Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, in order to facilitate the discussion of this motion, I just wish to make a brief statement on the standpoint which the Government has decided to adopt in regard to the proposals made by the Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation.

1. 1. The proposals of the commission in regard to the administration of security legislation has been accepted. It has accordingly been decided to establish a Ministry of Law and Order, which will have under its charge the South African Police, headed by the Commissioner of the South African Police, as at present, and a Directorate for Security Legislation, headed by a Director.
2. 2. The commission’s proposals in regard to the offences which it recommends to be substituted for offences laid down in security legislation, are accepted in principle.
3. 3. The commission’s proposals in regard to preventive security action, the detention of persons for interrogation, the detention of certain persons as State witnesses and the refusal of bail to accused persons in certain cases, are accepted in principle.
4. 4. The principle of the revision of preventive security action is accepted.
5. 5. The commission’s proposals in regard to the safeguarding of information, intimidation and the other legislation recommended by it, are also accepted in principle.
6. 6. As far as the combating of terrorism is concerned, there is an agreement between the South African Police and the South African Defence Force as determined by the Prime Minister from time to time.
7. 7. As far as the collection, evaluation and interpretation of security information are concerned, there are also procedures which have been agreed upon by the National Intelligence Service, the Security Police and Military Intelligence, as approved by the Prime Minister from time to time.
8. 8. The detail, practical implementation and final formulation of legislation arising from the acceptance of the above mentioned broad principles will be dealt with as soon as the comments of interested parties have been received in the near future.

Then, too, it is a pleasure to announce that I have recommended to the State President that the hon. the Minister of Police will be in charge of the Law and Order portfolio.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are all grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister for announcing the Government’s intention about the Rabie Commission of Inquiry and that the Government has accepted in principle a number of the recommendations of the commission, including the setting up of a Ministry of Law and Order. As I have said before: Shades of Rhodesia! We shall see, however, how the hon. the Minister of Police handles his new portfolio. [Interjections.] I shall wait to see how he handles it before I congratulate him on what is presumably promotion. [Interjections.]

Speak louder. We cannot hear you. [Interjections.]

If you keep quiet, you will hear me. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Prime Minister has mentioned that the proposal regarding new definitions of offences will be accepted. The Government will also be accepting the recommendations regarding preventive detention, etc.

In the short time at my disposal this afternoon I intend to speak only of that chapter in the Rabie Commission’s report which applies to detainees. That is chapter 10 of the report. [Interjections.] To my mind this is the most important aspect of our security legislation. I shall leave other very important aspects of our security legislation to my legal colleagues, who will deal with court proceedings, fair trial procedures, changed definitions, and so forth. I have devoted myself to the recommendations concerning detainees because, as many hon. members in the House will know, I have had 20 years of experience in dealing with legislation of this kind under successive Ministers as they have been given arbitrary powers to detain people, starting way back in 1962 with the house arrest provision and going on to the 90-day detention provision, the 180-day detention provision, the 14-day provision, until we reached the most drastic of all, which is of course section 6 of the Terrorism Act, 1967, which allows for indefinite detention without trial for purposes of interrogation, and also including its nasty little side-kick, which is the detention of State witnesses under section 12B of the Internal Security Act. My opposition goes right up to the last of these, which is the Internal Security Act of 1976, which was originally the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950, when the principle of preventive detention was also introduced.

The terms of the commission were—

I want to say at the outset that I was very disappointed indeed when I read the report, for the simple reason that it recommends the retention in principle of the major security laws which are presently on our Statute Book, and thus it puts its seal of approval on a permanent, undeclared state of emergency in South Africa. That in fact is what it is. [Interjections.] The report contains a number of quotes emanating from various commissions and committees which sat on the Northern Ireland situation, where they really do have much more of a total onslaught than anything experienced in this country and where over 1 000 people have died and where 11 000 people have been injured. However, the Rabie report fails to mention that despite the high casualty rate there have been no persons detained under emergency laws in Northern Ireland since 1975 when the last 75 detainees were released. Nor does it mention that the emergency laws have been considerably modified over the years and that they have always been supervised internationally because of Great Britain’s belonging to the European Court of Human Rights. Northern Ireland’s provisions never ever contained any statutory permission for indefinite solitary confinement, not even in the worst days of the Northern Ireland terror. It also fails to mention, as the Gardiner Committee pointed out very clearly—and the Gardiner Committee is quoted, selectively, at length in the report of the commission—that detention and tough interrogations in no way decreased terrorism in Northern Ireland; if anything it engendered sympathy for the IRA. Interestingly enough, the other day in this House the hon. the Minister of Police pointed out during the no-confidence debate that terrorism and violence in South Africa had not decreased and in fact were on the increase. He pointed out that there had been 86 incidences of terrorism over the last three years. So the point I am trying to make is that 20 years of tough security measures have no more restored law and order in South Africa than they did in Northern Ireland. I say there is a lesson to be learnt from this.

The Rabie Commission also uses the Israeli experience to bolster its case for the retention of the major emergency measures in the Republic. For the record, I want to say that there have been only four administrative arrests in Israel since 1967 and that Israel’s emergency legislation has been considerably modified by the 1978 Emergency Powers Act. In addition there was never at any time a statutory provision for indefinite solitary confinement for purposes of interrogation. During the no-confidence debate I quoted prof. Rubenstein speaking at the UCT Conference on Human Rights in 1979. I have another very apt quotation from that speech. He said—

No one in this House can, I am sure, possibly imagine that our present security situation will be anything but a permanent feature of our national life, unless there are radical changes in the socio-economic and political set-up in this country. And that the Government is not intending to do in any way.

What do you mean by “radical”?

I mean radical. Look the word up if you do not know what it means.

But you put different definitions on different words.

Has the Rabie Commission made any recommendations that will regulate, moderate or modify the measures governing our security situation? The commission, while admitting that in the long run security legislation by itself can be no guarantee of the maintenance of law and order in the country, recommends, as I have said, that in principle existing security legislation is essential for the preservation of internal security. Then it proceeds to make some recommendations to offset what it calls the “inequitable effects” of certain aspects of our security laws. The hon. the Prime Minister has mentioned some of them, those that the Government is going to accept. All to the good. I am very pleased indeed that at least those recommendations which I believe are in fact positive recommendations are going to be accepted by the Government. But unfortunately the main safeguard that the Rabie Commission proposes for detainees applies only to the preventive detention detainees—in other words, a hearing before a review board after six months of detention, and if the Minister does not accept the recommendations of the review board those recommendations are referred to the Chief Justice and he can overrule the Minister’s decision.

That is a step forward. However, as I read the report and as I read clause 29 of the draft Bill in the report—no doubt the hon. the Minister will tell me if I am wrong; I hope I am but I do not think I am—it does not apply to section 6 detainees and it does not apply to the section 12B detainees who are the witnesses in security cases. These are the very people who need those safeguards because they are the ones who are kept in solitary confinement.

As to the efficacy of review boards, I want to point out that there has always been a review board for section 10 detainees, that is, preventive detention detainees. This has been the case ever since the legislation was introduced to provide for preventive detention. I have looked up a few figures and it may be of interest to the House to know that of the 366 cases reviewed by the Review Board between 1977 and 1981, only nine resulted in release being recommended and the hon. the Minister accepted the recommendations. It is only if or when the Minister does not accept the recommendations that the Chief Justice will enter the picture. If only nine releases out of 366 cases are recommended, this is not going to prove very helpful. As I have said, even this degree of intervention by an outside authority, namely the Chief Justice, is denied section 6 detainees. What the Rabie Commission does recommend will make very little difference to the plight of these people. They will continue to be held in solitary confinement for the purposes of interrogation. After 30 days there has to be a written application from the Police before further detention can be authorized and the Minister of Law and Order can authorize such further detention. Can hon. members see that hon. Minister declining to order further detention if the Police ask him to? It makes me laugh!

Why are they detained?

You tell us.

The courts should tell us and not the hon. member for Langlaagte, or wherever he comes from. After six months …

I shall send you back where you came from.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you could keep that parrot quiet? After six months the Police have to give reasons to the Board of Review which may consider written or oral representations from the detainee (who is not permitted legal representation), and will then submit a report to the Minister. There is no judicial referral in respect of section 6 detainees. They will continue to be denied legal advice and access to the courts. They will continue to be visited only by people allowed to visit them by the Police and by people within the system. There is nothing new in the Rabie recommendation that they be visited once a fortnight by a magistrate. The present section 6(7) allows that. However, this did not help Biko. He was also visited by a magistrate. There is nothing new about visits by the inspectors, either. We have had the watchdogs, Messrs. Mouton and Van den Berg, on the go ever since the death of Biko and it may interest the House to know that they made just over 1 000 visits during the years 1979 and 1980. They received only seven complaints of which three were referred to the Attorney-General who declined to prosecute. So a fat lot of good they are! What is new, of course, is the proposal that the detainee shall be visited not less than once a fortnight by a district surgeon who, of course, is also within the system. After the disgraceful business of the behaviour of the district surgeons who attended the dying Biko, I doubt whether anybody has much confidence in district surgeons.

At this juncture, I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare who is sitting there glued to his little earpiece, what happened to the request that was made to him in June 1981 by the executive council of the South African Medical Association to arrange a meeting between the executive council of Masa and himself and the Minister of Justice so that there could be a full discussion of the physical and mental health care of section 6 detainees? Sir, they received no reply.

That is not true.

*You know too little about these things.

†Stick to the detainees, you seem to know more about that.

They are waiting for a reply from the Minister of Justice. It is true.

Have you had a meeting yet?

Of course not. To my mind the most noteworthy aspects of the Rabie Commission are the omissions.

First of all the commission was supposed to examine the “fairness” of our security laws. There has been but a passing mention on page 147 to deaths in detention, and yet there have been over 40 of these, ten under the 90-day law and the rest under section 6. How is it possible that the commission failed to find the answer to the question which was so pertinently put by Lawyers for Human Rights, viz. What makes death preferable to detention? How is it possible that the commission failed to examine the two factors that dominate the lives of detainees, viz. solitary confinement and methods of interrogation?

Apart from a few nonsensical attempts to justify the non-admission of lawyers and a few comments about detainees receiving instructions from abroad, the only reference to solitary confinement that I can find is in paragraph 10.85 on page 154, where the commission recommends that the inspector should notify the district surgeon. The inspector, however, is not a psychiatrist and he is not medically trained; yet he should notify the district surgeon if he thinks the detainee needs medical care and the Attorney-General if he suspects assault.

Why is there no mention of the dread effects of solitary confinement? The hon. the Minister of Justice told the House that he put people into solitary confinement so that they could “cool off”. In fact some go off their head in solitary confinement. Our Prisons Act recognizes in section 80 the severity of isolation as a punishment for convicted prisoners. It uses phrases like: “As often and for as long as it is urgently and absolutely necessary to secure or restrain any prisoner”. If I had the time I could quote numerous articles about solitary confinement and its effects. There is an article in the South African Law Journal of February 1966, which I recommend to the hon. the Minister and the House, about the effects of solitary confinement. It is a very interesting and learned article by Prof. Mathews and Prof. Albino of the University of Natal. There is a recently published article in the Rand Daily Mail by Prof. Chari Vorster of the Department of Psychology of the Rand Afrikaans University which, I must say, bears grim testimony of the effect which solitary confinement can have on human beings. Solitary confinement, says Prof. Vorster, is a most severe mental torture and he points out that solitary confinement can make people suicidal.

Many people, it has been alleged, have committed suicide while being held in solitary confinement under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. I hope nobody in the House is still going to stick to that ridiculous thing that the previous Minister of Justice, Prisons and Police—he was Minister of the lot, all rolled into one, and “rolled” is the operative word—used to say: “Well, of course they commit suicide; they are given their instructions by the Communist Party: ‘Rather die than betray the party’.” I asked him, and I never received an answer to the question: “If there is no torture, and you allege there is no torture, why can they not just keep quiet?” They do not have to commit suicide rather than betray the party. So either there is torture and they commit suicide not to betray the party, or it does not make sense to me.

But is it not true? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Police told the House the other day in the course of the no-confidence debate—

Within 48 hours of the hon. the Minister giving this House that assurance, a detainee was found hanged in his cell. Solitary confinement may well be part of the answer to the question of why death is preferable to detention. The Rabie Commission neither troubled to find out nor, evidently, did it investigate what might also prove to be the answer, and that is the methods of interrogation used by the security police. Surely this is basic to “fairness”.

The Rabie Commission does not seem to have concerned itself at all with that aspect of our security laws. Did it, I wonder, cross-examine any single detainee, or ex-detainee for that matter, during its two and a half years? There were plenty of people around, lots of detainees. There are 100 now, and over the last year there have always been about 70 to 100 detainees. Did the Rabie Commission bother to interrogate any single one of those detainees or ex-detainees to find out how they were being treated?

While I am on the subject of techniques of interrogation, perhaps the hon. the Minister of Police can now answer the question that I put to him during the no-confidence debate. Can he give the House a categorical assurance that inhuman and degrading methods of interrogation of detainees under section 6 are not used by the Security Police on detainees?

Yes, I can give that assurance.

I want the hon. the Minister and hon. members on the other side of the House to hear. Say that louder. [Interjections.]

Are you deaf?

The hon. the Minister did not answer the question last time. He said: “Carry on, I am listening to you”. However, this time he says “yes”. I ask this question again because the Rabie Commission neither confirms nor denies allegations of ill treatment of detainees. The commission ignores this issue despite the fact that in a number of cases in Port Elizabeth, Krugersdorp, Durban and elsewhere, evidence was given by detainees that they were beaten, kept standing for long periods, deprived of sleep, forced to do exercises over long periods, and that evidence was accepted by the courts and confessions by those detainees were excluded. I want to mention that not one of the officers concerned in those security cases was disciplined. In fact, some of them have even been promoted. The commission relied heavily on evidence given by the Security Police in making its recommendations.

If the hon. the Minister is so sure of this, I ask him to investigate a case that has come to my notice. An allegation was made to me. I do not know whether it is true or not. The hon. the Minister can verify it because he has the means to get into those prisons. The allegation reads as follows—

The man who was allegedly subjected to this inhuman and degrading treatment was Dr. Neil Aggett at John Vorster Square. I ask the hon. the Minister to investigate the truth of this allegation.

I can tell the hon. member at this stage, with the knowledge to my disposal, that that can definitely not be true. I will, however, go into the matter, but that can definitely not be true.

I am glad to have the hon. the Minister’s assurance.

What did you read from?

This comes out of jail quite clearly. It comes from another detainee. [Interjections.]

Mention his name.

Whatever the findings of the post-mortem and whatever the findings of the inquest on Dr. Neil Aggett, I want to say that it was section 6 of the Terrorism Act that killed Neil Aggett.

Order! The hon. member must please not raise that matter now.

I am finished with that. I will not go any further. [Interjections.] I am amazed that the Rabie Commission did not recommend the scrapping of section 6. It has brought nothing but sorrow and disgrace to South Africa.

Finally, I want to conclude by quoting from James Madison …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it your ruling that no discussion in the House of the case of Dr. Neil Aggett will be permitted and, if so, is it permissible that the words of the hon. member for Houghton be recorded in Hansard while no reply may be given to what she has said?

Order! The hon. the Minister is right. The case of Neil Aggett is still sub judice and will remain so until the court has passed judgment.

Sir, I want to finish with a quotation from James Madison—

I do not think I can find a more apt quotation for the Nationalist Government than that quotation from James Madison.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I should like to convey my thanks and appreciation to Judge of Appeal Rabie and the members of his commission for the comprehensive report submitted to us. I should also like to convey my thanks and appreciation to the officials who, under the guidance of Mr. Bosch, worked long and hard to get all the work done. The report bears the unmistakable mark of dedicated study, a responsible approach and a grasp of the dangers threatening South Africa, something we cannot say of the Opposition. It also attests to a grasp of the fact that the ordinary processes of law in South Africa should be continued with and tampered with as little as possible, but that there should also be effective powers wherewith to combat the dangers in the greater interests of South Africa.

