Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I was considering the amendments moved by the two opposition parties, namely those of the official Opposition, which asked for a Select Committee to be appointed, and those of the PRP, which moved a reasoned amendment. I was also dealing with Cato Manor, and I pointed out that, with the removal of the shanty-towns in Johannesburg and the clearing up of Cato Manor, the Government had gained experience not only of how to tackle this problem, but also of how to solve this problem. I pointed out that there was probably no need for a Select Committee and that it was really a contradiction of the arguments advanced by the PRP. I also pointed out that Cato Manor—and we agree on this score—was a horrible and hideous slum area and the breeding place of all kinds of evil, which reached a climax in 1948. In 1948 an explosion occurred there as a result of a spark, wherever that spark had come from. Scores of people were killed and riots continued for weeks, riots which were suppressed with great difficulty. As had been stated in the interview in The Daily News which I referred to last night, these occurrences suddenly made the population in the adjoining townships of Durban aware of Cato Manor and of the misery which was prevailing there. As a result of this the Durban City Council—and they deserve all credit for this—said that something had to be done, and as a result of this an emergency camp was established in an attempt to provide the people with better housing. The Government made a loan of R376 000 available to the Durban City Council for the purpose of purchasing land from the Indian landowners in Cato Manor. As a result of this step 223 ha were purchased. Subsequently the Government lent a further R724 000 to the city council to improve conditions there—not to clear up conditions, but to improve them. I should like to quote from this article in The Daily News to indicate what has been done—

Precisely what the Progressive Party suggests, perhaps only a little more. One can almost say that the Durban City Council had had prior access to the amendments and the speeches of the PRP in this debate, because what was done here, was precisely what they are asking for. However, what was the result? The result was that greater misery developed in that partly cleared-up area than had existed before. The police experienced great difficulty in dealing with the situation, with theft, prostitution, filthy and unlicensed shops, beer brewing, distilling of liquor, liquor which was fortified and flavoured by adding the decomposed carcasses of cats and rats and goodness knows what else—indescribable conditions in an area cleared up in accordance with what the Progressive Party suggests and the unrest, which led to the riots of 1948, continued. The police and the welfare officers, trained people, did their best to pacify feelings, but they were unsuccessful. Then, in June 1959, the riots broke out again and were for the most part aimed at the police. The riots reached their climax in January 1960, when nine policemen were killed in one clash—and this happened in a squatter township which had been improved in accordance with the wishes and the suggestions of the Progressive Party.

I say we have had the experience, Sir. But what happened then? While the last of the riots were taking place, a start had already been made with the clearing up of the Cato Manor squatter township, the destruction of the shanties; and the people were removed to Umlazi and Kwa Mashu: and the interesting thing was that in 1965, seven years after a start had been made, the last slum area in which 120 000 Bantu were living, cleared up, and it is also interesting that the Cape Town City Council, not the Department of Community Development, made a projection in which they expressed full confidence that if we proceed at the present rate not only the slum areas of the Cape Peninsula but also the housing problem as a whole will virtually be solved within seven years. This was done in Cato Manor with a much bigger problem. In Johannesburg, with a problem almost as big as that of Durban, we did this, and this proves that it can be done.

Without this legislation.

Oh yes, but there is one very important difference, i.e. that we applied influx control in the case of the Bantu in Johannesburg and Durban, which meant that the evil could not develop again while one was in the process of clearing up the area. It was impossible for new people to move in and perpetuate the evils. But we do not want to apply influx control to the Coloured people of the Western Cape, and for that reason other measures have to be applied to avoid the evils from starting up anew and from being perpetuated while we are taking stringent measures to put a stop to them in other ways. This is the difference and this is a very essential difference, as everyone will appreciate. Sir, I want to emphasize that our experience was that this can be done, and what has been done in Durban and Johannesburg can also be done in Cape Town with the goodwill of everyone involved in this matter and with the cooperation of all the parties concerned just as we had the co-operation of the Johannesburg City Council, with a few exceptions, in Sophiatown. With the commendable cooperation of the Johannesburg City Council in its sphere and the Durban City Council in its sphere, we were able to do so; and with the co-operation of the Cape Town City Council, the co-operation of which we are assured, and with the co-operation of the Cape Divisional Council and of Stellenbosch, of which we are also assured, we can also do it here. But we also need the co-operation of the private sector, and we also need the co-operation of responsible politicians to assist in alerting the social conscience of our people without acting as agitators.

Sir, I believe the Government has embarked on the right course. This is not only a phenomenon one finds in South Africa, but one that is found throughout the world. When one reads books dealing with this matter, i.e. with slum areas and the urbanization of the rural populations, one find that this problem exists throughout the world. It exists to a large extent in Asia and to a shocking extent in South America. It is found throughout Africa. As a matter of fact, it has been in existence in Africa for a long time. In the old days when there were British colonies in Africa the British colonial administration was very concerned about these conditions, and in 1954 the colonial administrators of Britain held a conference on slum areas, particularly those in Ghana and Nigeria, at the University of Cambridge. Those enlightened people, people with enormous experience of conditions in Africa, particularly in respect of this specific problem of squatting, came to the almost unanimous conclusion that the only solution for the squatting problem was to demolish and destroy the squatter townships. Consequently they started implementing such a policy. Subsequently, a UNO mission on housing arrived in Accra and found that, under the circumstances, it would be better to stop the demolition of the shanty-towns until alternative housing could be provided, and this standpoint was accepted. This is also the standpoint we accept, and it is in this connection that such a great deal of misunderstanding existed in this debate. I have constantly been asked: But where are these people going to and where do they come from? This kind of question is put as though we wanted to drive the 120 000 people on the Cape Flats into the wilderness. This is not our policy and it is not our intention either. All those who were there up to 15 November of last year will remain there. This is thanks to the initiative of the Department of Community Development, which conducted the survey with the important, valuable assistance of the local authorities. I also want to thank the Department of Defence, which permitted the use of helicopters to complete the surveys in order that we may know precisely where the huts were, what they consisted of and how big they were. We are not going to demolish those huts, until alternative houses are available, but we agree with the Cambridge people that one cannot allow the situation to continue indefinitely and new shanties to keep on being erected.

Some hon. members on the opposite side said that our economy is distorted and does not always develop pari passu. However, this is exactly what we want The economy has to develop in a more organized way. One should not, for the sake of urbanization, promote misery, possible diseases and crime in the urban areas. To some extent one has to adapt the economic development of the city to the ability of the city to house people under decent circumstances. This is the policy, and this is where we differ from the hon. members of the PRP. For that reason we cannot see the necessity for the amendment of the UP.

We have the ability and the necessary experience. Let us also generate the collective will and the common dedication to cope with this problem. This matter must necessarily be a politically contentious one, because it is too great and too important and it affects the lives of too many people not to be a source of political dispute. Although we shall therefore differ on the matter at political level, let this difference please be an accountable one. Do not let us make inciters and agitators of ourselves. Above all, we should not refuse to recognize or conceal the facts. Let us always act in this matter as responsible citizens and leaders of our people—no matter how much we differ—realizing that we are dealing with one of the most critical problems our society has ever had to deal with. The problem demands responsibility from everyone of us. Let us avoid acting like The Cape Times, which I referred to last night I do not want to go into the matter again. The Cape Times worked until late last night in an attempt to find a reply, but the reply they published did not convince anyone. They tried to catch me out on one minor point by saying that a house had in fact been offered to the people concerned. I did not say they had not published it. What I said was that they failed to publish the fact that the house had been offered while this family, whom they alleged had continually been looking for a house in Cape Town, stayed in French Hoek for two years when they were offered a house there. This is what they omitted to mention. However, they have no excuse for the fact that they told an infamous untruth—and that while they were in a position to establish the truth—when they said that these people had been evicted from their houses under the Group Areas Act. They have no reply to this and it remains a lie.

Last night I threw a baited hook into the water and I caught a fish. This morning I pulled out the fish and it struggled for its life, but there is no need for it to struggle, because I do not want it. I am tossing it back. It means nothing to me and it is not worth keeping. [Interjections.] It was only a tadpole—a small carp.

I now come to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Edenvale, a person for whom I have respect. Let us avoid the kind of speech he made last night. I have already apologized on his behalf, I did so last night when I said that the debate had continued for too long so that my hon. friends on the opposite side had had to search for arguments. The result was that they eventually had to use arguments which were not valid. The hon. member referred to Somerset West I put a little question to him as a result of his allegation that people in Somerset West had been forced to leave good houses. I asked him to mention one such case. What did the hon. member say then? He said he preferred to talk about Stellenbosch. He then discussed Stellenbosch, but he was wrong there too. I want to refer briefly to the position in Somerset West. The area in which the Coloured people are living, was declared a White area in 1967. Since then a large number of Coloured people left the area. They were for the most part people who had been living in houses which were unsuitable for human occupation. Those people were removed. A number of other families were removed because their properties had been expropriated with a view to constructing a road. The remainder of the people are staying there. At this stage they are under no pressure whatsoever to move. What did in fact happen, was that they were told that if they sold their houses at a higher price than the basic value, the value determined by the Group Areas Board when an area is declared a group area, they did not have to surrender part of it to the Group Areas Board, as is laid down in the Act. Therefore, they can keep their entire profit. This is a concession which was made to them. They were also told that if they wanted to sell their houses but were unable to find a buyer easily, they could sell their houses to the Community Development Board, which would buy their houses from them at the market value and not at the basic value which is determined when an area is declared a group area. What these people actually received from us, was therefore sympathetic consideration of their cases and sympathetic measures with a view to solving their problems. The hon. member subsequently said that we should come to Stellenbosch and visit Merriman Avenue.

That was not my reply to the question. I said there should be a moratorium in respect of removals in terms of the Group Areas Act. That was my point.

I shall reply to that at a later stage; this forms part of my reply. Perhaps I should say straight away that there will be no moratorium in respect of the removal of people who have to be moved in terms of the Group Areas Act and who are living in shanties at the moment.

And the other people?

I said we should not act in an irresponsible way. As I have said, the hon. member then referred to Stellenbosch and drew our attention to Merriman Avenue.

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

No, I shall deal with the speech of the hon. member within a minute. He may then avail himself of an opportunity to put a question.

*The hon. member said Coloured houses had been bought in Merriman Avenue. The houses well renovated, but the Coloured people were unable to get those houses back. The houses were taken away from them. He said the Coloureds had been forced to leave the houses and later, after the houses had been renovated, they were not allowed to move into the house again. Surely, this is on record in the hon. member’s Handsard.

No, this is not what I said.

I now want to tell what really happened. Those houses were in a dilapidated condition. The roofs of some of the houses collapsed on the occupants and the houses did not provide adequate shelter against the rain. We redesigned and rebuilt those houses. After we had done this, it was uneconomic for us to let the houses at less than R100 per month. The people who had been staying there previously could not afford to move into the houses again. Therefore, the hon. member should not criticize in such a superficial way.

Have they been offered those houses?

And then we also had the hon. member for Pinelands. I am sorry he is not here at the moment. He challenged me. He used the words “I defy the Minister”.

†What did he defy me to do? He defied me to tell him where the children are to be housed of a Bantu father and a Coloured woman, and vice versa. He said they cannot be housed in any area because they are not recognized under the Group Areas Act. Honestly, Sir, it staggers the imagination. The audacity, born of ignorance, leaves me completely breathless. The Group Areas Act is very clear on this matter. Where a Bantu man marries a Coloured woman, that woman becomes a Bantu for purposes of the Act, and where a Coloured man marries a Bantu woman, she becomes a Coloured woman for the purposes of the Act. In cases where there is any doubt whether a child or any other person is a Bantu or a Coloured, the Act determines that such a person is to be regarded as Coloured. It is as simple and direct as that The Act provides a complete answer. Yet the hon. gentleman defies me to find an answer. I ask you, Sir, what must one do? How can one hope to get a common approach to those things about which we agree, such as the fact that slums should be eliminated, if that is the standard of debate one meets with? What is more, that is what he has told the people outside the House. That is the trouble. It is not only that he makes mistakes in the House because he has not done his homework, but he spreads this ignorance amongst the people of South Africa.

*Several speakers on the opposite side asked me what was going to happen to the squatters after their shanties had been demolished. But, Sir, they are not spirits from another world who manifest themselves as adults among us. Surely, they come from somewhere. We hope that this measure will deter them from coming to Cape Town while they have neither housing nor families with whom they can be temporarily housed. We hope that, as a result of this measure, they will preferably decide to stay where they are. After all, they are making a living at the moment. If the PRP says that we should house them in shanties, on a temporary basis, in conditions which are a mess, I want to say that they may just as well stay there temporarily under the better circumstances, as far as housing is concerned, which they have at the moment. Let them stay where they are until we have solved the problem.

It has also been suggested that we did not consult people. This astonishes me. This was even suggested by the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central criticized me straight out for not consulting people. The most important bodies involved in this matter, are the municipalities and local authorities. We consulted the United Municipal Executive, and they support us enthusiastically. We consulted all the Government departments concerned, as well as the four directors of local government of the Provincial Administrations. We also consulted people who were against us, such as the Cape Flats Committee for Interim Accommodation. Mrs. Jansen of the Executive Committee of the Coloured Representative Council brought them to me together with, I think, Prof. Thomas, of the University of the Western Cape. They spent two hours with me and we discussed the matter. They felt better when they left. I did not convince them, but they had a better understanding in respect of many matters. I think what the criticism amounts to is that I did not consult the elected representatives of the Coloured people properly. How could I? How could I consult people who do not accept their responsibilities as properly elected representatives of the Coloured people. They refuse to assume their duties and to do their work. They only want to come and see me if they can make trouble. Mrs. Jansen was prepared to do her duty. I want to say at once that if those so-called properly elected representatives of the Coloured people want to do their work and accept their responsibilities, I shall be glad to consult them. However, I shall not do so as long as they are having a sit-down strike. In those circumstances I shall not pull them to their feet. I want to ask that we should not conduct this debate on this basis.

