Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations, I move—

Where is the Minister?

Order!

Question agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations, I move—

But where is the Minister?

He is loafing again.

Order! What did the hon. member for Durban Point say?

Sir, I asked where the Minister was, and then said, “He is loafing again”.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Who is loafing now?

Order! The hon. the Minister may not say that.

I merely put the question, Sir.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

Mr. Speaker, we have already had a long discussion on this Bill before the House, and I first want to refer to certain standpoints which were stated by the hon. members of the UP. As I understood the arguments of the hon. members for Umhlatuzana, Green Point and Mooi River, they are in agreement that we have a need for security measures in South Africa, as is the case in other parts of the world as well. As I understand them, there is no difference in principle on this point. I gather from the arguments which they raised in this House, that their main objection to the legislation actually lies in the fact that the activities endangering State security are not sufficiently defined. Therefore, they want these actions to be defined. This is the major objection which they raised against this legislation, because they want that action which endangers the security of the State, to be clear. For that purpose they suggest that the matter be referred to a Select Committee. I believe I am completely justified to ask the hon. members who stated this standpoint, whether they want this side of the House to regard that proposal in earnest.

The reason why I am asking this, is because we have seen what happened to the members who had served in the Select Committee which was appointed in 1972, and which later became a commission, i.e. the Schlebusch-Le Grange Commission. The UP members who served on that Select Committee and who later also served on the commission, were to my mind very badly treated by their own party— and I believe all of us agree on this point. We found, during an earlier debate in this House, that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, for instance, rejected what the commission members of the UP had decided. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout indicated quite clearly that the UP was not bound by the decisions taken by any member on a Select Committee or on a commission.

Sir, I have posed this question, because this side of the House feels that, should the hon. the Minister give permission for a Select Committee to be appointed, it would actually be futile action if a Select Committee of this kind were to have UP representation as well. The differences in principle within the ranks of the UP are still too considerable, which means that decisions of such a UP member in a Select Committee of this kind will probably not be upheld by his party caucus. Therefore, we have the position, Sir, that the UP is at this stage suggesting that the matter be referred to a Select Committee, and that such a Select Committee should formulate, inter alia and in particular a definition concerning actions which endanger State security. If those members of the UP who will serve in the Select Committee, were to take any decisions and were to report back to their party, would the decisions which had been taken by them be accepted by their party? Last night the question was put to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether he agreed with what the hon. member for Mooi River had said. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout replied that the hon. member for Mooi River had made a fine speech, but he did not say that he agreed with the speech. I am of the opinion that the UP should obtain clarity in their own ranks as to whether they are prepared to support a measure of this kind. Will the hon. members who serve on a Select Committee of this kind simply experience the frustrations they experienced when they served on the Select Committee which was appointed in 1972 and on the commission which was later appointed? Are we not simply going to have a repetition again, and, as far as the UP is concerned, arrive at a dead end?

Concerning the idea of a more complete definition of the actions affecting State security, there is a body which may be used very effectively for this purpose, i.e. the Internal Security Commission which was established a while ago in this House. That commission is pre-eminently suitable to be used for this purpose. I do not want to anticipate the hon. the Minister, but I believe that it will be a natural step from the nature of the case, to refer this Bill, when it becomes law to this permanent commission to be considered and reviewed there from time to time. This is one of the purposes why that commission has been established. To leave this matter at a Select Committee, would amount to our partaking in a game while we know what the results of it will be. No matter what description one gives to activities which endanger State security, it is obvious that such a definition have to be amended from time to time. We are here dealing with actions and people of a particular kind. Here we are not dealing with the ordinary criminal; we are dealing with people who are not ordinary criminals. What type of people are these who indulge in subversion? They are normally people with above-average intelligence. They have a sound education, they are people with ingenuity, and are very familiar with all the facets of subversion. They do not only use those who agree with their ideology; they also use any person who bears a grudge. They also use ordinary criminals who associate themselves with the activities of those people because it might be profitable for them to do so. Furthermore, they normally use politically uninformed and uneducated people. Thus one often finds that the person who commits the actual crime, is a pathetic, uninformed person. He is simply the end of a long link. The planner of the crime is normally far removed from that end and is intelligent enough to see to it that he breaks the link in good time, so that the crime may not be traced back to him. Those hon. members who are in the legal profession, ought to know that there are today still many leaders of criminal gangs who are not yet behind the bars, because they are too shrewd. They do not allow themselves to be traced. They use accomplices to commit the crime.

Where State security is at stake, we simply cannot allow such a state of affairs to develop. This side of the House also attaches great value to the rule of law and is proud of the impartiality and independence of our judiciary. On this side of the House there is great appreciation for the standpoints that the rule of law should be maintained but, as the ruling party, we should also apply other considerations. In practice, as is happening in other countries, it is essential to get away from the theoretic concept in this respect and to see to is that peace and order prevails in the State.

It is significant to see how far those indulging in subversion are prepared to go under slogans such as “right to humanity”, “fight against suppression” and “fight against social and political injustice”. They do not acknowledge any civilized rules and recklessly use any method at their disposal.

I want to refer to Conflict Studies to which reference has already been made. This document deals in a particularly authoritative way on the question of subversion. I quote—

Because this is such an unpredictable phenomenon, it would be extremely difficult to achieve something with any particular definition in an Act. In this regard I also want to refer to the sphere in which these people operate. They especially operate in States with a constitutional government, in States with an Opposition, in States where there is freedom of speech and movement. I again quote from the same document—

We in South Africa should be fully aware of the fact that the terrorists, those indulging in subversion, have their sights set on South Africa. I believe that no person will deny this, because the facts indicate this. We find signs of this all around South Africa. Recently there was the cold-blooded murder of three South African tourists only 110 km north of Beit Bridge in Rhodesia. We are all in particular aware of what is happening in South West Africa at the moment. We all took note of the judgment which was given in the Supreme Court in South West Africa yesterday as the result of murders committed on innocent people. Nor should we be lulled by the apparent cessation of activities by the Russians and Cubans in Angola. For any politician who makes a study of such methods, it is clear that this does not mean that the Kremlin with all its a satellites have decided that all their functions and actions in Africa should cease. We should know that the Kremlin is watching anxiously the progress which is being made in South Africa, progress indicating that we are peacefully, but firmly, granting all the nations in South Africa self-determination. We know that the Transkei will become completely independent in October this year. Bophuthatswana has made great progress in that direction and the other homelands are also actively preparing themselves in a peaceful manner for self-determination. We know that 11 ethnic groups in South West Africa are trying to find a solution in a peaceful manner. All this is a sharp contrast with what is happening elsewhere in Southern Africa, a sharp contrast, among others, with Angola, Mozambique and other places. We should realize that this does not form part of the plans of the Kremlin. When referring to Russia, I am not only referring to communism. We all know that there are people who are prepared to be used. For that reason this legislation is serving before us at present. Cognizance was also taken with great concern in the Kremlin of the success our hon. Prime Minister achieved with his offensive to bring about peace and co-operation in Africa. I believe that this was one of the important reasons why the Cubans and Russians struck in Angola. I believe they wanted to prevent certain African states to make a common stand against them. Because we are peacefully and firmly making progress to realize the self-determination of all the nations here in South Africa and because we have already had such a great deal of success in this respect—although there are people who think it does not take place as rapidly as it should in fact be taking place—we are of course the target of these influences of subversion. Since we are aware of all these contributory factors, it is essential that the principle of this Bill should be accepted by all of us here. As far as the hon. members of the PRP are concerned, I believe that the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Ronedebosch, judged by the speech he made yesterday, also has a need for it and perhaps only differ as far as the method which is being used here is concerned. I do not know whether this applies to the same extent to the hon. member for Houghton. I believe that she wants to persist in the fashion which is prevalent among certain sections of the population, the fashion which is also encouraged by the newspapers which support them, namely that everything which is in conflict with the absolute liberty of the individual, is bad. It is essential for those hon. members of the UP who support this principle in essence, should adopt a standpoint. They should come forward with positive suggestions which will be acceptable to the hon. the Minister and join those of us in South Africa who are not prepared to watch idly while subversive activities are taking place on the home front.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Eshowe said that, in his opinion, the UP recognized the principle of State security. I am pleased that he said this at long last, because at the beginning of his speech he first tried to intimate that the UP did not accept this principle. Unfortunately the hon. member did not make it very clear why it was already necessary to introduce this legislation on that basis. It seems to me that the hon. member feels that—as he said—because we are not dealing with ordinary criminals here and because these criminals act in an unpredictable way, it is not possible to draw a clear picture of the various offences which criminals of this kind might commit. I do not believe that we on this side of the House can agree with the hon. member. What we could perhaps agree on, is that there is an area which is unpredictable, an area which can probably change from time to time. At the time when this legislation is being debated in this House, there are indeed definite aims and definite criteria which can be used to show exactly what kind of action can be dealt with at this state, by the legislation in question.

The hon. member also said that he did not believe we were serious about the Select Committee we have proposed. The reason he said that, is—as he put it himself—that when the Schlebusch Commission met and later published a report, there were signs in the UP that the decisions of the commissioners of this party had not been accepted by the party. I do not know where he gets that from. He knows that we in the UP accept the minority report. It is the report of our commissioners. We have always stood by that. Why the hon. member now advances this as a reason for not appointing a Select Committee, I do not know. The reason he advances, does not exist. According to the hon. member for Eshowe the UP wishes all offences which may possibly exist in terms of this Bill, to be fully defined. I have already said that the UP does not want anything of this nature. We only desire that those that can be defined, should be defined. We know and we admit that when we have defined everything that can be defined, an area which cannot be defined will still remain. As far as that area is concerned we shall be prepared to agree that the executive may in fact take action. [Interjections.]

It is, however, quite clear that that area cannot be determined by way of debate in this House. Nor can it be determined in the Committee of this House. There is a good chance that it could indeed be determined if a Select Committee were to be appointed.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say quite honestly that I find it remarkable and strange that hon. members on the other side of the House are not prepared to have this matter properly discussed in a Select Committee. We know that the appointment for a Select Committee is indeed a sound way to go about solving this matter. It can be solved very efficiently in this way. It must not be said that there is no time during this session to appoint a Select Committee. Why has the hon. the Minister brought this Bill before the House only now? He could have given notice of this proposed legislation during the first week of the present session. Why did he have to wait until nearly the end of this session before introducing this Bill? After all, we could have had the whole session to study this matter properly. Nor would there have been any hurry, nor any need to pass legislation at breakneck speed, as will be the case now.

As far as I am concerned, the hon. member for Eshowe unfortunately did not state the case as he should have stated it.

Before the hon. member for Eshowe made his speech, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg addressed the House. He said that the UP had admitted that a comprehensive security bill should be drawn up. In view of that he asked what our objection was to the principle of the Bill. In my opinion, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg misunderstood the issue and was wide of the mark. He is speaking about a principle here. If he is indeed speaking about a principle, then he probably means one principle. Perhaps it is the only principle he can speak about, the principle that action against this kind of criminal should only be taken by the executive. If that is the principle the hon. member was speaking about, the UP rejects it. Therefore we are unable to support this Bill as it stand, at the moment.

Which principle do you in fact support?

The principle the hon. member is referring to is quite probably the principle I have just referred to. We are of the opinion, however, that there are various principles in the Bill. We feel that those principles cannot be debated in the House and that finality cannot be reached about them here. In our opinion, this can only be done by means of a Select Committee. That is the reason why we asking for a Select Committee. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg said that our biggest problem was that people could not be convicted in the courts. There I am unable to agree with the hon. member. There are some of these criminals, certainly, whom one can deal with in the courts. What we on this side of the House are asking for, is that the criminals who can in fact be dealt with, should be taken to court by means of legislation which creates offences. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the hon. member for Verwoerdburg.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg said the following about the hon. member for Umhlatuzana—

He also said that the hon. member would not be able to do it, but I do not agree with him. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana read quotations to the House on the way in which the matter could be solved. He quoted, for instance, from the Standing Committee on Internal Security of the American House of Representatives, in which it is stated that many of the acts committed by people who threaten the security of the State, can indeed be dealt with by reading it in conjunction with certain concepts which are set out in the document. The hon. member quoted excerpts from it. To refresh the memory of the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, I should like to repeat what the hon. member quoted. The passage mentioned acts—

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana did indeed, therefore, indicate to the House a way in which such acts could be coupled with the concepts I have just quoted. In my opinion, therefore, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg owes the hon. member for Umhlatuzana an apology.

