Mr. Chairman, in the debate on the Second Reading yesterday we indicated that we had problems with this Bill and with this clause in particular arising out of uncertainty in law with regard to what may be interpreted to be the meaning of the words “lawful reason” and “threatens to … cause damage”. We also indicated that, as far as intimidation in the normal, accepted sense was concerned, we like other members on all sides of the House certainly believe that the intimidation of witnesses and individuals by threats of assault and threats of bodily harm to them should certainly not be allowed and that clearly in respect of this action needed to be taken. We also, however, indicated our problem with the extent of the interpretation of the provision as set out in the Bill. By way of question and answer across the floor we indicated that we did not believe that this should affect matters such as commodity boycotts and certain threats by individuals. I gave the example of the businessman who may express anti-Semitic views and asked what would happen if the Jewish community then said that, unless he changed his viewpoint on that, they would encourage their people not to patronize his business. I asked whether that would amount to intimidation. The hon. the Minister indicated that it would. Now, it is precisely this sort of situation we are trying to avoid. We believe that the clause as it is presently drafted does allow for uncertainty in law. We believe it is going to be open to a very wide interpretation and we want to see that interpretation narrowed. The hon. the Minister indicated yesterday that we should suggest an amendment and for that reason I move as an amendment—

• : Provided that action taken by a person to persuade any other person by lawful means to withhold his patronage or attendance shall not constitute an offence in terms of this section

I believe that the effect of that amendment will at least be to narrow down the interpretation and perhaps to reduce the uncertainty which exists as the clause is drafted at present.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with a particular aspect of this matter, viz. the law as it stands at present in regard to the action of individuals who seek to withhold their patronage. I want to refer immediately to the example given by my colleague the hon. member for Berea. I just want to make it quite clear that there is no question of the Jewish community intending to do such things. The hon. member has just cited that as a hypothetical example. Certainly, I should not like that to become an issue in this debate.

The matter has received some considerable attention in our courts in the past and the issue arises whether, if a person decides to withhold his services or patronage from a particular businessman, that would in fact constitute an act of intimidation.

I did not affirm that. I just asked.

Well, it is very important whether the hon. the Minister did that or not because that is really what worries me. There are a number of authorities in our law where this has been dealt with. I think the hon. the Minister is probably aware of some of them, for instance the case of Murdoch and Buller, which, I think, was referred to yesterday. There is another case—I gave these authorities to my colleagues yesterday—of Spilkin, Newfield & Co. vs. Master Builders and Allied Trades Association, which also dealt with this matter. It is a case decided in the WLD in 1934. I have got the case here. I can give it to the hon. the Minister if he would like to read it. That case quoted with approval the leading English case on this matter in the highest courts in England. I refer to the case of Sorrell vs Smith, which was decided in 1925 (AC, page 700, 1925). This decision came after Murdoch and Buller. In that particular case, the following was said by Lord Cave—

The hon. the Minister will remember that the law of conspiracy, as it existed in England, does not exist in South Africa in that context. Secondly, and this is the important thing—

In other words, if in order to further their own interests, people commit no unlawful act, but in fact act lawfully, merely to protect their interests, and if as a result of that act some damage to somebody results, then in fact there is no action which can be brought against the people responsible. I think that is what we seek to establish here and that is what I am particularly concerned with.

I quote from page 138 of Schaeffer’s textbook on industrial laws—

I agree with that submission. The authorities which are quoted here, are the Sorrell and Smith case and the Murdoch and Buller case to which I have referred. In this regard you will particularly remember that there are two judgments in that case, where the ratio decidendi makes it quite clear that this is also the principle accepted. Then of course there is the case to which I referred; namely the Spilkin Newfield case, which is 1934, WLD 160. There are also some other cases which are referred to.

The major purpose of the amendment of the hon. member for Berea and the matter with which I am concerned, is the following: Where a person acts lawfully, when he has a lawful objective and when it is done in order to further the interests of that particular individual, then that action should be permitted. However, the important factor is that there is a lawful objective and that no illegal means are used.

If the hon. the Minister would accept this amendment, if he would accept this principle, and if he would give us the assurance that this in fact is not what is aimed at in this Bill, then many of the problems will be removed, because the reality is that I do not believe that there is anybody who believes in intimidation. I do not think there is anybody who believes that one should be allowed to use unlawful means to intimidate people into particular actions. Then I think members will agree that there can be a high degree of common cause on this issue of intimidation in the House.

I ask the hon. the Minister to consider that and to give us that assurance. The best way of giving the assurance, is to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Berea.

Mr. Chairman, it is really difficult to understand the Opposition’s objections to this Bill, because the Bill provides that intimidation is only committed in cases where people act unlawfully. Their objection is met by the first words in the Bill, which read—

In our courts, “without lawful reason” is equivalent to “unlawful”. This element is therefore present. If one now considers the amendment proposed, what it amounts to is that one may not intimidate anyone unlawfully, unless one does so lawfully. Obviously that is nonsense.

You do not understand.

That is what you said. I do not think that hon. member understands it. If the hon. member’s objection is that the term “unlawful” is not clear enough and that it could lead to uncertainty, it means that our entire administration of justice, every offence and every delict or unlawful act, must also be uncertain, because “unlawfulness” is an element of every one of those offences and delicts. With all due respect, the objection by the Opposition does not hold water. The amendment is therefore unacceptable.

Are you the Minister?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville must give the hon. member for East London City a chance.

Do you have a new Minister?

Give him a chance. He is entitled to his opinion and he is also entitled to advise me. I think the proposition advanced by the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Yeoville can conveniently be summarized as follows: Whether efforts to persuade by lawful means and in the furtherance of a lawful purpose other persons to withhold their support as clients from anyone would amount to an offence under clause 1(1) of the Bill. That is how I understand the hon. member’s argument. That is what it boils down to. An example would be the organizing of a boycott of a particular trader, thereby causing him pecuniary loss in the event of each boycott succeeding. That was also the hon. member’s argument yesterday and that is how I understood his argument this morning, as well as the argument of the hon. member for Yeoville. Mr. Chairman, it is admitted that the qualification “without lawful reason” prefacing the prohibition supplies the key to the legislator’s intention and places it beyond doubt that for instance the influencing of public opinion against a particular trader by lawful means and for a lawful purpose would not constitute an offence under the Bill. It is a pity that the hon. member misunderstood an interjection which I made yesterday as it meant something entirely different. What action would amount to “unlawful means” would depend upon the circumstance of each case and to a large extent depend upon the generally accepted mores prevailing at the time. As a general rule it can be stated that methods of persuasion, which would in civil law found an action for damages, such as defamation of or the spreading of malicious falsehoods about the trader concerned in order to whip up opinion against him, would constitute unlawful means. With regard to the question what forms of pressure can be brought to bear on a person, for instance the trader postulated above, without thereby committing the offence of intimidation contemplated in the Bill, I want to refer to the judgement in the case of Murdoch vs. Bullock, which has already been quoted by hon. members on the other side of the House, where the judge said the following—

I should also in particular like to mention the following sentence—

That is also the point that the hon. member for Yeoville has just taken. It needs to be pointed out, however, that the example quoted above and the remarks in any event relate to one of the least invidious examples of a contravention of the proposed Act. It is foreseen that the Intimidation Act will find its more proper application in clear-cut cases of intimidation, i.e. those involving assaults, other forms of violence to a person or to property, or threats of such assaults or violence.

May I in conclusion submit that the paragraph which is suggested to be inserted in the Bill, the paragraph which the hon. member for Berea has moved as an amendment, would merely amount to a repetition in a somewhat extended form of the qualification of “lawful reason” already contained in the Bill, and such an amendment should therefore be definitely be avoided as its insertion would bring the all-encompassing nature of the last mentioned qualification into doubt.

*I have quoted this written document because I have prepared it specially together with my departmental advisers and I trust that it will suffice to allay the doubts of hon. members. I do not think, therefore, that it is necessary to accept the amendment since it involves a duplication. In the circumstances, then, I do not think that the amendment is necessary. I also want to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that although there is a possibility that this legislation could be applied in respect of certain circumstances that could prevail during strikes this is not the underlying intention of the legislation, for the legislation which is generally applicable to that type of circumstances, as hon. members know, is the industrial reconciliation legislation and/for the latest labour relations legislation. So although I appreciate the hon. members’ standpoint on the proposed amendments for the reasons I have already advanced, I do not think that it would be correct to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for his detailed explanation of the intention of the Bill. He has gone to some trouble to try to meet our arguments, and I am grateful for that. However, I still believe there is merit in making it perfectly clear, as the amendment tries to do, that the purview of this is to be narrowed down in particular circumstances. The hon. the Minister has quite correctly said that in regard to other matters other legislation could be applied, and I accept that it is not the prime intention behind this Bill to deal with matters relating to trade boycotts and that sort of instance and that the prime intention here is to deal with intimidation as such, intimidation as an act whereby an individual is threatened with assault or harm to his person or property. However, I still think there would be merit—I think it may well be found to be so when this matter is tested, as it inevitably will be, in the courts—in trying to put in the legislation a narrower definition. For that reason I believe there is merit in the amendment which we have moved, and I would still like to see that amendment accepted.

Mr. Chairman, there is just one thing which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. As I understand the hon. the Minister he regards the phrase “without lawful reason” as being a phrase which meets the problem raised by us. The problem is this: We say that if an act is done by lawful means, it ought to be excused. In other words, we are talking about the act and not the motive. I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to what was said in Murdoch’s case by Judge Mason. I quote from page 503—

The phrase “without lawful reason” relates to the motive. We are suggesting that in relation to the act itself there should be a proviso that if it is done by lawful means, it should not constitute an offence. I think that when the hon. the Minister says that “without lawful reason” covers the situation, that only relates to the motive and not to the actual unlawful act. We say that it must be an unlawful act. We say that if the act is done by lawful means it is a lawful act and that that should not be an offence. To sum up, therefore, “without lawful reason” applies to the motive and not to the unlawfulness of the act.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the argument advanced by the hon. member. It was the same argument that he attempted to advance the other evening when he was stopped short by the clock.

That wasn’t cut short; that was cut long!

Perhaps he was saved by the bell! [Interjections.] I want to say that the argument I advanced yesterday together with the argument I advanced this morning covers the particular point raised by the hon. member for Pinetown. I cannot take the matter any further. If we have to disagree on this issue, then we shall simply have to agree to disagree. I have tried to reply to the arguments of hon. members as fully as possible and as lawyers I accept the fact that we may disagree in respect of this particular issue. As I say, I cannot take the matter any further. I have told hon. members why I am not prepared to accept the amendment and I have given my reasons in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I welcome the statement made by the hon. the Minister in regard to the law because even though he is not prepared to accept our amendment, which we should like him to do, it has helped to clarify the matter to a considerable extent. However, what is important is that there should be certainty in regard to this matter. What has to be clear as a result of this debate is that there will in fact not be prosecutions against persons in the manner that has now been set out. Therefore, if the real purpose of a combination is not to injure other persons but to advance or defend a trade or other activity of those people participating in that activity or trade, no wrong is committed and no action will lie. In this respect, I have quoted the gist of the Sorrell and Smith judgment so that people will know that if such action is taken they will not be liable to prosecution. If that can be confirmed by the hon. the Minister he will be going a long way to ensuring that there is certainty and no problem in this regard at all. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that we must have certainty so that people know what they can and cannot do. That is really what I think we are trying to achieve in this respect.

The third point that I want to make very briefly is in regard to certain words which the hon. the Minister used in his first reply in connection with strikes. They disturbed me somewhat. I think it would be highly undesirable to seek to use this legislation in regard to labour matters. I think there is adequate provision in regard to labour matters and that there is adequate provision to deal with strikes. Once again, I believe there must be no misunderstanding in regard to what the hon. the Minister said and so I should like the hon. the Minister to get up and tell us that this particular piece of legislation will not be used in respect of strikes but that the labour legislation will be used for that purpose. I hope that the hon. the Minister can give us that assurance.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. member for Yeoville that as far as his first question is concerned that is also my own view on the matter. There is no misunderstanding whatsoever in this regard and I think that he can therefore leave the matter at that.

As far as his second point is concerned, I only referred to this to try to bring some clarity to the matter. However, in this respect too the hon. member for Yeoville and this Committee can accept the fact that there is no intention whatsoever to use this particular piece of legislation in respect of strikes. This is a very, very sensitive area and that is the reason why I referred to the other piece of legislation, namely the Labour Relations Act or the Industrial Reconciliation Act.

*The legislation on labour relations and the legislation on industrial reconciliation is the legislation used in connection with strikes by the people concerned with those matters. The legislation now under consideration relates to the type of issue we have already debated, viz. the question of threats, of damage, of action and so forth under the circumstances we have set out to one another and also as discussed fully in the relevant chapter of the Rabie Report. The hon. member can take it that those are the circumstances under which the legislation will be applied.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Speaker, I shall now resume my speech at the point where it was interrupted last night. What the proposed offence of subversion entails is that any person, with the same intent as in the case of the proposed offence of terrorism, performs one or more of the acts mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (i) of clause 54(2), or conspires with someone to perform them, or instigates or encourages any person to perform them. The acts concerned, namely acts endangering or prejudicing the State or the community, do not necessarily involve violence, but if the accused’s act did in fact lead to an act of violence and he should have foreseen that violence was a reasonable possibility, a heavier penalty may be imposed on him—imprisonment not exceeding 25 years—than may be imposed where no violence is committed—imprisonment not exceeding 20 years.

The proposed offence of sabotage consists in any person performing an act with intent to bring about any of the results mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f) of clause 54(3). The results involve the destruction of or damage to vulnerable and strategic buildings and installations, and the impeding of necessary services. The penalty suggested for the committing of this offence is imprisonment not exceeding 20 years. In view of the acts of violence committed in the Republic in recent years, the ways in which these acts were committed and will, in all probability, be committed in the foreseeable, future, the infiltration of people across the country’s borders with the aim of committing acts of violence here, the concealing of weapons by infiltrators for later use by others, and the fact that these people could scarcely succeed in carrying out their attacks in the Republic if they were not harboured or helped in other ways by like-minded persons or sympathizers, the commission is convinced of the necessity for a measure such as that contained in clause 54(4) of the draft Bill. The measure provides that any person who harbours, conceals or otherwise renders assistance to any other person who has committed or intends to commit an offence as contemplated in clause 54(1), (2) or (3)—i.e. terrorism, subversion or sabotage—or who, although he knows where such person is to be found, fails to report or cause to be reported to any member of the police such person’s presence at that place, shall be guilty of an offence.

As far as these offences are concerned, it is important to note that in contrast with current provisions in this connection, no minimum punishments are prescribed. The matter of the sentence in cases where the person is convicted is left entirely in the hands of the courts.

The commission came to the conclusion that it was necessary to provide for certain presumptions which could aid the State in prosecutions. Provision is made for this in clause 69. Two of the presumptions in connection with prosecutions for terrorism and subversion merit specific mention here.

The first presumption concerns the intent with which an act was committed. Clause 69(5) of the Bill provides that if it is proved that the accused has committed the act alleged, and that such act resulted or was likely to have resulted in the achievement of any of the objects specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) of clause 54(1), it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the accused committed that act with intent to achieve such object.

The second presumption concerns the unlawful possession of firearms or ammunition, as specified in clause 69(6). This means that if the State proves that the accused unlawfully had such weapons in his possession, the onus is on him to prove that he did not have them in his possession with the intent to commit an act contemplated in clause 54(1)(i) to (iv) in order to achieve any of the objects specified in paragraph (a) to (d) of clause 54(1).

