announced that in terms of Rule 23(4) he had referred the following draft Bill which had been submitted to him, together with the memorandum thereon, to the Standing Committee on Private members’ Draft Bills:

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Standing Select Committee on the Accounts of Posts and Telecommunications, dated 28 May 1986.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

Mr Speaker, last night when the House adjourned I had been explaining that a rather interesting incident took place in the Standing Committee on Law and Order while it was deliberating upon the Bill we are considering today. There was no de facto quorum—though it has been ruled de jure—because the members from the other two Houses walked out of the standing committee when the vote on the desirability of the legislation was put. Apparently; at that time they were unable to make up their minds about what line to take. In the meantime we have proceeded with the legislation.

We have also seen that a number of proposed amendments have been placed on the Order paper, and I would be interested to know what the hon the Minister’s line is going to be if, in fact, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, at Second Reading, reject these two Bills, that is, the Public Safety Amendment Bill and the Internal Security Amendment Bill. It will be interesting to know whether the hon the Minister will proceed with his own amendments to see to it that the Bill is suitably amended to omit certain objectionable clauses. We would like to know from the hon the Minister what he plans to do.

We had no difficulty about what line we were going to take on this Bill, and neither did the hon member who represented the CP. He, however, was for both Bills, while my colleague on the standing committee, the hon member for Green Point, and I were obviously against both Bills, and we voted that way. The hon member for Durban Point was apparently in a quandary. He abstained from voting on the Public Safety Amendment Bill and voted for the Internal Security Amendment Bill having informed us beforehand that he has always been against detention without trial. That is actually an interesting historical inaccuracy—to which I, who have sat here in this house while he voted for many previous measures, can bear witness. [Interjections.]

We on these benches contend that this law, if and when passed, will become a permanent part of our legislation even though it was designed to deal with an emergency situation. We believe that it will bring the administration of South African justice into disrepute throughout the civilised world—that part of the world anyway that cherishes civil rights and the rule of law. We believe it will totally destroy any good that might have come from the reform measures—such as the abolition of the pass laws which we are presently involved in doing—that are being presently introduced. It will undermine any good that will come from that sort of reform and other reforms such as the restoration of citizenship which are presently being contemplated. It will undoubtedly facilitate the imposition of punitive sanctions against South Africa, both in the United States and in European countries. It will also further increase the growing isolation of the Republic.

I have no doubt that hon members of the NP are consoling themselves having seen the United States’ Secretary of State, Mr Schultz on TV a few nights ago when he addressed church leaders in the US. He stated that the US Government recommended that US companies stay in South Africa and “continue to act as a force for good”. However, I want to tell hon members—I was in Washington just two weeks ago—that I am convinced that Mr Schultz was pleading for a lost cause. I have no doubt that the legislation presently in the pipeline in Congress and in the Senate is going to make it very difficult for US companies to remain in South Africa for the simple reason that there is a new tax Bill coming in which will withdraw the rebates enjoyed by American companies operating in this country—the rebates which relieve them of paying double tax. That is a Bill that is very likely to be approved. That, plus the hassle factor, which the American companies operating in South Africa endure when they are at home, constitute a double reason for withdrawing. I might add that sanctions are very much on the line as well, including, as I have often warned this House, the withdrawal of landing rights for South African Airways, no new investments, no new loans to private people as well as to the South African Government, and a prohibition on the importation of certain South African goods into the United States.

Bills like the one we are considering now are the very things that will force the issue in the USA. Together with that is the factor of the sight of television—my own colleagues have mentioned it—of the police beating up students and other peaceful protesters with their disgusting sjamboks which should long ago have been removed from the armoury of the police. This does not mean that I suggest that shotguns are any better! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister told us of escalating unrest and he said that that was the major reason for the Bill. I want to tell him that he and his police are major causes of the unrest. His ridiculous restrictions at funerals—I have mentioned this before and also to the hon the Minister—are unenforceable and an invitation to civil disobedience. It means that the police have to move in, which leads to further confrontations between them and the residents of the townships. Of course these funerals become political rallies for the simple reason that the hon the Minister has seen fit to prohibit all indoor and outdoor meetings except genuine sports rallies. These prohibitions give absolutely no outlet for peaceful protest and they also lead to ever recurring confrontations between the police and the Black public particularly.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that I welcome the fact that he has given us assurances that he will include in the regulations that he can frame under the proposed new section 5A(4) access by detainees to medical attention and access by the detainees’ relatives to them. That will certainly be an improvement on the regulations which he framed to cover the emergency situation.

The hon the Minister also states that he will insert in the regulations the instruction that relatives be informed of the whereabouts of detainees. He mentioned that in his speech. May I presume that he intends to stick to that?

That is presently the position.

It is not the position at all. The hon the Minister told me the same thing when I discussed this matter with him during the emergency, and I can tell him that it was a practice that was not adhered to by the police.

But you will not accept any assurances.

I visited Modder B Prison and saw 30 young prisoners, not one of whom had a visit from a relative. I can only assume that the relatives did not know where those young people were. I made it my business to inform the relatives by taking down the name and address of each one of those detainees.

I do not believe the police have been carrying out the instruction to inform relatives. If such an instruction is to be inserted into the regulations, I hope that the hon the Minister will see to it that it is carried out in future.

He cannot get anything done.

I can assure the hon the Minister that adherence to such an instruction would spare me the considerable amount of time involved in having to track people down and inform them of the manner in which they may apply to visit their detained relatives. It is a most complicated procedure. They have to find out who the OC is of the area in which the detainee is held and then write a letter and wait for a reply. This is a very difficult procedure, particularly as the parents of many of the detainees are uneducated people.

It is significant that the hon the Minister did not mention in his speech that he intended to omit the indemnity clause.

[Inaudible.]

He is going to retain it.

I gather that he is going to retain it. I had hoped that he would decide to omit it because it is one of the major causes of escalating unrest. Whether the hon the Minister likes it or not, I believe the indemnity clause encourages police excesses. I have no doubt that it encourages excesses by the security police when they are interrogating detainees. They all know in the back of their minds that they can do anything they like and nothing will happen to them because the hon the Minister has protected them with the indemnity clause.

The hon the Minister has told us over and over again that the indemnity clause does not protect the police from punishment for unlawful acts. I can tell the hon the Minister, however, that the police themselves do not seem to think that. Many unlawful acts take place. My hon colleagues have already described them to this House, and we all read about them during the months of the emergency. As the Society of Advocates pointed out in paragraph 15 on page 10 of their memorandum:

On the next page it goes on to say:

The proposed Bill to which they refer is the Public Safety Amendment Bill. To my mind, this lack of adequate control alone is sufficient reason to oppose this Bill.

Now, I want to remind the hon the Minister of some of the regulations, because in a way we are being asked to vote blind on this Bill since we have no idea what the regulations are going to contain. The hon the Minister has told us of some of the things he is going to insert, but we do not know all the particular provisions of the regulations. I also want to remind hon members of this House that one proclamation after the other issuing new regulations in terms of the Public Safety Act was issued during the state of emergency. I have no doubt that the hon the Minister will have no difficulty in doing exactly the same in terms of this legislation because it allows him to declare an area to be an unrest area and to issue regulations with the widest possible powers. There are no restrictions on the hon the Minister who may issue any regulations he likes.

I wonder if the hon the Minister is going to include in the regulations which he will be gazetting for the unrest areas a regulation which will allow a member of the Force to interrogate any person arrested or detained in terms of clause 4 of the Bill. Is he going to allow that? Is he going to allow interrogation? The point I am trying to make is that this is not just preventive detention. Under preventive detention, section 28 of the Internal Security Act, people are in fact protected from interrogation. They are locked up—as the hon the Minister once said—“to allow them to cool off.” Well, Sir, if the idea of removing people from society by means of this legislation was simply to allow them to cool off and not to allow them to intimidate people or to incite violence in any way, why then should the hon the Minister make a regulation allowing the interrogation of someone who is going to be detained in terms of the Public Safety Act?

Now, the hon the Minister has said he is going to allow access by relatives, and that is an improvement on the old regulations issued under the emergency regulations. Originally, no detainee was allowed to study. Is the hon the Minister going to allow anybody to study? We must remember of course that these people are going to be locked up for quite a long period in terms of this legislation. A detainee was not allowed …

If they do not want to go to school outside, why should I let the school go to them inside?

Why not by correspondence course?

Never mind! If they wish to study, the hon the Minister should…

All the necessary facilities exist for them outside. Why do they not attend school outside in an orderly manner.

Remember, they are inside, Louis!

The hon the Minister should realise it is rather difficult to study when one is locked up and cannot get access to books. Is the hon the Minister going to allow them to purchase foodstuffs from the commissary at the prisons where they are going to be held? That was certainly not allowed before.

Then, Sir, I want to know from the hon the Minister whether he is going to impose the same sort of disciplinary regulations which he did during the emergency? Those disciplinary regulations carried with them severe penalities, and they could for example be applied to anybody who swore or “used slanderous, insulting or improper language.” I imagine detainees will be inclined to do a fair amount of swearing. This also applies to anybody who converses …

Those regulations were drawn up by the hon the Minister of Justice. Why do you not ask him those questions you are putting to me now?

But, Sir, in terms of this legislation this hon Minister is going to be able to draw up regulations. Who is going to draw up the regulations in relation to this measure?

Also the hon the Minister of Justice.

Well, is this hon Minister then going to consult with him? I remember, Sir, raising this very question with the hon the Minister of Law and Order during the emergency, and he then told me to consult with the hon the Minister of Justice. I consulted with the hon the Minister of Justice who told me in turn to consult with the hon the Minister of Law and Order. So, Sir, that is the sort of treatment one gets. [Interjections.]

The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing!

I will conclude my remarks in relation to this matter simply by reminding this House that it is the same legislation we are going to vote on, irrespective of which hon Minister is going to draw up the regulations. Hon members should bear in mind that the penalties are pretty stiff in the event of a contravention of the regulations. They include, believe it or not, corporal punishment not exceeding six strokes if the detainee is a male person under the age of 40 and no other punishment is imposed on him. Other form of punishment include the usual things such as solitary confinement, loss of meals etc.

We know the hon the Minister is going to introduce the indemnity clause. It is very likely there will be the control of school boycotts with the ridiculous restrictions and prohibitions about a child being outside a schoolroom during school hours, which in turn adds to the unrest and the anger of students at school.

One very important regulation was the one that restricted the media. Is the hon the Minister again going to restrict the media on reporting on and filming any unrest?

You can be sure that there will be restrictions.

I can be sure that he will do so. Right. [Interjections.]

All in all I would say this is an absolutely classical example of a Bill on which to move “this day six months”, particularly as the hon the Minister now tells us he is again going to undermine one of the normal freedoms of a so-called democratic society, which is, of course, the freedom of the Press and the right of the public to know what is going on. I can tell the hon the Minister that I learnt more about what was going on in South Africa during the period when there was a state of emergency when I was overseas in July and November last year than I learnt in all the months that I was at home. I learnt it from the TV which showed day after day the events that were happening in South Africa. I am convinced that if the millions of decent citizens in this country had seen on their television screens the scenes that I saw overseas, there would have been such an outcry that the hon the Minister and his police force would have had to mend their ways. I have no doubt about that. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister has told us about all the provisions he is going to introduce. I want to mention on or two other objections that we have to the Bill.

The amendment in clause 2(c) to section 3(6)(a) of the principal Act diminishes the already limited safeguard of parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations framed in terms of the Act. The memo from the Society of Advocates draws attention to this as well.

The existing provision stipulates that unless regulations are approved by resolution of both Houses during the same session—that will now have to read all three Houses during the same session—they will cease to be of force and effect; in other words, they automatically become invalid. The new provision lays down a different procedure. Actual annulment by the three Houses is now required by way of a resolution passed by all three Houses during the same session. This is a far more difficult process, as we discovered earlier this session when we tried to obtain time from the Government Whip to move just such a resolution for this house to debate and, we hoped, to pass. It was a resolution condemning the incorporation of Moutse into kwaNdebele. However, we could not get any time from the Government.

That is no fault of mine.

No, but it is now going to be the hon the Minister’s fault because he has turned the procedure upside down. Instead of resolutions …

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Minister does not seem to understand what I am saying. However, he certainly understood it when he incorporated it into this Bill, because he knows that it is far more difficult to get three Houses to pass a resolution to render invalid which requires time for debate than it is to invalidate by simply not approving specifically. He knows that.

I know that. I framed this provision personally.

They why is the hon the Minister saying that it is not his fault? Whose fault is it?

Because it was just a futile exercise that we had in the past. [Interjections.]

Really? I want to tell the hon the Minister that it was a very useful device whereby one could have an offensive provision removed. It was a very useful device but the hon the Minister has of course done away with it. That suits him far better.

Wide discretion is now given to the hon the Minister to declare an area and unrest area. It is a discretion which is wider than that which the State president has in terms of the principal Act to declare a state of emergency. There is no mention that conditions have to be a serious threat to public order—nothing like that. The hon the Minister can simply go ahead and declare a area an unrest area if he is of the opinion that it is necessary. He does not even have to believe that it is a serious threat to law and order.

The limitation of the declaration of an area as a area of unrest to three months is quite useless. We discovered that in the 90 day detention law when a person was released after 90 days and then rearrested. The Bill in fact actually makes provision for the extension of the three-month period.

The hon the Minister told the House on Monday that he did not enjoy introducing this measure—though he seems to be enjoying it today—but that he hoped it would act as a deterrent and that he would not want to use the powers that it extended to any great extent. He said that the fact that the Government had only twice since 1953 used the Public Safety Act demonstrated how unwilling it was to use that sort of legislation. However, he forgot to remind the House of the long, dreary succession of powers the government has taken since 1953, all of which have undermined the rule of law.

Why did he not tell the House about the amendments to the Suppression of Communism Act which granted more and more powers to the Government, or the Act which was passed in 1962 which introduced house arrest, the 1963 Act which introduced 90 day detention, the 1965 Act which introduced the detention of witnesses for 180 days, the Terrorism Act of 1967 which introduced the notorious provision of indefinite detention in solitary confinement for purposes of interrogation under which at least 50 people including Steve Biko and Neil Aggett, have died? [Interjections.] He also did not remind us of the 1976 Act introducing preventive detention and the consolidated Act of 1982.

It is total sophistry for the hon the Minister to say that the Government has demonstrated its reluctance to use these powers. They have used them over and over again and I should remind the hon the Minister of the total failure of these measures to achieve the objective of maintaining law and order in South Africa for the simple reason that if order is to be maintained, the law must be just—something said many years ago by a British member of Parliament.

This is a deceitful piece of legislation. It brings in all the oppressive features of a declared state of emergency without such a declaration. It is an insult to the intelligence and who, I wondered, does the hon the Minister think he is fooling? Who does he think is likely to be taken in by the palpably shifty device that is contained in this Bill? We are certainly going to vote in the strongest possible way against the Second Reading of this bill in order to record our objection to it. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Houghton would have been acting completely out of character, acting outside the rules of her own activities in this House over the past 33 years, if she had supported this legislation today. The hon member did not surprise the House today, therefore. She has consistently fought this kind of legislation tooth and nail for the past 33 years. [Interjections.] She said at the end of her speech:

I wonder what the position in South Africa would be if we did not have legislation of this kind. For the sake of convenience, however, as she regularly does, the hon member never tells the House that the onslaught on South Africa, on the internal security, on the public safety and in particular on our Black areas, has increased in intensity every year. [Interjections.]

That is as a result of your legislation.

Yes, exactly, and if it increases despite the legislation, one should consider other legislation to determine whether one cannot normalise the situation. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the arguments of those hon members today. They must really not think they are dealing with a lot of angels outside this House. They are trying to create the impression that the people outside this House all have wings, or are people who are simply having a bit of fun.

The hon member for Houghton always talks about police violence. [Interjections.] She also likes quoting to us, as she did again today. She contends that this legislation that we want to pass will give sanctions from America a shot in the arm.

I assure you that will be so.

Speaking of America, I remember how there was a community in one of the American states last year—I cannot remember the place’s name now—and the only fault those people had was that they stank too much. The community stank too much. What did the Police do? They took a helicopter or an aeroplace or two and bombarded the people. That was what happened in that wonderful, beautiful country, the world of democracy. [Interjections.] Just because the authorities did not like the smell of the place and the people did not want to leave it, the Police decided to bombard them. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Houghton does not tell the House what is really happening in South Africa. Does she want to tell me, for example, that she approves of a policeman’s being buried alive?

Of course not, man.

Does the hon member for Houghton want to tell me she approves when someone who is simply attending a UDF meeting where they are having fun, is killed because he is regarded as a Police informer?

I made a statement on that …

Surely that is the reason for proposing this legislation. After all, this legislation is not aimed at law-abiding and peace-loving people. They are precisely the people we must protect against the kind of thing that is occurring today. It looks as though the hon member has a short memory.

I don’t forget …

Of course the hon member is not inclined to remember things! Not so long ago, at the beginning of this year or the end of last year, when Mr Oliver Tambo suggested that they would increase their efforts in South Africa and that they would even aim more at soft targets, that hon member remarked—I just want to get hold of it quickly …

Get the right quotation.

Of course I will get the right quotation. [Interjections.] I am going to quote not only her words, but also those of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. According to The Argus of 10 January 1986 the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said:

The Argus reported further:

Very prophetic!

When these people spoke more and more about violence, she herself expected the Government to take stronger steps. [Interjections.] The hon member’s perception was quite correct. [Interjections.] We in South Africa would have made an absolute mistake if we had taken a different stand. I also want to refer the hon member to what Chief Minister Buthelezi said about the same matter. He said it was not the policemen who put tyres around people’s necks and were responsible for the violence propagated by these people. It was not the Police who were responsible for that, but the hon member said: “The Police are the major cause of the trouble in South Africa.”

South Africa has to maintain law and order within reasonable bounds, while there is an onslaught from outside which has increased in intensity during the past 33 years in which the hon member for Houghton has sat here, but in my opinion South Africa cannot entrust its future to that party or the people who support the hon member for Houghton or think as she does. [Interjections.]

Once again the House is getting the opportunity to state the case on law and order very clearly. A government which is not in a position to guarantee the safety of its residents does not deserve support and must make room for another government. Since the NP assumed the reins of government, this party and the Government have been tested by the powers of violence regularly. They have been able to resist and keep it at bay every time, but we also have conclusive evidence that the struggle is increasing and intensity and will continue to do so. The advocates of violence, unrest, intimidation and murder are being fed more and more by international support. They want to create a dispensation here that conforms to international communism.

At the moment they dare not engage South Africa in a conventional war, but the country has to be paralysed internally by means of public unrest. When South Africa is completely divided, paralysed, impoverished and devastated, and when it can no longer resist, the plan is to attack the Republic from its neighbouring states by means of a conventional war to give it the deathblow.

†I believe that public security legislation is never aimed at peace-loving and law-abiding people, it is not aimed at people who legitimately strive for greater freedom and a better way of life. It is not aimed at people who want reasonable change in South Africa.

It is those people who want violent revolutionary change, who have no respect for life and property and who want to disrupt and disorganise society completely and subject it to tyranny and to mob rule at whom we are aiming. Those are the people we want to get at in South Africa, and we would be failing in our duty if we did not make that clear to the people of South Africa.

Let us also bear in mind that those who want to change things by violence are becoming cleverer every day.

Should they use the ballot-box?

It seems to me that they even have their spokesmen in this highest forum of the land. [Interjections.]

Should they use the ballot-box?

They can use the ballot-box, of course; why not? [Interjections.] Opportunities are being created for them. The hon member knows that. [Interjections.]

†I say that those so-called freedom fighters who propagate violence merely put up the facade of being the great protagonists of freedom and democracy. They are not freedom-fighters. We soon see—and we have already seen it—that they become nothing less than armed terrorists.

As we all know, they have selected Black people as their victims. There have been “necklaces” and other senseless killings. A policeman was recently buried alive. These are acts of intimidation, and it is a known fact that they are trying to force Black policemen out of the Black townships. This is not because the Police commit violence, but because the Police deal with the perpetrators of violence. We must blame those people who start the violence and not those who sometimes have to use some form of force in order to stop violence in South Africa.

South Africa cannot afford mob rule. We have a clear duty to law-abiding citizens, and they are our responsibility. There are many built-in factors in South Africa which can cause violent outbursts. We all know that, but we are not in need of political criminals who want to fan the flames of political violence even further.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, I am not answering questions. [Interjections.] I believe that their efforts in South Africa should have very, very little success. They should have the minimum of success, and it is our duty to try to prevent them having major success.

I personally have clarity in my mind that, because we are dealing with people who have no respect for democracy, ordinary methods will not change their habits. Nothing sensible and no fundamental change will change them.

What democratic channels are open to them?

We often hear, and we heard it yesterday, that apartheid must just be done away with, and then things will change.

*Even Mrs Maggie Thatcher told Oliver Tambo recently—this was after he had contended that apartheid was what had caused all the problems here—that he was talking absolute nonsense. She pointed out to him that apartheid does not exist in Uganda, for example, but that just as much violence occurs there. We are subjected to hearing nonsense of this kind constantly, however.

†Therefore, I believe we are fully justified in taking exceptional measures in order to deal with these matters—measures which can cause South Africa to suffer the least harm.

Do you know what they are?

The measures?

Yes.

But of course! We are dealing with them right now. [Interjections.] The hon member for Houghton has read out some of the regulations. The hon member for King William’s Town has been sitting here all the time listening to the debate. So, he should know what they are. [Interjections.]

*I hope the hon member will not put these questions to me now. It is not necessary for him to question me on this. I know what those regulations are all about. He must merely ensure that he acquaints himself with the contents of the regulations. [Interjections.]

What democratic processes are available to 90% of the population of South Africa? [Interjections.]

Sir, I believe it is immaterial whether the Communist Party or the ANC is the dominating influence. They both work together. They both have one objective, and that is to overthrow the State and to replace it with a form of dictatorship, which will definitely not be a benevolent dictatorship. It is also necessary that we should be reminded of the words used by Solzhenitsyn when, in 1975, he said:

He was referring here to the Soviet Union—

*Why can not we see just a small display of firmness, of purposefulness and of strong-arm action on the part of the Official Opposition? [Interjections.] That is the only language those people will understand. [Interjections.] That is precisely why I believe this legislation is necessary.

The only effective counter to violence is justice!

South Africa does not want to give in to the powers of violence and nor will the Government tolerate any such thing. That is why I congratulate the hon the Minister and the Government on this step. I congratulate them on their determination to take a further step which must safeguard South Africa and all its people against the dangers of domination and violence. Our objective is a stable community, particularly among the Blacks. This cannot happen while unrest and danger are prevailing, however. Our responsibility in this connection is becoming greater and greater. That is why we also have to adopt far-reaching and often more drastic measures to deal with this. That is why I support the legislation under discussion.

Mr Speaker, I rise not to take too much of the time of this House, and certainly not to continue with the tone of debate which we have witnessed here over the past two and a half days.

I rise this afternoon in the hope that we on these benches may be able to find a way out of the impasse in which we all find ourselves in relation to this issue. We are in the third day now of one of the most acrimonious debates that I have listened to in the twelve years in which I have been in this House. I have heard some of the most heated exchanges, and I believe that many of the things that have been said will be best forgotten. I am also sure a number of hon members who have said certain things here during the past few days are going to read their Hansard and are going to wish they had never said them!

You will be one of them!

I am not saying this to any party or to any particular person. I make it as a general observation, and if anybody has a cap which he feels fits, well, then he must wear it. [Interjections.]

Before I go any further, however, I should like to point out just one thing to the hon member for Houghton. I am pleased she came back in time to take part in this debate because I believe this sort of debate needs her point of view. She did say, however, that the hon member for Durban Point has changed his stance. I want to tell her that I have served with the hon member for Durban Point for many, many years, and I know that hon gentleman’s standpoint as regards detention. He has spelt it out time and time again. He says, and we believe, that there could well be a need for detention in certain circumstances, but we have always stressed—and he has always been in the forefront of this—that it must be subject to the process of review. The hon member for Durban Point has never adopted any other viewpoint. That has always been the condition he has laid down. In the debate when he put our point of view, he emphasised that fact. I remember clearly that he said at the end of his speech that on the hon the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate would depend our attitude towards this Bill at Second Reading and certainly our attitude in the Committee Stage.

To fortify that point of view the hon member has on the Order Paper today an amendment in which he states clearly what this Party stands for. His amendment calls for the substitution of the proposed section 5A(7) inserted by clause 4, and I am going to read his amendment because I think it is important. As hon members will recall, the hon member for Houghton originally moved that this subsection be omitted from the Bill. The hon the Minister has now moved the omission of that subsection. We support both the hon member for Houghton and the hon the Minister of Law and Order in that, and we are to move for the substitution of that subsection by the following:

That puts our party’s viewpoint clearly.