I just want to deal with one other matter, i.e. the amendment moved by the PRP.

†It took them a long time to work it out. They say they will not accept the Second Reading of this Bill because, inter alia—

Mr. Speaker, if one looked at this Bill—as I have said earlier—in isolation, as if this were the only measure in South Africa dealing with this problem, this amendment might be justified. But this Bill deals with a limited aspect of the problem, i.e. only with continued squatting, which frustrates the Government and the local authorities in their great work of providing homes for the people. This Bill is not the total answer. With great respect, I expect a higher standard of honesty from the PRP than this, than to pretend that this Bill is the only relevant factor when considering the squatting problem. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, that is the point I wanted to make. I believe that we cannot debate this issue with any hope of success if we ignore the facts like that. With great respect, no debate can be conducted if one so recklessly disregards the facts that it could almost be described as deliberate.

I believe we should drop this type of tactics. Let us drop this type of scoring petty political points, points which are unfounded … [Interjections.] … petty political points which are unfounded when one deals with a problem like this. [Interjections.]

I want to say that I am glad to know that so many people are working together with the Government in this great undertaking. I want to pay tribute to them. Firstly, as I have done before, I want to pay tribute again to the local authorities. I believe they are absolutely splendid. I am so glad that I can pay this tribute to local authorities who are our political opponents in almost every sphere of life. I can pay this tribute to Johannesburg; I can pay it with enthusiasm to Cape Town and I can pay it glowingly to Durban.

May I ask the hon. the Minister, in the midst of his glowing thanks, whether they all agree with him? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we have had close discussion with the officials of the local authorities concerned. I can state that I have had nothing but support from them. I went to Durban after the recent floods. The local authorities wanted to construct a temporary shelter for 500 destitute families, deprived of their homes. I informed them that I had managed to obtain R2,5 million and that permanent homes could be built for those families immediately. The authorities were enthusiastic about it and they supported me.

Obviously!

Mr. Speaker, when I give the hon. member a concrete example of the positive application of the Government’s policy, he says: “Obviously!” But when we discuss the theory of this Bill, it is all wrong. [Interjections.] Sir, that is because the hon. members opposite will not accept the facts, but instead prefer to browse in their own suspicions. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I want us to work together. I am very serious when I say it, for I know the extent of the problem, perhaps better than most members opposite. It has been my task, in the short period I have been concerned with the Indian population, to go from town to town in South Africa to look at their circumstances. It is a dreadful problem. It is not a matter for flippancy. I am grateful to the local authorities. I am grateful for the signs of awakening conscience in private enterprise at the moment. I am grateful to note that the Chamber of Commerce is helping us to build homes for certain categories of their workers in the Cape Peninsula. I was delighted this morning when one of the most prominent industrialists in Cape Town entered my office. It was not the purpose of his visit, but during the course of our conversation he told me that he was now housing his employees at Atlantis. He told me that, because they were pioneers in going to Atlantis, he had given R10 000 towards amenities to make their life tolerable from the outset. He has also employed a medical doctor at a salary of R1 250 a month in order to provide free medical attention for those people. Here is a stirring of conscience. The events on the Cape Flats, and even this debate, have made people aware of what is really going on in the Cape Peninsula. There is a stirring of conscience.

I want to make the same appeal to my hon. friends opposite. I want to appeal to them to depart from the level of debate which they have indulged in at times … [Interjections.] … at times. On the whole it has been a superb debate, but I have given examples of things that disappointed me.

And now I want to make a specific appeal to a young hon. member in the House for whom I have high regard, and that is the hon. member for Rondebosch. When I drive through Rondebosch in the mornings, I see placards on the telegraph standards advertising a protest meeting against the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill. It is a very bad poster, because one can hardly read it. When is the meeting? Is it still to come? The placard advertises a protest meeting against this Bill. The hon. member will speak in the company of the Black Sash and various other organizations, some of whom are doubtful and some who are good. I want to tell the hon. member that he has the fullest right to protest. I wish him well. Let him protest for all he is worth and let him encourage others to protest if they think the Bill is bad. However, the hon. member has also an opportunity here to help the people who have been misguided by the absence of the reliable information in the Press. He can help them by giving them the true facts. He should tell them what the Government is doing and what the Cape Town municipality, the divisional councils of the Cape and Stellenbosch are doing. I implore him to tell these people what is being done on the positive side. He should tell them that the squatters Bill should not be seen in isolation. It is but a small segment of a vast programme. Tell them the facts and let them then protest. I will then respect their protests. However, if they are to protest at the meeting as a result of the ignorance which was exhibited by the PRP during the debate, by the hon. member for Pinelands and by the hon. member for Rondebosch himself, then I should like to tell the hon. member for Rondebosch in advance that the protest meeting will be worthless in achieving anything except to engender disaffection and to engender dangerous sentiments interracially in South Africa. I am positive that that is not the hon. member’s aim and his desire. I therefore appeal to the hon. member in particular to go to these people and be a responsible representative of the people and a true South African. I appeal to him to tell these people the truth so that they can protest in the light of the truth.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—92: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; 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 Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

Noes—42: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; 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.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E; Wood, L. F.

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

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we come now to the Third Reading of the Promotion of State Security Bill, and I think the House should pause for a moment to look back at the background against which this Bill comes to us. It is the latest in a long series of Bills dealing with the security situation which we have had from this Government, and I think it is wise, to appreciate this Bill at its Third Reading stage, that we should consider for a moment the factors which make up a situation of this kind, that is to say a situation which faces the country and which has motivated the Government to bring in a series of security measures of which this is the latest I believe that if the position is properly analysed, there are two factors that come into play. Firstly, there is no doubt that there are unlawful elements and hostile political pressures at play in and about South Africa at the present time, and that they have been there for some time. I think it is fair to say that whatever Government had been in office during this period, there would have been pressures of this kind. I refer not only to the pressures that come from communist sources. There have been other pressures. We have, for instance, had Poqo and there is the Swapo group operating principally in South West Africa. There are a whole variety of hostile elements which are the product of big power politics and the situation South Africa finds itself in in the world today. On the other side, there are other pressures which are legitimate pressures, legitimate political pressures which, regrettably, Government policy so often does not allow to be legitimately ventilated. One has in mind the pressures which arise from the Government’s approach to the urban Bantu, the Government’s approach to the Coloured community, the lack of opportunity to the non-White races as a result of Government policy, and various discriminatory measures affecting the dignity of the individual. All these things give rise to pressures in the political field and outside of it, many of which can be described as legitimate pressures as opposed to the illegitimate ones which I have just mentioned. There is unfortunately an interplay between the legitimate pressures and the subversive ones because so often these subversive pressures make use of and clothe themselves in the legitimate pressures in order to go about their ill-conceived work. The distinction is blurred as a result, and the one group exploits the legitimate grievances of the other in order to make things difficult for those in authority. I find it regrettable that the Government, when one sees measures such as this Bill before us now, makes little attempt to distinguish the one from the other. This is revealed in a number of ways. It is revealed in the philosophy of the Government itself. It is revealed in the policy of the Government, so often, and it is revealed particularly in Bills of the kind which we are presently considering.

What is the Government’s approach in matters of this kind? It is to take widely-defined, what can legitimately be called, draconian powers in the place of what in our view should be done. The powers which are taken are not to create additional offences so that the criminal courts can be used to fight evils of this kind. The powers that are taken are civil powers, powers of an arbitrary kind, and are to be placed in the hands of the executive to be used at the discretion of the Minister concerned or the Cabinet. In contrast to that, I believe there should be stated the fundamental approach of the official Opposition, and it is necessary I think at this time to restate a few principles which many may consider trite, but which nevertheless have to be stated.

We start basically from the belief that mankind is best served by a free society, a society which respects the freedom of the individual. That is the basic belief from which we in these benches begin. We believe that such freedoms should be infringed only by known laws, clearly stated and interpreted by impartial courts. That, basically, is the position that we have in South Africa, despite certain inroads which have been made in recent years. That is one of the basic distinctions between South Africa and most other countries on the continent of Africa, i.e. the fact that we have such a free society here, which is not to be found in that form elsewhere in Africa. That is the distinction between freedom and tyranny and is known as the rule of law, a term often misused these days by people who should know better, a term which very often through constant misuse has become somewhat tarnished in recent times. There is no doubt anywhere on the Opposition benches, and I include the Progressive Party benches, or elsewhere I imagine, that the UP stands for and believes in the rule of law. In case there might be some lingering doubts in the benches to my left, I cannot quote a better authority than the hon. members for Yeoville. Speaking in this House on 16 August 1974, he said—

[Interjections.] I thought my hon. friends would find that interesting, Sir—

Now, Sir, I am quite sure those words will strike a chord in the minds of my friends to the left and I doubt very much whether they can show any material change, anything which has happened in the 18 months between that speech and today, which can change that point of view. To state the hallmarks of a free society is to see only one side of the coin, because unfortunately there is another which we must also have regard to. The other side of the coin is this, and I doubt whether it will be disputed anywhere in this House: There are elements in South Africa and in the world around us who, for either selfish motives or for motives in the game of power politics which goes on in the world today, seek to destroy the very freedoms which we seek to espouse. We would be failing—and I speak now of this House—in our duty if that threat were not met. Let me just reiterate the threat. It is the threat of the destruction of the very freedoms we value. How does one meet a threat of that kind, a threat which the more orthodox methods of government, administration and laws so often cannot cope with? I believe one sets about it in the following way. One examines the mischief one wishes to deal with by hearing evidence from the experts in security matters. One ascertains where the gaps in the existing laws are, loopholes which enable people of this kind to escape. One then drafts new offences with more severe penalties, if necessary, so that these people can be caught by the ordinary criminal processes and dealt with in the ordinary criminal courts. Only then, if all these efforts fail, while the State is still endangered, does one authorize emergency powers of an executive kind. These must not be ill-defined powers, so broadly defined as to enable the innocent to be caught. They must be narrowly defined powers, clearly stated so as to include few but the guilty, such powers to be exercized under proper safeguards such as a properly constituted judicial committee of review. That is what has to be done.

It goes without saying that this cannot be done in this House. There is only one place I know of where it can properly be done, where the evidence can be heard, in camera if necessary, discussions can take place and the drafting of legislation can be done, and that is in a Select Committee. It is for those reasons that we, on this side of the House, moved at Second Reading that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading.

It is because we have a deep and responsible appreciation of how difficult it is to come to terms with the notion of preserving a free society, using only the tools of a free society to combat those who seek to destroy it, that we moved to have the legislation referred to a Select Committee.

That was rejected, and therefore we now have to consider this Bill at Third Reading to see whether it complies with the requirements I have just set out. It deals with the power to prohibit organizations, to prohibit publications, to restrict persons and to prevent persons from attending gatherings and being in certain areas, all these aspects ill-defined or widely defined in terms of executive action. I shall not repeat the terminology since it is well known to this House. None of it falls within the requirements of how these matters should properly be combated in terms of the opinions on this side of the House.

Possibly the most objectionable clause of all is the clause that gives the hon. the Minister the power to detain people without recourse to the courts. If one bears in mind the criteria I have set out in connection with how these matters should be combated, one finds that this power falls short of what is required. When one comes to the judicial review committee, which is being introduced for the first time—limited as it may be in its scope, in terms of this Bill—one finds that the composition is not what it should be because the committee is not necessarily presided over by a judge and because the other members of that committee are not designated in the legislation. In addition, it is objectionable because it allows for judicial review of only some of the executive powers which the hon. the Minister takes in the Bill and not all of them. That, in brief, is our objection to this measure. That is why at this stage I should like to move as an amendment—

There are other matters which should be dealt with before I sit down. I must reply to the point made yesterday by the hon. members for Houghton and Yeoville that I and this party were being inconsistent, because, having opposed amending the Riotous Assemblies Act in 1974, we nevertheless supported the extension of the Riotous Assemblies Act, 1956, to South West Africa. There is no substance in that criticism. Where does one find the principle accepted that because a party objects to an amendment to the principal Act, it is necessarily opposed to the principal Act, more particularly when the opposition to that measure by this side of the House, and, indeed, by the PRP, was limited to two clauses of a 13-clause amending Bill? There was, indeed, no discussion on the remaining clauses of the amending Bill, except the last one, and then only from this side of the House. But it was not opposed. We did not take the view that the PRP took of that Bill. They suggested “that this Bill be read this day six months”, but this party did not support that amendment; it took a more realistic view of the situation. Indeed, all the speakers on this side of the House took the view that the Riotous Assemblies Act, as it then stood, was inadequate to deal with the problems with which the country was faced at that time. However, we disagreed with the Government in the manner in which they sought to amend it in order to bring that about. Therefore there is nothing inconsistent in our attitude in supporting clauses 12, 13 and 14 of this Bill.

However, let me take it one stage further. Do I understand from the attitude of the PRP that they disapprove of all the remaining 18 sections of the Riotous Assemblies Act which had not been amended in a manner which they found objectionable? Do I understand that they object to the taking of power to prohibit publications which engender feelings of hostility during times of crisis? Do I understand that they object to the sections in the Riotous Assemblies Act which deal with the removal of convicted persons from the Republic? Am I to understand that the power to close places to prevent prohibited gatherings in times of emergency is objected to by the PRP? Do I understand that they also object to the powers designed to arrange for the dispersal of prohibited or riotous gatherings and the manner of dispersal?