In view of the fact that all the information before it showed that the ANC, Umkhonto we Sizwe (the ANC’s so-called “military wing”), the SACP and the PAC intended to overthrow the existing order and the State authority in the Republic by force, the fact that these organizations had themselves declared that this was their aim, and the fact that in criminal hearings the State was frequently compelled to submit evidence on the objectives of the ANC—evidence which, considering the organization’s statements, could not be refuted—the commission also mentioned that it recommended that clause 69(7) of the Bill be accepted.

The said clause provides that if it is relevant for the purposes of any prosecution for an offence in terms of clause 54(1) or (2)— i.e. terrorism or subversion—the court shall take notice of the fact that the objects of an unlawful organization specified in clause 4 “include the achievement by means of violence of the object specified in clause 54(1)(a).” The organizations specified in Schedule 4 are those I have just mentioned, and the object specified in clause 54(1)(a) is to “overthrow or endanger the State authority in the Republic”. The State President is also given the authority to remove from or add to Schedule 4 the name of an organization by proclamation in the Gazette.

The last matter I want to deal with briefly involves the provisions of clause 73(2) of the Bill. This clause contains certain transitional provisions regarding action which has been taken in terms of the laws being repealed and which, in terms of the provisions of this sub-clause, are deemed to have been taken in terms of the corresponding provisions of the new Act. Something the commission did not recommend, but which the Government decided to incorporate in this Bill, is that in the case of restrictions and preventative detention imposed in terms of the provisions of an Act repealed by this legislation, such restriction or detention shall be deemed to be withdrawn at the expiration of a period of 12 months after the date of commencement of the new Act. This provision was added with a view to reviewing within the relevant 12 months all existing restriction orders and cases of preventive detention which may be in force on the date of commencement of the new Act, and, where necessary, issuing new notices in terms of the provisions of the new legislation, which will then be subject to review and also to periodic review as contemplated by this Bill. Provision is also made for this in clause 73(2).

The Bill before this House is the culmination of a thorough investigation into our security legislation by an independent commission of inquiry, which emphasized the necessity for the measures contained in this Bill. The Government accepted the principles as incorporated in the proposed legislation, which amounts to a consolidation of certain security measures placed on the Statute-Book over a period of more than 30 years, in which certain protective and control measures have been incorporated. The fact that the Government has accepted the extended system of review with regard to certain preventive security actions, attests to its good faith in this connection.

It is the standpoint of the Government that it is called upon to ensure the security and welfare of the Republic and of all its inhabitants. As it has done in the past, the Government shall continue to consider this a high priority. Action will be taken against those persons who threaten or endanger the security of the Republic or its inhabitants, with all the means at the State’s disposal to ensure that while we are seeking solutions to various problems, change will be evolutionary and not revolutionary. Those persons whose object is revolutionary change or the violent overthrow of the existing dispensation must take cognizance of this fact, and the Government will not shrink from doing whatever may be necessary under the circumstances. Where action must be taken, the Government shall act with determination.

With this Bill we are on the threshold of a new dispensation as regards security legislation and its application. The changes contemplated in this Bill will undoubtedly be welcomed. Because the administration of the legislation has been conferred on me as the Minister of Law and Order, I can give the assurance that action in terms of this legislation will be purposeful but sympathetic. We are on the threshold of new challenges which we have accepted with determination.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened with great interest to the long exposé given by the hon. the Minister yesterday and this morning on the new Internal Security Bill. I want to say at once that this Bill is an umbrella measure incorporating a number of other Acts, some with changes, others with few changes. They include Acts such as the Internal Security Act—the old Suppression of Communism Act which was renamed in 1976—the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1953, the Riotous Assemblies Act of 1956, the Unlawful Organizations Act of 1960, the sabotage provisions of the General Law Amendment Act of 1962, what was known as the “Little Terrorism Act” of 1966, and of course the “big” Terrorism Act of 1967, the most draconian of them all.

And you opposed them all.

Yes, I opposed every single one of them and I am extremely glad that I did so because every fear I expressed then that the use of these powers would be extended way beyond any intention announced in the House has in fact been justified.

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

The first thing to note about this Bill is that, although the hon. the Minister said in his speech that it is the Government’s desire not to retain these measures longer than necessary—some of those bloodthirsty members ought to listen to that—the Bill before us has got absolutely no provision for its annual renewal by Parliament.

Just listen who is being bloodthirsty now!

Oh, be quiet. There is nothing in this Bill which in any way stamps it as a temporary measure like, for instance, the two British Acts which the hon. member for Verwoerdburg is fond of quoting, namely the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1976 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act of 1978 and like the Israeli Act the hon. member also quotes, namely the Emergency Powers, Detention and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1978. All those Acts in fact…

What is in a name? “A rose by any other name…”

I shall tell the hon. member what is in a name. What is in a name, is to express the intention, and I may say that in every single instance that intention has been carried out. In the case of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill quite different provisions now apply as far as detention is concerned. As far as the Terrorism Act in the UK is concerned, the one chapter that enables detention without trial has in fact … [Interjections.] Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that I can have a little peace and quiet, a little law and order while I advance my argument? I did not interrupt the hon. the Minister when he was putting his case. I did not say a word; not one word. [Interjections.] The one chapter which allows detention without trial in the English Terrorism Act was not renewed in 1980. In the Israeli case, the 1978 law introduced very considerable modifications of what had been virtually a sort of military regime which followed on the British mandate and continued for the reason that…

Since 1948?

Yes, Israel has been at war since 1948. Immediately the State of Israel was declared, war broke out and she has been in an almost constant state of open warfare ever since.

What is happening in South Africa?

Therefore, I think one cannot really compare conditions existing there with the conditions existing here. However, we are certainly not at war on anything like the scale in Israel. As far as the UK and Northern Ireland are concerned, I want to tell the hon. member that over a period of three years 1 000 people were killed in Northern Ireland and 11 000 people were injured largely as a result of terrorist acts by the IRA.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? When the law was changed in Northern Ireland, did that stop the terrorism in Northern Ireland?

No, but I shall tell the hon. member why the law was changed. Of course it did not stop terrorism, because the basic reasons underlying terrorism were not materially altered and the Irish in Northern Ireland felt themselves aggrieved. However, I am coming to that exact point now. Therefore, if hon. members will be a little patient, they will find that I shall be answering most of their questions as I proceed.

There is nothing about the Bill we are debating today that in any way gives it the appearance or the basis of a temporary measure. It is a permanent measure and it is going to go on to our Statute Book as permanent law. The Bill does contain some welcome provisions—and I want to say that right away—which can, I think, be termed as improvement on the existing position. For example, there is the abolition which the hon. the Minister mentioned of minimum mandatory sentences for certain security crimes. Discretion has been restored to the courts in this regard. The death penalty has now been limited only to acts of violence and that also is an improvement. The protection to juveniles has also been restored. Those provisions are improvements.

There are new definitions of crimes which I think most people will agree certainly are better than the previous ones. The review system was of course introduced originally only for persons in preventive detention. That provision is now marginally better. The review system and the advisory committee system have been extended to organizations that are banned and people who are banned and as far as publications are concerned.

Why do you say “banned”?

Well, I like that term. It expresses exactly what everybody understands it to mean. They are banned out of normal life.

It is not what the law says.

Banned out of normal life. It is a generally used expression and whether hon. members like it or not, people talk about banned people and nothing else. Whether hon. members like it or not, it is as the hon. member for Mossel Bay said, “a rose by any other name”. [Interjections.]

I do not intend to deal with those aspects of this law. I shall leave that to my colleagues, all of whom will have a lot to say about the matters which I have just mentioned. I want to deal with the detention clauses of this Bill, firstly, because I am cognisant with this particular subject, having dealt with them over many years from the time the first detention Act was introduced, and secondly, because I believe them to be the crux of the security legislation in this country. The review system notwithstanding, I cannot, I am afraid, identify myself—and I am sure I speak here also for my colleagues—with the hon. the Minister’s statement—and it was indeed a final and stirring statement—about our standing at the door I wonder whether I can have the hon. the Minister’s attention now. Is he coaching somebody?

It does not matter what I discuss.

All right; that is fine. I just want to say that I do not identify this side of the House with the hon. the Minister’s stirring, final words that “we are now standing at the door of a whole new deal in security legislation”. I make no apology for repeating today some, but by no means all, of the arguments which I used during the debate on the report of the Rabie Commission for the simple reason that the Bill we are considering today was a draft Bill contained in the Rabie Commission report. It is, in fact, almost identical.

Are you going to read another letter today?

No, I do not have a letter, but I shall find one if the hon. the Minister wants one. I am sure there are many other such statements which could be obtained and indeed will be obtained and probably produced at the inquest.

You just try your luck again.

I have studied a number of documents and articles commenting on the Rabie Commission’s draft Bill and its recommendations generally, and nothing that I have read has in any way convinced me that my first impression was wrong. I remain of the opinion that the Rabie report, which relied heavily upon police evidence and which evaded a number of major issues, is a very disappointing report. Consequently the Bill that we are considering today is also a very disappointing Bill, certainly to those of us who hoped that the new security legislation would set South Africa firmly back on the path towards the rule of law in this country. But it does no such thing.

An excellent lecture was delivered about three years ago by Advocate D. P. de Villiers to the faculty of law at the Rand Afrikaans University entitled “The Rule of Law and Public Safety in Contemporary South Africa”.

Do you know what he said about the Rabie Commission’s report?

In that lecture he said—

That, I believe, should have been the shor-tterm aim of the legislation that is being presented to this House following the recommendations of the Rabie Commission. However, I do not believe that we have in fact achieved this objective. In the long run, of course, as the Rabie Commission itself admits, security legislation per se certainly cannot ensure or guarantee the maintenance of law and order. That can only be guaranteed if the consent of the majority of the people is obtained to the way in which they are governed. In South Africa this would mean that we would have to do away with a whole battery of laws that discriminate particularly on the basis of colour, laws that cause bitterness and hostility and which we believe are in themselves the root cause of unrest in South Africa. It is true that the terms of reference of the Rabie Commission excluded consideration of these long-term factors, but surely one could have hoped that legislation introduced on the recommendation of a commission whose terms of reference did include an examination of the efficacy of our security laws, would include provisions that would recognize the obvious failure of the existing tough security laws as far as combating terrorism, sabotage and violence is concerned. The hon. the Minister of Law and Order has himself admitted that, if anything, there has been an escalation of violence in South Africa. These laws—and I hope the hon. member for Mossel Bay is now listening, because I am answering his question—have done nothing …

I am reading a much better source.

Mr. Speaker, I am answering the hon. member’s question now; so I think he should listen. These laws have done absolutely nothing to decrease the amount of violence in South Africa.

That will be the day!

But the hon. the Minister himself has told us that violence is escalating.

That is not what I said.

One of the reasons the hon. the Minister gave for introducing a Bill only two or three days ago was that there had been another explosion at a West Rand Administration Board’s office in Soweto.

I never said these laws …

The Gardiner Commission in Ireland pointed out exactly that. The Gardiner Commission, which did not recommend—at that stage anyway—the removal of all the detention laws, nevertheless point out that detention in the laws in Ireland had, if anything, simply increased the hostility and that it was no way to try to pursue a long-term policy. In the short term it might be an effective measure.

Ever since the law was changed it has got worse.

It has not got worse in Ireland since the law was changed. Not at all. Things were at there worst when these laws were being applied, and that is what the hon. member does not seem to understand. Let me quote what the Gardiner Commission exactly said in this regard—

In other words, detention—

What page are you quoting from?

I shall give the hon. member the reference after my speech. I do not know it now. I quote again—

Nothing could be clearer than that. The Gardiner Commission did not at that stage recommend that detention be abolished, but it was most worried about the long-term effects on reconciliation between the Catholic and Protestant elements.

We are all concerned about that.

I believe exactly the same comment can be applied to South Africa. That is why I worry about it.

But still it is necessary.

Well, the hon. member thinks it is necessary, but I am pointing out that in the short term one may have to use emergency legislation—not the kind we are discussing here today though—but in the long term it is the worst thing possible.

Apart from efficacy one of the other terms of reference of the Rabie Commission was to consider the fairness of our existing legislation. To my astonishment—I may say to the astonishment of many other people—the commission failed to examine in depth the two factors that have dominated the lives of detainees in South Africa under section 6 of the Terrorism Act, namely indefinite solitary confinement and the methods of interrogation used by the Security Police. The Rabie Commission failed to examine these two aspects despite the fact that there have been many deaths in detention and despite the widespread belief—whether hon. members like it or not—that inhuman and degrading methods of interrogation are used by the Security Police and despite the fact that there is weighty evidence of the devastating effects of long-term solitary confinement on detainees. Despite all these factors the commission which was set up with one of its terms of reference to examine the fairness of our existing legislation did not touch on that aspect.

Why is that weighty evidence never produced?

The weighty evidence has been produced, but the hon. the Minister never reads it. Let the hon. the Minister go and read the words of Prof. A. S. Mathews which were referred to the other day in another context, and let him go and also read the evidence produced by Prof. Chari Vorster of the Rand Afrikaans University, who referred to solitary confinement as “the worst form of torture”.

Is that the only evidence you have?

Many studies have also been done in the United States and other countries to show that solitary confinement is indeed a very severe form of torture. It is because none of this was examined, I believe, that the Bill we are considering today retains all the most objectionable sections of our existing security legislation, far removed from the checks and balances we should have. Clause 29 of the Bill in no way differs materially from section 6 of the Terrorism Act, and clause 31 of the Bill, the witnesses’ clause, does not differ materially from section 12(b) of the Internal Security Act. I want to say that I am unimpressed by the so-called safeguards that are provided for these two types of detainees. Very well, they must be visited as frequently as possible in private by an Inspector of Detainees, who must report in writing to the Minister after each visit, and if he suspects that an offence has been committed, he must report it to the Attorney-General. Inspectors have been on the go since the Biko calamity, and in the period February 1980 to December 1981 they paid 1 655 visits and they received, interestingly enough, only 28 complaints. The hon. the Minister interprets this as indicating that there are no, or hardly any, grounds for complaint. There is, of course, another interpretation, and that is that the detainees are too afraid to complain because they remain in the hands of the very people they complain about.

Oh, come now!

There is no access to them other than through the Inspector of Detainees. Therefore, we may get a few different statistics now that for the first time the inspector has to see the detainee in private. Up to now nothing has been laid down to ensure that he has to see the detainee in private. As the Association of Law Societies points out, the inspectors are nominees of the hon. the Minister and in no sense can they be described as independent ombudsmen. I may also say that the magistrates and district surgeons who now have to visit detainees in terms of clause 29, the old section 6, or in terms of clause 31, the old section 12(b), are also people working within the system. There is nothing new in the provision of filing a report once a month from the Commissioner to the hon. the Minister in regard to clause 29 or section 6 detainees. I must say I should like to see one of those reports. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would show me one? I am pretty sure that all it says is that the Commissioner is not yet satisfied with the results of the interrogation, finished and klaar! No more! There will be nothing further in regard to why that person should still be detained.

You will be surprised.

I should very much like to be surprised. There is one important change in regard to clause 29 and that is in respect of subsection (3)(a). The hon. the Minister is now being made personally responsible for detention exceeding one month. The Minister actually has to sign an order if the detainee is held longer than one month. I trust that he will take his responsibility in this regard very seriously indeed—I am sure he will—because from now on the hon. the Minister will be personally responsible for any future disasters that may occur while people are in detention.