Reference has been made to the case of Dr. Aggett, but I take it I shall be forbidden to make any reference to that. [Interjections.]

Today I should like to make a few remarks about the speech by the hon. member for Houghton. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton referred to Northern Ireland and said that there was a far greater onslaught there. She said that more than a thousand people had died there in recent times but she said that they did not have such legislation. She asks why we require it. But is the legislation we have on the Statute Book not the very reason why there has been so little bloodshed in South Africa up to now? [Interjections.] Is it not also, perhaps, true that if we had not had this legislation, and if Umkhonto we Sizwe and the ANC were able to do as they liked in 1963, there would be far more bloodshed in the streets of South Africa than is in fact the case? Does the argument not in fact go to prove precisely the opposite of what she has been trying to prove all along? [Interjections.] We on this side of the House reject her argument in that regard. The peace and quiet that we enjoy in South Africa is largely thanks to the actions of the S.A. Police in terms of the laws of the land. [Interjections.]

Some of us have been concerned over a period of many years with laws, the administration of justice and the courts, and when we consider the security legislation of the Republic and the recommendations of the Rabie Commission, if we permit ourselves the luxury of judging it in a vacuum, in other words, totally detached from the threat to South Africa, we should not be able to find the recommendations acceptable. The acceptability of the existing security legislation and the recommendations of the Rabie Commission are intimately bound up with the reality of the threat facing South Africa. It is just here that we and the official Opposition part company. The hon. member for Houghton, who is the chief spokesman on that side of the House, did not give a moment’s attention to the threat facing South Africa. Interjections. We on this side of the House do not regard the security legislation as a sacred cow, nor do we regard it as an unassailable part of our legal structure. We do not regard it as the embodiment of long-established principles and age-old traditions either. The security legislationis a set of rules which finds its sole and exclusive justification in the fact that it is essential for the State to defend itself effectively and efficiently against all internal and external forces which seek unlawfully and violently to overthrow the existing order in South Africa. Therefore, before we can argue about the details of the legislation, we must ask today, and this is the point about which we must argue with the Opposition, and they with us— we challenge them to that debate—whether there is an onslaught on South Africa or not. If there is, then the second question is whether the onslaught is such that the proposed legislation is essential in the interests of all the people of South Africa and the maintenance of law and order. We say that the only justification for the legislation is the need to counter a threat. The task of the Rabie Commission was to express an opinion on the necessity for this and that is what it did.

I think that the PFP must answer a few questions today in this regard. If we are clear on this, then we can discuss the details of the legislation. The question is whether the PFP are prepared to express an opinion on the need for any security legislation whatsoever. If the PFP were to express an opinion on the danger facing South Africa, they would be obliged to adopt a standpoint concerning the necessity for legislation, but they do not wish to do so. In the no-confidence debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said (Hansard, Vol. 1, col. 421)—

We say “well and good”. We do not want to argue with him about that. However, is the ANC not more than that? Is that where it ends?

We want to know from the PFP today whether the PFP accept the factual findings of the Rabie Commission with regard to the ANC and its aims. Does the PFP accept that the ANC co-operates closely with the S.A. Communist Party? Does the PFP accept that there is the closest co-operation between them on a regular basis? Does the PFP accept that the equipment, funds and expert information of Umkhonto we Sizwe are obtained from the Soviet Union and other communist countries? Does the PFP accept that Umkhonto we Sizwe is the military wing of the ANC with a definite directive? Does the PFP accept that the ANC is a foreign organization with representatives in 32 different countries, as the Rabie Commission found? Does the PFP accept that ANC terrorists are trained to commit sabotage, murder and arson in South Africa? We challenge the Opposition to tell us whether they accept as the truth what was said by the leader of the ANC. Mr. Oliver Tambo. Mr. Tambo said that a “people’s war” had already begun. In the March 1981 edition of their little newspaper Sechaba, Mr. Oliver Tembo refers to the events at Booysens, Silverton and Sasol as “glorious forerunners of the people’s war that has already started”. Does the PFP accept that it is the standpoint of the ANC that a “people’s war” has already begun in South Africa? Does the PFP accept today that it was the ANC that was responsible for the bomb attack on Sasol, for the attacks on Booysens police station and other police stations, for the bank siege at Silverton and for the explosion in Pretoria a few weeks ago which caused half of Pretoria to be without light for a while? We want to know whether the PFP accepts that. Once we know whether they accept that, then surely we can argue with one another as to how we are to deal with the danger. However, if we do not know whether they accept that, we cannot argue with them as to what is the best way of dealing with the dangers. [Interjections.]

The Opposition keeps insisting that people be brought before the courts. In the case of the State vs. Moumbaris and others, 1974 (1. S.A. 618) a judge of the Transvaal Supreme Court ruled as follows—

After evidence had been submitted before him, and witnesses cross-questioned, a South African judge found that the ANC people are mobilizing “to overthrow the existing social and economic order with plans for strategic violence which includes guerrilla warfare”. Does the Opposition accept that? If they do not tell us whether they accept it, we cannot argue about the various methods we propose to deal with the danger. Does the Opposition accept that the ANC launches regular campaigns to recruit young Black people for military training? Does the PFP accept that the ANC has 1 600 armed people, as alleged by the Rabie Commission? Does the PFP accept that the ANC has arms cachés in South Africa and that such places are found from time to time by the S.A. Police? Are they prepared to accept that those arms were intended to commit murder and violence and to shed blood in South Africa?

I refer to page 84 of the report of the Rabie Commission which states the following about the future in paragraph 7.12—

Does the PFP accept the finding of the Rabie Commission that the activities of the ANC will increase in intensity in the years that lie ahead? Do they accept that? [Interjections.] Because, if they are prepared to accept that, if they were to tell us today that they accept that the judge of appeal was correct with regard to the threat South Africa faces, then I invite them to discuss measures whereby to counter that danger. However, we cannot discuss measures to counter the danger if we are unable to achieve a degree of agreement as to the danger that exists. How, Sir, can we discuss the matter with one another under such circumstances?

Dalling says there is no danger.

Perhaps Dalling himself is the danger.

Since the Rabie Commission finds that the ordinary laws and legal procedures are inadequate to deal with the danger, in what respect can we differ with them? But the Opposition does not want to enter into debate with the Government with regard to this matter. Indeed, they cannot afford to enter into debate with the Government in this regard because they know that if they were to have an openhearted and objective debate on this question with the Government, they would have have to accept that the Government was right. And if one accepts that the Government is right, then, as a responsible citizen, one has to accept that there have to be measures to counter that danger.

Hitler said so too. [Interjections.]

However, we find that over the years the PFP have denied the threat to South Africa. The threat to South Africa is disparaged. Again this afternoon we heard how the threat was ignored. Simple logic demands that the PFP must close its ears to the dangers facing South Africa and it is for that reason that they cannot argue with us with regard to this matter.

During the no-confidence debate the Leader of the Opposition expressed an opinion on security legislation. He said inter alia (Hansard, 1 February 1982, col. 23)—

Later he goes on to say—

Here we have the Leader of the official Opposition saying that security legislation is being used to suppress differences of opinion in South Africa. If that is so—even if that had to be so—it would mean that the hon. the Minister who is entrusted with this task, and the S.A. Police, must be guilty of flagrant abuse of power. [Interjections.] If that is so, then surely it is the duty of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to submit evidence to the Rabie Commission and to tell that commission that this legislation cannot be proceeded with because it is being abused in order to suppress differences of opinion in South Africa. Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition give evidence before the Rabie Commission?

Of course not.

No, he did not give evidence before the Rabie Commission. After all, he knows that he does not have a leg to stand on. He cannot appear before a judge and speak such a lot of nonsense. The standpoint of the official Opposition in this connection is, without the slightest doubt, nothing but cheap politics. [Interjections.] It is cheap politics, and nothing more. [Interjections.]

We should take the logic of the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition somewhat further. If it is true, as he tells us, that the security legislation of South Africa is totally objectionable—and that is the standpoint expressed time and again by hon. members of the PFP—then surely it follows logically … [Interjections.] There has been no defence of the security legislation in South Africa by the PFP. They have condemned the security legislation, with all the special rules it involves as stated in the Statute Book. He has never had a good word for it. The standpoint of the hon. Leader of the official Opposition is that the ordinary common law rules are adequate to counteract the existing security threat in South Africa. He also maintains that our courts are equipped to do the necessary in this connection. That is the official standpoint of the PFP. However, the ANC is banned in terms of our security legislation. Now the important question we must ask is whether the official Opposition, with the knowledge at its disposal today, is in favour of the banning of the ANC. [Interjections.]

I challenge hon. members of the PFP to tell us whether, in view of the knowledge at their disposal today, they are in favour of the banning of the ANC or not. [Interjections.] The ANC is a banned organization. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, are the hon. members of the PFP in favour of security legislation? If they are in favour of this ban on the ANC, then surely it makes nonsense of their standpoint that the ordinary legal procedures in South Africa are sufficient to deal with the onslaught on the security of the country. [Interjections.] If they are not in favour of that, then they must tell us. Then South Africa will know where it stands with the PFP. I challenge the PFP to tell us whether they are in favour of the existing ban on the ANC or not. [Interjections.] Only when we have an answer to this question will it be possible for us to hold a proper and meaningful debate. [Interjections.]

Order!

Finally, I just wish to say this. It is very clear that there is a kind of division in the ranks of the PFP, an inability to act in terms of the highest interests of South Africa. It is also clear that there is considerable justification for the public of South Africa not being able to trust the PFP with our future and that of our children. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, let me say right at the outset that the NRP is committed to the rule of law and this means in principle that we are opposed to detention without trial. In considering the report before this House today we on these benches want to make it absolutely clear that we see the report in two main sections. Firstly, there is the finding of the Commission as to the necessity for security legislation, with which we agree. South Africa is in fact engaged in a form of undeclared war. Secondly, there are the recommendations as to the adequacy, efficiency and fairness of the existing legislation, in regard to which we have several differences of opinions and approach. Overall, we in the NRP consider that the enactment of legislation resulting from this judicial inquiry can have such extremely far-reaching and serious effects on our troubled society that we dare not err in our decisions. We dare not miss this opportunity to adopt a far more sensitive and compassionate approach in our handling of matters such as detention without trial and the inroads that have been made upon the rule of law by the use of such measures, with all the accompanying negative, counter-productive emotion, suspicion and doubt that prevail in the nation’s mind and heart. These are the two essentials—the hearts and minds of our people—that we must win in order to survive.

We are deeply concerned as to the manner in which the Government will see fit to deal with the recommendations of this commission as such action will go a long way towards deciding whether or not South Africa can inculcate into all her people the national will we so desperately need to see us through the perilous days ahead. They are perilous indeed. We in this party have absolutely no reservations whatsoever in acknowledging the immensity of the onslaught against South Africa and the proportional struggle that we must prepare for. Here I must apologize to the hon. member for Pretoria Central. I did not mean to follow on some part of his speech and this is in fact what I should like to do now.

What I have just said must be clearly understood because it is more than significant that yesterday’s debate in this House returned time and again to the definition of the threat that South Africa faces. There was a searching for an understanding between the parties, between their differing versions and ideas of this threat and the vital role of the media in this struggle for survival. And survival is what it is. The Government is sold on the concept of a total onslaught against which it as yet offered no total strategy except in paying lip-service to reform at this stage. On the other hand the official Opposition acknowledges an onslaught, but it is reluctant to acknowledge the totality of its political, military, economic and psychological character. As a result the very term has become hackneyed and the meaning discredited. It is absolutely vital that we agree upon the threat even if we disagree upon the measures to counter it. If we do not do this we shall be nothing but a nation in disarray.

In order to bring reality to our minds about the onslaught, or whatever one likes it to be called, as a starting point for our discussion on the report of this commission, I should like to quote the following from “A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics.” It reads as follows—

In this work several remarkable instructions are given concerning the breakdown of a people. It maintains—

I would say that that is something that should be particularly noted in regard to our own position in the world. The synthesis goes on to say—

Sir, let us agree for the sake of our country and all of its people—as a very minimum— as a starting-point. We dare not gloss over this because it is basic to the course we follow hereafter. What form of onslaught do we face? I submit that the quotation just made is an accurate and comprehensive declaration of intent by our enemies, whatever the inadequacies of our society may be.

The recommendations of the commission are based solely on the premise that there is no doubt as to the necessity for security legislation in view of the fact that terrorism and sabotage planned by organizations whose aim is the overthrow by violence of the existing order, supported by communist countries, will increase. To sum up our attitude by the situation I can do no better than to quote the words of Mr. Chief Justice Innes, as follows—

There is another quotation here, Sir, which is very apt in the circumstances. I am referring to what was said by ex-Appeal Court Judge Schreiner, namely—

Here, Sir, is the nation’s dilemma. It is a well-known fact that security legislation is not a solution but rather that it marks a state in the affairs of our society that we must urgently repair, and our all-pervading concern should be to return the situation to the rule of law or as near to the rule of law as possible at every opportunity. The Government’s continual preoccupation with this matter should encompass this thought, relentlessly pursuing the quest of bringing the country back to normal and only applying the security legislation as a last resort. When the enemy forces us to give up our standards, he scores a victory, he wounds our society and we become enmeshed in actions, foreign to our society and its people, from which they recoil with repugnance. There can be no greater example than the South African reaction to deaths in detention.

Having acknowledged the necessity for security legislation, surely we should bear in mind that the remaining area of concern is how that legislation is exercised. It is in this regard that we feel that the Government’s record is a dismal one. How could we achieve or expect to achieve any improvement without in-depth discussion on and searching analysis of the reasons for so many deaths in detention over 20 years? Sixteen of those were reported to have committed suicide by hanging themselves; two others committed suicide by their own hands; six were reported to have fallen to their deaths; and 12 were found by magistrates to have died from natural causes while no details were given in the case of seven detainees. The sorry truth is that no one believes these to be the true facts.

Here is a serious omission; the very matter on which the nation seeks reassurance is left untouched. The commission’s own comment that iniquities exist in respect of the detention of persons under the present legislation, supports this. There is sufficient evidence available for the public to realize that doctors, magistrates, police and prison personnel have all been compromised by death in detention. Solitary confinement is in fact an acute form of mental torture.

The resultant loss of public faith in the administration of justice cannot be allowed to continue. The question is, what are we going to do about it? Do the recommendations of the commission have any hope of improving the situation? While we acknowledge that many of these recommendations, including the entire restructuring of the legislation, are a definite improvement, we are of the opinion that the very absence of justice being seen to be done can only be eliminated by boards of review being afforded the highest possible status. This party consideres that it is vital that the status of boards of review be beyond question, and it is firmly committed to a judicial tribunal as being the only suitable body—to be seen by the public—as replacing or hoping to replace the rule of law. We cannot agree to the recommended membership of the boards of review. For every swift, efficient action to ensure the safety of the State, the Government has a solemn duty to be acting—and must be seen to be acting—as compassionately and judicially as possible, employing measures for supervising and controlling those who have extraordinary powers which they can exercise in secret with no accountability to anyone.

Apart from believing that urgent review should be undertaken by a full judicial tribunal, this party considers that the initial period of detention of 30 days should be reduced to 14 days. We also believe that a further period of detention authorized by the Minister of Law and Order should be reduced to 30 days before review and, that during such periods of detention, a detainee shall not less than once a week be visited in private by a magistrate and not less than once a week by a district surgeon. A detainee shall also have the right to insist on a private doctor to accompany the district surgeon. Further this party recommends that a person whose case is being reviewed should be allowed the assistance of a legal representative at the proceedings.