I could go on reading the titles of the remainder of the sections of the Riotous Assemblies Act which deal with a whole host of matters, for instance the prohibition of intimidation or annoyance of persons, restrictions as to the use of fire-arms or other lethal weapons, prohibition as to trespassing on work premises, prohibition of intimidation, prohibition on the use of opprobrious epithets and breach of contract by persons employed in public utilities. One could go on and on dealing with matters in the Riotous Assemblies Act which, as far as I know, have the support of every sensible and sane person in the country. Yet, it is suggested that this is a piece of legislation not appropriate to be extended to South West Africa, not in times of peace, but in times where as recently as last week we read a judgment from the hon. Mr. Justice Strydom in which, according to Press reports, it was stated that it was proved in evidence that there had been 60 acts of terrorism by Swapo in Owambo, eight clashes with the security forces, eight South African soldiers killed, 25 members of the security forces wounded, Swapo attacks with assaults which resulted in two national servicemen killed and three injured, attacks on South African helicopters and Defence Force bases, 19 landmine explosions, 14 local people and one construction worker killed and 18 persons abducted. This did not happen on the border but in South West Africa itself. However, we are to expect that the Riotous Assemblies Act is not to be applied to conditions of that kind. I have never heard a more absurd argument.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana thought fit to begin the debate by giving a theoretical explanation of the characteristics of a free community on the one hand, and reviewing the freedom of the individual within that community on the other. Secondly, he tried to justify his party’s eggdance in connection with safety legislation in South Africa. Thirdly, he turned to his erstwhile fellows once again and tried to justify his party to the PRP.

It is a terrible situation.

Yes, it is a terrible situation. It is actually a tragedy to have to have politics of this kind in this Parliament from the once powerful UP.

The hon. member began by saying that there was lawful political pressure in South Africa and that this should be permissible, but that unlawful political pressure was also being experienced and that this should be combated. The hon. member spoke about the free community which must recognize individual freedoms. However, the hon. member failed to tell hon. members to what extent one should allow the individual to abuse his freedom before a Government steps in to ensure and safeguard the freedom of the whole community. The hon. member tried to lay down some precepts and said that one could begin by applying the ordinary laws. After that the gaps in existing legislation must be investigated. Ultimately, legislation must be drawn up, which is then referred to a Select Committee. Only then should one seize the ringleaders. Where would South Africa have been today if the NP had gone about governing the country in that way? South Africa is not a homogeneous country like England. The hon. member is speaking from a British background, and I do not reproach him or the British for that. South Africa is not a homogeneous country like England and therefore the English law and the English legal system and principles cannot apply here. South Africa is part of the African situation and at the moment is threatened from all sides. And not only is South Africa being threatened, the whole of Southern Africa is being threatened. The sort of law which the hon. member is proclaiming, lacks any value or meaning even in Britain, when they experience problems with Ulster terrorists in the streets of London. Does the hon. member want South Africa to become like other European countries as a result of weak and ineffective legislation?

There is still a great deal I could say to the hon. member about his argument. He spoke—and on this point I want to leave the hon. member—about a judgment given by Mr. Justice Strydom last week. He used this judgment against his erstwhile fellows, but the same judgment is just as much at variance with the position adopted by the official Opposition. The official Opposition wanted the legislation to be referred to a Select Committee.

They are a Select Committee party.

Yes, they are a Select Committee party. However, the official Opposition is fully informed about the threats to security which exist in South Africa at the moment. On top of that, the party still has two ex-commissioners of the Schlebusch Commission in its ranks who can inform them fully about the threats which exist against South Africa. Do these ex-commisioners— unfortunately neither of them is present in the House at the moment—want to tell me that they have not informed their own party about the dangers which are threatening South Africa? I believe that they can do so without breaking their oath of secrecy.

Mr. Speaker, this government, which has already been in power for 28 years, is faced with the problem that it cannot give the people of South Africa an impression of the circumstances which would have prevailed if South Africa had had an alternative government during the same period. The people of South Africa are not able to grasp what the effects of an alternative government would have been. They do not have that experience. In any event, it would be a disaster should the people have to experience anything of the kind. Similarly, there is the problem that the people do not have an impression of what the position would have been in South Africa had the NP Government not placed the preventive legislation, which does exist, on the Statute Book since 1950, and that legislation had therefore not existed to prevent threats from inside and outside. The people of South Africa therefore do not know what the situation would have been had the Suppression of Communism Act not existed since 1950. The same applies to the Riotous Assemblies Act and the Terrorism Act. Unfortunately the people will never be able to evaluate the desirability and the necessity of the nonexistence of this proposed Act either.

The Opposition is scaring the people. They are conjuring up spectres. The Opposition is casting a reflection on the South African government’s image abroad. At this moment the hon. member for Houghton is on a platform together with Beyers Naude and Ernie Wentzel. They are holding a protest meeting in Johannesburg against this proposed legislation.

Who is Ernie Wentzel? Tell us who he is!

Mr. Speaker, in his time Ernie Wentzel has been a guest of the State President. I saw him a little while ago. He has become tame. He has become so tame that he has again obtained a passport to leave the country. I want to tell Ernie Wentzel today that he is in the wrong company. I also want to ask the hon. the leader of the PRP whether he approves of his bench mate, the hon. member for Houghton, holding a protest meeting against this proposed legislation together with Beyers Naude in the Selborne Hall in Johannesburg. I put the question to him. He need only answer “yes” or “no”. [Interjections.]

Answer, Colin!

I want to know from the hon. member for Sea Point if he approves of the hon. member for Houghton holding a meeting together with Beyers Naude. [Interjections.]

Come on, answer!

Unfortunately the hon. member for Houghton is not here now. When she should be doing her work in Parliament, she is holding protest meetings against the preventive measures of this government. I wanted to speak to her, but now I say this in her absence.

That meeting has been repeatedly advertised as a protest against the “SS Bill”. The two “S’s” appear in gothic script. In this way this Government is once again linked with Nazi Germany. [Interjections.] I addressed them on this matter a week ago, and I now ask the hon. member for Sea Point if this is the truth. I want to put it to him that in this mornings Cape Times, a report appears in connection with an interview which was recently conducted with Mr. Harry Oppenheimer in Britain. I want to tell the hon. member for Sea Point that in my opinion Harry Oppenheimer should stop financing his party. In the published interview Harry Oppenheimer says that he finances the PRP. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The Cape Times and the Rand Daily Mail, as well as the other Progressive newspapers of South Africa, storm, shout and swear at this proposed legislation. Some Bar Councils have thought fit to condemn this Bill. By the way, I want to mention that I hold the Bar Council of Pretoria, a bar council of the Transvaal Provincial Division, in the highest esteem. They took the standpoint vis-à-vis their colleagues that their approach to South African legislation was as legislation and that they would not differentiate between political and other legislation. While we are discussing the Bar Councils, I want to say that the Government appreciates the professional integrity of the Bars. However, they are also officers of the courts of South Africa, and the Government is not there to make laws with loopholes for them so that they may get offenders off. The Government is there to make legislation with as few loopholes as possible, legislation which is as watertight as possible so that criminals and those who threaten security may be barred from the country. This is what we want to tell the Bar Councils.

Academies at the University of Cape Town have once again thought fit to sign a petition opposing the legislation. I am referring to professors and other lecturers. We have known from the earliest times what we have in them. All the protests to which I have referred testify to the desperation of the enemies of the NP. This is the point at issue. They have become a group of desperadoes because, as I said during my Second Reading speech, South Africa is on the eve of immense heights, heights which to them are depths and they realize that they cannot stop the policy, the final implementation of the NP’s policy, in all its greatness.

As far as the legislation which we are piloting through here is concerned, we ask the country to judge the Government on its deeds and on the results of its actions in the past There is not a single person in South Africa thus far who can say that he has been unjustly detained in terms of a law or that he has been intimidated by a law. One of my colleagues on this side of the House challenged hon. members during his Second Reading speech to mention the name of a single person who could make such an accusation. If there was an iota of evidence enabling them to say this, they would have broadcast it throughout the length and breadth of the country and throughout the whole world, just as long as they could harm and besmirch the NP. We want to tell South Africa and the world: Judge the NP Government over the past 28 years on the way in which it has applied this type of legislation; also judge it on the results it has achieved. Thanks to this legislation, we in South Africa have stability, peace, order and racial peace, which have led to economic prosperity through which all the peoples of Southern Africa could benefit. Thanks to this legislation South Africa is still a member of the Western Community of Nations. If we had not begun to fight the communists and other subversive powers from as far back as 1950, it is an open question whether South Africa would still have been a Western democracy today. It is an open question whether Southern Africa as such would still have comprised a community of States within the circle of the Western Community of Nations. But thanks to the legislation, this is still the case. We have at the head of the Government men equipped with responsibility and idealism; they are dedicated rulers and do not take their place in the Government benches merely for short term status or profit.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Green Point. During his Second Reading speech the hon. member said: “This Government wants to go it alone.” He said that we do not want to take any notice of the UP in respect of how we should draft or implement legislation of this nature. I do not want to be snide to the hon. member, but I do not think he can expect this side of the House to accept advice from the UP. The hon. member says: “This Government wants to go it alone.” How are we going to succeed alone? According to the latest opinion poll, 63% of the enfranchised voters of South Africa support this Government. I do not want to cast a reflection on anyone, but these days it is general knowledge that behind that hon. member, and possibly someone else in the same row as he is, there are some of his colleagues who support similar measures. However, they are still kept in that party for reasons which I cannot explain, but which probably flow from a deep-seated loyalty towards the leader of their party, or for some other reason. However, they are still sitting there. This Government “goes it alone” in so far as the Official Opposition and the PRP are concerned. As far as the general public are concerned, I am convinced that probably more than 70% of the voters support this legislation.

Why do they not ask which voters?

They cannot, because probably their own voters support it. Where would South Africa have been today were it not for this legislation? This is what all the voters in the country are asking, and they take no notice of the sort of propaganda which is made against this legislation even from this House. I make bold to say that not only the vast majority of the Whites of South Africa, but also the Indians, the Coloureds and the Bantu support this legislation. Some of their leaders have indeed already said openly that they are in favour of this legislation. Among others, the Owambo asked for such measures.

Certain things are expected from a Government under certain circumstances. Good ruling demands, inter alia, that the nation, the citizens, are given security. They must have security against crime or terror from within as well as from without. They must also have security against enemy attacks from outside our country. This can only be combated by means of a strong defence force. Those parties will be the first to raise a cry against the Government should a situation arise in this country which this legislation is designed to counteract, and there are no measures which can be applied to combat such situations. We want to tell the nation of South Africa that in introducing this measure the Government has one thing in mind, and that is the consolidation of their security against attacks from inside as well as from outside, so they can do their work in freedom and safety, provide their families with the necessaries of life and live as most people would like to live.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterkloof and other members on the Government side have, during the course of this debate, indicated an extreme sensitivity, almost a sense of impatience, with people who oppose them. I would have thought that with their numbers in Parliament and with their claims of support around the country, they would be less sensitive than they are at the moment. But whether it is the hon. the Minister reacting to the Cape Town and Johannesburg Bar Councils or whether it is the hon. member for Waterkloof reacting to protest meetings, this Government is extremely edgy and extremely sensitive when anybody criticizes it. This is a sign of insecurity within the Government. A Government which is sure of itself and a Government which believes that it is doing the right thing will surely accept criticism and will certainly meet argument with argument, rather than trying to dismiss all argument, as the hon. member has just done, as “opstokery” against the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with some of the arguments raised by the hon. member for Waterkloof. Firstly, I want to say that this Bill has come to us from the Committee of the Whole House with two textual amendments in the name of the hon. members for Yeoville and Jeppe, and with three other more serious amendments in the name of the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. These three amendments, I believe, make the Bill worse than it was at Second Reading because they extend the scope of the clauses under which the Minister can take arbitrary action against citizens and organizations and the Press in South Africa. During the course of the Committee Stage there was substantial agreement between the members of the two Opposition parties in their handling of the various clauses of the Bill, except in the case of clause 10, which provides for the abolition of the limit on maximum sentences, and clauses 12, 13 and 14. I would like to deal briefly with the question of clauses 12, 13 and 14.

I see that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has just returned. There was a disagreement between my party and his on the question of whether to support the extension of the Riotous Assemblies Act of 1956, as amended by Act No. 30 of 1974, to South West Africa. The result of this difference of opinion between us, compounded by the hon. member’s statement today, was that he attacked the PRP because it would not support this particular extension of these powers. He said that we were becoming soft on security. Mr. Speaker, I believe that that was a very silly thing to say, and it was made even sillier by his references today. The hon. the Minister made it quite clear—and we understand this—that there is a measure called the Riotous Assemblies Ordinance of South West Africa, which contains all the provisions to which the hon. member referred. The Minister said that what he required was the additional provisions which were included in the 1974 amendment to the Riotous Assemblies Act. It was these provisions that the United Party fought tooth and nail. The former hon. member for Durban North in 1974 (Hansard, Vol 47, col. 1496) moved an amendment opposing the Second Reading because—

Mr. Speaker, this was the Bill which hon. members in the UP opposed tooth and nail, and these were the reasons for opposing it two years ago. So, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member asks the hon. member for Yeoville, “What has happened during the last 18 months?” then I say the hon. member must look at himself. He must realize that the former leader of that party’s justice group opposed this extension of the Riotous Assemblies Act tooth and nail. He rejected it at Second Reading.

You mean the amendment.

Yes, the amendment to the Riotous Assemblies Act. He opposed it at Second Reading.

So What? He can change his mind if he wants to.

Mr. Speaker, was that party soft on security in 1974 when it opposed this legislation? The hon. member then goes on to list all the acts of terrorism which have taken place in South West Africa recently. Surely this is a case for him to support the hon. the Minister in the Second Reading of this Bill. It has nothing to do with the Riotous Assemblies Act.