Now that we are coming to the end of this long debate—or I hope we are!—I think it is time for all of us to pause for reflection and possibly to cool a very overheated situation. We have an overheated situation here that is not doing the image of our country any good anywhere. This is not helping us. One knows what is happening in the outside world. Those of us who take an interest in these matters will know what is happening in the USA at the moment and of the debates taking place in the USA at this moment. We know what is happening in the UK and in Western Europe. We have to ask ourselves what is in the best interests of our country. That is what we have to ask ourselves today. I believe we have the means to achieve a solution at this time. We have the means of achieving the best possible answer through rules written into our tricameral system. For all that some people may say about our tricameral system I say thank heavens for it many times, because we certainly have some excellent provisions written into it. We have a mechanism which we must now put to good use in order to allow us to pause and to reconsider, because we have to look for solutions that are acceptable, firstly, to all three Houses of this Parliament. That is the dilemma we find ourselves in at the moment. I think the hon the Minister knows as well as I do that we have not yet found solutions or consensus on the road that will be acceptable to all three Houses that make up this Parliament. Proof of that can be found on the Order Paper of the House of Representatives today. One only has to look at the long fist of amendments they intend to move to this Bill.

I move this afternoon that we invoke under the Joint Rules and Orders Rule No 30(1)(c), the mechanism for the recommittal of this Bill to the relevant standing committee. I therefore move as a further amendment—

I believe that by doing that, we may achieve what we are looking for.

Are you in the same camp?

I am moving that it be recommitted.

Are you in the same camp?

Are we in the same camp as what? We are in our own camp and we are asking for a little sense and a little coolness. However, this hon Minister is once again displaying his arrogance. [Interjections.] Once again he is coming forward with this arrogant attitude. Why, I ask, does he persist in this? Why does he not, just for once, stop and consider what could be in the best interests of his country, of himself and of his Government if it comes to that. This, after all, is the only thing that is in the best interests of his Government. Has he not listened to what has taken place in this House over the past few days? We have listened attentively to what has gone on, and I have never heard utterances …

I have been involved in talks not for three days but for the past three months now.

Quite right; and the hon the Minister is so close to consensus. However, he will not support this simple mechanism that will allow him to achieve that consensus and to at least meet people and to achieve what is in the best interests of his country. The hon the Minister leaves me no alternative but to move the amendment.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Umhlanga introduced two interesting issues into the debate. The first of these is the question of a review board and the second is the question of using the relevant standing order to have this Bill recommitted. In any event, I think that is an attempt by the hon member to seek some sort of compromise. However, does he really expect this hon Minister and his party to agree to such a proposal when the hon the Minister persisted in bringing the Bill to this House after the hon members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates walked out of the committee meeting? It is precisely because this hon Minister and his Government are determined to push this Bill through this House that they are not prepared to meet that sort of issue. [Interjections.] It may be a second prize—and I really think the hon member for Umhlanga is somewhat naive—but we are pleased that he supports this side of the House in realising what a bad Bill this is.

I am also pleased that the hon member for Umhlanga has raised the whole question of the involvement and the importance of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. I believe that if there are two Houses that have the eyes of South Africa—and in fact of the world—on them in terms of their looking after the democratic heritage of our country, then it is those two Houses at this time. I believe that they have a critical role to play in the history of South Africa and in this Parliament at this very moment. I therefore hope and believe that they will respond to the challenge of democratic rights at this time in South Africa’s history because that is what I believe this debate is actually about.

We have had a long debate and, unlike the hon member for Umhlanga, I think it has actually been a good debate. The hon the Minister has listened courteously, carefully and meticulously to every speech, and my respect for him and his patience, as well as his ability to listen to so much talking, can only grow. This is a very important debate and it is right that we should spend a good deal of time on it. As the hon the Minister himself conceded in his Second Reading speech, he does not enjoy this kind of legislation. This hon Minister is a trained lawyer and he must understand that for a democratic parliament or a democratic society to introduce a Bill like this is an admission of failure. This is an important debate for precisely that reason. Furthermore, the Bill is an enabling measure. It is a Bill which enables the hon the Minister to make regulations, and it is clearly a Bill which has to be—and in fact has been—widely debated.

Any state must maintain order. This hon Minister who represents the constituency of Potchefstroom will know, as a good Calvinist, that the tradition of Calvin is that it is the function of the authorities of the State to exercise the responsibility of the sword and of the magistrate. As a good Calvinist and Christian, he will recognise that a society always has its lawless elements. To use Calvinist terminology, it has to keep sin in control. In any society the state has that function. It is the function of the state to keep law and order and to maintain peace. However, that is a function of justice. One cannot have peace in a society without justice and without access to democratic rights and to the courts.

Hon members on the other side of the House seem to suggest that the PFP is not aware of the problems of running a complex, difficult society like this one. I venture to suggest that we are more in touch than other hon members in this House with the horrors and the reality of much of what is going on in South Africa. However, we believe that we have to raise a bigger issue. We cannot stare blindly, looking simply at the horrors of this problem.

We have sympathy with the security forces. Allow me to quote one example of the kind of problems which one member of the PFP encounters. He lives in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg and is called out to serve in his army unit and to search an area in a Black township for a cache of arms which the security forces are convinced is in that area. He is warned before the search starts that he must be as courteous as possible, treat the people decently and must not cause unreasonable incidents.

At 4.00 am he has to knock on the door of a family which is sleeping. It is winter and the windows are closed. Someone opens the door. The house is full of people because most of our urban Black townships homes are overcrowded. The people are all sleeping and, obviously, when a house is closed up and people are sleeping, there is a strong smell. He has to wake the people up, switch on the lights or get them to light candles or shine his torch around. The people are upset; he is upset, and he now has to search the crowded house. He has to turn out all the drawers. Initially he does it neatly and tidily but then he gets bored, tired and irritated. Therefore, he just goes through the house, searching quickly. He gets annoyed with himself because he does not like what he is doing, so both he and the people in the house are upset.

In that case a cache of arms was found and he knew that he was doing the right thing because it would prevent other people from being killed. However, the point is that this is a person who votes for our party, who does his duty by his country but who is caught in the agonising situation which that kind of action involves. We are aware of all these sort of problems and tensions, and we want the hon the Minister to understand that.

The powers for which the Public Safety Act provides have been used twice, as the hon the Minister said and as the hon member for Houghton reminded us. A state of emergency—that is effectively what it is—has twice been declared. We have had a discussion about ungovernability which is in this instance the relevant principle. However, this Bill is actually an admission by the Government that the country is ungovernable!

What happens in a democratic society is that a government goes to its parliament and says that it cannot control a situation in a particular area. It declares a state of emergency and then advises parliament about it. Parliament then debates the issue and has a right to revoke that state of emergency which is an admission that the normal, democratic standards of government have collapsed, if not for political reasons then because of natural disasters such as floods. Therefore as soon as one has a state of emergency one has an admission of ungovernability because otherwise one would carry on running the place normally. [Interjections.] It is right that such an action should be newsworthy, that there should be ungovernability, because in a democratic society if we have to declare a state of emergency it is a signal to the whole society and the world that there is something seriously wrong.

I would like to come back to this in a second, but the issue at the moment which is worrying …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member a question?

Mr Speaker, I would like to respond to the hon member’s question; he normally asks good questions, but when I have got to the end of my speech I will do so.

The real issue at the moment is 16 June. In other words, the reason why the hon the Minister wants to bulldoze this Bill through Parliament is that he wants this Bill to be law in time for 16 June.

Do you want a holiday?

I will come to that. I am sure that there is going to be an enormous popular expression of opinion on 16 June. Not only the hon the Minister of Law and Order but also his colleagues in the Cabinet such as the hon the Minister in charge of Education and Training and the hon Ministers in Charge of Indian and Coloured education have realised this, because they have planned their school year to put 16 June in the school holidays. They know that 16 June is a symbolic day.

I believe I have to ask the hon the Minister of Law and Order whether he is actually opposed to peaceful protest or to peaceful stayaways without intimidation. That is, I believe, the first question the hon the Minister has to answer. If he is not, then I believe, if we are to have disturbances on 16 June, the Government must move to defuse that situation politically. What have some of our businesses done to deal with that danger, as it were? They have told their people they can have the day off; they can have 16 June as a holiday. It is my view that if the majority of the people in our country want to have a holiday on 16 June because they want to remember what happened tragically in Soweto in 1976, then give them a holiday. If the hon the Minister is such a good politician, why does he not announce that he is going to appoint a commission of enquiry into public holidays and that we are going to look at the possibility of public holidays more effectively? The hon Minister now laughs and smiles at me, obviously indicating that he thinks I am a fool. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister should appreciate that if he is going to help this country to normality he has to do creative things and defuse the situations.

If the hon the Minister is worried about a situation on 16 June I can assure him that the PFP will arrange a behind-the-scenes, off-the-record meeting for the hon the Minister with the people who are involved in organising much of the activities for 16 June.

Thank you, that is very kind of you indeed.

Between you and the ANC!

Let me tell the hon the Minister that he will be surprised how much co-operation and goodwill he will get from some of those people. [Interjections. I believe it is the hon the Minister’s job to defuse political situations, not simply to bring in laws like this which are going to create problems.

What worries us is the record of the Government. [Interjections.] The point of the record of the Government, as I see it, is that every tough law they have produced has been followed by a tougher one. The hon member for Houghton has just listed them. I could do the same. Not only that, take for example the question of Mr Sobukwe. He served a full sentence in jail. He was detained by executive order in jail.

For six years.

For six years, as the hon member for Houghton reminds me. Why was he detained? It was because the Government recognised that Mr Sobukwe had substantial popular support in the Black communities.

He was a communist!

Mr Sobukwe was not a communist, that is for sure. [Interjections.] I just want to tell the hon member for De Kuilen that that is a typical reaction from that side. That is one of the problems we have in this House and it is one of the problems with a Bill like this. Mr Sobukwe was an active and supporting member of the Methodist Church until the day he died. He came from a staunch, devout Christian family from Graaff Reinet. [Interjections.] He left the ANC precisely because he did not like the communist influence in the ANC. It just shows how ignorant, how stupid and how uninformed that NP front-bencher is. He ought to know better than to display that kind of stupidity. [Interjections.] That is the problem in South Africa at the moment. If we are to support the Government, and if the Government plans to introduce any kind of change in the future, we cannot have this kind of approach. [Interjections.] Maybe the hon member has not read his Government’s recent booklet, Talking with the ANC, but if he reads page 5 he will see that in 1958 a group of so-called Africanists were expelled from the ANC because of their objection to communist influences in the ANC. Mr Sobukwe was one of those. [Interjections.] I find it very interesting that an NP frontbencher, who is a hardened old politician, can be so misinformed as to what actually goes on in South African politics that he can just shout across the floor that Sobukwe was a communist. [Interjections.]

That is what is so worrying about the future of this country. This Government talks about reform, yet it does not even understand the complexities and the subtleties of what we are having to deal with in this country at the moment.

What about Mandela? [Interjections.]

That hon member has exposed his ignorance and now he is trying to wriggle out of his predicament. He is not going to be allowed to, however. [Interjections.]

I believe this hon Minister ought, as a matter of principle, to visit the seventh floor in Louis le Grange Square in Port Elizabeth. That is where the interrogations and the abuses under the detention laws are carried on in Port Elizabeth—at least that is the one place of which I am aware; perhaps they are carried on elsewhere as well. If the hon the Minister is serious about controlling abuses in the Police Force, he should some day fly unannounced to Port Elizabeth and go straight to the seventh floor of Louis le Grange Square. I believe this hon Minister will do more to stop any abuses or excesses by policemen who are undisciplined and out of control by visiting Louis le Grange Square unannounced than by doing anything else. Not even a court case such as the one that they have just had in Port Elizabeth would have the same effect. [Interjections.]

The second aspect of this Bill about which I am concerned, is the inhuman task which this Bill is placing upon the shoulders of the SA Police. I do not believe that any police force anywhere will not use all the powers given it. It is unreasonable to expect it not to do so. I believe, therefore, that it is unreasonable to expect a policeman to carry out the activities and functions which this Bill is going to make them carry out. After all, the policemen are not politicians. They are policemen who do a good job to the best of their ability. So how can they be expected to carry responsibility for this kind of issue?

We can think of many examples of this. Let us take the old liquor Bills which John Vorster got rid of, section 16 of the Immorality Act which has just gone, and the pass laws which went even more recently. I do not believe it helped the Police at all to have to administer those laws. I believe that if one spoke to many of the policemen they would say they were just doing their duty in administering those laws—which is right and correct—but that they themselves accepted that those laws in no way helped them in their work as policemen. One must appreciate that.

It is constantly alleged that we on this side of the House only criticise the Police. The SA Police, and this hon Minister in particular, are responsible to this Parliament. All of us on this side of the House are also elected members of this House. We are elected by our voters to hold this Government accountable for the way they use public money, and the SA Police are funded with public money. Quite clearly, therefore, it is our responsibility to keep an eye on the Police. Neither the UDF nor the people who do the “necklacing” nor Inkatha elect us. The people who elect us are the people who want the Police called to account. That is why we are concerned about the actions of the Police. So I believe it is our duty and our responsibility to be concerned about the actions of the Police.

I believe that if one were to ask the hon the Minister and any of the senior officers of the Police Force who have dealt with PFP MP’s in the past 20 months or two years, neither the hon the Minister nor the officers will be able to say anything other than that we have been courteous and understanding. We may have been tough and we may have had certain conditions that we wanted to impose but we …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member a question?

I know the hon member for Amanzimtoti needs to ask questions but if he could just wait until the end of my speech I will happily answer his question.

Let me give hon members one example. On Saturday there was a potentially very difficult situation in kwaMashu. There were two big funerals. One was an Inkatha funeral and one was a UDF funeral. The Inkatha people arrived to bury their dead and the UDF people also arrived at the same cemetery. The Natal Mercury of 2 June carried the following report:

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member a question?

He is in the middle of a quotation!

I quote further:

Order! The hon member for Kuruman has asked whether the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North will answer a question.

Mr Speaker, if the hon member for Kuruman had better manners he would wait until I had finished the quotation before asking me to answer questions. [Interjections.] The final quotation is:

I therefore believe the Police made a useful contribution because they kept the peace and there were no problems at these funerals. They were ready to handle the situation. They apparently confiscated some of the weapons which members of the one group were carrying as well as petrol bombs and tyres which members of the other group were carrying. To me it is the function of the Police to control and to keep the peace in such a situation.

Mr Speaker, I will now answer the question of the hon member for Kuruman.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether the UDF speakers undertook the funeral or whether they held the service?

Mr Speaker, I was not present. Maybe when the hon member for Kuruman has attended one of those funerals he can provide us with the information. [Interjections.]

†Mr Speaker, I believe that is an example of what the Police can do.

When one looks at the Bill one sees that the Bureau for Information was one of the organisations consulted when the Bill was drawn up. The Bureau for Information was consulted I believe because in one sense this Bill is nothing more than a marketing law. It is a technique to market a permanent state of emergency. It is a Bill to disguise martial law when it is applied. Instead of this Government having to declare a state of emergency it can thus simply have de facto martial law in any little area in which it chooses to impose it. It is simply a Bill to disguise what the real situation is.

Nothing is going to change in South Africa unless there is political reform. None of the law and order Bills from the days of the Suppression of Communism Act has helped. The international effect is also not going to be reduced because people are able easily to see what the Government is up to. The hon the Minister himself accepted this fact when he said in his Second Reading speech that one of the reasons why we must have this Bill was because of the effect of the declaration of a state of emergency on our economy and overseas. The Government therefore reckons that we can have a state of emergency by stealth rather than by open recognition.

It is precisely because we need law and order and because of the issues raised that this document in my hand is very interesting in relation to this Bill. What is most interesting is that the Government calls it Talking with the ANC. I believe it is a breakthrough because it is not talking “to” the ANC but talking “with” the ANC. In a real sense I believe that this document is a breakthrough for the Government even if it merely serves to educate the hon member for De Kuilen about who are communists and who are not! [Interjections.] I believe that the hon the Minister and his Government are accepting the fact that people will have to talk to the ANC because it recognises that the ANC is a spectrum of opinion. I believe in some ways that this is a simplistic analysis.

I want to ask the hon the Minister something. On Saturday there was a meeting at the Voortrekker Monument. That meeting could easily have resulted in unrest.

No, nonsense! [Interjections.]

The AWB were at that meeting.

It took place under the Nazi flag!

That’s right! Under the Nazi flag! I do not know whether the CP and the HNP like to stand under the Nazi flag. [Interjections.]

I have never heard a priest He like that!

Do we in this House really believe that the AWB, the CP and the HNP are all of the same political ilk?

I have never heard a priest He like that!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Kuruman said that he had never heard a priest He Like this.

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must withdraw that.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr Speaker, I do not know to whom the hon member was referring.

Does the hon the Minister really in his own mind believe that the AWB, the CP and the HNP are the same political organisation? The only reason why they co-operate on an occasion like that is because they have a certain political objective in mind. In the same sense I believe that the hon the Minister should appreciate that people who are involved in fighting apartheid do not necessarily all agree on what they would like to see after apartheid. That is the issue. Those people who support violence or certain organisations are not necessarily agreed on what will happen in a post-apartheid society. That is what this Bill is all about.

I believe that if this Bill is used for totalitarian purposes we will have achieved nothing. If this Government is serious about talking with the ANC then I believe that this Bill may just be justified. If there is no political reform, however, we may as well give it up.

I wanted to come back to the hon member for Sasolburg but as he is unfortunately not in the House at the moment I will not waste any time there.

An hon member asked by way of interjection about the scale of violence that there was in India before their independence.

Yes!

The hon member for Rissik will be interested to know this.

It was I who asked it!

Oh, it was the hon member for Rissik. A study has been done that has shown that if we in this country were to have proportionally the scale of violence which there was in India to gain independence—by independence I mean for everybody to share in the democracy—10 000 people would probably be killed.

What about Pakistan? Tell us something about that!

If we are going to have the scale of violence that there was in Algeria—this is perhaps a more appropriate comparison—then 4 000 000 people will be killed in this country. I do not believe that any hon member in this House or any South African for that matter would want 10 000 people killed in this country, let alone 4 000 000. We have probably already had 1 200 people killed.

The figure is 1 900!

That sort of thing will happen if you ignore ethnicity.

I believe that if this Government does not show more commitment to real power-sharing then there is no point in having this Bill. It will not solve anything for South Africa.

It is power-sharing that is causing the trouble!

It may cool things down for a while but it will bluff this Government into thinking that it has control. Unless the Government begins to negotiate with all South Africans about a new constitution as soon as possible, measures like this Bill are just going to bring us closer to a totalitarian military Government. Mr Speaker, I shall now take a question from the hon member for Amanzintoti.

Mr Speaker, during his speech the hon member said that the hon members in those benches were responsible to the people who elected them. May I therefore ask him if he does not agree that the people who elected them want the agencies of law enforcement in South Africa to control the criminal and revolutionary forces that are intimidating people and burning them to death if they do not comply with the wishes of those forces?

Are you making a speech?

Does the hon member not agree that the people who elected those hon members would want the law enforcement agencies to control that element in South Africa? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, of course I agree with the hon member. I do not think there is anybody who does not want to have those elements controlled, but the bigger issue is the reason why these people are resorting to such methods. [Interjections.] Just saying “yes’ or “no” to this sort of question does not resolve the situation. In any event the hon the Minister and his Government already have innumerable laws to deal with this situation.

They do not work!

They can if necessary also declare a state of emergency. In my opinion therefore this legislation is not going to help. There is a much bigger issue fundamental to this problem. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I thought I was the first to request permission to ask a question, but now the hon member has allowed an hon member of the CP and another hon member to put their questions.

†Mr Speaker, the hon member said that in a democratic country, when one admits one is not able to maintain law and order with ordinary laws, it means certain things. May I ask him how many countries there are in the rest of Africa which do not need and pass extra laws? I am not talking about Germany, but about Africa.

Mr Speaker, the sort of mentality just displayed by the hon member is the same as that found among Americans and Britons who seem to think that we are a colony of theirs. I am a South African, and I want the best for South Africa. The fact that there are badly-run countries elsewhere in the world does not justify repeating their mistakes here. There are some Black countries which are well run although most of them are badly run. Why must we compare ourselves with the worst of them? This is our country, and we have to run it decently on a proper democratic basis.

But why must we have a Black Government in South Africa?

Why must we listen to the nonsense uttered by the imperial mentalities which the hon member’s question reflects? Does he want us to be like a Black African country which has no respect for democratic traditions? I do not! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I am grateful that I are now being given the opportunity of delivering my speech after this further mini debate.

It was not my intention to participate in the debate, but I want to say something briefly regarding the amendment moved by the hon member for Umhlanga. It is the opinion of this side of the house that in South Africa’s interest it is essential that this legislation be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible to give the executive authority, and in particular its Police arm, the necessary powers to act in the interest of maintaining law and order.

So far the debate has lasted two and a half days. We have already listened ad nauseam in previous debates to the arguments by the opponents of this legislation. [Interjections.] If one strips these arguments of their padding, not one hon member has pointed out that the Bill affords the executive authority of South Africa no greater powers than it already possesses de facto in terms of existing legislation. [Interjections.] It is therefore our standpoint that if possible we should prevent the executive authority from once again having to announce a state of emergency in South Africa.

This is how I see the legislation in a nutshell. It is therefore our standpoint that this legislation should be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible. To refer it back again, at this juncture, to the standing committee, which has already had adequate opportunity to reach consensus on this legislation, is a further waste of time as far as we are concerned. The present part of the session will soon be over and it is essential that this legislation now be placed on the Statute Book.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon member for his support for the Bill, and I should just like to confirm at this stage that neither of the two amendments is acceptable to the Government. We shall therefore vote on them.

I shall return to the hon member for Green Point at a later stage of my argument because I should first like to make a few general remarks on the debate.

I just want to say it was quite an interesting experience, after so many years, not to listen to the hon member for Houghton but to another member as the main speaker on the opposition side. I am not saying that we looked forward to it; I am merely mentioning it because it was a special occasion.

I should like to tell the hon member for Green Point that he, as the first speaker on the opposition side in this important debate, quite obviously took trouble with his speech. I listened to it attentively, and since he is now being trained by the hon member for Houghton I hope that he will stick to what is positive and not acquire any of her tricks. [Interjections.]

Since the debate covered such a wide field, although the amending Bill basically makes provision only for two really important matters, namely the declaration of an unrest area under certain circumstances, and the preparation and publication of provisions and regulations in that connection, I should like to make a few general observations before I come to any details of the matters raised by hon members. Naturally I shall not be able to attempt to reply to every argument.

In the first place, hon members of two of the opposition parties tried to create the impression that NP members participated half heartedly in the debate and did not fully support the legislation. [Interjections.] That is extremely unfair. Basically hon members on the Government side received ten minutes per member from their Whips because they wanted to save time and pilot the measure through its various stages in Parliament as quickly as possible and have it placed on the Statute Book. That is why hon members on the government side spoke for ten minutes or a few minutes longer. If this was not officially cleared with the Whips, I should like to state here that that was the attitude with which hon members on this side of the House tried to participate in the debate.

There was an obvious lack of enthusiasm. [Interjecions]

No, the hon members did not have a chance to reply, and I shall do so on behalf if it is necessary.

Furthermore I should like to confirm that this measure enjoys the unanimous support of every member of the Government caucus.

Hear, hear!

In addition, every member of the Government caucus is prepared to fight in the interests of the security of our country. No one must have any doubts about that. Hon opposition members must not try to abuse such a positive attitude which hon members displayed and try in that way to make detrimental remarks. [Interjections.]

The second matter to which I should like to refer is the following. I find it a great pity that hon PFP members tried to intimidate the other two hon Houses through their statements in this House.

It is a disgrace!

The remarks made by the hon member for Sandton in this connection were really in very poor taste. [Interjections.] I want to refer to three passages. I am quoting from his Hansard, as I received it. I cannot confirm that this is the final product, but when the hon member referred to these two leaders, he said inter alia:

That is a fact. That is not intimidation. [Interjections.]

Then the hon member went on to say:

Interestingly enough, Mr Speaker, I received a telegram in my office just before this afternoon’s sitting, from a person in Bedford. It reads as follows:

This telegram came from an ordinary member of the public. [Interjections.] This is a member of the public who is already beginning to ask the hon member for Sandton some questions.

However, I should like to refer to the third passage in the speech made by the hon member for Sandton, as follows:

That, Mr Speaker, I maintain, is an absolutely poor taste. [Interjections.] But what are the facts? I should like to place the following facts on record here as well.

Last week talks took place between the State President and myself on the one hand, and members of the standing committee of both the two other Houses—the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates—on the other; first jointly and then separately. The hon Chief Whip of Parliament was also present there, as well as the chairman of the standing committee.

That is how you intimidate people!

Those talks were a bona fide attempt—together with preliminary private and official talks—not necessarily to arrive at a compromise in regard to the legislation, but to try to accommodate and/ or clear up every possible problem area. It was a bona fide attempt by Parliamentarians, who were trying to accomplish only that. Consequently it was against that background that even the State President, as the highest authority in this country, attended the talks. Because he takes such a serious view of security in our country, and also wants to make a serious attempt to bring about consensus—not by finger-pointing and browbeating, as the hon member for Sandton alleged—among Parliamentarians, the State President declared himself prepared to meet the Indian and Coloured members of the standing committee and discuss the matter with them. [Interjections.] During that discussion the members of the standing committee—the members of both Houses—under the chairmanship of the Chief Whip of Parliament, unanimously intimated … [Interjections.]