We take note of the commission’s finding that in the long run—I believe all in this House agree with this—security legislation alone can be no guarantee of the maintenance of law and order in our country. Finally, this party has always stated its belief that the bringing about of a just society is the only way to a peaceful future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to react briefly to what the hon. member for King William’s Town said. As regards the necessity for security legislation, I cannot differ with the hon. member to any great extent. I do not think this is the time or the place to discuss the control measures to be taken in respect of security legislation. There will be time for that later.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Pretoria Central said and also express my appreciation for the quality of the report. As a former academic I have great appreciation for the way in which the Rabie Commission compiled its report, for the careful way in which they reasoned matters out and for the way in which they avoiced wild inferences and arrived at well-considered deductions and conclusions throughout. This is a very important subject and we are privileged to have a report of this quality at our disposal.

Hear, hear!

A well-known researcher in the field of political science, Dr. Austin Ranney, summed up the dilemma facing us in his book The Governing of Men, as follows—

This means that in every society a balance must be struck with regard to the extent to which the freedom of individuals may be restricted in order to ensure the security of society as such. In this connection the Rabie Commission viewed the matter correctly, namely that one must consider every society and its particular circumstances to ascertain at what particular level of that society security legislation has to be established, legislation that will of necessity curtail the freedom of individuals in order to provide the members of that society with the necessary security.

Most certainly, too, one must take into account the nature of the threat against South Africa, and I feel the Rabie Commission has done this in an excellent way. There are a few findings of the Rabie Commission I should like to elaborate on. I am doing this because I myself have been making an in-depth study of this subject over quite a number of years. On the one hand I can testify that my conclusions are in exact conformity with those of the Rabie Commission in virtually all cases. On the other hand, there are a few points I want to amplify. One finds a chain of activity beginning with apparently innocent protests or strikes and eventually leading to hard-core communistic subversion. There is a connection and I should like to illustrate it. The Communist Party has its stated objective, viz. the eventual establishment of a communistic society here. It is well-known that the communistic philosophy foresees two revolutions, a so-called democratic revolution, in which the suppressor is overthrown, followed by a socialistic revolution. As far as the democratic revolution is concerned, they are free to collaborate with anyone, and in that connection they collaborate with the ANC, which in its turn has its own objective, which basically amounts to a democratic nationalistic revolution, or so it is called, so it appears to be.

One need only consider the degree of similarity between the ANC and the Communist Party which is clearly spelt out on pages 57 and 58 of the report. If one considers this, one finds that the ANC has been infiltrated by members of the Communist Party, and not merely members at any level, but in fact members who occupy positions of leadership in both the Communist Party and the ANC. If one considers the Communist Party’s own explanation of this involvement, one finds that it is said that the two revolutions must not be seen as two completely separate events. There is the concept of the so-called “continuing revolution”. The one revolution must flow from the other, as happened in Russia. The revolution ostensibly begins as a democratic revolution, but ends as a communistic revolution, and the way in which they can accomplish this is by ensuring that they infiltrate the so-called democratic organizations, so that when those organizations begin their revolution, the communists can simply step in and take control. In this way there is actually no difference between the ANC and the South African Communist Party.

However, this goes even further in the sense that the ANC has a certain connection with the Black Consciousness movement. Prior to 1976 this connection was not very clear. One could find traces of it, but it was not at all clear. After 1976 this connection became very clear, however, in the sense that the ANC increasingly held itself out to be the godfather of the Black Consciousness movement, and in such a way that the ANC was able to associate itself with the aims of the Black Consciousness movement. The report sets out on page 70 how the Black Consciousness movement concentrates mainly on causing dissatisfaction by exploiting grievances among members of the population at any level—whatever the nature of those grievances may be. Nengwekhulu, the spokesman of the Black Consciousness movement, consequently states that if those people eventually feel that they must resort to violence, they are welcome to join the ANC. But the point is that the method which the Black Consciousness movement adopts, namely to stimulate grievances or cause unhappiness, is something else the ANC can associate itself with, because the dissatisfied person in the ranks of the Black Consciousness movement need not know at that stage that under the ANC it is going to lead to a nationalistic revolution or to a com munistic revolution under the Communist Party. With such grievances it is easy to use other organizations and other individuals as well, who have nothing to do with revolution, because it is so easy to evoke a response from those people who would like to champion the cause of the underprivileged or oppressed. In that way protests led by non-communistic, ostensibly innocent organizations, are eventually used by the Black Consciousness movement, the ANC and the Communist Party to create the climate in which to achieve their ultimate goal. For this reason it is quite clear that this onslaught on South Africa is not only in the political sphere, but in all spheres. The onslaught is also being made through the South African Congress of Trade Unions, which is another partner in this so-called alliance for liberation. We also find this in the sphere of trade unionism, about which we shall hear a great deal more in the near future. The right climate is being created there as well. Trade unions are being infiltrated in order to recruit people for eventual action in accordance with the aims of the ANC.

I now want to dwell for a moment on the reasons why it is necessary under these circumstances to retain specific security legislation. Let me put this another way. Democracy is a subtle game, a game that must be played strictly according to set rules. If anyone breaks the rules of the game, the game cannot continue in that form. Let me put it like this: If two teams run on to a field to play rugby, the game can only continue if they all play by the rules. This is what we call the rule of law. However, if some of the players refuse to obey the rules of the game, if they run on to the field carrying knuckledusters or knives in their socks, one can no longer play according to the original rules of the game. [Interjections.] If one wants an example of how the rules are being broken, one need only look at page 64 of the Rabie Commission report where it is pointed out that if anyone dares to give evidence in court, his life is in danger. According to those rules one cannot play a democratic game. These are not the Queensberry rules. Then one must have other rules. Then one must introduce the rule that knuckle-dusters are not allowed and that if someone brings knuckle-dusters on to the field, certain things will happen to him. [Interjections.]

I want to advocate to the Minister that the control measures proposed in accordance with the report, should be as strong as possible within the limits of the situation in which we find ourselves, because incidents placing the police under suspicion place the police and the entire system under suspicion. For this reason we must make the control measures as strong as possible, so as to protect our security instrument and through it our society.

In conclusion I want to return to a point made by the hon. member for Houghton in connection with the suicide of various detainees at various times. On page 58 of the report the commission quotes the instruction given to members of the Communist Party: “Rather commit suicide than betray the organization.” This is nothing new. The hon. member for Houghton says that if we would simply allow those people to remain silent, they need not commit suicide. She is implying therefore that if those people need not betray their own people, they need not commit suicide. What this actually means is that the hon. member for Houghton is admitting that the people committing suicide, have information that will betray their people. They are therefore the enemies of South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. member says we should allow them to remain silent, but we cannot fight this onslaught in this way.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Helderkruin gave a very academic speech here today. This is not the first time I have heard him propound his theories. I was subjected to that for eight days in a trial in Pretoria. I do not want to be unduly unkind to that hon. member, but I just want to remind him of what the Judge-President of the Tansvaal Provincial Division said about his theories. He rejected them out of hand. They were rejected and found to be untenable by the court; so I do not want to say any more about that hon. member’s speech.

I now wish to deal with the hon. member for Pretoria Central, who posed what he considered no doubt to be awkward questions, and in the course of his speech tried to throw some sort of unsavoury light upon this party. I intend answering that hon. member. He asked a number of times whether we in the PFP believe that there is an onslaught against South Africa. Our leader has already said we accept that there is an onslaught against South Africa. I want, however, to go further and say that the greatest ally of the onslaught is the Government itself. [Interjections.] A question which the hon. member did not actually pose is whether there is a total onslaught. If I am asked that question I will ask: What is meant by “total”? If the question includes the United States of America, Canada, New Zealand or Great Britain as part of that onslaught, I would say “no”. In that respect the onslaught is not total at all. The conditions that this Government create in South Africa are favourable to the total onslaught. They actually feed and nurture that onslaught.

Let me answer the hon. member’s next question. He asked whether we accept that the ANC stands for violent change. That displays gross ignorance on the part of the hon. member for Pretoria Central. Let us just put him in the picture as to what the facts are. In 1961, in the case of the State vs. Adams, the present Chief Justice, Rumpff and judges Kennedy and Bekker found as a fact in their judgment that the ANC had stood for peaceful change until it was banned. It was found as a fact by three judges in that special treason trial court. They found that when the ANC was banned, it changed its tactics to the pursuance of violent change in South Africa. That is the tragedy. The ANC was a body which, in fact, not only stood for peaceful change; it was a multiracial body and that is why the PAC broke away from it. The PAC was not in favour of White and Blacks together in one body.

Will you allow the ANC to operate in South Africa?

Because the Government had no thought, and still does not have any thought, of any kind of accommodation for Black people in South Africa, that is the kind of activity the ANC now follows, the activity of violent change, because they despair of any possibility of peaceful change in this country.

The hon. member further asked whether we agree that the ANC’s military activities will increase in the years ahead. He thundered it out as though it were some awkward question. My answer is that of course it will continue; it will increase.

Of course!

Of course it will continue and increase while this Government is in power. If you are not prepared to give the Black people any kind of political participation, you ensure the continuation of the ANC’s activities of violence. [Interjections.] In fact, it is a miracle to me that we still have people in South Africa like Chief Gatsha Buthelezi who do not believe in violent change.

Are you implying that the aims of the ANC are justified?

Can the hon. member not understand that the reality of life is not a question of whether a thing is justified or not. The reality is that it happens. When you do that to people, it happens. It is not for me to justify the ANC or to say they are justified. The problem that we in this House are facing is to meet what we find is the reality in South Africa. That is the problem with that side of the House. They pose little riddles like: Is it justified? We in South Africa, we as a Parliament here, have to deal with the realities of what we find. We have to try to deal with those realities as best we can. Nobody in this House favours violent change. I simply cannot imagine that to be the case. Violent change is the worst possible thing that can happen to us. I have said before in this House that I have five sons. I do not want any one of them to have to go to the border because of the policies of this Government. They have to do it, however. I am here to change that policy. [Interjections.]

Let me speak now about the Rabie Commission report. The Rabie Commission deals with security legislation in its report, and that gives rise, of course, to another question asked by the hon. member for Pretoria Central. Of course, security legislation is a sine qua non of a State’s existence. Without security legislation a State cannot cope with troubles in times of change or disturbance. By definition security legislation must give greater powers to the executive in respect of the security of the State. When the Rabie Commission then states that there is a need for security legislation we have no quarrel with that. In fact, when the Rabie Commission addresses itself to redefinitions of the crimes against the State it performs a useful function. Some of the changes are good, and with some of them we disagree.

Firstly, allow me to say that where the Rabie Commission redefines terrorism in terms which are now acceptable, I favour the change. The old definition was so ridiculously wide that the Appellate Division, in the case of the State vs. ffrench-Beytagh had to put words into the definition which did not exist because Chief Justice Ogilvie Thompson, in his judgment, said that although the law did not state explicitly that the acts had to be terroristic in nature, the court had to find that. Therefore the Rabie Commission is merely putting right what was an absolutely hopeless position before. Fortunately, as I say, the Rabie Commission suggests that violence should be an essential element of terrorist activities, which is quite clearly obvious. Then it also creates subversion as an offence, which is more or less the same offence that we find in the old definition of “participation in terroristic activities”. I think it is expressed too widely. Anyway, this is not the time to discuss that now. The Rabie Commission also improves slightly the definition of sabotage, and then also creates the new statutory crime of failing to report the whereabouts of a statutory offender. That is a new concept introduced into our legislation. It only exists in our legislation in the case of treason; the common law crime of treason. It has now been brought into a statutory offence. I do not think that bringing in that crime is going to create loyalty in the millions of South Africans who see the law as oppressive and not as a protection of their rights. Therefore I think that the creation of that crime is merely going to be counter-productive and will create resistance. I am against it.

Furthermore the Rabie Commission suggests the elimination of compulsory minimum prison sentences. Of course we welcome that. It also suggests the restoration of the court’s right to treat juveniles as juveniles. We welcome that too. Then there is also a suggested reduction in the quantum of proof required from an accused person in rebutting the presumptions against him. Instead of the old proof beyond reasonable doubt it now merely reverts to a balance of probabilities. We welcome that as well. The old test was quite ridiculous anyway. How one can prove a negative beyond reasonable doubt is beyond me, and also beyond our courts, I believe.

The Rabie Commission’s suggested restoration of the res iudicata principle is also a suggestion consistent with sanity. It is inconsistent, however, with the kind of persecution which exists in our legislation at the moment. When the Rabie Commission, however, suggests the abolition of section 335 of the Criminal Procedure Act in respect of accused people, we submit that that is a very bad suggestion. In terms of section 335 of the said Act an accused person is entitled to any written statement he has made while he has been held for interrogation, and the purpose of this suggestion by the Rabie Commission is to overturn the judgment of the Judge-President of Natal in the case of the State vs. Hassan, 1971, in which case the Natal Judge President held that an accused was of course entitled to a written statement made by him in detention, in preparation of his defence.

Having dealt now with some of the, what I shall call, peripheral changes suggested by the Rabie Commission, I should like to deal also with matters which are not peripheral. In matters of real substance—and here I want to cross swords with the hon. member for Pretoria Central and with the hon. member for Helderkruin, who spoke about the “fullness” of this commission’s report—and in matters in which it really ought to have acted, the commission entirely failed to grasp the nettle at all. In the sphere of the draconian powers given to the executive over individuals, powers such as detention without trial, restrictions on human beings, solitary confinement for interrogation, and other similar spheres, the judiciary is the only institution standing between the individual and the State. The judiciary, however, was entirely excluded by the Rabie Commission. It does not help to say that they are going to have boards of review after six months or the Minister after 30 days. They are substitutes for the Judiciary and they are wholly inadequate and unsatisfactory substitutes. It does not help to recommend that the board of review be headed by a judge, by a regional magistrate or by a person with a LL.B. Injustice will not have been eliminated nor will control by the judiciary have been restored one iota. It does not help if one has 200 fine definitions and then one which says “Notwithstanding all those definitions, notwithstanding all the crimes defined the police may imprison any person indefinitely subject only to boards of review and the judiciary is entirely excluded.” The real iniquity of the security legislation is the power to imprison and to restrict without any recourse to law or to lawyers. That is what the commission ought to have applied its mind to. That is the core of the matter. Incidentally, on this point, I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Where is the report of the Association of Law Societies? Why is that banned? Is it subversive? Why is it censored? How long has the hon. the Minister had it? It is well over a year, maybe even two years. Is it dangerous for the public to see what the lawyers of South Africa have said, or does it in fact deal with the core of the matter, i.e. detention without judicial control, which the Rabie Commission has not dealt with? That is what is so disastrous for South Africa. That is what ought to have been the real area of concern of the Rabie Commission. People have lost their lives in detention, people who were not terrorists by any stretch of the imagination. And why? If they committed suicide it is not a mitigating factor. That is a damning feature. I shall tell hon. members why it happened. It happened because the judiciary and lawyers are entirely excluded from the operation of these vicious laws, the detention laws. And why are the judges excluded? Does the Government not trust our judges? Does the Government trust our magistrates but not our judges? Why are the judges excluded from access to the detainees? I do not want to hear any more rubbish like what was said in this House in 1967 when we were told that judges could not go and see detainees because the detainees would all be in the bush where there are no judges. That is recorded; it stands in Hansard. But nearly all detainees are held in the cities and judges could easily see them, so why are they excluded now? That is what I should like to know from the hon. the Minister. I also ask: What use is a District Surgeon? I spoke to an ex-detainee last week and he told me that a man came to his door in detention and asked him how he was. He, the detainee, then enquired from a police officer later who that man was and he was told it was a District Surgeon.

