in a state of war or emergency, although it is not desirable when there is not a state of emergency or war.

Our attitude to the rule of law obviously is a fundamental belief, it is something we believe in from every point of view, not only because it is the kind of society we want to live under, but also because we believe that the security of the State can best be ensured by subscribing to the rule of law. The moment one abrogates the rule of law, one is on the slippery slope I spoke of before. The moment one moves away from it, the vicious circle starts, one needs more oppressive legislation and eventually the kind of thing one tries to legislate against and the kind of thing one is trying to stop, will happen despite the massive array of legislation one has on the Statute Book.

That is taking a simplistic view of it.

It is not a simplistic view at all, because if one looks at history and at models of other situations throughout the world, one will see that this in fact is what has happened. If one tries to find a case where executive action is brought in, for instance, to deal with a temporary situation when the country is not in a state of war or emergency, one will find it very difficult to find a case where that kind of legislation has been taken off the Statute Book at a later stage. What one does find in virtually all cases is that more oppressive legislation has been required. I have tried to define the difference in our attitudes towards state security legislation. It is not as if we have some absolute block about not abrogating the rule of law in all circumstances. We believe in the rule of law not only because that is the sort of life we want to live, but also because we believe it is in the interests of the state security of South Africa. The problem we have with the Government is that they seem to have lost sight of this fundamental issue, because the moment one starts on this situation it gets worse and worse and the legislation becomes more oppressive. It started in 1950 and if one reads through the Hansards one will see all the safeguards that were offered all the assurances that were given and all the statements that it was a temporary measure only to deal with a certain situation were without foundation. The problem continues, and we have heard it from members on the other side of the House, who are thinking of even more oppressive legislation, and, quite frankly the more this happens the more the people in this country who do not have a say in the decision-making machine which dictates their destiny but are people who are seeking for peaceful change in the country, will feel intimidated, because they will feel that if the hon. the Minister does not like what they say or does not agree with what they are doing because it may be a threat to our security they can find themselves banned. This in itself is an inhibiting factor when it comes to an attempt to get people around the table, in trying to get them to use the platforms that have been created for them and in trying to get them to have a frank exchange of views, because they have no personal security whatsoever. Any leader in South Africa today who wants to go forward and fight for peaceful change, for economic, political and social justice runs a threat. Surely, such a leader has a right to fight for these things, and surely the hon. the Minister will not deny him this right. We have had hon. members in the House saying that they believe in the freedom of the Press, but they feel that if people write things like they do, the hon. the Minister should lock them up in gaol without trial. We have had people saying this. It is the attitude of some of the hon. members on the other side. The more one relies on these extraordinary powers, the more one intimidates people, the more one builds up a polarization and the more difficult one makes it to have a peaceful solution to the problems of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, began very well. One even got the impression that he would perhaps support the legislation. Towards the end, however, he began to make all kinds of unfounded contentions. For example he said that in terms of existing legislation we could do through the courts what the hon. the Minister is contemplating doing. I want to ask the hon. member whether he is, in that way, admitting that the existing security legislation in South Africa is acceptable to them. Do they accept it? After all, he said that our courts are already able, with the existing legislation, to do what we are contemplating with the new legislation. Does his party then accept the existing security legislation in South Africa, and are they satisfied with it? If they admit that they are satisfied with the present security legislation in South Africa, why are they opposed to further legislation which, in our opinion, is merely a further form of security measure? Why are they opposed to it? Why do they not accept and recognize the principle that there has to be such legislation in South Africa? Hon. members of that party also referred to guarantees which have been given over the years since 1950 by the NP Government. I want to challenge them this evening to bring us a single case in which those guarantees as far as security legislation was concerned were not kept. I am convinced that they will not be able to do so.

However, what the hon. member for Randburg and his party does not, or does not want to realize is that the onslaught on Western democracy, including South Africa, is a total onslaught. It is aimed at every facet of the Christian civilization which has developed over the years in South Africa and in the Western world. It is aimed at the churches, at cultural activities, at the economy and at education. One finds this onslaught in every conceivable sphere. Nor is it aimed only at the subjugation of the Whites in South Africa or the West. It is aimed in particular, too, at the enslavement of the Black and Brown inhabitants of the sub-continent. It is also aimed at their traditional way of life and customs. Whoever does not want to perceive and admit this today, is either blind or risks being branded as a fellow-traveller or lackey of those who are launching the onslaught against the West and South Africa. No other deduction can be made from the available evidence.