Order!

… that after the discussion held on Friday morning they were in agreement on the necessity for the legislation and the proposed amendments as printed in my name on the Order Paper.

Are you speaking for them now?

No, I am not speaking on their behalf. I am merely placing the fact on record.

May I ask you a question?

No, I am not prepared to reply to your questions. You are too unmannerly. [Interjections.]

Which amendments were those?

They were the two on which agreement was reached. This consent was unanimous, with the proviso that they continued to be strongly opposed to the principle of detention without trial. Consequently it was unanimously agreed that both measures would nevertheless be presented in both Houses as agreed measures. This was according to the members of the standing committee, on which the members of both Houses were present.

That is not the truth!

Was it official? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, hon members can accuse me of being untruthful if they like. They can go ahead and do so. I am placing these facts on record here in this House …

Those half-facts!

I am not prepared to endure the poisonous accusations of the hon member for Sandton in this House either. If he is too much of a coward to rise to his feet here and say things to my face, he can do so as soon as we have left the House. But we have already had too much of his sort in this House. [Interjections.] I say this was according to the members of the standing committee who were involved in those discussions.

It is now apparent that there were other developments in the interim, but I nevertheless want to convey my special appreciation to all the hon members in the other two Houses who made such an earnest attempt to help the Government to have essential legislation placed on the Statute Book without any unnecessary delay. That is all I want to say in regard to this matter.

Another idea I should like to express here is the following: It was conspicuous in this debate how the PFP changed its strategy the moment the hon member for Brakpan pointed out the standpoint of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, as was apparent from his speech as reported in Hansard in column 3610, to the hon member for Durban Central. It was quite conspicuous. What did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition say in that particular passage in Hansard? I should like to place portions of that speech on record here, because it is of the utmost importance in this debate. He said the following, and if I am to a certain extent repeating facts, it is unfortunate …

Will you give us the reference?

I am quoting from column 3610 in the English Hansard.

Of what year?

1986! [Interjections.]

I am not asking the hon member’s age, like yesterday.

*The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said the following (Hansard, House of Assembly, col 3610):

We believe that violence is ugly and it is brutal. There is nothing noble about violence; it is ugly and it is brutal, not only for what it does to individuals but for what it does to a whole society or a whole community. It brutalises that society or that community. Secondly, we believe that violence feeds on violence and, in the end, develops a destructive and mindless momentum of its own. Thirdly, while in the short term people might think they might win, violence produces no winners; violence only produces losers.

Hear, hear!

Hear, hear!

A little further on the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said—I am skipping a sentence or two:

This Bill is the violence of oppression.

Then the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went on to say:

Then he said:

Just for the edification of the hon member for Houghton, I repeat what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said: “… we believe that action must be tough”. [Interjections.] He also said:

We are trying to achieve both those objectives through this Bill. [Interjections.]

He continued:

That is exactly what we want to do, and we are getting all the opposition in the world from the hon members of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

He went on to say:

*That is what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said. However, hon members of his party—I am not saying all of them—are fighting us tooth and nail on every important point he identified there.

What was interesting was that up to the stage at which that interjection was made and that question was asked by the hon member for Brakpan, hon members of the Official Opposition had conducted the debate as though we were dealing with a struggle between certain people and organisations on the one hand, and the SA Police on the other, and as though the only answer was to be found from the ANC and Mr Mandela, as the only representative majority and recognised leadership group. That was the standpoint of the speakers of the PFP throughout. It applied to all of them, and it was placed on record.

That is not true!

Surely the hon members’ speeches were placed on record!

This reference to the ANC and Mr Mandela was put forward by the PFP speakers in an unqualified way as the answer. It happened during Monday’s debate, until this matter was raised. It struck one that the hon members of the PFP calculatedly refrained from referring to the SA Communist Party. Not one of them did that, but they left it to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North to plead in The Argus of the past few days for the SA Communist Party to be released from the provisions of the Acts which are applicable to them so that they may operate freely in South Africa.

This justifies that plea!

That they left to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. [Interjections.]

After the course of the debate on Monday, when only the ANC and Mandela were discussed in this House, one PFP speaker after another went out of their way yesterday to say something positive about the Police and at the same time to condemn violence, without any further reference whatsoever to either the SACP-ANC alliance or to Mr Mandela. That was not in style yesterday. [Interjections.]

Therefore I want to tell the hon members of the Official Opposition that their efforts in some respects were pathetically obvious. With the exception of the hon members for Pinetown and Bryanston, as well as the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North and some other hon members, I personally doubt the sincerity of the PFP members in this connection, and I am calculatedly placing this on record.

What do you mean by that? [Interjections.]

Hon members must please not try that. I have been in this House too long to be bluffed by such an obvious ploy. [Interjections.]

If one asks oneself what the crux of the PFP argument is, one finds that they do not try to advance reasons to emphasise the seriousness of the situation and why we should oppose violence. One does not find that anywhere. [Interjections.] On the contrary, the debate being conducted by the Progs is about why some people are entitled to commit acts of violence. That is the essence of their argument. [Interjections.] One can be under no other impression but that that is the essence of their argument. And then they came up against the question put by the hon member for Brakpan, and the standpoint of their leader who expressed his disapproval of revolutionaries and terrorists. They came up against that standpoint. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Durban Central came forward with a plea for the ANC and Mandela to be unbanned and to be accepted as the real leaders. He said the following:

What is the answer? In my view, the answer lies in the fact that the real debate among the friends of the PFP, namely the left radicals and their masters, is not about powersharing but rather about the take-over of power. It is no longer a question of what the post-apartheid situation will look like. These people are not interested in that. They are only interested in the take-over of power and not at all in the sharing of power. That is what the position is. My question to the hon member is this: To what extent are hon members of the PFP involved in such a debate? [Interjections.] Those who may still try to maintain a democracy are being completely ignored because they have become irrelevant. That is the position.

You are talking such rubbish!

There is no place in South African politics for grovellers, and that is what most of the Progs are. [Interjections.] They grovel before the SACP-ANC alliance, they grovel before the leftist radicals and they grovel before the outside world. There is no person or body before whom they do not grovel, and that is why the real participants in the dialogue are not paying any serious attention to them any more.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister allowed to say that the PFP grovels before the South African Communist Party? [Interjections.]

I do not think he mentioned the South African Communist Party.

Yes, he did.

Did the hon the Minister mention the Communist Party as well? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Do you have it in writing?

Yes, Mr Speaker. I am sticking to my notes, and I have the following words written down in this connection:

You must not read your speeches! [Interjections.]

I am repeating the sentence I used, as follows:

That is precisely what I said. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon the Minister referred to the “SACP” which is the South African Communist Party … [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon the Minister referred in that respect to the SA Communist Party, he must withdraw it.

Yes, Mr Speaker, I was referring specifically to the SA Communist Party, and I said they grovelled before that party!

Order! No, then the hon the Minister must withdraw it.

I shall withdraw it, but I did not know it was unparliamentary. [Interjections.]

Order! The SA Communist Party is a banned party in South Africa.

I should then like to withdraw it, Sir. I am merely explaining; I am not trying to overstep the rules. [Interjections.]

These are some of the impressions which the debate has made on one so far. If I may now turn to more specific points which were raised, I should like to refer to standpoints adopted inter alia by the hon member for Green Point. The hon member for Green Point said inter alia:

He then blamed the Government for that. I now want to inform the hon member for Green Point that we have, after all, placed no prohibition on the implementation of democracy or on lawful acts! Nor is there any prohibition on people who want to make a responsible contribution to the administration of this country.

There were meetings which were totally prohibited.

I am referring to lawful acts. Surely no prohibition was placed on them. On whose behalf is the hon member arguing then, if we are not concerned with lawful acts? [Interjections.] Is he pleading for the ANC, the UDF or for similar organisations? [Interjections.] Are his democrats the terrorists and the people with matches and the tyres filled with petrol? Are those the people for whom he is pleading, whose democratic rights we are curtailing by way of the action we are taking? [Interjections.] The hon member accused us of:

Surely that is not true!

It is true.

Surely it is not true! In fact, in this legislation now before the House, the authority of Parliament and that of the courts are recognised. The hon member for Green Point then adopted this untrue standpoint! What message does the hon member wish to convey? As a lawyer he knows that both those basic points of departure are respected in this Bill. Nevertheless he comes forward, as the first speaker of the Official Opposition, and makes this allegation.

The hon member, as do quite a few other hon members on that side of the House, lies to refer to …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister, with regard to the kind of parliamentary control he is talking about, whether it is not true that on 3 June he gave notice in this House that the approval of Parliament was being expressed for the proclamation of the state of emergency, a month after that state of emergency had been proclaimed and lifted? And then the hon the Minister talks about parliamentary control!

Sir, I really cannot accept responsibility for arrangements which other people make in regard to the Order Paper. No, let us rather return to what we were dealing with.

The hon member for Green Point levelled the accusation that the authority of Parliament and of the courts were being disregarded or undermined by this legislation.

Precisely.

I maintain it is an untrue statement because both those basic points of departure are embodied in the legislation before this House. That is the position, and the arrangements in regard to the Order Paper have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

As other hon members did, the hon member for Green Point also referred repeatedly to the situation in Zimbabwe. References were also made to Mr Ian Smith. The hon member for Green Point in particular adopted the standpoint that we as a Government need this legislation because we wish to suppress political opposition, just as Mr Smith placed legislation on the Statute Book to suppress political opposition. Surely the hon member knows that that is not true either! Surely he knows that we are not in any respect oppressing political opposition as such in this country; on the contrary, we have in fact created channels through which political opposition in South Africa can be promoted! [Interjections.] Surely the hon member knows that.

Surely there are many examples we can give—from local government to independent states and everything in between. There is political administration and other channels and methods created by the Government and this party. [Interjections.]

Surely the hon member knows very well that we do not need this legislation to silence political Opposition, but as a counter to revolutionary violence and propaganda—political, malicious, violent propaganda—and not in order to get at normal political opposition. Surely the hon member knows that very well. We do not need this legislation to deal with any political standpoint with which we differ.

I can ask the hon member for Green Point why those friends of his are not participating in the political process, since he has such a lot to say on behalf of these people with a “political view”, people whom he is so concerned about. Surely the political process was placed at their disposal. Why did they not participate in the elections which were placed at their disposal? We did not interfere with the opportunity and the right of those people to participate in the political process; we created it for them. [Interjections.]

It is not a case of these people not wanting to participate. It is a case of those people no longer wanting to share power; all they want to do is to seize power. The people about whom the hon member is so concerned simply want to seize power and no longer wish to share it. The hon member need not be concerned about the sharing of power.

The hon member for Sandton definitely has the most poisonous tongue in this House, and he is an absolute master when it comes to using it. However he does not succeed in that way in preventing his slip from showing when it comes to his friends, on whose behalf he is speaking.

What do you mean by that?

[Inaudible.]

Yes, that too I suppose. It is transparently obvious to everyone. [Interjections.] The hon member is an experienced lawyer and he uses certain terms calculatedly. He uses them calculatedly. Let me refer to a few of them.

Like you do.

That is quite correct; what I am now saying in this House, I am saying calculatedly. I am quoting what the hon member for Sandton said the day before yesterday:

Secondly the hon member said:

The hon member for Berea will recall that we crossed swords in regard to this “whatever”. That is what is stated in the hon member’s Hansard. Thirdly the hon member said:

What is happening in Crossroads?

Then the hon member went on to say:

All these things, all three of them, are calculated untruths.

Mr Speaker, could the hon the Minister indicate whether, since I last saw him, he has seen the video on the “Trojan Horse”. He said then he had not. Has he since then had the opportunity of seeing it?

Mr Speaker, a few months ago, if I remember correctly … [Interjections.] Pardon me for a moment, I am in the process of replying. If I remember correctly, I watched a video a few months ago which dealt with the incident, or portion of the incident. I can find out from my staff, but I am not unacquainted with the circumstances. I was informed about it very fully, and I saw a portion of a video relating to the incident. Consequently I am not entirely uninformed.

The hon the Minister told the House he had not seen the video. I am asking him now if he has seen it since he told us that.

I have no intention of allowing the hon member to cross-examine me now. I am trying to give the hon member a reply by telling him that I am well-informed about that incident. I seem to recall, if I think back to it, that I saw part of the incident on a video, which was shown to me by members of my staff. I have a visual image of what happened there, but I cannot tell the hon member that I saw the same video as he saw. Nor do I want to tell the hon member that I saw the whole incident on video. That is my reply to him.

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

No, Mr Speaker, I am not prepared to reply to a question by the hon member for Sandton.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I should like to know if the hon the Minister is entitled to accuse me of stating “berekende onwaarhede in hierdie Raad”.

Order! There is nothing wrong with that.

Sir, as I understand it, it means calculated untruths. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, if I may address you on that, the word “berekende”, as I understand, means “calculated”. That implies an element of intent, which in turn is an accusation that I intentionally made …

Order! In my opinion “calculated” does not mean “malicious”. The hon the Minister may proceed.

This hon member said he saw the Police behaving like murderers. [Interjections.] I now want to ask the hon member whether he reported it. If he saw a murder being committed, did he report it? Did he make a statement to the Police? Did he make any attempt to tell the Police about it? [Interjections.] If not, why not?

If the hon member does not wish to associate with that company, then I ask him whether he will furnish this House with the facts on which he bases this standpoint of his, so that it can be tested here. In that way we can help him. If he is a citizen of the State who wishes to do his civic duty, he can do so here in this House. Here, after all, we are absolutely impartial, absolutely objective. Here no coercion will be exerted on the hon member. [Interjections.] Surely the hon member can tell us the truth here. He can tell us about the murders he saw the Police committing. That is the story he is noising abroad. After all he saw the Police committing murder. Surely he can tell us about it here in this House. He can given us the examples and the facts. I challenge the hon member to do so; after all, he has an opportunity to do so now.

But it is not only that hon member who makes these allegations. What does the Cape Times say about it? The Cape Times had inter alia the following to say about this matter (Cape Times, 3 June 1986, p 8):

This leading article went on to state:

When I read this, I wondered what the Cape Times was worried about. In any case, the article continued:

These, then, are the two partners: The two most poisonous partners in the parliamentary sphere is the hon member for Sandton and the Cape Times. This is the message which is being noised abroad. This is in fact the message which is being noised abroad on behalf of the PFP. I want to emphasize that that party bears the responsibility for this message. [Interjections.] That is why this party is rejected by all right-minded voters and people in South Africa.

You must be joking!

They stand rejected as a disgrace in public life. [Interjections.] That is why they stand rejected. [Interjections.]

Yesterday we had another joke here, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. In the first place this hon member said “the state of emergency did not improve the situation or solve any problems”. What are the facts? I should like to refer hon members to one set of figures only: In the Port Elizabeth area, during the period 20 June 1985 to 20 July 1985, 608 incidents occurred. During that period of one month, 608 incidents occurred. On 21 July 1985 the state of emergency was proclaimed. Immediately the situation began to level-off, and the average number of incidents which occurred diminished to 219 per month. Immediately after the state of emergency was lifted, the number rose again to 422 per month. The state of emergency and the Act and regulations applicable in that connection, were extremely effective. The hon member can rest assured on hat score. I am therefore telling the hon member that we are satisfied that we can deal with the situation successfully with the necessary powers and the correct use of those power.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred very dramatically to the situation on the campus of the University of Cape Town when students were beaten. In his speech he referred to the University of Cape Town, while he used a photograph of an incident which occurred at the University of the Witwatersrand. [Interjections.] The hon member saw fit to bring along only the photograph, and not the accompanying report. He added his own nuances to the report.

So I sent for the newspaper. The hon member did not read out to us what was stated in the newspaper. The hon member tried to present the students as little angels, as if they had been beaten unnecessarily. Ostensibly the Police were now punishing them, instead of trying to prevent crime.

One does not sjambok students.

What are the facts, however? I am quoting from the report on the Wits students in the Cape Times of 31 May, the report in connection with which he showed us only the photograph:

These are the law-abiding citizens of Wits University!

And they were beaten.

Yes, after all we must not take action against them because they are sacrosanct. I quote further:

Disgusting!

Disgraceful!

I shall continue to quote:

You cause the unrest; that is what I mean.

The report went on to state:

I am very glad you have read it.

These are the people who calculatedly commit illegal acts in the streets, who calculatedly demonstrate illegally and who calculatedly sit down in the street so that the trouble has to be gone to to remove them. Surely we have seen what happens, on so many of those videos to which the hon members are so fond of referring to. For example, what happens overseas? If a policemen touches one of these women who are sitting down in the street, they kick and struggle and scream so that one can almost hear them on the other side of town. Yet no one may take action against them. People who calculatedly challenge the law and who calculatedly are asking to be beaten, must take what is coming to them.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he regards the conduct of the Police in terms of that quotation as having complied with the requirement that they may use a reasonable amount of force in order to achieve their objective?

Mr Speaker, I am referring only to the report in the newspaper and I am reacting to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central who tried to imply that the “innocent” students acted so “innocently” and that the Police then took action against them like a lot of brutes when they applied the law to them. [Interjections.] That is the issue here. I want to ask the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central why he, as a member of the Official Opposition, once again placed only half of the picture on record.

The hon member and the hon member for Houghton also referred to the quirts. He said very dramatically: “These quirts must be done away with”.

Disgusting!

The hon member for Houghton was not in this House when it happened, but she will keep quiet now when she hears what else happened. The hon member for Parys then asked the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central what he wanted to use in the place of these quirts, if he objected so vehemently to their use. The hon member for Houghton does not know this, but the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central then shouted “tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannon”.

†That was what the hon member wanted to be used on women students.

You already have these things!

That was what he wanted to be used on women students. [Interjections.] I am telling the hon member for Houghton that that is what the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central shouted out in this House. He asked for rubber bullets to be used against students. That is the viewpoint of the PFP. [Interjections.] Yes, that was what he said.

I said that that was what you already had! [Interjections.]

Not a single hon member of the Official Opposition subsequently repudiated the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central.

I did so immediately!

I am still going to deal with that hon member.

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

No, Mr Speaker, I must proceed with my speech. [Interjections.]

Coward!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Houghton called the hon the Minister a “coward”. Is that permissible?

Oh please, Mr Speaker, I am so used to that by now that you need not be concerned about it. The hon member for Houghton has that word in her vocabulary. Leave it alone, because she is happy. [Interjections.] It has also been placed on record.

“Liewe Heksie!”

I am still going to deal with the hon member for Bryanston and place his speech in its correct perspective.

I come now to the hon member for Constantia. With great self-confidence he made the assertion that the unrest situation would end within a few days if the PFP came into power. He said: “The Progs will end the unrest within a few days.” [Interjections.] Of course that is what will happen, because we know that if they come into power, they will immediately capitulate. [Interjections.] Then they are no longer in control in any case. So the hon member’s words do not impress us. [Interjections.]

To whom are the hon PFP members going to capitulate? According to their own admission, to those people whom the hon members recognise as being representative of the majority of the people in South Africa. To exercise their full civil liberties and rights namely the ANC under the leadership of Mandela. That is the hon member’s viewpoint and those are the people to whom he will capitulate. He knows that very well himself. After all that is the message which is being conveyed from this House. [Interjections.]

Now the hon member is saying: “The only emergency that we have in South Africa is apartheid”. And then he referred once more to Rhodesia under Mr Smith. What policy was adopted in Rhodesia? Surely an out and out Prog policy was adopted in Rhodesia. [Interjections.] I feel myself completely at liberty to say that I have taken more trouble to study the policy of the Rhodesian parties than most of those hon members. It was truly a typical Prog policy. [Interjections.] What were the consequences? [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member for Constantia that there are many aspects of the National Party Government policy, the policy of separate development, for which all of us in this country are still going to be eternally grateful.

Is your policy one of separate development?

This policy of ours is not the reason, nor the alpha and the omega, of the situation in which we find ourselves today. There are many aspects of the policy for which we will be eternally grateful. [Interjections.]

Come over to this side!

It is the policy of this Government that has ensured that we still have the degree of stability we do have today. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Pinetown is the only hon member of the PFP who up to that stage certainly seemed genuine in his praise of the Police. The hon member for Bryanston also referred to the Police as doing a good job. At that stage he at least repudiated the hon member for Sandton—if not directly then most clearly in any case. On this point his answer is very clear.

*The hon member for Bryanston, very dramatically, reproached us here for not talking to or communicating with people. According to the hon member we would have been able to prevent many of our problems if we had done this. I think asked the hon member repeatedly to give me a single name, and he told me he could mention thousands. I then asked him to mention only five organisations. The hon member said:

Then I said:

The hon member asked again:

Once again I said:

Then the hon member said:

Then I said:

The hon member replied as follows:

Then I asked:

So the hon member continued, and he has still not given us the name of a single organisation with whom we should have held talks.

We shall give you a list if you are serious.

[Inaudible.]

The difference between the speeches made by the hon members of the PFP and their approach is too transparent. That is why I am asking the hon member why he does not want to mention the names of the ANC and the UDF, as the other hon members of the PFP did. I do not think he wants to. That is why he will not reply to my questions, because he knows those are the organisations to which his hon friends are referring.

Those are not the only organisations. Those are two of many organisations.

The hon member does not agree with the other Progs concerning the people with whom they want us to negotiate. That is the reason for the hon member’s desperation and why he cannot give a reply. That is why he talks about thousands, when one asks him to mention only one.

Talk to all of them!

The hon member, in all earnest, also placed the blame for everything, including unemployment, on apartheid. Apartheid and the Government is to blame for the hardships suffered by the Black people.

Now I want to put one simple question to the hon member: Is he suggesting now that every case of unemployment can be blamed on apartheid?

No, and I did not say that.

That is what the hon member said in his speech.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

If he does not think so, why does he make such a statement, which is then noised abroad? Surely he knows it is not true.

Do you still have any apartheid left?

Surely the hon member for Bryanston knows that that is not the position.

Do you still have apartheid? [Interjections.]

No, Sir, that is the essence of the debate which we had from the Official Opposition on this important legislation.

It is necessary for me to react to the hon member Prof Olivier, and place one matter on record. I am referring to the rights of the individual and the State. I just want to quote a short passage in reply to his speech. He will realise that I cannot reply to his entire speech. I am referring to the introductory part of the Rabie Commission report, particularly to paragraph 3.26. In the case Krohn v The Minister for Defence and Others, 1915 AD, Mr Chief Justice Innes had the following to say:

I just wanted to place this on record, for the information of the hon member.

Mr Speaker, does the hon the Minister not agree that when Chief Justice Innes gave that judgment, the 1953 laws were not on the Statute Book?

I was not alive in 1915, Sir, nor am I prepared to go back to that time.

The hon member for Hillbrow made a carefully prepared speech, but I gave the basic replies to it in my Second Reading speech and in the explanatory memorandum. I ask the hon member to study them so long, and if he wishes to discuss any matters arising from that source during the Committee Stage, I shall gladly do so.

The hon members of the CP also gave this Bill their strong support, and I am very grateful for that. The hon member Mr Theunissen and the hon member for Brakpan in particular asked me to explain why I decided to omit the proposed section 5B. The reason for that very briefly is that I gave careful attention to such provisions and to why they could be essential, and in view of a very recent judgment from the Appeal Court, as well as other circumstances which I took into consideration, I decided that for the purpose of this legislation we could do without those particular provisions. In my opinion we are in fact protected in other legislation. Furthermore we are also protected by the inherent jurisdiction which the court has in any case. All in all—I am not saying this is an adequate decision or an adequate reply—I decided for those reasons to relinquish the envisaged section 5B for the purposes of this legislation.

Mr Chairman, could the hon the Minister please give us the reference pertaining to that judgment?

Yes, I shall let the hon member have it. I do not have it in front of me, but it was given approximately three or four weeks ago. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sasolburg pleaded in particular for strong action to be taken against the UDF, and I want to tell him that I had written him a letter today concerning a standpoint which he recently adopted in this House. I would appreciated it if he would rectify that matter. I shall leave it at that, but we can give further consideration to the particulars.

The hon member asked for strong action to be taken against the UDF, and I should like to give this House the assurance that the activities of the UDF are being constantly and carefully monitored. Any person or body who operates under the auspices of the UDF and who does not watch his step, must expect the State to take serious cognisance of it and must expect action to be taken against them. At this stage there must be no doubt about that at all.

In addition I just want to refer briefly to the speech the hon member for Houghton made today. Actually it is strange to refer to the hon member for Houghton at such a late stage of the debate, but I suppose this is certainly not the last time.

I was overseas. I told you that.

I knew that, the hon member need not worry.

I flew just as fast as I could…

We all knew that, and some of us missed you. I will not say who they were but some missed you. Others did not.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member referred to a number of matters during the course of her speech. I think I have covered most of those, either through what I have been saying in the last few minutes or by way of replies to her questions. I only want to emphasise that, although the hon member may be of the opinion that we have enough legal provisions to cope with the situation, I still stand by the content of my Second Reading speech and I again want to tell the hon member that all of us on this side of the House are convinced that we need this Bill very urgently in the light of the serious circumstances we are at present experiencing in our country. She does not have to agree with this.

I do not.