Finally, I should just like to say that this kind of legislation creates a hatred for this regime. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am warning him that there is a bitterness and a hatred towards this regime in South Africa. These are not my words but the words of the hon. the Prime Minister when he was speaking at the 21st anniversary of the Africa Institute. This bitterness and hatred are very dangerous in South Africa, more dangerous than anywhere else in the world. Again, this is not me speaking; it is Dr. Wimpie de Klerk in Rapport of 29 November 1981. I am warning this regime that unless in the detention of people judicial control is reinstated, unless lawyers are allowed access and unless this regime puts its house in order in regard to detention without trial, it is digging a grave for itself.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinetown made a great fuss here this afternoon about being an expert on the total onslaught against South Africa. He said that the Government’s policy was responsible for the total onslaught. Now I want to ask the hon. member: What is happening in South West Africa at the moment? The policy of this Government no longer applies in South West Africa. They already have “one man, one vote” in South West Africa. And has the onslaught against those people, against their security and property stopped now? No, it has not stopped. The onslaught against South Africa and against the democracy that exists here, will stop only when the communist tyrants govern this country. Only then will it stop. Only then will they be satisfied. The hon. member for Pinetown went further and alleged that the ANC was a peaceful organization until it was banned. The hon. member forces me to conclude that he would like to have the ANC legalized and allowed in South Africa again. This also links up with and explains the opposition of the hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. member for Houghton with regard to security legislation. We have it on record in this House that the hon. member for Pinetown is in favour of extra-parliamentary action being used in South Africa. We also have it on record that the hon. member for Houghton— and this is evidence that may be admitted— wants the Communist Party to be permitted in South Africa again. After all, we have that evidence. Surely the security legislation that we have in South Africa, is aimed at curtailing extra-parliamentary action as well as action by the South African Communist Party. Therefore, when these two hon. members express their opposition to security legislation, we must judge it in the light of the fact that they would like extra-parliamentary action on the part of the enemies of South Africa to be permitted in South Africa. The hon. member for Houghton would like the Communist Party, against which our security legislation is aimed, to be legalized in South Africa. The hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pinetown will not move away from that because they want people to take extra-parliamentary action and they want the Communist Party to be legalized in South Africa. They know that the security legislation that we have on the Statute Book in South Africa will be used against these people. That is why they are so concerned.

The hon. member for Houghton also criticized the Rabie Commission this afternoon, on the recommendations with regard to section 6. She made a tremendous fuss here about those people who are in solitary confinement, but in the same breath she attacked the hon. the Minister and asked why these people are interrogated for hours on end every day. In that case when are those people solitary? That hon. member must tell us that, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton attacked the Rabie Commission on its recommendations with regard to section 6. I do not think that the hon. member has read the report of the Rabie Commission at all, because, after it had weighed up a great deal of evidence— from abroad, too—the commission came to the conclusion, further to the evidence that the police had provided, that the information that they obtain by means of interrogation in detention, is their most powerful and to a large extent their only weapon in anticipating and combating activities that are a danger to the State, that threaten the Republic of South Africa and are organized from across the borders. It is in the interests of the security of the country that it should remain as such, but the hon. member for Houghton does not want this. We have had a judicial commission here that is not a political instrument, and anyone who alleges that it is, is malicious. It was a commission that handled delicate matters with circumspection and produced recommendations that we can study. The commission had evidence before it that it judged on purely legal grounds only and the findings and recommendations have been based on judicially based foundations, and nothing else. No other considerations were applicable for this commission, and there is ample evidence of this in the report that the commission published. The commission was headed by an appeal judge of impeccable status, a person who is highly esteemed in legal circles. In spite of that, however, the hon. member for Houghton spoke about certain “nonsensical comments” that the commission was supposed to have made. The members of the commission are lawyers of renown. They are people whose integrity no one in South Africa can doubt. The commission was dealing with and investigated legislation that was not of a discriminatory nature in any respect. The security legislation of South Africa has no racial connotations. I see the hon. member is laughing now, but for convenience sake he does not take note of things that are important, with which he wants to berate us tomorrow or the day after, when they are brought to the attention of the House by a commission. The commission guarded against any provision whatsoever that could be interpreted as discriminatory, managing to slip in. Action is taken against Black and White who tamper with the security of South Africa, regardless of what the colour of such people may be. Anyone who ascribes any other motives to the commission, whether directly or by innuendo, is malicious and is an instrument in the hands of the enemies of South Africa.

The commission reported to us openly and honestly and they took an honest look at our security legislation. Irrespective of persons they wielded the dissecting knife and as clinically thinking jurists they gave us a report in which matters have been cut open to the bone. They do not hesitate to criticize the Government. We were criticized on points where the legislation is not correct, and there are many examples of this. Fearlessly, as befits a commission of this status, they tested the measures of our security legislation against the principles of law and justice. They make high demands of fairness and then they reach conclusions based on facts and on nothing but facts.

I want to challenge the hon. members of the PFP to reach any conclusions other than those that the commission reached, based on the facts before the House, the facts contained in the report of the Rabie Commission. The PFP must not bring their sickly prejudice to bear on everything that seems as if it is in the interest of the security of South Africa.

What did the commission discover? I want to discuss this briefly. Firstly they discovered that the Executive is responsible for dealing with the security of our country. There is overwhelming evidence of this from all over the word. Secondly, they discovered that a unique situation exists in South Africa that has to be combated by measures that we do not usually encounter in our courts. And the hon. member for Pinetown alleges that we have to deal with these people and combat these problems using the ordinary legal procedures.

The commission discovered that in combating terrorism and certain other offences that threaten the security of the State and the public order, it does not suffice to apply the legal regulations that are usually implemented in the investigation and adjudication of crime, but that certain extraordinary measures should be used.

I said there should be control measures.

Now the hon. members says we must introduce control measures, but has he not read the report? Surely he has not read it, because why would he then be asking such a stupid, ridiculous thing? After all, there are control measures that are to be built into the legislation together with the security measures that we must have in terms of the security legislation in the country. These measures too, must also be reviewed again. Indeed, it is the basis of the recommendation—it is stated here—to ensure that we do not make a mistake.

We came along here in order to conduct an argument with the hon. members on the basis of the facts today, but what have we had? We have simply had a series of accusations. We have had remarks that allege that we are cruel and heartless in our action against these people. We discovered that the official Opposition is not capable of conducting an argument with us on security legislation in South Africa on the basis of the facts; they drag other arguments in from outside.

Over the past week we have also been hearing the same argument in the newspapers outside, the same insinuations and much more serious things than have been said in the House this afternoon. We have read and heard about heartlessness and cruel action on the part of the Government and police towards the people outside. I want to point out to the official Opposition that the PFP does not have the monopoly on sympathy and pity for people who are injured or die in the process of maintaining law and order. The PFP does not have such a monopoly. The Government is truly sorry if something of this kind happens to anyone; we do not wish it on anyone. We are doing our level best. We are not making a political carnival of this type of thing for political gain, as has happened in Johannesburg over the past weekend. We are truly sorry for these people. However, when the Government weighs up its responsibilities against the security of the other people in South Africa, it says that it cannot allow the safety of millions of inhabitants of South Africa to play second fiddle to the safety of saboteurs, arsonists and bomb throwers. In the House, the Government is the champion of the security of many millions of people in South Africa. We have been for years. The PFP is not calling for the protection of the ordinary citizen of the country, but for the protection of the people who want to endanger the security of the country. These are facts. We have heard them once again today and we find these facts in the report of the Rabie Commission as well. Over the decades the PFP has been calling for these measures for the protection of the security of our people to be done away with. Like other commissions abroad, the Rabie Commission applies one test only, and this is the requirements of the general security of the public. If we apply this in South Africa, we must have these measures—even though we might like them and even though they might be drastic—because they are in the interest of the security of our people. The hon. member for Pretoria Central correctly said that for decades these measures have prevented bloodshed in South Africa. There can be no doubt about that. However, now there are people who are fighting these measures and saying that the measures should disappear from our Statute Book. These measures, as I have said, have ensured the safety of people and prevented bloodshed. The only logical conclusion that one can reach, is that the people who are calling for the measures to go, do not care whether the security of South Africa’s citizens is tampered with and destroyed. Those people are not concerned about whether blood flows in South Africa. In fact, that is what they want. These people…

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member has just said that we want blood to be shed in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I said that there are people who are fighting these measures tooth and nail, measures that protect the freedom, the security of the people in South Africa. I went on to say that these people do not care that innocent people are killed or injured in the process. If the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North thinks that the cap fits, then he must wear it. I did not say that it was him.

That is not what you said.

Special, unique circumstances are prevailing in South Africa.

Everything you said is on tape. We will get the tape.

I am not afraid of the tape recording. Hon. members may go ahead and listen to it.

We on this side of the House are grateful for this report. It confirms that the security measures that apply in South Africa, are important and are in the interest of all the people of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to endorse what the hon. member for Verwoerdburg has said about the work of the commission as such. We owe the chairman and other members of the commission a debt of gratitude for the work they have done in connection with this very difficult subject.

†It is true to say that Justice Rabie faced the dilemma which faces every jurist in South Africa, the conflict between the instinct of a jurist who believes in the rule of law, protection by the law through the law of individual liberty, and the facts of terrorism, undermining and subversion in South Africa. The report which he has brought out is a courageous one. It sets against the needs for abnormal powers the equal need to eliminate all powers which are unnecessary and the need to provide protective safeguards to avoid exploitation or misuse of those powers. It is the view of the NRP, as outlined by the hon. member for King William’s Town, that this is the correct approach. We accept the finding that there is a need for special security legislation and that the need includes the need for certain action which in the normal course of events would be abhorrent to us. We as a party—and let me repeat this— are totally opposed, in principle, to detention without trial. We believe that every person accused of an offence should be brought before a court, should be able to hear and question the evidence against him and be judged on the facts contained in such evidence. We also recognize that this is the ideal that should apply in any country in normal times. Every country in the world, however, accepts that in abnormal times, e.g. in time of war, in times of emergency and in times of civil unrest, there must be a departure from such rules and norms. This we accept. Although we accept it unhappily and with regret, we nevertheless accept it as a need of the times in which we live.

So vote again for detention without trial.

We regard the situation in South Africa as being one of undeclared war in so far as the security of the State is concerned. We have troops fighting on our borders. We have people engaged in military warfare and there are people being killed. That is a reality, a fact. To try to maintain, therefore, that we are living in normal, peace-time conditions is living in a dream-world. This party consequently does not believe that one should indulge in academic arguments when one’s own people are dying to protect the stability and the security of the country.

So vote for detention without trial again.

What we believe is that if one accepts that need—and we accept that it has been shown to be a fact that there is such a need—one has to ensure that whatever powers one uses are the minimum powers necessary to ensure the security of the country and that there are sufficient and adequate safeguards to prevent abuse, misuse or injustice as the result of the exercising of such powers.

What is a pity, however, is the tragedy of eight years’ unnecessary delay, for it was eight years ago that this issue was first raised in a commission. I told the hon. the Minister of Police earlier this session that he had an opportunity to redeem himself in the face of the criticism levelled at the Government about his portfolio. I said it because he was vice-chairman of another commission that dealt with security matters concerning certain organizations. In its first interim report dated 27 January, 1973, the commission expressed its opinion that “existing and proposed executive action” in respect of internal security should be investigated and reported upon. That hon. Minister signed that report, together with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation, the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt and the hon. member for Pretoria Central. They all signed that report, agreeing that an investigation was necessary. That was eight years ago. They signed an addendum to a later report, on 7 December 1973, in which they noted—I do not want to waste time quoting—that views have been put forward in favour of the establishment of a judicial body or tribunal of review to reconsider administrative action taken under security legislation. They felt that that should be considered by a standing commission appointed by Parliament.

That was in 1973. We were debating this matter then. The Progressive Party, represented by the hon. member for Houghton, who has so much to say, did not take part. They boycotted then as they boycott today. They made no contribution.

It is just as well. That is what broke your party.

As long ago as that the predecessors of this party submitted a minority report in which they set down their views regarding the need for a judicial tribunal to review all executive and administrative action. They set that out very clearly in a minority report running to four or five pages. That minority report was signed by Mr. E. G. Malan, Mr. L. G. Murray and Mr. W. M. Sutton. That has always remained the view of this party. [Interjections.] We have here a perfect example of something we discussed yesterday, namely the pariah pack syndrome, which was used at the time against that commission. What we needed was the implementation of that request for a judicial tribunal eight years ago. I hope that we can now count on the hon. the Minister and the other members who served with him on that other commission not only to support but also to strengthen the recommendation of the Rabie Commission for a body of review.

I do not want to repeat what the hon. member for King William’s Town said, but we believe there should be a judge in charge of such a body, we believe it should review after 14 days of detention and we believe that its recommendations should be binding subject to appeal to the Chief Justice. We do not believe that the sort of body recommended in this report goes far enough. We believe that the commission, while moving in the right direction, stops short of what is necessary to bring a real feeling of confidence that no abuse will be possible under security measures.

Terrorism is a reality. There have been five explosions in my constituency alone in the past year, one right outside my office at the cenotaph in Durban. In passing, let me say that this is something that should be looked at. Buildings, supplies, etc. are taken into account but something like a cenotaph, which many of us hold very dear, is not included in the proposed definition relating to sabotage by violence. We believe that it should not apply only to strategic buildings but that monuments of significance should be included.

Terrorism is therefore a reality. It happens, and people are injured or killed. We recognize that it must be countered but in doing so we have to retain the standards of civilized society, with respect for law and order and to the maximum extent possible, adhering to the rule of law. We believe that a review tribunal with the powers as outlined by the hon. member for King William’s Town, can go a long way towards this. However, we also believe—-unfortunately I do not have the time to read from page 3 of the report—that the long-term solution remains a socio-economic and political one. This is a constant theme. This commission found it, the Steyn Commission whose report we debated yesterday and others repeated it, namely that the long-term solution is a socioeconomic and political solution. These steps, and steps against the Press and all the rest are only interim measures and not the final answer. Of course, the official Opposition says: “Consign that recommendation to the rubbish bin with all the rest”. We believe, however, that this is the key issue that has to be looked at.

We support the new proposals in regard to assistance to terrorism, minimum sentences and the preponderance of probabilities. We have proposed that a detainee’s own doctor should be allowed to accompany the district surgeon weekly. We are in favour of the reduction of the time period to 14 days for initial detention, and not six months as is proposed, before review. We support the recommendation that reasons should be given to a detainee for his detention. These are all improvements; they are all steps in the right direction which we believe are necessary and needed. There is, however, something else that is needed, and that is to reassure our own public and the outside world that the steps we are going to take— belatedly, eight years too late—arising from this commission, are steps that are going to eliminate the criticisms that people rightly or wrongly level at us. I have said before that I receive dozens of letters from all over the world, and they all refer to this question of detention.

Nothing will change that.

This is the opportunity that we have to make these changes. [Interjection.] All that hon. member does is to cheep, cheep, cheep like a hen scratching in the dirt. One cannot talk without being interrupted. All that hon. member wants to do is to wipe out the detention legislation. [Interjections.] We say that one has to have abnormal powers in an abnormal situation but one has to ensure that those powers are not abused or misused.

In that regard we believe that this is a valuable report and, unlike the party on our right, we are not prepared to break down the weapons needed to be used against Umkhwonto we Sizwe, the military wing of the ANC. [Interjections.] We will leave that party to fight for the ANC and its cohorts as they are doing now. [Interjections.] We will fight to get protection against abuse, protection against the abuse of powers in respect of innocent people. If I had wanted to, I would long ago have crossed the floor, but what I will never do is to cross the floor to a party which fights every single step that is designed to ensure the security of South Africa. [Interjections.] I do not want to be associated with that party. I cannot join that party and that is why I am in this party and am proud of it.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage it is not necessary for me to elaborate much further on what the hon. member for Durban Point said. Since he has been sitting closer to us, his ideas have been much more clear too, although his habits—especially his “I told you so” habit—will apparently hang on a little longer before they die out completely. A fruitful debate can surely be conducted with the NRP in due course with regard to the details of the proposals in the report of the Rabie Commission, as it has been accepted by the Government. At least there need be no doubt about the motives if that party, in any event not when it comes to legislation concerning the security of the State.