†Before the hon. member for Verwoerdburg spoke, the hon. member for Houghton had a great deal to say about this Bill. She obviously does not care for this Bill at all. We in the United Party feel that notwithstanding the fact that the Bill might be repugnant to the hon. member for Houghton, she should have been more careful in her choice of language when she criticized the Bill. She dubbed the Bill as “the SS Bill”. Anybody who knows the history of the world during the last world war will know that the abbreviation SS has a meaning which is quite different from the letters SS for the abbreviation of State Security. It is quite obvious that the hon. member for Houghton was trying to find a catch phrase, a headline, or some sort of means of telling the world that here in South Africa methods were being employed by the Government to bring about the same sort of conditions as existed in Germany under Hitler. We on this side of the House take very strong exception to that sort of extravagant way of doing things. The hon. member for Houghton was very successful in her endeavour, because here I have a headline from one of the newspapers which reads as follows: “Suzman slams SS Bill”. That is the headline from a South African newspaper, the Daily Despatch. Imagine what sort of headlines the same statement have had in newspapers in other parts of the world. We believe that the hon. member for Houghton should really have thought very carefully about this matter before she expressed herself in this most extravagant way. We disassociate ourselves entirely from any type of criticism of this Bill of that nature.

The question that now arises is why do we want a Select Committee. I think it is a very simple matter and I hope the hon. the Minister will agree with me, to incorporate in this Bill a number of concepts which will assist in bringing the terrorists and underminers the hon. the Minister has referred to, to book. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to the sort of wording which I think is something which the Select Committee which the hon. the Minister could agree to appoint, would deal with. The Select Committee could, for instance, cut down a number of the acts complained of to these sort of concepts. The concepts I want to read to hon. members are concepts which have been gone into very carefully by the S.A. Law Commission and I believe could serve as a very good guide for the purpose of definition. The Report of the Law Commission says the following—

There are any number of concepts in a draft Bill prepared by the S.A. Law Commission which could be used as a very good guide by such a Select Committee. I believe this Select Committee will do a very good job of work, because having isolated a number of acts which can in fact be brought before the court as offences, from that area in which executive action is to take place, narrows that area very considerably. I believe that this is a very great service which this Select Committee can perform for the Government and for the country. I feel that if the hon. the Minister rejects this offer of a Select Committee, he will be doing so for ulterior motives, because I believe that this is an honest to goodness attempt to try to solve a problem which it is very difficult to deal with under the circumstances which the Minister has outlined. We feel that by isolating these acts and identifying them as matters which can be brought before the courts, the public will feel that those who are undermining the authority in South Africa will be brought to book, and that only in those cases where such acts cannot be properly defined in such a way that they can be brought before the courts as an offence, executive action will still be necessary. If these acts are isolated, it will mean that there is a very much smaller area in which executive action is required, and if the Minister then in addition has the safeguards which we have called for, viz. the safeguard of a proper review, and not the sort of review that he has in mind, it will go a long way towards solving this problem.

What do you consider as a proper review?

The proper review that I have in mind is the sort of review which has been suggested by this side of the House, viz. a review of all executive actions taken in terms of this Bill.

But all the executive actions taken under this Bill will be reviewed.

No, Sir; the hon. the Minister is wrong. The only executive actions which are subject to review, are those which are taken in terms of clause 4.

But the Select Committee did not even know about this Bill. It has nothing to do with the Select Committee. [Interjections.]

The point is that provision for review should be made for bannings, restrictions, publications and the whole lot.

You mean your party wants an extension of the review proceedings?

Yes, but we would not only like to see an extension of the review proceedings; in fact, we would like to see that review in quite a different form.

In which form?

We would like to see it in a proper legal form, with a judge as chairman of the review committee, and at least one advocate of, say, 10 years’ standing, and a magistrate, serving on that committee. That is the sort of review committee we have in mind, as against the sort of review committee which the Minister proposes. A decision by this review committee could be binding on the Minister. If that were the case, I believe that all the fears that people have in respect of this legislation would be laid to rest. At the same time we would have legislation which could be changed from time to time, and if it were changed, I believe that one would find that that area that I have referred to as the area of executive action would be narrowed still further. In passing, I should like to say that I just cannot understand the hon. member for Eshowe suggesting that after this Bill has passed through all its stages in this House, it should immediately be referred to the permanent commission on State security so that they can go through it again. I think that is absolutely laughable, because what are we doing here? Surely we are not playing the fool when we debate this matter. Surely it is the height of stupidity to say that we must not have a Select Committee, but that we must refer this Bill to that permanent commission once it has passed through this House, so that they can look through it and see how they can improve it. If that is the attitude of the hon. the Minister, then I believe that he is really playing the fool with us. I suggest that the hon. the Minister should reconsider his viewpoint in regard to the Select Committee which we have asked for, and I just hope that as a result of this debate, he may be prepared to accept it.

Order! I want to clear up a matter on which I remained silent because I was not sure whether the hon. member for Wynberg was quoting from a newspaper. For the guidance of hon. members I want to read the relevant section of Standing Order No. 130, which provides—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg once again filled one with much pity because of his pathetic, pious talk in this House to explain his inability to adopt a standpoint. The proposal to refer the legislation to a Select Committee, is such an obvious attempt at disguising the political dilemma in which that party finds itself and at enveloping it in a smoke-screen, that their arguments really make no impression whatsoever on anybody. I do not think I need reply any further to those arguments.

The hon. members on the opposite side of this House, as well as the PRP, take a completely different view to this side of the House on matters concerning State security. In referring to this side of the House, I know that many of the members opposite share our concept of State security to a very large extent. Other hon. members again, do not agree with us but with the PRP. But to dub this legislation as SS legislation and to describe it as promoting a Police State, is absolutely irresponsible. I do not think that that party can hope to make any progress in South Africa if they make such irresponsible speeches in this House. The hon. member for Houghton was the sole representative of her party for many years in this House and she did not mind that. She was wont to say these irresponsible things. I should like to tell the hon. member for Houghton, however, that the audience to which she addresses herself overseas, is a vanishing audience, and she should control herself to some extent if she does not wish to do South Africa any further harm.

To us on this side of the House State security means that it is the State’s duty and its indefeasible right, in the first place, to afford protection to the population of our country—to Brown, Black and White. The people need protection against subversive elements. Consequently this legislation can be justified. Secondly, it is the State’s duty to protect our territory against subversive elements. Thirdly, it is the State’s duty to protect the authorities, the lawful government of the day, against those who wish to overthrow it in an unlawful manner. The rule of law, which regulates relations within the State, must be protected against subversive elements from outside, because those people at whom this legislation is aimed, wish to destroy the rule of law, which is held up as a holy cow by those people.

This legislation is also aimed at protecting the rule of law which is to regulate relationships within the State. This is what State security means to us. We believe that it is not only the State’s duty, but also its indefeasible right, to take such measures, within reasonable limits, and to present to Parliament such legislation as are required to perform these duties effectively and efficiently. If the Government of the day were to fail to take these effective measures, the Government would not be performing its duty. Then it would be guilty of neglect of duty and then the people could rightly call the Government to order.

But what does that party believe when it comes to State security? They allow themselves to be carried along by the flood of liberalism that has inundated the Western world, a flood which has turned many of the Governments in the West today into pathetic, helpless institutions no longer able to rule. Why has this happened? It has happened because the structure of authority has been broken down, because the liberty and rights of the individual have been elevated to a higher position than the interests of the State by the flood of liberalism in the Western world. We also believe in the rights and the liberty of the individual. We also believe that human rights must be protected, but we relentlessly believe that when the liberty of the individual and the security of the State come into conflict, the liberty of the individual must submit to the security of the State, because the State is the greater authority. This is where one finds a difference of approach. That party believes that the liberty of the individual and human rights should be sovereign and should overrule the State. That is why they want to break down all legislation authorizing the State to act against subversive elements, which will leave the State powerless and unable to take strong action.

This is the trend throughout the Western world and this is why the whole West is pathetically powerless to act against this stream of subversion which is being inspired from Moscow with the object of breaking down and destroying authority. State security includes, of course, the protection of the Government of the day and the political order of the day. The Government of the day happens to be the National Party Government. This also holds true of a one-man state or a state with a military government. Legislation of this kind may possibly be controversial and there may be a difference of opinion on such legislation, but this may never cause the Government to shun its duty of passing legislation of this kind. I quote what Dr. Ignatius Rautenbach, professor at the Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit, has to say about this—

To this I want to add that another thing that we should remember is that the people who undermine the State, are not people who are amateurs in this field. They are not people who are taken from the streets and sent into action of this kind. They are trained people who have attended the best school available for subversive action. They have received the best psychological training one can possibly have. Therefore, they are people who are properly trained for their task. Therefore one cannot simply tackle them with bare hands; one must be able to take effective action against them. Therefore, if the Government considered it necessary to introduce legislation, such as that which is before this House at present, so as to enable it to take effective action against subversive elements, but nevertheless refrained from introducing it for fear that it might lose its popularity or might be regarded by irresponsible people as seeking to establish a police state, the Government would be acting irresponsibly. Then the Government would also be acting irresponsibly towards people who do not even agree with it, but who also demand the protection of the State. With reference to the world-wide onslaught on order, on State authority, I read out what Stokely Carmichael said—

He is referring to the Black Power group—

If it is the technique of one’s enemies to destroy the existing order in any way possible, while one must act according to the rule of law, where does one find oneself? One is always at the losing end. I believe that the powers which the hon. the Minister is taking will be exercised in a responsible manner. To me it is very strange that as soon as a good jurist becomes a National Party Parliamentarian or Minister, he suddenly becomes a monster in the eyes of the law society or of the bar council and no longer has any notion of what the rule of law is. Why would this be so? I say there is a difference of opinion as regards the question of what State security actually includes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I am not participating in the debate after one of those hon. members because I am now saving valuable time. I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on a carefully thought out analytical argument of this matter. In his book, the Challenge of Youth, Friederich Heer says—

This Bill which is before this House is not an isolated attempt to deal firmly with subverters and anarchists. It is only a link in a full-scale campaign. Because the campaign against us is not limited to one level only. It does not only involve bomb-throwing, arson or strikes. It does not only have one visible demonstrative dimension. On the contrary, it involves hidden dimensions. It is not only directed at the destruction of the physical fibre of the Western civilization, but is an onslaught from many fronts against the spiritual and moral fibre of the Western world and the Western civilization as we know it. The onslaught makes use of all conceivable kinds of sophisticated military and psychological weapons. Lavarenti Beria, the former head of the Russian Secret Police, laid down a doctrine which amounted to the following—

This is the truth. I want to read what Dr. Kubeck once said. He was a security adviser to the American Government. He is an historian; he is attached to a university and is a member of Rotary International. When he addressed the Australians in Perth, he reproached himself—

We must take note of what he said here. We see the red glow of these hellish fires around us and within our own ranks. If this is the case, the truth of the saying: “There is nothing like the truth, and there is no time like the present to tell it”, is manifesting itself.

With this Bill South Africa is not breaking away from the legal structures of the free Western world, but is progressively moving within the ever-changing limits of the concept of State security. The concept of State security has shifted its beacons as a result of circumstances and as a result of the new fronts which have been opened against it. Today we cannot speak of State security in terms of the concept which we had of it 20, 30 or 40 years ago. This Bill is moving within that more extensive concept of State security. I am sure of this. This Bill is not a logical, spontaneous action which is built into the philosophy of the National Party. This Bill is actually a reaction which is being forced upon us. I want to quote what was written in the African Communist, No. 53 of the second quarter of 1973, to illustrate what I mean. This publication is clandestinely distributed and reaches our people in South Africa. It reads—

And now, Sir—

I say that this legislation is a reaction to the forces of destruction. It is not a normal result, it is not a built-in, natural component of our philosophy on State security. This Bill in itself is a hope, the expression of a hope to let the light burn, to keep the light burning as we want it, as our fathers formed and protected it. An old Chinaman once said—

Mr. Speaker, when has there been a greater need to spread the light than now, today, in Africa? Africa was known in history—and we have all grown up with this—as the Dark Continent. After the waters of Uhuru swept over it, it was darker than ever before. We want to keep the light which we have inherited burning by means of one measure—a measure like this Bill.

†While Rome was burning, Nero failed to give instructions to quench the flames. Should we sit back and allow the forces of evil, not only those directed against the Republic of South Africa, to erode the so-called evil of capitalism?

*You must listen!

†… of capitalism, discipline, integrity, good taste and religion, without taking the strongest precautionary measures?

*I want to confirm what I am saying here. I shall quote once again from the African Communist No. 62, of the third quarter of 1975—

Sir, this legislation clearly informs us that we understand terrorism, its actions and anatomy. The hon. member for Rondebosch made a very good speech here last night.