One sees it everywhere. We see it in Portugal, where unrest, sedition and disorder is rife. We see it, too, in Spain, where it is only possible to maintain law and order with the utmost difficulty. Then, too, there is West Germany, in which thirty ideologically motivated revolutionaries, the Baader-Meinhof gang, were capable of sowing death and destruction on an appalling scale within a highly civilized country. In Ireland it has become an everyday occurrence to see buildings, yes entire street blocks, go up in flames after bomb-throwing revolutionaries had done their devilish work. What is more, more than a 1 000 innocent people have already died there at the hands of people who are prepared to try to change the present circumstances by violent and not by peaceful means. In Britain, the mother of our democratic system, the windows and doors of public buildings have to be protected with barricades of sand bags to try to prevent devastation and the death of innocent people. I repeat: The onslaught is total. Nothing and no one is spared in the process.

If this is the case—and the evidence is there for all to see—we in South Africa, with our particular circumstances, are certainly justified in asking: What, then, of South Africa? What about South Africa then which, as the hon. the Minister indicated, owing to its particular population structure, is extremely vulnerable and is a much sought after target for the subverter? What about South Africa who stands alone today and cannot rely on others for assistance? We shall have to fend for ourselves. What about South Africa which is daily being threatened from many quarters, not only with empty words, but with deeds, with positive actions? Surely these things are there for all to see. Surely these are not figments of the imagination. These things are happening all around us.

In the light of all these things I believe that the hon. the Minister would be shamefully neglecting his duty towards South Africa and its inhabitants if he did not take steps to try to combat the things I have enumerated. It is his duty to do so. Everyone in South Africa expects it of the hon. the Minister. The main object of the legislation is, after all, to maintain law and order in South Africa. It is not aimed at innocent people and organizations within South Africa. People who do not want to violate law and order have nothing to fear under this legislation. It does not matter what they do. It does not matter how hard they try to bring about peaceful change within South Africa. They need not be afraid of the legislation. It is only the people who have a guilty conscience who are afraid of the legislation.

The Opposition, however, admits the existence of organizations and activities which constitute a danger to the security of the State. I am referring specifically to the UP. This is very clearly apparent from the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I want to quote a single passage from the amendment—

Hear, hear!

One of the hon. members over there has now cried out “hear, hear!” But what that poor hon. member does not realize is that they are, with this amendment, recognizing the principle that there has to be such legislation. Yet they are voting against it. They are simply saying that it should be referred to a Select Committee. What is the effect of that? [Interjections.] But, Sir, they go even further. They want to instruct the Select Committee to introduce legislation again. It is very clearly stated in their amendment. In other words, they admit that a comprehensive security Bill should be drafted. In view of this I want to ask them what their objection is to the principle of this Bill. If they agree that there has to be security legislation in South Africa, surely they do not really have any objection in principle to this Bill.

The hon. member for Mooi River also told us this evening, inter alia, that we should clearly define the deeds which might endanger State security. Sir, the hon. member for Pretoria East also pointed out earlier this evening that a commission really struggled for three years to try to give a definition of this. We say that we cannot do so, for one cannot define what is going on in a person’s mind when he is making a bomb, although he has not yet made an attempt to explode that bomb. One cannot charge him with that. But, Sir, we could go even further. When the hon. member for Umhlatuzana was given the opportunity to give us a definition of what deeds endangered the security of the State, he placed an amendment on today’s Order Paper which merely mentions an organization that is engaged in activities which “are designed to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order”. If the hon. member wanted to give us a solution, surely he had the opportunity here to give us a definition of what deeds endanger the security of the State. I do not want to argue with him about his right to move an amendment here, but surely he had the opportunity now to state the standpoint of his party in regard to a definition of such deeds. Sir, he was unable to do so, and that commission which sat for three years, was unable to do so either.

I said at the outset that the onslaught against South Africa was a total onslaught, and one may certainly ask the following question: By whom is this onslaught on us and on the Western democracy being made? The reply is obvious to us. It is being made by communism, Sir. They are the people and that is the ideology which is behind it. There can really be no doubt about this among us.