In a discussion of this report, I want to state clearly from the very outset that no one on this side of the House would choose to have measures in terms of which the rights of individuals are assailed in the absence of an order of a competent court. However, when the security of the State is threatened with being overthrown by violent means, the State has the inherent right to protect itself. That is why it is indeed the duty of this Parliament, as far as it is within its power to do so to put measures at the disposal of the State, by means of which it will be put in a position to safeguard itself. In this respect I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Pretoria Central, who says that the crucial question that must be answered, is the question of whether such a situation does indeed exist. In contrast to that, the hon. member for Pinelands alleged yesterday that something of this nature is a “naive and dangerous over-statement”. Furthermore, he labelled it “an exaggerated crying of wolf, wolf”. Despite what the hon. member for Pinelands has said, the situation does indeed exist. If the facts which speak for themselves and verdicts by our Supreme Court do not convince these people, perhaps the things that those who wage violence against the State have to say, might make some impression on them. I want to refer briefly to a few of the verdicts, that we also find in the report of the Rabie Commission. On page 59 of the report, in paragraph 6.40, we find an exposition of the aims of the ANC, according to its constitution. In paragraph 6.44, on the same page, we read the following—

I also quote the following paragraph: Paragraph 6.45, as follows—

The S.A. Communist Party associates itself with this. In paragraph 6.23, on page 57 of the report, the commission reports as follows—

I refer also to page 61 of the report, where we find the following frank statement by the SACP—

As far as Soviet involvement is concerned— that the PFP is continually telling us are merely stories of intimidation—the ANC itself says, on page 61—

Of course, we are not spared their other refrain either, viz. that the policy of the Government of South Africa is the target of their attacks, and not the State as such, and that if we were simply to drop our Government policy, and accept theirs, this onslaught would disappear like mist before the sun. The PAC itself makes short work of this, and in this respect I refer to paragraph 6.121.2, on page 67 of the report, according to which the leadership of the PAC allegedly said the following on 17 April 1980—

I also refer to the following quotation, at the bottom of page 67—

One is amazed at the inability of the Opposition to understand the reality. The question was also posed by the hon. member for Pretoria Central: Is it not a plain fact that their political philosophy has no place for reality, or is it the case—and here I think the hon. member for Verwoerdburg may have hit the nail on the head—that that party has already stated as their declared policy that should they come into power they would allow the South African Communist Party to operate in South Africa once again? It is interesting that their blind call for change is for change in the sense that this party, the NP, should abandon its policy and implement the policy that they advocate. Of course our policy, for which the voters of South Africa have given this party a mandate, differs fundamentally from the policy that they advocate. One can simply deduce from their insistence on it that this Government should drop its policy, for which it has a mandate, that they consider it permissible for a political party to implement different principles after an election and turn its back on the mandate that was given to it when it fought the election. One can only be grateful that the voters of South Africa notice such faithlessness and will reject it with the contempt that it deserves. Another aspect to which reference was made in passing during this debate and about which we are probably going to hear more—we have already heard it time and again in previous debates when security legislation was under discussion—is the hysterical call of the “rule of law”, and indeed that security legislation is supposedly destroying this rule of law as a legal concept. In order to understand the juridical significance of this concept, it is necessary to take note of the origin and development thereof. The concept originated in British constitutional law at the time of the struggle for supreme authority between the English king and Parliament, when the king constituted a threat to personal security at times due to his arbitrary action. In recognizing the supreme authority of Parliament, the arbitrary action of the king was then restricted and the constitutional laws of the subjects were recognized, under the protection of Parliament. Therefore, no tampering with the right of a subject by the king was permitted unless it took place in terms of and with the approval of the parliamentary authority. It therefore follows that Parliament is quite entitled to modify the content of these constitutional laws as they deem fit without detracting in any sense from the rule of law, from a juridical viewpoint. Therefore, the rule of law is not a fixed rule with normative content, but is rather a collective name for the ideals that must be aspired to in a constitutional State regulating the relationship between the authority and the subject. Basically, the content thereof is the maintenance of personal freedom, the absence of the arbitrary exercise of authority, the equality of all in adjudication and adjudication by an independent, unbiased Bench. Therefore, the allegation that legislation that grants the authority emergency powers is breaking the rule of law, is untrue from both an historical and juridical viewpoint. I feel that it detracts from the value that this concept still retains, viz. that it serves as a valuable criterion in delimitating the interests of the State and the subject.

Subjects usually have the right of participation in their Parliament.

The hon. member for Greytown always reminds me of Schiller who said on one occasion: “Against stupidity even the gods battle in vain.” As an ordinary mortal I shall make no attempt to put him right. The rule of law, as I said, can still serve as a specially valuable criterion in delimitating the rights between the authority and the subject. Essential security legislation is therefore permissible, but there should always be an attempt to ensure that the powers granted by it, are implemented for the purpose for which they have been granted alone, viz. the protection of the State, and that the rights of a person against whom action is taken in terms of such legislation, are assailed only in so far as it is essential to do so.

In going through the report of the commission it is clear that the commission also adopted the correct attitude, viz. this attitude towards security legislation, when they were investigating it. Unfortunately time does not allow me to quote from the report, but in this regard one could perhaps simply look at page 170 of the report, for instance. The mechanisms for review that have been put forward with regard to administrative action also attempt to ensure that there will be infringement only where it is essential. The proposed procedure provides for independent testing of the factual judgment of the Minister concerned by independent judicial advisory committees or committees of review, as the case may be, as well for a test for judicial correctness by the highest judicial authority in our country, viz. the Chief Justice, of administrative action against an organization, publication or individual that is banned or kept in preventive detention. Provision is also made for periodical review in certain cases. Judged according to comparable legislation in other countries, this lays down a dual protection, whilst in these relevant countries—one thinks here of Britain, Israel and Canada—only one mechanism for review viz. either a special revision organ or revision by the judicial authority, is considered adequate.

A great deal has been said about detention without trial and detention for the purpose of interrogation. As far as this is concerned, the recommendations of the commission and possibly even further protective measures, aimed at both the decision with regard to detention and the circumstances thereof, deserves serious consideration in order to guarantee how appropriate action is in terms of the relevant section.

I want to conclude by associating myself with what the hon. member for Verwoerdburg said. The Opposition assumed that it is the only conscience in this country guarding against proposed abuse of power by the authorities, and is doing so in the way that we have seen here this afternoon and over the past weekend, with an hysterical emotion and in a totally irresponsible fashion. Our country can manage without such a conscience that exploits in this repulsive way the misery of people who may have lost a loved one or been affected by this section, for their own political gain. It must be clear that this investigation was ordered by this side of the House in a thorough, true attempt to see whether there are mistakes, and if so, how they can be rectified. This side of the House, as a reflection of the opinion of the majority of the voters of South Africa, has done its duty to put measures at the disposal of the State that authorize it to take action against those that want to overthrow it by force of arms. This side of the House will continue to implement its responsibility to keep watch and to ensure that purposeful action only can be taken in terms of that authorization. We also thank the Government for accepting the principles contained in the report of the commission.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to start off by associating myself completely with the remarks made earlier today by my colleagues the hon. members for Houghton and Pinetown. I should like to say that very few answers have come from hon. members on the Government side in regard to questions put by my hon. colleagues relating to solitary confinement and interrogation. For instance, the hon. member for Houghton, when she spoke, said that the commissioners did not appear to have taken evidence from a single detainee or ex-detainee on these issues. It also appears to me that the commission did not take any evidence at all from any medical doctor, doctor in psychology or any of the para-medical sources in regard to the effects of solitary confinement or interrogation on detainees. I think this does seem to allow a rather big gap in the essentials of the report. Although the end—the end being the security of the State—is approved of, the means of achieving that end do not seem to have been adequately researched. I believe that in such a situation abuses can be expected to occur and can possibly occur in the future.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg and, although I heard him rather faintly, the hon. member for East London City threw a few questions at the PFP about what our attitudes would be or are in relation to the reinstatement of organizations which are at the present time banned in South Africa.

Like the ANC.

Yes. I think that the hon. members on the other side of the House should know the answers by now. It has been put to them on many occasions …

That you will allow them.

I shall give the answer again. I want to say that the PFP says that no political movement preaching and practising violence will be allowed to operate in this country. This is a firm statement put by our leader and a statement to which we subscribe.

What about the Communist Party.

Conversely, any political movement which is prepared to try to achieve its ends by democratic and peaceful means, no matter how unpopular its policy may be with us or with the Government of the day, should not be prevented from doing so by democratic means.

The argument of my hon. colleagues is that it is the policies, the practices, the banning orders, the strong-arm tactics and the detentions, things of that nature, which are contributing to the violence which this country is experiencing. We believe that the armoury of repressive laws is no more than an impediment to peace in South Africa.

I want to deal for a few moments with a very limited aspect of the report, and I refer to those aspects dealing with the Press. On two occasions the National Press Union submitted both written and oral evidence to the commission. It pleaded the cause of allowing a free, less inhibited flow of information to the public. It held the view, very briefly stated, that there existed in many laws unnecessarily restrictive and confusingly ambiguous provisions which hampered the Press in reporting on current events. In the end result these provisions created a situation in which the public were often left unaware of the issues and of the developments confronting the country.

The NPU believed that its Press code and the ordinary laws relating to defamation and delict were sufficient safeguards of the rights of the State. It quoted many examples of the minefield which an editor had to tread every day of his life, the wide phraseology, for instance, of the Internal Security Act, the stringent provisions of the Police Act, the all-embracing definitions which are contained in the Terrorism Act, the hampering effect of certain sections of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and many more. There is no doubt that the media in South Africa under the present structure of laws are rendered less effective in informing the public of what is going on at any given time.

The commission’s reaction to the NPU was relatively benign and yet not all that receptive. Its basic standpoint, as set out in the report, was as follows as one finds on page 113—

With that basic standpoint, certain provisions have been asked for and recommended to ensure, for instance, that persons innocently possessing documentation which is prohibited or banned be not guilty of an offence. It is recommended that section 27(c) of the Police Act be repealed. The problems of section 118 of the Defence Act are mentioned in tandem with the recommendations of the first report of the first Steyn Commission. However, by and large, regrettably, most of the laws which give problems to the Press have been left untouched and very few changes are envisaged. I think one must welcome the commission’s recommendations to set up an advisory committee to view independently the decisions of the executive which affect the fate of publications and newspapers.

No matter who the Government of the day may be, untrammeled power is always open to abuse and is never free from criticism. Although we welcome this new advisory committee it is to us yet another palliative and an inadequate provision. The correct recommendation should be that the Government should not have the right to ban newspapers at all. While we do not believe that the commission gets to the very roots of the problems confronting the Press and, through the Press, the public of South Africa, the recommendations are in themselves marginally helpful.

The PFP, which stands alone in opposition in Parliament, and the free Press are often criticized for arguing the case of the right of the public to be informed. We do this for very good reasons. Several major consequences flow if that right is inhibited. Accepting that whatever Western-oriented Government is in power our country will have enemies, and accepting that there are forces at work that seek to establish a new order by revolution—a new order which is unacceptable to the majority of South Africans, Black, White and Coloured—our greatest ally in that struggle is an informed and educated but not a blinkered or propagandized public. The public can only gauge the extent of the dangers facing South Africa if it is aware of and understands those dangers. That means that the public must be aware of the aspirations and grievances of those who have been disenfranchised. In that way constitutional reform will meet with less resistance. The public should know of the extent of the internal and external threats that are facing this country and about the steps taken to meet them. In this way panic and rumours can be avoided. Preparedness for change can only be brought about if our citizenry is educated to the need for that change.

Finally, in a situation where the Press is prevented from reporting on the actions of the executive, the checks and balances in respect of what we seek to protect and develop, viz, a true democracy, are lost. It is for these reasons that we urge the Government in implementing the aspects of the report related to the media, to look beyond our immediate problems and to move to make it possible for every South African, Black, White, Coloured or Indian, to be informed, educated and to be in a position to make and exercise rational judgments.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to participate in this debate today, because this commission was appointed by the hon. the Minister of Justice and consequently is accountable in the first instance to him, and through him to the Cabinet and the State President. However, I am a very interested member of this House in this debate, particularly in view of the duties which the hon. the Prime Minister has imposed on me in connection with legislation and procedure which will proceed from the report which is being debated here today.

For the second time during this session we have had an unpleasant incident on the part of the official Opposition in which they used a ruling from the Chair to suit their own purposes. When the hon. member for Houghton began to speak this afternoon, I was not aware that there had been a ruling from the Chair that the case of Dr. Neil Aggett could not be discussed in the House this afternoon owing to the sub judice rule, in view of the inquest or other judicial procedure upon which the Attorney-General may decide. However, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton was allowed to discuss the Aggett case. That hon. member was also allowed to make absolutely unfair, scurrilous and disgraceful accusations from a so-called letter which she received from a so-called security detainee, a person whose name the hon. member did not even have the courage to furnish.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it not so that the case of Dr. Aggett is sub judice?

What about Helen’s disgraceful behaviour?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: Is there not a rule applicable in this House that one cannot quote from a newspaper report concerning … [Interjections.]

Order! The position is that prima facie the hon. member for Houghton has contravened the sub judice rule by referring to certain evidence and then, at the end, connecting it with this particular deceased. Accordingly I am obliged to allow the hon. the Minister to respond.

Unfortunately, owing to the short space of time which has elapsed, I have not yet had an opportunity to obtain a copy of the hon. member for Houghton’s Hansard. However, a portion of it appears in a front page report in this afternoon’s Argus.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I refer you to Standing Order No. 130?

It is quite clear.

Order! Standing Order No. 130 states that an hon. member may not quote from a newspaper report but may refer to it. [Interjections.]

There is a portion in which reference is made to what the hon. member for Houghton said in her speech during the no-confidence debate, something which she was fully justified in raising here in this House, or putting as a question to members of the Government for reply. I am referring to the following paragraph, and I quote—

I am not quite certain …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! The hon. the Minister may not quote from the report. He may only refer to it.

I shall abide by your ruling. I wish to point out further that the hon. member gave this speech of hers to the Press to be published today. The speech which she made this afternoon, just a few minutes after the House had commenced with its proceedings. It was given to the Press verbatim. Here I have the speech in my hand.

And she was aware of Mr. Speaker’s ruling. [Interjections.]

In other words, this was a calculated move on the part of the hon. member. Earlier this afternoon, after the hon. member had finished speaking, I wrote her a note in which I informed her …

[Inaudible.]

… that I would register an objection to her behaviour…

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Did the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs not say somebody on this side of the House was lying?

Order! Did the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs say that?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I said that the hon. member for Groote Schuur was a liar.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it, but it remains true all the same. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister would like to listen to this, because one of his senior Cabinet Ministers is now flouting the Chair. The hon. the Minister said he withdrew his remark, but said that it remained true all the same.

Order! Did the hon. the Minister say that?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I said that. I withdraw it.

Earlier this afternoon I told the hon. member for Houghton that I objected in the strongest terms to the fact that she raised this matter in this way in her speech this afternoon without disclosing her source. I wish to tell her to her face now that she does not have the courage to disclose that source.

But there is no such source. It is a fabrication.

I am asking that hon. member to disclose the source so that we may all see it, so that the light of day may shine upon it. [Interjections.] She must not produce anonymous letters. [Interjections.]

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

No, just wait, sister Anna. I am talking to you now. [Interjections.]

Order!

I listened with interest to the debate and this afternoon there are important things I should very much like to accomplish in future with this very responsible portfolio, in co-operation with all the members of this House. I did not rise to my feet to cause an unnecessary altercation across the floor of this House. [Interjections.] I want to assure the hon. Chief Whip opposite of that. However, I want to tell him that if this is the kind of discipline which he maintains in his party, it is absolutely disappointing. He must not interrupt me now. I have only a few minutes at my disposal.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Houghton must disclose her source so that we can see what it looks like in the light of day.

Will you give the assurance that the detainee … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton has had an opportunity of addressing the House. She must now give the hon. the Minister the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wishes to make a speech while I am making mine, but I can tell her that I can speak louder than she can. Perhaps we could hold a little competition. I shall make her bite the dust.