And high time too.

The board of review is new as far as clause 29 is concerned and comes into the picture after six months. However, it goes out of the picture again once it has submitted a written report to the Minister. There is no provision for referral to the Chief Justice as far as clause 29 is concerned.

What is your alternative?

There is, of course, provision for referral to the Chief Justice in regard to banned persons or banned organizations and in regard to the prohibition of publications but not in the case of the hapless detainees in terms of clause 29 which is the old section 6 of the Terrorism Act.

Why not?

Why not indeed. One may well ask. We were told that that particular provision was “operational”. The Board of Review automatically investigates and reports upon detainees in preventive detention after 14 days and thereafter every six months, and after 12 months in the case of banned persons. The Advisory Committee which functions for banned organizations and publications does the same after 12 months in the case of banned organizations and publications. If the Minister does not accept the recommendations of the Board of Review or of the Advisory Committee, the Chief Justice may exercise certain powers. However, they in turn are considerably limited by the legal grounds that are set out in the clause. The Chief Justice can only come into the picture if the Minister has exceeded his authority, if he has not acted in good faith or if he based his decisions on considerations not related to the maintenance of the safety of the State or of law and order. To my mind that is just another sort of mala fides provision. That is all it is. One must also note that the Chief Justice only comes into the picture if the board differs with the Minister and if the Minister imposes conditions stricter than those recommended by the board.

What is wrong with that?

However, if the board agrees with the Minister the Chief Justice does not come into the picture at all. He should come into the picture in every case.

He has enough to do.

Well, Sir, let met remind the House that the review board procedure is not new for people under preventive detention. That has operated from the beginning. It operated in respect of section 10(1)(a)bis detainees, and during the period 1977 to 1981 366 cases were reviewed and release was recommended in only nine cases. If that is the norm, then the Chief Justice may not necessarily even come into the picture in respect of the nine cases. What about the other miserable 357 cases where there is no referral? They just stay where they are. There is no referral. So, I do not agree with the hon. the Minister that this is an entirely new deal for our internal security legislation.

By way of summing up, I should like to point out that as far as we are concerned this Bill perpetuates an undeclared state of emergency in South Africa. That is what it does.

Nonsense!

Yes, it perpetuates an undeclared state of emergency. These provisions are emergency provisions, but there is no declaration of emergency. Do we agree that South Africa is in a constant state of emergency, although undeclared?

That is what you want the situation to be!

Oh yes, that is what I want! Mr. Speaker, that silly hon. member for Pretoria Central is someone on whom I do not intend to waste my time!

Louis, do you agree that there exists a state of emergency?

That is what you want it to be!

It is an undeclared

You want a state of emergency to be declared!

No, I do not want a state of emergency declared. I do not even want an undeclared state of emergency. I do not want a state of emergency at all in South Africa. I believe that the only way in which to remove emergency conditions in South Africa is, as we on this side of the House have said over and over again, by bringing about radical reform in South Africa in the field of race relations. All discriminatory legislation should be removed. To continue, the Terrorism Act has become a permanent feature of our law. There is the came exclusion of intervention by the courts for persons under clause 29, as was the case under section 6, and also only the same mala fide provisions of referral to the courts otherwise. There is no limitation on the period during which a person may be detained. Finally, there is no provision for a code of conduct under which interrogation can take place. We believe that to be a very serious omission.

For all these reasons, I wish to move as an amendment—

My final comment is that a whole number of existing Acts are being repealed in terms of Schedule I of this Bill. What a happy day it would be for South Africa when those laws that ought to be repealed can be repealed without being replaced by a totally repulsive measure which assembles under one title all the worst features of the Acts listed in Schedule I of the Bill.

Why use the adjective “repulsive”?

“Repulsive” means “walglik”.

You may feel free to search for more adjectives of that ilk.

Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the remarks made by the hon. member for Houghton, I want to indicate that I am very pleased with the legislation which is before us. At the very beginning of my parliamentary career I made representations in this House for the consolidation of our security legislation, for all the relevant provisions in the various Acts concerned with security to be combined in one piece of legislation so that we could have a properly consolidated piece of security legislation.

Furthermore, I want to point out that even if we disagree with the findings of the Rabie Commission we nevertheless owe that commission a debt of gratitude for the fact that we have been given a consolidated piece of legislation. I believe that the Rabie Commission did excellent work. The same applies to those who drafted and amended this legislation on the basis of the example which we received from the Rabie Commission. Those people deserve our gratitude.

Reading the report of the Rabie Commission, I noticed that the commission had covered a much wider field than merely that of an inquiry into security legislation as such. Other legislation which could have a bearing on the freedom of the individual was examined. Legislation concerned with calm and orderly labour relations in this country was also examined, as was legislation relating to stable industrial growth in South Africa. In the same way, legislation dealing with stable economic development in South Africa was also examined.

Since the beginning of the seventies, we have had a completely new situation with regard to security in South Africa, and the hon. the Minister must be pleased about the fact that he is the one who is able to introduce this legislation. The hon. the Minister and a few of our other colleagues who are still here—unfortunately there are none left on this side of the House—had the opportunity of examining the security situation in the early seventies. They were able to take cognizance of what people were doing, what they were not doing, and of the methods being used in the process.

However, the hon. member for Houghton must not think that I have finished with her; actually I have not even started. However, I read up those debates, and I think the hon. member for Houghton probably did the same. At that time, in 1974, the hon. member for Houghton was sitting here alone; subsequently she was joined by a few Young Turks, and it is quite interesting to note what she said about security legislation at the time and what the hon. member for Yeoville said. It is also interesting to see what the standpoints of the two parties were with regard to the commission on internal security. I hope the hon. member for Yeoville is going to participate in this debate; in fact, I hope that the official Opposition will see to it that he does, because he must tell us whether he still adheres to that standpoint. [Interjections.] At least one can say that the hon. member for Houghton still adheres today to the standpoint she adopted at that time, although that does not mean that we agree with her.

What is important here, however, is that we have here, in the form of a consolidating measure, a brand-new Internal Security Act. It is precisely as a result of the situation which developed in connection with the problem of internal security in the seventies that the PFP and the NRP are sitting where they are. It was the work of the Schlebusch Commission which caused the split between the members of those two parties. Now I understand that the NRP is also going to oppose this legislation. However, I want to sound an early warning to those hon. members of the NRP who are going to participate in this debate. Before participating in the debate, if they want to retain any credibility, they should, go and look up what their leader, Sir de Villiers Graaff, said about this whole matter at the time. It will be very interesting to see whether there is going to be a rapprochement in this debate today to bring about a united Opposition between the NRP and the PFP about security once again.

The hon. member for Houghton once again raised the question of whether or not we need security legislation in this country. As far as she is concerned, all the bad provisions in all the laws we have had up to now have been combined in this one piece of legislation, although she did make a few grateful noises in connection with certain changes that are being made.

When hon. members still ask in this House today whether we need to have security legislation, they must tell us how they see South Africa’s position and the internal situation with regard to our security in this country. The hon. member for Houghton cannot say today that this security legislation would not have been necessary if her party had been in power. She alleges that her party would ensure sound race and inter-group relations. Her party would see to all these things, and then we would not need internal security legislation. That is what they are implying.

The hon. member referred to the Gardiner Report in connection with Northern Ireland. However, it suits the hon. member to quote the part that she did. It is true that the report says that the legislation has not necessarily reduced acts of terrorism. However, the report does not indicate any considerable increase in such acts after amendments were made and placed on the Statute Book. If we had not had any security legislation in this country, I would have liked to have seen what the situation in this country would have been today. That is the question. Let me remind the hon. member of the fact that what is at issue in Northern Ireland is not different population groups. There the issue is religion. It is not concerned with the question of whether communism should be combated, but merely with religion, although by that I do not mean to disparage religion as being a matter of secondary importance which could not lead to conflict. The kind of subversion, the kind of sabotage and the subversive activities which we experience in the field in which we operate are completely different from what we would find if the issue revolved around religious differences.

The hon. member says we should have this legislation on our Statute Book only temporarily. There is proof of the fact that the Government reviews security legislation from time to time. This is not legislation which is simply placed on the Statute Book and left there. We could examine several factors to show this. At the beginning of the seventies, the legislation placed on the State Book during the sixties was regularly reviewed. Amendments were made to the legislation. This process continued. The very fact that the Rabie Commission was instructed to investigate our security legislation proves that the Government does look at legislation. It is examined to see whether it is still relevant, whether it still meets our requirements. In any event, there is the Law Commission which is continually reviewing legislation, of whatever nature. To be told now that this legislation should be merely of a temporary nature virtually amounts to being told that we have now come to the end of the road as far as onslaughts on South Africa are concerned.

There is another argument which the hon. members use. I know that the hon. members of the NRP are going to use it too. They are going to fall back on the old standpoint which is reflected in the minority report contained in the fourth report of the old Schlebusch Commission. In that minority report it was said that drastic measures could only be taken when a state of emergency had been proclaimed. That was how they tried to present matters. When we speak in such terms, we are using obsolete phrases and obsolete forms, for when those words were first used, we did not yet know terrorism as we know it today and we did not know sabotage as we know it today. The way to cause a state of collapse in the whole country would be to proclaim a state of emergency because isolated cases of terrorism have occurred. What one should do is to make provision, while a state of emergency does not exist for emergency measures to be taken to prevent a state qf emergency. That is what one should make provision for.

A great deal has been said in this country about whether or not there is a state of emergency. The question of what can be done to prevent an emergency has also been debated. As far back as 1915, Mr. Justice Rose-Innes said, in discussing the authority of the State to deal with an emergency—

I could go on in this vein and quote other statements to this effect.

What does the hon. member for Houghton actually wish to tell us? She wishes to say that we do not need legislation of this nature because she basically has two objections. She blames the Rabie Commission for not having investigated the situation of people in perpetual detention, as she puts it, and for not having investigated the interrogation techniques of the Security Police. I am sure that a commission such as the Rabie Commission, which eventually had two judges serving on it, as well as prominent lawyers, would naturally have asked itself—these were in fact its terms of reference—what should be done about such matters. This is a basic fact today, and I am very glad that measures are contained in this legislation to give people from outside access to detainees. I am very glad that we are now getting a suitable review structure. The hon. members must concede these points to us. They argued with us about these matters in 1974 and 1976. Today the hon. the Minister knows exactly what hon. members were asking for. The Bench was brought into the matter, after all. They always spoke about a tribunal. Judges—right up to the Chief Justice— can be involved in these matters, but the hon. member says that this is only in exceptional cases. Over the years, the hon. member and her party have shown no respect for judges in this House. I have never seen any report by a judge which those members accepted. The hon. member should please indicate whether any such report exists.

[Inaudible.]

They have never accepted a report by a judge. On the one hand they say it is no use employing a judge, because he forms part of the system, but on the other hand they say that they want judicial commissions. One cannot use a magistrate or a senior magistrate—one cannot appoint him as an inspector, for example—because he is also a part of the system. The hon. member says that more than 1 000 visits were paid to detainees by the inspector, but that there were only 28 complaints. She says this proves that people are afraid to complain, because these people work within the system. I could just as easily argue—of course she would immediately reject the argument—that if 28 people complained, surely this is a very good pattern. I could just as well use that argument. However, it is a senseless argument to use. No court would listen to such a silly argument. What does the hon. member actually want to say to us? She wants to say that we should not detain people at all. Of course, I could quote the findings of other judges as to whether or not people should be detained. In the South African circumstances, to which this legislation has been adjusted, we have no choice. We simply have to detain people. With the borders we have in South Africa, with the coastline we have in South Africa and with all the things surrounding South Africa, we have no choice. We simply have to do it. If hon. members want to tell me that we can maintain internal security, and guard the borders at the same time, without doing this kind of thing in order to make sure internally that the people on the borders do not get into trouble, those hon. members must explain to me how we are to do it.

This brings me to the question of detention. Neither I nor anyone on this side of the House—least of all, I suppose, the hon. the Minister or the Police—likes detention without trial. This is not something which anyone of us would like to do. However, the question is whether we need it, and when a man is being detained, it is not always easy to decide in practice whether or not the man is really guilty. That has to be found out.

However, the hon. member says that the interrogation technique of the Police is one of the methods that are actually being used to torture these people. She says solitary confinement is torture and she also says interrogation is torture. However, different people react differently in different situations. That we must accept.

[Inaudible.]

I am quite prepared to concede that certain people can in fact be affected in the process, that their minds can also be affected in the process. I am quite prepared to concede that, but that is not necessarily as a result of the method. The same lady who undertook to study for the RAU, and who was quoted by the hon. member, said in that specific report that it was not necessarily detention which had such an effect on a person, because it could merely be the result of loneliness. Loneliness in itself can have the same psychological effect on someone. This is a simple truth. Not all people react in the same way under such circumstances.

Now I come to the question of interrogation. The hon. member probably based her whole standpoint on the question of interrogation on the document published by Wits.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member behaved very shrewdly today. I admit that she is a clever politician. [Interjections.] She did not refer to this document issued by Wits. I shall tell you why she did not. She used all the arguments which are used in this document by the various people.

I spoke on the Rabie Commission on 16 February and this had not come out then.

Shut up!

*I did not say a word while the hon. member was speaking. The fact is that she used all the arguments contained in this document, but she did not refer to it once. The hon. member is very sensitive about this point.

But she is fighting an election.

Some people would say that this matter which we are talking about is a sensitive spot with the hon. member. When one looks at the list of names which appears in this document, one sees that it includes a lot of her friends. This does not detract from the legal qualifications and the legal competence of any of those people. There is even a former friend of mine, Prof. van der Vyver, among them. In fact, he was president of the Afrikaans Studentebond in his time. This shows how far one can go astray.

This document whose arguments the hon. member used advanced exactly the same arguments and mentioned two matters, namely detention and interrogation. I studied the report of the Rabie Commission, as well as other reports which have appeared in the past, such as the report of the former Mr. Justice Botha on security. That also merits examination. If the gentleman who drafted the report had believed for a moment that such a security of the whole question of detention and interrogation was called for, I have no doubt in my mind that they would have investigated it, for in one of the court cases quoted in this document of the University of the Witwatersrand, the chairman of the commission, the Chief Justice designate, himself presided as judge. He is quoted where he had the allegations concerning detention and interrogation thoroughly investigated.

Where in that case he found there were assaults.

My argument is simply that the judge who served as chairman of this commission was himself a judge who had dealt with such cases and before whom allegations had been made to the effect that this detention and this interrogation were inhuman. In this connection he was involved in cases which he himself investigated.

I hope that the hon. member for Yeoville is also going to make a contribution with regard to the question of whether there is a threat to South Africa, of whether it is necessary to have this kind of legislation. The hon. member for Yeoville must tell us that. I also hope that the hon. member for Johannesburg North is going to participate in this debate.

Never!

The hon. member for Johannesburg North, as a former judge, must take part in this debate. He must tell us whether there are any findings by judges with regard to the need to be able to take measures which are not necessarily to be used in a state of emergency only. He must tell us whether, as a former judge, he agrees with that standpoint. Otherwise the hon. member can simply tell us that he no longer thinks in legal terms. Then we shall understand it, for when one is continually exposed to the words of the hon. member for Houghton, one is bound to be brainwashed sooner or later, and I am not using “brainwashed” in the bad sense of the word. The hon. member for Johannesburg North must tell us whether we can simply ignore these findings by judges and whether he disagrees with the standpoint adopted by the Chief Justice designate with regard to this matter.