Of course it has.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa is fully competent to adjust its own ordinance dealing with riotous assemblies. He knows this, but because he wants to try to imitate Senator Horwood, the leader of the other party in Natal, and wants to smear his political opponents, he adopts this course. I want to say to him that it is not going to work and that he should not do this kind of thing. His attempts to help the Government to smear people in opposition are only bringing discredit to his party and to opposition politics in South Africa. [Interjections.] There are two main reasons why we, throughout this debate, have opposed this Bill and why we will certainly vote against this Bill by supporting the amendment which has now been taken over from us by the hon. member, and we are pleased that he did. There are two reasons why we have consistently opposed this Bill. In our view, first of all, this Bill far from promoting security in South Africa, is going to weaken State security. It is another measure, like so many other measures which the Government has over the past 28 years introduced and which, while purporting to strengthen State security, have actually weakened it. It is because it is part of a pattern of legislation, of administration and policy, which have undermined the basic security of South African society. By this Bill the Government is once again trying to screw down the lid tighter and tighter, while at the same time its general policies add fuel to the fire under the South African political pressure cooker. This is what is happening with this measure. Sir, every society seeks stability. This is the basis of peace. This is the basis on which people can adjust without threat of violence or revolution. But this Government has constantly confused stability with security. Stability, as opposed to security, is not in the long run going to be achieved by merely negative, restrictive legislation. Stability is best achieved when Governments—and this includes this Government—make sensible adjustments to the pressures which build up naturally in any developing or evolutionary society.

Sir, these pressures are not all revolutionary. They are not all ugly pressures. They are the basic pressures which take place as the result of urbanization, of industrialization and as the result of the aspirations of the underprivileged and the disadvantaged sections of the community and, of course, as the hon. member for Rondebosch pointed out in the Second Reading, these pressures are likely to be the greatest and potentially the most dangerous when the lack of privilege or when disadvantages are directly linked to some emotional factors, such as race, language, sex, colour or religion. Normally these pressures manifest themselves in a society in the behaviour of so-called activists. I want to move away from the South African scene to defuse the emotionalism and to look at activists who are the result of pressures in the society. If one looks at the women suffragettes in Great Britain in the 1920s, or if one looks at the Black freedom marchers in the USA in the 1950s and 1960s, the question one has to ask oneself is whether those women or the Black activists were the real threat to the security of the USA or the United Kingdom? Were they the cause of the tensions which existed in that society? Or were they the symptoms of the dangerous instability that was developing within that society? Was it the women activists in Britain or was it the withholding of rights from women in Britain? Was it the Black activists in America or was it the discrimination against the Black citizens of America which was the real danger to the security and the stability of those two societies? Governments around the world tend to react immediately and suppress the symptoms, but a wise Government will immediately switch over not to suppress the symptoms, but to remove the underlying causes of the pressures and the instability which is building up in that society. That is what this Government has consistently failed to do.

This Government has consistently failed to remove the causes of instability and has consistently tried to suppress the symptoms of that instability. It has failed because it has not tackled the causes at the root. It has come year after year with further restrictive and arbitrary measures. Sir, I do not want to give the whole catalogue. The Minister knows it. There are 20 or 30 measures, each of which giving the Government arbitrary power to restrict or to confine or to contain people. I want to ask him whether he thinks these measures are an indication of the Government’s success in dealing with security. Are these measures an indication of the Government’s success in developing a stable society in South Africa? I say they are not. I believe that each one of these measures, including the measure which is before us today, is massive evidence of the Government’s failure to provide a policy which will bring about peaceful coexistence for the people of South Africa. This is the basic charge we level against the Government in the field of the security of South Africa.

There is, however, a second reason why we oppose this legislation. As we have said before, it does violence to our established legal system which is based on the rule of law. I want to make it quite clear that for us the rule of law is not an abstract concept, not a trite generality. It is a very real factor, a tested procedure in our legal system which protects both the individual and the society from tyranny and authoritarianism.

Give us a definition.

Yes, I will define it. Of course, the Government must act against people who seek to overthrow constitutional government by violence or revolution. However, it is common cause in South Africa, as it is throughout the world, that the cardinal issue is how governments should act. All countries have laws relating to security. South Africa has many. In Western democracies the security laws operate within the framework of the rule of law. In communist countries, and in other countries with authoritarian or quasi-authoritarian systems, they operate with disregard for the rule of law. I believe that the major divide between Western democracies—what the hon. the Prime Minister calls “the Free World”—and the world of communism or quasi authoritarianism, lies in the adherence to or the disregard of the basic concept of the rule of law. By the rule of law we basically mean that no person shall be restricted or deprived of his liberty or his property unless convicted after a fair trial, by an independent judge, of a clearly defined crime. [Interjections.] That is the definition and hon. members may argue the point if they wish. [Interjections.] I argue that that is a valid and accepted definition of the rule of law. The hon. members here next to me can disagree with me and say that the rule of law does not involve the procedure of trial and conviction. What a silly argument for a member like the hon. member for Griqualand East to put forward!

In Western democracies there are laws to deal with fanatics and political saboteurs who, in spite of the fact that they have the right to try to shape the society via the ballot-box, take the law into their own hands and jeopardize the safety of society. In countries with authoritarian systems, security laws and powers are often used against people who have no right to try to shape the society because they are excluded from participation via the ballot-box.

In Western democratic societies there are laws against people who wilfully endanger society for their own purposes. In South Africa we find, to an increasing extent, that the Government is using security laws to try to resist the changes which are inevitable in our evolutionary society.

We believe that each clause in this Bill, involving the elimination of the judicial process, elimination of the protection of the courts, the extension of arbitrary executive action, threats to the liberty of the individual and threats to the freedom of the Press, takes South Africa step by step further away from the free world and step by step nearer to an identification with those unhappy countries who have authoritarian systems of one kind or another. For its crude violation of the rule of law alone, this Bill should be rejected by this House, as I believe it will be rejected by thousands of South Africans who value the legal system we have built up in this country.

I am amazed that hon. members on the Government side, who claim they are proud of our legal system and our independent judiciary, and who say they do not like internment, are prepared to support a measure like this which strikes at the foot of our legal system, which by-passes our judiciary and which makes provision for internment, without the hon. the Minister having advanced any significant reasons for so drastic a measure, or without having produced proof of why existing legislation is not adequate to deal with the situation. In the course of his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister said that activist politics, in particular, would be stepped up on the campuses and that the campaign against military service, under the guise of conscientious objection, would be intensified. We had a debate in 1974 on this very issue. The Defence Act was amended to deal with this very issue. The hon. the Minister says that people will exploit the multi-national situation in South Africa and that national language groups will be incited against one another. He knows, because he introduced the Second General Laws Amendment Bill of 1974, that it is a crime to incite one group of the society against another group. The hon. the Minister says—he has repeatedly said it—that it is the responsibility of the executive to take action in order to protect the security of the State. I want to agree with him; the initiative must lie with the executive. However, if it is the executive’s responsibility to initiate the action, then equally it is the judiciary’s responsibility to establish guilt and to protect the citizen from abuse or misuse of power by the executive. Our complaint is that this Bill gives the executive unlimited, unfettered power. It gives it without there being a state of war, without there being a declared state of emergency. People can be interned without being given the reason. People have their right of appeal to the courts taken away. There is no proper, effective judicial review.

Hon. members have asked us what we on this side of the House will do. Let me make it quite clear. We will arrest people whom we suspect of subversion, of seeking to overthrow with violence the constitutional Government, and we will charge them in the courts. That is quite clear. We will do that. [Interjections.] We will follow what we believe is the correct procedure. We have confidence in the courts and that is the difference between us and the hon. members on the other side. [Interjections.] We have confidence in our legal system. However, quite apart from that, we will also take positive steps to ease the pressures and to promote stability within our South African society. Let me make it quite clear, these steps are just as important as the punitive, negative measures proposed by the other side of the House. We will concentrate on the removal of the grievances caused by discrimination on the grounds of race and colour. We will concentrate on the removal of the hurt which is done by laws which offend against the dignity of people. We will concentrate on the removal of the dangerous gap between the economic haves and have-nots in South Africa. We want to give citizens of South Africa, both White and Black, by giving them a say in the Government, an opportunity to influence the shaping of the society of which they are part. We will promote a common patriotism, a common loyalty bridging the differences of race and colour in South Africa.

The hon. members on that side of the House say that they want effective measures. They have said that they support the Bill because it will be effective. The most important of the wrong claims they are making for this Bill is that it will be effective. The Bill will be ineffective for it does nothing to increase basic stability. It does nothing to remove the areas of potential conflict. On the contrary, I believe the effect of this Bill, should it become law will be to conceal from the public and the Government the real pressures building up within the society. The effect will be that it will drive the so-called activists underground and they will seek more support from countries and revolutionary movements outside of South Africa.

Why should they go underground? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, because of the arbitrariness of the Bill, because of the risk of injustices being done and by abandoning a tested legal procedure that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done, I believe that the effect of this Bill will be to reduce respect for the authority of the law and in that way it will also weaken security in South Africa. This Bill is by no means a sign of strength on the part of the Government. I believe that if this Bill is anything on the part of the Government, it is an admission of failure. It is the admission of failure on the part of the Government to create stability through its policies and through this to provide real security. It is an admission that this Government is only able to implement its policies by authoritarian measures of this kind.

We in this House and I believe all citizens around the country, Black and White, are concerned about stability, about peace and security for all the peoples of our country. Despite all the arguments we have heard from the other side, we believe that the best way in which to act and to stop the agente provacateur, the revolutionary, is to charge him in the courts and let the courts deal with him.

Let me conclude by saying that whatever the Government may do in the way of restriction, whatever may be done in the way of executive action, whatever may be done in the way of the courts, our basic security in this country depends in no way as much as it does upon this Government’s ability to get rid of race discrimination. But what is more, in view of the situation developing in our country, our security is going to depend not only on getting rid of race discrimination, but also on how quickly this Government is prepared to do so.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Sea Point expressed his surprise at the sensitivity of the Government members to criticism or opposition to them. I just want to tell him that we are not sensitive to criticism or opposition, but that we are worried that there are people in this House who can express the sentiments that very member expressed here this afternoon. He proved to us that he will, fortunately, never become the Prime Minister of South Africa for the very simple reason that he has admitted that he will submit to all sorts of pressures which could only lead to chaos. That will not do in this country. I shall leave it at that. In the course of my speech I hope to come back to his eulogy on the rule of law.

*The main objections of the Opposition towards this legislation, as they have emerged over the past few days are firstly, that a definition of what is presenting a threat to State security is lacking, and secondly, that the Bill violates the rule of law. During this session we have probably had more than enough to say about the concept of State security and the steps which have to be taken in this connection. There is probably nobody in this House who would not like to see action which threatens the security of the State being minutely defined. This is probably an ideal towards which we are all striving. It was my privilege to serve on the Schlebusch Commission for three years, where this matter was continually discussed. On the strength of evidence which we heard and documents which we perused, were able to form an idea of the onslaught on South Africa. We continually discussed the question of how we should define these onslaughts so that we could clamp down on these people in the courts. That debate lasted until the last sitting day of the Schlebusch-Le Grange Commission without our finding a solution. Let me briefly describe the nature of the onslaught, as we determined it on that commission.

Then hon. members will realize how complex the attack against us is and how difficult it is to define it in legal terms. Because the commission encountered the problem of defining offences against the security of the State at the very outset, it adopted the policy of compiling its reports as comprehensively as possible, with extensive quotations from documents and speeches, and then leaving the assessment thereof to public opinion after the publication of the various reports. The fact that this policy bore fruit, is very clear if we look at the total disintegration of Nusas which is taking place. It was not the commission or the restrictions imposed on the leaders of Nusas which brought about that disintegration. There was a resistance, an opposition among the general public to the sort of thing in which Nusas was engaged, and this caused Nusas to disintegrate. Public opinion dissociated itself from Nusas, and that is why Nusas is disintegrating today.

The members of the commission, as I have said, became aware of the total onslaught which is being made on all fronts against South Africa, and this onslaught is not, as the hon. member for Sea Point is implying, aimed only at the policy of separate development of the NP. The cry is for “radical change!”.

Everything must change. The existing order must be destroyed, and in its place a new order must be created. It is no use denying this; that order was to have had a Marxistic foundation. The fact that violence and revolution must be the inevitable outcome of this attack, made little difference to the supporters of this “change” idea. As has already been said, the experience of the commission was that the onslaught is total, and that, inter alia, it includes certain things, things which I cannot, unfortunately, owing to the limited time at my disposal, set out in full now. On that commission we had experience of the onslaught in the military sphere, an onslaught which was spurred on and incited by student leaders abroad. Some of those students attended student conferences in Africa. At those conferences they advocated arms boycotts against South Africa. Some of the organizations we investigated condoned terrorism, spoke of freedom fighters rising up against the “unjust society” and wishing to free people from their oppressors. That was the language, that was the idiom, in which they spoke. Words with a strong emotional content were used, words which were aimed at inciting people. This was the language of those people. Suspicion-mongering and denigration of the established and accepted socio-cultural values were the order of the day. Nusas arranged seminars— we had evidence in this connection—at which dagga was smoked and drugs were used, where sex was engaged in openly and brazenly. We had Wilgespruit Hon. members know what went on there. We had the disparagement of art and culture, a disparagement for the purpose of which a special organization arose under the wing of Nusas—the so-called “Aquarius”. The use of sophisticated psychological methods to brainwash young people so that they could be indoctrinated with new values and new norms, was practised by those people. This took place at their seminars, at Wilgespruit and elsewhere. Attempts were made to discourage foreign investors from investing in South Africa. Great expense was incurred in sending people to Europe and America to further this economic sabotage. Some of the organizations actively strove to achieve the establishment of the so-called militant Black Power cult, which is modelled on Marxist dogma as postulated by Stokely Carmichael, and which was aimed at bringing about a polarization between White and Black, with the ultimate aim of a bloody revolution which had to end in South Africa being taken over by revolutionaries.