Communism has never, since its inception, abandoned its original primary objective, viz. total world-wide domination. South Africa is a desirable prize for communism. They would like to have South Africa. Not only are we extremely strategically situated, but we have raw materials which would be of very great value to the communists. The methods employed by international communism do differ from time to time and are adapted from place to place to make the most successful outcome for themselves possible. It is true that, here in South Africa, the Communist Party was fortunately prohibited by this Government. However, this does not in any way mean that communism is not present in South Africa. I am convinced that it is here, and that it is very much alive, in one form or another. This evil ideology is alive, and is trying with all its might to further itself every day. However, because it does not act openly, it follows that all kinds of covert methods are being employed; that it is covertly at work, which one could really describe, if one considers it, as a covert offensive. But the fact that it is a covert one, definitely does not mean that it is less dangerous. On the contrary! On this course they make ample use of fellow-travellers and sympathizers who are themselves frequently quite oblivious to the fact that they are being used by the communists, people who believe that they are fighting in the interests of freedom and of the rights of so-called oppressed persons. One finds them at all levels and in all layers of the population. George Dimitrov, the Secretary-General of the Comintern, for example, said as long ago as 1938 that they should use these people. By that he meant, inter alia, university professors. He alleged that they were worth a great deal. They were worth more than a hundred ordinary people, he said! He also said that they should use writers with reputations and trade union leaders who had a great deal of influence.

I should like to quote another splendid passage from what he also said—

To anyone in this House who wants to deny this evening that the communists are active in South Africa as well on all the various levels, I want to say that he is ignoring the facts. Communism is actively at work, and no one can ignore this problem. Our greatest problem—and this is where we and the PRP differ with one another—is that one cannot find these people guilty in the courts. That is why we want to prevent them from doing in South Africa what is happening in the rest of the Western world. We want to prevent them from plunging South Africa into chaos and overturning our orderly and peaceful existence here. Their methods are not ordinary methods. They are extraordinary methods. That is also why one cannot combat them with the ordinary instruments and methods at our disposal. Extraordinary measures, extraordinary methods and instruments are required to curb them. This Bill is an extraordinary measure, but it is essential. This is where we on this side of the House differ with the PRP further. We think it is essential, we realize the need for it, and we are prepared to fulfil our obligations in this regard to the voters of the South Africa to the letter. It is the right of any nation, of any State, to oppose the overthrow thereof by revolutionary forces, with all the methods at its disposal, and that is what we are fighting for today. We do not want to use this legislation against lawful political parties that are trying, through peaceful methods, to take over the reins of government in South Africa. We do not want to make war on them. We will fight them with words, but we will not take action against them in terms of this legislation. However, if a State finds that its existence is being attacked, that its survival is being threatened by revolutionary forces, it has to acquire the instruments to protect itself, and if they do not already exist, they have to create them. This is what the hon. the Minister is contemplating in this legislation. He is creating the necessary instruments so that he will be able to establish and to retain a peaceful situation in South Africa. Other countries have done this. Let us again consider West Germany and the Baader-Meinhof case, to which I referred a moment ago, as an example. What would the Press in South Africa and those friends of the hon. Opposition say if the Parliament in South Africa, as happened in West Germany, locked out the defence advocates from the criminal trial of people of those kind? They would definitely have let themselves be clearly heard! And what is more, what would be said if the defence attorney of such people were prevented from carrying out the instructions of his client? I could go even further. What would be said if Parliament were to prevent politically sympathetic defence advocates from being appointed to defend people of that kind in the courts, and were to appoint State advocates in their place to defend them? If this were to happen in South Africa, I would like to hear those hon. members of the Opposition! This is taking place in West Germany, but we do not hear a word about it. However, if South Africa tries to maintain itself—a small group of White people who are trying to preserve Christian civilization in Southern Africa—and an Act is passed to make this possible, everything descends about our ears as they have been doing during the past two weeks since this legislation was laid upon the Table.

Black ink from the English Press.

I really think the hon. members of the Opposition ought to feel ashamed for trying to oppose the NP in this way when we are trying, in the interests of South Africa, to maintain law and order here.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.