I want to tell the hon member—just to confirm it—that as far as the indemnity provisions are concerned, they will be provided for in the interests of the State and its employees under these circumstances.

*I thank the other hon members as well, including the hon member for De Kuilen, but I still want to refer to one matter with reference to the speech made by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North before I conclude.

The hon member referred to what the situation would or could have been, in comparison with India or Algeria. Is that not in fact a demonstration of the seriousness of the reason why we have to apply this kind of legislation, and make every attempt, to prevent further violence in South Africa? That is in fact what we are trying to do. We are trying to prevent further violence, but we run up against the strongest possible opposition from the Official Opposition. We are in fact trying to prevent what the hon member referred to here. I shall leave the hon member at that.

I just want to tell the hon member for Durban Point that I have not forgotten him. In any event, his amendment is on the Order Paper now, and we shall, during the discussion of the amendment, discuss the essence of the hon member’s request for a review board according to its merits. Apart from that, the hon member did not oppose the Bill, except now of course, by way of his further amendments here this afternoon.

Mr Speaker, would the hon the Minister not give an indication whether he is prepared to consider it, since that would determine our attitude to the Bill as such?

Mr Speaker, unfortunately I have by now learnt during the past few days and weeks—and what I am now going to say I really do not mean personally—that the fewer indications I give, the better. I learnt this again during this debate. I should now prefer to adopt an attitude of wait and see what happens here in this House. The fewer indications I give, the better. In all good faith towards the hon member for Durban Point, however, I must say that I am not more prepared now to give any further indications in regard to this Bill. I am now moving from House to House and from circumstances to circumstance.

I want to conclude with just one more thought. I want to thank all hon members of all the separate parties who made a positive contribution in support of this legislation for their support. I also want to confirm that the Government will continue to fight with all the power at its disposal in the interests of all responsible people in South Africa. I want to give this House the assurance that the SA Police, in spite of the insults that are being hurled at us, will continue to serve our country and the Government loyally.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, I wish to object to this motion. We received notice at 12h00 this afternoon that it was envisaged to change the Order Paper. The House is sitting all day and some of our members who have to participate in the debates have made arrangements to be absent today and to be back tomorrow when specific legislation are to be discussed. It has now been moved, however, that this legislation receive priority. It was clear to us that the discussion of orders of the day 1 and 2 would occupy the entire day and possibly both be concluded today.

We on this side of the House should very much like to have order of the day 2, the Internal Security Amendment Bill, concluded as soon as possible, which is why we should like the House to proceed with the discussion of that now. I should like to know the reason why this Bill has to be moved down on the Order Paper.

The hon the Minister of Law and Order is in the House and, if Bills on law and order have to be discussed in the other Houses, the hon the Deputy Minister is still here to deal with this Bill. I have the Order Papers of the other two Houses here. The Internal Security Bill holds the second and third positions on the Order Papers …

Mr Speaker, may I interrupt the hon member to proffer my apologies. I have to go to another House immediately in consequence of a rule of procedure but the Chief Whip of Parliament will deal with the debate. I should appreciate the hon member’s understanding why I have to go.

Mr Speaker, I find it very strange that the hon the Minister is unable to tell us now why he cannot continue with this Bill. [Interjections.] I have the Order Papers of the other two Houses in front of me. The hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs is present here although the legislation on mineral and energy affairs is the fourth order of the day on the Order Paper of the House of Representatives. The Sectional Titles Bill appears equally high on the Order Paper but the hon the Minister of Communications and of Public Works is also present here. The Farmers Assistance Bill—an own affair—is sixth on the Order Paper of the House of Representatives but the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture is here too. I refer to the seventh order of the day on the Order Paper of the House of Representatives, which is the responsibility of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, but he is in the House as well and has an hon Deputy Minister in that House in addition. The hon the Minister is present here. Why are they unable to deal with this legislation in this House?

Hon members can also look at the Order Paper of the House of Delegates. The second order of the day, for which the hon the Minister of the Budget is responsible, is an own affair. I further refer to the third order of the day—the Housing Development Bill—for which the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture is responsible, which is also an own affair. The fourth order of the day is a Bill of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, which is also an own affair there. Then there is also the Electoral Amendment Act, which is handled by the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, but he is present here too. Why can these hon Ministers not carry out these tasks in those two Houses?

All of a sudden the second order of the day has to be moved down here. I wish to ask the hon the Leader of the House why this important legislation has to be moved back now. What is the reason for this? Is it in order to conduct further negotiations with the hon members of the Houses of Delegates and Representatives as regards this legislation? What is the reason? [Interjections.] Is the hon the Minister going to request the withdrawal of this important legislation in the other Houses? I know the Government has now accepted in principle that there should be joint debating of all Houses in the new dispensation, possibly to persuade the other Houses to accept that…

[Inaudible.]

Does the hon the Minister not know about this?

Order! The hon member should be aware that he is not permitted to mention that in this House at all.

But, Mr Speaker …

Order! The hon member may not mention it any further nor may he argue the matter any further.

That is why I wish to say today that the CP wants to object most strongly to this. Yesterday we received an Order Paper on which we …

And prepared ourselves for it.

We prepared for it and made arrangements with hon members of our party but at 12h00 this afternoon we were informed that changes were being brought about. I object most strongly to this.

And that is democracy.

Mr Speaker, I should like to state the attitude of the Official Opposition to the objection raised by the hon the Chief Whip of the CP. I can at this stage sympathise a great deal with the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament because of the headaches he has had in having arranged the entire programme for this week and then having found that these laws would take precedence over all the hard work he had put into his arrangements. Hon members had also made their preparations for the debates this week. However, it is not his fault.

Normally speaking there is a Whips’ arrangement and we are asked to agree or to disagree. Had this thing been sprung on us suddenly I would also have found myself in the same position as the hon member for Kuruman. If hon members of my party had not prepared for such a change then we obviously would also have objected, but the reason advanced by the hon member for Kuruman is that he wants this legislation. The motion is that the second order of the day, viz the Internal Security Amendment Bill be dropped lower down on the Order Paper and that we do not discuss it now. Since that particular Bill is anathema to us, since it so repugnant to us, we are more than happy that it is not to be discussed now. We hope in fact that it will never be discussed and that it will be dropped from the Order Paper altogether.

In all those circumstances we will support the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in his motion that we proceed with the third order of the day.

Mr Speaker, before the debate proceeds any further I want to say that I believe the hon member for Kuruman, the CP’s Whip, was fully informed regarding the reasons for the request that the second order of the day stand over and the third order of the day enjoy preference. It is convenient for the hon member to want to demonstrate here in Saturday’s spirit in a “kragdadige” fashion what powers he has at his disposal for sowing destruction in this place, as far as debating is concerned, too. [Interjections.]

As I said, the hon member was informed that the third order of the day—the Black Local Authorities Amendment Bill—would apparently receive preference.

When?

In the meantime there were complications regarding the two other Houses …

What complications?

The hon member must please give me a chance!

Order! As far as I can remember, the hon member for Kuruman stated repeatedly during his address to this House that he wanted to know why the Whips of the governing party wanted to arrange the order of precedence of the orders of the day in this fashion. Now that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament is giving those reasons, he is being continually bombarded with interjections. I am therefore asking the hon members for Kuruman and Rissik to listen to the hon the Chief Whip, and then they will hear the reasons. The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament may proceed.

Mr Speaker, if I could for the information of the House spell it out in detail, the position is that the other two Houses announced yesterday—they also made their position clear by means of a Press announcement—that when the Second Reading of these two Bills, the Public Security Amendment Bill and the Internal Security Amendment Bill, that is orders of the day Nos 1 and 2 on the Order Paper of the House of Assembly, are submitted to those Houses, they will introduce an amendment to the effect that both of these Bills should be referred to the standing committee so that the amendments placed by them on the Order Paper, as well as those placed on the Order Paper by the hon the Minister of Law and Order, may be considered by the standing committee.

This means in effect—I am astounded at the hon member’s ignorance regarding the rules concerned—that as soon as the standing committee has once again reported on those two Bills, a new Second Reading will have to be commenced in all three Houses. This means that even if they do proceed today with order of the day No 2 and complete that debate, the decision of the other two Houses to propose that the Bill be referred to the standing committee means, as I interpret the rules, that the third House is deemed to have taken the same decision. The hon member for Kuruman can look this up in the rules himself if he wants to discharge his obligation as Whip. As I say, even if we were to proceed and after hours of debating complete order of the day No 2, as was the case with the previous order of the day, the Bill would nevertheless be referred to the standing committee. As a consequence the Second Reading would have to be repeated.

If this hon member, who does not even have the basic decency to allow someone else the opportunity to speak, would only accept that we are not here to waste time and money, we can have no part in this.

You have already wasted two days.

The hon member says today that the hon members of his party have made arrangements to be absent today, while over the past few weeks they have been playing a game of sitting and counting members if it appears to be possible to cause a quorum not to be present, so that it can be stated reproachfully in public that the Government party was responsible for the lack of a quorum on six occasions this year.

Yes, on six occasions.

In the meantime, those hon members are not fulfilling their basic parliamentary obligations of being present when legislation is being discussed.

That is untrue.

If the hon members dispute what I have said today about their not fulfilling their basic parliamentary obligations, why then do they object if the third order of the day is given preference? [Interjections.] If those hon members are fulfilling their parliamentary obligations, why do we not continue with the next order of the day? Where are the hon members of the CP then? What outside obligations do they have while Parliament is sitting? Indeed, it is not only the Government party that has parliamentary obligations to fulfil. No, those hon members only want to tell tales about quorums, while they come and go unrestrained as they want to.

Sir, I support the motion of the hon the Minister.

Mr Speaker, I first heard of this amendment finally and definitely a quarter of an hour ago. [Interjections.] My party has on principle given the Government unqualified support regarding these two amending Bills, and it was not necessary to negotiate with me or to ask me beforehand. I had given these two amending Bills my full support, and contributed to the debate. I was told by Government circles that it was crucial that these two amending Bills be placed of the Statute Book as soon as possible.

Initially there were objections that I had spoken for too long. Afterwards I was told that I should have spoken for only a quarter of an hour and that no one had given me the right to speak for half an hour. It was because the amending Bill was urgent and no time should have been wasted in having it placed on the Statute Book. I then told the hon Whip concerned that I would curtail my time on the second amending Bill in order to contribute in this respect as well. I am just as anxious as anyone else that these two amending Bills be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible.

My circumstances are naturally the most difficult of all the opposition parties, but I ask no mercy. I merely want to emphasise that this places me in a most difficult position. A complete about-face is taking place here now of which I was informed about a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes ago. I therefore also want to object strongly to the placing of this amendment on the Order Paper. I request that orders of the day 1 and 2 be proceeded with, since it is so urgent that these two amending Bills be disposed of. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I just wish to place on record that while I have sympathy for the problem that the hon member has expressed on behalf of the CP, I think we should note that the hon Whip Mr Schutte did telephone us and he went through the normal formalities that we would expect among Whips and that we had no objection at the time that he communicated with us.

When did he phone you?

He phoned us at 12 o’clock. I merely want to say that he explained the difficulty that he had and that he had a problem. I would be sad if we were to break down the relationship that exists among the Whips of the various parties. I understand that there can be problems. I acknowledge that this was very short notice. However, I want the House to know that the niceties that one would expect were certainly accorded us as regards this issue. Therefore we will support the motion of the hon the Minister.

Mr Speaker, I appreciate the hon member for Umhlanga’s attitude and the way he put his case.

As far as the CP is concerned there is no question of discussions between us and the hon Whips of the NP. The reason for this is the absolutely atrocious speech the hon member for Stilfontein made the other day. Inevitably, relations between the Whips of the CP and those of the NP are not what they should be.

The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament has a very sharp tongue, but his thoughts are very dull. [Interjections.] When he is losing an argument he says, in the same way as his leader-in-chief, the State President, that his opponents are rude and ill-mannered. In dragging Saturday’s spirit into his argument now, he reveals how blunted his standpoints are in respect of his people and his people’s ideals. [Interjections.]

In a most earnest spirit and attitude the hon the Minister of Law and Order revealed in this House why the amending Bills had to be disposed of. We on our part supported the hon the Minister to the best of our ability because we agree with him in principle. In his Second Reading Speech and in his reply, too, he impressed upon us—naturally, we knew this already—the importance of having these two amending Bills placed on the Statute Book now.

I gain the impression that the Government is more concerned about pleasing the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives than it is about assuring the peace, prosperity and security of our country. [Interjections.] In this respect the hon members of the governing party are now also bowing down to the hon PFP members.

The PFP debated the matter for two and a half days and asked for an extension of six months, which is the strongest possible protest against a Bill. I can now understand their joy. In a certain sense they have succeeded, together with the coalition partners of the Government, in bringing the hon the Minister, who is 5 ft 12 in tall, to his knees as far as this urgent legislation regarding the order and security of our country is concerned. [Interjections.]

On the institution of the tricameral Parliament, we were told that all the hon members of all the parties would be able to sit calmly and discuss legislation in the standing committee. A while ago we debated that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—he, too, moved this motion—was not enabling the standing committees to carry out their work correctly.

The members of this standing committee had to look at this legislation very thoroughly, and the hon NP members should have known that their coalition partners would oppose them because their coalition partners are after all soft on the issue of maintaining order in the country. They should after all have foreseen that there would be problems, and the Government should not then have introduced this legislation in this House. This is further proof that the standing committees are not functioning properly at the moment.

We have debated these matters for two and a half days. We mentioned yesterday that we are now getting the impression that the Government is yielding before the onslaught of the two hon Ministers of the other Houses who sit in the Cabinet. It could be the case that although we have given our support to this legislation, the hon the Minister, in his supplicant position, could go back to the other two Houses and accept further amendments there. Those amendments could draw the teeth of this Bill so that one has a toothless dog to send in amongst the troublemakers. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House gain the impression that the Government is not in earnest about governing this country really well. We have warned—I said this in my Second Reading Speech, too—that a coalition government is a weak government, and the more the principles of coalition partners differ from one another, the weaker the government becomes.

When the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning smiles at me in a friendly way—I know him very well—I know he is in great trouble. [Interjections.] He is the casus belli in South Africa; he is the cause of the wars. When I am friendly towards him, I am friendly because I am serious. [Interjections.]

When this legislation comes under discussion again we must have another Second Reading debate. We shall then perhaps again have the experience of the hon the Minister, after we have argued for two and a half days about the legislation, being able to say at any stage that we will be going no further with it. I do not believe it is conducive to good debating not to keep to the Order Paper given to us by the Whips. This is further evidence that the Government no longer regards Parliament so highly as an instrument for the people to have its say. [Interjections.] The Government should have no doubt that in all cases in the future this side of the House will try to check it when it attempts to reduce the importance of the role of Parliament.

We on this side of the House are not puppets. It was not for unnecessary reasons that we left the Government and came into opposition to the things it does. The Government should be assured that, if it does not want to govern the country properly, it will not have the co-operation of the Whips on this side of the House.

Hold an election!

Mr Speaker, I just want to add one or two thoughts. Firstly, I want to ask whether this is a demonstration of the way democracy works in the Republic of South Africa. An Order Paper according to which business ought to be conducted is made available to us every day, but it is autocratically and dictatorially changed at the whim of the governing party.

My second point is this: In the course of his motivation, the hon Chief Whip of Parliament discussed quorums. Which party has to ensure that there is a quorum in the House? [Interjections.]

Everyone!

The hon Chief Whip maintains that we sit here and look around to see whether or not there is a quorum. [Interjections.] He is trying to hide behind the CP’s keeping an eye open, whereas he and his Whips are not doing their work. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister of Information is ostensibly productively absent.

Where is Pik Botha?

We probably have to accept that the other hon members are also productively absent elsewhere but if we, too, want to be productively absent, it is said that we should be in the House. Which party has to ensure that there is a quorum? [Interjections.] The NP and its numerous Whips should ensure that there is a quorum. [Interjections.] We will not vote for the autocratic fashion in which we are simply pushed around by the dictatorial Whips of that party. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I am really somewhat astonished at the hon member for Rissik, because it seems to me that he does not want us to be friendly towards him. It seems to me it is now unacceptable even to be friendly towards people.

When you are at your most friendly, you are also at your most difficult. [Interjections.]

Then he is also at his most dangerous!

But also at his best-looking! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik was my chairman for so many years that he seems to know me well.

Let us just be fair in all respects now. The hon member for Kuruman states that his party is in earnest in wanting the security legislation to be disposed of. The hon member for Sasolburg makes the same allegation. I should like to accept the hon member’s earnest intention in this particular connection, and on behalf of the Government I want to give the assurance that we shall dispose of the relevant legislation within the shortest possible time.

I do not wish to argue about the merits of the legislation at this juncture except to say that the Government regards the acceptance of this legislation within the shortest possible time as imperative in order to deal with the situation, as the hon the Minister as well as the hon members themselves argued. Since I have accepted the hon members’ bonafides in this regard they will have to accept my bona fides as well.

Therefore, if we want the legislation passed with the least possible delay, as the hon members of the CP and the hon member for Sasolburg wish, and if we are to act democratically, as the hon member for Brakpan wishes, then we must also understand that such democratic action also entails our functioning within the rules of this House. I should like to quote Rule 30(2) of the Joint Rules:

The implication of this is the case of the relevant legislation, as explained by the hon Chief Whip of Parliament is that the Bill has again to be read a second time. That is what the rule provides. If the rule is wrong then this House must give attention to the matter and rectify the rule, but as log as the rule exists we must function in terms of that rule.

Accordingly, on behalf of this House and Parliament the hon Chief Whip of Parliament is going to negotiate with the other Houses to change their Order Papers so that this legislation can be given priority by them and can reach the standing committee so that the standing committee can reach a decision on the legislation as soon as possible and so that it may be disposed on in this House. Accordingly I now wish to request that hon members really accept our good faith in this connection.

Secondly, it is equally important that Order of the Day No 2 appear on the Order paper with the least possible delay. Since there are indications that the other two Houses are going to move amendments, the hon the Minister of Law and Order wishes to go and dispose of the Second Reading debates there, to prevent a repetition of our debating a Bill for two days and then having to debate it again for two days, so that the legislation can get to the standing committee without the need arising for that legislation to be dealt with in the same way as we have dealt with this legislation.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister a question? Let us assume that the hon the Minister of Law and Order succeeds in convincing one or both of those Houses that the Government is doing the right thing as far as these two Bills are concerned?

Then we shall be saving time in any event, because then this becomes unnecessary.

Then we shall come back.

Yes, then we shall come back and dispose of it. As regards this legislation that we have now considered, it is a fact that the easiest method of disposing of it with the least possible delay would be to have a standpoint adopted in the other two Houses in terms of which the legislation could be referred back to the standing committee so that it could be disposed of in all three Houses. The hon member will accept that now.

We do not bow down.

Very well, then, if the hon members bow down now, then I shall resume my seat.

We do not bow down for anything. [Interjections.]

No, we do not bow down. Those are the rules. The hon member for Kuruman will concede that, in all reasonableness. After all, he was a member of the committee that agreed to these rules. [Interjections.] That is the point at issue. The fact is that the hon member for Kuruman was a member of the committee that agreed to these rules.

It is not a matter of the rules.

It is indeed a matter of the rules. [Interjections.] It has to do with two things. [Interjections.] Hon members must please give me a chance, because I really do not wish to quarrel with them. That is really not my intention. I have no need for that. [Interjections.] The fact is that this House has the right to act in precisely the same way as any other House. It is not a question of bowing down for any other House; the question is whether one wants to function within the rules of Parliament or not.

Bowing down within the rules.

We can make semantic remarks now, but the fact remains that if we are democrats—I accept that the hon member for Brakpan is one—then that democracy implies that as far as parliamentary procedures are concerned, we have to function within the rules of Parliament. That is the first point. If we do not wish to do so then we must not use the word “democracy”.

Secondly, this means that if we are in earnest in wanting that legislation to appear on the Statute Book so that the hon the Minister concerned may be in a position to deal with the situation in terms of that legislation, then we must not allow ourselves to be misled by a series of superficial objections. We must then be prepared to say that we must co-operate with one another for the sake of the country’s security, despite those things that we object to.

Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, we are satisfied with the legislation as it stands at present …

Order! No, it strikes me now that the hon the Minister has moved the motion, and since he has now replied, the debate has been finalised.

Mr Speaker, on page 4 of the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech which reached us, he says the following:

He then continued with his speech.

After a part of the debate took place here on Friday, we debated the Electricity Amendment Bill amongst other things. In that debate the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs said Escom would not tolerate anyone not paying their electricity accounts. We know that Escom will also provide power to the regional services boards, which in turn will sell it to the local authorities. If the inhabitants in the areas under the control of those Black local authorities do not pay their electricity accounts, what would then happen? Where will the money going to Escom come from if the particular local authorities are not in a position to pay Escom’s account in the first place? I also want to refer to certain other aspects of speeches made by hon members in this House. Let me state pointedly that the CP cannot approve the proprietary right of Blacks in the RSA outside the national states and the independent states.

That is not relevant.

I do not know how the hon member can say that it is not relevant. It would appear to me that he has not read the Bill. [Interjections.] The hon member Prof Olivier welcomes this because it will provide a basis to levy property tax amongst other things.

We on the other hand should like to move away from the obligation of having to pay property tax, because it is a form of capital taxation. I think we have debated this aspect in this House before. We are of the opinion that other methods should be found to tax the inhabitants in a local authority area rather than to levy property tax in the first place, and in the second place an increasing inflationary spiral. What it amounts to—as I have said in another debate—is that an inhabitant in an urban area to an increasing extent is actually paying rent to the local authority to five in his own house.

Apart from the question of tax we accept that we as Whites will not receive proprietary rights in the national states, nor in the independent Black states. If the principle which the Government is now introducing in connection with this, were to be carried through to its logical conclusion, the hon the Minister must tell us if it would also be acceptable for Whites to obtain proprietary rights in the national states and independent states, because then the entire basis of this aspect of the Government’s policy would fall away.

The hon member for Randburg—I do not see him here now—argued that our policy amounts to blatant White supremacy. We, he says, lay down the rules. Let me ask the hon member for Randburg, as well as the hon the Deputy Minister, whether the acceptance of independence by the TBVC countries is a result of White supremacy. Is kwaNdebele’s request to become independent in December the result of White supremacy?

That is NP policy.

Yes, but the point is, it is precisely that aspect of the NP’s policy, to which the CP still adheres, which the Government has dropped. I therefore now ask the hon member who made that interjection whether he accepts it to be White supremacy. Is he alleging that it is White supremacy?

I said it was NP policy.

Then White supremacy is the NP policy. Surely it is senseless to allege that it is White supremacy, when the independent states in particular accepted their independence by means of referendums or other legal methods. Why is it the enforcement of a policy in the case of Venda, Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Ciskei, but not the enforcement of a policy when one brings the Coloureds and the Indians into this Parliament without a referendum? Is that not White supremacy? [Interjections.] The hon member must tell me whether that is not White supremacy. In the one case 20% of the voters, and in the other 28% voted for the hon members in those Houses. Therefore 70% and 80% respectively did not vote. Yet they were brought into Parliament, but that is supposedly not White supremacy. The hon member can really stand up and reply to this.

We did after all debate this aspect of policy very thoroughly in the past when the late Advocate Vorster was Prime Minister. We came to the conclusion that we had to reach an understanding in South Africa on the basis of which the various population groups would have to completely accept the total sovereignty of the host authority in each other’s geographical areas. [Interjections.] Surely that is the policy! That is why we make no claim to proprietary rights in the Black national states. That is why so many Whites have given up their proprietary rights. Millions of hectares of land were involved in that. It was done to consolidate the living space of the various Black peoples.

How can it be argued under such circumstances that the CP’s policy is one of white supremacy? The policy of the CP is a political continuation of the old NP policy, which gave constitutional support to the political ideals of the Afrikaner people. The CP neither is, nor was—nor ever could be—a party that wants to govern the Black, the Indian or the Coloured peoples. It is absolutely incorrect to regard the CP as a party that wants to govern other peoples. Power-sharers should therefore stop accusing us of wanting to be oppressors.

Partition, separate development or apartheid—the hon the Minister of Law and Order again confirmed his support of and belief in the policy of separate development—is the only policy in terms of which oppression can be avoided. Actual self-determination can only be achieved through partition. This is possible, and it is ethically, scientifically and historically justifiable. Because recognition is not given to this basic aspect in this Bill, we cannot support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I shall return to the points raised by the hon member for Brakpan in a few moments. I just want to digress for a moment.

It is really quite interesting that this Bill, which is basically an ideologically neutral Bill, was used particularly by the CP to conduct a whole ideological debate on all the aspects regarding the policy involving the various peoples.

It is all relevant!

I say this Bill is actually ideologically neutral. The two aspects to which the hon members of the CP in particular objected, is first of all the idea that this legislation introduces greater uniformity between the structures of White and Black local authorities. They have simply interpreted the planned uniformity of structures as the unification of those structures—which it definitely is not.

According to the exposition of the hon member for Brakpan, even the CP’s policy is not one of oppression. It is certainly not a policy according to which inferior structures have to be provided to Blacks. And so there can be no objection if similar structures are created for Whites and Blacks. The fact that there is therefore uniformity between the legislation for Blacks and other groups, is in no way a move towards or away from integration. It is an ideologically neutral matter.