Hear, hear!

Yes, he made a very good speech. But his timing was wrong. Time is precisely what the communists, the subverters, do not want. They fear the inevitable success of our policy. When the philosophy which is built into the NP’s policy has time to develop to its logical consequence, it guarantees the emasculating of the subverter’s words in the eyes of the Black masses and of the uninformed.

In conclusion I want to quote from a book by Richard Clutterworth entitled Living with Terrorism. He writes—

Sir, we are not sitting still. This Bill is only one action on our part. In our country we are engaged, and throughout the entire world people are engaged in taking steps on various fronts against this hellish attack, aimed at all the fibres of which a civilized community is composed. In the New York Times of 9 May 1974 a long article is devoted to Japan’s awareness of this attack against its moral fibre. I quote from the newspaper—

We are determined to make this legislation a pro-South African Act. It is a pro-fatherland Act; it is a pro-parent and family act; it is a pro-authority Act; it is an Act which recognizes the Government as an arsenal of authority and discipline and confirms the will to maintain it. This is an Act which must make a valuable contribution to the maintenance of stability, because stability is an essential component of any evaluation of any evolutionary development. The policy of South Africa and the National Party is aimed at evolutionary development in all spheres.

†If the anarchists and the revolutionaries try to get our people away from religion, we shall stress the love of God. If they want to destroy loyalty, we shall let our people grow in loyalty. If they want to promote immorality, we shall try to let them rise to a higher and greater morality and to a greater moral maturity. If they want to destroy authority, we shall guide our people to responsibility and the responsible use of freedom. If they want to promote licentiousness, we shall try to invest in higher individual morality and inner self-control. If they want to rob our people of joy and happiness, we shall try to let them live more freely, jubilantly and abundantly. We shall try to assist our people to obtain a positive identity and individuality. In Kipling’s Great Jungle Tales, Kaa, the rock python, wise from long experience, is a sort of parent, a guide, a philosopher and a friend to young Mowgli, the wolf-boy. And thus he speaks to young Mowgli, the wolf-boy, and thus he speaks to the boy he loves—

Mr. Speaker, in terms of Standing Order No. 58, I indicate that the debate will be continued for a further period of one hour.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Algoa, in dealing with this matter, raised the matter of the attitude of the various sides of the House to the freedom of the individual. That is a matter to which I shall be giving some attention later on in the speech I hope to make. The hon. member will thus forgive me if I do not follow him immediately in that regard. The hon. member also dealt with the stream of subversion from Moscow and with the ingenuity and complexity of the modern subversion. I thought it was common cause that much of the subversion with which we are faced today is not communist inspired, but in fact motivated in other ways and for other reasons. In fact, I got the impression that it was the theme of the speech made by the hon. member for Carletonville, who, while he sawed into the intricacies of the methods used by the communists, nevertheless felt that the Bill which is now before us was moving into the field of, what he calls, the new subversion. I think it will be our criticism of this Bill that it does not move into the field of new subversion. What has in fact happened, is that the hon. the Minister has not found it possible to cope with that new subversion in a manner which will widen the scope of the powers of the court and narrow the scope of arbitrary executive action which can be taken by the executive. I think that is one of the matters to which I hope to give attention later on when dealing with our attitude towards this legislation.

I suppose it is correct to say that this Bill has to do with the security of South Africa and that it is correct to say that we are reaching the last stages of this debate. It is also correct to say that, as so often happens in a debate of this kind, the real issues tend to become clouded. I do not suppose there is anybody in the House who will query that democracy which rests upon twin pillars; the pillar of freedom and the pillar of justice. In a multi-racial country like ours, one has to give particular attention to both those pillars if democracy is to grow and is to become strong. We also realize that in the world in which we live, we have to be prepared to sacrifice some measure of individual freedom, otherwise we may not be strong enough to protect that very individual freedom which is being subjected to such strong attacks from other ideologies and from countries outside South Africa. I think the problem which we all realize is: How far do you go in sacrificing individual freedom without destroying that very freedom itself that we are trying to preserve? In making decisions on this issue, I have always asked myself three questions. The first question is: What are the threats that are to be met? The second question is: Will the proposed legislation meet those threats? The third question is: Are the powers given so wide that they may be open to abuse? I think those are the three cardinal questions which have to be answered, namely what is the threat, will this legislation meet it and have we limited the powers sufficiently to ensure that they will be used for the purposes for which we want to see them used and that they will not be abused?

What are the threats with which we are faced? I say at once that it is not easy to evaluate them, because when members on the Government side are telling us what a good Government they are, they make very big claims of success regarding the combating of communism and subversion. Members of the Government side have claimed several times that they have stamped out communism in South Africa, but it always starts again; it always reappears; it shows its head again in some other form. It seems, therefore, that that stamping out is only temporary. When they want more powers, they tell us how great the threats are, how big the dangers are and how much more serious the situation is today than it was some months or years ago. Nevertheless, I do not think anybody but a fool would deny that communism appears in many guises, that it has many faces and that it is always popping up in different shapes and forms; nor would they deny that many of those threatening the security of the State and the maintenance of public order are not communists in the accepted sense of the term, even if they have worked with communists for their own purposes. I think the Minister put it well when he said that all communists are underminers, but not all underminers are communists. There is something new appearing on the scene today; there are people motivated by other ideologies and other ideas, not necessarily communist ideas, but when it suits them, working with the communists for the overthrow of the State and the breakdown of public order. I think that is one problem, a problem about which I shall have a great deal more to say later.

There is a second problem. I myself am on record as identifying that second problem when I associated myself with those who said that one of the biggest problems in fighting communism was the Suppression of Communism Act itself. I think that was realized by all the members of the Schlebusch Commission. All the members who sat for months on that commission and had the opportunity of examining witnesses at first hand, and had the opportunity of talking to the security people, seemed to recognize that fact. They drew attention to the fact that certain courses of conduct were not covered by the Act, but nevertheless were dangerous, were undermining as far as the State was concerned, and should be made offences punishable by law. There have been speeches in this House to that effect on more than one occasion. I have indicated that I believed that this was one of our problems in combating communism. That is the second problem. Other problems may arise, other complex problems which have not only national, but also international complexities, of which I shall have more to say later.

The question is: Will this legislation meet the problem which we have to face? Frankly, I do not believe it will, I do not believe that it is going to meet the problem. The definition of the activities in respect of which the scope of the original Act is widened is “endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order”. This definition is extremely vague and extremely wide, so wide that it has been suggested in debate that it could be interpreted by some people to include the activities of both the Government and the PRP on my left.

That would be a stupid interpretation.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that would be a stupid interpretation. There have been stupid men in the seats of power before now; there have been many of them. Everything dealing with this interpretation depends on subjective opinion. There is no objective tests laid down; it is a matter of subjective opinion, the opinion of the State President, which in effect means the opinion of the Cabinet of the day.

That is your subjective opinion.

That is not my subjective opinion. That is an objective interpretation of this law. Nobody can escape it; do not let them try. Why is this so? For a very simple reason. It is so because there is no element of mens rea, the guilty mind, the guilty intention contained in this definition. That is what is lacking. This question of mens rea, the guilty mind necessary for the conviction of a crime, the guilty mind necessary for action by the hon. the Minister or the State President, has been the subject of a long standing difference between the Government and ourselves. It goes back to the Select Committee on the Unlawful Organizations Bill, which ultimately became the Suppression of Communism Act. It was the underlying difference between the definitions in what was known at that time as the Strauss Bill and the Blackie Swart Bill, the Bill which came before Parliament. The Strauss definition, of which I have a copy here, provides that communism means the doctrine—and I shall not go into the details—which aims at this, which aims at that and which aims to so and so, and everywhere has regard to the intention of the individual involved. The Blackie Swart Bill had several clauses of that definition in which it was accepted that mens rea was necessary. But then it came at the end with this: which aims at the encouragement of certain feelings, “calculated to further the achievement of” any object referred to in the previous paragraph. Calculated by whom; the person who is doing the act, the Minister who is doing the judging or the court that has to decide? Once again the element of mens rea is removed. That difference between us was underlined again in a debate in this House on that Bill. It was one of the causes of the split between us on the Select Committee and it was one of the big difficulties before us. In those debates reference was made to the fact that both in the United States of America and in Australia, which had put new legislation on the Statute Book just before we did, mens rea—the guilty mind, the guilty intent—had been included as an essential ingredient of the definition from which culpability would arise. As long as there is no mens rea, i.e. no provision for the guilty mind or intention, the individual citizen does not know where he is. The law is uncertain, and if the law is uncertain, the individual citizen does not know whether he is bringing himself within the purview of the Act. When the law is uncertain, the natural consequence is that it becomes ineffective. Not only will it be ineffective, but it could also be open to abuse, and because it could be open to abuse, those interpreting it, when they are honest men— and our judiciary are, of course—are apt to narrow down its meaning as far as they can, to limit it and to make it ineffective. Here is the crux of one of the problems we have with this Bill. Is this not a matter that should be referred to a Select Committee? Is this not something we should discuss as we did when we sat in Select Committee on the Unlawful Organizations Bill? We sat for days, and that was one of the most interesting times we had in this House.

But I have offered to send it to the Prime Minister’s Commission.

The hon. the Minister has suggested that it should go to the Prime Minister’s Commission, after it is enacted and the principles have been accepted.

It does not matter. We need the Act.

If the hon. gentleman had meant to send it to that commission, he should have sent it before it came to this House.

Are you prepared to sit on that commission if I do send it before it is accepted at Second Reading?

No, I am not prepared to sit on that commission, because I do not know what is going to be sent to it. The whole principle of the commission is unacceptable to this side of the House, as the hon. gentleman knows.

Are you prepared to sit on that commission? I shall send it before the Second Reading, exactly as you require.

I am not prepared to sit on that commission under any circumstances, because I know it is the intention to use that commission for other purposes. That has already been stated.

Small wonder that with a definition as vague as this, the Minister did not risk dealing with these activities under section 11 of the original Act, the section dealing with penalties and offences that could be tried and punished by the courts. We now have—as we had to a limited extent in the original Act—activities in respect of which executive action can be taken, but which are not punishable as crimes or offences under the Act. The hon. the Minister has taken power to act in respect of certain activities. He is going to decide whether those activities are dangerous to the security of the State or public order, and he is going to take action, but there is no commensurate crime, no offence that can be brought before the courts. This is a most extraordinary situation. It existed to a limited degree in the original Act, and that was one of our problems with the Act. Here it has been extended out of all knowledge. The Minister has taken powers now to deal with matters which he cannot bring before the courts because he has not taken the necessary action here. He has embarked on a very dangerous course, because in respect of all the widened powers he is taking under this Bill, there is no recourse to the courts on the merits. There is recourse by way of review which is, of course, no recourse at all as far as the merits are concerned. There is, however, no recourse on the merits.

The commission of inquiry that went into the disturbances in the Gold Coast in 1948— that was before independence—was but one of the commissions which stressed the vital importance of recourse to the courts by the subject. It made the point that much of the difficulty in that part of the world might have been avoided had that recourse to the courts existed. I want to quote another authority, one much nearer home as far as the Government side is concerned. The late Dr. Dönges, a former Minister of the Interior, emphasized this too during a debate in this House. A long time ago, in 1945, he said (Hansard, Vol. 52, col. 3799)—

He said that against your Government.

Yes, against a UP Government. I accept it entirely.

Does it make it less true?

Must I disbelieve it? Sir, we have argued all this before, but to no avail. The Government is determined to exclude the courts in so far as executive action under this Bill is concerned. However, I must confess that in this Bill we have an innovation. We have a review committee, to be established under clause 5, which will review the internments made under clause 4. These internments are a most serious matter and I shall have more to say about it later. They probably constitute the widest powers accorded to the Minister in terms of the Bill. Nevertheless, despite these being the widest powers, the hon. the Minister is prepared to refer them to a review committee, however imperfect it may be. The committee will report to Parliament if it disapproves of the Minister’s decisions. He is prepared to do it in respect of the widest powers he has in terms of the Bill, but why is he not prepared to do it in respect of the lesser powers of restriction which he has under section 10 of the Suppression of Communism Act, as expanded by clause 4(b) of the Bill? Why is he not prepared to do it in respect of certain other powers which he exercises under the existing Act and which are likewise extended by this Bill? In all honesty, is this not a matter which should be referred to a Select Committee? Is this not something on which we should have the view of a Select Committee, after a discussion as to the reasons?