Certain church organizations, such as the Christian Institute, deliberately tried to bring about a confrontation between the Church and the State. Sir, I should like to read to you the motion which was adopted by a conference held in August 1974 at Hammanskraal. Unfortunately I do not have the time to do so. On the occasion of that conference, on the strength of the above-mentioned motion, it was argued that consideration should be given to whether the church should not recommend that its members become “conscientious objectors”. The Churches were also requested to reconsider the question of whether it was still the duty of the Church to make the services of chaplains available to the Defence Force. This is the kind of subversive and destructive activity in which those people engaged.

It is striking to what degree this attack corresponds the directives contained in “The Naked Communist”, as recorded in the United States Congressional Record of 10 January 1963. I should like to quote a few of those directives, as they appear in “The Naked Communist”, to the hon. House. An Afrikaans translation reads as follows—

Did we not have the experience of Nusas, which on the occasion of labour unrest in Durban, became actively involved in inciting and encouraging people? The following directive reads as follows—

Hon. members know how many of the publications of Nusas have been banned due to their pornographic nature—

This is the onslaught which the legislation must combat. The onslaught is so complex and so extensive that it is an almost super-human task to define it in precise legal terms.

The second objection which the combined Opposition raised against the legislation and about which the hon. member for Sea Point again waxed lyrical a moment ago, is related to the question of the rule of law. Their objection is that the rule of law is being violated by the legislation. This aspect was discussed thoroughly during the Second Reading debate, and I do not want to venture upon a legal-technical discussion of the principle. My approach is rather that of a realist, of someone who has been sent to Parliament by my voters, inter alia, to help protect the security of the country and contribute towards the maintenance thereof.

It has been shown that the rule of law principle had its origin in the 18th century when Great Britain was at its most powerful and was the greatest exponent of democracy. It was during that period that style and form in general social intercourse and particular conventions was a philosophy of life and when change in the constitutional and political spheres took place according to a conventional pattern and in terms of constitutional principles. This was the time when the State’s authority was unassailable and international disputes were settled according to certain conventions. This was before ideologies like those of Marx and Lenin appeared on the scene, people who made it very clear from the outset that they were arch-enemies of the democratic system. In the times in which we are living all democratic principles, of which the rule of law is a commendable one, are being exploited and all the facilities which form an integral part of the democratic order, are being employed for the precise purpose of destroying that order.

The NP has just as much respect and just as much esteem for the rule of law as anyone else in this country. However, a balance must exist between the right of the individual and the security of the State. Indeed, it is obvious that the right and freedom of the individual cannot be more highly assessed than the security of the State. At the most the rule of law may be seen as a political ideal towards which to aspire. The security of the State and the maintenance of law and order in the community still remain the highest priorities. In times of crisis and in times of a threat to the security of the State the freedom of the individual is curtailed. It is the bounden duty of a Government to do so. As soon as the situation has been normalized and the threat has decreased in intensity, the Government relaxes its attitude and once again allows the individual more freedom. It is obvious that only the Government with its sources of reconnaissance and information is equipped to exercise its discretion in this connection, for from the nature of its responsibility only the Government can make a proper evaluation of the nature and degree of the threat to peace and public order, and take action in the light of that evaluation.

I asked myself very cautiously whether, in view of the circumstances and the era in which the principle of the rule of law arose, that principle still contains those elements which are needed to combat the subtle clandestine and sophisticated onslaught of communism on the spirit of mankind and the security of the State. I want to venture the opinion that within the context of State security, and in view of the nature and extent of the onslaught on South Africa, the “rule of law” is not in the least relevant to this debate. We dare not allow this principle to be elevated into the category of a sacred cow so that the communist subverter may continue with their devilish work in terms of it. There is no future or joy in being hailed as a maintainer of the “rule of law” while one is renouncing the soul of one’s people and the existence of one’s country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cradock spent considerable time giving us information to justify the allegation that subversive activities do take place in this country. We have no argument with him in regard to his point of view that there is a need for legislation to deal with subversion. We are in fact dealing here with legislation of that nature. I believe, however, the hon. member has gone wide of a clear definition or concept as to when the authority of the executive is to take over from the authority of the law courts in so far as the maintenance of law and order is concerned. It is a matter which will take a long time to debate and I do not therefore intend taking it any further with the hon. member. But I want to tell him that I disagree with his concluding remarks about and his attitude towards the rule of law and the containment of subversion and subversive activities even in the conditions of today.

To me the Third Reading of this Bill is what I might term a very sad third chapter in the saga of Government failure to make possible, in the widest sense, the co-operation of all parties and of all sections of the population in dealing with problems which involve each and every one of us, problems like combating subversion and of containing threats to the security of the State.

I deplore the remarks made by the hon. member for Waterkloof this afternoon when he found it necessary to say, in effect, that criticism of Government policy was an irritant to a Government which had so many supporters in this House and the support of so many voters in the country and that there was no need for them to take any notice of advice from the Opposition parties. They could carry on happily in the authoritarian way of a big party, taking over all the authority of government. This is an unfortunate state of affairs, because I want to remind the hon. member that members of the Opposition are requested to—and do in fact—play their part in the security of the State and in the defence forces. They play their part in the Police reserves, but apparently, according to the attitude of the hon. member for Waterkloof, there is no place for the Opposition to play its part in this legislative authority of South Africa. That was the attitude which the hon. member raised. As I have said, this is the third chapter of an unfortunate saga. The first chapter was written on 27 February 1973, when without a recommendation from the commission to that effect—which the hon. the Prime Minister conceded—bannings were imposed on eight students in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act by the then Minister of Justice. According to the hon. member for Yeoville, now the Minister of Community Development, those bannings were not justified by the findings of the commission. According to the hon. the Minister of Immigration, however, they were justified. Subsequently, these cases were submitted to the Attorney-General with a view to prosecution, but the Attorney-General declined to prosecute.

In that report, which the hon. member for Cradock referred to, the commission outlined activities which it regarded as being inimical to the maintenance of law and order in this country, and it was suggested that there should be a definition of the activities which should be prohibited by law. The hon. member for Cradock referred to the fact that we had found that there were a complexity of activities which we felt should be defined. In fact, reference was made to the advocating of arms and economic boycotts, but the Government has done nothing to deal with those aspects of that report. Mr. Speaker, the second chapter was the Parliamentary Internal Security Commission Act. This side of the House, the UP, has always been fully prepared to perform its parliamentary functions in the formulation of laws for the consideration of this House, but the Government, with obstinacy and intransigence, insisted in including amongst the functions of this commission the investigation of organizations and persons. This Bill brings us now to the third chapter of this saga. We moved that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee in order that its effectiveness could be assured and in order to ensure the acceptance of those provisions which are necessary to combat subversion and which are necessary to ensure the security of the State. Sir, we accept that these are extraordinarily difficult times when it comes to combating subversion and ensuring the security of the State. We also accept, as we have said repeatedly during the debate on this Bill, that we require new and effective steps. We were prepared to assist, through a Select Committee, in determining those steps and in categorizing and defining the activities which have to be stopped. We were prepared to play our part in ensuring that those who indulge in such activities, as defined by this Parliament, are brought before the courts for trial and, on conviction, for sentence. But again the Government—and I repeat what I have said before in this debate—has decided to go it alone. Surely, when the decision is in the hands of the Minister alone to take executive action, the public will ask, and are entitled to ask, what is in the mind of the Minister. They are entitled to know what he considers to be activities which endanger the security of the State and the maintenance of public order.

It is what is in his mind that determines the liberty or not of individuals who he might feel are guilty of these activities. Throughout the debate he has not attempted to provide a definition of how he would assess this. The Government has accepted the principle—and we are grateful for this—of judicial review of executive action which affects the individual, but again this has been accepted in a very half-hearted and limited way, because it has been applied only to internment. There is no provision for the review of executive action in dealing with organizations, in dealing with publications or in dealing with the restriction of individual liberty, and we do not accept that executive action should usurp the functions of the courts, namely a fair trial, except in times of emergency or in times of war. But when executive action is justified, then one must ensure that no injustice is done.

It is a fact that the Minister, in dealing with these cases, will be advised by State agencies as to the necessity for detaining or restricting persons. He will receive reports from the Security Police or from other sources, and he must then apply his mind to those stated facts to determine the motivation and the justification for executive action. Those agencies, as I say, include the Security Police and other agencies. Those of us who served on the Schlebusch-Le Grange Commission have the highest appreciation for the efficiency and the dedication of the members of the Force responsible for our Secret Service information. Executive authority does not vest in the members of the Security Police; it vests in the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Sea Point mentioned some 30 instances where executive action can be taken by the Minister, but even if they are under the Suppression of Communism Act, with the evolution of government, with the responsibility resting on the shoulders of the Minister, the increasing complexities of our daily lives, one wonders how the Minister can apply his mind fully and independently to the reports and the circumstances which need what is in effect a judicial decision, without himself feeling that perhaps it would have been wise to have some review and somebody to check the conclusions to which he comes. The Cabinet wields immense powers, which makes it physically impossible, or extremely unlikely to be possible, that the Minister, despite his best intentions, can apply his mind sufficiently to cope with the onerous responsibilities of deciding himself, by executive action, on the liberty or otherwise of an individual or in dealing with an organization. I would have thought, as I have said, that he would have welcomed the safeguard of review, and therefore the Government cannot blame the public if they regard the attitude which has been adopted in the Committee Stage of this Bill in refusing to consider the amendments which we put forward, as being only a blatantly authoritarian attitude which has been adopted by the Government in regard to these matters of State security.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point will pardon me if I do not follow up on his arguments because I first want to elucidate a few other aspects. In the course of my speech, however, I shall return to the arguments of his party. My aim at this stage, is to consider and to take stock of the Bill in its final form as it has been presented to us by the Committee. The choice before us now is to finally accept or reject the Bill.

In my humble opinion there is no doubt at all that we should accept this extremely important Bill, especially if we keep in mind the effect it will have. As we shall indicate, the effect of this Bill will be so positive and so essential that every patriot and every sincere democrat will receive it with open arms. In the years which lie ahead, this Bill will be seen as probably one of the most important pieces of legislation on the Statute Book of South Africa, not only in the period after 1948, but even from as far back as 1910.

I am pleased that the chief principle of the Bill is specifically mentioned in its title, namely the Promotion of State Security Act, 1976. We call it by its name. We are proud of being able to promote the security of our State in the year 1976, in an era in which the Western world in particular has become weak-kneed and countries have submitted to communist subversion and anarchists. If the security of the State is not promoted, it goes to rack and ruin and is ploughed under, and together with the State all the other forms of life, the entire civilization, will collapse.

I am not ashamed of this legislation. On the contrary. I rejoice in it. The result of it will be that the National Party will receive even more support from the voting public at the next election, because the National Party Government takes positive action when it is in the interests of South Africa to act in this way. At its congresses it will receive motions of thanks because it has clamped down on the communists, subverters and underminers who want to endanger the security of the State. The hon. the Leader of the official Opposition says that the words “which endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order” are very vague and very wide, but I differ from him on that score. In my opinion it cannot be more closely and better defined. It is like the words “fire which bums”. We cannot describe it precisely, but we know it well; we know that it bums and destroys.

If one looks at the deeper underlying substructure of this Bill and considers it, then the most important and first question is the question which often arises, whether it is in the interests of South Africa. I say that it is indeed in the interests of South Africa that this Bill be placed on the Statute Book because it offers protection not only to the Whites of South Africa alone, but also to the Bantu, the Coloured and the Indian. In our imaginations we ought to write above this Bill in red letters: “In the interests of South Africa!”

One of the most important results of this legislation is that it will serve as a deterrent. The communist, and those whom they use to do their subversive work, will now think twice before they begin to take any illegal action. Even those who are subverters according to their own profound conviction, although they are not communists, will now realize that they are also breaking the law which applies to them. Also those who collaborate clandestinely with the communists and other subverters in order to achieve their own immediate revolutionary objectives, will know that their illegal action and deeds are also punishable now. Therefore the legislation will not only be applicable to subversion by communists. It will also be applicable to subversion in general. In other words, if a person does not engage in communist subversion or subversion in general, he has nothing to fear. This legislation serves as a warning and has the effect of a deterrent. Thanks to wide publicity those people who cherish such thoughts or make such plans, ought to be deterred in time.

Another one of the important results of this Bill is that the communists can no longer act under camouflage. Their techniques, their cunning and their experience is unequalled. The Bible also tells us that Satan will turn himself into an Angel of light. In another place the Bible says that the Antichrist will profess to be the Christ. If we apply this to the present circumstances, we see that the communists themselves infiltrate the church and profess to act in a Christian manner, although they are only perpetrating the devil’s work under the cover of religion.

There is also another result of this legislation. Should it come to the knowledge of the hon. the Minister that subverters are making plans to endanger the security of the State, this legislation would enable him to take action immediately without having to declare a state of emergency. The advantages of this are maximum results and minimum disruption.

A further result of this legislation is that it will no longer be possible for subverters to hide behind the technical shortcomings of the case against them. Now they are given the opportunity to cool off so that they cannot incite themselves and their sympathizers. Just think of all the emotion which is provoked with hearings like those in connection with terrorism.

It is amazing to me that the Bar Councils accept on the one hand that when the State is threatened it may place certain limitations on individual freedom, but on the other hand condemn the Bill without asking the hon. the Minister what the circumstances are which gave rise to him deciding to take such steps. I am convinced that if sensible people—please note I say sensible people and not clever people—request a confidential conversation with the hon. the Minister, he will lift the veil sufficiently. Last Thursday in his reply to the Second Reading the hon. the Minister drew aside the curtain when he said—

This information satisfies me. I want to know nothing more. This assurance from the hon. the Minister is good enough for me. He is an extremely responsible person in an extremely responsible office. Judging by his actions to date, this speaks for itself.