The other point raised by the hon member of the CP, and to which their objection to this legislation is linked, is the fact that proprietary rights could be given to Black local authorities outside their area of jurisdiction. Surely it is obvious, and the standard practice, that to be able to function adequately, local authorities must have the right to own property inside and outside their own areas of jurisdiction. This is so because they do not necessarily have a suitable place within their own areas of jurisdiction to erect a sewage farm, for example. That is why it is merely a functional arrangement. This does not detract from the fact that the major dispute between the NP and the CP is that we recognise the permanence of Blacks in their own right, within the borders of so-called White South Africa.

With citizenship rights, yes.

That is the essence of the difference, and I shall return to that soon.

With citizenship rights and political rights?

I shall return to it shortly. Before I enlarge on it any further, I just want to refer again to the theme of the basic ideological neutrality of this Bill, with reference to a statement on this made by the hon member Prof Olivier. He addressed the NP and said that we should distance ourselves from our ideological standpoint of creating separate local authorities for the various groups. I want to put it to him as follows. His party’s policy that there should in fact not be separate local authorities is equally ideological. If this is not how he views it, I can assure him that his standpoint, in our view, appears to be extremely ideological—just as our standpoint appears ideological from his viewpoint. I also want to appeal to him and ask him to look at the basic facts. Let us try to overlook each other’s ideologies and to examine the basic facts and forces at work in a multi-ethnic society. Then we could go and examine what the best approach would be.

This is what the NP is trying to do. On this basis we came to the non-ideological conclusion that separate local authorities stood the highest chance of permanent success. But we shall not be able to argue this point today. I just want to put it to hon members so that we could perhaps debate it further at a later stage.

Good.

I also want to return briefly to the policy exposition of the CP, made here by both the hon members for Kuruman and Brakpan. I do not know if the hon member for Brakpan has left the House, but I promised to return to the matter of his standpoint.

The hon member for Kuruman gave an exposition of the CP’s policy, as described in the CP’s programme of principles. Paragraph 2.3.4 of the principles and policy indicates amongst other things that the influx of other peoples to the White Republic of South Africa will be strictly controlled, and the outflow of non-Whites to their own countries will be planned and carried out. One of the ways in which this will be accomplished, is contained in the previous paragraph 2.3.3, in which it is stated that industrial decentralisation, agricultural development, financial and other measures will be intensified to obtain the greatest measure of settlement. This is a policy which the NP followed for many years—exactly that. Efforts were made to control the influx of Blacks in two ways, ie by firstly applying strict influx control measures, and secondly by means of a development policy—industrial development, agricultural development and various other forms of development in the homelands for the purpose of trying to attract Blacks back to the homeland.

Did that succeed?

That is the point made by the hon member for Brakpan. He said that this policy succeeded. [Interjections.] He mentioned the dates 1953 and 1979, and said that during that period there was an increase in the percentage of Blacks residing in the rural areas. [Interjections.] The hon member for Brakpan said that he had scientific proof of that. For the purpose of deciding this point, let me ask him to present this scientific evidence, because the best I have been able to find up to now in connection with this, is the work done by Prof Flip Smit and Pierre Goosen on Black urbanization.

You people do not have a clue as to what is going on.

Prof Smit states that the censuses of 1960 and 1970 …

[Inaudible.]

Order! I shall consider giving the hon member for Langlaagte a turn to speak in a while. [Interjections.]

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Prof Smit states that in the censuses of 1960 and 1970 there was too low a count of people in the homelands as a result of the underdevelopment of those areas and the population. He also alleged that the bigger numbers of 1970 as opposed to 1960, and those of 1980 as opposed to 1970 partly at least had to be attributed to better census counts in the homelands. He therefore alleges that those people who were discovered in 1980, had actually always been there. That is a statement made by a scientist, and that is why I ask the hon member for Brakpan to bring along his evidence. This evidence is the best that I have been able to obtain up until now.

Prof Smit also makes a second point, and we are all aware of it. It is that between 1950 and 1980 considerable areas of land were bought in addition—with people and everything—and that consolidation took place there. It in fact took place in such a way that the largest possible numbers of people were included in the homelands. In other words, a part of the people who were counted in the homeland in 1980, are still living in exactly the same place as they lived in 1960. It is just that in 1960 they were counted in the RSA, and in 1980 in the homelands, as a result of consolidation. [Interjections.]

This does not apply to KaNgwane.

I shall come back to that.

What we see here, is therefore an apparent removal of people. There are these two ways in which the numerical adjustments actually took place. The first is actually an apparent numerical shift, but one could of course say that the second is a legal movement of numbers, because there certainly are people now who fall within the area and the jurisdiction of a homeland, where they did not fall before.

If one could now argue that we could take this process further, we would perhaps have had hope for this policy. At the moment there are still approximately 10 million Blacks who fall outside the homelands, and if there were a way in which we could include any meaningful portion of those Blacks into the homelands by means of this consolidation process, one could perhaps come up with good arguments. We are saddled with a tremendous problem, however, in the sense that the CP’s own policy prohibits the CP from doing this. The CP’s policy—the same policy to which the hon member for Kuruman referred, states that there will be strict adherence to the 1936 quota for land, and that nothing further will be added on.

You people have dropped that policy. You are now giving the whole of South Africa to them!

Now the problem arises that in this process in which certain people up until 1980 were added in, that quota was filled. It was in fact slightly exceeded. I do not know exactly by how much. [Interjections.] We therefore took that policy further than the CP is prepared to take it. The hon member for Kuruman has just said that we have dropped that policy. However, we did more than what the CP according to its own policy is prepared to do. There is therefore no further solution to be sought along those lines.

It is a fact that when one examines the economic and agricultural development of the Black states, one finds that up to a certain stage those states were capable of accommodating the growth, but it is almost as if they have reached saturation point. Since they reached that stage, an increased influx to the developed areas, particularly the White areas of the country, took place. Consequently that process started gaining momentum after a certain date. [Interjections.] After making a careful study of all the circumstances, we came to the conclusion that it would not be possible to physically place any significant numbers of additional Blacks in the homelands. The whole process points to this.

Who carried out that study?

They are studies which have been done over a long period by various people. This is the consensus of all the experts. [Interjections.]

Those 10 million people therefore have to be here permanently in one way or the other. Whether it is 10 million, and whether it is five million, is not going to make much difference to the principle of the matter. In connection with this I want to return and bring the matter closer in line with the matter of local authorities. I should like to return to the hon member for Brakpan’s argument on white supremacy. The CP’s policy is that local authorities can be created for the Blacks in White areas, but that those local authorities should fall under the control of the White Government.

Yes.

The Blacks therefore have no final say. [Interjections.] As far as the Blacks who serve on local authorities in those urban areas are concerned, there is therefore a White “baas”. There is therefore a White “baasskap” relationship as far as those Blacks are concerned. [Interjections.] Now one could say—I suspect this is now the CP argues—that these Blacks do not have to fall under White “baasskap”, because they they are free to go back to their homelands.

Yes.

In this way they can escape from the White supremacy.

It is exactly the same as it is for the Portuguese and the Germans who live here.

That is an argument, but the catch in that argument is that the Blacks who live there, have a choice between a life in the White area and misery in the Black area. They therefore have to choose whether they want to be subject to White domination, or whether they want to die in freedom. That is the choice the CP puts to these people. They say this is not “baasskap”, because the Blacks have the choice of going back to their homelands. But they were not born in those homelands, they have never been there, and neither their fathers nor their grandfathers were born there.

You are talking like a real old United party member.

You did not object to that before.

Order! The hon member does not have to react to interjections which have nothing to do with the Bill.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. This links up with the other leg of the CP policy, the policy of political linkage. The Blacks who live in White areas, can therefore still vote for the Governments of the homelands. The only problem is once again that those Blacks have had no ties with the homelands for three or four generations. There are no ties between such Black people and the homelands. The homelands’ Governments can do little or nothing…

When did you discover that?

I discovered it a long time ago. That is why the NP’s policy has changed. If one were to carry that policy of linkage through to its logical conclusions, one could also say that one should give people who come from Madagascar, the franchise in Madagascar. People from India would have to get the franchise in India, and people from Holland would have to get the franchise in Holland. That policy makes no sense because political rights mean …

You came to this House with that policy. You have therefore come to this House in a dishonest way.

This brings me to another point which I should like to make. The hon members of the CP constantly accuse hon members of the NP that they now say different things to what they used to say a few years ago. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon member what the third point in the 1981 twelve-point plan was. What was the substance of this point on which the NP participated in the last election?

I do not have the twelve-point plan before me now.

The linkage policy is in there!

I shall accept that it is the case, but as we amended certain points of a programme of principles, they amended other points of that same manifesto. [Interjections.]

Order! I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are dealing with an amending Bill on Black local authorities. These general discussions, dealing with approaches to policy, do not specifically relate to the amending Bill now under discussion. I want to ask the hon member to concentrate on the contents of this Bill. We would then be able to eliminate many of these problems.

Mr Chairman, I just want to make the point that these are all reactions to points made by the hon CP members at one stage or another in this specific debate. If you would just give me the opportunity to round off the one point I want to make, I shall do so as quickly as possible.

The point I am trying to make, is that the hon CP members constantly accuse us of deviating from the policy. They say we should return to the policy of Dr Vorster, Dr Verwoerd and so forth, but even Dr Verwoerd did not always adhere to the same standpoints.

In 1951 Dr Verwoerd said we could accept self-governing areas in the country, but certainly not independent areas. That is what he said in 1951.

You must quote him correctly! You are now being unscientific!

Later on Dr Verwoerd amended that standpoint of his.

The point I want to make is that it cannot be expected of anyone to always to accept exactly the same points of policy. [Interjections.] I therefore think the Bill we are dealing with now, is a healthy step in the process of development of Black local government because several matters that will make Black local government more effective are affected by it. I therefore take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, while I was listening to the hon member, he touched on various matters which are very important. One of these important matters is the powers of a local authority to own land outside its borders. Like the usual stupid politician he used the poorest example of this by saying such an authority must have a sewage-farm.

It must be immediately apparent that these people will obtain expropriation rights in White areas. The hon member pointed out to us that the State is carrying this Bill through to give Black local authorities the right of expropriation outside their own areas. This is a very important piece of legislation, which we shall have to examine, because it implies that such a local authority will have expropriation powers outside its municipal boundaries, because it must have land outside it municipal area.

Do the Whites not have that right too?

Oh, Sir, one always has problems with this hon grave-digger! He always starts at the top. A grave-digger always starts at the top.

He is an hon member to you!

First just listen to what I am saying. The hon member must first sit down. Being an undertaker he always makes a grave speech.

What is your profession then?

Does the hon member want to know what my profession is? I taught children to be respectful, but the children of Kimberley never attended my school.

You are a wonderful example of respect in this House!

This is one of the rowdy hon members of the House who was appointed as a Whip and of course never participates in a debate. He is like one of those big tractors; his mouth moves before the engine is switched on. [Interjections.]

He never makes a speech!

He talks about the sewerage works, and he asks if someone who was born there years ago is also going to vote now.

I shall now respond to what the hon members said about the linkage policy.

Everyone has the right to move away from what he believed in before at a certain time but I expect him to be honest enough to say so openly. [Interjections.]

Yes!

I do not care about the old NP and the old verkramptes and their “oeloe-oeloe” meetings. The hon member Dr Vilonel will understand what I am referring to. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

They have only changed the names!

They are changing the names there, but they are still talking about white domination.

Order! On what clause is the hon member now speaking or in what way is he now referring to the Bill?

Sir, I am reacting to the …

Order! I do not want any more reactions. The hon member must now discuss the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member has made certain allegations here against my party and I. In connection with the Bill he said that it is our policy that someone who votes for a local authority, must be linked to his homeland. Do I have no right to give him a reply to that?

Order! There is no question of linkage in the Bill. The Bill concerns the structures of local authorities. [Interjections.]

Sir, I am just replying to the argument of the hon member …

Order! I have pointed out to the previous speakers that they were digressing from the topic and I called upon hon members to confine themselves to the contents of the Bill now. It is an amending Bill. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

You have been saved by the bell! [Interjections.]

We now come to local authorities.

Now read the long title!

In this House we have “New Nats” and “Silly Nats”, and the hon member for Vryheid is a “Silly Nat”. [Interjections.]

He is a stupid Nat!

He is an old Fusionist.

Order!

The fact that local authorities may own land in South Africa, causes more than one problem.

You people cannot even put up a candidate in Ward 45.

Order! No reference to land ownership is made in the amending Bill. We are now discussing the Black Local Authorities Amending Bill, and we are only debating the clauses amending the principal Act. [Interjections.]

I do not want to argue, Sir, but this Bill determines that a municipality has the right, as far as loans is concerned, to … This is an amending Bill, and no amending Bill can be read separately from the specific principal Act. One has to read them together.

Order! The standing orders …

Mr Chairman, if you are telling me you do not want to give me the floor, I shall sit down. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, one has many experiences in this House. Tonight I am having the experience of having to reply to an hon member who did not say anything. [Interjections.] I do not know whether I should react to the fact that he resumed his seat.

Tell us about your constituency where you are going to lose.

Tell us how things are going up there in Africa.

When the hon member for Langlaagte was talking about the Bill…

Tell us about…

… he referred to clause 7.

Behave nicely now!

I want to tell the hon member for Jeppe I have always had good manners, but, as I have learnt to know him, he has never had any. [Interjections.] He is the last person to tell me to behave myself. [Interjections.]

I am telling you: Behave yourself!

I have behaved myself all my life but the hon member knows nothing about manners. He does not know what they are. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon the Deputy Minister permitted to say an hon member of this House does not have manners?

Order! It is not unparliamentary to make such a statement.

Then I want to tell him he has no manners. [Interjections.] He also has a crowd of skeletons in the cupboard.

The hon the Deputy Minister without manners!

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed now.

Mr Chairman, I am prepared to respond to this debate and to react to all hon members but then I want to put a very civil request that hon members also behave themselves. I listened to all hon members …

Just behave yourself!

I wish to refer to the hon member for Langlaagte who spoke on clause 7. Subparagraph (i) of section 23(1)(c) of the principal Act limits a Black local authority to acquiring immovable property only if such property is situated within its area. The amendment which has now been moved gives that local authority the right to acquire immovable property outside its area as well in order to enable that Black local authority inter alia to acquire land to extend its area of jurisdiction among other reasons. It is very important that it be able to negotiate and therefore buy land outside that area to enlarge its area of jurisdiction.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon the Deputy Minister entitled to refer to property rights if the hon member for Langlaagte was forbidden to refer to them? Is the hon the Deputy Minister entitled to do this? [Interjections.]

Order! I gave a ruling that we should confine ourselves to the contents of the amendments in this Bill. This applies to all members and I would ask that hon members bear this in mind in further discussion except that I have to give the hon the Deputy Minister the opportunity of reacting to points of debate raised. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Langlaagte referred to property rights within the limits of the legislation because they are referred to in the Bill. You forbade his reference to them, however, so is the hon the Deputy Minister entitled to refer to them?

Order! I can only permit the hon the Deputy Minister to refer to this briefly to make his debating point but not to conduct a long debate on it.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: You ruled that the hon member for Langlaagte could not react to the hon member for Helderkruin and I request that you apply your ruling consistently.

Order! If an, hon member is merely replying briefly to a point of debate, the presiding officer may use his judgement and permit that short debating point, but, if the debate continues on this ad infinitum, the presiding officer will also use his judgement and say the debate may not proceed in that way. The hon the Deputy Minister may now proceed.

Mr Chairman, I wish to contend that I am dealing with an amendment before this House.

Yes, it is the same one I was dealing with. [Interjections.]

The amendment provides for the omission of the words “in its area” and I am explaining why that amendment has arisen. This enables a local authority to acquire immovable property outside its area. [Interjections.] I contend that this amendment is being introduced to enable that local authority to acquire such property. Clause 7(a) deals purely with the amendment of section 23 of the principal Act.

Hon members have been very loquacious in this entire debate which went quite far off the subject. I wish to agree with the hon member for Helderkruin that it was actually an ideological debate. I hope I shall also be given an opportunity of replying to some of these statements which were made.

As long as you do it briefly!

The temptation is obviously very great to react to that but I shall resist it entirely. The hon member for Sasolburg said inter alia he wished to speak on the theory of politics. He then proceeded to make a very long speech on this theory. I am resisting the temptation to react to that and want to confine myself largely to the Bill itself. Except that this also elicited very comprehensive discussion, some hon members made incorrect statements and deductions too. I shall return to these later, however.

I should now very much like to congratulate the hon member for Klip River—you have most probably already met him, Mr Chairman—who is the chairman of the standing committee dealing with this Bill. I wish to thank him for the positive lead he assumed in the standing committee. I also wish to thank the hon member for Klip River for explaining the amendments moved in the standing committee in his speech and that he…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I wish to request civilly whether it is desirable that under the circumstances in which the hon the Deputy Minister is now arguing, whereas he also referred to you in your capacity as the Chairman of the standing committee, another chairman should take the Chair? [Interjections.]

Order! I am prepared to relinquish the Chair to someone else. Under the circumstances I therefore leave the Chair and request the Chairman of Committees to take the Chair.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, …

You bunch of CPs are a petty lot! [Interjections.]

You do not know the meaning of petty! Pass your Std 8 first! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I said I wished to thank the hon member for Klip Rivier for explaining the amendments here which were moved in the standing committee while he also indicated briefly what the most important objectives of the amendments contained in the measure before us were. The hon member for Randburg also made very interesting comments on the operation of standing committees within the framework of the new Constitution. I wish to emphasise this here today, especially as regards the exceptional Bill being dealt with here now. I believe the most important factor is that an ordinary member of Parliament, who is not a member of the Executive Authority—this obviously also includes hon members of the Opposition parties—now has a far more meaningful say than was previously the case.

I wish to refer in particular to someone like the hon member Prof Olivier, as well as the hon member for Umbilo, who are two examples of Opposition members who contribute constructively to the activities of standing committees …

Order! If hon members have to speak at all, they should do so more softly. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

… as well as amendments to legislation which certainly bring about improvements. The hon member for Kuruman … I do not see him here at present so do not know whether I should reply to him. I shall proceed, however. [Interjections.]

In any case you do not know what the Bill contains! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman interpreted the hon the Minister’s words in his Second Reading speech quite incorrectly in asseting that a unification of local authorities was now being striven for. Let us establish precisely what the hon the Minister said in his Second Reading Speech which will also lead us to the object of the legislation. I quote what the hon the Minister said in his Second Reading speech:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: You reprimand me—you did it a while back as well—when I make interjections. The hon member for Vryheid is sitting in his seat making gestures in my direction. I am not prepared to be insulted by him by means of gestures or in any other way without being permitted to react to this. I call upon you for protection against the hon member for Vryheid, who in any case … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Jeppe is putting a point of order. The hon member for Jeppe may put his point of order.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I have concluded my point of order. [Interjections.]

Order! The presiding officer cannot take note of all manner of gestures being made in the House. Nevertheless hon members should not provoke one another into contravening the Rules of the House. Hon members should not permit themselves to be provoked into contravening the Rules of the House either.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It is very clear that the hon member for Vryheid was attempting to refer to a ruling Mr Speaker handed down in this regard on a previous occasion. I respectfully submit that you ask the hon member for Vryheid what he intended by the gestures which I also saw. This is something on which Mr Speaker adopted a very strong stand.[Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I am addressing you on a point of order and Whips who should know better are sitting making interjections and grinning while I am speaking. [Interjections.] I think it only right that that hon member should explain what he was trying to do in making those gestures to the hon member for Jeppe.

Order! I am aware of a ruling given by Mr Speaker as regards the hon member for Jeppe. However, I did not observe any gestures made by any hon member. I do not wish to take note now of gestures that were allegedly made but I call upon hon members to refrain from using gestures in an attempt to circumvent rulings made by the Chair in this House. The hon the Deputy Minister may now proceed.

Mr Chairman: I shall repeat what the hon the Minister said in his Second Reading speech. [Interjections.]

Only you are laughing at your little joke. You are sickening!

The hon the Minister said the question had been put in the standing committee why separate legislation existed for Black local authorities and why the existing legislation for local authorities for the other population groups could not simply be applied. The hon the Minister replied and said:

It emerges very clearly from this that the hon the Minister …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Brakpan said an hon member on this side was disgusting (mislik). I merely wish to know whether that is parliamentary language.

Order! Did the hon member for Brakpan say that?

Mr Chairman, I referred to the hon member for Vryheid and I said he was disgusting. I withdraw it and say he is horrible (afskuwelik).

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, from what the hon the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, it is very clear that he had a uniform Act in mind which was a world removed from the thought of the unification of local authorities for various population groups. Surely hon members of the CP are aware of the fact that item 6 of Schedule 1 of the Constitution provides that local government is an own affair to turn self-determination at local level into a reality.

Another example of how the hon the member for Kuruman quotes selectively and then attempts to gain a debating point on the basis of his selective and incomplete quotations is his partial quotation of the State President’s speech at the opening of Parliament. What did the hon member for Kuruman do? He quoted from the English version of the speech in which the President said (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1986, col 14):

He then ended his quotation there. This statement of the State President’s is 100% correct in the sense of constitutional law but I wish to know of the hon member for Kuruman why he kept back the following sentence in that speech. I should like to quote that sentence. The State President said the following:

The State President then continued by saying:

That is even worse.

The State President said:

Is that also even worse?

It is even worse …

The State President said the following:

That is certainly not what the hon member for Kuruman tried to bring home to hon members here. [Interjections.] He created the impression that the State President would rule out the existence of all population groups in South Africa. [Interjections.]

As regards the application of this principle at local level, I wish to quote further from what the State President said on 26 March 1985 in the Co-ordinating Council for Local Government Affairs here in Cape Town. I wish to quote it in full so that it may be recorded. The State President said:

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister? The hon the Deputy Minister referred to minority rights. Can he explain to us how he will protect minority rights?

Order! With respect, I do not think I shall permit the hon the Deputy Minister to do this, because it would fall outside the purview of the Bill. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I wish to quote further from what the State President said:

He continued:

He added:

This quotation from what the State President said on the subject of own local authorities should leave no one within or outside this House in any doubt of the Government’s standpoint in this regard.

I wish to allege that it is altogether mischievous of the hon member for Kuruman to seize on this legislation and say we are busy with unification now. The existence of different local authorities for different population groups is clear evidence that this is not the case.

The hon member Prof Olivier supported the Bill on behalf of the Official Opposition and I thank him for that support. As regards Prof Olivier’s statement that the essence of the problem was the institution of own local authorities, I have just stated the Government’s standpoint fully in this regard by means of the quotation from the State President’s speech.

The hon member Prof Olivier said Government policy was based purely on an ideological foundation. Here I wish to agree with the hon member for Helderkruin. Is PFP policy not also based on an ideological foundation? He and his party merely endorse a different ideology. We endorse the standpoint of separate local authorities for the various population groups.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether separate local authorities are within the group area of each group and whether the Government envisages creating group areas for Blacks? If not, why are there group areas for Coloureds, Indians and Whites?

But group areas already exist for all the different groups in this country.

No, not for Blacks. [Interjections.]

They have their own specific residential areas. We have just appointed a demarcation board which is determining the areas of jurisdiction for all these local authorities—for Coloureds as well among others. We are therefore involved in the entire process of determining the areas of jurisdiction of all these local authorities.

Will the Government give Blacks group areas?

Order! The hon member for Kuruman put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister. The hon the Deputy Minister is replying to the question.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, before business was suspended for dinner, I was replying to the hon member Prof Olivier’s speech. I stressed that it was policy to give each of the various population groups its own local authorities.

The hon member for Kuruman put a question and the reply to this is that these local authorities are linked to the areas where the various population groups live. It is a fact that there are no group areas in the case of Black people but another Act demarcates the specific areas where they reside.

The hon member Prof Olivier and other hon members referred to the new provincial dispensation as well as to the fact that clause 16, which replaces section 55 of the principal Act, made it possible for the Minister to delegate powers to an Administrator. Consequently it is a fact that in terms of this clause the Minister may transfer his powers as regards Black local authorities to the Administrator.

I think the objection of the hon member Prof Olivier and other hon members was that they should have liked to deal with that legislation first as well. The hon member for Randburg pointed out with justification that it was not always possible to submit Bills chronologically as requested. I admit that it would probably be the desirable method. As regards the provincial Government Bill, 1986, I wish to state that it will be published shortly. [Interjections.]

The hon members for Brakpan and Sasolburg accused the Government of postponing the election for Black local authorities until 1988. It is probably true that the unrest situation in Black areas would definitely hamper elections but I deduce that hon members have not read the Bill thoroughly. [Interjections.] The Bill provides for the conversion of approximately 190 community councils into town committees as a form of local authority. There is also provision that elected members involved may continue as members of the town committees until expiry of their terms of office. The reason for this is to retain the expertise of those members and to eliminate unnecessary elections which can be time-consuming and also cost money.