Let us look at another matter. These immense new powers, the powers in respect of internment conferred upon the Minister by clause 4(c), can only be exercised after proclamation by the State President in the Gazette. That, of course, means the Cabinet. However, nowhere in this Bill is it stated under what conditions or under what circumstances that proclamation should or could be issued. There is no guideline whatever. There is no indication of any kind. What we are being asked to do is to give the State President carte blanche. He decides, but we are not told, what the reasons are, the circumstances are not laid down and the guidelines are not before us. Surely this is an intolerable situation for a sovereign Parliament to be in. Surely there should be some limitation. We on this side of the House do not believe that powers of this sort should be used save in times of war or national emergency. Under the Public Safety Act, 1953, the conditions were laid down under which a state of emergency could be declared. We did not find it impossible to lay them down. Let me read out what it says in that Act so that hon. members can get some idea of what the position was. I quote from section 2—

You will note, Sir, that it says “and”, nor “or”—

In those instances such emergency powers could be used. In this Bill we have the power of internment in respect of citizens who have committed no offence but who the Minister thinks may commit offences or disturb public order. The Minister is allowed to detain them in prison quarters for 12 months at a time as long as that proclamation remains in existence. If at the end of 12 months the proclamation is renewed, they can be detained for a further 12 months. Previously, the provision which empowered the Minister to detain for 12 months at a time people who had been convicted of offences in the past, had to be renewed annually by Parliament. This matter was debated annually, sometimes at length. We wanted to know what the necessity was for prolonging that measure. Year after year we resisted it very strongly. The hon. the Minister can be given this power by the Cabinet at any time without consulting Parliament so that he can detain people for 12 months at a time, as detainees, for reasons which he thinks right. Surely, we should consider limitations in this case as well. Surely this is a matter that should be referred to a Select Committee. Parliament cannot lightly hand over its powers in this way. Surely this matter should be referred to a Select Committee so that we can work out when it should be necessary for these powers to be used.

Let us look at the review committee itself. Firstly, if the Minister insists on these powers, surely this committee should be presided over by a judge and no one else; and, surely, there should be magistrates, judges or senior counsel of at least ten years’ standing and not what is described in this Bill as “two other persons”. Who are these “other persons”? [Interjections.] They may be strange persons.

And one of them may be Vause.

That is so. But surely, Sir, if the Minister is to have these powers, there should be no talk of “other persons”. Instead, it should be limited to people with legal training and experience. Secondly, the Johannesburg Bar Council has pointed out what in their opinion are certain procedural weaknesses. For instance, the Minister is not obliged to disclose to the review committee the evidence on which he has acted. Furthermore, even though the internee has the right to make representations, that right will be of little value as he will not be entitled to know the evidence on which the Minister acted and will thus be unable to test it or rebut it. Those are formidable criticisms. Then, of course, the Minister need not give effect to the recommendations of the committee.

When the report of the review committee comes before Parliament, unless I read this Bill wrongly—I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister will help me here—all we shall know is whether the committee agrees with the Minister or not that a particular individual had to be detained, and whether it recommends that the terms of detention, the conditions under which detention takes place, should differ from or be similar to those laid down by the Minister. When that report is laid before us, we in this House shall not have the facts on which to debate the propriety of the Minister’s actions in full. All we shall know is that the Minister has detained someone and that the review committee agrees with him or does not agree with him.

Some people say that no hon. Minister can go on disagreeing with his review committee indefinitely. We have some experience of how thick-skinned some Ministers can be. Surely, there should be some right to appeal if the hon. the Minister and the review committee disagree. In Rhodesia, there is a remarkable situation. According to the last report available to me there has never been a disagreement between the review committee and the Minister. There is, however, provision for appeal, and if the Minister and the review committee disagree in Rhodesia, the matter is referred to the State President as an individual. He is the court of appeal who can deal with the case in what one hopes is a non-partisan manner.

One more thing I would like to say is that this is not the judicial tribunal that was asked for in the minority report to the fourth interim report of the Schlebusch Commission.

Why do you say that?

I say that for two reasons. That tribunal was only to act where there had been deprivation of freedom in times of war or national emergency. This applies at any time, any time laid down by the State President. The hon. gentleman can find it on page 518. I have forgotten the paragraph. [Interjections.] This is a matter that has been discussed on many occasions, by many learned bodies. Even Sprocas and the Christian Institute did a study on this. They came out with some very interesting ideas. But, Sir, is this not par excellence a matter which should go to a Select Committee for discussion and recommendation to this House?

I come to another matter. Speakers on this side of the House have taken violent exception to the provisions for the detention of witnesses in gaol under warrant by the Attorney-General. It is very true that many witnesses need protection, but is detention in gaol the only way in which to protect a witness? Is that all we can do at the present time? I know that many witnesses would like to abscond, particularly in political trials. Is the only way to prevent that to lock them up in gaol? Is the situation as bad as that? Sometimes they are gaoled for months; sometimes they are gaoled even before they have got the accused. Sometimes they are held under regulations laid down by the hon. the Minister, which provides that in certain circumstances a witness can be held incommunicado. Are these things really necessary? The hon. the Minister makes the regulations. Here again we have the position that the State President can alter from time to time the schedule in respect of which offences these powers can be exercised. Should it not be Parliament that decides on that? Why the State President?

What happens to witnesses after the trial? That is perhaps the most dangerous time for them, particularly if the accused has been acquitted. With the gang warfare that goes on in some of our townships, what happens to the witnesses after the trial? Surely this whole question of witnesses is a matter which should go to a Select Committee, which should thrash it out and should come forward with new proposals, proposals which would get the support of both sides of the House.

With respect, Sir, these are just a few of the reasons why I believe the order for the Second Reading of this Bill should be discharged and the subject referred to a Select Committee with the instruction set out in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. There are many more.

*Hon. members on the other side will ask what we would achieve by this. In the first place, my experience of Parliament has shown me that solutions to apparently insuperable differences can in fact be found in the calm atmosphere of a committee. In the second place, expert witnesses, representing the Minister’s department, the Bar Councils and the public, can be called to give their views. In the third place, an ideal and proper balance can be found between the role to be played by the legislator, the executive, the judiciary and the police in eliminating subversion. To such a step no sensible person, inside or outside our borders, could object. It is of the greatest importance, too, that South Africa’s enemies, who are always eager to harm the country, should not be given any pretext for attacks. However, it would entail an even greater advantage. That greater advantage is that there will be and should be the greatest possible measure of consensus in South Africa itself with regard to the security of the State. This is what must be achieved. Then it will never call forth any criticism if strong and effective action is taken against subversive elements.

However, I have little hope that the hon. the Minister will accede to our requests in this connection. I know the Government too well. It wants to go it alone, even if it finds itself in a cul-de-sac. However, I want to warn them that when they want to fight subversion, an offer of assistance from our side is not something to be rejected without careful consideration.

Why then do you not co-operate in the parliamentary commission?

The hon. the Minister is condemning himself. The time may well come when he will be badly in need of our assistance. And let me tell him that if that assistance is rejected, he must make no mistake about the fact that we shall wash our hands of this Bill and vote against it.

†The hon. the Minister and members of that side of the House had better consider whom they are rejecting. They are rejecting a party whose record of acting with responsibility in security matters is without peer. They know what our record was in the war years. They know that the late Field Marshal Smuts was, possibly, the first world statesman to warn against the menace of communism in his address as Chancellor of Cambridge University. They know that when the Suppression of Communism Bill—the Bill commonly known as the Blackie Swarts Bill—was before the Select Committee we introduced our own Bill—the Strauss Bill—which provided—

Mr. Speaker, you know what the penalties for treason are. They also know that we supported the Public Safety Act of 1953. They know that we supported the Unlawful Organizations Act of 1960, an Act passed to deal with the ANC and PAC in very difficult times in South Africa. They know that we supported the Poqo Act in 1963, after Judge Snyman’s report in respect of the riots at Paarl wherein he warned that unless action was taken rapidly, the Government would lose the control of the Bantu townships to subversive organizations. They also know that we supported the Terrorism Act in 1967 providing for the offence of terrorism, because these activities on our borders had begun and we would not tolerate terrorism at any price. How right we were proved to be.

When the hon. the Minister rejects our proposal of a Select Committee, I want to say that it is, with respect, not the PRP he is dealing with. I do not believe that party has supported a single piece of security legislation since it has been in this House. It has condemned it in the most extravagant language. In fact, the hon. member for Houghton even voted against the Bill which made training outside South Africa for sabotage and subversive activities an offence. She wanted those people to go free until they committed an offence inside South Africa, despite the motivation which had led them to go for that training. The hon. member for Houghton also opposed the Bill which enshrined the principle of providing a widely defined offence of terrorism to meet the dangers on our borders. With respect, I do not believe the safety of South Africa is safe in the hands of a party like that. They are soft on security matters.

It will have been obvious from what I have said so far in pleading for this Bill to go to a Select Committee, that there are many principles of this Bill which we cannot accept. Perhaps I should recapitulate them briefly. We are against clause 1 of the Bill which extends the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act to organizations engaging in activities which endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order for three reasons. Firstly, the definition is so vague that it will, in fact, be interpreted in accordance with the feelings from time to time of the State President, as advised by the Cabinet. Secondly, it does not provide for the ingredient of mens rea, a guilty mind or intention, and therefore, it will lead to uncertainty amongst both the public and those who have to administer it. Thirdly, there is no provision in the Bill for appeal either to the courts or a judicial tribunal against decisions taken in terms of this clause. In fact, our opposition to this clause can be equated to our opposition to the definition of communism in the original Bill before the Select Committee which has now been constantly maintained for over a quarter of a century. We are opposed to clause 2 which adds to the categories of publications which can be banned or prohibited, those which serve, “inter alia, as a means for expressing views or conveying information the publication of which is calculated to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order”.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it in order for the PRP to continue to hold a caucus here while the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is addressing the House? [Interjections.]

For the same reasons as we are opposed to clause 1, namely vague definition, no provision for appeal and lack of mens rea, we are opposed to clause 2. We are opposed to clause 3 extending the powers of the Minister in respect of the prohibition of certain gatherings for the same reasons. We are opposed to clause 4(a) and (b), which extend the right of the Minister to restrict people without trial, because, inter alia, it is anathema to us that anyone’s freedom should be circumscribed without the right of appeal to a court or tribunal. In times of war or national emergency it can be condoned, but only subject to proper appeal or review by an independent body. We are opposed to clause 4(c), the internment clause, basically because it is an extension of the Sobukwe clause, which we opposed throughout …

You voted for it at Second Reading. [Interjections.]

Order!

We are opposed to this clause basically because it has powers not only as wide as the Sobukwe clause, which we opposed consistently, but also because those powers have been extended to cover people never convicted at any time of any security crime against the State. We know that this internment is subject to review by the review committee established in terms of clause 5, of which I shall have more to say later, but we cannot accept that people who have either fully served out their sentences or who are merely believed by the Minister to be engaged in activities of a certain kind should be subject to deprivation of liberty save in times of war or national emergency.

We are opposed to clause 4(f), which brings the internment clause into operation on issue of a proclamation in the Gazette by the State President, because no conditions are laid down as to when that proclamation could or should be issued, and we note with alarm that whereas the original Sobukwe clause had to be re-enacted year by year by Parliament after full debate, this clause can be enacted and re-enacted by the State President, which in fact means the Cabinet, without any consideration by Parliament at all.

Clause 5 is a step in the right direction, but it is totally inadequate. As I have said, the committee should consist of a judge plus a senior magistrate and senior counsel of not less than 10 years’ standing, and not just possibly a magistrate and two other persons. It should apply to certain other executive powers exercised under the original Act, especially executive action restricting the freedom of individuals. We do not regard this proposal as conforming to the proposals put up in the minority report to the fourth report of the Schlebusch Commission, because the executive action which it reviews is not limited to executive action, inter alia, in a state of emergency or war, and it does not apply to executive action as contemplated in section 10(1)(a), namely restriction orders.

Then, Sir, we are totally opposed to the detention of witnesses, in terms of clause 6, under warrant issued by the Attorney-General. We are also totally opposed to the Minister having powers to make regulations which include the right that such witnesses can be held incommunicado. We cannot see why there should not be other means of protecting witnesses or preventing them from absconding, nor are we satisfied with the fact that there is no protection for them after trial. We do not believe that it is right that the State President and not Parliament should have the right from time to time to decide in respect of which crimes witnesses can be detained.