I want to turn to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. He must tell us what he said when he was not yet a member of the PFP, when he still belonged to the UP. He has lots of time now. If that hon. member likes, I shall give him all the columns in Hansard where his speeches since 1974 are recorded, including those made in 1976, when he was sitting on the old UP side. What did that hon. member say to the hon. member for Houghton when she was sitting here? He will have to rise today and tell us what it is all about. There must not be any window-dressing. Forget about the frills and the trimmings and all that kind of thing. Forget about the positive things which the hon. member for Houghton said about the improvement, which we are all grateful for. The question is: If hon. members are going to vote against the principle of this Bill, what then? We have had similar legislation which is now being amended. The hon. member for Houghton referred to this herself. In that case, there was a difference of opinion as to whether the principle should be supported or not. Today we want to see whether the principle of this legislation is going to be supported. The hon. members of the NRP, who are sitting on my right, have a very important task to perform in deciding about this matter. I am ready for them; I shall give the hon. members the exact words of Sir De Villiers Graaff as they are recorded in Hansard. Then we can see what happens.

Mr. Speaker, we have a unique opportunity in South Africa today. It is a unique opportunity in the sense that we can reaffirm that we believe in the need for security legislation. We can reaffirm that we believe that it must be possible to take drastic steps in emergencies. We can reaffirm that we believe that when we are faced with subversion and terrorism such as we have come to know in South Africa, it must be possible to take action. We must also be able to tell one another, as Mr. Justice Stratford said, that it is sometimes necessary to have legislation to prevent crime. The judge was referring to this kind of crime in particular in the case of Sachs vs. the Minister of Justice. There the judge said that it could be necessary for the State to take such action.

Those hon. members must tell us today whether or not they support this principle. Today, however, the situation on our borders is worse that it was at the time when any of the other Acts were passed in Parliament in the past. In addition, there is the situation within South Africa which is escalating. When the hon. members say to us, as the hon. member for Houghton has said, that “We will have none of it,” when the hon. members say, as the hon. member for Houghton has done, that they do not even want to agree with this Bill in principle, then they are running away, for if the hon. members basically recognize that it must be possible to take certain action, surely they can vote for the principle. Then the hon. members—there are lawyers among them and the hon. member for Pinetown has a lot of court experience of this kind of court case—could move amendments in the Committee Stage. Now the hon. members want their bread buttered on both sides. They want to oppose the principle of the Bill at Second Reading. Their technique is very clear. I can assure you that they are going to produce amendments in the Committee Stage, and then they are going to sit back and say: We were in the minority. We were outvoted. All we can do now is move amendments.

At the time of the Schlebusch Commission, the hon. member for Yeoville said, on the tape recording which the hon. member for Durban Point has of him, that he would serve on it, because he would sit there to make sure that justice was done there. However, he refused to have anything to do with a commission on internal security. But once the commission had been appointed, he changed his tune. The hon. members did the same when the commission on exchange control had to be appointed. Then it was very convenient for those hon. members to say that they would not be a party to it. However, once the commission had been appointed, they gave me no rest in the Union Building in their attempts to make sure that I would open the door to let them in. They came to sit on that commission.

Today I want to say to the hon. members of the official Opposition and of the NRP: It serves no purpose for them to say during the Second Reading debate that they are opposed to the principle of the Bill, and then to produce a lot of amendments in the Committee Stage and to take refuge behind the argument that they are in the minority. No, the question has to be answered. If they would tell us positively that they believe that there must be measures to combat the evils which will be combated by this legislation, then there would be agreement between us about the principle. Then they will be morally justified in saying during the Committee Stage: Act in accordance with the provision you have formulated, but wait a minute. Let us change its formulation a little to achieve the same ends. However, hon. members must tell us this during the Second Reading. Otherwise I do not know how we are to debate a matter such as this one.

I want to repeat that I am very grateful for the fact that we have been given this consolidating measure, and at the same time I ask that the hon. the Minister and the people who are going to implement this should handle the measure with circumspection. I believe that they will, but I nevertheless want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister, as I did in 1976, to the fact that this legislation still does not go far enough. This legislation still does not make proper provision for combating the real economic sabotage which is taking place in this country. We should again examine the industrial sabotage which is taking place in this country. These are matters which have become so relevant in modern society, in view of modern espionage and other techniques, that we must not close our eyes to them. Because we shall not be able to apply ordinary common law in this situation, we shall have to make sure, in view of the modern thinking and techniques used by these people, that we can have our own techniques that are just as modern; otherwise we shall not be able to cope with that kind of problem.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt offered us a lot of advice, for which we do not thank him. His advice was a little humorous when one considers a member of that party suggesting that our party might suffer a credibility problem. If anybody in South Africa suffers from a credibility problem, it is the NP. They have had 30 years within which to bring it about, and I must tell them that it is very severe. This will be the last opportunity that the NP will have of bludgeoning legislation through Parliament. The problem is of their own making. In future they are going to have a much tougher time. The whole concept of debating security legislation based on the Rabie report is to get the maximum cross-section of people’s opinion. The hon. member suggests that if one agrees with security legislation in any form whatsoever, then one must agree with this Bill in principle. That is arrant nonsense. If the Bill is so full of unacceptable clauses and one still accepts the principle of the Bill, then one will be equally attacked.

Tell us what is the alternative.

We are going to tell the hon. member. We have told him already during the debate on the report of the Rabie Commission, and we shall tell him again today. If one accepts the principle of the Bill it is equally obvious that one will be attacked for allowing people to be incarcerated, for allowing excessive abuse and allowing the interrogation procedures which are now taking place.

If one were to really deal with what one finds in this Bill and in the Rabie report, one could stand up and talk the whole time on the interrogation of detainees. That is the essence of the situation which has been misused by the NP. It is all very well to give the executive the right to protect the State. Without it the judiciary cannot function. Nobody is arguing about that. But when an executive takes that function unto itself, it has an enormous responsibility in seeing that it does it with maximum effectiveness and maximum fairness, because it is actually replacing the judiciary. On the record of the NP to date nobody can say that they have done anything anywhere near a decent job of it. The whole thing is a total mess-up.

You are talking nonsense.

The NP is bringing about the exact situation which the enemies of this country desire. The hon. the Minister is very well aware that at the very heart of the insurgency campaign against the country is to discredit the Government’s ability to protect the people and at the same time to try to bring about a sense of doubt in the justice of their own cause. What has happened as a result of the NP’s administration of security legislation? Go outside of this House and ask the people of South Africa whether justice is being done in terms of the treatment of detainees, deaths in detention and, let us say it, torture. That is the fact of the matter. [Interjections.] Hon. members must not run away from the facts. The idea is to discuss the matter here so that one can get a system which precludes that sort of situation. There have been improvements in security legislation, and we have acknowledged them in the debate on the Rabie Commission’s report. As a matter of fact, we have suggested further improvements. The fact of the matter is that the Rabie Commission did not investigate adequately the interrogation procedure, while the measures for the protection of detainees are inadequate.

It has been said before that if the interrogation of a detainee were so without any form of physical assault, and all the other aspects pertaining to interrogation were be yond reproach, why do they then choose death instead of detention? [Interjections.] Sir, if we do not say all these things in this debate, we will get nowhere. Let us say them all, debate them all and then come up with legislation which does something to improve the situation.

The hon. the Minister mentioned in his Second Reading speech that the Government on its own part brought in certain aspects into the legislation which were not recommended by the Rabie Commission and which the Government thought would lead to improved legislation. There is nothing preventing the Government doing that again. Whether other countries have similar legislation has nothing to do with South Africa. We have a particular set of circumstances here, and for that set of circumstances we need a system which will reassure the people that the manner of handling detainees during interrogation is absolutely fair and does not sow any seeds of doubt in the minds of the people.

The whole question of approving security legislation and from that point onwards for the Minister to virtually have a carte blanche, is not on as far as the NRP is concerned. [Interjections.] The hon. members in the Government benches advance as the excuse for doing as they wish, the fact that if one accept the necessity for security legislation, one has no argument from that point onwards. Nobody up to this stage has satisfactorily replied to the allegations or made an attempt to reply to the allegations relating to interrogation procedures. I would like very much for the hon. the Minister, during this debate, in the open, to give us a lengthy explanation of the methods used in interrogation and to tell us whether in fact here are systems of monitoring that have in the past and up to date been used and whether he thinks medical visits every 14 days—we have suggested it should be cut down to seven and it should include a person’s private practitioner—are going to bring about a desired change. We can see no reason for not attempting to erase the question mark in people’s minds over the methods used for interrogation by introducing the concept of a detainee being allowed to have his private practitioner. Immediately one is telling the public that if that is what they want—and unfortunately the medical profession has also suffered as a result of these laws; I shall deal with that in a moment—then one is quite prepared for him to accompany the District Surgeon. What can be wrong with that? If one really wishes to reassure people then surely that is one of the easiest ways for the hon. the Minister to do so. He can say: “Very well, the system of inspection of detainees has not proved itself, it has not been a success.”

Why do you say that?

It has not been a success and all the evidence we have in this regard indicates that the system of inspection of detainees has not in fact brought about any form of security as far as the detainees are concerned. Such evidence seems to indicate that that matter is discussed with people within the system and that it then boomerangs back upon the detainee. This concept was pooh-poohed just now by an hon. member—that if the Inspector of Detainees was told something, the detainee involved would be worse off. We are not children in this House. This sort of thing happens in the Army during basic training. If a boy under basic training is not easily disciplined, the instructor knocks him about a little and if there is any report back that young man will be worse off than he was before.

Oh, come on now!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister knows that this is so. [Interjections.] I am not complaining about it; I am simply stating it as a fact within our society. If it becomes too bad, the boy reports it and the matter is then sorted out. If therefore it happens in this sphere, for hon. members opposite to say that it does not happen under situations of interrogation in the subculture of the gaol is absolutely ridiculous. The hon. the Minister must make use of this opportunity to reassure this House and the outside world that he does in fact have complete control over the system of interrogation, that he will not countenance any unlawful action and that it is his concern to ensure that detention and interrogation for the purpose of obtaining information is not such that methods which are unacceptable are overlooked.

In general terms as far as the whole concept of the non-acceptance by the official Opposition of security legislation as being necessary is concerned, I want hon. members to be quite certain that as far as we are concerned there is no shadow over this party in that regard whatsoever. We accept the necessity for this security legislation. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg suggested that the hon. member for Houghton does not accept the position of an undeclared state of emergency. We accept the position as being a state of undeclared war. We on these benches acknowledge that and accept it, but that does not mean that having accepted it we will fall into the trap of countenancing methods which, even in a state of declared war under the Geneva Convention and the Hague Convention cannot be resorted to in regard to the treatment of prisoners of war. We cannot treat prisoners of war in the same way as it is alleged that some people in detention are treated.

You can do better than that!

Those are the points that we have to iron out here. It is no good simply saying “You can do better than that”.

You cannot get away from the fact that people are talking about it.

Have we got to do with soldiers in this situation? Is that what the hon. member is alleging?

No, not at all. [Interjections.] I am not suggesting that at all. I said that in a situation of war, prisoners of war are entitled by convention to a certain type of treatment. That was what I was saying.

[Inaudible.]

I am suggesting that a similar code, a standard is set by this country in the form of a convention in terms of which the people can be reassured and the hon. the Minister can stand up to indicate which are the accepted measures. Then we shall be able to debate them.

In the few minutes I still have available I should like to point out another aspect which I think worries people in relation to detention without trial. If the Minister has reason to suspect, whatever, term is used in the Bill, that a person should be detained, then that person should be so far advanced along the road to contravening any of the provisions in our security laws that one can reasonably assume that enough is known about him to wrap the case up very quickly. The authorities should then detain him and put everything into action to gather adequate information so that he can be tried. He should be brought before the court. The position is, however, that people outside this House have the idea that people are being taken into custody and left to languor there because the security legislation does not necessarily force the executive to hasten his trial. I would prefer the hon. the Minister to spend another R100 million and have another 500 Special Branch experts so that all the information can be gathered so that such persons can be brought to trial.

Pat, how many more wild statements are you going to make?

The point is that in so far as we in these benches are concerned, there is much more than can be done. The mere consolidation of all the legislation—28 Acts are involved and seven of them in their entirety—does not bring about a good enough piece of legislation for this party to support its Second Reading.

The hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side of the House should give serious consideration to the question of decreasing the number of days before visits by the district surgeon can take place and also the question of decreasing the number of days before there can be review by the tribunal. If they do that and allow detainees to have access to their own private doctor and if there is a code in terms of which the Minister can continually reassure people that it is used in the interests of not sowing the seeds of doubt in this country and that it is his prime consideration to see that this authority will not be misused, then I believe that the legislation will be a great improvement. There is, however, no attempt in this direction, just as there was very little attempt by the Rabie Commission. It was pointed out by hon. members of this party and of the official Opposition during the debate on the report of the Rabie Commission that there was a lack of discussion in the report about the interrogation of people in detention. The hon. the Minister is aware of that lack and yet no effort is being made to bring sufficient reassurance. Accordingly we shall not support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether I can infer from his speech that his party agrees with the procedure set out in the Bill and which relates to the declaration of certain organizations and meetings in public places as unlawful? Do they also agree with the revision procedures set out?

In many cases the details of the Bill are acceptable to us, but in regard to the position of unlawful organizations we shall give our final answer during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, I shall, at a later stage, react in detail to the speech which the hon. member for King William’s Town has just made, since there are a few matters he referred to which I should like to discuss with him.

I should like to commence by saying that one cannot discuss or assess a country’s security legislation in a vacuum. Security legislation is meant to be a solution to a situation which is prevailing in a country. For this reason, one should take cognizance of the underlying circumstances or the circumstances surrounding it, as well as the necessity for such legislation, if one wishes to determine whether or not the legislation is fair and reasonable.

The Rabie Commission’s task was to consider the necessity for, and the fairness and effectiveness of our security legislation. The Commission invited witnesses to give evidence before it in this regard, and the question we should pose today is: Who did, infact, give evidence? Did the NRP or the PFP give evidence before the Rabie Commission? If they did not do so, if they did not avail themselves of that opportunity, how, then, can they question the necessity for this legislation today?

Did you give evidence before the Buthelezi Commission?

No. [Interjections.] I did not give evidence before the Buthelezi Commission, since no finding of that Commission could affect my life. [Interjections.] In any case, I made no statement about the Buthelezi Commission.

Do you not agree with the hon. the Prime Minister?

Yes, I agree with him.

And with the hon. the Minister of Finance?

We are dealing with this legislation now. It is important legislation, since it affects the lives of all of us. This legislation is important to us. The Buthelezi Commission report is another matter. This legislation is important to us, but the NRP and the PFP in particular, are arguing as though it were not essential.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

I shall reply to a question at a later stage, if there is time, Sir.

The hon. members are arguing without considering the necessity for this legislation. When we are discussing a specific provision in the legislation, and particularly the powers granted by the legislation, we should ask ourselves whether those powers are necessary. For example, is it necessary for the police to have certain powers? However, this is where the hon. member for Houghton’s speech falls short. Not once did she measure a power which is being granted against the necessity for that power. Nor has the NRP indicated in respect of any provision, that that power is necessary, and that they accept it as a necessity. However. I wish to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether the circumstances in South Africa are such, in her opinion, that there should be detention. Or is it her standpoint that there should be no detention whatsoever?

Not detention without trial. [Interjections.]