The date for holding elections for local authorities of all population groups, the Blacks excepted, has already been set for 1988. This was laid down by the Constitutional Affairs Amendment Act of 1985. This amending Bill contains no provision regarding the holding of elections for Black local authorities but a further Bill will provide that such elections will also be able to take place during 1988.

The hon member for Durban Point who supported the Bill—I wish to thank him for this—launched quite a fierce attack on the Government on the initial inclusion of clause 13 which was deleted by the standing committee. I want to inform the hon member that section 20(3) of the Urban Areas Act, promulgated on 1 June 1945, contained a provision identical to the clause which has now been deleted. This was repealed only in 1984 by Act 4 of 1984 and partially re-enacted. [Interjections.]

If my memory serves me, the then United Party, which is now the NRP, was the governing party when that provision, against which the hon member launched such a violent attack and about which he created a relatively great fuss, was placed in the Statute Book in 1945. [Interjections.] Clause 13, against which the hon member for Durban Point objected, was taken almost verbatim from that Act.

The hon member Prof Olivier also referred to clause 13 and alleged that it would place the employer in a situation of conflict. He also stated that local authorities were not viable.

I think the viability of all local authorities—those of Black local authorities too—depends on the users of services like water, sanitation and electricity and that there should be payment for the use of these. Clause 13 of the Bill was to have provided for exactly that. Nevertheless I should like to quote in this regard what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said in the House of Representatives:

The hon member for Sasolburg said the Government should collect the money and I want to agree with him. Every effort is being made to recover this money. I also want to state it clearly tonight that it is not in all Black areas, towns and communities that people are in arrears with rentals and service fees. I want to admit, as I said in a previous debate, that there are areas where it is extremely difficult to collect these fees under present circumstances. I wish to assure the hon member, however, that the Government, the community councils involved, city councils and development boards are not indifferent to the recovery of these fees.

Hon members will probably understand this. I could just as well put the question on how this should be done. All right, we are the Government, we have to assume the reponsibility. This would probably result in one’s having to place this responsibility on the shoulders of the Police or saddling the inspectors of development boards with it. The danger would always exist that they would not be paid. One would then have to obtain a court order to have people vacate their houses. Even this could be refused under these very difficult circumstances.

All I actually want to say is that conditions in some of these Black areas are extremely difficult in consequence of the unrest and riots which we are not denying. Nevertheless various efforts are being made to collect these fees and I wish to assure the hon member for Sasolburg and all other hon members that the department is not indifferent toward this and that we are doing everything in our power to recover those overdue fees.

Is that a fact?

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether employers’ organisations like Assocom, FCI and all the rest unanimously opposed the provision because it would place them in conflict with their own workers?

The hon member for Durban Point is quite right in that we received those submissions. Even employees could be placed in a very difficult position because they would then be identified as the people who by way of a stop-order had voluntarily signed—not under compulsion—that these service and rental fees be recovered and therefore would also be endangering their lives in that way. Consequently a conflict situation arose.

This past weekend an employer approached me in Johannesburg and asked me whether we could not do it in this way; so there are employers who would like to do it by this method because some employees want to pay like this. The hon member’s words are true and that is why we decided to delete that clause.

One could very easily attempt making political capital out of this. On the one hand we should realise there are organisations which do not want the tenant to pay his rental and service fees and that it represents a victory to those organisations when it does not happen. Hon members have already asked what the overdue amount is in total. By mentioning an overdue amount, we are playing directly into the hands of those organisations claiming to be succeeding. This would provide them with further encouragement. On the other hand, I more than understand that money has been spent.

It is the Whites’ money.

It is not only the Whites’ money; other people also pay income tax and contribute to the Treasury.

I am aware that interim finance has been provided; I have admitted this. Nevertheless I appeal to hon members for understanding in this difficult situation confronting us. We shall and must do everything in our power, however, to collect these overdue fees.

Questions were also put on regional services councils. Various members referred to these councils although this Bill does not deal with them at all. I shall respond very briefly to this, Sir, as it is probably all you will permit me to do.

It is actually a pity that the system of Black local authorities and that of regional services councils were not instituted simultaneously. If that had happened, I believe many of the problems currently experienced by Black local authorities would have been obviated. I should very much like to point out to hon members of the PFP, who criticise regional service councils on every occasion in this House, that someone like Mr Sam Moss, MPC, member of the PFP and leader of the Opposition in the City Council of Johannesburg, said according to The Star of 1 August 1985:

I hope hon members of the PFP will follow Mr Moss’s example and support them.

The hon member for Kuruman referred to Question No 26, answered by the hon the Minster of Constitutional Development and Planning on 11 March 1986 in this House of Assembly on the possible representation of rural communities on regional services councils. The position here is that any rural community—I underline, any rural community—within the area of jurisdiction of the regional services council may obtain representation by means of a representative body, as defined in section 1 of the Regional Services Councils Act, providing the following conditions are satisfied: Firstly, the rural community shall have an elected body to see to their interests; secondly, the members of that body shall receive services from the Regional Services Council and shall pay for them; thirdly, the Administrator of the province involved shall recognise the body as representative.

It is precisely these provisions which make it possible for farming communities, which are not represented by a local authority, to obtain representation on a regional services council as well. They may do so through a representative body. The position is therefore not as the hon member for Kuruman wants to aver, which is that only farm labourers may have voting rights or serve on a regional services council and that Whites in rural areas are not to receive that right.

No, that is not what I said. Just do not distort my words.

In reply to the hon member for Brakpan’s question, I should like to inform him that, if a local authority does not settle its account with a regional services council, we shall be able to obtain a court order against that local authority through normal court procedure. To execute a court order, one would again—the hon member actually knows this better than I—be able to obtain a garnishee order against funds envisaged for such a local authority, for example, the regional services council funds. Consequently I do not think there is a possibility that a local authority could belong to a regional services council—the hon member also referred to this—and be supplied with power by Escom for an indefinite period while failing to pay for it owning to lack of funds. That is why one of the other hon members responded during one of the debates on mineral and energy affairs by saying that Escom would not supply that power indefinitely.

I think I have responded briefly to all hon members. I wish to thank all very heartily who participated in this debate. I can only repeat that the main objective of this Bill is to obtain greater uniformity. This is not a unification of local authorities and I hope that we shall be able to restore order in all Black communities. I hold regular discussions with community councils and city councils in Black areas and I wish to assure hon members tonight that many capable people serve on those councils. They are eager to proceed with the task and I believe that Black local authorities are still to play a very important role in their communities.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Messrs S P Barnard, J H Hoon, F J le Roux, Mrs E M Scholtz, Messrs L F Stofberg, L M Theunissen, Dr A P Treurnicht, Messrs C Uys, H D K van der Merwe, J H van der Merwe, W L van der Merwe, Dr F A H van Staden, Messrs J J B van Zyl and J H Visagie) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The published memorandum on the objects of the Bill is comprehensive and I shall therefore concentrate on the most important objects of the the proposed legislation.

The Black Land Act, 1913, and the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936, both place restrictions on, inter alia, the acquisiton by non-Blacks of an interest in land in scheduled or released areas. This implies that the Black landowner in those areas requires the approval of the Minister if he wishes to register a mortgage bond on his land in favour of a non-Black from whom he has acquired financial assistance.

We have taken cognisance of the measures introduced last year and recently by the Government to promote the involvement of the private sector in the financing of housing for Black people, both in the self-governing territories and in towns on South African Development Trust land, that is to say, the two categories that fall within scheduled and released areas. The emphasis still falls on development and the removal of the restrictions brought about in clauses 1 and 6 of the Bill will, without doubt, facilitate and promote the registration of mortgage bonds in favour of non-Black financiers and financial institutions supporting housing in scheduled and released areas.

The amendment of section 30 (2) of the Black Administration Act, 1927, which is brought about in clause 2 of the Bill, will bring the Minister’s regulatory powers into line with those of the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning provided for under section 56 of the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982. These two areas then, the Black Administration Act dealing with local government in the released and scheduled areas, and the Black Local Authorities Act dealing with local government under the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in the so-called urban areas, will operate on the same basis.

A local government body established for the control and management of a town referred to in section 30 of the Black Administration Act, 1927, is vested with wider powers and shall now also be in a position to make by-laws on the same basis as a Black local authority under the 1982 Act, which is its counterpart in the urban areas.

The other provisions of the Bill are of a technical nature and are designed to facilitate administration and remove unnecessary restrictions.

In view of the fact that the standing committee could not reach consensus on clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill, as introduced, it has been decided to omit those clauses and we are submitting here today the reprinted Bill as amended by the standing committee.

In my view, however, the original clauses 8 and 9 are important and necessary, but I intend to submit them to Parliament in a separate Bill at a later stage so that they do not come into question today.

Mr Chairman, it is not our intention to delay the House unnecessarily on this Bill. The Bill went before the standing committee and it proved controversial in its original form. This arose particularly out of clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill. The standing committee could not find consensus on those two clauses and therefore they were dropped from the original Bill. The Bill which we have before us now is therefore in our view an improvement.

The only fault I find in the introductory speech of the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid—which I believe was delivered in the House of Delegates—is that the hon the Minister says he believes clauses 8 and 9 are necessary and that he intends to submit them to Parliament in a separate Bill at a later stage. Otherwise I would find his Second Reading speech fairly faultless.

The positive aspects of this Bill can be found in clauses 1 and 6 which facilitate loans by the private sector to Black areas as well as mortgage bonds etc in scheduled and released areas. This we find an obvious improvement and I congratulate the hon the Minister on that. I think it will help matters insofar as the Black population are concerned in obtaining loans from building societies by way of mortgage bonds etc.

We would have liked the provision to have gone further but that was not allowed during the standing committee. The Bill in its present form is an improvement and it will have our support.

I hope the hon the Minister will give us some indication when he replies as to when the separate Bill incorporating the controversial clauses 8 and 9 may be expected. I am sure that if the clauses come forward in the same form they will meet with the same opposition. They will certainly do so from us in these benches and I believe probably from the members of the other Houses too because there was a concerted opposition in the standing committee to those two clauses.

The Bill as it is before us now will have our support in the Second Reading.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Berea and his party for their support of this Bill. As he so aptly remarked, the two clauses which elicited the actual debate in the standing committee are not up for discussion here tonight.

It is provided in clause 1 and 6 that a Black landowner may have a mortgage bond registered on his land by a White or non-Black institution in scheduled and released areas. The rights of the bondholder are protected in that he may obtain the land freely if the bonded debt is not redeemed. At least a year’s grace is given for resale of the land to a Black.

Clause 3 enables a Black local authority to make by-laws itself. This step promotes the independence of Black local authorities; consequently, the powers of town administrations in Black areas will correspond with those of towns in White areas.

We take pleasure in expressing our hearty thanks and appreciation to councillors and officials for the important service they render at local government level. As we are all aware, this often happens in extremely difficult circumstances of intimidation. Councillors have had to stand up to the worst degree of intimidation and vituperation.

I further wish to take this opportunity to appeal to White local authorities to effect deliberate liaison with their Black neighbours where possible. In this way, knowledge and skill may be made available.

There are cases in which councillors from adjacent local authorities do not know one another at all. Dialogue can lead to the creation of better understanding and co-operation which is so essential for good neighbourliness and peaceful coexistence.

It is important that living conditions in Black local residential areas should continue to be improved. White local authorities can play a very useful role in this respect.

Employers from the private sector should become increasingly involved and be of assistance to their employees by helping them to obtain proper housing of their own in their areas. This Bill enables financial institutions to make funds available more readily for housing.

Black people should also learn to become independent themselves and those who are able to afford it should acquire their own housing by arranging finance.

Freehold rights will promote stability, peace and order in Black areas. People who possess property will obviously do all in their power to protect that property.

Clauses 1 and 6 will promote Black urban development and this process should be expedited. It is also important for the urbanisation process to be promoted by independent and self-governing states in their territory. Traditional communal land tenure and subsistence farming practices destroy the environment in a frightening manner and even ruin it entirely. A conserted effort has to be made within those states to establish people in towns and cities. Numbers involved in agriculture should be decreased and not only traditional subsistence farming applied.

This Bill will promote the process of urbanisation. The concentration of people in urban areas will result in the furnishing of services and the raising of the quality of life. This is in the interests of us all.

I take pleasure in supporting the amending Bill in these few words.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Umfolozi and the comments he made on the Bill. I agree with him on the influence this Bill can have on the promotion of the urbanisation of Black people within their own areas and states.

Whereas the Government has now apparently thrown in the towel as regards channelling Black urbanisation from White South Africa to the Blacks’ own areas and whereas it has obviously decided that the stream of Black people to White urban areas is inevitable, I find it gratifying to have some indication by way of the hon member for Umfolozi that the NP is still in favour of Black urbanisation being channelled within the Black areas themselves if possible.

As regards clauses 1 and 6, I agree with the hon members for Berea and Umfolozi that they are positive and therefore we can support the Bill. We have no objection to the other less important clause which empowers the hon the Minister to act now instead of the State President.

The hon member for Berea has already referred to the concluding paragraph of the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech. I do not know how to describe it. In it the hon Minister said:

What a pathetic admission of absolute powerlessness of a Government which is supposed to be strong! That is the Government which still holds it up to the voters of South Africa that it governs the country but one of its senior Ministers, a frontbench Minister, said he had come to this House of Assembly with provisions in a Bill which he regarded as essential and he gave in. [Interjections.] He submitted. What an admission that the NP Government is no longer capable of governing South Africa. [Interjections.] It is no longer capable of it because the NP Government tells us it rejects majority rule—Black majority rule. Here is the best proof, or incontrovertible proof, that we are currently dealing with minority rule and that this Government is no longer governing but merely reacting to decisions of the Coloured House and the Indian House.

If this is not so, I should like to know why this hon Minister—he is not actually one of the vigorous Ministers—does not proceed with legislation which he himself says is essential. Surely there can be only one reason for this and that is that South Africa is no longer being ruled by the NP Government. The hon member for Randburg will obviously agree with me on this.

No, do you not understand democracy?

I understand democracy very well.

You do not appear to.

I understand democracy very well because I see it in operation here at present.

Then you are talking like a fascist.

I see their form of democracy operating in South Africa today. At the moment their form of democracy means that the Indians and the Coloureds decide for them how South Africa will be governed. That is how it is decided. [Interjections.]

The AWB decides for you.

No, the hon member for Kimberley South or North?

That is near the Big Hole! [Interjections.]

He says the AWB decides for us but, if the hon the Minister says here that he regards these provisions as essential and he cannot proceed with them because the other two groups do not agree, who is the master then? What type of mastery do we have at present?

There it is! Now you are coming out with it! [Interjections.]

At the moment we have the mastery of the Coloureds and the Indians over the whole of South Africa. [Interjections.] It is nothing but that!

What mastery do you want, Cas?

I want mastery over myself. [Interjections.] There is only one way in which I can obtain mastery over myself and fair mastery for the rest over themselves too. That is by means of the CP’s policy of partition. [Interjections.] Ultimately that is the only answer for South Africa …

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, I do not want to reply to a question now. [Interjections.] The only answer for South Africa is ultimately the policy of partition because what we are experiencing, not only in this Bill at the moment but also what we have experienced this afternoon in this House—where we have been conducting an almost fruitless debate for two days—we have done because this White House has been handed over to the mercy of the other two Houses. We have been handed over to the mercy of the other two Houses because for all practical purposes we are dealing with a minority veto today. If the NP goes its way and also brings in the Blacks …

Broadens democracy.

If it broadens democracy, as the hon member for Rissik says, to bring in all the Blacks as well, how powerless will we in this House—if it still exists at all—be in our own fatherland! I wish to make an appeal. Let us re-examine the operation of this so-called consensus-seeking tricameral Parliament which is nothing but the prelude to a minority dictatorship.

Mr Chairman, my thanks to the hon member for Barberton for his support of the measure under discussion. Of course, the hon member concentrated his entire speech on the two clauses omitted from the Bill. I wish to ask, however, whether the hon member would have supported those two clauses. He supports a policy of partition; I therefore accept that he is in favour of those two clauses. Is that right? [Interjections.]

Got him!

He has no idea what you are talking about! [Interjections.]

In terms of those two clauses, a Black state would have been granted the right to administer a certain part of the Republic. Surely that clashes diametrically with the policy of the hon member for Barberton and his party. Surely he is aware that certain obscurities appeared in those clauses. Is that not what the process of the search for consensus is about—that a special effort should be made to eliminate those obscurities and to effect a broader basis of satisfaction regarding legislation which we pass here? Or does the hon member for Barberton merely want to force legislation through if it is contrary to the desire of a large part of the population? [Interjections.]

He wants confrontation!

Mr Chairman, most of the provisions in this measure deal with urbanisation.

Mr Chairman, can the hon member for Nelspruit tell us whether it is at all necessary—while we are dealing here with a Bill which does not affect the Coloureds or the Indians but the Black people—for consensus to be reached with the Coloureds and the Indians as regards the interests of Blacks?

Mr Chairman, those two relevant clauses deal with the territory of the Republic, which is why consensus obviously also has to be reached with the Coloureds and the Indians. [Interjections.] Most of the provisions in the Bill under discussion deal with urbanisation. The Black population of the Republic is maintaining a very high growth rate and a very low level of urbanisation, especially in the national states. According to the report of the President’s Council, this rate is only 15% in the national states. Consequently it is very difficult to establish the level, the extent and the tempo of this growth but it is definite that comprehensive growth will and must occur, especially in the national states, and that this has to be accommodated and promoted.

One of the factors which will play a great role in this—that is in the process of urban growth within the national states—is the availability of capital. Large amounts of money have already been spent by the State in recent years, not only on housing but also on the creation of infrastructure which furnishes individuals with the opportunity of obtaining accommodation themselves. According to the report of the President’s Council, up to 1984 the Development Trust had erected about 90 000 houses in the national states whereas the inhabitants themselves had erected about 22 500—therefore a ratio of 4:1. This is a proportion which will have to improve in future. In the White Paper on urbanisation the Government reaffirms the right of the individual to acquire accommodation. In the first place it is the duty of the individual himself, however, and the contribution of the State is limited to cases in which the individual is himself incapable of accomplishing this. Hon members have already dealt with the clauses thoroughly themselves so I shall not spend any more time on them.

This legislation, which is aimed at creating capital, facilitates and expands the investors’ opportunities in fixed property and makes such expenditure less risky. In consequence, I take great pleasure in supporting the current measure. I am also pleased to support the provision enabling the towns concerned to issue by-laws for themselves—the provision which therefore extends powers in this respect. This will create better opportunities for self-upliftment by the communities themselves and, in so doing, also create opportunities for a better existence in the areas to which they apply.

Mr Chairman, we also support this amending Bill. I think the hon member for Nelspruit made a very important point when he spoke about the availability of capital as a result of the amendment which deals with the ability to make use of White-owned financial institutions. That in itself introduces a whole field of possibilities as regards the greater promotion of the free enterprise system and ownership within the Black areas where Blacks can enjoy the benefit of the free enterprise system by mortgaging properties if they require development capital, whether it be to build on an extra room or to participate in the sale of properties, or whatever the case may be. There are certain other aspects of it in regard to the sale of property between two Blacks, as far as the administrative procedure is concerned, which are now eased. There is also a relaxation of the provisions in regard to the sale of subdivided land.

There is just one point in clause 1, which, reading through it now and actually listening to the hon member for Nelspruit, made me think about it again. Clause 1 amends section 1 of the principal Act of which the new subsection (2)(b) and (c) stipulates that after a sale in execution of land for the recovery of the outstanding loan debt the mortgagee may acquire the land and he then has to seal that land back to a Black within one year. It just strikes me that that period may be a little short and that one might find financial institutions being a bit wary about coming forward with funds. They could be caught in a downturn in the economy, or it could be difficult to sell the property. For that reason, the period of one year might be too short. We may have to keep that in mind in the future in regard to giving great flexibility in that connection.

When one talks about the development of towns or the increased availability of land for the development of towns, and the making of regulations in this regard, one sees before one an enormous task of settling people into ordered townships, not only in the urban areas but also in the rural areas, some of which have become overpopulated. The system of subsistence farming no longer enables people to cope. Some of these areas are close enough to large urban centres so that they have become “dormitory towns” to the bigger cities. In fact, the people there either commute to and from these big cities, or else they become weekly boarders, if one might put it that way. Those areas are going to require a tremendous amount of development in respect of the towns and villages which are required to ease the situation as far as the excessive population is concerned because the large number of people who are now trying to living on that land are forcing the traditional farmer into a very difficult position indeed.

I think that the department which has inherited some of these areas as its responsibility, particularly in the border corridor area, for instance, as a result of a change in policy with regard to forced removals, will have a very difficult task indeed. They have inherited responsibility for large areas where this sort of development is occurring and where the provision of towns and villages is going to be very necessary. I doubt very much whether they have the machinery, the local knowledge, and, in some cases—and I do not mean this derogatorily—the credibility locally to handle these matters in very difficult circumstances. I would like to recommend very strongly to the hon the Minister that, in the border corridor area specifically, his department make contact with an organisation by the name of “Umfesane”, which is a Xhosa word meaning “Compassion”. This organisation does a tremendous amount of good…

They would not understand that word in any language!

It is an organisation which has grown over 10 years. It has done a tremendous amount of work in Ciskei and Transkei. It is waiting to put its skills, experience and local knowledge to use in areas such as those which the department now finds itself having to cope with. They have a pretty impressive record. Last year their expenditure amounted to something like R4,5 million, and they acquired State subsidies to the tune of R1,8 million. They generate their own funds to the tune of R2 million and they also receive a considerable amount in donations.

These people have great credibility. This is very important in dealing with a very turbulent situation because many of these areas in particular are areas which are now entering the sphere of unrest. The tribal authorities there have not necessarily been broken down but are being forced out by activists. If one adds to this the fact that there has been no development of the areas because of people were going to be removed, one can understand that a vacuum exists in this regard. There is an enormous backlog to make up and it is going to be difficult for any authorities to operate within those areas because when they co-operate with the authorities, the local people find themselves marked men.

An organisation like this already has credibility. It has communication skills and local knowledge in terms of customs. It knows the practical way of going about things. It knows where handouts do not succeed, and how to motivate the local people to participate in schemes and to assist in uplifting themselves. I also want to mention that this organisation cuts rights across the boundaries of race ideology, church denomination and party politics and that it really deserves tremendous support from the entire country. It supports the new emphasis on privatisation and so its input into the Black community would be in keeping with the new direction as regards ownership and participation on a free enterprise basis.

Once again, I must repeat that it is not a handout type of organisation. It has had tremendous success in regard to assisting handicapped people in particular. The partnership with the Government in respect of the running of schools is one in which the commitment in terms of overall management is —theirs, while the department provides the subsidies. Furthermore, it is one of the few non-governmental organisations which recently participated in the Government shortterm emergency employment scheme and it employed an average of 1 000 people per day. I mention this to the House because the scale of its operations is really quite considerable and, with additional assistance, this organisation could really establish branches in all of the areas which were hitherto known as black spots within the border corridor thereby greatly assisting, in co-operation with the Government, in implementing very urgently needed development.

There are nearly 5 000 people involved in various projects. They do receive overseas funding. I know that type of statement has a sinister connotation in South Africa today but this funding comes from well-meaning people—largely church-related—and, in fact, they have contact with some countries which are very much against assisting in any of the homelands at all. One can therefore see that they have been successful as regards those countries which otherwise spurn anything to do with any of the national states.

The challenge in these areas is going to lie in very quickly implementing the sort of legislation that is before this House today. We must get down to ownership in order to get people to become involved in free enterprise and to have a pride in the free enterprise system; to enable country people also to reap the benefits as in the urban areas as far as housing development schemes are concerned, and to give them back their dignity and pride. I believe we need all the assistance we can get in this regard. I do not think the Government can do it; it has too much hay on its fork and it needs these people because they have local knowledge, expertise, communication and credibility.

I would therefore recommend to the hon the Minister that he make contact through his department with this organisation. I am sure it can be of tremendous assistance in achieving what I know the hon the Minister would in fact like to achieve in those areas in the shortest possible time.

Mr Chairman, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to hon members for their support of this Bill. It is a Bill which affects two important aspects of the welfare of Blacks in trust areas and in general in released or scheduled Black areas.

In the first place—as hon members pointed out—this Bill attempts to promote the situation of Blacks as possessors of land and in particular as landowners. On the one hand it attempts to remove unnecessary restrictions which prevent the promotion of Black acquisition of land and Black land ownership, so that individual land-ownership will, in fact, be promoted to the full in the Black areas—in the national states, but also in the Trust areas.

This also has bearing on the other measures which were taken to promote the financing of householders in particular in the trust areas and in the national states. Until recently we had the problem that the financing bodies—especially the building societies—were hesitant to become involved in those areas in the same way as in the more conventional urban areas. We succeeded in effecting a greater involvement of the building societies, on the one hand by adapting the regulations in connection with the title deed, according to which freehold title can be acquired by home owners in the trust areas and the national states, to the requirements for free enterprise which were set by the financing bodies, and on the other by issuing a State guarantee to the building societies as general cover for their making finance available in areas which may later become part of independent states.

It is with great pleasure that I can mention that almost all the large building societies came forward within a few weeks after this new arrangement had been announced, to acquire the State guarantee, and, with a view to the State guarantee, to obtain a ceiling amount from the hon the Minister of Finance. They are already making loans available.