Mr. Speaker, these are all negative reasons for being against this Bill. There are, however, what I would describe as positive reasons for being opposed to this Bill, because we find that this Bill falls short, so far short, of the recommendations made unanimously by the Schlebusch Commission and the pleas advanced on many occasions by many lawyers, including now, I believe, the Law Commission, and members on this side of the House, that instead of relying on vague generalizations, offences against the security of the State should be accurately defined and clearly understandable both to the public and to the authorities so that the law will be certain and will be able to be enforced by the courts. In other words, what we hope to see in this Bill is, as the hon. member for Mooi River put it so well, a narrowing of the field of executive action and an enlarging of the role the courts can play in security matters, especially in respect of the more sophisticated offences which are being practised more and more by saboteurs in various parts of the world. Instead, this Bill is enlarging the field of executive action without giving corresponding additional powers to the courts.

I accept that the Government is security conscious, perhaps over security conscious. The Government knows that the Opposition is security conscious itself. How then has this difference arisen between us in respect of legislation which the Government thinks is essential and which we think will not do the job it is designed to do and has the additional disadvantage of being so wide that it is open to numerous abuses? I believe that the answer is to be found in a difference in philosophy. It is to be found in the fact that we have different philosophies especially in respect of the freedom and the dignity of the individual. To us in the UP the freedom and the dignity of the individual, every individual, regardless of race, colour or creed, is vitally important. We believe that it should only be invaded in the interests of the security of the State or the safety of its citizens. To the Government, I believe, the freedom and dignity of the individual is of less importance. They are ready to invade that freedom at the drop of a hat and at the slightest excuse. The fundamental difference is that they believe that the individual exists for the State, whereas we believe that the State exists for the individual.

One other very interesting matter arises. We have been told, and I believe it is correct, that many of those who are today endangering the security of the State or endangering public order are not motivated by the communist ideals, that they are not motivated by those ideals any more, that they have seen through them, that they do not appreciate them and that they do not stand for them. One asks oneself: If communist ideals are not motivating them, what is motivating them? That is what we want to know: What is motivating them? Is it pure sectional nationalism or is it something else? I believe that it is sectional nationalism but that there is also something else. That something else in South Africa is the burning sense of injustice induced by institutionalized discrimination on the grounds of colour alone which has been an inseparable part of the term of office of this Government.

I have spoken before in this House on the vital necessity of combating communism and communist influences and the spread of the communist ideology by propounding the advantages of a free enterprize capitalist system. I have also indicated that in this regard the Government has been neglectful. It has not only been neglectful; I begin to believe that it has been its own worst enemy in that it has not made it possible for a man of colour to share freely the advantages and privileges of such a system. Unless the Government takes steps to remedy that situation, neither this legislation nor the other security legislation which it has on the Statute Book, nor any future legislation is going to be adequate to meet the flowing pressures building up inside South Africa and on our borders.

I have also spoken before in this House on the necessity for eliminating discrimination on the grounds of colour if all our peoples are to be unified in their determination to resist aggression and infiltration from outside and subversion from within at the same time. I have said before that this discrimination is not only handicapping us in the battle between free enterprize and communism, it is not only dividing us internally and undermining the loyalty and patriotism of large sections of the population, it is not only making it impossible for South Africa to be accepted as a full member of the Western community of nations, it is not only hampering our rate of economic development, it is not only making overseas capital harder and more expensive to come by, but worst of all, it has caused a burning sense of injustice which is acting as a motivating force for some of those causing us the most trouble here in South Africa. Unless we set about dismantling that discrimination, neither this legislation nor any other is going to meet our problems.

I now want to say a few words about sectional nationalism. When I talk of sectional nationalism, I do so in the belief that it must be clear to any student of modern politics or of current events that there has been a growth of new forms of violent political expression and of the techniques of terror. To many young activists the aims and methods of communism are now obsolete. They look with contempt at the old guard in the Kremlin. They regard them as old-fashioned and they regard their discredited political clichés with total boredom. They have developed a new political language and a new set of objectives, and they also use new methods to achieve those objectives, for example the hijacking of aircraft, the kidnapping of diplomats, the torturing of businessmen and the bombing of supermarkets with plastic bombs. These are the methods they use to achieve their objectives, and their objectives are most often not the substitution of one world political system by another world political system. Their objectives are most often the redress of local or sectional grievances. Physical blackmail, through the threat of murder or the destruction of property, is used for various purposes to overcome the domination of one race by another, one religious group by another, one language by another or one economy by another. The grievances, real or fancied, are the products of sectionalism, excessive nationalism, an exaggerated colt of separate identity and the revival of historic injustices. What are the products of these conflicts? Well, we have seen them in Ulster, in Beirut, in the streets of London, at the Olympic Games in Munich and at the Opec conference in Austria where national and international complexities were added to the difficulties of drafting legislation to deal with those problems. Those activities have often taken the form of murder, violence and arson—all known crimes—but in many respects the perpetrators of those acts use methods that are undefined by common law or statute. The problem of modern society is to find legal weapons against these political crimes, crimes which are not necessarily directed at the overthrow of the State, but often directed at the destruction of groups or interests that enjoy a greater or lesser degree of protection by the State itself.

I do not wish, at this stage, to go into the further complexities of modern causes of political treason and the modern techniques of political violence. I believe I have said enough to indicate their complexity. It must surely be obvious that any orderly society must look again at its criminal laws. Where there are national and international complexities, innocent people become more and more vulnerable to executive action because it becomes more and more difficult to draft laws necessary to deal with prevailing situations.

I do not want to suggest for one moment that this Bill meets those difficulties. It does not go very far in that direction. I have made that perfectly clear. The hon. the Minister has not defined these new offences; in fact, he has made no attempt to define them. He has taken upon himself the widest possible executive powers, and I believe he has let the country down; he has let Parliament down. In respect of these divisive influences, the Government is setting a bad example to groups of this kind with its constant emphasis on division and differentiation.

Mr. Speaker, let me sum up. I would say that this Bill is a symptom of surrender by the Government. Not even DieTransvaler likes it, as is shown by its leader of 6 May. I would say that not only has this Government failed to support the hon. the Minister in coping with the underlying causes of threats to our security and public order; the hon. the Minister himself has failed to realize that he cannot meet the situation which has arisen with the weapons he has in his hands at present or will be given him as a result of this Bill. He has quite failed to cope with the new compendium of crimes, which are or may be creating problems for him in the future, in a manner in which the courts can play their part in combating these offences. Instead, he has widened the scope of his executive powers and those of the State President. He has made them so wide, so open to abuse that they cannot be accepted by any well-informed and civilized society. We have no alternative therefore but to vote for our amendment that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee and if it is defeated, to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He saw fit to enter the debate right at the end, and he will appreciate that we had by then already had a long discussion behind us and that many of the points he mentioned, therefore, had already been raised previously by other speakers, particularly on his side of the House. Therefore, if the hon. gentleman would pardon me, for doing so, I shall not reply directly now to the points which he raised. If the points which he raised are not replied to in the course of my speech and I have the necessary time to do so, I shall try to the best of my ability to deal with the remaining points which the hon. gentleman touched upon.

The most important event in this debate was of course the offer made by the leader of the justice group on the opposite side, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He offered the co-operation of his side of the House on one condition: That we refer the entire Bill to a Select Committee of Parliament before the end of the Second Reading debate. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition repeated this offer this afternoon. I have already indicated across the floor of this House—I did so again this afternoon, as I have also done previously— that I am prepared, on the same conditions as those set by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, to refer the entire Bill to a commission. I made the offer of course that we should at any stage—prior to the Second Reading or after the Bill has been passed—refer this Bill to the statutory commission which was established a few weeks ago. What more natural thing than that could I do? The statutory commission was established by Parliament. The legislation to establish it was passed by the House of Assembly and the Senate. The commission is a permanent parliamentary commission on security matters, and it will consist of members of Parliament. It would be a terrible insult to the person who proposed the commission, as well as to the House which passed the commission, if I were to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, as was suggested by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. What would be the sense in or the reason for doing that? I am prepared to refer the Bill to the statutory commission, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to accept my offer.

Why is the hon. gentleman not prepared to accept it? I sympathize with that hon. gentleman. I do not want to turn this matter into a political issue, nor do I want to tell him that his party is in trouble. He did not accept that commission because he could not accept it. He could not accept it because certain of the members on that side did participate in the Schlebusch Commission, while other members were opposed to it. In an attempt to keep the two wings of his party together, they then worked out a formula, which was that they would refer this matter to a Select Committee, but not to a commission. This is a ridiculous, pedantic-legalistic standpoint, which deceives no one. Everyone knows that it is simply an attempt to keep the party together. I do not blame the hon. Leader for doing so. But he should not try to take me in tow today because of the problems of the UP, and expect me to do something that is wrong. There is a commission of the Parliament, and I am prepared to refer legislation to it.

No. It is a commission of the Executive.

I can tell the hon. member for Mooi River that I believe that I need this legislation now, and that it must consequently be passed during this session. I shall return to that later. I can tell the hon. member that not only am I prepared to do that, but I am in fact going to refer all the present security legislation which we have to the security commission of the Prime Minister. I am going to ask the commission to reconsider that legislation and to recommend what we still need in addition to it in these modern times, to consider what has become obsolete and in what way we could, in the opinion of the commission, improve the security legislation which South Africa has. The hon. member for Wynberg told me that it was ridiculous to pilot this Bill through first, and refer it to the commission afterwards.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it will be the only task of the security commission to investigate this and other similar legislation?

No, of course not. The hon. the Prime Minister stated what the task of that commission would be. The task of that commission will, inter alia, be to investigate what the Minister of Justice refers to it. That is obviously the case. Consequently I am forced to conclude that the offer which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana made was not a truly sincere offer. The hon. member linked his offer to an amendment which he moved here. Inter alia, the amendment contained the request that—

With that he wishes to imply that he also wants a Bill of this nature, but the amendment goes on to state that the proposed Bill should be a Bill which—

With great respect for the hon. member, I want to say that the Bill which is before us, is in essence a restriction on activities, actions, which endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. Let me say that no Bill could ever have been phrased in language of a simpler concept. One need only open a dictionary to find out what a State is and what “the maintenance of security” and “public order” mean. Having looked this up, one knows precisely what is stated in this Bill. There can be no doubt about it. I want to refer the hon. members to the Terrorism Act, in which similar concepts are used. Did the courts throw up their hands in dismay? Did that legislation reach the Appeal Court? Did the Appeal Court, in its turn, throw up its hands and say: “We do not know what the legislature means”? No, Sir, the courts interpreted it without any difficulty, and there are many people behind bars as a result of the concepts to which the hon. member is now objecting.

Why do you not create the necessary offences?

I am coming to that. I shall reply to all the hon. member’s questions. He need not be afraid on that score. But first I want to dispose of the amendment. The amendment goes on to read that the envisaged Bill should be a Bill which—

Mr. Speaker, surely there is no “arbitrary executive action” here.

What is it then?

It is stated very clearly in the Bill that the Minister shall satisfy himself … [Interjections.] I am still coming to that. Those hon. members can laugh about it if they like. The hon. member for Rosettenville is laughing, but he removes appendixes and apparently does not know much about the legislation. [Interjections.] He should rather go and remove appendixes. That is the best he can do. In terms of this Bill the State President shall be satisfied, the Minister himself has to satisfy himself. The Minister must therefore apply his mind to it. Before that can happen, the Minister has to have certain facts at his disposal, facts which he has to reason out and on which he has to carry out a test before he takes a decision. Therefore it is not an arbitrary decision. I make so bold as to say that it is a very well-considered decision. It is not an arbitrary decision at all. However, the hon. member went further and said: “… create new offences”. On that score I want to furnish him with a reply at once. If he were to read section 11 of the Suppression of Communism Act, he would be able to establish that the most important offence mentioned there is communism itself. This appeared on our Statute Book as a statutory offence for the very first time in 1950. At the time a definition had to be found for it. However, this is not the first time now that mention is being made of the security of the State. After all, there are many offences relating to the security of the State. There is high treason and sedition, both offences relating to the security of the State. One of the hon. members has already informed me that the Law Commission is trying to formulate high treason in all its forms, in all its aspects affecting the security of the State, as a statutory crime. The task on which the Law Commission is now engaged will also result in legislation. Then my hon. friend from Umhlatuzana will have to be completely satisfied. Then he will, after all, have his so-called “offences necessary to meet the threat so that miscreants will be dealt with through the courts”.

However, that is not the issue in this Bill. I shall come in a moment to what the essence of this Bill is. In his third paragraph the hon. member states—

Those hon. gentlemen are now coming forward with concepts dating from the Second World War, and submitting that action should only be taken “in time of war or national emergency”. This is the problem of the UP: They are still bogged down in the war days; they have not moved any further than that. They have not realized yet that a war is no longer declared. One does not know when a war is in progress. One simply has to find out for oneself when people begin to fire at one, and all one can do then is simply try to return the fire. They are now coming forward with the old, obsolete words: “national emergency”. I shall have more to say about this “national emergency” later. I simply want to emphasize that “time of war” is an anachronism.