The hon. member is therefore opposed to the principle of detention?

Without trial.

Without trial. [Interjections.]

A second important question connected with this is whether the State should have the power to be able to take preventive measures in order to act in a security situation.

You can definitely remove the pass laws.

We shall still talk about that. However, we wish to know whether the State should have the power, under the present circumstances, to act in a security situation, to take preventive action? Should the State have such powers? This is the question which has to be answered in this debate.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for King William’s Town, who both spoke earlier in this debate, used certain phrases which I could describe as creating an image and a climate. I think we should take this seriously amiss of them. In reply to an interjection by the hon. the Minister, the hon. member for Houghton replied in more or less the following words: “I am sure that a lot of similar statements could be obtained.” Of course, she was referring to those declarations which, with all due respect, she produced in such an improper manner here in this House. During the last few minutes of her speech during the debate on the Rabie Commission report, she suddenly produced that so-called letter or statement and confronted this House with it.

That was contrary to the sub judice rule.

Mr. Speaker, it is just as the hon. member for Durban North says. She completely ignored the sub judice rule in the process. [Interjections.] It is a fact that the hon. member for Houghton has never given the slightest indication that, in her time, she has heard a statement by a detainee, the text of which was to the opposite effect. The hon. member for Houghton ought to tell this House whether any of the detainees with whom she has spoken, have told her that they had been well treated. I am sure that some of thse detainees with whom she has spoken have most certainly told her that they had been well treated. I have no doubt about that.

The hon. member for King William’s Town urged that the following question be asked: “Why do these people choose death instead of detention?”. That was a disgraceful remark. [Interjections.] That was an absolutely disgraceful and outrageous remark. [Interjections.] Let us compare it with a report which appeared in the Sunday Times on 31 January this year. It is a report of an interview which this newspaper conducted with a Mr. Philip Mathews. Mr. Mathews’s words were quoted in the report, and I merely wish to quote a few phrases at random to this House—

Then it was related how he had been brought to Durban, and it went on as follows—

This man therefore knows something about detention—

With regard to his last period of detention he said—

Then he went on to say—

And marmalade? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that this is not very different from the hon. member for Houghton’s normal breakfast. I quote further—

Then Mr. Mathews went on to say that—

Later in the same article it was stated—

Then they also quoted his comments as follows—

Then he was asked what his main objection to his detention was. He replied as follows—

Here we also have the case of a person who has been detained in solitary confinement, but he is a person with a long history of conduct which could be considered hostile to the State. For example, he had been on Robben Island for 12 years. This is the kind of person who has come forward to relate how he was treated. However, the hon. member for Houghton is not interested in presenting this House with a balanced picture. She is not interested in presenting both sides of the matter to this House or to the public at large. She is only interested in getting at the police, in destroying their reputation. It is disgraceful. That is all I can say. [Interjections.]

Before we adjourned, I was referring to the necessity for this legislation. I was referring to the fact that the powers which are granted should be sufficient to ward off the dangers threatening South Africa. However, not one of the hon. members opposite argued along these lines. The hon. member for Houghton said that if Black people had political rights, all the problems would be solved. Give the Black people rights and the security problem will be solved. This is more or less what she said. [Interjections.]

The Rabie report was also referred to in this regard, and I also wish to refer to it. The Rabie report states—this has already been quoted a thousand times—that security laws alone cannot solve the security problem. At the end of the chapter concerned the Commission states (par. 7.55)—

The report therefore states that the laws which have to combat the unrest, cannot remove the circumstances which give rise to them. This is, in fact, true. However, the problem of the hon. members on that side of the House is that they think that the only reason for the unrest in South Africa is the fact that Black people do not have sufficient political rights. However, this is as far removed from the truth as one could possibly imagine.

I wish to mention a few other factors which give rise to the unrest in South Africa. Firstly, there is indeed a communist threat to South Africa. There is indeed an effort by the international communist movement to strike a blow here in South Africa, to satisfy its expansionist drive here. I now wish to challenge hon. members on that side to say whether they agree with this or not. Surely there is a communist threat to South Africa, or do those hon. members deny this? [Interjections.]

Mind if I ignore you?

Please do. [Interjections.]

*The second factor which gives rise to unrest in South Africa, is of an historic nature. There is a big socio-economic difference between White people and Black people in South Africa. To use a popular expression, the White people belong in general to the First World and the Black people to the Third World, and one has a clash of these two worlds within the borders of South Africa. This is an historic problem. This is something which today’s generation has inherited, something which will take years, or even decades to solve. That is an important inherent reason for the unrest in South Africa.

Thirdly, there is also the fact that politics is a factor, too, and most certainly an important one. However, surely this Government is in the process of solving this problem. Surely there can be no doubt about this.

When the hon. member for Houghton states that Black people should be given political rights, and all the problems will be solved, she is really saying something else, something which is very important. She is really saying that the people who take action against the security of South Africa, are justified in doing so. Surely this argument means nothing else. It simply means that one is dealing here with justified action against the security forces of South Africa, since the Black people she was talking about have no rights in South Africa. The question is whether the time has not come for the hon. member to be candid with this House. Should she not tell us where she really stands in this regard?

Secondly, by making this statement and putting forward this argument in this House today, she is implying that where political rights exist, there is no unrest. That is not true. All the African countries started off with the most wonderful democratic constitutions, with human rights and everything, but they no longer exist today. There were political rights, but there was also unrest and an overthrow of authority, in spite of the rights that existed. Surely it cannot therefore be argued that the existence of political rights alone is sufficient to solve the problems which eventually culminate in the security situation in South Africa. I want to tell her that her statement in this regard is completely false.

We are dealing here with actions on the part of the State and the powers which the State employs to combat terrorism and related crimes. If one considers the matter from the point of view of the ANC, there can be no doubt that the ANC regards its actions in South Africa as warfare. They talk about “guerrilla warfare” and a “guerrilla war”. Therefore they consider themselves to be fighting a war. Now we have the situation in South Africa that we are fighting these acts of war in the usual way in which other crimes have to be fought. The Defence Force is therefore not being used to eliminate the dangers threatening South Africa. The Police are being used for this purpose. The Defence Force was used in one case in Mozambique to take part in an attack on the ANC, and I am also certain that, if it were to become necessary, the Defence Force would most certainly be used and that the Government would not hesitate to do so if it were in the interests of the country, but the ANC sees its men as a fighting force. They are trained in the use of arms. In many cases, they wear uniforms. They have special equipment. The ANC as an independent body, has representation in many countries—I think they have representation in more than 30 countries. Those men are trained and then they perpetrate acts of terrorism. While one is therefore dealing with an activity which is considered to be an act of war on the part of the ANC, our situation is that in spite of this, we are still combating this activity as one would a normal crime. This is, in fact, what is being done. When such people are brought before the court— this is a very important point—the normal court procedures apply. The normal law of evidence applies as a general rule. The normal way of leading evidence, cross examination, etc. applies—the normal court procedures apply. It is important to emphasize this at this stage.

Another point I should like to refer to briefly is that we have made the question of preventive action an integral part of the powers of the Government. This is a matter we cannot emphasize too strongly. We must take preventive action. If we accept that principle, the question is who must take this preventive action. Should it be the court? The reply to this is: “No, a court cannot take preventive action to avoid a thread to security.” The court cannot do this. Nor can Parliament take preventive action. Consequently it can only be the executive authority, in this case represented by the hon. the Minister of Law and Order and the hon. the Minister of Justice. When a court takes action, there are certain criteria which have to be applied to determine whether a fact does exist. In a criminal case, the court is dealing with a criterion, i.e. beyond reasonable doubt. This is a very rigid criterion which has to apply, i.e. beyond reasonable doubt, and a person can only be found guilty if he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the eyes of the court. In the law of evidence, there are three different criteria in determining the existence of a fact. One could say that something is reasonably certain, or one could say that it is certain on a balance of probabilities. Then one is a little more certain; it is a stronger certainty one has. Or one could say that it is certain beyond reasonable doubt. When a person is brought before the court, he could be found not guilty because his guilt could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. However, if his innocence or guilt is established on a balance of probabilities, he would perhaps be found guilty. The South African courts will never relax those criteria. They will continue to be carried out on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt.

However, when we are dealing with the security of the State, we have to ask the Government to take preventive action. Then the question arises: What criteria should the Government apply in this regard? Should the Minister of Law and Order only act if he is certain beyond reasonable doubt that South Africa is in danger, or should he apply other criteria? Today I wish to suggest that the Minister should act as a good father would to protect his family. This is how the Minister should act to protect the security of the State. No good father, no paterfamilias, would act to protect his family when the family is not being threatened. However, a father would act to protect his family when there is a reasonable possibility that the security or the integrity of his family could be affected. In my opinion, this is the task of the hon. the Minister when he is taking preventive action. When he is taking preventive action, he is not punishing anyone. This is a very important point and I wish to emphasize it. Preventive action may be inconvenient and extremely unpleasant for those affected, but the intention is not to punish.

That is the effect it has.

The intention is not to punish; the intention is to prevent a particular security intervention which could be to the detriment of all, and perhaps to the perpetual detriment of all the people of South Africa. This is the criterion which should be applied in this regard.

The hon. member for Pinetown wished to put a question to me just now. I now give him the opportunity of putting his question. [Interjections.] Since there is no reaction, I should like to ask the hon. member for Pinetown to do something. If in future he wishes to put a question to me, he should ask an important question, a question which he will not forget.

I wish to conclude by referring to the question of a state of emergency. It is being argued that steps are being taken here which are the equivalent of those taken in an emergency situation, while no emergency situation has been declared. The argument we hear so frequently, is that if we want these powers, we should declare a state of emergency. We should now ask ourselves: when the members of the Opposition argue in this way, are they really arguing from the point of view of what is in the best interests of South Africa? Surely there can be no doubt about the fact that the declaration of a state of emergency is not in the interests of South Africa, certainly not in view of its expansion possibilities, investment in South Africa, the growth of business undertakings, etc. It cannot be in the interests of South Africa if a state of emergency is declared. That is why when dangers have threatened us over the years, the Government has taken the standpoint that it should have limited powers to combat these dangers without it being necessary to delcare a state of emergency. I think this is a standpoint which is in the interests of all the people in South Africa. The Rabie Commission puts it as follows in paragrah 7.51—

I get the impression that the hon. speakers of the Opposition would like a state of emergency to be declared in South Africa, since this could then be considered to be an indictment against the Government. However, it is far more than that; it is also to the detriment of South Africa. I wish to say to the hon. the Minister that South Africa sees the Minister of Law and Order as the paterfamilias whose task and duty it is to look after the security of the country just as a good father looks after the security and integrity of his family.

Mr. Speaker, to start with I want to say that the CP supports this legislation.

Be careful. You people are making a big mistake.

I just want to explain that we are entering the debate at this late stage because we were kind enough to accommodate the main speaker of the NRP who had to go elsewhere. However, it seems to me as though they also welcomed this in another sense, because it gave them the chance, earlier in the debate to join their kindred spirits, the PFP, in opposing the Bill.

This Bill is the third of the three the hon. the Minister of Law and Order has placed before this House during the past few days. It is obvious to me that this Bill at present before us is the most important of the three. It was most interesting that the resistance of the Opposition to these three Bills escalated as we approached the discussion of this Bill, from immediate opposition to opposition “this day six months”. The fact that the PFP opposes this Bill indicates that what is of primary importance to them is not the principle which is at stake here, but a series of side-issues. When one assesses this Bill, it is important to consider for a moment the philosophy underlying the principle of this specific Bill.

To start with, I want to say that internal security is not an isolated matter, which stands on its own. It is something which covers a wide field and affects a whole series of matters. In other words, it is not an isolated matter, but a matter with far-reaching repercussions. This legislation is concerned with internal security and an orderly State and community, which is of real importance for maintaining good order in the State and in the community, of real importance, too, for maintaining discipline within the State and community and for preserving peace within the State and community. It is also concerned with maintaining stability within the State and the community and the promotion of development and growth in many respects within the State and community. When I say this, surely the Republic of South Africa is no exception. As a matter of fact, in this multinational country on which the greedy eyes of the communistic world are fixed, on which the greedy gaze of communist organizations is focused …

What about the total onslaught?

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the hon. member for Parys is unfavourably disposed to my supporting and defending this Bill. [Interjections.] I said the greedy eyes of communist and communist-orientated organizations that are fixed on South Africa, and the acts of attempted sabotage by terrorists are what make this Bill of great importance to the Republic of South Africa. This Bill seeks to afford and promote protection, and I want to add that one must do this at all costs in the interests of the State and the community. The threat to the internal security of the Republic of South Africa is no illusion. The report of the Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice designate, Mr. Justice Rabie, spelt this out for us very clearly. I cannot understand how anyone reading this report and being convinced of the reality of the threat of these organizations and persons against the Republic of South Africa, can still argue that this report is incomplete and find fault with the report on this basis and say: It is unacceptable to me because it is incomplete. I think what has been spelt out here is sufficient to show us that we are facing a real threat which has to be combated. This legislation is of the greatest importance for the purpose of combating this threat. The findings of the Rabie Commission were based on facts obtained in the course of a very thorough investigation and the conclusions they arrived at and the recommendations they made are also of real importance to us. This Bill stemmed from and was the direct result of this investigation. It is important for this legislation to co-ordinate these matters so that we can use one piece of legislation to combat this threat. Whoever opposes the Bill in principle or fails to appreciate the principle of the Bill itself, is not taking the realities of the threat into account. The fact of the matter is that the threat is real and if one accepts this one realizes that something definite has to be done about it. I cannot accept that a threat is real and then do nothing about it. After all, we are all aware of this—and it was pointed out in this report …

A moment ago you said it was a hackneyed story.

If the hon. member for Hercules would just reason things out for himself and leave me alone for a moment, I shall be able to put my case. [Interjections.] As usual, he has the wrong end of the stick when he reacts in this House. The case I want to put is this: We have experienced onslaughts, we have experienced acts of sabotage and terrorist attacks. We had these at Silverton, at Pretoria, at Voortrekkerhoogte, at Sasol, at Soekmekaar, etc., and in general we took cognizance of these attacks. We took cognizance of the stirrings of unrest. A spate of literature endangering the security of the State, that has to be banned time and again is nothing new to us. The question is how this threat is to be combated. The directive to the commission was that they should indicate whether legislation on internal security was essential. I do not think there is any doubt that legislation in this connection is absolutely essential. The reality makes it essential. One shudders to think what could have happened if the laws already on the Statute Book to combat these things had not been there.

One is not surprised that the official Opposition opposes the Bill. As a matter of fact we foresaw this. It was to be expected in consequence of their opposition to the two other Bills which were before us during the past few days. However, what did surprise me was that the hon. member for Houghton ultimately ran out of adjectives with which to slate the Bill.

One would have expected the official Opposition, in the first place, to have inquired what principle was at stake, and after they had ascertained that principle to have asked themselves whether the Bill could not be supported in principle. If there were clauses in the Bill which they did not like and would have wished to debate, one would have expected them to debate each of these clauses separately either to improve them or to give another slant to the contents. The fact that they do not even want to accept the principle, that they do not even want to concede that it is essential that such legislation be piloted through Parliament, places a question mark against the behaviour of the official Opposition.

One does not begrudge them their right to criticize and one does not begrudge them their right to object to the specific contents of certain of the clauses, but as far as I am concerned the main question is still whether the Opposition, on perusing and reflecting on the Bill, actually came to ascertain the necessity for the principle which is at stake. If we accept the principle we can debate the contents, the details of specific clauses.