In the same spirit in which those measures were taken, this Bill also intends to promote Black land ownership, as well as to finance it, especially in terms of clauses 1 and 6, which ease the restrictions in respect of the granting of bonds by conventional financing bodies to Blacks, and to eliminate certain restrictions.

The other important aspect which is dealt with in this Bill, is the promotion of Black local government in the trust areas, as well as in some areas in the national states, in which the Department of Development Aid is still exercising the relevant functions until such time as these are transferred to the national states. Broadly speaking, the amendments which are being effected in respect of Black local authorities, are aimed precisely at bringing the legislation into closer conformity with the Act of 1982, which introduced Black local authorities in our larger urban areas. In this way we believe we will also promote a greater involvement in the local authorities in the more rural areas.

I agree with the hon member for Umfolozi that we should emphasise the importance of the involvement of Blacks on the level of local government on every possible occasion. We must do so here tonight as well. In addition we must show our appreciation to those Black leaders who, often under immense pressure and intimidation, are still prepared to remain involved in Black local authorities. I think the contribution made by such people—sometimes they have to have a great deal of courage to do so, and have to make personal sacrifices to a great extent—is extremely valuable and meaningful with reference to the development of political self-determination in Black communities.

I also want to remind hon members of a statement I made during the discussion of my Vote in this House. In it I mentioned the Government’s decisions in connection with adjustments in the legislation, mostly by way of proclamation and regulation, in order to promote and encourage property ownership in the national states and in the trust areas—in the urban or town context, as well as in the rural context.

Hon members pointed out that naturally the promotion of individual property ownership by Blacks and free enterprise in respect of land in the Black areas runs counter to the traditional communal way of life there, and that we shall need exceptional leadership and initiative from the political leaders in those areas to effect a gradual change-over to the more responsible system of land use by means of individual land rights. This will be necessary because the traditional communal system has applied there for so long, and has so many social and political implications.

The hon member for Umfolozi underlined the importance of property ownership and the ensuing result, viz that someone who possesses property is more ready to protect and defend it. He also emphasised the importance of urbanisation. With reference to that, the hon member for Barberton, quite unjustly, came to the conclusion that the Government has thrown in the towel in respect of channelling Black urbanisation away from the large existing metropolitan concentrations. This is a false portrayal of the real Government policy. I want to emphasise once again that the Government accepts the reality of existing metropolitan concentrations, and the inevitability that an extension of land will have to take place there too to make provision for urbanisation and housing, even if only for the inherent growth of the existing population. It is also an important second leg of the Government policy, however, that it wants to deconcentrate the urbanisation of Blacks, and that that is why it is taking exceptional encouragement measures—inter alia through this legislation—to promote urbanisation and establishment of towns for Blacks away from the existing concentrations, for example at déconcentration points or decentralisation points in terms of the economic regional decentralisation policy. Considerable amounts of money are being spent on promoting and developing urbanisation and township establishment within and on the boundaries of national states. There is no question, therefore, of throwing in the towel. The Government accepts that orderly urbanisation in South Africa cannot take place only in the existing large concentrations, but that stringent and energetic efforts should in fact be made to ensure that it also takes place in the less developed parts of the country as well.

The hon member for Barberton indicated that clauses 8 and 9 of the original Bill—which was not agreed to by the standing committee—was simply thrown overboard. That is not the case. I pointed out explicitly that those two clauses have a particular significance and value, and that they will be submitted again in due course. The consideration was—in the case of so much consensus on the rest of the Bill, and because it is considerate and sensible in regard to the three Houses of this Parliament—to retain those elements which can readily be agreed to in this Bill to save time, and then at a later stage to advance a Bill, which will probably be much more contentious, in order eventually to have it included in the Statute Book along the available channels. [Interjections.]

I also want to say that there is no question of our admitting that we cannot proceed with this Bill. Not at all. It is a question of orderly planning, of proper timing and of consideration to this House, as well as to the other two Houses, in order to take up as little time as possible with this Bill. [Interjections.] The point I should like to emphasise is that the two clauses which have been omitted from the Bill are in fact meaningful, because in the one case they make provision for interim regulations if an area be excised from a national state—this is being determined already—or an independent state, and added to the Republic of South Africa once again. An orderly transition of administrative functions and authoritative bodies is brought about in an excision process of this kind. Clause 9 makes provision for an anticipation of the inclusion of certain areas in a national or independent state by granting such an independent or national state the management authority over that particular area, which is still part of the Republic, by means of agreement beforehand.

There were reservations in the standing committee, however, that in doing so the Republic would be renouncing its authority over its own residents and its own area, so that this matter was omitted at this stage to be brought up again later. It is not a question of throwing in the towel, however.

I should like to thank the hon member for Nelspruit in particular for emphasising this aspect and pointing out the considerations for the decision on these two clauses. In reality the hon member for Berea also agreed with the merit of the Bill, and put the question to which I have actually replied already. At this stage I can simply indicate that there are no circumstances which necessitate raising these two clauses again during this year’s Parliamentary session. It is a matter which can be placed on the programme for next year.

I also want to emphasise the point made by the hon member for Nelspruit and associate myself with it, viz that the building of own homes is part of the general socio-economic upliftment programme for the Black residents of these areas. It also contributes to increasing their quality of life. If this Bill, with the other measures which I referred to in the beginning, can contribute to improving the quality of life of Black residents of the Black trust areas and the national state areas, it will contribute to their establishment in those areas as well as their participation in economic activities in those areas, and therefore will bring about a more even distribution of population and economic activities in this country.

I should therefore like to thank the hon members for their contributions.

Oh yes, I still want to react to the speech made by the hon member for King William’s Town. My notes on it are on the other side of the page, and I almost forgot about the hon member. The hon member made an important point.

†I just want to assure him that if he reads clause 1 of the Bill carefully he will notice that the person who has bought such land at a sale in execution is not strictly bound to sell the land to a Black within one year, as the hon member seems to think, but within one year or “within such further period as the Minister … may approve”; in other words, the clause does have a built-in flexibility.

I very warmly welcome and agree with the hon member’s suggestion that maximum use should be made of private enterprise to encourage development in areas occupied by Black people, especially those areas where the occupants were for some time in a state of uncertainty as to their future and thus where development has lagged behind somewhat. As I said in the discussion of my Budget Vote, the department is working on a programme, with regard to the agricultural and rural development of these areas and also with regard to orderly urbanisation and township development, so that we can cope with the excess population which has settled there and which imperils, really, the maintenance of good agricultural activity.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister what the position would be were he not to approve an application for extension of the period within which someone who acquires property at a sale in execution for the recovery of an outstanding loan debt has to sell that property to a Black. The Minister may grant such extension in certain cases, well and good, but I should like to know whether there is a guarantee to people investing in areas other than the independent states. I know the guarantee applies there, but does that guarantee also apply to other areas?

I thank the hon member for the second chapter of his speech. [Interjections.] I want to give him the assurance that if a Minister is so unreasonable as not to give someone an extension when circumstances make it difficult for that person to sell that land within a year, I think they should get rid of that Minister in some or other suitable way. [Interjections.]

I should like to say the organisation Mfesane is not specifically known to me, but as the hon member explained things, it is the kind of organisation which we should like to make use of, if they do in fact have good, and not inflammatory, intentions concerning development.

I can also think of two other organisations. In Natal, for example, there is also a rural development organisation which the well-known Dr McCrystal is involved in, which the department likes to make use of and to which we grant financial support. We also have the Rural Foundation in many parts of the country, a body which is very active here in the Boland inter alia and which does excellent work in involving the private sector in rural development.

Any way in which the private sector is prepared to become involved for the sake of the development and the welfare of the country as a whole, and especially for the sake of the less developed regions, is greatly welcomed. For too long, in my opinion the development of the less developed areas was simply left to the Government, and the private sector neglected its duty. I therefore greatly welcome and also associate myself with the idea raised by the hon member for King William’s Town.

I should like to content myself with those few remarks and once again thank the hon members for their contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, after our last debate on this piece of legislation, I still owe a number of speakers a reply. I begin with the hon member for Brakpan to whom I owe a reply to the one question he put. It will be of general interest to those people who watch SABC-TV.

The hon member asked specifically whether the special service provided by the SABC for special groups for special broadcasts, is available to any group in the Republic. The reply to that is “yes”. The service is available to any group which is prepared to defray the cost. In this specific connection I can merely mention that religious bodies as well as people who are involved in sport and horse-racing have already made use of these special broadcasts to certain specific groups.

If the CP, for example, wanted to buy a special broadcasting service for their congress, they could do so if they were prepared to defray the cost.

I think I have replied to all the parties’ main speakers now and therefore I shall merely refer briefly to the supporting speakers.

In the first place I want to thank the hon member for Rosettenville for his contribution. It was an excellent contribution to the debate. The hon member mentioned inter alia that the ten minutes made available for a parliamentary report on the SABC’s radio service is too short. Other hon members raised this too, and the general opinion was that ten minutes is too short. I think the directors of the SABC will take this into account when they do their planning for the future.

I merely want to point out to hon members that the SABC reacts to what is of importance to the market. Naturally we as politicians should like to have a whole hour for parliamentary reports, but time is also a factor—of course, it is broadcast during a peak hour—and one also has to take the other interests related to public demand during peak hour into account. I think the ten minutes during the peak hour are probably worth just as much as 20 minutes during a period in which fewer people listen to the radio. One should really take that into account, but we shall consider the matter once again in the planning of radio programmes.

The hon member also paid tribute to the SABC’s 6 000 employees of all cultural groups and we thank him for that.

In the last place the hon member also paid tribute to the foreign radio services and we thank him for that too. Of course, the hon member has knowledge of the fact that the SABC’s foreign shortwave transmitter receives thousands of letters per month from throughout Africa and the Western world, which is a good indication of the number of people who listen to that shortwave service. I therefore convey my sincere thanks to the hon member for his contribution. I am sorry I cannot go into more detail about it, but unfortunately our time is limited.

The hon member for Pietersburg is not here tonight, but I think he raised the matter of the newspaper report in Die Vaderland about the SABC’s news editors. I hope the hon members of the CP will convey my reply to the hon member. He objected to the fact that the news editor of SABC-TV and the radio service uses his discretion concerning which news reports should be used during a certain broadcasting period.

Die Vaderland got hold of certain documents of reports which were not used or shown, and now people think something sinister is involved. I want to tell the hon member they must tell the hon member for Pietersburg that any news editor, whether in the newspaper world or with SABC-TV or the radio service, has the right, the duty and the responsibility to decide which reports will be broadcast. That is his right and I do not think there is anything sinister in that.

The hon member for Pietersburg made the common mistake of accusing the Government of using the taxpayer’s money to broadcast the Government’s standpoints on SABC-TV and the radio at the expense of the other parties. This, of course, is a cardinal mistake, because the SABC does not use taxpayers’ money for local services. This is defrayed from advertising revenue and naturally also the licence fees.

The hon member for Sasolburg made a speech here which I think every Afrikaner should take cognisance of. The policy of the HNP and of that hon member in particular proves once and for all the hon member’s paternalistic view of the Afrikaner. He wants to prescribe to the Afrikaans community in South Africa what they should see, when they should see it and how much of it they should see. His whole speech abounded with suggestions and opinions about the programmes which are broadcast on the Afrikaans service. That hon member and his party want to prescribe to the Afrikaners what they should see. That is a pathetic paternalistic view of the Afrikaner.

I think any Afrikaner would reject that hon member’s view, because the Afrikaner has great fortitude and he is proud of the fact. I do not think it is necessary for that hon member and his party to prescribe to the Afrikaners what they should do and what they should see. That is a very paternalistic view of his own people. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sasolburg does not take into account that the period in which the Whites were uplifted from being poor Whites in the thirties to where they are in the eighties—a period of 50 years—is almost a miracle of upliftment. [Interjections.] The fortitude of this people and their view will still prove that they will reject that hon member and his party forever. [Interjections.] I think the people must pay attention to what that hon member said in his speech. The people will reject that hon member and his party completely.

The hon member for Pretoria East made a very interesting speech, for which I thank him. He suggested that the control board should perhaps use greater expertise in the sphere of economies and accountancy in the planning and continued management of their accounts. I want to point out to the hon member that many of the members in the control board have a very good academic training and a great deal of experience. I should like to give the hon member a list of the directors and their qualifications. I can merely mention that three of the members of the control board are trained economists and I can assure the hon member …

Order! There are hon members who are talking much too loudly.

… the members are very well trained. I am sure they will take note of the hon member’s suggestions of improving their systems if improvements can be made.

In addition the hon member asked whether capital could not be saved next year, since the SABC is suffering heavy losses at the moment. I should like to point out to the hon member that the greatest capital expenditure at the moment is related to the extension of the system, television in particular, to all parts of the country. Unfortunately we cannot simply end that extension programme, and a great deal of capital will have to be spent on it in the next year or two until the whole country gets SABC-TV coverage.

The SABC does not have a severe loss problem at the moment, however, but it does have a cash flow problem. As the hon member himself knows, the SABC’s assets are very good and so is the balance sheet in general. It is the cash flow that is a slight problem. We hope the cash flow situation will improve when the licence year is spread over 12 months.

I thank the hon member for his commentary in this connection and for his contribution.

The hob member for Kuruman once again used the CP’s hackneyed arguments. He complained that the SABC was, among other things, prejudiced and biased. A party that supports the AWB in its conduct at Brits and Pietersburg, which proves that they do not support the principle of freedom of speech, has no right or claim to SABC-TV. however. If they are prepared to deny other people that freedom of speech, there is no validity or credibility in the arguments they are raising here about the SABC’s coverage of the CP. [Interjections.] Do those hon members support the conduct of the AWB at those meetings? [Interjections.]

Did you support the State President when he broke up meetings? [Interjections.]

Those hon members deny other hon members their right to hold meetings and put their standpoint. They come and boast here, however, and make a big fuss because they only get a part of the SABC’s broadcasting time. In relation to the number of hon members in the CP, they get much more than they really deserve. [Interjections.] People should take cognisance of the standpoint of that party as far as freedom of speech is concerned. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, can the hon the Deputy Minister tell us the ratio between the total amount paid by CP supporters in TV licences annually and the total broadcasting time granted to them on television? [Interjections.]

If the hon member gives me a list of the names of all the CP licenceholders, I shall work it out for him quickly.

Hold an election, then we shall show you! [Interjections.]

I am merely telling the hon member for Kuruman that they must consider their own principles before they criticise the SABC about the freedom of speech.

I thank the hon member for Springs for his short contribution to the debate. He spoke about political squatters, and to me that seems to be quite a decent idea. One should also take cognisance of what he said.

†The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North is not here this evening, but I should like to take this very rare opportunity of thanking him for his contribution to the debate. He provided some very interesting statistics regarding viewership of SABC television and radio programmes and advertising costs among other things. These statistics have been recorded in Hansard and will serve as a reference for us, should we need that kind of information.

The hon member answered the hon member for Sasolburg very well too, concerning his narrow-minded approach to the use of language, and particularly of Afrikaans.

Why do you neglect the Indians?

I hope that the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North will again take the opportunity of making as positive a speech as he did during the debate on this Bill.

I regret that his benchmates, particularly the hon member for Berea, are not prepared to support this Bill. The argument contained in their proposed amendment is contrary to what they actually want the Bill to achieve, so I hope they will have reviewed their position and will not be tabling their amendment to this Bill.

*The hon member for Langlaagte is not here tonight either. His speech was one long complaint about his personal view of the SABC. These were generalisations and accusations which he could not support with facts. I hope he will show a little more respect in future for the people he telephones at the SABC when he wants to lodge complaints. I have nothing further to say to this hon member, except that I hope he will have regular talks with the SABC to get the facts about those things he accused them of.

The hon member for Randburg also put two very important questions. In the first place he asked whether it was not possible to use more time for religious broadcasting services, and whether we could not perhaps create a special channel for this purpose, as is the case abroad. The private sector did this in South Africa in former years, but I do not know whether they still do. A transmitter which was to broadcast to Africa was put up in Roodepoort.

Our problem in this connection is the very limited number of frequencies available for broadcasting services. These are determined on the international level, and of course we also share our frequencies with the independent states. The SABC will take cognisance of the hon member’s request, however. With privatisation and the extension of M-Net services, it may be possible to render such a service if there is enough of a demand. I thank the hon member for his suggestion. In all probability it also has a great deal of public support, and I am sure the SABC will see what can be done about it.

The hon member also asked whether it was not possible to make more use of Blacks and to broadcast more programmes for South Africa’s Black population. That is what we are striving for, but as I have reminded hon members, these must be market-related programmes which can generate some revenue for us. I want hon members just to take cognisance that SABC-TV2 and TV3 suffer an annual loss of R50 million. [Interjections.] That is an enormous amount, and we cannot continue to extend services if they are running at a loss.

The hon member for Soutpansberg also advanced a few arguments, but he is not here tonight, and therefore I shall not reply to him. He objected to a programme which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs had appeared in, but I merely want to tell hon members that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has no need to ask the SABC to arrange the programme for him. He is asked to appear in programmes so often that he has to turn some down.

In the last place I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon member for Turffontein for the expert manner in which he replied to the hon member for Pietersburg. I think he stated his arguments well. The hon member also pointed out that the insinuation about the taxpayers’ money was invalid, and we have replied to that already.

He was the last hon member who spoke, and I thank all 17 hon members who contributed to the debate in some way or another, for their contributions. I am sorry the hon members of the CP are not going to support this positive legislation. I also ask the hon members of the Official Opposition whether they will not consider withdrawing their amendment and supporting this very positive legislation.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Bill before the House is the result of several comprehensive investigations since 1981.

On 18 September 1981, an interdepartmental committee of inquiry regarding publication control was appointed by one of my predecessors, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. This committee which mainly concerned itself with the film and video industry in the Republic, consisted of representatives of six departments. According to the report of the committee which was tabled during 1983, testimonies of 19 persons and bodies were heard. I was informed that this report had been studied in depth by my predecessor and the Department of Home Affairs. Thereafter a Bill was introduced during 1985 and referred to the Standing Committee on Home Affairs for consideration. It is obvious from the report tabled by the standing committee that this committee also, once again, thoroughly investigated publication control in general and the control over films and videos in particular.

The chairman, the hon member for Innesdal, and all his colleagues on the standing committee are thanked for their dedication and diligence in considering the provisions of this Bill. I wish to thank the hon members who serve in this standing committee, particularly for the considerable amount of effort which they put into considering all the provisions. Suggestions for amending important clauses in the Bill were made by the standing committee and I was prepared to accept these amendments because I was satisfied that the Bill, as amended, would contribute to efficient publication control in this country.

We are all aware that publication control is a sensitive matter. It is by no means an easy task for the authorities to introduce measures to protect its citizens against that which erodes moral values or which disrupts peace and good order, without intruding on the right of people to read, to hear and to look at what they like.

The State must not be seen as the sole custodian of morals in this country. It is also not the sole guardian of peace and good order among its people. The churches, schools and parents as well as the people of the various communities are all vitally involved in the maintenance of public morals as well as peace and stability in this country. Legislation in this particular field must be a mere manifestation of the demands of the whole of the people.

Every society projects its own inherent balance of values. Consequently, no measure will ever succeed in its aim if the legislator takes upon himself the right to define values which he then tries to enforce on the people. The Publications Act as well as the proposed measure before the House enhances this underlying philosophy. The whole system of control provided for in the Act is based on committees whose members are drawn from all walks of life throughout the country.

I would now like to proceed with the explanation of the more important proposals in the Bill.

The measures embodied in the Bill fall logically into three categories. In the first place there are the proposals which are aimed at making the existing system more streamlined and effective. These proposals are the following:

1. 1 The maintenance of a list, by the Director of Publications, of all undesirable publications and rejected films and videos (clauses 12 and 19). This list is open to public inspection free of charge. The purpose of this proposal is to keep all interested parties more readily up to date with the decisions of the committees. This service will especially be of great value to the libraries which, in their evidence before the standing committee, made representations for the maintenance of such a list. Film and video dealers would definitely also benefit from a list of rejected films and videos.
2. 2 The imposition of conditions, by the committees of publications, with regard to the distribution and display of publications and objects (clause 7). At present committees do not have such authority—and this can only be achieved by the roundabout way of an appeal to the Appeal Board. Committees are therefore sometimes compelled to find publications undesirable which in fact qualify for restricted distribution and display. This proposal will broaden the options of the decisions of the committees and will facilitate more efficient publications control.
3. 3 The designation of persons appointed as members of committees of experts on a three-year basis instead of the present one-year term (clause 24). The present procedure does not only place an unnecessary burden on the Department of Home Affairs, but the annual compilation of the panel does not necessarily bring new persons on the panel.
4. 4 The extension of the period during which the Director of Publications may appeal to the Appeal Board from seven days to 14 days (clauses 9, 10, 15, 16, 20 and 21). Experience has taught that the period of seven days is sometimes too short. For instance, the decision of a committee in Johannesburg or elsewhere must be sent to Cape Town so that the Directorate can consider an appeal. This proposal will relieve the pressure on the Directorate while it will also promote proper consideration of decisions with a view to possible appeal.
5. 5 The extension of the number of persons on the panel from whom members of the Appeal Board must be appointed, and also of the quorum of the Appeal Board (clause 22). The increase of the number of persons on the panel from whom the members of the Appeal Board are appointed, is necessary because of the increased workload of the Appeal Board. It is consequently proposed that the panel be increased from 10 to 13 persons. The increase of the quorum of the Appeal Board is suggested because at present the Appeal Board, in numerous cases, consists of up to 6 members to deal with appeals. In view of the importance of the decisions of the Appeal Board on access of the public to publications, public entertainment and films, as well as the important financial implications for publishers and distributors, the standing committee proposed that the quorum by increased to 7 members. I have agreed to this suggestion.

The aim of the second category of amending proposals is a more effective control over films, and in particular videos. In this regard I refer hon members to clauses 13, 14, 18 and 25 where the following measures are proposed, namely:

1. 1. Extension of the compulsory registration of persons who conduct the business of maker or distributor of films and videos to also include exhibitors of films and videos;
2. 2. imposition of conditions with regard to such registrations;
3. 3. withdrawal of registration by a court of law in the case of conviction on certain offences;
4. 4. compulsory display of particulars such as the name and address of the distributor, age restrictions and the number of the certificate of approval on the container or containers of films and videos;
5. 5. provision for different conditions to be imposed on the video and film versions of a particular film;
6. 6. empowering committees to prohibit the possession of a film which has been rejected, and such prohibition to be confirmed by the Appeal Board.

In their submissions to the standing committee, the organised video trade made strong representations for stricter control of videos. I believe that the aforementioned proposals will meet that demand.

The third category of amending proposals deals with the creation of certain offences and the increase of maximum penalties prescribed by the Act (clauses 4, 17 and 25). The increase in the penalties is necessary due to the considerable depreciation in the value of money since 1 April 1975 when the Publication Act came into operation. The proposed new offences are necessary to discourage people from dealing in undesirable publications and rejected films, the possession of which was prohibited by a committee.

Finally, the illicit distribution of undesirable publications and rejected films is a cause of great concern to the public and the State. The new offences, together with the proposed sentences which a court of law may impose, will contribute towards more efficient control of publications and films.

Mr Chairman, the amending Bill before the House at present, has a relatively long history in Parliament. It was initially published towards the end of 1985 and submitted to us, and it was discussed on a standing committee of Parliament for the first time towards the end of the 1985 session. It was again discussed by various standing committee meetings during the course of the past recess.

The amending Bill in itself has been drastically changed in the course of the standing committee’s activities. I wish to add that in my opinion it has undergone a relative degree of improvement, as a result of the activities of that committee. A wide variety of evidence was given in respect of the matter. A long discussion of the matter was held and as a result of that considerable improvements were made to the amending Bill. Inter alia the objectionable clause 7 of the original amending Bill, which for the first time in the history of our censorship would have instituted a form of reverse censorship in our publications control system, was removed entirely from the amending Bill after quite a few meetings and extended discussions were held. In my opinion it was a good development, and it is to the credit of the committee members and their activities. It is good that it happened in that way.

The amending Bill before the House is about the fith amendment of an Act which was originally agreed to in this House in 1974. The original Act was tremendously controversial when it was introduced in the House. Hon members may perhaps be able to remember that even the old United Party, which was then the Official Opposition, moved with the support of the then Progressive Party that that Bill be read this day six months hence. This motion was of course defeated, but I think it is important to note that the most significant objection that was levelled at that the Bill, had to do with the removal of the powers of the court and the judicial right of appeal and review which the court had over the whole censorship system.

Allow me to concede at once that the publication control system has since 1974 functioned much better that what was expected. Many of the fears which were mentioned then, have not come about completely. Allow me, however, to qualify it by saying that there was of course a stormy period during the existence of the principal Act, especially in respect of literature. There was a stage when especially the writers of the ’seventies in Afrikaans literature often found themselves in a position of falling prey to the then publications control system. The application of this Act created tremendous problems for them.

What about Kennis van die Aand?

The hon member mentioned Kennis van die Aand. Today it is almost unthinkable that there was a time when a book such as that could have been banned completely. Since then many books of the same kind were written by that same author as well as other authors, the publication or distribution of which no one would consider banning today.