In his fourth paragraph the hon. member alleges—

Apparently the hon. gentleman did not notice that the phrasing of clause 6, which incorporates section 12(a) and 12(b) of Act 44 of 1950, has been taken over just as it stands from the existing Criminal Procedure Act. The hon. gentleman has been living with that section for years. In this Bill those provisions have been taken over as they stand. However, he has suddenly woken up now and is referring to “the need for arbitrary detention”. Every three months the Attorneys-general send me a list containing the names of people who are being detained in this way. This has been the case during all the years in which I have been Minister, and even long before that, when I was still Deputy Minister. Now that hon. member ostensibly knows nothing about it. I find this quite flabbergasting. The reason for our having taken this over in this Bill, is because we intend amending the Criminal Procedure Act next year. We are not certain whether it will be possible to take over those specific sections again, just as they stand, in the new Criminal Procedure Act. That is why we have, for safety’s sake, included the aspects relating to security matters in this Bill. In respect of security cases, legislation has to be precisely the same as is the case at present. We have been living with these specific provisions for years, but now the hon. members want to argue about those specific points for hours.

I have now enumerated the four points and dealt with them. Hon. members can see for themselves now that I really cannot take such principles seriously.

I want to pause for a moment at the actual legal principles which are applicable here. I know that the hon. members of both UP and the PRP are making a fundamental error. They are so frustrated that they are seizing upon the courts and idolizing them. Because they cannot defeat the governing party, they hope they will be able to say, with regard to every Act and every commission, that the matter should be left to the courts, in the hope that the courts will then be able to curb the National Party. This is a fundamental error, for do hon. members know what the real position is? The real position is that administrative action is part of our legal system. I have a great fondness for the courts. Hon. members can question anyone who knows my background about this. There is not a single member on the opposite side of the House who has more respect for the courts than I have. However, I want to add that I place the courts in their correct position in the community, after a proper evaluation of their role. I repeat that administrative action is not a fragmentation of the rule of law, as the hon. member opposite said. Administrative action is part of the philosophy of life of a free community. It is part of our legal system.

I want to prove this. There are hon. members who have already done so, but hon. members opposite remain deaf to this type of thing, of course, and therefore I shall have to repeat it. I want to quote a certain Mr. Suzman from the South African Law Journal, 1968. I am quoting from page 269 of volume 88. I am pleased to say that that Suzman is not the hon. member for Houghton. It is a certain Arthur Suzman, a senior advocate. He formulates our common law as follows—

“Exceptional circumstances”?

Wait a minute. I am coming to that. Hon. members must not try to run away; they must give me a chance. I quote—

I say that what we have here is a formulation of what our common law is. I am not thrusting my finger into the eye of the courts when I apply this. It is part of my life, for this legal rule comes down to us directly from the old Romans, and we are adopting the old Roman-Dutch precept. It comes from the salus populi suprema lex: The security of the State is the highest law. No supreme court will every deny that this is true. No appeal court will fail to acknowledge that there are certain times when the Government has to adopt extraordinary measures in extraordinary circumstances.

A further question automatically follows. I have already stated that it is part of our law that the Executive, instead of our courts, may take action in extraordinary circumstances. What are these extraordinary circumstances? I shall come to the national emergency for which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is so fond in a moment. What are the extraordinary circumstances under which a person may adopt extraordinary measures? Who has to determine them? Is it the task of the supreme court to tell us that the hands of the courts have now been tied and that they are not able to go much further, that someone else has to take over? Or is it the task of the Executive, the populi, the representatives of the people, to say that they are acquainted with the circumstances in all their facets, and that they can see into the darkest comers, for they have the machinery for doing so? They are the representatives of the people and they allege that extraordinary circumstances are now prevailing. I now want to tell hon. members that there is no true lawyer within or outside this House who will argue with me about the statement that it is purely the task of the Cabinet, the Executive, to make known in Parliament that extraordinary circumstances are prevailing, and that extraordinary legislation is necessary to combat them.

[Inaudible.]

Wait, I am coming to that. The hon. member is running so far ahead of the argument that he is going to stumble any minute now. Hon. members have attacked me on every possible aspect of this Bill. But the only fair point of criticism is why I say that there are extraordinary circumstances which necessitate this extraordinary legislation. They want me to enlighten them a little, to lift the veil a little so that they can see for themselves whether such circumstances do in fact exist. I admitted candidly that no critical circumstances exist at the moment. Hon. members could look up my Second Reading speech. But I did say that I needed the Bill now. The question then arises: Why do I need the Bill at this very moment, if there are no critical circumstances? This follows from the nature of the structure of our country and nation in that our legislative authority, according to convention, has its seat here in the Cape. I respect this, and I shall continue to respect it all my life. But the fact of the matter is that our legislative authority has its seat here. The administrative capital is 1 500 km away. For eight months of the year we are there, and there is no session of Parliament. A further question now follows: Should I not, as the responsible Minister, ask myself what would happen if a serious crisis were to arise in the recess and I did not have the necessary legislation at my disposal?

The Public Safety Act.

I want to thank the hon. member for having mentioned this. But to use that Act, a state of emergency first has to be declared.

Why do you not do it?

Why should I do it? So that the hon. member can again say that the economy is down the drain and buy shares at the lowest price? I know the hon. member for Johannesburg North would like this, will like a state of emergency, just as they liked it when they were able to make money from Sharpeville. [Interjections.] Yes, they made money from Sharpeville, all of them.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to infer that I and others on these benches made money out of emergencies in this country? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I can only say that if they did not do so, then they were all “fools”.

The proclamation of a state of emergency is unnecessary in South Africa, and I shall explain why. I am saying this because we have already considerable security legislation on the Statute Book and we are able to counteract situations in such a way that they never really become a state of emergency and so that we will never be placed in a position—and I am saying this with absolute conviction—of having to proclaim a state of emergency. I am saying this deliberately, for hon. members carried on here as though we were on the point of collapse, in spite of the fact that I kept on saying that our economy is sound, in spite of the fact that I told the Press that there was a greater crisis in England than there is in South Africa and that there would continue to be a greater crisis there than we have here. There are greater crises in other parts of the world than there is in South Africa today. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to concede that we are not without our problems. This I have also said. I have said that we do have problems. What are the circumstances which might arouse this kind of caution on my part? To be able to determine this, I want to turn back the pages of our history a little. You must pardon me now, because I am not a person who is fond of referring to the Second World War. I am not a person who hurls reproaches in regard to who was, and who was not, interned, in regard to who was in the army and who was not in the army, but when I have to seek a norm of danger, of a “national emergency”, then I have to refer to it. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would listen for just a moment, I shall come to what the “national emergency” is to which he referred.

De Villiers, behave yourself! [Interjections.]

As I have said, I want to seek a norm to discover at what stage of a “national emergency” I can introduce this kind of legislation. If we turn back the pages of the history book a little, we find in the first place that at the time there were no independent Black states to the north of us or within our border. The Germans were fighting in Europe, and at no time between 1939 and 1945 did the Germans say that they were going to invade South Africa. They never said that. For the purposes of this argument, however, I am going to concede for a moment that the Government was entitled to take action, for I am seeking a norm. I am one of the persons who has said over the course of the years that there should not have been any internment, but, for the purposes of this argument, let us now accept that for a moment. What did the Government wish to combat at the time? The Government wished to combat two things. In the first place there was a possibility, a very vague possibility, that a rebellion could arise and that the legal authority here could be overthrown. As I have said, it was a very vague possibility. People who knew that era and who were aware of the state of the Army and of what was happening in the country know that it was almost impossible, but I nevertheless concede that it was a possibility. This was a danger which confronted them. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. members’ blood pressure must not begin to rise now simply because we are discussing the Second World War. The second danger which they wanted to try to counteract was the possibility of sabotage to thwart the war effort of the Smuts Government. That was the real danger, not so? That was the entire, complete danger which threatened South Africa. There was no danger from abroad, and we must bear this in mind, because I am trying to find a norm.

There was no danger from abroad, but there was an internal danger, and it was for the most part a danger of sabotage. With those threats confronting them, the Government of the time—and for the purposes of the argument I accept their right to do so—interned people, without recourse to the courts, for periods varying from a month to four years. Now I say this: Let us accept this as the norm for a moment. What is our position now, at present? What are the possibilities in regard to the period of the recess, for which I am requesting extraordinary powers? I want to say that we are now experiencing a threat from abroad. I say that South Africa is being threatened, and it is not only I who am saying this. Everyone is saying it. Within this House, outside this House, and from beyond our borders, I am being told that there are people who are supposedly going to come into this country to liberate the Black people. It is being said: “There will be a liberation war”. We are being threatened on all sides, but for years we paid no heed to those threats. But last, year, Sir, Russia, demonstrated to the world that they are interested in cutting off Southern Africa, and snatching Africa for itself. They have shown that they want to plant their left leg on the one side of the Continent and their right leg on the other, the one on the Indian and the other on the Atlantic Ocean side. While I am standing here there are 10 000 Cubans in Angola at present who say: “We are going through to Namibia. We are going to fight.” I want to tell you, Sir, that they are never going to succeed in doing that; they can forget about it. Yet this is a threat which I, as the responsible Minister, must face up to. Nor should it be forgotten that the last we heard of the Cubans they were erecting missile bases on their own island, so that they could launch their missiles at the heart of the greatest power in the world, at Washington. These are not people who are playing children’s games, Sir. If reference is made to my responsibilities, I want to say that I would be acting in a truly irresponsible way if I did not recognize that foreign threat as a danger. I would be unrealistic if I did not realize that in Mozambique there is also a government which, although we get along well with it, is diametrically opposed to us ideologically, and which is accepting the sympathy of the Russians, and quite probably the Chinese as well. These are extraneous threats which did not exist during the Second World War.

There have been threats in Owambo as well, and two White people have been murdered. In last night’s Argus there was an article under the headline “The full picture of terror in South West Africa. ” Hon. members have only to read it to see what is happening there. They mention 57 acts of terrorism which have occurred between 11 October and 8 May, over the entire length and breadth of South West Africa. I am not saying that we shall not counteract this. I shall come to the question of counteraction in a moment, but I am referring now to the threats. I say that we should be very careful, and I say that the norm which was set by the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the war years was left behind a long time ago. But it is not only I who say this. I want to quote what a foreigner has to say about this, and those people are not usually very well disposed towards us. I have here a passage written by a foreigner, a certain Dr. Friedman. He was discussing South Africa and Rhodesia in the same content. It is a pity that he did so, for we are different countries, but this is what he said—

Then he went on to say this—

Mr. Speaker, I say that we must be very careful, and that we must take the foreign threat into consideration.

But that is not all. We have an internal threat as well. We know that a polarization is taking place, and I do not want to discuss this, because court cases are in progress and if I were to say anything in that connection it would be possible to say that I would be influencing those cases. However, there are movements which advocate polarization between Black people and White people. We must be realistic, and this is what I take amiss of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He knows, and I know, that what is at issue is not separate development, or his so-called federation, or anything else of that nature. What is at issue is that 300 million Black people are trying to make our Black people believe something and are telling them: “Why should you accept a federation, or qualified franchise, or separate development? Why should you accept part of that apple? In Angola we gave them the entire apple, and we can do the same in South Africa.” It would have been inhuman to have turned a deaf ear to this.

Do hon. members know how fortunate we are in South Africa that our Black people have shown the White people so much appreciation and friendship that we did not have greater disturbances in the country? It must be taken into consideration—and I would be pleased if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would do so—that a communist cell which is working day and night to break South Africa, has been active in London for more than 25 years already. This cell does not only want to break me, but all of us. It is no use looking at me; I am also simply doing my best in regard to race relations. I may be wrong, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition may differ with me. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is hopelessly wrong, but I respect the fact that he is also wrestling with race relations. However, the issue is not race relations, but our downfall, our right to be here.