Dust her off instead. [Interjections.]

Let the hon. member produce her sources so that we can examine them. She should not, because she lacks the courage of her convictions, rise with a document in her hand which she alleges to be a letter which she received from a so-called security detainee. She does not have the courage to disclose that name.

I shall give it to you if you give the assurance …

She does not disclose that name to this House, but she gives her speech to the Press. It was very convenient that it appeared in the Press this afternoon while the debate was still in progress and my hon. colleague was not yet able to reply. She knew that it could not appear in the same newspaper. She wanted to derive benefit from that. Tomorrow morning, when the speech of my hon. colleague appears in the morning newspapers, the allegations of that hon. member are already in all the overseas newspapers. That is why this was done.

What about the Prime Minister’s statement…

She did it this afternoon so that it would be in all the overseas newspapers tomorrow morning, before my hon. colleague could reply to it.

That is loyalty for you!

The hon. member for Houghton is one of the most experienced members in this House. I do not wish to tell the hon. member that it is a rule of etiquette, that one expects this to be done or that members of this House should expect it from one another, but I do not want to tell her that I did expect her, if she wanted to launch this kind of attack this afternoon, to have told my colleague the hon. the Minister of Justice or me right at the beginning of the debate: “Look, I am going to do this; if you wish to react to it, you will be able to do so”. But this kind of disgraceful accusation is made in this House … [Interjections.]

Good gracious!

I am not placing the hon. member under any obligation, but she and her colleagues are always talking about the correct behaviour in regard to security matters. All I am asking is that we should behave correctly towards one another in this House in regard to this kind of matter. Let her afford the members of the Government an opportunity to reply as effectively in the same debate as she was able to make a disgraceful attack here, with particulars of this kind. However, this was not done.

The hon. member alleged in her speech that Dr. Aggett had been assaulted and was overwrought. Judging from the cruel behaviour towards him he must have had injuries, he must have been in a particular physical state. Judging from the picture which the hon. member painted here, this poor unfortunate person must have been in a terrible physical state.

That depends on when it happened.

That is the image which the hon. member wanted to present to the world.

It happened ten days before.

A few days ago, in reply to a question, I furnished the date on which Dr. Aggett had last been seen. Unfortunately I do not have all the particulars in front of me now, nor can the Minister of Justice be expected to have all his files available here. However, I cannot accept a word of what the hon. member told for the truth in this House this afternoon and I challenge her to place her source and her evidence at our disposal. She can do it here in this House, or she can give it to me in my office, or she can have it published in The Argus. She can make it known wherever and however she wishes, just as long as she brings it to our attention. All she must do is bring it out of the darkness and into the light, so that we can look at it, for I give you, Mr. Speaker, and this hon. House the assurance that I cannot accept a single one of the allegations which the hon. member made here this afternoon. I deny them completely, as the hon. member presented them.

Unfortunately I now have to speak off the cuff because I do not have all the particulars at my disposal. But Dr. Aggett was seen only a few days before his death. As a matter of fact, he was also seen on various dates prior to that, and I am telling you now, Mr. Speaker, that Dr. Aggett was not assaulted. Nor did he have any injuries, apart from those which were the cause of his death. Consequently I challenge the hon. member to produce any evidence in this House, or at the inquest before the magistrate, and to substantiate the disgraceful allegations which she made this afternoon in this House. [Interjections.] I challenge the hon. member and her entire party, with all their friends, to produce that evidence. They have an opportunity to do so now. I am asking them in all decency, in all courtesy and with all the responsibility at my command to produce their evidence before the court. However, they should not take advantage of this House in this way in order to blazon this kind of message abroad. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches welcome the entry of the hon. the Minister of Police to this debate.

[Inaudible.]

Law and Order.

I do not know whether we now call him the Minister of Law and Order, but I think he is still the Minister of Police. Since this session started, the hon. the Minister has walked in and out of this Chamber like a man deprived. He has been deprived of opportunities because on two major issues on which he would have been answerable, it has not been possible for him to participate. However, we have sympathy for him in that respect and therefore we are pleased that he has taken this opportunity to stand up and express a view on at least one of the issues that have been raised.

The hon. the Minister attacked the hon. member for Houghton for raising a matter which you, Mr. Speaker, in your wisdom, corrected her on after she had raised it. This is the normal procedure in the House. [Interjections.] It is perfectly normal procedure in the House.

She was being mischievous.

You, Sir, are in charge of the proceedings and when you perceived that the hon. member for Houghton was transgressing a ruling you had given, you called her to order and she immediately said that she would not pursue the matter further. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Police made another complaint. He said that it was totally unfair, as the hon. member for Houghton had not given him warning as to what she was going to say. Is the hon. the Minister really serious about this? If he is he is establishing a new precedent for Parliament. [Interjections.] In future then each one of us must send the Minister a copy of our speech before we make it to give him a chance of answering. That is the way we are going to carry on debate in this House. [Interjections.]

I do not believe that the hon. the Minister has a legitimate complaint. In any case, I think it is time the country heard from him and that he expressed his views on these very vital issues which are part of his responsibility as the Minister of Police in South Africa. I believe, therefore, that he did the right thing by taking the opportunity of entering this debate and at least breaking the very long silence that has been characteristic of him over the past few weeks. However, the hon. member for Houghton can deal with the hon. the Minister on a later occasion in respect of his challenge to her to divulge the source of her information. She has already indicated that provided the hon. the Minister can give her an assurance that there will be no victimization of the person concerned, she will divulge the source to him. That is, however, a matter between the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. the Minister of Police. [Interjections.]

I wish to return now to the Rabie Commission’s report that we are now discussing. It is of course impossible to deal with every aspect of detail in that report in the short time at our disposal, but perhaps this debate has afforded us an opportunity to obtain an overall view of the work of the commission and to look at its findings in relation to the present situation in South Africa.

My colleagues have dealt with many of these aspects, and have indicated our very deep founded criticism and opposition in regard to the operation of our existing security legislation in South Africa, in respect of its erosion of the rule of law and the rights of individuals in South Africa. We have expressed our views that the improvements— and there are improvements—suggested by the commission are inadequate and will not materially reduce injustices and the inequities inherent in the operation of these laws. As the last speaker from these benches on this subject I want to try to put our views in general perspective against the appointment of the commission, against its terms of reference, against its findings and its recommendations, and to review the background against which the commission has operated.

The commission was appointed in September 1979 and has laboured for over two years to produce a report on the subject of its terms of reference, which were—

Let me say at once that against the background of the situation in South Africa these terms of reference gave the commission a monumental and virtually impossible task to perform. On the one hand the commission was asked to review the fairness of laws which for two decades and more had driven major inroads into and had virtually destroyed the concept of individual freedom and of liberty in South Africa. On the other hand the commission was asked to pass judgment on the necessity, adequacy and efficacy of these laws against the background of mounting sabotage and subversion in South Africa. It was asked to pass judgment on laws which, inter alia, had vested in the executive powers to arrest and to detain people without trial, to ban people from society, to ban organizations, to ban and restrict publications and, in general and specific terms, to deprive individuals of the protection of the courts. It was these laws in respect of which the commission was asked to give an opinion as to their fairness or otherwise.

In reality no one, no commission in their sane minds, with any democratic background, with the knowledge of all the arbitrary arrests and detentions through the years in South Africa, with the knowledge of death and suicide of people held in detention, with the knowledge of the individuals and the innocent families who had been mentally and physically broken by the operation of these laws over 20 years, can in any way subscribe to the fairness of these laws. So there were expectations when the commission was appointed. There were expectations that the commission might express itself forcibly against the effect of the laws and make some realistic proposals for material changes and amendments. I must say the commission has in fact shown some concern in this regard. In an over-cautious and conservative reaction it has reported—

In that paragraph, however, the dilemma of the commission is revealed, because, if words mean anything, what the commission is saying in that paragraph is, from their point of view, that they cannot balance equity towards people and organizations with the need of preserving internal security. So, the commission, with fairly minor procedural exceptions, which are inadequate, comes down firmly on the side of the necessity of these laws in their present form in the interests of internal security in South Africa, irrespective of their fairness or the lack thereof. In other words, it commits itself to the total on-slaught/total strategy-syndrome. It adopts the attitude that the end justifies the means, and it seeks to give this commitment substance and justification.

I must say that it expresses itself on these matters not without conscience, because throughout the report there is a thread which suggests that there is a lingering doubt in the minds of the commissioners about the laws they have reviewed and now recommend should remain on the Statute Book, in essence unchanged.

There is, what I have already referred to, the acknowledgement of the inequity of laws towards people and organizations. Then there is the proposal—which was referred to this afternoon by the hon. the Prime Minister—that a new Department of Law and Order be created, which could consist of two components—the S.A. Police and a Directorate of Internal Security. We are told that this is going to be a new ministry. The commission felt that this was necessary because it was critical of the fact that at present two Ministers, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Police, are responsible for the administration of security legislation. The commission recommended that the Minister of Justice should be relieved of this responsibility—

It would be difficult in terms of the commission’s findings for the Minister of Justice to maintain this image if he has to administer security legislation. Equally the commission expressed concern that the image of the courts might suffer in the same respect. If that is not a tacit or direct admission that the operation of these laws has already damaged the image of the Department of Justice as the protector of the interests of the citizens of this country, I want to know what is. Certainly the very fact that the commission should express concern and say that the Department of Justice should be removed from administering these laws because it must not have its image as the protector of the people of South Africa tarnished indicates what the effect has already been. The commission highlights that.

Then there are the tentative and inadequate recommendations in respect of the rights of detainees to be visited by a magistrate and a district surgeon, and the provisions relating to limited review proceedings. I do not want to go into that because that has already been dealt with. Then there is also the commission’s acknowledgment that its findings—

Then came the real truism. I quote further—

That was the truism. The commission then went on to say—

It is at this point that I believe that the commission has missed the bus. Looking at its report one finds that it has been deeply impressed and influenced by the fact that there are increasing acts of sabotage and subversion in this country, and therefore the commission has come to the conclusion that in the short-term existing security legislation is justified. But in my submission what the commission should have asked itself is the following: Is not existing legislation in its harsh, inequitable form an over-reaction to the situation and therefore in itself counterproductive? Should the commission not have asked: Do not the blatant injustices inherent in the operation of this kind of legislation play directly into the hands of those who seek to subvert law and order in South Africa? It is interesting when reading the report to look at the commission’s comments on ANC activities. These comments are quite revealing. It devotes a great deal of attention to the ANC and the report says inter alia—

I quote further—

But then it goes on to say that the influence of the ANC cannot be negated. It then says, when dealing with sympathy with the ANC in general, that—

It cites as an example of this what takes place at funerals and on commemorative days. It cites these as examples of how this encourages the ANC because use is made of these functions for other purposes. I think it is true that there have been demonstrations on these occasions and I think it is true, no doubt, that there are those who will exploit these occasions for political motives. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that where these occasions are connected with unjust laws they reflect the very real and natural anger of people in respect of the injustices in the system. We must not lose sight of that fact. One can blame agitators for many things but one must also recognize that when there is injustice, when there are unjust laws that create hatred and hostility born out of fear and frustration, one will then get a reaction, a natural anger from the people concerned. Mr. Speaker, therefore it is these laws which play into the hands of the agitators and of those who want to subvert law and order and commit acts of sabotage, because these laws are so patently unjust that they alienate the sympathy of the masses and bring the system of justice into total disrepute.

We must look at the effect of what we are doing when we perpetuate laws of this kind. I want to ask a simple question to those hon. members who spoke in this debate this afternoon and who stated that we had to have these laws in order to secure a peaceful situation in South Africa. I want to ask those hon. members: Is the death of a person as a result of suicide while in detention without trial a victory for a just society or is it instead a victory for those who seek to subvert law and order and to destroy the system in South Africa? What is the effect? Do hon. members feel proud, and do they think the cause of South Africa has been served because a thing such as this can happen to a person in detention as it has happened—as we were told this afternoon—to some 40 people already? Does this help South Africa’s situation? Does this help security in South Africa or does this play into the hands of those people who are trying to subvert the system in South Africa and seek its overthrow? This is what hon. members opposite must ask themselves.

It is in these general respects that the commission’s report is in our view unrealistic, because we think it misses the point. We think the commission has gone overboard completely on the threat to security and on the whole question of sabotage and subversion and has totally over-reacted by endorsing the perpetuation of laws which in themselves bring the whole system in disrepute in South Africa.

Are you serious now?

I am totally serious. I am glad the hon. the Minister is listening and I hope therefore that he will consider it. This is exactly what we are trying to say. By laws of this kind one is not preserving security in South Africa but is helping those who are trying subvert law and order in this country because one is handing them ammunition to show that there is a system here which is manifestly unjust and manifestly indefensible. Therefore, while some improvements are suggested in the Rabie report the report in general supports the perpetuation of detention without trial and of laws of this kind, and its support for that makes it a report which is unacceptable to us on these benches.

Order! Before calling on the next hon. member to speak, I wish to inform the House that I have given further consideration to the remarks made in this House by the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon in respect of Dr. Aggett. I deplore the fact that the hon. member saw fit to make those remarks about Dr. Aggett, because they are clearly in contravention of the sub judice rule. I also deplore the method she used of withholding Dr. Aggett’s name until the end of the passage she was quoting. I would have called her to order immediately if she had intimated that she was going to talk about Dr. Aggett.

Under the circumstances I shall allow the hon. Ministers concerned to react to the remarks made by the hon. member in their reply to the debate. I want to make it quite clear once again that the sub judice rule is difficult to apply, but that it will nevertheless be strictly enforced within the existing practice of this House, and I appeal to all hon. members to observe the rule.

Mr. Speaker, the Government has already on a previous occasion expressed its gratitude and appreciation to Mr. Justice Rabie and the members of the commission who investigated the security legislation of the Republic, for the tremendous task the commission accomplished. The commission commenced its activities and received its terms of reference after our security legislation had been debated in this House in 1979. This came about after Advocate D. P. de Villiers had made an enlightening speech on the subject and the hon. member for Randburg saw fit to refer to that speech in this House. What was in any case overlooked was that the hon. the Prime Minister and my predecessor thought it advisable and that it was time we took a look at our security legislation.

In its standpoints the Rabie Commission supports the view that we must assess our security legislation against the background as it now is and as it will be in the foreseeable future, and if it becomes necessary, it must even be reconsidered and amended. This is a fundamental approach that must be read in conjunction with the acceptance of the fact that security legislation is assessed according to the needs of the time and the needs foreseen for the future.

I want to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the members of the Rabie Commission and their secretariat again for the extremely comprehensive report they brought out in connection with our security legislation. The commission’s task was comprehensive, and its report attests to an in-depth study of the particular subject, which is reported on in a clear and logical way.

As appears from the report, the commission undertook a comprehensive comparative study of security legislation. Viewed against the threat facing the Republic, inter alia from hostile organizations with direct links with the Soviet Union—this was the finding—and the international communist movement, the entire matter of security legislation is placed in its correct perspective. This is one of the greatest merits of the report. It was a tremendous task.

It appears from the report that there are various organizations whose aim it is, by means of revolutionary factions and terrorism, to overthrow the existing dispensation, the State and the Republic. From the report it appears that these organizations are continuing with their activities to intensify the onslaught on the Republic—this is the finding of the commission. As it appears from publications by one of the organizations quoted in the report, the aim is “a seizure of power”; reform or negotiation are not their aim. In the report there are many such quotations from publications and documents of various organizations in which their aims are set out. It is as though they were speaking through their documents and disclosing their evil objectives and plans.

Once the commission had taken cognizance of the facts of the situation, as it is at present, and as it is expected to be in the foreseeable future, it came to the conclusion that there could be no doubt about the necessity for security legislation, and to enable those whose task it is to maintain local security to carry out that task, the powers and the means now at their disposal must continue to exist. Contrary to what the hon. member for Berea has just argued, this was not a haphazard approach, but a careful analysis on the basis of the circumstances I have sketched for this House. The other important point is that after it had considered the criticism, it recommended certain changes. It is also the opinion of the commission that the measures it has recommended are necessitated by the requirements of the situation in which the Republic finds itself.