Therefore without doubt a certain measure of development has taken place, and I think that development was also for the better; to such an extent that publications control in South Africa is no longer such a controversial issue as it perhaps was a few years ago in respect of literature in general and in respect of matters such as pornography and the like. One can say this to the credit of the way in which this system is controlled.

In that regard I wish to mention a standpoint which has been imparted to us on numerous occasions by some of the witnesses and other people whom I have met in the course of the last few years and months. They had many good things to say about the chairman of the appeal board of the publication board, Prof Kobus van Rooyen. Many of them went so far as to say that without him the whole system would work far less satisfactorily than it does in practice, and from our personal knowledge of the man we are inclined to support that standpoint. In general he has had an enlightened and positive influence on the way in which the system has worked.

There is, however, still a problem, and it is much greater than what it appears to be on the surface. When a book by a well-known writer in South Africa is banned, and especially of course when it is written by a well-known Afrikaans author, then a tremendous controversy arises. People talk about it and vehement protests are made. There is, however, another kind of censorship or publications control which is not very often mentioned. It affects the field which I would generally speaking call political censorship.

In terms of article 47(2)(c) of the principal Act one can say that there are three categories especially which broadly speaking can fall under the category of political censorship. Those are namely the prohibitions imposed according to subsections 47(2)(c), (d) and (e). I wish to concentrate on subsection (e). Subsections (c) and (d) are not all that problematic, but subsection (e) boils down to a publication committee being able to ban certain publications or subjects on the grounds that they undermine the security of the State. The security of the State is in itself not something with which people experience difficulties. The problem arises in respect of how some people interpret the demand which the security of the State makes on them. I do not have to deliver a long dissertation on this, because we have just completed a debate lasting two days. It is almost exclusively concerned with different interpretations as to where one had to draw a line in respect of the security of the State. Personally I believe that it is a very dangerous step to place a prohibition on political publications. It is a very risky step to take in a country which considers itself democratic. One should be very certain that one does not undermine or violate democracy in order to prevent political literature or publications which could be subversive in one way or another from being distributed.

Make no error, when it has to be determined how far to go, people are often inclined to draw the line just below the level on which they function and practise politics. They consider it to be quite in order. Anyone who, however, falls below that line, functions on a level and in a political way which is considered to be subversive or as being a threat to state security. That is where the problem comes in.

The first point I wish to make in relation to the publications control system, as it is at present being applied in respect of political publications, is that it is not representative of the overall South African political community. Unfortunately it cannot be the case at present either. Our present political dispensation is not representative of the entire South African political spectrum, nor is it likely to be for a considerable time to come.

If we were to introduce a publications control system now, which has powers of control over political publications, then we run the risk of those who will be exercising the control, not being representative of the entire society either. In fact, this is the case at the moment. If one takes a look at the new constitutional dispensation—the tricameral system—under which we are functioning at present, it is clear that the composition of the Publications Control Board is still not properly representative today. It does not reflect the fact that there is a kind of joint system of government between White, Coloured and Indian. That is perhaps understandable, because it is not something that can be changed very quickly. There are therefore perhaps reasons for this.

The point which I am trying to make, is that we should be careful that the by-products it is producing are not to our further disadvantage. I have no doubt that this is already happening, especially when it comes to political publications control. It is, for example, the case that as soon as the publication is published by the UDF, there are people who believe that it is subversive per se. There are in fact hon members on the other side of the House who have said so in the course of the last two days.

There are, however, certain publications which the UDF publishes which people could consider to be subversive to a certain extent, but there are without doubt publications which are not of an undermining nature. There was a time when every publication contained the freedom charter, even in a somewhat obscure place, was considered to be subversive per se. Fortunately the publications control system has grown in such a way that this is no longer the case. It is nonetheless an indication of the fact that the system is not representative as far as political censorship is concerned.

Furthermore the system is perhaps too cumbersome and too slow to allow meaningful freedom of movement for those who wish to take steps in order to rectify their position because they object to the application of political censorship. If a particular literary work is banned, the appeal procedure can be set in motion, and the Appeal Board can confirm or reject the decision of the committee within a month or six weeks. Those who are involved, do then at least have a feeling that justice has to a certain extent been done. The problem regarding political publications is, however, that most of them have a short lifespan. Here we are speaking about political placards, pamphlets or perhaps a political publication which appears on a weekly or monthly basis.

The NP’s 12-point plan.

That is an interesting example. Something which has political value today, is obsolete after a week, two weeks or a month, because the next edition would have appeared by then or a new pamphlet has perhaps been issued. Political standpoints sometimes change quicker than one can keep pace with these days, as the hon member also said.

Principles too! The NP has new principles every week.

Therefore the dilemma is that compared to the extent to which the Appeal Board can do relatively satisfactory work in respect of normal literary works—and now even with regard to pornography—it does not operate satisfactorily in regard to political publications because the process is too slow. [Interjections.] Then there is another aspect which is not generally known. That is the number of publications which are banned in terms of section 47(2)(e) of the principal Act—in other words, as I see it, have been banned on a broad political basis—form a relatively high percentage of the total number of banned publications.

A further point is that the number of appeals which are pending at the Appeal Board against the ban on political publications, form a small percentage of the total number of appeals—for understandable reasons. I have already indicated that the lifespan of normal political publications is relatively short. That is why it is not always, in fact in few cases, worth the effort of taking these steps.

I wish to make another interesting point. In respect of those publications which are banned, concerning which appeal has in fact been made, there are a high percentage of appeals in which the Appeal Board admits that the appellant is right and the appeal therefore does in fact succeed. It is once again an indication that, in the case of appeal, the Appeal Board on Publications does not, in a high percentage of cases, agree with the general standpoint which is adopted by the publication committees on a lower level. I do believe it is once again an indication that the system is not entirely representative, and that in respect of political publications it functions for less satisfactorily—actually quite unsatisfactorily—in comparison with the procedure which is adopted for other publications.

Furthermore it is very important that with the banning of political publications, more than is the case with other publications, we should not be engaged in a significant interference in the freedom of speech, political discourse, the freedom of political discussion and the free exchange of political ideas. That, I wish to say without doubt, is something which South Africans can least of all afford. The result is that the application of control on publications in South Africa causes public opinion to follow at a safe distance, instead of leading it as well. Political publications should in fact have a stimulating effect on political thoughts in every community. Literary or all other writings have a stimulating effect—culturally, politically and otherwise—and this ought to be the case with political literature and political publications as well.

The situation should be one in which the average South African must be able to read things which startle him at first, but which may later stimulate him to further thought. Rather that than have a situation in which the standards which are being applied keep public opinion at bay. The situation must be such that we can discuss matters, that we can adopt secure standpoints, and that we can debate meaningfully about standpoints which have hitherto not been considered permissible in terms of publications. That is in fact the case. I have in fact referred to an example—something like the “Freedom Charter”. There is hardly a person in South Africa today which regards it as subversive per se. It is in fact a normal, moderate, socialistic type of document in its views. There is hardly anyone, who is in the last degree politically mature, who would not be prepared to debate meaningfully about it. Whether one agrees with it or not, is irrelevant. It was only recently—when the publication control system came to that conclusion—that that standpoint was validly adopted in South Africa. I say that in order to indicate that publications control, as far as that matter is concerned, is not keeping pace with the developments in South Africa; or it follows these developments at a safe distance as it were, rather than taking the lead. I repeat: This is something we cannot afford in South Africa.

It is important that everyone in South Africa, especially the hon members sitting here, be aware of the political standpoints which are valid in South Africa. It is important that these hon members know which political standpoints are held by people in the Black areas of our country, and that they know what the feelings and the expressions of various political organisations are.

Then Myburgh would not have been so uninformed. [Interjections.]

That is a good example. The hon member for De Kuilen has probably never read a document issued by Mr Sobukwe.

You will never five that down, Myburgh.

It is therefore understandable, Sir, that a very senior legislator in South Africa could have displayed such fundamental ignorance as that hon member did.

He made an absolute fool of himself.

He took a chance too.

Order!

The point I am trying to make, is that I consider publications control in respect of political publications to use a particularly dangerous practice for a country such as South Africa. We on this side of the House believe that such control should be removed. To conclude my first point, I can only mention that the reason why we oppose this Bill, is not so much the contents of the Bill but rather because of what it does not include. We have in fact tried on the standing committee to have publications control removed in respect of political publications, but unfortunately we did not succeed. To tell the truth, in terms of the objectionable clause 7, which I mentioned earlier, an attempt was at one stage made to keep the provisions of clause 7 specifically in respect of political control. It indicates that we are suffering from such a political paranoia that we want to protect ourselves against standing points which are validly expressed by other political groups.

The second aspect about which we expressed satisfaction, related to the fact that the Supreme Court does not have a residual capacity to express itself after all, especially as far as it concerns urgent requests. I have already indicated that the Appeal Board, which was introduced by virtue of the Act, does function relatively satisfactorily in general, but that that Appeal Board, especially in respect of political publications is simply not enough. It is important that a provision be built into our publication control system to the effect that someone who wishes to complain about the banning of a particular political publication—it can in fact apply to every publication, but especially to political publications—has the right to turn to the Supreme Court, especially on the short term, in order to receive urgent amends in terms of his complaint.

On those two grounds we wish to express our opposition to the Bill. As I have indicated, we oppose this Bill not so much as a result of its content, but as a result of what is not included in the Bill. We are sorry that no attention has been given to it, and we hope that the hon the Minister will in future see his way clear to conceding that to us as far as those issues are concerned, because we consider them to be tremendously important.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Green Point made a number of very interesting statements here. At the same time, however, he also advanced a very irrelevant argument.

As he himself said, he and his party are not opposed to the Bill before the House, but to the system of publication control. His argument would therefore have been relevant during a debate on the principal Act in 1970, but it is totally irrelevant against the background of the amending Bill we are discussing here this evening. Nowhere in his entire speech did the hon member for Green Point raise a single point of criticism against the measure now before this House. In fact all that he had to say on the amending Bill before us, was to make recommendations and approving observations about what had happened to the amending Bill in the year it was before the standing committee.

It is therefore extremely difficult to reply to the introductory argument of the hon member, the spokesman of the Official Opposition, when he speaks about a measure and says nothing on which one can really reply to him unless one receives the same degree of leniency from the Chair as he received.

It is not only the hon member for Green Point’s argument which was irrelevant, but fortunately it is also true that his party’s approach to publication control in South Africa as a whole has become irrelevant. Had the hon member paid attention to the evidence before the standing committee, he would have to agree with me that his party’s standpoint on publication control met with no response from any other party on the standing committee or any witnesses before the standing committee.

No, that is incorrect, Con—quite incorrect. Read the evidence again.

The hon member came here to create an atmosphere inimical to the system of publications control, against the background of abundant evidence before the standing committee of overall consensus in respect of the system of control we have in South Africa. In fact we found a measure of pride amongst some witnesses in respect of how our form of publication control works in comparison with those in other countries.

The approach of the PFP to publication control causes one to think of the three proverbial monkeys.

Are they in a cage? [Interjections.]

After all, they do not believe that there is any evil to be heard, seen or spoken. As far as they are concerned, there will be a utopian South Africa when all control over all publications is simply lifted overnight. We on this side of the House are in fact very proud of the progress which has been made in respect of publications control and which is symbolised by the amending Bill before us.

The hon member for Green Point mentioned that the original Act of 1974 had been an extremely controversial measure. Hon members will remember that every amendment to the original Act was passed with great difficulty by the old Parliament, as it was formerly constituted. The principal Act and every subsequent amendment were extremely controversial measures. During 1985 we had an amending Bill before us which was potentially just as controversial as any of its predecessors.

As the hon member for Green Point mentioned, this amending Bill was not unique in the sense that it received less attention from interested parties. No fewer than 47 memoranda were submitted to the standing committee, from overseas distributors of publications on the one hand who were only interested in the unrestricted distribution of publications, to the most conservative organisations imaginable on the other including parents, ordinary members of the public and others. Apart from those 47 memoranda, no fewer than 27 witnesses appeared before the standing committee.

The standing committee held 37 sittings on this amending Bill. Eventually, as hon members can see from the documents before the House, 18 changes were made by the standing committee through the amendment of certain clauses, the rejection of others and the inclusion of certain new clauses. But in the end we had a measure, which, even if it did not receive general concurrence from all parties who were represented on the standing committee, had at least such progress that the Official Opposition were not even able to lay their finger on a single item of criticism of the measure before us.

If we say that we have attained a large degree of consensus, even from that party which still feels inclined to oppose this measure, then I think it is important to place on record that it was truly an experience for some of us to see what sticklers hon members of the other Houses were for effective publications control in our country.

As a Natalian I can say that I was especially impressed by the great value which our colleagues in the House of Delegates attach to a thorough and effective system of publications control. It is a population group which accords a particularly high priority to family life and consequently has a great interest in the thorough and streamlined publications control measures in our country. We hear a great deal in this House from people who presume to be the protectors and preservers of the mores of our people, but there are people in this House who could learn a thing or two from our colleagues in the other Houses concerning their vigilance against decadent publications, films and videos.

Apart from the fact that we reached a large measure of unanimity on this legislation, I think we can also say that after a protracted debate lasting a few days, we produced better legislation. We could have produced better legislation in the sense that as a result of the very intensive attention which was given to the matter on the committee, more experts were involved than had been the case with any of the previous amending Bills.

I think it is important to say, as far as the whole system of standing committees is concerned, that we achieved a large measure of involvement in this legislation from all interested parties in the country with the procedure that was adopted.

Unlike the hon PFP member, I do not want to elaborate on this system, nor do I want to discuss the specific clause. In conclusion I should just like to refer to the report of the standing committee and to the points which the standing committee felt it wished to bring to the attention of Parliament. That is apart from the amending Bill which the standing committee submitted.

In the first place the committee alluded to the large measure of confidence which was displayed by far the majority of witnesses in the system of publications control. For me and certainly for the other members of the standing committee as well it was indeed an experience to perceive the extent of the praise which was expressed for the way in which our publications control system functions.

Furthermore the committee took cognisance of the concern felt by organised video and film control organisations for the inadequate control which exists over the distribution of undesirable material. The result was that the committee made certain control measures in the amended Bill more stringent than had been the case in the original Bill.

The committee then pointed out that a need existed for the panel from which the publications committees and the appeal board are constituted to be more representative of the overall population.

We should take cognisance of the fact that a special responsibility rests on the shoulders of video distributors to protect the public. We must also take cognisance of the need of the organised motion picture industry and media to take self-disciplinary steps in this regard.

The whole process which the Bill has been going through for more than a year, has resulted in better legislation, which has now received the support of the majority of parties in all three Houses. [Interjections.] The legislation also received the support of other parties in greater measure, and we take great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, to start with I want to say the CP will support the Bill, but that does not mean that we cannot express certain thoughts as well as criticism in this regard. The fact is, publication control is always a controversial matter. The system of control will also be always controversial because by the very nature of things one has as many points of view in society as there are people in that society, and because not everyone within a particular society maintains the same principles. Some people are more narrow-minded on certain matters, and others have a more liberal view. Naturally some people are intent on challenging the morals, norms and standards of a society and seeing whether they cannot break down what other people are trying to build up.

In his second reading speech the hon the Minister referred to the whole question of publication control as a sensitive issue. I support that fully. Publication control immediately brings one into an area of tension, because, as I have already indicated, people’s principles differ, and some are more narrow minded and others more liberal and more open-minded in respect of these matters. The moment one has to deal with such a sensitive matter and enters such an area of tension, inevitably one cannot satisfy all sides and groups.

If one tries to satisfy the group with the more narrow-minded disposition, and makes one’s measures more acute to do so, one is immediately going to offend the more liberal group and receive criticism from that side.That group will react because they wish to impose their views upon the measures which have been taken for the sake of the more narrow-minded point of view.

On the other hand, if the authorities open up publication control too much and are too generous with concessions to the standpoint of the liberal section, offence is immediately given to and reaction is created on the side of the more narrowly inclined group. Again criticism comes to the fore.

No matter which direction one moves in in respect of publication control, one is continuously in an area of tension—I almost want to call it a minefield—because somewhere one is going to give offence or cause unhappiness. Nonetheless we should be extremely careful that we do not relax all publication control as such because of the area of tension we are in and out of fear of the criticism and the reaction from the more liberal group, becoming so conciliatory about it that in fact we are making publication control quite ridiculous and making it something we could have done without.

That is why we on this side of the House welcome the Bill because we are convinced that these amendments do in fact make publication control more effective. In due course I shall single out a few matters which we believe fall under this, and which we welcome because they have been made more effective.

In his second reading speech the hon the Minister also held the standpoint that the State should not be seen as the protector of moral values in this country. Furthermore he said the churches, the schools, parents and the people of all the respective communities are all indispensably involved in the maintenance of public morals, etcetera. I wish to say that I am inclined to differ somewhat with the hon the Minister in this regard. The State has a calling, because the State is also the servant of God, and therefore has to watch over the morals of the State’s communities. The State cannot simply divest itself of this task and say it is essentially the responsibility of the church, the school, the parents or society. The State has a part to play in respect of watching over the moral values of the country, the State and society, or of communities who find themselves in that country.

In this regard the State often has to take the lead because the Government is the only body that can make a law or exercise control. On the grounds of its own moral laws and its own norms and standards, tested according to the Scriptures, the church can make an appeal to its people. The church can apply censure and punishment in respect of offences according to the way in which it assesses them. It can also label a number of matters within a society as censurable, and exercise its influence to try to convince or persuade people to maintain a higher moral standard, but the church cannot make a law to exercise control.

This also applies to the school. The school has an immensely important function to fulfil as regards the young child who is entrusted to it. The school has to guard against anything that has an adverse moral effect being taught, permitted, proclaimed or given as reading material. It always has to work in such a way that it can act in a manner which promotes moral conduct in its task of educating those young children who have been entrusted to its care. The school’s education must always be positively orientated in this regard, not negatively. The school cannot really lay down a law or exercise control either, however.

I can continue in this way. Eventually it is the State, the Government, which has the calling, if it has become necessary, to make a law and to exercise control which can become enforceable to uphold and promote the moral norms and standards within a society. That is why I have always found it to be a problem that this Publication Control Act has always received so much criticism and opposition from so many quarters. We should really welcome it. We should welcome it when the measures in this legislation are made more effective. We should also encourage it, because we are living in a time, not only in our own country, but throughout the world, in which we are experiencing a moral decadence. Moral norms and standards which prevailed at a certain time, have been diluted and made superficial. That is why things which were taboo previously, are allowed, said and shown today. This leads me to associate myself with what the hon member for Green Point said. He said what was previously unacceptable, has become acceptable in our time. To my mind, that is in fact the problem—that what was not acceptble before, has become acceptable now. That has absolutely nothing to do with a better or more educated society. Nor does it have anything to do with a more moral society; on the contrary, this acceptance of what was not previously acceptable, is, as far as I am concerned, the indication of a superficiality that has set in, of a lowering in norms and standards, and that is exactly what should put us more on our guard. It should give rise to our not giving in to this lowering of norms and standards so that things can be made acceptable for people who previously objected to them or expressed criticism—people, therefore, for whom the same things were unacceptable previously. One should rather ensure that one builds on one’s norms and standards, that one gradually educates one’s society to establishing higher and higher norms and standards, to become more and more obsessed with the idea that norms and standards should rise, and not lower.

That is why it is absolutely essential that we ensure that when we apply publication control in this country, it is of such a nature and so effective that it will promote moral values, and not have a negative effect on them. We are virtually facing the fact that more and more people with liberal convictions—I am referring for example to the writers of the ’sixties and the ’seventies in Afrikaans literature—consciously, in my opinion, take up the pen and write exactly those things which are not acceptable, which offend, which we consider objectionable and below the standard and norms of decency. In certain literary works there are certain verbal usages which one really would not hear in normal day to day language among people. Those writers can only follow that kind of modus scribendi either because they are inwardly decadent themselves or because they wish to provoke society.

Of course they do it on purpose!

Now, Sir, I am worried about the following matter. At times when one pages through the Gazette, one notes that certain published works have been banned. Then suddenly one pages through the Gazette again one day, only to see that the ban on those very same publications has been lifted all of a sudden. What really bothers me is the question about what has happened in the interim, when a selection committee or a control board tests a certain work at a certain stage—and has to put it to the test according to the valid norms and standards of the moral values of society—and finds it unacceptable and unpermissible—demoralising to society, therefore—only to reverse those very same findings all of a sudden later and to release that same publication which had still been taboo shortly before from the ban. Now that publication can be used and read freely. Now it no longer has any danger for anyone. Naturally the question now is why it happened. Is it merely another sign that we are still dropping our norms and standards? Or does it perhaps mean that we are giving in to the provocation of people who wish to make the morals and norms ridiculous and wish to break them down?

One thing I do not find at all acceptable, is the rejection of a work on the grounds of blasphemy, while that very same work is permitted later after all. What has happened in the meantime? Why is that work no longer blasphemous? If something is blasphemous once, it cannot not be blasphemous the next day, unless something has happened to the norms, standards and the criteria which we applied.

We must not allow concessions to be made to the people who are consciously intent upon provoking and lowering our moral norms and standards.

That is why we on this side of the House are particularly grateful for the measures which have been reached in this Bill with regard to appeal. We welcome the proviso that the period within which the director has to serve the Appeal Board with an appeal is being extended from seven days to 14 days.

I personally think that if it appears in future that these people require a longer period, even if it is three weeks or a month, to prepare themselves thoroughly for the appeal, it should be granted to them. Someone who gives notice of appeal wants it to succeed, and therefore he needs time to prepare himself for it so that he will not be outmanoeuvred by the body against whom he is appealing. We therefore welcome the opportunity given to the director to prepare himself better in the longer period which is being placed at his disposal to give notice of appeal.

I accept that some of the works concerned do not come to the attention of the publications control body immediately, which probably has something to do with this as well. For this reason we welcome the extension of the period for appeal to be lodged, so that the appeal cannot be prevented because the period for it had expired before it could effectively have been submitted.

Furthermore I wish to point out that we on this side of the House realise that there is a great variety of matters which now fall under publications control. Not only the moral works, but also certain political works fall in this category, and the hon member for Green Point expanded extensively on that.

I wish to say that it is the standpoint of this side of the House that we do not want all political works with which we do not agree, to be banned. We are probably, however, dealing with a much more important bone of contention than those I have already mentioned to hon members, because here we are dealing with the possibility or the non-possibility of the subversion of the State. Here we are dealing with the possibility that the whole State dispensation can be affected and brought to a downfall as a result of the contents of certain political works which proclaim an ideology which endangers the State. In respect of these works which endanger the State we on this side of the House believe that we cannot give political writers a free hand to write and publish their ideologies, which are dangerous to the State and are undermining, so that these ideologies can be made available to the general public who could be influenced in this way to participate in the undermining of the State. That is why we believe that we definitely cannot give a free hand in this respect. There must be control in this regard.

I also wish to say—and we do make provision for this—that there are some of these works which one cannot simply make available to the public, but which one can make available in one’s libraries, with certain limitations, for scientific purposes, study purposes, etc, to the academics and the students who require them. That concession must not be regarded, however, as giving those specific ideologies which are undermining to the State, a free hand after exercising their task of undermining the State.

In addition I want to say that the security of the State is very important in this regard. If the security of the State is at stake, it has a duty to promulgate a law which exercises control over the matter, so that the security of the State will not be risked and undermined.

I wish to move closer to a few aspects which are contained in the Bill itself. [Interjections.] I wish to refer hon members to the whole question of videos. Provisions is made in this Bill for keeping an up-to-date list of all rejected publications, films and videos, and for greater control to be exercised in respect of videos. The subject matter will be indicated on the cover of the video cassette.

Our experience is—quite a few of us have had many disappointing experience in this regard—that one can take out a video at a video shop thinking that one wants to show it to children. One then comes to the shocking discovery, when one shows the thing, that parts in it really should have been rejected because children should not see these scenes. There was no indication on the cassette regarding the subject matter, however. One therefore hires a pig in a poke, which can put one in an embarrassing position. [Interjections.] I know what I am talking about! In this regard one does not buy a pig in a poke; one hires it, and sits with it! [Interjections.] It could be a gathering of children, at which one wishes to entertain them with video shows. One is completely embarrassed when adults as well as children are present when these scenes are shown. One finds oneself in the unenviable situation that one has to stop the performance, and then makes a fool of oneself in front of children and the parents of those children.

I therefore wish to make a very serious appeal that the publication control of videos be viewed very, very strictly. [Interjections.] We should take a very strict look at this matter. We may not allow these people to filter in with their immorality, while it is not known that one can come up against material which is shown on a video.

As far as books and films are concerned, I am convinced that the situation is quite different. In those cases one cannot be caught out as easily. As far as videos are concerned however, we on this side of the House are convinced that a very, very strict view should be taken of this matter and that we must guard against giving a free hand to a corruptive influence which could embarras us when these videos are shown. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House are also very happy with the fact that punitive measures are being included in this amendment and offences are being described in such a way as to make the control even more effective. It would not benefit us in any case to include a number of measures in the Act which people can simply contravene without being prosecuted.