Events in South Africa were egged on by the University Christian Movement. They said that this was part of their policy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether the courts could cope with the situation. The courts have a great deal of work. This appears from the report I have in my hand. This report indicates the number of security trials which have to be disposed of. Eight court cases are in progress at the moment and the number of persons involved in these court cases are nine, seven, ten, five, six, two and five. In each case there is a host of young Black people engaged in subversive activities. However, this is not all the information I am able to furnish hon. members with. Apart from the eight court cases to which I have referred, a further nine cases have to be tried within the next few days, and a further eight will be tried at a later stage. This gives a total of 25 court cases which have to be disposed of. Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition imagine how many detectives are involved in the intensive questioning of these persons, the scrutiny of pages and pages of documents, the collection of evidence and the work involved in bringing the persons concerned into court? Hon. members are now asking me please not to consider administrative action. Could hon. members imagine what would happen if I were now to increase the number of court cases tenfold? Could hon. members imagine what would happen to the country then? Surely we would not be able to do so. Are hon. members aware that Oliver Tambo came from London and roamed about in Africa? Are hon. members aware that he had sums of money with him, and that he was inciting people to lure South African Black people away for military training? Are hon. members aware that there was a permanent office of Tabo Mbeki and Albert Dlomo in Swaziland, until King Sobhuza banished those people from his country and chased them away? Those people were organizing on our borders and within the Republic. Fortunately we have begun to kick open the termite nests and we can thank Heaven that we have a Security Police Force and that we have the support of our Defence Force in kicking open the termite nests of the subverters. I want to assure the hon. House that it is necessary for me to take certain administrative action so that hon. members of this House can sleep in safety at night. That is all I am asking them for.

But then hon. members of this House ask me: Why is preventive detention necessary? I shall inform the hon. House, with all the responsibility at my disposal, that I shall for as long as possible make use of the ordinary courts in all possible cases. In certain cases I shall, however, have to make use of extraordinary powers which I have been given. As far as restrictions are concerned, I have sketched the history and said that restrictions can occur if a person furthers the aims of communism. Many people have turned around and told me that they were not pro-communist; for that reason I have changed the Act. Those people have admitted to me candidly that they were a threat to State security, but that they were not communists. There is simply a shift of emphasis here. My powers have not increased by one jot or one tittle because, as I justifiably said, all communists are subverters. I have always been able to tell a person that his threat to the security of the State was the aim of communism. However, I want to be honest with people and tell the country candidly that I cannot detain a person if I am not entirely satisfied that he is in fact a communist. That is why I have brought in this Bill, and that is why it is now being taken amiss of me.

Since hon. members are asking me why I do not allow the review committee to review restrictions as well, I want to assure them that no problems are being experienced with restrictions. Why should I now create problems and add new aspects to a situation which has for many years been dealt with by my predecessors with great credit? Many people have been restricted, but I do not think that one has been restricted who should not have been restricted. This year I have lifted restrictions on more people than I imposed restrictions on people. I received two letters, one letter from the mother of a person whom I had restricted. She wrote (translation): “I am asking you to lift the restriction on this person. I accept responsibility for this person. I have watched him and I can tell you in black and white that you were right to restrict him. However, the times have changed and he has come to his senses.” I lifted the restrictions on this person, and in her letter the woman thanked me for doing so. She told me (translation): “I want to thank you for not having charged this person and put him in gaol, for he is still a growing person. He has only to grow up, and he has now done so. ” I, too, am grateful that I did not charge him under the Suppression of Communism Act, for then he could have received a minimum sentence of five years. I received another letter from the wife of a person whom I restricted. She said (translation): “I hear you want to lift the restriction on this person. Please do not do so. I am his wife, and I know that he is still engaged in all kinds of things.” I heeded her request because she knew him. She told me: “I shall let you know when he leaves those things alone. ” She let me know, and I then lifted the restrictions on him. That is how restriction works. Restrictions served a purpose. I do not restrict people because I like doing so. I do not restrict people because restricting them is a joke, or because I want to act in an arbitrary manner, or because I have become drunk with power. In fact I am very sympathetic towards people whom I have to restrict.

Let us consider for a moment the restrictions imposed by my predecessor. Harold Strachan was restricted. The hon. member for Houghton is laughing! After all, she knows him well. [Interjections.] He was restricted in 1965 and two-and-a-half years later he was sentenced by our courts. There was no question of arbitrary restriction. Ivan Schermbrucker was also restricted, because my predecessor did not want to put him in prison. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment during 1965. He committed an offence and the court said that the restriction had been correct. Dennis Goldberg was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was also restricted. Nelson Mandela was restricted because my predecessors did not even want to put him in prison. Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment. Walter Sisulu was also restricted. The then Minister did not want to force the case to a trial; this person forced himself to a trial. He received a sentence of life imprisonment. The same happened to Florence Duncan. So I can go through the list and indicate that there were not restrictions which were imposed unfairly.

How many were never charged?

Why should I go to a review committee now? What evidence is there that we did not do our duty? Must I now admit that we have not applied restrictions well, for surely that is not the case? Must I shift my responsibility on to a review committee? What is at issue here is not the detention of a person; it is merely a restriction. He may not attend meetings, and he may not do this, that or the other. After all, I am only averting the evil.

We come now to total preventive detention. I shall not have this proclaimed, unless the situation is such that the ordinary courts cannot cope with it all. In other words, if subversive activities are such, or are being engaged in on such a scale, that it becomes necessary for me to detain people until evidence can be built up, I shall make use of the proclamation. I shall make use of the proclamation if it becomes necessary for me to detain people who are doing the planning, but who remain in the background, people against whom we shall quite probably never be able to collect sufficient evidence.

Do hon. members know what we are dealing with here in South Africa? In that respect the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is quite correct. We are brushing away the cobwebs; but the spider is behind it all, and do hon. members know what it is doing? It is sitting there while it is not really doing anything. It is simply giving the orders and doing the planning. How am I going to bring such a person to court? I know who they are, and in a time of crisis I shall be able to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition precisely what these people have planned. I shall be able to produce evidence to indicate who did the planning, but it will perhaps be insufficient to prove the case beyond any doubt in court. However, it will be sufficient to persuade those hon. members to agree that I have to clamp down on the person until matters have become peaceful again. I should like to have this legislation to use against the lone wolves, the people who are entirely detached from an organization itself. There are certain people who do not belong to communist organizations at all. They are people who create a climate, and they do so deliberately, because they are fellow-travellers. That is the difficulty. Those are the people I want. It is imperative for us that the situation should be such that there can be stability, so that our economy can flourish and our lives can be peaceful. Whether or not other countries have this, this Government’s insight is such that we realize that we do need this in order to maintain stability in South Africa.

I should now like to furnish a few replies to individual members. I shall not be able to reply to all the very interesting speeches which were made by hon. members on my side of the House. However, I do want to express my gratitude and appreciation to all of them. I think that any objective listener would have realized last night to what degree of study the contributions from this side of the House testified.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. There is just one more point to which I want to refer. He wanted to know, if I understood him correctly, why we have made the furthering of communism an offence and did not formulate offences with regard to State Security. I think I have already replied sufficiently to that question. I said that there are common law contraventions, and when the Law Commission has finished dealing with high treason and sedition, it will deal with them in any case. It is not necessary for us now to try to create an offence now, as we did under the Suppression of Communism Act.

I come now to the hon. member for Houghton—“our hardy annual”. She did not really say anything; she merely said disparaging things about us; she merely tried to force us into a comer by alleging that we are Nazis. I find it a great pity that the hon. member made such an insinuation. The hon. member for Wynberg is quite correct. It was a very ugly thing which the hon. member for Houghton did. She does not mind what she says, just as long as she gets publicity. However, everyone knows that if one refers to the “SS”, one is referring to German Nazis. What I really take amiss of her is that she said that we were, with this legislation, becoming just like the communists themselves. She tried to imply that I am a friend of communism, but surely it is very easy to test which of the two of us is a friend of communism. Surely it is very easy to determine whether she or I is the closest to the communists. Let us for example take Mr. Nelson Mandela, who is sitting on Robben Island. Nelson Mandela wrote “How to be a good communist” in his own handwriting. This came to light during the Rivonia trial. He is a self-confessed communist. I say that I am not an admirer of his; I do not like him at all. Is the hon. member an admirer of Nelson Mandela?

No, I am not, but he has been in that gaol for 14 years.

Does the hon. member want to reflect on the question? I do not want to disclose private conversations, but I want the hon. member to reflect very carefully on the question of whether she is an admirer of Nelson Mandela.

He made a remarkable speech at his trial.

Did the hon. member say “a marvellous speech”?

No, I said a “remarkable speech”.

It seems to me the hon. member admires him. Let me put an innocent little question to the hon. member. The other day I had a row with Winnie Mandela at the Durban airport. Is Winnie Mandela a friend of the hon. member?

No, I know her, but she is not a friend of mine.

I have said that people allow themselves to be used by the communists, and the hon. member for Sandton issued a challenge to me in this regard. The hon. member for Houghton wrote me a letter. I am now speaking with her permission.

It has nothing to do with this Bill, anyway.

She wrote me a letter and she told me that I could use the letter. I was very surprised. The hon. member asked me whether I could compile a report for her on certain people who were being detained at John Vorster Square. I then told her: “But surely you cannot expect me to give you a full report on these people. However, if there is anyone who is worried, give me the names. However, you must give them to me in writing, for I must have the names in writing since I have to send them to my department. If you would give them to me in writing, I shall furnish the replies.”

Which you never did.

Which I never did? I shall come to my reply. Sir, do you know what the hon. member then sent me? She sent me seventeen names, most of them complicated Bantu names, which no person in the world could simply remember. No one could remember them. I should like to point out that I furnished her with a reply. Look, I have respect for a member of the House of Assembly, and I like them to come and speak to me. I believe that it is very necessary.

The feeling is not mutual.

Sir, do you know what she did? Seven of those people were being detained while awaiting trial, and I told her this. Four of those people were discharged by us. I told her that as well. A further four people were being detained by me at that stage for the purposes of questioning. The remaining person, however, was entirely unknown to us. I now want to know from the hon. member where she obtained those names. [Interjections.] Where did she obtain the names?

Underground snooper!

She must say where she got the names.

It was a list of people who had not been heard of and I was asked to make inquiries.

Oh, it was a list and the hon. member was asked to make inquiries. Who asked her to make inquiries?

It was asked through relatives of persons who had disappeared.

I am not accusing the hon. member of deliberately having done something wrong. I accept her bona fides. However, I have told the hon. member that these people are being used. Someone was looking for that person, a person whom we did not know. They did not know whether he had committed treason or whether we were perhaps detaining him. They did not know whether we knew what he knew. Usually they know precisely what each person knows and where that person is, but if they do not know, it is imperative for them to find out. They wanted to know who was where, who were being used as witnesses, who was still being questioned and who had run away.

People have disappeared.

I want to tell the hon. member in a very friendly …

I am not very friendly with you because we get no information. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to give the hon. member some very friendly advice. As a member of the House of Assembly she must be very careful. My door is open to her, and I shall write such letters to her again. If I had not written that letter to her, it would have meant that I suspected her of something. I did not suspect her of anything, and that was why I wrote her the letter, and informed her where the people were. I then considered it, and told the Police that we could afford to give her the information. We then gave her the information. However, I want to advise the hon. member to be far, far more careful with people who always come running to her to use her position of seniority in this House to get information from me, information which they require for their subversive activities.

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

I do not have any more time. The hon. member can simply post it to me again.

I come to the hon. member for Green Point. Apart from the fact that he backed away from his own minority report and his responsibilities, he made a good speech. He asked for consolidated security legislation. I have already intimated that I agree with him that there should be consolidated legislation on security. I want to tell him that I shall send this Bill, as soon as it becomes law, to the State Security Commission, so that the commission can consider what may still be necessary by way of consolidation or by way of further legislation.

The hon. member for Sandton asked me: “Is there a crisis or is there not a crisis?” I am replying to him in the words of his benchfel-low, the hon. member for Rondebosch. That hon. member said that—

However, his colleague conducted a debate about it.

But his colleague asked me whether or not a crisis exists. The hon. member for Rondebosch went further and said—

That is my reply to the hon. member.

Do you accept it or not?

The hon. member for Yeoville asked a number of questions. I think he asked almost eight questions. If I do not reply to all, the hon. member must simply tell me. Firstly, he asked me why the courts are not being allowed to do what I now want to do. I think that I have already furnished a comprehensive reply to that in the general section of my speech. I do not think the hon. member will agree with my reply, but that is his business. Secondly, he asked me why I am contemplating detaining people under prison circumstances. My reply to that is, firstly, that the prisons today are in any case more suitable than Koffiefontein. Secondly, there are prisons which are situated in exceptionally attractive and convenient areas. In addition the prisons administration and the necessary regulations are available. I also want to tell the hon. member that I could even select a picnic resort and turn it into a prison. In any event, I hope and trust that, when this Bill is proclaimed as law, not many people will be detained in prison in terms of it.