I had occasion to say in this House—I did not say it without being opposed, but I want to repeat it today—that the interests of an orderly State and an orderly community in its entirety are, as far as I am concerned, of greater importance than those of the individual or of a smaller group. If we want to we can say that the State exists for the sake of the individual. But the State never consists of one individual or a few individuals; the State consists of a totality of communities, of a large number of individuals who together form a community, who together form the State. I repeat that as far as I am concerned, the interests of the State and of the greater totality of the community, are greater and of more value than those of the individual. But that does not mean that one is ignoring the rights of the individual.

I also say that in so far as I understand the rule of law, it is not only concerned with the rights of a person or individual, but also the obligations and duties resting on the individual who in terms of this legislation wants to appropriate rights to himself and lay claim to rights. One of the first duties of a citizen who invokes the rule of law and lays claim to rights is to be obedient and to subject himself to the laws introduced for the orderly regulation of the community. That is why I say that the rights of the individual are not above those of the totality of all the individuals in the community. The orderly state and the community as a whole must be protected against that individual or small group of individuals who want to create disorder, chaos and anarchy in a community. The rights of the individual fall within the limits of rules and the law. Beyond those limits his behaviour amounts to licentiousness and leads to disorder.

It is true that whereas the Bill is aimed at threats and violence, it is also concerned with delicate and sensitive matters, because prohibition, restriction and detention are undoubtedly sensitive matters. These are the things which restrict one’s behaviour and movements, and are therefore sensitive and delicate, and for this reason one must handle them with circumspection. However, in contrast, the security of the State and of an orderly society are no less sensitive and delicate. If one opposes prohibition, restriction and detention, one must not do so outside the limits of the security of the State and the community, which of necessity must be protected and promoted.

Prohibition, restriction and detention are drastic measures. They deeply affect the life and existence of the individual. Although we do not deny this, but admit it, I must also add that the conduct of an individual or group of people that threatens the security of the State and affects that of the community, is just as drastic and violent as when the life of the individual is interfered with.

Because the community does not consist of an individual or a small group of individuals, but thousands of people, the result of interference by an offender, a terrorist, in a community is much greater than interference in the life and existence of an individual. It is therefore essential that the authorities, whose responsibility it is, must ensure that the safety of the State and the community is protected against the individual who wants to assail that security by violent or other means. The maintaining of law and order, of stability and peace is the responsibility of the authorities. In this respect, and naturally also in the report and the Bill, it is clear that the task of the authorities in this connection is of a dual nature. In the first place they must try to prevent these things. Their actions must therefore be preventative. After all, the old saying is still true that prevention is better than cure. In this Bill there are a large number of provisions which in my opinion are intended to be of a preventative nature, provisions aimed at trying to prevent the security of the State and of the community from being threatened.

However, when these measures created with the aim of preventing this threat, appear to be insufficient, if they appear to be insufficient in regard to certain people, if they do not deter offenders, I believe it is fit and proper that the State should take action, that the State should even take punitive action. It is clear to me that this Bill meets these requirements. When the State cannot take preventative action because people refuse to listen, the State therefore has the authority to take action and even to take punitive action.

I do not want to single out any particular clauses in this connection. However, I want to point out in general that the prohibition placed by means of this legislation or the provision made in this legislation for a prohibition on certain publications makes this legislation one of the most important pieces of legislation in existence. The security of the State and of the community can be threatened in the most subtle ways and attacked by propaganda material which is in actual fact more than mere propaganda material; which can be seen as instigatory material, which is in reality the match thrown into the powder keg and which creates the atmosphere in which, when the culprit eventually steps forward, it is so much easier for him to commit the offence. That is why I consider this measure to be of the utmost importance, and I also trust that the hon. the Minister will apply this legislation in all respects to every publication originating from the terrorists and which threatens the security of the State and of the orderly community.

I have already referred to the fact that criticism can in fact be levelled at this measure; probably with regard to certain clauses. However, such criticism must always be assessed in the light of the advantages and disadvantages at stake. Criticism as such is not decisive. The person who criticizes is not the one who has the last word. However, the criticism expressed should also be tested against the necessity for legislation of this nature and the responsibility resting on the State to guarantee the security of the State and the community.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Koedoespoort must please forgive me if I do not react directly to his arguments, because he and his party have indicated that they will support this legislation. It seems that with regard to internal security, at least, they are still on the right political course. The hon. member for Koedoespoort said at one stage that they did not want to be associated with the HNP in any way. However, one wonders whether the hon. member should not use his influence and discuss the speech he made this afternoon with the AWB.

Those are your people.

The chief spokesman of the official Opposition this morning condemned this Bill in the strongest possible terms.

We are glad you got the message.

She described it as signalling an undeclared state of emergency, and proposed, as an amendment to the Bill, that it be read “this day six months”. In parliamentary terms this is, of course, very strong language, but having listened to the hon. member’s speech—and I am sure this is also true of the speeches that are going to come from that side of the House—one realizes once again that they are clearly committed to opposing any measure that intends to ensure law and order in South Africa. [Interjections.] The preamble of this Bill clearly indicates the intention and principle of this measure, namely to provide for the security of the State and the maintenance of law and order. That is all that the preamble says, and that, as far as I am concerned, is the principle that we have to debate in this Chamber at this stage. What, however, do we find? We find vehement opposition from the PFP and, to my absolute surprise, from the NRP as well. [Interjections.] Listening to the hon. member for King William’s Town this afternoon, I must say that it was quite clear to me that he had never read the Rabie report. He had heard something about detention and then spent all his time talking about that issue, and that issue alone. Listening to the NRP, one can only say once again that they are simply the remnants of a big old jellyfish. They have never had the guts to take a stand for law and order. [Interjections.]

That is wrong.

Let me tell the hon. member for Durban North that the hon. member for King William’s Town’s predecessor in this House, Mr. Boet van den Heever, always told us in the old United Party days that there was a difference between us and those people. He said one was either for law and order or against law and order. That, he said, was the basic difference. I still think those people are sitting on that very same see-saw, and they will go on sitting there, not taking a stand, whilst all their supporters come to join the NP in the months ahead. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister stated categorically yesterday and this morning that this Government takes full responsibility for the security and welfare of the State, but that the Government must also have the final say about what must be regarded as being a threat to the State and what steps should be taken to counter that. Especially in these days, when this country has to face constitutional reform, it is imperative that a climate for evolutionary change instead of revolutionary change be guaranteed in this country. This is the responsibility of the Government of the day, and this Government will certainly not shy away from that very responsibility.

The hon. member for Houghton talked about “bloodthirsty” members on the Government side. She also said—and in this connection she was correct—that the Government had no intention of retaining these measures unnecessarily, but she questioned the bona fides of the Government’s intentions, questioned whether the Government was honest and straightforward in its intentions. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton one question: Can she tell the House that there has been any reduction whatsoever in the efforts directed by the ANC, the S.A. Communist Party and the PAC against this country since these measures first appeared on the Statute Book of South Africa 30 years ago?

Are you saying the measures did not help?

Effective control was guaranteed by the Government, but the efforts of those people are still there for everybody to see. Nobody should be surprised at the stand taken by the official Opposition. The hon. member for Houghton, representing the old blue-blood Progressive Party, never made any excuses for her opposition to every single measure introduced in this House by this Government to curtail subversion.

No, that is not true.

She confirmed it today.

It concerns the rule of law.

Way back in 1950 Sam Kahn opposed the very measure and accused the Government of “Hitlerian methods” and of “interfering with the democratic processes of the land”. With regard to the contents of that Bill, I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether the democratic processes are still maintained in South Africa today or not. That Bill was introduced 30 years ago and ever since then, on every single measure debated in this House in this connection, the hon. member for Houghton took exactly the same stand over and over again.

I am very consistent.

What about habeas corpus?

I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Yeoville has entered the House.

I am not pleased to see you.

I think he has been quite conspicuous by his absence ever since we started talking about security legislation in this House. [Interjections.] In fact, this morning the hon. member tendered for an opportunity to go home again. [Interjections.]

There is another word which rhymes with “conspicuous” that applies to you.

Sir, the hon. member is really looking for an opportunity to go home.

Subsequent to the stand taken by the hon. member for Houghton over the years, the PFP leaders expressed their so-called “implacable opposition to communism”. Yet they always maintain that the S.A. Communist Party would not be banned under a PFP Government. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether that still stands.

I have always said that any party that preaches violence, including socialism, communism … [Interjections.]

And nationalism.

It is no good the hon. member hiding behind that kind of talk because they have always added the words the hon. member is preaching now, viz. “if the Communist Party showed any tendencies towards subversion, it would be suppressed with all the rigour of the law”. That is what they say. The hon. member for Houghton was subsequently joined by every Dave, Dick and Harry that got on to the band-wagon of the rule of law. We can recall that the demise of the old United Party was mainly due to those very elements who are now sitting with the hon. member for Houghton and who, when the Schlebusch Commission in the early seventies made certain drastic recommendations against certain organizations, sided against law and order. What a fine team: All of them, as they sit on that side of the House, are soft on communism; are not prepared to take a stand for law and order…

That is not true.

… and are not prepared to support measures to curtail subversion, terrorism and sabotage in South Africa. [Interjections.] The original Suppression of Communism Act, Act No. 44 of 1950, subsequently known as the Internal Security Act, was opposed by the then United Party by introducing a totally different Bill. What is interesting however, is that both the Bill of the then Minister of Justice and the Bill of the then official Opposition intended the suppression of communism by law. The UP Bill provided for the dissolution of the S.A. Communist Party and not as the hon. member for Houghton now tries to say. The UP Bill provided that any person propagating the principles of communism was guilty of treason, and they even spoke about the death sentence.

Do not be silly.

Now she says it is silly. She must tell the hon. member for Yeoville because I think he still stands by that argument. The main difference that existed at the time was that the NP legislation had measures vested in the executive authority whilst the UP’s Bill provided for action through the courts of law. But both of those Bills aimed at the suppression of the Communist Party in South Africa by law and not to allow the S.A. Communist Party to operate in South Africa at all.

Why don’t you keep your finger in your mouth?

I do not talk to dandies like you. Yet today the official Opposition says that we should not ban the S.A. Communist Party. I take it they also include the ANC. That is a radical leftist stand that we on this side of the House will not tolerate.

The hon. member for Houghton spoke about objectionable measures and she really went wild as usual. However, what is interesting is that she never mentioned a single word about those very people that the Act is intended for. She only mentioned what the measure tries to do to subvert the actions of those people, but never a word of condemnation of the actions of those people.

I see that the hon. member for Yeoville has already left the House. I do not think that we are very much on speaking terms. However, the hon. member for Hillbrow is here. As he is one of the hon. member for Yeoville’s henchmen I want to ask him whether he still stands by the old UP policy of not allowing the communist party to operate in South Africa, or does he stand by the hon. member for Houghton?

Why should he?

He must tell us. He must tell us because that is one of the main reasons why the hon. member for Yeoville, when we were discussing the Defence Amendment Bill here recently, so very quickly looked for an opportunity to be sent out so that he did not have to vote against the Bill. Today, he is not here again. He was looking for the opportunity to be relieved of his duties so that he did not have to vote against this Bill either. We shall watch to see whether he is or is not here next week. One can understand the dilemma of hon. members of that side of the House. I want now to quote from a report in The Argus of 11 November 1978 when members of the official Opposition had a nice little argument at their congress. The argument was between the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Yeoville. The report states, referring to the PFP National Convention—

I do not know whether she has ever received a reply from the hon. member for Yeoville but I have never heard a reply to her question.

I shall write to him.

The PFP must tell this house how they intend curtailing subversion in South Africa and how they intend dealing with the activities of the ANC and the S.A. Communist Party. I dread to think what the fate of this country would have been had this Government not over the years strictly applied the measures contained in all the relevant security legislation that came to this House. However, in order to maintain a climate of internal security, especially in these days of constitutional reform, it is just as important for politicians not to make irresponsible utterances that could be regarded as racial incitement in this country. Laws and regulations alone will not help us if our attitude is to put a spanner in the works of serious attempts to solve the constitutional issues facing this country. Exploitation of racial prejudice on the one hand and creating distrust in the efforts of the Government on the other hand, will promote subversion and not contribute towards a calm and peaceful atmosphere so badly required in this country.

The Centre for Applied Legal Studies at Witwatersrand University kindly sent us their report on the Rabie Commission’s report. I must say some very funny people attended that meeting.

Were you there?

In their report they make certain deductions which are not reflected in the spirit of the law. I want to quote what they say in that report. They say among other things, the following—

They make this statement as if this Government has no regard for the socio-economic and political aspirations and grievances of the Black people in this country and as if this Government relies purely on harsh security systems of law to govern South Africa. We all know that that is not the intention of the Government. Millions of Black people in South Africa are politically catered for and the very policies of this Government are responsible for that. Blacks in this country, compared with Black Africa, enjoy a much higher socio-economic standard than Black Africa can ever wish for. Obviously, laws alone will not secure the safety and the welfare of this country, but subversive elements must be contained. There must be a balance between curtailing subversion on the one hand and on the other hand creating opportunities for people to express themselves politically and to be uplifted socio-economically in this country. This measure with which we are dealing today can only help to control subversion whilst peaceful negotiations are in progress. We have relative peace and political stability in this country. The image of a country where law and order are maintained makes this country one of the most attractive in the world for foreign investment. Only by maintaining this attraction can we enhance the socio-economic improvement of all our peoples. But we cannot tolerate subversive action which will create chaos and anarchy in this country. Every responsible and patriotic South African knows that there are acts of terrorism, subversion and sabotage being committed or attempted in this country. We all know that these activities are planned and committed by organizations which have only one object in mind, namely the destruction of South Africa. These elements are morally, financially and militarily supported by the communist world. We had the evidence the other day by a Black woman who for many years of her life was a member of the ANC who gave evidence at the United Nations and stated categorically that the ANC— which she always thought was a liberation movement for the Black people in South Africa—was now fully under the control of the South African Communist Party. We have also had the statement by Dr. Chester Crocker of the United States and I should like to quote what he said on 22 March 1982. Dr. Crocker said—

Dr. Crocker went on to say—

However, the PFP, the official Opposition in South Africa wants, so it says, to defuse the ANC and the South African Communist Party by involving them in the democratic processes of South Africa. How naïve! They want to invite them to a national convention to talk to us about the future of South Africa.

Not while they stand for violence.

The hon. member says: Not while they stand for violence. How naive can they get! That hon. member is a man who knows something about the law. He must not indulge in semantics.

He knows very little.

It may be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, …

May I ask a question?

No, Sir, I am almost finished.

Are you opposed to talks with Swapo in Geneva?

It may be appropriate to remind this hon. House why a man like Nelson Mandela was sent to gaol. He was found guilty in a court of law of recruiting South Africans to be trained for acts of violence and destruction and guerrilla warfare in order to create a revolution in South Africa. That is my answer to the hon. member for Pinetown. This is what this man was convicted of doing by a court of law but that hon. member and his party want to invite Nelson Mandela to sit around a table with them to negotiate the future of this country. Documents prove that the S.A. Communist Party was described as the leader of the Liberation Movement and the ANC as the spearhead.

Those hon. members do not want to listen to the police in South Africa. They say that the police, the magistrates and the judges—I do not know whether the hon. member for Johannesburg North agrees with them—are all part of the system. However, we on this side of the House are quite prepared to listen to the statements made by people in authority as far as the security of this country is concerned.