If I must single out any particular features of the report, I should say in the first place that it puts things in perspective. In the second place the commission deals in great detail with the criticism levelled at various provisions in our security legislation and it points out various misconceptions in this connection. Now I want to reply to the hon. member for Pinetown on this point. He asked: What became of the report of the Association of Law Societies? He asked what became of those recommendations. If the hon. member had looked at the annexures to the report, he would have seen that some of the leading figures in the Association of Law Societies did in fact give evidence. The hon. member apparently did not read the report, otherwise he would not have raised this argument. In chapter 8, in paragraph after paragraph, a clinical analysis is made of the recommendations of the Association of Law Societies. It does in fact form part of the commission’s report. The fact that most of the recommendations of the Association of Law Societies were not accepted, can be motivated. One of their important points was that this legislation ought to be revised as frequently as necessary, in consequence of the British/Irish situation.

The Rabie Commission points out in a well-considered analysis that in our situation in South Africa a threat will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. The commission points out that under these circumstances it would be senseless to renew legislation from time to time on the same basis as the British situation. According to a footnote in the report it appears that the Home Secretary has the authority to renew the measures as frequently as he deems fit and as circumstances justify. The Association of Law Societies of South Africa is a body with a high status and has many members. The Society made a valuable contribution and their reasoning was well-considered. They will now have the opportunity to comment further. The hon. the Prime Minister mentioned in the closing paragraph of his statement today that we would consider the practical application of the legislation after interested parties had had an opportunity to comment. I handed the Rabie report to the President of the Association of Law Societies at the earliest possible opportunity and requested him to comment on it. I also pointed out to him that their original representations had been dealt with in detail.

I now come to a further aspect of the report. Where the commission felt that deficiencies or shortcomings existed in the present system, or that there were matters that had to be rectified—it even said that some of the measures chafed a little—it made recommendations. If the Government accepts the recommendations of the Rabie Commission, the situation will in fact be brought into line with the normal legal processes of our courts. I want to refer hon. members to a few examples. In the first place there was the recommendation that minimum sentences be abolished. For example, the minimum sentence for sabotage should fall away. The hon. member for Pinetown has participated in many such trials. The hon. member knows how worried he was at the possibility that his client would be found guilty and sentenced to a minimum of five years imprisonment.

In the second place, the Rabie Commission respects our courts. This runs like a golden thread through the entire report. The Rabie Commission proposes that we leave punishment for security offences to the discretion of our courts. We all welcome this. The hon. member for Pinetown probably does too.

I have said that.

A further recommendation is that young people should be treated like young people—as the Criminal Procedure Act in fact prescribes. The Rabie Commission made this suggestion after considering criticism from various quarters. Is it not extremely praiseworthy for a commission to consider criticism so objectively and to accept it?

The Rabie Commission also undertook a comprehensive comparative study of the security legislation of other countries. I have not read all the hon. member for Houghton’s speeches on this subject. After all, the hon. member for Houghton draws up documents on the quiet and then pretends they have been given to her, and on the quiet she also engineers leaks and arranges things with newspapers in a manner unworthy of any hon. member of this House. Surely she also classifies herself as an enemy of, for example, the police and our entire security system. In that vein she probably undertook her own comparative law study, but she must have done so in the dark, because her facts are not entirely correct. I refer the hon. member, for example, to the situation in Northern Ireland. Legislation was passed there as recently as 1979. The Rabie Commission points out that up to March 1980 approximately 5 100 people have been detained.

Not since 1975.

Yes, but the hon. member referred to 1974 and 1975. In any case the hon. member is falling behind the times. We cannot blame her for this of course. The hon. member apparently did not read the footnotes in the Rabie report. I just want to emphasize that the features of the Rabie report are those of an extremely good report.

I now want to emphasize and single out a number of specific points in the Rabie report. I am referring in particular to a basic approach which the Opposition has never accepted over the years—and I am not referring here to the old United Party and the NRP—which is that the responsibility for the security of a State rests with the executive, and that is the Government of the day. According to convention and otherwise the hon. the Prime Minister is primarily responsible for the security of the State. Naturally he has mechanisms at his disposal to decide what constitutes a threat.

A very important point was singled out in the Rabie report. From now onwards my hon. colleague will know that a judicial commission has established the principle beyond all doubt once and for all that the people responsible for national security “must be the sole judges of what the national security requires”, as was stated in the English decision in the Samora case. Many thanks to the Rabie Commission for this important standpoint.

Another very important principle to which I referred was the standpoint of the Rabie Commission that judgment must be passed on the basis of prevailing circumstances and on the basis of what the situation will be in the foreseeable future. The findings of the commission are therefore not intended to be a final answer to the country’s security legislation. Circumstances may change in the future and necessitate a re-evaluation of the position. Many newspaper reporters spotted this and when they found merit in the report, they coupled it to this point. Because I have a limited amount of time at my disposal I shall not pursue this point much further.

I should now like to come to the standpoint of the hon. member for Pretoria Central. He scourged hon. members on that side of the House. He insisted on a reply to the question: Is there a threat to South Africa? He put that question to one hon. member after the other, but not one of them had the courage to answer.

Were you asleep at the time?

Let me give a short analysis of the matter. What are the present circumstances to which the Rabie Commission referred? The hon. member for Yeoville sketched the picture for us. He said there was a threat. He made no secret of the fact. He also said so in the no-confidence debate.

However, I want to refer to another hon. member as well. When he still had a different membership card he said the following—

Was that by any chance the windmill?

That hon. member, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, said in the days when he was clairvoyant and carried another membership card, that there was indeed an “overall onslaught” and asked the Minister “to detain and to restrict”. That was in 1979, three years ago. Has the situation improved? What has changed that the hon. member is so quiet now? Does he admit that he said this? [Interjections.] Does he admit it or does he not? Does he have the courage to reply to the questions of the hon. member for Pretoria Central? He does not have the courage.

I presume that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has good reasons for being absent from this important debate today.

You know perfectly well why he is absent.

I ask myself why the hon. Leader of the Opposition is absent.

Because he is away from Cape Town.

You know where he is too.

Does he not agree with the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pinelands? Are his blinkers falling off, or what is the position?

Does the Minister of Finance agree with you? Where is he? What about the Minister of Internal Affairs?

I have done a little research and found that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is analysed in the leader of the Argus of 20 January as follows—

They do not even have to be ordinary measures, such as those which the hon. member for Berea is objecting to. He said that we went overboard with the consolidation of crimes of subversion, terrorism and sabotage. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said far more than this. He said that we had a need for “special security measures”. What does this mean? Those “special security measures” refer inter alia to the following: With regard to extraordinary court procedures which may be necessary, one of the points is detention for questioning …

No, that is not what he meant.

It must include that. Secondly, it must include the question of refusal of bail.

No.

I am referring to the present section 12B. It must also include the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General in certain aspects. Furthermore, it must include preventive measures, for instance the present section 10(1)(a)bis with regard to restrictions. These are “special security measures”. The hon. Leader also spoke of “this difficult period”. Now the hon. newspaper …

“Honourable?”

… which enjoys credibility in certain circles—

Precisely.

The point is that the Rabie Commission has come forward with control measures itself. I shall return to this in a moment. In other words, the hon. Leader of the Opposition had begun to interpret the signs correctly long before the appointment of the Rabie Commission. He is, after all, a country boy and he has respect for a judge. He interpreted the signs correctly and that is why he took the necessary precautions to prevent himself from being caught unawares, and as further precaution to ensure that he was not caught unawares, he was not here today. However, he associated himself with a new concept, a concept which we began debating last year, namely “to cope with a difficult period of transition”. What does this mean? Besides the fact that the Rabie Commission associates itself with the well-known Appeal Court Case, the State vs Krohn, in 1915, in which it is confirmed that the State may defend itself with all means at its disposal, the Commission even states that, in its opinion, it is necessary that cognizance be taken of the view that we shall have to bring about socio-economic changes in certain aspects in order to satisfy reasonable aspirations. Furthermore, the Rabie Commission states that it has taken cognizance of the fact that the Government is engaged in certain processes in order to accommodate these reasonable aspirations. To support this argument, the commission quotes Prof. Mathews, author of Law, Order and Liberty in South Africa. He is a well-known philosopher of jurisprudence, and he is not a supporter of this side of the House. The commission quotes him …

Out of context.

You must now keep quiet. You have said enough this afternoon.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Sandton that his leader did not acknowledge Prof. Mathews as his source when he quoted him. I do not know whether he was therefore committing plagiarism. I am specifically stating that I am quoting Prof. Mathews, so that it cannot be alleged that I am committing plagiarism. Prof. Mathews said inter alia the following in his book—

He states further—

I have not given the page references from which I have just quoted, but the hon. members can obtain them from me. It is, however, very clear that Prof. Mathews adopts the standpoint that when a country is engaged in procession of reform, a country in which the different aspirations of a plural society have to be satisfied and where taxpayer’s money has to be used to create an infrastructure for the sake of reform, even a liberal Government would be compelled to take certain preventive measures. The hon. Leader of the Opposition associated himself with this, completely at variance with what the hon. member for Berea, the hon. member for Houghton or the hon. member for Pinetown said here today. I suggest that there is a deep rift in that party on internal security, with the hon. member for Yeoville definitely on the one side and the hon. Leader of the Opposition leaning over to the other. [Interjections.]

In the limited time at my disposal, I want to thank the hon. members on this side of the House, who dealt with the Opposition so effectively, for their contributions, and I want to reprimand the hon. member for Houghton on a few points.

The hon. member for Houghton blazoned it abroad that the Rabie Commission had come forward with nothing new with regard to people who were detained for questioning. If she were to say this outside the House, I would call her a liar.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I understand that the hon. The Minister says that if the hon. member for Houghton should say this outside the House, he would call her a liar.

Would the hon. the Minister please elaborate on what he said?

I do not dare elaborate on her mental state and what I think of it. [Interjections.] I said that if she alleged that the Rabie Commission had not recommended anything new with regard to the present wording of section 6—i.e. detention for the purpose of questioning—she should not say it outside this House, because I would then call her a liar. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to question the honesty of the hon. member for Houghton? [Interjections.]

Order! I think that the hon. the Minister should rather withdraw that allegation.

Mr. Speaker, my suspicion … [Interjections.]

I insist on it that you withdraw that allegation. [Interjections.]

He has already withdrawn it.

Then it was inaudible. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, …

Order! Did the hon. the Minister withdraw the allegation which he made against the hon. member for Houghton?

Mr. Speaker, if you rule that I made such an allegation, I withdraw it. [Interjections.] To emphasize the point that the hon. member for Houghton did not read the report, that she did not inform and enlighten this House correctly, I refer her to some of the provisions we are dealing with. At present the Commission recommends that a detainee in solitary confinement shall be visited by a magistrate at least once every 14 days. In terms of the present wording of the section of the Act concerned, this is only done if circumstances allow. In addition the commission recommends that a detainee shall be visited at least once every 14 days by a district surgeon. This is not in the Statute Book at present. Then the hon. member for Houghton still maintains that there is nothing new in the recommendations of the Commission in this regard.

She did not read the report at all. [Interjections.]

At the moment there is no provision for access to such a detainee, except by an official or the Minister himself. The Commission recommends that this position be amended by empowering the Commissioner of Police, when he sees fit, and subject to conditions which he may impose, to grant the right of access. What is a also very interesting, is that the detainee, according to the recommendations of the Commission, may furnish reasons why he should not be released after a period of six months. Previously, cases of this nature were revised every 30 days and a new decision had to be given every time. Now I want to know if the hon. member for Houghton is not ashamed of herself. [Interjections]

With regard to the other matter in regard to which the hon. member for Houghton quoted a long passage to us, we can now understand why the Rabie report also recommended that, besides the access which I have just referred to, there will be no other forms of access. The Commission analysed in depth the possibility that a doctor or lawyer could accidentally convey certain information to outside persons, without having any ulterior motives. The Commission gave its attention to this possibility and came to the conclusion that there could even be people who would deliberately convey information. It mentioned the possibility of communist attorneys, and even furnished a few examples, as well as the names of such communist attorneys. Now I should like to assert that the hon. member for Houghton gave us a demonstration this afternoon of why it is a wise approach which has been recommended by the commission in this regard. The hon. member for Houghton has after all demonstrated that she can fabricate documents. She can smuggle documents out.

In the dark. [Interjections.]

That is what she can do. She can do all these things. [Interjections.]

Do you really think I did that? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister of Justice has just said in so many words that the hon. member for Houghton has proved that she can fabricate documents to meet certain requirements. [Interjections.]

Order! Would the hon. the Minister of Justice please repeat what he has just said?

Mr. Speaker, I said that the hon. member for Houghton proved that it could in fact be done.

And she did it too. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in connection with this matter …

Helen, are you going to do it again? [Interjections.]

Order!

With reference to section 6, that section on which the hon. member for Houghton specifically concentrated her attention, it is very clear that the S.A. Police, by implication and insinuation were in fact disparaged in this House this afternoon. The S.A. Police have a dual task by the performance of which we must test them. They must not only arrest criminals; they must also fight crime. They must also fight terrorism as a crime, and in this regard the S.A. Police must gather information to find out exactly what the terrorists want to do. The S.A. Police must gather information as evidence for their court cases. Surely the hon. member for Houghton told the hon. the Minister of Police that he must take the people to court so that their cases can come before the court to be judged. How on earth can this be done if the necessary information cannot be obtained? What kind of logic is behind the hon. member’s argument? In the light of all these things the recommendations of the Rabie Commission according to objective viewpoints are very interesting and acceptable in this regard if this should be found to be the case after analysis by the hon. the Minister of Police and the Government.

Unfortunately my time has expired and I therefore move—

Agreed to.

With leave, motion withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The aim of this amendment is to place beyond all doubt that practical experience must serve as a qualification for registration in property valuation. We consider that the wording “gained practical experience of work in property valuation” states this intention far more strongly and clearly. This is also being done in view of the problems raised by the hon. member for Sunday’s River in connection with this particular clause.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I again emphasize that it is patently clear that in this proposed legislation discrimination—and I repeat the word discrimination— seems to be applied in the case of the person of 45 years of age and over and who has had 15 years’ practical experience. As I see it, the motivation I used at Second Reading is completely valid. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that he has sympathy with that particular person. It is no use having sympathy without there being protection in law. Therefore I again appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister not to allow the proposed council any option as to whether it “may” accept a person who qualifies in terms of this proposed section 13(3)(a), but to make acceptance mandatory in respect of those who have made application and qualify in all other respects in terms of this proposed section. I also believe that precisely as it is mandatory in the case of those who apply for associate membership, it should also be mandatory in the case of those who are 45 years of age and over. In this way the necessary protection will be accorded those people who have been rendering what I believe to be valuable service to their communities.

The effect of this Bill will, inter alia, be to bring about a closed shop of valuers, possibly resulting in higher tariffs caused by so-called “specialities”, tariffs which ultimately the man in the street will have to pay. We are indeed aiming for a higher standard. However, I should like to express a word of caution. It may well be, as somebody has said, that this measure has been phrased in such a way that the “rats and the mice” as they are called, will be kept out, but I want to submit that there are sufficient measures with which to deal with the type of person referred to in clause 19, without prejudging anyone.

Furthermore I should like to ask how many of these people over the age of 45 years could be involved here. I do not believe there are many and it is quite apparent that with the fullness of time they will disappear from the scene.

In closing I should like to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to reconsider his position and to accept the amendment, which merely seeks to bring the position of those people over 45 years of age on a par with that of those people who apply for associate membership.