Thirdly, the hon. member asked me whether the review committee related only to preventive detention, i.e. in terms of clauses 4 and 5, and, if so, why this was the case. I have already replied to that. I just want to inform the hon. member that I accept full responsibility for administrative action, and that I shall not evade it either. I do not want to burden the review committee with taking the final decision on the freedom of an individual. That is my task. The hon. the Prime Minister entrusted it to me. It would be very lax of me if I did not take the final responsibility upon myself. I am responsible for the restriction, detention, or anything of that nature, of persons. I am not trying to foist that responsibility on to the review committee. I shall return to the review committee in a moment. The hon. member also asked whether such a person had the right to be heard. My reply to that is that the Bill provides that he may state his case to a review committee. It is true that he cannot arrive there with witnesses, advocates and so on and set a major trial case in motion before the review committee. That is not the function of the review committee. The hon. member also asked why, if I did not agree with the review committee, I waited until Parliament was in session again before I announced it. My reply is that as a member of the House of Assembly my responsibilities are to Parliament in the first place. Ordinary publication can serve no purpose. What is achieved if I were to detain such a person in spite of the findings of the committee and that fact were published in Die Transvaler? So what?

However, Mr. Speaker, I do have a responsibility to Parliament. I have to report to this Parliament and say: “I have done this. Here I stand before you, and I am not even blushing.” Allow me to tell those hon. members what the position is at once. I am required by the legislation to make sure of certain things in regard to which I have to decide, for example whether any person is a danger to the security of the country or to public order. This is an objective test. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that it is not an objective test. I say that it is an objective test. I have to consider the alleged deeds of a person, and weigh them up against the interests of national security. After that I take a decision. However, because it is the case that such a person finds himself in full detention, I felt that it is only fair to instruct a judicial commission to give consideration to the findings at which I arrived. I am therefore giving that prisoner the right to state his case before a judicial commission. The commission meets in camera, and notifies me afterwards of its findings. The commission recommends that a detainee be discharged, I can give hon. members the assurance that in more than 99% of the cases of this nature—if the review committee’s findings do not correspond to my own—the detainees will be discharged. Whom am I to refuse to discharge a detainee in such a case?

I shall give instructions that a detainee be discharged, except when I am completely convinced that all three members of the review committee were wrong. What happens then? After all, I shall not rise to my feet in this Parliament and say entirely of my own accord that this is what I have done. Surely I shall submit such a case to my colleagues in the Cabinet. I shall put my view of the case to them and explain to them why I could not agree with the finding of the review committee. Only after we, as a Cabinet, have arrived at a joint decision, shall I inform this hon. House that I do not agree with the findings of the review committee. That is how it works. However, I bear the full responsibility at all times.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

Mr. Speaker, I am still in the process of replying to the hon. member’s questions. I hope he will not mind keeping his question in abeyance for a while. Time is unfortunately catching up with me, and I am afraid that I might not even be able to dispose of the hon. member’s earlier questions. I hope the hon. member does not mind.

The hon. member wants to know why an Attorney-General may refuse to allow a detainee bail. He also objected to the detention of witnesses. I have already explained this matter fully to this hon. House. We have been living with these two sections for years. They were included in the Bill unaltered.

That does not mean that the provisions thereof are necessarily correct.

No, but it does mean that we have been living with these provisions for years and it seems strange to me if advocates now ask me why this is the case. There have never been any objections to them before.

Furthermore, the hon. member asked me whether this Bill could possibly harm the image of South Africa abroad. In view of the kind of speeches which the hon. member for Houghton made, this is in fact possible. It is definitely possible. It is also possible in view of the kind of reporting we sometimes find in newspapers. By this I do not of course mean all the newspapers. There are responsible journalists, but the general reporting we so frequently encounter will definitely harm the image of South Africa. Do you know, Sir, what will in fact happen? Allow me to venture a prediction.

Mr. Speaker, there will in fact be another kind of reaction. Overseas countries will say: South Africa was not afraid to take action. America was afraid to take action. South Africa has to take action. South Africa is not going to allow the communists to gain the upper hand.

When overseas countries therefore have to decide whether they want to invest their money either in a country which has become afraid to take the lead, or in a country which is not afraid to defend its people, they will definitely decide to invest in South Africa instead. The stability of South Africa will save its reputation. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today that the implementation of the policy of the NP will also in due course improve the reputation and stability of South Africa. It ought to be noted that African states are already able to say to us now: “We understand. You are Africans. You are of Africa and you have a right to be here.” This is the greatest victory détente has ever achieved in Africa. It is a permanent victory which has been achieved, i.e. the realization by African states that we are also of Africa.

[Inaudible.]

No, that does not matter. Let that be as it may. But these are victories we have achieved, victories which this Government has achieved. We shall still go a great deal further than that, and everyone will see that we are giving the people their independence. I am entirely in agreement with the hon. members on the opposite side who protest about social conditions. I shall come to that in a moment. We shall remedy social conditions as well. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, as usual, made a speech and charged in like a bull in a china shop. He proceeded from the standpoint—I think he was wrong—that I want to break the power of the courts. I want to tell the hon. member that I would be the last person who would want to tamper with the powers of a court. However, I would also be the last person who would be so lacking in courage that I could not tell a court that the time for administrative action had arrived and that this was what we were now going to do. Hon. members opposite idolize the courts because they are frustrated, because they are not sitting on this side of the House. It is very easy to say from that side of the House that all power should be given to the courts. However, there are certain duties and responsibilities which we have to shoulder, whether we like it or not, duties and responsibilities which the courts may not shoulder. They have to be untrammelled by the matters for which I will accept responsibility.

The hon. member for Rondebosch made a very good speech. The hon. member said that the communists wish to destroy the rule of law. He said that I now have to take administrative powers, and he adopted the same standpoint and made the same mistake which everyone makes by saying that it is not part of our system but that, when I take administrative powers, it is the action of a person who is drunk with power. He said that I was helping the communists in this way. The hon. member is making a fundamental error. We are not removing the rule of law in general. We are not, in general acquiring the power to take administrative action against everyone. I am not supplanting the courts. I am eliminating the communists and the subverted. I am eliminating those people who do not have any right to appeal to a Supreme Court, because they want to destroy the Supreme Court.

The hon. member wanted to read me a lecture on Karl Marx. What Karl Marx did propagate was that the conflict between the haves and the have-nots should be intensified. Revolution is stimulated by intensifying the differences between the two groups, and the differences may then be eliminated through revolution. Consequently the differences have to be aggravated before they can be resolved. The communists regard it as their task to do this, and that is precisely what PRP is doing. It is a pity, but it is a fact, the PRP is aggravating everything. They are aggravating the social difference between White and Black; they are giving wide publicity to this. Ostensibly there is always a tremendous crisis among the Black people. The PRP regards it as its task to make the Blacks conscious of what is ostensibly unfair, in order to stir them up and thus exert greater pressure on the Government. This is a dangerous Marxist tactic, and the PRP is playing along with it. The hon. member must not draw comparisons with Marx, then himself toy with revolutionary tactics. The breakdown of the authority of the courts in communist countries coincides with Marx’s view of the re-education of the human spirit. According to Marx there should, after the revolution, be a period of oppression during which people are re-educated to eliminate their possessive tendencies. In this, the courts, according to Marx, have no role to play, for they are a product of the capitalist set-up and part of the structure which is aimed at promoting private ownership and the exploitation thereof. I want to tell the hon. member that the PRP should be careful that they do not play the same role as envisaged by Marx, as I have just spelt it out.

The hon. member for Mooi River also put a few questions, but I have in fact replied to them already during the course of my speech. The hon. member implied to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg that it was not the task of a commission to seek definitions in respect of security legislation. I wrote the words of the hon. member down while he was speaking I know the hon. member looks surprised, but that is what I did.

We were dealing with an investigation into organizations.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg asked me to refer the legislation to the commission of the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Mooi River then said that it was not the task of a commission to seek definitions in respect of security legislation. But now the hon. members opposite are asking for a Select Committee. They are therefore speaking against their own principles.

I should not like to single out people on my side of the House. But there is one thing which happened in this House last night in regard to which I might want to say a few words. One of the hon. members on this side of the House launched a minor attack on the Press in regard to the legislation. The freedom of the Press in any country is a privilege. We have had to endure a great deal from the Press. I still have respect for the Press. However, I want to give the hon. members an example of what, in my opinion, may not be tolerated in South Africa. I hope the Press Union will look into this. I do not want to go into this myself. I want to quote from the leading article entitled “Advocates Act” in The Daily News of 15 April 1976—

Can hon. members see where this is tending?

Surely this is a disgrace, Mr. Speaker. It is an intolerable disgrace. I want to quote what the supposed evidence for this is—

There was a judicial inquest and an interminable debate in this House in regard to this matter. In another example a court case was even anticipated—

Other allegations were also made—

The above two cases were mentioned as examples. In my opinion this is an absolute disgrace. If newspapers want to write stuff like this, then I want to tell the Press Union now that it should look to the conduct of its affairs. The time has arrived when South Africa is no longer able to endure it.

Do you not know The Daily News by now?

I may know The Daily News by now, but I dislike this even more.

*I come now to the two bar councils which deemed it advisable to make a Press statement on the debate. I want to say in all candidness that I have a great deal of respect for the bar councils. These are bodies of professional people of my own kind. These are people who have to co-operate with me, for they are all attached to the courts. Today I want to tell the bar councils in public that in my opinion it is not the function of the bar council to become involved in polemical legislation while it is still being debated in the House. If they do that, what happens is precisely what happened to them this afternoon. I asked the two advocates on the Cape Bar Council who came to see me this afternoon whether they realized that they were venturing into the political arena. Whereupon they asked me how they ought then to have acted. My reply to this was that if they had had any argument to conduct with me, and if they had felt unhappy about anything, my door would always have been open to them. I can understand that there are a few advocates who do not like the legislation or who do not understand what I, as Minister, am dealing with. In any case it seems ugly to them. They could have come to see me and could have raised their objections to me. I would then have discussed the entire matter with them. If they had done that, I would quite probably have furnished them with the information which I furnished in this House. I would perhaps have been in a position, as well, to have furnished them with additional information, information which cannot, in the public interest, be disclosed now. Then I could have been able to satisfy them, or they could have lodged their objections. With that they, as a professional body, would have disposed of their representations. Advocates could then have returned to the Bar, and could then, as individuals, have taken pot shots at me as though I were small game in hunting country. As advocates they could have taken pot shots at me for as long as they pleased. I am not afraid of that. However, I have to work with this professional body and I think it is wrong of a professional body to venture into the political arena. Those two gentlemen arrived in great haste to see me and I then asked them why they were in such a hurry because I was very busy and was not really able to see them. They then told me that they wanted to make representations to me before the Second Reading had been disposed of. I then asked them whom they wanted to help with the Second Reading, whether they wanted to try to set the wavering United Party back on its feet in that way. I received a letter from them which contained a half-threat. They threatened me that if I did not pay heed to their representations, the story would end up in the hands of the Press. But, Mr. Speaker, the story had already reached the Press even before I could explain to these people what was happening. I told them that I was going to perservere with the legislation in any case, and that they could go to the Press with the story if they wanted to, but that they should know that I was going to discuss the matter. I am now discussing it, because I want to tell these gentlemen that it will mar our relations if people are going to act in this way on behalf of their professional bodies and come to me with political issues.

What is more, I am going to say this tonight—I am sorry about this, but it is in the political arena now and I had at first wanted to say nothing about it—that this is all the more the case because the chairman of the Johannesburg Bar Council—some of my colleagues and members of the public approached me about this—is the same man who, of his own accord, acted as minister at the funeral of Bram Fischer and delivered the oration. I am not blaming that person and I accept his bona fides. He went to that funeral openly and read out that wonderful tribute to Bram Fischer by Brink, the author. This gentleman has now written a letter to us, and has in that way ended up in the political arena. He must now pardon me. I shall accept his bona fides, but the general public will not. One cannot dissociate oneself from that which one belongs to. This person, as chairman of the Johannesburg Bar Council, acted in this way and consequently ended up in the political arena. If people now draw their own conclusions, he must not blame me for that. I am very sorry that this happened. I sincerely hope that it will never happen again.

I think that I have, in my reply, dealt with all the questions put to my by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Unfortunately I do not have the time to pay any further attention to him, but if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will permit me, then we could debate any further points, which may still exist, under my Vote.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—95: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toil, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treunicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

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

Noes—43: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment moved by Mr. R. M. Cadman dropped.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—95: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

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

Noes—43: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T. Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: D. J. Dalling and R. J. Lorimer.

Question affirmed and amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.