*I have here an article which appeard in Die Burger of yesterday, in which Lieutenant-General J. C. Coetzee, Head of the Security Police in South Africa, says the following—

Lieutenant-General Coetzee goes on to say—

† Therefore, Sir, the point I wish to make in the final minutes available to me is that we are dealing here not with freedomfighters or with an African Liberation Movement. We are dealing with communism as it is found nowhere else in the world. When one reads the Rabie report, one finds it scientifically, objectively and responsibly identifying the threat against South Africa, and it recommends present and additional measures to curtail subversion in South Africa, but still we experience the utmost disregard of the PFP about the dangers facing this country.

The aim of communism—we do not have to tell each other this—is the destruction of the Free World’s way of life and also that of the Republic of South Africa. The world as a whole is facing a communist onslaught, and the world as a whole will have to deter communism, otherwise there will be nowhere for us to go. The view of the PFP “if the Communist Party shows any tendency towards subversion, it will be suppressed with all the rigour of the law”, is absolutely laughable. Wherever the communist doctrine was allowed even the slightest chance in the world, one knows what happened. One can go and have a look in El Salvador, one can go and have a look in Poland, one can go and have a look at Afghanistan; everywhere one can see the result which follows a toleration of those people.

Southern Africa faces the ANC. Southern Africa faces Swapo. We, however, will not allow any possible progress of those people. The Government which is responsible for the security of the State and of our people, must deal with what I should like to call “subversive warfare in Southern Africa” which is aimed at breaking down the will of our people to resist. It is also aimed at creating chaos and breaking down law and order in this country. This includes communist infiltration of the trade unions, of the media, of the churches, of the universities and I am sure also public bodies if they can possibly do that. The Government has taken on the challenge of communism. We have done that with great success over a number of years.

The question remains, however, whether one can fight subversion purely as a criminal offence through the courts of law, or whether we should handle subversion directly as an act of aggression. Normal common law rules are just not sufficient to fight a subversive war which is far more dangerous than the conventional war which we are facing on our boundaries. The rule of law means nothing to those who do not have respect for the rule of law. The rule of law, when it comes from hon. members on that side and especially from the hon. member for Hillbrow, is something else. The experience which I had with the hon. member when he had the opportunity to implement the rule of law, is another story.

What did I do? [Interjections.]

I think I have another two minutes at my disposal and perhaps I should tell the House. The hon. member for Hillbrow was once appointed by the hon. member for Yeoville to kick me out of the United Party.

One of the best things he ever did.

What did he do? He gathered around him every single Young Turk who was a lawyer or an advocate to sit there with him. The only decent one was Mr. Dan Neser who is now no longer a member of that party. He tried to be objective. The hon. member for Hillbrow should never talk about the rule of law. [Interjections.] The hon. member was a persecutor of the best order one can find in South Africa. Perhaps the hon. member for Houghton, when she visits Moscow shortly, will come to realize that the rule of law means absolutely nothing to a communist.

Therefore I have the greatest pleasure to support the hon. the Minister and to wish him well with a very good Bill which I think will be to the benefit of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the influence of the United Party has actually been an interesting theme of this debate. I am sorry that the CP has no former UP members among them, but perhaps the hon. member for Simonstown will soon join them. [Interjections.] I think it is a party that has greatly enriched the life of this House, and I find it very interesting that reference should have been made to that party by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, and now by the hon. member for Turffontein and various other speakers in this debate. I believe, however, that I should mention one thing to the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, and that is that the UP had nothing to do with Biscon. I know that that was one of that hon. member’s little babies, as it were. [Interjections.] But where is it now? It is a Bill that has disappeared. It was merely consigned to dusty shelves, and my party would have nothing to do with it at that time. I think we should remember that.

The hon. member for Turffontein raised various questions. From this party’s point of view, the whole position in regard to communism is quite clear. At the Rivonia trial the Communist Party was found guilty on four counts of violence and our view is that any political party that is committed to violence is unacceptable and should not be allowed to operate freely in South Africa. We will deal with the following point in the Committee Stage, but the definition of communism that the hon. the Minister has included in this Bill, is the sort of doctrine which the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries would heartily support as he is a supporter of the co-operative movement. If ever there was a socialist or a collective attitude to ownership, it is in the co-operative movement in which certain Afrikaans cultural organizations have a major influence. [Interjections.]

I should like now to refer to paragraph 7.3.9 of the Rabie Commission’s report. As a purely technical commission, looking at a very limited field, the Rabie Commission certainly did a reasonable job. The interesting thing is that hon. members opposite like to talk about judges submitting commission reports, but the Steyn Commission report that was submitted by another judge, has not been received with the same degree of support and praise as this one has been received. Of course, it does not matter which judge does it; it is whether the report agrees with the political convictions of the Government or not. What does Mr. Justice Rabie say in this paragraph? He says—

”This is actually what this debate is all about. If many hon. members on both sides of the House were to be honest with themselves, they would admit that they were worried about this debate. How do we maintain the balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the State or the community? These, Sir, are known as human rights, because in actual fact, Sir, they are concerned with the attitude of the individual towards the State and vice versa.

Oom Kowie, why don’t you correct the young man? [Interjections.]

The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt comes from a Calvinist institution, and he should know what the rights of the individual are. [Interjections.] I am speaking now! [Interjections.] The point is that the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt comes from an institution with a very strong tradition of human rights. The students of the institution which the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt comes from are in fact becoming the conscience of the Afrikaans-speaking people in this country at the moment, because they come from a conservative, Calvinist, Christian background. Strangely enough, the hon. the Minister himself is the MP for that particular constituency. [Interjections.] What people with a sense of justice should actually be worried about is the question of how to solve this problem of the rights of the individual as opposed to those of the State. This is an essential problem. This is, in fact, what our standpoint in this debate is all about.

† The hon. the Minister, during a discussion on previous legislation, raised, for example the problem of demonstrations in and around court buildings. In Pietermaritzburg we had perhaps the most radical example of this, when a group of ANC accused, appearing before Mr. Justice Hefer, refused to acknowledge the authority of the court. That is, of course, an interesting phenomenon in South Africa. Virtually until that incident the accused in most of the security trials were prepared to respect the jurisdiction of the courts because our courts still command a very high measure of respect on account of their courageous traditions. In that specific case, however, we had a clear example of this very problem. Those individuals regarded the State to be illegitimate. That was their argument. I do not necessarily agree with them. [Interjections.] The point is that they said that because they had no part in the State, no involvement in the State, they did not owe any loyalty to its laws. In constitutional terms this is called the question of legitimacy. A government, or a law, or a parliament, or a constitution has to have legitimacy in the eyes of its people. That is also the concept of the Christian view of the rights of the individual, that it must be reciprocal. If one looks at the whole concept against the background of various passages in the Bible, it is clear that there is always a reciprocal responsibility; in other words: If you do this, I shall do that.

Obviously you do not know anything about the Bible!

Well, I do not want to become involved in a sermon now. [Interjections.] That phenomenon can become the critical issue, however. Mr. Justice Rabie clearly understands that problem. He does not try to deal with it. He does not try to debate it. He does, however, mention the fact that the problem with security legislation lies in balancing these two issues.

The hon. member for Turffontein, I notice, is not in the House now. That hon. member talks about the rule of law. What happens to those ANC accused in the Pietermaritzburg trial, however, is that they do not regard it as the rule of law, but instead as a rule by law, because, in their view, the law is illegitimate. It is of course a standard communist practice to try to establish that a State is illegal. They often refer to an illegal régime. That is their point of view. Their concept of illegality derives from the concept of human appointment. This is really the critical issue—the issue of the individual and the State. This is where our party differs fundamentally with the Government.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort expressed such strong views on the rule of the State over the individual. It would be interesting to know what his reaction is going to be if he and his party ask permission of the Chief Magistrate of Pretoria for an open-air meeting on Church Square to protest against the President’s Council’s recommendations for an executive president.

And if it is turned down!

He will give it! [Interjections.]

Oh, will he give his permission? Well, I think we must remember that, because that might not happen. [Interjections.] Then that hon. member will discover that the State is, in fact, not all that important in those circumstances. I believe that those hon. members have been discovering a number of interesting aspects of parliamentary government which they had perhaps not appreciated before.

Hear, hear!

This principle difference is, I believe, one that we have to face. Hon. members have asked us what our solution is.

Well, tell us.

We believe that there are two principles that should be upheld. The one is the principle of habeas corpus, and that is that an individual cannot be detained without going before a court of law. Secondly, there should be a declared state of emergency so that society can know that there is an abnormal situation developing. Those are the two principles on which the problem of the security of the State should be approached. We do not dispute the fact that it is a difficult problem, nor do we dispute the fact that this is a very difficult country to rule. We appreciate the fact—if one wants to use nautical terms—that we have to run a very tight ship in South Africa if there is going to be a process of real reform, and I believe that the hon. the Minister actually recognizes that. In his speech the hon. the Minister made it quite clear that he regarded this legislation as a temporary issue, shall we say as an unfortunate necessity. One might say—although I am sure the hon. the Minister would not like this description—that he is slightly embarrassed, because he comes out of a tradition of attorneys, where legal rights are prevalent. This sort of legislation, however, is something that South Africans ought to be embarrassed about. The hon. the Minister has said that he sees it as temporary. In his speech this morning he has made his position quite clear by stating that the purpose of this legislation is—

So the hon. the Minister appreciates that point. We would agree, of course, that if there is going to be a process of reform, one obviously has to have order whilst that is taking place.

There is, however, a second point in the Rabie Commission’s report that I want to deal with. This also relates to Chapter 7, and I refer hon. members to paragraph 7.22 on page 86. Here reference is being made to what certain people in the Black community say, and I quote—

Judge Rabie does not deal at all with the question of reform. He only deals with this statement by Black leaders that in the absence of reform there is going to be violence. All these innuendoes and suggestions by people like the hon. member for Turffontein are, in the words of another judge, Judge Erasmus, like “duck’s water off our backs”. [Interjections.] We just do not accept that sort of nonsense. The hon. members opposite have stopped recently, but they have always tended to try to make out that we go along with violence, but any political party that is committed to democratic, constitutional change cannot possibly support violence, because it is implicit in our attitude that one cannot have a breakdown of law and order, or let us rather call it order, because the term “law and order” has a bad connotation. So we clearly have to have public order if we are going to have change. That is why it does not fuss us at all when the hon. members opposite start with all their allegations, because we stand as a democratic party.

The crucial issue in South Africa, as I see it and as the hon. the Minister implies in his speech, is the question of reform. Judge Rabie gave us the background to some of the major political forces. The S.A. Communist Party was the first one he mentioned. The hon. member for Turffontein raised this as well. We have the Communist Party with us everywhere in the world, but the Communist Party is most often a pathetic little fringe group of people who can have no influence in a healthy society. One will always have them. The communists throughout the world have had some very serious setbacks. There have been some great achievements on the part of Western democracy in Portugal, Spain and Greece, to mention only three countries in Europe. Anybody who makes an objective assessment of communism will also realize that in Africa it is very ineffectual.

Would you allow the Communist Party in South Africa?

If that hon. member had listened to the first part of my speech, he would have known that I have dealt with that.

Just say yes or no. [Interjections.]

The second party is the ANC. The ANC has existed in this country for 70 years. Of course it has links with the S.A. Communist Party—nobody denies that. That is precisely why the PAC left them. To suggest, however, that the ANC is a communist party is, I believe, to make a serious error of judgment, since it has widespread support, because of its historical association, amongst many people who are definitely not communists. I believe that at the moment, because they are opposed, in their view, to the present South African situation, they have all sorts of people climbing onto the band-wagon, just as the French Resistance Movement during World War 2 had many communists involved in it. In fact, General De Gaulle moved very quickly at the end of that war to outmanoeuvre them. That is therefore not at issue.

Then the PAC, which is not communist at all, raises certain interesting issues. This is interesting with reference to the question of reform, because on page 66 in paragraph 6.108 the Rabie Commission says—

Then, in paragraph 6.110 on the same page—it is important to remember the dates here—the commission says—

Just over a year after it was banned, it started with a process of violence. If members in the House found that the political home with which they agreed, was banned, I venture to suggest that many of the members of that political party, whatever it might be, would consider violence because of the fact that their constitutional rights to express dissent had been attacked. I believe that there are many people in the ANC and the PAC— I am not now talking about the S.A. Communist Party because they obviously have a revolutionary pre-commitment as part of their doctrine—who are basically African nationalists and who have eventually resorted to violence in a final effort to get change, as they see it, in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister of Law and Order and his officials understand that very well. They know what powerful popular support these people enjoy. Even when Robert Sobukwe was nearly dying of cancer and came to Cape Town to get medical treatment, he was followed like a hawk because the police and the Government were terrified of the popular support that man enjoyed.

You are talking nonsense.

That is true. I was there.

Why is Mrs. Winnie Mandela kept in the middle of the Free State in Brandfort? The reason is that she is seen as having wide support and having a strong influence in Soweto. I believe that if any hon. member opposite takes the trouble to go and take the political temperature on the Cape Flats of the Peninsula he will be very surprised to discover the extent of support for the ANC among the Coloured community. There people have seen their own people shot dead in the streets.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. the Minister raised the question of reform and we welcome that. I want to make that quite clear. To me the most pleasant part of the speech was the fact that he accepts the principle of there being reform. In reply to those hon. members who say that we must say what our view is, I want to say that we believe that this commitment to reform and the concept that these security laws are temporary must be spelt out. It is no good the hon. member for Turffontein talking absolute nonsense about the Black political problems having been resolved, because that is not true. The real issue is to find political solutions. If the Government framed a document of intent—and I see one of the President’s Council recommendations talks about a document of intent—and they said that these were their intentions, this was how they were going to change and move and this was where they would like to go, then I venture to suggest that the Government would find a very different attitude from this side of the House in regard to security legislation. Then one could take seriously the hon. the Minister’s reservations about the fact that this legislation is not going to be permanent but that it is to be temporary. No real reform is yet visible in terms of dealing with the issues which this very Bill is going to deal with. Our view is that if the Government had taken the advice of another judge, for example, Judge Fagan, this kind of Bill would not have been necessary. I was four years old when the NP came into power and I have lived only under a NP Government.

And you have not grown up since!

When one looks at the Schedule at the end of this Bill one can see all the Acts that were introduced steadily over the years in order to control the whole problem of security. Why? Because of apartheid. That is why these Acts were introduced. [Interjections.] We believe that if we had a healthy society in South Africa we would not need this kind of Bill and the hon. the Minister acknowledges that. That is why he says we have got to have a shield for reform. That is what he is talking about. He also regards this sort of legislation as being temporary. Therefore the hon. the Minister himself recognizes the fact that we have an unhealthy society. Until we see real reform we cannot really support this measure.

In association with what I have just said, I also want to deal with the question of prevention. I think it was the hon. member for Pretoria Central who raised this matter. He spoke about “voorkoming”. How does one deal with situations beforehand? This also comes with a healthy society. In a normal democracy one does not anticipate constant problems in regard to civil unrest and security. One does not need preventative actions. What one needs to be able to do is to handle things normally and if the situation becomes serious one implements a ban on assemblies in a particular area or, if it is really serious, one declares a state of emergency as Dr. Verwoerd had to do in the early ’sixties. [Interjections.] Then, if necessary, one comes back to Parliament and has the state of emergency extended. We cannot accept this argument of prevention because that is the finest argument for a state of oppression. One does not need prevention if there is not a sense of oppression among the ordinary populace. We can see this in so many ways. We have a virtually permanent state of emergency in this country. We do not have the right to assembly.