I can say that the next result of the Bill on our enemies outside South Africa will be a paralysing effect. It will give them fewer points of contact within South Africa to subvert South Africa from within.

We are living in times which are changing rapidly. The classic state of emergency no longer arises; it exists always dormant in an innocent form. As far as the communist onslaught on the world is concerned too, and therefore including South Africa, war will not be declared. The special collaborator of one of our well-known dailies Die Volksblad, wrote as long ago as 9 December 1971—

Today we have the Russian communists and the Cubans as well. In the light of this ministerial powers cannot be linked to a classic proclamation of a state of emergency. Furthermore, in such circumstances the so-called “rule of law” must recede. By the way, I should like to point out to the hon. member for Sea Point that the so-called “rule of law” is not a sacred cow, to quote the words of the hon. member for Cradock. The “rule of law” is not inviolable. There is sufficient evidence to substantiate this statement; one only has to look at page 124 of Verloren van Themaat.

There is one important remark which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made in the course of Second Reading speech which cannot remain unanswered. He asked why there is a difference in approach between the Government and the Opposition on security and this Bill. According to him the answer lies in a difference in philosophical approach. The fundamental difference is in his opinion that the Government believes that the individual exists for the State, while the Opposition believes that the State exists for the individual. I myself have a particular interest in political philosophy and I am very certain that the standpoint which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition presents us, is not our standpoint and that his party’s philosophical point of departure is also wrong. The State and the individual stand side by side, alongside one another; not the one on top and the other below. If one places the State first, one makes the State absolute and then it is universalism: The State is the highest entity. If the individual is placed first, the individual is made absolute and then it is individualism. In the history of political philosophy there are many examples of this, but I do not have the time to deal with them. However, I just want to say briefly that according to a Christian point of view we reject both these schools of thought. The State and the individual and all the forms of life, of which it constitutes a part, are each sovereign in their own sphere. The State may not act unfairly towards the individual and the other non-political forms of life, but the individual and the non-political forms of life or organizations may not act unfairly towards the State either, for in both cases such action would amount to a contravention. Equally so, in the case of the Bill under discussion, the individual may not act unfairly towards the State. If he does so, he is transgressing and his rights must be curtailed.

One thing which grieves me, are the derogatory references to this legislation, references like “Piscom”, “SS” and “totalitarian”, and allegations that it is a communistic Bill. It is also being inferred that the Government wants to remove all opposition from its path, but fortunately the responsible people outside know that the normal, ordinary, everyday individual, the proverbial man in the street, need have no such fear of the legislation. They are already used to the flood of detestable suspicion-mongering. This never becomes anything tangible because there is no truth in such malicious allegations.

We are always hearing about dictatorial powers, but there is one guarantee: The judgment of the general public at least every five years. The general public will not allow any Government to abuse its powers. Whatever Government does so, the people will settle accounts with it at the ballot-box. As in the past we place our Government’s record of 28 years on the scale of the nation’s judgment with confidence at the next election.

I think it is necessary for us to look at the result which this legislation will have in the ranks of the two Opposition parties.

Let us first deal with the official Opposition. The history of South Africa will one day pass harsh judgment on this party, which is dying a slow death. The reason is that when they were expected to act responsibly as Opposition during difficult times, they failed miserably to do so. They were passive. The Bill will be cast upon their heads like burning coals. Had the UP voted for this legislation, they could have won back their lost prestige and consolidated and strengthened their position vis-à-vis the threat of the PRP.

As far as the PRP is concerned, they once again showed their true colours. Their colour is pink, but if they blush, it is red. Their opposition, stripped of all technical objections, supports what the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition said in this debate, viz. that the security of South Africa is not assured in their hands. Furthermore they proved that they may not and dare not take over the role of the official Opposition. They are not merely passive; they are passively dangerous. What is more, the PRP has left the indelible impression that what they say is not their real point of view. [Interjections.] My free advice to those in the UP and the PRP who feel unhappy about the negative effect of this Bill, but feel that nevertheless their parties should have supported the Bill, is the following: Join the NP. It still supports the principle “South Africa first”, as has been demonstrated once again in this Bill.

When the Suppression of Communism Act was being discussed in this House on 20 June 1950, Mr. J. G. N. Strauss, the Leader of the official Opposition at that time, spoke of a “undemocratic Bill”. He concluded his Third Reading speech with the following words (Hansard, 20 June 1950, col. 9534)—

At that time it was Adv. Strijdom—

What really happened? The prediction of a Police State is as dead as a dodo. Today we have a free, democratic Republic blessed with voters who time and again rid themselves of an irresponsible Opposition at the ballot-box.

In conclusion: This Bill does not take away any rights or freedoms except those of the communist or the subversive who want to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. The Bill is aimed solely at the subverter of the security of the State and at no one else.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that, having listened to the hon. member for Bloemfontein East, I am very pleased to know that he is not a member of the legal profession, because if he was a member of the legal profession, he would never have made the speech that he has delivered to this House today. [Interjections.]

He is a member!

He is? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I am amazed … [Interjections.] I hear that he is in fact a member of the legal profession. [Interjections.]

Of course he is! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, words fail me at this stage! [Interjections.] There is somebody else I want to deal with. [Interjections.] I want to deal with the hon. member for Sea Point. The hon. member for Sea Point stated earlier that we on this side of the House had not done their homework properly in regard to the question of the repeal of the Riotous Assemblies and Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance for the territory of South West Africa. He said that there was a law—a law which presently existed in S.W.A.—which was identical to the act which we are now asking should apply to South West Africa … [Interjections.] … and which we approved in the Committee Stage … [Interjections.] This is what he said, Mr. Speaker. He said that there was an ordinance in existence which was the same. Now, if he had done his homework properly, he would have found—as I have done—that it is not the same. This is understandable, because, after all, that ordinance is 46 years old. The hon. member also stated that the South West Africa Assembly was entitled to repeal this ordinance itself, or to amend it as it pleased. Mr. Speaker, he has not done his homework properly. I do not think he was in this House when it was passed, but in the South West Africa Affairs Act of 1969, item 26 of the schedule, relating to matters in respect of which the administration of the affairs of the territory shall be carried on by a Minister of the Republic, says: “Matters relating to riotous assemblies and engendering feelings of hostility between the various racial groups.” Yet the hon. member maintained that the South West Africa Assembly could in fact amend its own ordinance, or change it. That is not so. The hon. member must not point a finger at somebody else when he has not done his own homework. [Interjections.] I am surprised that he, as a leader of a party, could come forward and make a proposition like that, thinking that this side of the House would not know the answers. [Interjections.]

I do not have very much time left to me, but I would like to deal with one particular shortcoming of this Bill. There are four situations in this Bill in which the executive has to come to a subjective conclusion. They all relate to a decision as to what, in fact, are activities which endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. These four are the following: First of all, the declaration of an organization; the second one is the declaration of a publication; the third, the engaging of a person in activities as a result of which he could be restricted or banned; and the fourth, the engaging of a person in activities endangering the security of the State or the maintenance of public order as a result of which he is actually imprisoned. In all these cases it is only the one decision, namely the decision connected with actual imprisonment, which shall be tested by the review committee. It is only in respect of this one decision that the question of a proclamation and a control as to time and place are included in the Bill. In other words, the purely subjective decision of the executive can be exercised at any time or anywhere in the Republic, regardless of any actual or potential state of emergency, and without being subject to any form of review at all, in respect of the first three categories.

Furthermore, the review committee, as established by this Bill, is a far cry from the procedures recommended by the UP commissioners on the Schlebusch Commission in their minority report. The review committee suggested by this Bill is to sit only after a decision has been made by the executive, whereas the judicial commission recommended by this side …

You did not hear the debate!

I did hear the debate. Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister says that I did not hear the debate. I sat in here during the entire debate.

That does not mean that you heard the debate.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the judicial commission recommended by this side was designed, first of all, to take into review all recommendations by the executive for action to be taken, that is, before the banning or the restriction or the detention took place. I just want to remind the hon. the Minister of what that minority report actually said—

That was the recommendation from this side. We also suggested and still suggest that the judicial tribunal should consist of senior legal men. I want to quote the exact words—

It is therefore understandable that we on this side of the House are not prepared to accept what we consider a sop offered by the hon. the Minister in the Bill, a sop in the form of the establishment of a review committee which will operate after a decision has been taken in respect of detentions only and whose membership will consist of any persons. Even if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to consider the extension of the powers of review by the committee to cover all the executive action under the Act which is being amended by the Bill, we call upon him for certain other assurances. It is not a question of our supporting the Bill if he does give us these assurances, because we know the hon. the Minister is not going to be there for all time. He is not going to be a Rip van Winkle and sit in this House for all time. There may be other Ministers after him. If he gives us assurances we cannot be certain that these assurances are going to be adhered to by the next Minister of Justice.

The first assurance we require is that the hon. the Minister, although it is not referred to in the Bill, will see to it that only senior legal men are appointed by the State President as members of the review committee. As I have said earlier, the decisions the executive has to take are subjective decisions. I want to emphasize that only senior legal men will even be in a position to understand the difference between making a subjective or objective decision. Secondly, the mere fact that the Government has inserted the protective clause regarding a proclamation and a restriction relating to time and place, is to my mind indicative of its appreciation of the enormity of the action to be taken by the executive when it places a man in gaol without trial. Surely, quite apart from whether the decision to be reviewed is subjective or objective, a decision of such tremendous importance should be reviewed by judicial men and not by lawmen, by men steeped in law and with the ability to judge fairly and impartially. Particularly in these times and circumstances in which South Africa finds itself, we need to retain the image throughout the world which our courts have projected in the past, the image of an impartial judicial system operating in the country. As the Government has decided to by-pass the courts, the least it can do now in that direction is to appoint a truly judicial review committee.

We should also like to ask for assurances relating to the question of advising Parliament of the decisions of the review committee. In terms of the Bill a report shall be tabled within one month after a decision has been reached if Parliament is sitting at the time and, if not, within one month after Parliament has been convened. However, what happens if a decision is made just after the prorogation of Parliament? A period of six months will then have to elapse before the decision will be tabled in Parliament. I ask the hon. the Minister to give us an assurance that in the interests of South Africa as a whole, in some way or another he will publish the result of this review committee’s investigations so that the people could be acquainted immediately of the fact that a decision had been reviewed and that a decision had been taken.

I want to repeat what my hon. friend for Umhlatuzana said earlier on, viz. that this side of the House simply cannot support this Bill and therefore asks that the Bill be read again six months hence.

Sir, we are now dealing with the Third Reading of this Bill and I want to say, with all the piety and sincerity at my command, that I believe that this Bill is necessary for the sake of the soldiers and policemen of South Africa who have been willing, and are willing, to give their lives in the defence of our borders. I believe that we owe this Bill to the mothers of those men who are prepared to fight for their country. Those people must have the assurance that, since they are willing to move into the front line, they will be able to say that if they have to be shot, at least they will be shot at from the front. It is our task and duty to ensure that when those men make a stand for South Africa, they will not be shot in the back. That is the real object of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will permit me to try to evaluate the criticism in regard to this legislation that has been levelled at me by the Opposition parties. It is my duty to give serious attention to this criticism. For that reason I have to take stock, for just a while, of the sincerity of the members, their attitude and the attitude of their parties. However, I shall not spend too much time doing that.

Firstly, I have to express my extreme disappointment at the fact that the official Opposition allowed that small party to take it in tow in this debate. [Interjections.] Those two parties opposite wasted a great deal of our time by trying to steal a march on one another and by making a political issue of this very important Bill. I should like to refer to a few examples of this, for I do not say anything without proof, and I do not want to offend the hon. gentlemen either. We allotted 25 hours for the discussion of this Bill. The hon. members of the Opposition made use of their full 12 hours, and I make so bold as to say now, that we, with everything that had to be said and everything that could have been said, could have disposed of this debate in half the time. But the debate was stretched out to this extent simply because the official Opposition and that little party wanted to tell the people that they had opposed us to the very last minute. That is why they wasted our time here in many respects with repetitions, because they wanted to steal a march on one another. Yesterday afternoon we had a beautiful example of this. Quite a number of amendments were moved. If we had been dealing with an adult Opposition, then those hon. gentlemen, when there were differences of opinion on subdivisions of clauses, would merely have asked that their objections be registered. However, the one side was afraid that the other side might ask for a division and the result was that two puppets sprang up simultaneously, and so there was a division on every minor subdivision of a clause. Do you know, Sir, that we sat here hour after hour without saying a word, while they asked for divisions to try to steal a march on one another?