Mr. Chairman, while I have sympathy for the point of view of the hon. member for South Coast, I really think that part of the object of this Bill is to exclude the people whom he described as the “rats and mice”, who in my opinion are the sort of people in the valuation profession who, for example, would, as estate agents advertise, give one a free valuation on one’s house although they might not even be competent to give one such a valuation. The object of giving the council more discretion by the use of “may” rather than “shall”, is that the council can then prevent this sort of people entering the profession. I believe that this is very important, because the object is precisely to upgrade the valuers’ profession. I believe that the omission of the word “may” would create real problems for the council.

The argument of the hon. member for South Coast that this provision will result in higher tariffs, is not valid, because there is provision in the Bill for the institute of set tariffs in consultation with the Minister. This is not really relevant to this clause, but I do not believe that there will in fact be exploitation as there will be a tariff fee as well as provision for a fee to be negotiated if necessary, which I think is very fair on valuers. Often highly qualified valuers will, for example in expropriation cases, negotiate a fee well above the tariff fee because of their very special skills and the considerable extra work they have to put in to prepare for valuations.

So, Mr. Chairman, while I, like the hon. the Deputy Minister, have sympathy with the problem of the hon. member for South Coast, I really think that in a sense his amendment will allow the kind of people into the valuation profession whom this Bill is designed to keep out.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I think the whole aim of the legislation is specifically to raise the standards in the valuers’ profession. I believe that if we accept the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast we shall in fact be weakening that aim. If one also takes into account the composition of the council which has to decide on this type of applicant, one can draw only one conclusion, and that is that the valuers who will serve on the board will possess the higher qualifications. They will have to be people capable of being trusted to exercise their discretion with great responsibility. For that reason I, too, believe that the amendment we are now discussing ought not to be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister why he has made it mandatory for the associate member and not mandatory for the person who has been serving his community for 45 years. Why is there this difference? Why is the hon. the Deputy Minister discriminating against the elder person?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to follow the hon. member’s argument. The hon. member for South Coast is particularly concerned about this clause. He says that in terms of the clause, as it reads at present, there is no obligation on the board to register a person under subsection (3)(a)(i) and (ii). The hon. member argues that the situation can arise that the board may be described as a sort of closed shop. I suppose this may be possible.

*We must note that clause 13 is an extremely important clause; the crux, in fact, of the legislation. The hon. member for Ermelo argued that one must raise the standards, but at the same time one does not want the existing situation as regards valuation to be disrupted in the process by disrupting all those involved. One does want to begin a process of elimination in order to eliminate people in the course of time by means of examination.

I am sympathetic towards the hon. member and will accept his amendment, for the simple reason that in the process it is permitted that everyone who complies with the requirement of 15 years of experience and has reached the age of 45 years may register. After five years, however, such a person must be prepared to undergo an examination prescribed by the board. One can argue, then, that no one will register in advance as a valuer if he does not intend eventually to undergo the test of having to write an examination.

I am quite prepared to accept that amendment by the hon. member, but then we must retain the provision as it was inserted in the Bill. I am now referring specifically to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, viz. that we should leave out the provisions relating to examination. I think we should read these two provisions together. Under those circumstances I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to do any horse-trading with the hon. the Deputy Minister.

*However, do I understand him correctly when I say that he is saying that if I am prepared to withdraw my amendment, he would accept the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast? Is it perhaps so that if the hon. member for South Coast withdraws his amendment, the hon. the Deputy Minister would accept my amendment? I think we should get clarity in this regard. I am fully prepared to be accomodating.

Actually, Mr. Chairman, it is just the other way round. The fact that I am accepting the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast strengthens the motivation that the provision relating to examination should be retained in the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to confirm my amendment which I moved previously.

Amendments moved by the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs and by Mr. A. G. Thompson agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. G. B. D. McIntosh negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we can look forward to some very good results from this Bill. The council is going to have a great responsibility enforcing the terms of this Bill and I trust that they will do so with sensitivity, but with the long-term interest of the valuers’ profession at heart. I believe that at last they have a tool that will mean a great deal for the improvement of valuation as a profession in South Africa. I also believe that it will lead to a reduction in litigation and costs in many areas, if the council does its job and ensures that it admits people as valuers and associate valuers only on the strictest terms possible. From this side of the House we wish the new council all the best and we trust that they will do a good job in these first difficult 12 months of their existence.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are pleased that the Bill has gone through, because it is obviously going to make the standard of valuing much higher. I am also extremely grateful to the hon. the Deputy Minister for accepting my amendment, because there are many people who have given a valuable service to their community who are getting on in years. I believe this amendment is going to give them a further opportunity to earn a livelihood without its being taken away from them.

Today is an exceptionally historic day for the property industry in South Africa, in that the stage has been reached at which a long-felt need has been met, viz. that the valuers in South Africa are now going to organize and professionalize themselves to ensure that in their industry, too, major successes may be achieved in South Africa. The general public in South Africa will be protected by the high standard that the board will maintain in the implementation and administration of the Act. I should like to state very clearly that interference by the authorities in the valuer’s profession is extremely limited and that everything will depend on the effectiveness of the board which is to be appointed. We wish those involved every success.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, in the Second Reading stage the hon. member for Greytown and I indicated that we had certain reservations on matters of detail relating to this clause. One of them was that in the proposed new section 18D(4) there is mention of the principles by which people should be recompensed, i.e. in the determination of the purchase price. I quote—

We indicated that that was a vague statement which really did not take the matter much further. Perhaps this House should know what the principles are and perhaps this House itself should determine the principles and not leave the matter to determination by regulation. If I remember correctly, in his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister said he would look into this, and we are waiting to see what his reaction will be to the proposal we have made in this regard.

There is, however, another feature that concerns us, and here I refer to the proposed new section 18D(2) which refers to a pre-emptive right for the Community Development Board to repurchase, and I quote—

Once again there is no guideline whatsoever to indicate to the board or the various boards, in coming to a decision, whether they should purchase or not. In the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech he did give a guideline which said in effect that nobody would enrich themselves through the application of public funds where properties were bought below market value. It is for this reason that I drafted the amendment that stands in my name on the Order Paper. I understand that the hon. the Minister is unhappy with certain aspects of it, but I should nevertheless like to move it just so that we can have a discussion about it, and if the hon. the Minister does, in fact, satisfy us I shall, with the permission of the House, then withdraw my amendment and delete the words “at prices below current market value”.

When it comes to utilities, the precedent does exist in section 57 of the Housing Act or, when it comes to the National Housing Commission, in section 56 of the Housing Act. There is a difference, however, between the activities conducted in terms of the Housing Act and those conducted in terms of the Community Development Act in that National Housing funds are very specifically applied to people in the subeconomic group. They are, therefore, very specifically applied to people who have to be assisted. That is why the present ruling is that it applies to a married couple at a salary level of R650 per month. They can have access to property through this particular fund.

The Community Development Boards, however, do not deal solely with subsidized housing. Let us take, for example, the situation of South End in Port Elizabeth. Once the Development Board purchases the land and redevelops it, it sells much of that land at ordinary commercial values.

The question is whether, if land is sold at an ordinary commercial value—let us say by way of public tender—there should still be the same pre-emptive right and whether the board should be guided in this regard. Because we would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I move that on the understanding that the hon. the Minister will deal with this amendment. If need be, we will with the permission of the Committee withdraw it and substitute a provision deleting the words “at prices below current market value”.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the mover of this amendment. I have studied it in some detail and I am also aware that, as he indicated, there is a precedent for this pre-emptive purchasing in other Acts. I wonder, however, at the necessity of introducing it here by way of this amendment. I would also, of course, be interested in what the hon. the Minister has to say about it. It seems to me that the intention in the clause as it stands is fairly clear, viz. that people shall not sell to make a profit and that, if there is a likelihood of that happening, the department will get first option. I should imagine that the only criterion which would decide the department not to take it back would be if it were not in the department’s interests. I would therefore be inclined to think that, with the precedent we already have and with the intention being very clearly stated in the Bill, as I see it, the amendment would be contrary to any provision one finds in similar Acts, because this is not really law but an argument. This is why I have some difficulty in supporting the amendment, although I appreciate the hon. member’s intentions and certainly support his sentiments that people should not make a profit out of public sponsored housing. However, I do not think one can improve the quality of the legislation by introducing this amendment, because the amendment constitutes an argument and not law.

Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the position that I agree with both hon. gentlemen. The hon. member for Sea Point raised two matters. With reference to subsection (4) he wanted to know what my standpoint was with regard to the determining of the purchase price that we want to insert in the regulations. I shall come back to that in a moment. He then dealt with his amendment to subsection (2). The proposed insertion reads as follows—

As the hon. member indicated, this was taken almost verbatim from my Second Reading speech. It is not stated so explicitly in the legislation, but I agree with the hon. member for Umbilo that it is stated by implication in the legislation that it is the intention that profits must not be made from properties of the Community Development Board, that they must not be used for speculative purposes. To put the matter beyond all doubt I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point in an amended form. I think the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point gives us a guideline which states the intention of the legislator very clearly and unambiguously, viz. that there should be no speculation with the board’s property. I think he stated the matter very concisely and briefly. I think that this amendment can serve as a summary of everything that is stated in the clause and everything I said in my Second Reading speech.

However, I said to the hon. member that I was not happy about the words in line 3 “at prices below current market value”, because I do not believe we should be so blatant as to tell the world that we are selling properties at lower than market value. It is true that there are cases when we sell at market value. Moreover, market value is a very relative concept. Indeed, in previous legislation we have seen that it often depends on people’s subjective viewpoint and is subject to variations. I should be prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment if it read—

Therefore the words being deleted are “at prices below current market value”. If the hon. member wishes to be accommodating and change his amendment accordingly, I shall be prepared to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the approach adopted by the hon. the Deputy Minister, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to withdraw the amendment that I moved.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

I now move the following amendment, which contains the changes proposed by the hon. the Deputy Minister—

Therefore the words “at prices below current market value” are deleted. I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for being accommodating in this regard.

The hon. member for Umbilo states that what the guidelines or the approach of the board should be, is clear from the legislation. That may be clear from the speech by the hon. the Deputy Minister and perhaps even from speeches made in this House, but until such time as guidelines are laid down in the legislation there is in fact no legislative guideline. I therefore thank the Deputy Minister for the sympathetic way in which he has approached this problem.

Mr. Chairman, I move as my first amendment—

If I may just motivate this amendment, I wish to point out that it contains a specific exclusion. Only two of a large variety of possible ways in which people can purchase property from the State are affected hereby. Therefore I do not regard this as in any way a contradictory provision. It only applies to two very specific omissions; or exemptions from the provisions of the clause, if you will. In the first place I mention the full cost allocation, and I do so in order to state clearly that no subsidy is involved and that the property in question is indeed being sold by public tender or auction. The important difference here is that the source of finance is not a State body. Therefore, this means that the money derives from another source, which makes the situation entirely different to when the person involved owes money to the State.

The aim here is of course to involve the private sector in housing. It may therefore also be expected that if the pre-emptive clause is excluded in cases of this nature, such a property would fetch a higher price than when the provision in question is in fact made applicable to the seller. Then, too, separate schemes are also placed on an equal footing. The prospective purchaser of State property in a specific scheme is aware that the board cannot simply exclude specific schemes, but that all will be dealt with on the same basis. Therefore the aim, which is to make dwelling units available, is achieved. In addition, the private sector is involved.

The second part of my amendment relates to cases where empty stands are purchased. When people purchase empty stands, they are usually subject to a building provision. Therefore, in my amendment I ask that after the building provision has been complied with, the pre-emptive provision should lapse. This is aimed at preventing a purchaser who has purchased a stand at a low price and built an expensive house on it, from having to offer to sell that expensive house to the State. This is important, particularly if we bear in mind that in determining the price in terms of the department’s regulations, as also in terms of the Housing Act, provision is made for a profit of only 6% on the capital spent. This means, of course, that the purchaser is on the losing side from the outset.

Therefore my amendment is aimed at confirming only two specific exclusions from the pre-emptive clause, the most important aim being the involvement of the private sector in housing and the granting of the assurance to the private sector that it may continue to spend money on lower to middle income housing.

Mr. Chairman, I gave the amendment of the hon. member for Greytown very careful consideration. However, I cannot accept it. It definitely constitutes a watering-down of an important amendment moved by the hon. member for Sea Point, to the effect that properties of this nature are not sold for speculative purposes. Whether or not cash is paid for such property is not to the point. In fact, as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greytown is worded, it is in conflict with what is provided in the proposed new section 18D(1). I refer to line 24 on page 3 of the Bill, where the following appears—

Therefore it does not matter whether the full amount is paid or not. Nor does it matter whether the property in question has been-sold by tender or auction, as the hon. member requests in his amendment. Nevertheless this constitutes a watering-down of the principle that there may be no speculation with these properties. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Greytown.

There is a second leg, too, in the hon. member’s amendment in which he asks that at least in cases where undeveloped plots are sold, we should allow the purchaser to speculate with such plots.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to explain to the hon. member what gave rise to this specific provision in the Bill. Over the years speculation with properties of the Community Development Board occurred on a very small scale. However, it did not occur on a scale sufficiently large to justify legislation. A few years ago we began township development at a certain place and made many cheap plots available there, intended for the middle income group. What the hon. member for Sea Point said, viz. that the National Housing Commission provides for the lower income group who earn under R650 per month, is correct. However, people who earn between R650 and R1 000 per month also find it very difficult to purchase property on the open market. It is for that category of person, namely the middle income groups, that the Community Development Board seeks to make provision. We then began with great difficulty and at great expense to carry out township development in this particular municipal area. We sold the plots, and it was possible for speculators to purchase more than one plot because, as hon. members will know, they often purchase through nominees. There were a number of speculators who obtained some of those plots and who built very luxurious houses on them for the higher income groups, houses with two garages and two bathrooms, for example. It had never been the intention of the Community Development Board that we should provide for that category, the higher income group. They built those speculation houses and sold them at a considerable profit. Therefore I cannot accept the second leg of the amendment either, the section which calls for a restriction to be imposed on undeveloped plots so that the owner can develop at will and so that there is not a pre-emptive right. I therefore regret that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Greytown.

Mr. Chairman, I move as a second amendment—

1. (a) the sources of financing;
2. (b) interest rates;
3. (c) escalation of building costs;
4. (d) the personal circumstances of the prospective seller;
5. (e) the amount by which the original purchase price or instalments have been subsidized;
6. (f) improvements effected; and
7. (g) maintenance costs.

The aim of this amendment is to improve the regulations relating to the determining of price in instances where the owner and the board are unable to agree. The Housing Act itself provides that principles be laid down by way of regulation, but once again, we do not know what those principles are. Therefore it is the aim of this amendment to define the regulations further; in other words, to state clearly what the regulations should contain. Once again, if one looks at the example laid down in the Housing Act of 1957 in terms of the regulations, we see that the principles to be applied in determining the price take certain factors into account. In terms of the wording, the following factors have to be taken into account: the value of other properties, the value of the property according to estimated cost etc., but “provided the purchase price does not exceed an amount composed as follows”. Subsequently it is provided that interest at 6% per annum up to the date of sale may be taken. That, for example, would be far too low. The man would definitely suffer a loss.

In addition, provision is indeed made for improvements, but not for the important aspect of maintenance costs. Therefore, in my amendment I say—

Once again, the source of financing used by the original purchaser makes a big difference. For example, if he obtained the house by owing the money to the State, he could be subsidized by interest rates of 9%, for example, whereas a building society loan could cost him 12% or 13%. In that case one must definitely take into account the difference between the purchaser’s sources of financing. The second factor to be taken into account is specifically the interest rates involved. The third factor is rising building costs, which must also be taken into account because that individual will be faced with the escalation of building costs on replacement. The fourth factor is the personal circumstances of the prospective seller. I said during the Second Reading debate that there could indeed be bona fide reasons for the sale, for example an addition to the family, factors relating to employment, an exchange within the same scheme, etc. The fifth factor to be taken into account is the amount by which the original purchase price or instalments have been subsidized.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.