Sir, let me mention another example. This afternoon the hon. member for Sea Point sprang to his feet here. He professes to be the future leader of South Africa. What did we have to experience then? He attacked the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Why? Because the party of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana had ostensibly supported previous legislation, whereas they had not supported that legislation, and then had allegedly supported the Terrorism Act, although they had not supported other legislation. I have never in all my life before come across such a ridiculous crowd. That is why I say that I am very sorry that we as a responsible Government, now have to sit and watch this unsavoury and childish dispute between those two parties. If one has to evaluate them now, I want to say that I believe the United Party is closer to us as far as this legislation is concerned than the Progressive Reform Party. Their difficulty, however, is that the left-wing members in their party are embroiled in a struggle with the right-wing members in their party. [Interjections.] I am evaluating the UP, and I am entitled to do so. As I have said, the left and the right-wing elements in that party are so busy crippling one another that the true spirit of the English-speaking voters is not being properly represented in this House. That is the difficulty. There are a host of English-speaking people outside this House whom I know just as well as those hon. members know them, and I say that the right-wingers and the left-wingers in that party are exerting such pressure on one another that the English-speaking people in South Africa are not being properly represented. I want to furnish an example of this. I went through the minority report to the best of my ability; I made a sincere attempt and I conceded to their demands and their norms, as they had set these out in that report. If they had said to me “Thank you, we appreciate your gesture, but you have misunderstood us”, then I could have asked them to move an amendment so that I could consider their real standpoint. But then, Sir, they surreptitiously began to play politics among themselves again. When I eventually made them a proper offer, i.e. their reference of this measure to a commission, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition sprang to his feet. He was afraid that I would make an attempt to sow dissension among them. He then said that he would not accept that commission at all. Sir, surely this is not sincerity. Now I have to sit and listen to such arguments and try to give proper attention to them.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana made a very fine speech today. I agree with everything he said. What did he say? He said that it has to be determined what the “interplay between the legitimate pressures and the illegitimate pressures” is. He said that when one is in office, one should act as follows: “You examine the mischief, you ascertain where the gaps in the existing law are, and then you draft more stringent laws”. He added that if it could also be referred to a commission or a Select Committee, so much the better. But then, so he said, “You must do it by executive action”. Sir, this is the position we occupy after 25 years. How many times have I not done what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana suggested? We have considered the laws, the communists engaged in subversion and their underwing activities. We plugged the gap and plugged the gap, and now I say that I have to take executive action. I am now asking the hon. member whether he is going to support me and he says “no”. Do you see, Sir; that is the problem with these people. And what does the PRP say? How should one evaluate them? They adopt an attitude which is absolutely anti-National Party and anti-United Party. But they are also an anti-South African party; that is what they are, for they are very clearly following a leftist pattern. It is true what the hon. member for Waterkloof said today; that the reason why they chalked up the letters “SS” in gothic script in Johannesburg. It is because they are following a leftist pattern. They are trying to exert pressure on us by calling us Nazis, but they are known to be leftist party. They take trips through Africa, but they have never taken up the cudgels for South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. member’s statements are being written down, and then we shall read what he has to say.

Then, Sir, they come here and say that we are impairing freedom. What freedom are we impairing? It depends on what one means by personal freedom. What do they mean by personal freedom? I think that party regards personal freedom as being licentiousness. That is the kind of freedom in which they believe. When we were discussing the question of drugs, what was the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton at the time? Her attitude was that we would be impairing a person’s personal freedom. When we were debating the question of the publications Board, their attitude again was that one could not impair the freedom of the individual. He should be able to look at any depravity in South Africa, for he is, after all, free to do so; he can do whatever he likes. The more licentious he becomes, the more freedom he has. Sir, I want to say that that is not freedom. Gerald Shaw of The Cape Times was quite right when he said that the Afrikaner knows what freedom is. In a leading article he expressed his surprise at our allegedly impairing freedom. Sir, the Afrikaner does indeed know what freedom is, but throughout his life the Afrikaner has regarded freedom as responsible freedom, in other words, freedom coupled with responsibility. One could look at all our legislation. We believe in freedom but it is freedom coupled with responsibility. It is not licentious freedom. It is not that kind of freedom which permits one to dance naked as much as one likes. When that happens, we put a stop to it and we say: “No, that is not freedom; it is licentiousness.” They are now suggesting that we are totalitarian. Sir, that is not the case. We are democratic but we believe in a vital democracy. We believe in a democracy which does not knuckle down to the communists and the subverters. We believe in a democracy which does not knuckle down in a weak-kneed way to the subverters of South Africa.

Whom are you pointing at?

I am pointing at you. What difference does it make?

Are you calling me a “sub verter”?

I was referring to subverters. If the shoe fits that hon. member, he will simply have to wear it. [Interjections.] I cannot help it if the hon. member is touchy about this, Sir. What does the hon. member say? He stands up here and tells us of the pressure which is being exerted here. In his opinion we are responsible for the pressure which occurs in respect of the social life of the Black people. That is what he said this afternoon in his speech. He did not say a word about the millions of rands which we have already spent in the various homeland areas. He has never given an account of the thousands of rands which we have invested in the social upliftment of the Black people and the Brown people. He has never given an account of how we are trying to teach them to act in a democratic way. We do not receive thanks and appreciation for that, Sir. We simply keep on hearing about the pressure. And, Sir, what should we believe from him now? The previous occasion when we said that if that little party should come into office we would be on the way to a Black majority Government, the hon. member for Yeoville leapt four inches into the air, as though someone had poked him in the ribs with a stick.

I have here the March 1974 edition of To the Point. In it the hon. member for Houghton was asked: “Would you allow the Communist Party to function again?”, and she gave a reply which indicated that although they are opposed to the Communist Party, they would nevertheless allow the party to function freely in South Africa. [Interjections.] She said—

In other words, she would allow it here as well—

In other words, one should not ban the Communist Party.

What is the date of that report?

It does not matter what the date is. The hon. member for Houghton remains the most prominent member of that party. I said the date was March 1974. [Interjections.] And I maintain that she still adheres to that standpoint. But let us go a little further. The hon. member for Houghton was also asked: “Do you think then that a change in our racial policies would remove the criticism and would extinguish hostility towards this country?” The question to her was whether she thought that by doing these things, it would eliminate criticism. Whereupon she replied as follows—

This is our policy now, according to her—

Then the following question was asked: “But is not that approval merely conditional, an interim step to ‘one man, one vote’?” in other words, on the way to a Black majority Government. Now, listen to what her reply was.

You are misinterpreting.

No, I am quoting from this publication. If the hon. member would give me a chance now, he could make another speech in this regard later. She said—

That is, a Black majority Government, the “one man, one vote” position, and she continued—

Then we, as Whites in this Parliament, are done for. And this comes from the mouth of the hon. member for Houghton. But now the hon. member comes here and asks me to attach value to his criticism, although I have now demonstrated to him here what the policy of his party is. [Interjections.]

Order!

As far as the application of this legislation is concerned, I want to express the hope that I shall never have to use these measures. This is my earnest hope, that I shall never have to use them. I do not like this kind of legislation, and the Government does not like it either, but if I do have to use this measure, when I do have to use these measures, and wherever I do have to use these measures, I shall use them. Hon. members asked against whom I want to use these measures. I stated in my Second Reading speech against whom I want to use them. We have here in South Africa a group of young Black Power members who, with the help of the Christian Institute of Beyers Naudé—a person with whom the hon. member for Houghton will again appear on a platform this afternoon—are creating a polarization. I say they are polarizing people. They are young Black Power members who are going about from one place to another. From this House I want to say this to those young Black Power members today: “You are allowing yourself to be misled.” I want to say this to those Black Power members today: “The White man is stronger than you think; you should not force the White people to a point where we have to clamp down on you.” We want to do everything in peace in South Africa, but if the Black man thinks that the White man is spineless, he is making a very grave mistake. I also want to keep an eye on the field of labour with this legislation. I believe that as far as the field of labour is concerned, we have, in view of our specific circumstances and in our specific population structure, constituted regulations and committees so that non-Whites, the Black people of South Africa, may have a fair and reasonable opportunity of negotiating their wages with their employers. I am telling you today, Sir, that Nusas’ old wages commission, and other people are organizing these Black people into trade unions, not with the object of giving them true negotiating powers, but with the object of giving them organizational powers so that at a certain point they can use strikes to proceed to a revolution. I am saying that this law will be used against that as far as communists are concerned. I am not even making an appeal today to the communists to do nothing. On the contrary. I challenge the communists to continue with what they are doing. We shall eliminate them one by one from their cells, which function in pairs. We shall break the links in that chain, one by one; we shall eliminate them, and we shall clean up South Africa. Then I want to say that what is at issue here is other people as well who, in an absolute spirit of un-South Africanism, are trying to smear, disparage and injure our country at every turn. This law can be used against them as well. I am not saying that it will be used against them, but it can be. We are not opposed to people who want to criticize us. We have already taken enough criticism, and we can take it. We are not afraid of criticism, because we can reply to it. But I shall have no sympathy for those people who deliberately go about endangering the security of South Africa and trying to bring our country to its knees. We shall clamp down on those people.

I appreciate that all the clauses of this Bill deal with administrative action. This House of Assembly, and the hon. the Prime Minister, have entrusted this legislation to my department and to me. I want to say that, as my predecessor did and as those who come after me will do, I also believe that one should act with the utmost responsibility in regard to this kind of administrative action, and that one should be very careful because one is dealing with the freedom of an individual, and because one wants to restrict a person’s freedom. Then one has to be very careful and see whether it is really necessary and whether one will achieve a real object by doing so, and ensure that one limits just so much of his freedom at a given juncture to enable one to cope with the position which one must of necessity cope with. I say that this is all that is being contemplated here. This legislation will be applied in that spirit, having regard to real, responsible freedom which I do not begrudge any individual in this country, in this House and outside. Criticism of the National Party and the Government does not concern me. But when I see behind it attempts to destroy this country, then I owe it to our soldiers, to our young men who have to go to the fronts. I owe it to them to enable mothers and fathers to sleep peacefully when their sons are serving their country on the front.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—90: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. R; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rossouw, W. J. G; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. R; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. G; Venter, A. A.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

Noes—44: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du R; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, G W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Van Coller, G A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, G J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

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

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

Bill accordingly read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will recall that some time ago, during the Second Reading debate on the Rehoboth Self-Government Bill, I related a few things about the early history of the Basters of the Rehoboth Gebiet in the territory of South West Africa.

As far as the Gebiet itself is concerned, I may say that it was surveyed and divided into farms a long time ago, and that a map in respect of every such farm is to be found in the office of the Surveyor-General at Windhoek.

In the past, several Baster owners voluntarily had their farms registered in the Deeds Office at Windhoek, and a certificate of registered title was then issued to such land owners by way of proof. I mention this fact because no landowner in the Rehoboth Gebiet has ever been required by the authorities to obtain a certificate of registered title in respect of his or her land. Nor is any importance attached to the existence or otherwise of such a certificate of registered title or of a deed of transfer when the Advisory Council of the Rehoboth Baster Community has to consider and approve transfers or mortagings of land. For the purposes of the Advisory Council, it is sufficient if land transfers approved by it—i.e. the Council—are recorded in a local register and a “plaaspapier” is issued to the owner to prove his ownership. The Baster citizens also prefer the latter method, and in the course of many years the “plaaspapier” has become a sufficient proof of ownership to them.

As a result of this custom, a situation has developed where a farm in the Rehoboth Gebiet is owned by more than one owner, according to the register of the Baster office at Rehoboth, while for the purposes of the Deeds Office at Windhoek, it is still registered in the name of the original owner. Consequently there is no doubt about the fact that in most cases, the record of the Deeds Office in Windhoek no longer reflects the true state of affairs and no longer performs the functions envisaged by the Registration of Deeds Act, 1937 (Act No. 47 of 1937), of the Republic of South Africa. In practice, the Baster Office at Rehoboth has gradually taken over these functions.

In order to combat the undesirable conditions which have developed in this way and which are constantly increasing, and in order to enable the Baster citizen who would like to obtain a loan from the Rehoboth Investment and Development Corporation to have a mortgage bond registered on his land—the registration of mortgage bonds can only take place in the Deeds Office at Windhoek—it will be necessary for the registers and records in the Deeds Office at Windhoek to be brought up to date and into line with those kept in the Baster Office at Rehoboth. For this purpose, owners of undivided shares in land in the Rehoboth Gebiet, of whom there are a great number, will be expected to have their land surveyed and registered in the Windhoek Deeds Office. The majority of land owners would not only be financially unable to do so, but would also refuse to comply with this requirement because the so-called “plaaspapier” has always been sufficient proof to them of ownership in Rehoboth itself.

As a solution to this problem, and also because the proposed legislation will enable landowners in the town of Rehoboth, and perhaps in other towns which may develop, to obtain mortgages on plots which will make it possible for them to provide more effectively in their housing needs, it has been deemed fit to institute a Deeds Registry of its own for the Rehoboth Gebiet. The existing Windhoek Deeds Office will consequently be closed as far as properties in the Rehoboth Gebiet are concerned. All deeds and documents kept by the Registrar of Deeds, Windhoek, and relating to the land in the Rehoboth Gebiet, will upon the commencement of this Act be transferred to the Rehoboth Registry.

In order to achieve these objectives, the Bill has been drafted of which the Second Reading is being proposed today. The Rehoboth Advisory Council has been consulted in this matter and welcomes legislation which will enable the Rehoboth Gebiet to have a Deeds Registry of its own. If hon. members opposite have any doubt as to whether there is sufficient support for this measure, as they had in regard to the previous legislation, I want to say, to remove all uncertainty, that at a meeting of the Advisory Council of the Rehoboth Baster Community which was held at Rehoboth on 3 November last year, the Registration of Deeds in Rehoboth Draft Bill was submitted and unanimously accepted by the board consisting of three different political parties.

Mr. Speaker, I may just mention that the Bill is based on the Registration of Deeds Act, 1937, and that it has been adapted for understandable reasons in order to meet the needs of the Rehoboth Gebiet. Consequently it contains no new principles.

Finally, I want to point out that an attempt has been made to keep the system of registration as simple and as cheap as possible. The Rehoboth community is a developed and developing community which is already making use of the mutual granting of servitudes, mortgages and notarial bonds, antenuptial contracts and so forth, and therefore the Bill has to provide for these transactions as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put the hon. the Minister’s mind at rest immediately in regard to the Official Opposition’s approach to this Bill.

I am not worried about the Official Opposition, but about the PRP.

I want to tell him that we intend supporting the Bill.

We have listened to the hon. the Minister very carefully and I must admit that, when the Bill was first tabled, this side of the House was somewhat shocked, firstly because of the fact that we had fresh in our memories the fact that the Rehoboth Self-government Bill had just been passed by the House and by the Other Place, a Bill in which the power of the registration of deeds was in fact provided for in the schedule under item No. 37. Secondly, we were shocked because we saw, at a close reading of the Bill, that the traditional function of a conveyancer was not being provided for anywhere at all in this Bill. Thirdly, we were somewhat shocked when we found that, although an attempt had been made to bring about a simple Bill, it was in fact a mixture of our own Deeds Registries Act and an attempt to simplify that Act. However, on close examination, we realized that there were possibly reasons for these rather glaring objections that we had to the Bill. After listening to the hon. the Minister, I must say that we are now reassured and prepared to support the Bill, though with certain reservations.

We have heard from the hon. the Minister that the Advisory Council of the Rehoboth people have agreed to this Bill at a meeting held, I believe, in November last year, a meeting where a unanimous decision was taken, with all parties represented. We felt that, for that reason, our first objection could fall away, that it, in point of fact, would be the function of this House at this stage, in this year, to establish a deeds registry, if the legislation, which gives self-government to the Rehoboth people, had not as yet been put into operation. The second reason why we felt that our objections had been allayed, was because we understood that the purpose of the Bill, and the speed with which it was going to be introduced, was not only relative to the fact that it was needed now, but that it was needed specifically in order to allow the people of Rehoboth to raise funds so that they could provide housing for themselves or for other people in the Rehoboth area. Our third difficulty was also allayed, because we found that, although the Deeds Registry Act which exists in this country, had been followed to a greater extent, there had been certain procedures which simplified the operation of registration of deeds, and particularly it allowed the people of Rehoboth to register deeds without the expenditure of a sum of money. Presumably the fees which the registrar of deeds of the Rehoboth Gebiet can charge will be purely nominal. This we assume.

What we did find was that, if the Deeds Registries Act of 1937, which is applicable in the Republic, was not to be made operative in the Gebiet, we felt that what should have been produced to us, should have been a truly simple Bill. This Bill which we have before us, however, is not a truly simple Bill. It is in fact quite a weird mixture of simplicity and sophistication. It makes provision for such delicate and intricate legal concepts as personal and praedial servitudes, fideicommissum, substitution of debtors and lease agreements, whereas, if it was truly a simple process of land registration, it would exclude such sophistication. If it is to be really and truly hybrid, why is it that no mention is made of such things as the registration of mineral rights, for instance? Is it not conceived that, perhaps a reason for putting all these sophistications in the Bill, is that they may be needed in the future? Is it not possible that people in the Gebiet could in future wish to register mineral rights? Why is there no mention of prospecting contracts? Why is there no mention of exchange transfers?

To us this Bill, as it stands at the moment, is, quite frankly, neither fish nor fowl, and we believe that it should be corrected as far as possible. We further believe that we should also bear in mind the fact that, once this Bill has been passed by this House, it will be the responsibility of the people of Rehoboth to take the registration of deeds further in terms of the powers granted to them under their self-government Act, for they will then be able to amend, adjust, delete and add to this particular legislation itself. We believe that fundamentally this Bill should be dealing only with one aspect of registration.

In the first instance it should provide for a reliable form of registration of land ownership and also an adequate form of registration of securities, such as mortgages. Unfortunately, we found that this is not what is provided for and that a number of other matters have been included, such as antenuptial contracts, the registration of notarial mortgage bonds, etc. However, we believe that a better approach to this Bill would have been if the hon. the Minister had adopted a principle of simplicity. I submit that, as a standard, he should have adopted a form of thinking in terms of which the Bill should be something which could, at its highest, be understood by a citizen of average education, because we know that the Bill itself makes no provision for advice to land owners as to their rights and duties in terms of the Bill itself. It does, of course, give the registrar the opportunity to prepare documents. However, it makes no provision for anybody to give advice to the people of Rehoboth in regard to their rights and obligations in terms of the Bill.

As I understand it, there are no attorneys— legal practitioners—practising in the Rehoboth area. There are none there now, and I do not believe that there will be practitioners there for a long time yet, not because the people are not capable themselves of entering the legal profession and practising the profession there, but simply because of the fact that a living in the area for an attorney would be rather small. For this reason people will not be attracted to this area to practise their profession there, particularly in view of the fact that the function of a conveyancer and of a notary, both important adjuncts to the profession of an attorney and which one cannot practise without being an attorney, are not provided for in the Bill before us at all. It may be argued, of course, that clause 5(1)(e) of the Bill provides that the registrar will prepare deeds on the payment of a prescribed fee and that he would, during the course of his function in that capacity, be able to assist persons, guide and advise them in regard to their rights and duties. However, we believe that it is a difficult task for the registrar to perform, because I shall point out later that this unfortunate gentleman has to perform a multitude of functions, because he is in fact a judge on the one hand and a jury on the next and he must decide whether his functions have been carried out correctly and whether he should reject his own deeds or not. This is a very difficult situation for such a person to find himself in.

The alternative to providing a simple Bill like the one we would have liked to have seen, would be to have provided for the Act we have in the Republic itself, Act 47 of 1937. The difficulty in this regard, of course, is the scarcity of conveyancers in the particular area. As the hon. the Minister well knows, conveyancers are provided for in our Deeds Registries Act and in fact remain obligatory in terms of this Act in regard to the preparation of documents which are submitted to the registrar of deeds. It is for these basic reasons that we will, as appears from the Order Paper, endeavour to correct what we believe to be certain shortcomings in the Committee Stage. We would have liked to make certain other suggestions and to correct the Bill itself in certain other ways, but if we took the logical step and moved amendments, they would have to be so drastic that the whole Bill itself would have to be rewritten. As I told the hon. the Minister earlier on, we understand that the Bill is needed now, and if we were to put forward far-reaching suggestions or ask that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for examination, it would be unlikely to reappear before the House before the end of the session. We therefore concede that there is a necessity for speed in the matter.

I should now like to deal shortly with the details of the Bill. In the first place we should like to deal with the name the Bill provides for the gentleman who is to be in charge of this particular deeds registry, namely “registrar”. The title “registrar of deeds” is one which has come through antiquity and is regarded very highly in legal circles. In fact, the qualifications for a registrar of deeds are laid down by our Deeds Act, which provides that “no person shall be appointed as a registrar, a deputy registrar, or assistant registrar of deeds unless he has passed the Public Service Law Examination or an examination deemed by the Public Service Commission to be equivalent thereto and has served in the administrative division of the Public Service in one or more deeds registries for a period of not less than seven years”. Therefore, quite apart from the actual provisions which provide that the registrar should have had tremendous experience as well as high qualifications as far as legal work is concerned, he is also a gentleman who is, by tradition, regarded with the highest respect.

Quite frankly, the Registrar of Deeds of this particular deeds registry will not have to have the same qualifications. I do not believe that any qualifications are laid down by the Bill. I could not find any. Therefore, almost anybody, provided that he has a working knowledge of the operation of a deeds registry, can be appointed as the registrar of deeds at Rehoboth. He will not have to deal with sophisticated procedure, but he will be bearing the name of a gentleman who is held in very high regard. I would ask the hon. the Minister to consider changing the designation of the official who, initially, will be in charge of the deeds office. One suggestion I should like to make to the hon. the Minister, although I shall not move an amendment in this regard, is that perhaps this gentleman can be designated as the “commissioner for titles”. I refrain from using the words “land titles” because I believe he might be dealing with other matters as well.

Secondly, the documentation for registration of a bond, whether it be a mortgage bond on immovable property or on movable property, should be one document, with alternate clauses. The reason why I say this is because a notarial mortgage bond will be difficult to register as there are no notaries in the area. However, a mortgage bond which binds movable property, could be registered in the deeds office and I believe that if the Bill itself is amended and one document is used for both purposes, all that will be needed would be that different sections of the document would refer to different hypothecations. If one hypothecation is not being dealt with, it can be deleted by the registrar of deeds. I say this bearing in mind, of course, that we are looking for simplification.

The Bill also deals with the registration of cessions. With all the legal implications of the registration of a cession—I am talking about the cession of a bond—we believe that this procedure can be excluded from the Bill itself, bearing in mind that there are sophistications about a cession which are sometimes difficult to appreciate by the layman, for example the rights of recourse or the lack of the right of recourse, the necessity normally to establish in a cession the validity of a cession by stating the causa, the cause or the reason why the cession is taking place and also whether it is a cession made as surety or security or a cession for value received. We believe that such an operation should not be included in the Bill, and that it should be replaced by a simple cancellation of the bond rather than a cession of the existing bond, and then the registration of a fresh bond, which would eliminate all those legal niceties and difficulties.

In regard to the registration of a general power of attorney, the hon. the Minister will have seen that we are moving an amendment to the effect that general powers of attorney should be capable of registration in the deeds office. By this we are not complicating the Bill. It is in fact a necessity and will simplify the procedure, say, for instance for a township owner or a speculator in land and property if such a person emerges in that area. Clause 5(1)(e) provides that the registrar may prepare deeds and documents. We believe this is a rather dangerous procedure which is being introduced here, because if one reads clause 4(b) one will find that the registrar who has prepared this document, is now obliged to examine the documents which he himself has prepared and may have to reject his own documents. However, I shall deal with this later. I understand the difficulties in this regard and I know this clause was included in order to help the people who have to prepare the documentation.

Clause 6 deals with the transfer of documents from the deeds office at Windhoek to the newly established registry in the Gebiet. These documents relate only to land, and we believe that antenuptial contracts and notarial documents relating to land registered in the Windhoek deeds registry, should also be transferred in this transition step to the Rehoboth registry. We believe it would give that registry an additional status straightaway. Clause 8 of the Bill refers to the obligation of the registrar to follow the sequence of transactions in respect of transfers and provides for certain exceptions. This clause follows almost word for word, the existing section in the Deeds Registry Act of the Republic. We believe the advantages of such a procedure— the following of each intermediate transfer in a sequence of transfers where ultimately only one person is to hold the actual deed—do not apply in the Gebiet and should be excluded from the Bill.

Why not?

The hon. member for Mossel Bay asks why not. I shall not go into details about my amendment now. I shall deal with it during the Committee Stage. We believe that it should be excluded because it will simplify the procedure and establish a cheap procedure, which is after all what we are seeking, provided that duty is paid for each intermediate transaction. This can be provided for. The hon. member for Mossel Bay is obviously watching me very carefully. The inclusion of clause 10(6) in the Bill is not necessary at all. As far as I know, this clause, which is almost in identical terms with the relevant section in our Deeds Registry Act, is used very rarely throughout all registries in South Africa and South West Africa. We believe this clause is redundant and we shall therefore move its deletion in the Committee Stage.

It will be accepted.

I am very glad to receive that happy news. The amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper relating to clause 13(2)(a)(iii) and (iv) is, on reading the clause, self-explanatory. It is a simplification amendment and is in line with the basic principles which I have stated earlier. I shall motivate that suggestion during the Committee Stage.

A further amendment which we propose moving deals with the necessity to join a surviving spouse with the executor in passing transfer from a joint estate when the property to be transferred forms an asset in the estate. We believe this will also simplify matters. Most conveyancers would welcome such an amendment in the existing Act. However, here it is again directed towards assisting the registrar and the executors in the Gebiet. The clause dealing with antenuptial contracts is another example of the registrar acting in a further capacity as well, namely that of a notary public. I believe this should only be a temporary measure, and it is only in terms of the circumstances existing there now that we are prepared to concede that the registrar attests the antenuptial contract, a function previously carried out only by a notary public.

Finally we wish to make it clear that although we are supporting the Bill we believe it is very much an interim measure. If it is within the power of the hon. the Minister to make a recommendation or a suggestion to the council of Rehoboth that this measure must be tested and changed as circumstances arise, we believe he should do so. We believe that the body operating in terms of the Self-Government Act, which has not yet been assented to by the State President, is the body that will finally make the decision in regard to this whole Bill. Other than that, I repeat that we are prepared to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to learn from the hon. member for East London City that the official Opposition would support this Bill. It is obvious that the conveyancers and attorneys on the other side examined the matter very thoroughly before the hon. member stated their standpoint here. This technical Bill deals with the transfer of properties, with townships, notarial bonds, antenuptial contracts, personal servitudes, leases, and so forth. It is quite true that there are a few aspects which have not been dealt with, such as prospecting contracts—as has already been mentioned—mineral rights and mineral contracts. It is true that one would like to simplify this legislation, but one certainly cannot over-simplify it. The Baster community has a certain measure of sophistication and is known to have respected rights of this kind over the years. For many years they drove to Windhoek to have certain rights protected. Consequently we must bear in mind that a certain measure of sophistication is present. A very important aspect which this House must remember is that the Advisory Council did in fact ask for this Bill. This is a very important consideration to me, because a national group which is seeking to attain national identity and independence consists of people who say that they want to have a certain territory to serve as a geographic unit in which the personal rights of ownership of the inhabitants of that territory will be protected. If one looks at this Bill in that light, it is gratifying to find that the inhabitants of Rehoboth accept private ownership and not communal ownership as their basis. Every man wants his own land, his rights must be registered, and I say with great respect for the owners of Rehoboth that it is a step in the right direction and that it augurs well for the future. When one considers the circumstances surrounding the ownership of land, one finds that it actually rests upon two legs. The first is that the land which is owned by a person must actually be delimited on the land itself. The man must know which is his piece of land. For this we have the surveyor, with his long history, a person who is very highly qualified. In fact, I do not think there is any other country whose surveyors have the same high qualifications as those in our country. When we examine clause 22 of this Bill, we find that it takes cognizance of the surveyor’s task. Once again, this is very important to the inhabitants of Rehoboth, who attach great importance to the delimitation of their properties.