There are many other laws such as the defence laws, the national key-point laws and the national procurement laws. All these Acts are the kind of Acts of a society under siege. I believe this House must not forget that we have all those laws on our Statute Book. We are living in an abnormal society where one has to build police stations which are like forts. In the old days a police station had a “stoep” outside and one could just walk in and say “hello” to the local sergeant. Police stations used to be friendly open places, but now we find a guard standing at the gate. That is not a pleasant thing.

In the old days we did not have the Progs.

We cannot support this kind of legislation until we are convinced that there is real reform. Had we felt that this legislation was a process of reform with an intent in mind, then we would have viewed it very differently. Unfortunately, however, this Bill is merely following a process which is unacceptable to us.

Finally, I want to raise the question of the people who are going to implement this legislation, namely our security police. It is my contention that our security police are not really very good. Two political murders, on Drs. Rick Turner and Robert Smit, remain unsolved as yet. These were two political assassinations and so far we have no idea what happened there. The hon. the Minister cannot tell me that the motive for the murder of Dr. Robert Smit and his wife was robbery. It was a political murder of some kind. The same applies to Dr. Turner’s murder.

That is an absolutely irresponsible statement.

Those murders should be solved.

May I ask the hon. member a question? What does the hon. member imply by referring to the Smit murder and the Turner murder as political murders?

What was it?

The hon. the Minister knows perfectly well that Dr. Smit was a candidate in a political election and as far as one can see there was no other reason for his murder other than a political one. If the hon. the Minister has other evidence, why does he not bring it to the House? [Interjections.] Not only that, there is also the question of deaths in detention.

May I ask the hon. member another question?

No, I have only two minutes left and the hon. the Minister has as much time as he wants.

I’ll come back to you.

Interrogate him!

There have been more than 40 deaths in detention under the security laws. Hopefully the changes envisaged by the Bill under discussion will help to prevent that kind of thing. It was only after a major row about the death of Biko that deaths in detention stopped and I believe that is a very worrying aspect. I have not got sufficient time to go into the question of the death of Mzuli’s death which I wanted to deal with.

Are you implying that these were also political murders?

Another aspect is the question of the Soweto riots. The security police and the then Boss did not even know Soweto was going to explode. We were trying to get messages through to Minister M. C. Botha who was the Minister at the time to tell him that Soweto was a powder-keg which was going to explode. However, they said it was all right; it was all fine. How good are our security services if they are not able to inform the Minister of Law and Order so that he can know what is going on?

You are too big for your boots. You are a real little “pipsqueak”.

Not only that, it is also a question of how those riots were handled. What happened afterwards was that hundreds of people were shot dead. I do not think that is a sensible way of handling riots. Most of the people who were shot were unarmed. They had only stones and sticks. Six hundred people were shot dead under those circumstances, and something like that is a matter of grave concern. One is not only worried about the security legislation itself but also about the competence of some of the people who are actually administering and are responsible for dealing with these sort of issues.

We have also had another matter which I do not intend raising because it has been ruled sub judice but this sort of situation concerns us. I believe laws such as this put an ordinary policeman who is trying to do his job, in a very difficult situation because he is given powers and rights over individuals which no man except an angel in heaven could administer properly. Any human being—I include myself in this—who has those sort of powers over people is tempted to abuse those powers, often in a bona fide way, in a desire to find what he believes is information which he ought to have. I support the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I am entering the debate at a stage at which it has assumed a certain pattern. I recall that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North spoke in the defence debate as well, and it was my doubtful privilege to speak after the hon. member. The hon. member started on a calmer note today. He even admitted that at the Rivonia trial the S.A. Communist Party had proved itself to be committed to violence in South Africa, and therefore the hon. member said that it was not acceptable. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North began by attacking the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt about his Calvinist institution. It made me wonder whether the hon. member does not also belong in an institution from time to time. There are such institutions where one can sometimes be brought to one’s senses again. Perhaps we should give the hon. member that advice.

As usual, the hon. member blames apartheid for everything that happens in South Africa as far as undermining or sabotage is concerned. This has become an old refrain behind which the hon. members of the PFP have hidden for too long.

The hon. member also dealt with communism and the Communist Party throughout the world, in a way which made it sound to me as if he was speaking about a Sunday school team. I gained the impression that the hon. member was trying to advocate that we should not really see the communist as a danger or as an enemy of the South African community. The hon. member said that they made very little impression; and that to tell the truth, they have had many set-backs. I am amazed at this, because that hon. member is also better informed from time to time. That hon. member knows what the aims of international communism are as far as South Africa and Africa as such are concerned.

It is amazing that an hon. member who clearly has a reasonably good brain and some political instinct can become so bitter in a debate such as this. Why introduce an offensive argument into debates such as this, a debate which ought to be conducted at a high level? Why bring in the Smit murders and then go on to label them as political murders? Why bring them into a debate such as this? Does the hon. member think that unsolved murders do not occur in other countries as well? Should only the two committed in South Africa which he selected, have been solved? I think it is totally irresponsible to say that those that have indeed been solved or are solved, from day to day, do not really count. If a young girl is strangled in Wellington and someone is arrested in connection with the crime, or if any other murder is committed and it is solved, then that does not count.

The hon. member also dragged a sensitive matter into this debate. He mentioned the riots in Soweto. Who likes to shoot people? Can that hon. member point a finger today and say that the S.A. Police are so blood thirsty that they will summarily shoot and kill people? What is the impression he creates? What is he saying? He says that after all, these people were unarmed. That is what he says. What are we to infer from that? That the police of South Africa have sunk to the level at which they indiscriminately shoot and kill unarmed people. The hon. member says this, knowing what the circumstances were: Burning buses, schools and other buildings that had been burnt down and destroyed, a doctor—I think his name was …

Edelstein.

Yes, that is right. He had to forfeit his life for people among whom he had worked and for whom he had done only good. However, these people are the little angels. I think the hon. member could have made a positive contribution.

I do not object to the hon. member’s analysis of some of the statements by the commission. To tell the truth, I have great sympathy, because it is stated there and it is factual. The hon. member introduced this in the context of his party’s approach to these matters. We do not object to that, although we differ. However, when sensitive matters such as those I have just referred to are at issue, it is unnecessary always to drag them in and make a political football out of them so that they may once again—surely we know this—be raked up abroad and by the English-language Press, with the result that such matters never die down. I shall leave the hon. member at that. I hope that some of the other hon. members in that party, if they enter the debate at a later stage, will conduct the debate from that angle at a higher level than it has been conducted thus far.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Koedoespoort is not present at the moment. It was so pleasant listening to the hon. member; he discussed the security legislation so quietly today that I almost longed for the old days when we could still speak to one another. After all, we have neighbouring constituencies. When the hon. member was still an MPC, they played a trick on him by bringing Sybrand in there instead of giving him promotion. At that time we were able.to have enjoyable discussions about these matters. We gossiped a little in between as well, but that was our affair. I enjoyed sitting listening to him today. I want to felicitate him on his speech.

When the hon. member analysed the “rule of law” so earnestly and said that they were rights, but also obligations, for all our people, I thought: What about the Jews in the country? Perhaps in the meantime the hon. member should go and speak to some of his other fellow travellers and kindred spirits again.

Koos, you are cheap. [Interjections.]

When the hon. member said that we should have good, sound security legislation, that we should have a total framework, because there are onslaughts by the powers of darkness against South Africa, I wondered; what about the hon. member for Jeppe. Does the hon. member for Jeppe now believe that there is a total onslaught on South Africa and that it is not being exaggerated? This is of the utmost importance for the purposes of future debate, because we shall not be able to speak ambiguously about security matters. We shall not be able to play around with terminology. We shall have to admit that we are patriotic and that we accept the total onslaught. We shall have to say that we are prepared to fight it together. If this happens, then we and the new party and all parties that really put South Africa and the security of South Africa first will be able to co-operate.

There is just one more thing I want to say to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg. I consulted an authority in this House about the question of Calvinism. The hon. authority of Calvinism says that I must convey to the hon. member that as far as religious matters are concerned, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg should also confer with the hon. member for Pinelands, to see whether they are ad idem about Calvinism and Calvinistic viewpoints. These are lofty matters and I do not understand everything, but I was given to understand that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North has no rights on earth. According to Calvin one only has privileges. If that is true, then the hon. member must bear in mind that he does not have many rights in this House either. In fact he only has privileges here, and he should not abuse them.

I knew that by the time I could participate in the debate, everything would have been dealt with ad nauseam, and accordingly I decided to approach the matter from a different angle. I tried to determine what the basis, the relationship or philosophy was on which the State introduced security legislation, and I came across something which I had also had to learn at university, something which I really struggled with, because to me it was Greek, although in fact it was Latin. Among other things, I encountered the following adage: Salus reipublicae suprema lex. This saying was known before Caesar’s time, but it is still true today. It is still true today that the salvation of the State is the highest law.

What does this mean? And who is to ensure it? I do not believe there is any hon. member opposite who would argue with me when I say that the Government of the day in the State must see to it that that highest law exists and that it must be given effect to. I believe that in South Africa the philosophy behind security legislation is broader than that reflected in this adage, because one could say today that the security of all the people within the borders of the State, as well as the safety of their property, is the highest duty of the State. Therefore the State must ensure this.

This concept goes too far to apply to Caesar’s time, because it means that the foreigner in South Africa is also protected today by the security legislation of the State. In Caesar’s lifetime, on the other hand, it was still the time of slaves, and a foreigner was never sure whether he could leave the country, or even whether he would have to stay there under compulsion.

The hon. member referred to two maxims, viz. the rule of law and the habeas corpus. However, I believe that we can accommodate both on condition that we recognize that the security of the community may not be endangered by the individual because the community is the highest group and the individual only forms part of that group. I do not believe that the hon. member can differ with me in that regard.

Unfortunately it is true that that party—I think another hon. member has also referred to this—has never, since it was established, voted in favour of security legislation for South Africa; they have always only voted against it. The problem is that the chief spokesman of the party, the hon. member for Houghton, always brands security legislation as Draconian, despite the fact that she, too, is protected thereby, let me just mention an example. When shots were fired at the hon. member for Sea Point, and when the library of the hon. the leader of the PFP burnt down, it was amazing to read the newspaper reports. The English-language Press even went so far as to say that sabotage from the left was always singled out, and that it was now also time to tackle sabotage from the right. We all agree with that. We were all pleased when the man who shot at the hon. member for Sea Point was caught, because that is in accordance with our security legislation. However, I just wish to stress in this regard that this applies to everyone.

Those are normal police duties.

Yes, because the security legislation is implemented by the police from day to day. [Interjections.] One asks oneself why some of the PFP leaders are always against the police? Why are they always anti-SAP? Why is that party always opposed to security legislation? I want to give hon. members an example of this, on the basis of what the hon. member for Berea said last night. The hon. member states that as far as intimidation is concerned he agrees with the principle of the legislation. That was when we discussed the Bill on intimidation here yesterday. The hon. member said that he agreed with the principle of the legislation.

Yes, but!

The hon. member for Berea had the following to say about this, among other things—

Therefore what the hon. member for Berea says is that he and his party regard the piece of legislation concerned as basically good. He also tells us that this is a new offence that is being created. Nevertheless he says that we all agree with it. Later, however, when he deals more specifically with the details, he says—

That is all. However, what does one expect of a responsible man? One surely expects the orderly procedure which has been established over the years to be followed in this regard as well, which would mean that the PFP would then vote in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill because they had no fault to find with the principle. However, what happened? In the normal course the hon. member would then have given an indication during the Committee Stage that he was opposed to this specific clause, and that he would therefore propose that it be amended. He could then also have clearly intimated that he would vote against it if his amendment was rejected. However. I gain the impression that the hon. member would like to do so, but that he may not do so.

It is Houghton! [Interjections.]

It seems to me as if the hon. member merely carried out his instructions.

But there is one thing that troubles me. I sometimes wonder whether individual hon. members of the PFP, even the hon. member for Yeoville, always receive their instructions from the ranks of their own party or whether they do not perhaps receive instructions from outside.

Such as what? [Interjections.]

These are things that trouble one.

Such as what?

I shall tell the hon. Chief Whip of the PFP what I suspect in a moment. I suspect that there are people who do not or may not vote for those hon. members but who are nevertheless in a position to give them instructions.

Such as who?

I think the hon. member for Groote Schuur must consider this. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Groote Schuur were to take part in this debate today and tell me clearly: “I do not receive any instructions from others”, then we could take the discussion further.

I do not know what you mean by that.

I just want the hon. member to reflect a little first. [Interjections.] This new legislation is there specifically in order to assist the police to ensure the security of the State. However, what troubles me is that we keep appointing new commissions on which politicans serve, but the PFP consistently refuse to accept the findings of the commission. Time and again they call for a judicial enquiry. If the Government institutes a judicial inquiry, however, they are not satisfied with that either. Do hon. members know what the hon. member for Houghton says? Having said a few ugly things, she went on to say, inter alia: “But the commission leant very heavily on the information and evidence of the police.” I really believe that this is deplorable. On page 250 of the report of the Rabie Commission we find the names of people who gave oral evidence before the commission. Those people included, inter alia, the headmaster of a Coloured school at Eersterus—that happens to be a place in my constituency—and Mr. Thebehali, Mr. Ngo, the Rev. Mgujulwa and others; all well-known people. Now, however, the emphasis is being placed on the role of the police—deliberately, of course. After all, we know that the issue here is security, and the police are the people who can submit the most expert evidence in this regard—or does the hon. member wish to intimate that the police are so singleminded, so obsessed with prosecution, that they will want a piece of legislation to be passed which will enable them to prosecute people even more, or, as I think the hon. member would have liked to say, to make the prisons even fuller? Surely that is not so. Surely that is the wrong label to hang around the neck of the South African Police.

I am very pleased that the Rabie report was not the work of a group of politicians, because the hon. member for Houghton would have given her false teeth just to be able to say that it was a lot of Nationalists that wanted to give expression to their urge for apartheid. [Interjections.]

I have just referred to the Romans, but in fact one should go back to the time of Pericles. One should consider the Greeks. It was in the days of Pericles that the word “police” had its origin. It is very interesting to note the origin of the term “police”. The word “polls” or “polis”, really means town, commonage or community. It happened from time to time that cattle were stolen or that someone went to visit his neighbour’s wife when his neighbour was away. As a result a need arose for a nightwatch. [Interjections.] This nightwatch patrolled the town with his sword, his truncheon and his bugle at night time. Later he was given the name “polis”. That was the origin of the German “Polizei” and the English word “police”, but also another word, the word “polis” which we all know—in English ”policy”. This word is used in connection with security or insurance. That is why one still connects “polite” with “policy”, “security” and “insurance”.

The fact is that in the time of Pericles and Caesar, crimes were not as complex as they are today. As I said, now and again a cow was stolen or certain other things were done. [Interjections.] After all, the hon. Whip of the Opposition knows that in the years of our administration of justice, only one crime disappeared, and does the hon. member recall what crime that was? [Interjections.] It was adultery. That crime disappeared. I think it was in 1914—the case involved was Edelstein vs Edelstein. [Interjections.] Nowadays the police have to be trained to enable them to deal with another type of theft. I refer to the theft of patent secrets, atomic secrets, trade secrets etc. Indeed, nowadays a policeman has to be an expert in all fields of society, or at least some of them have to be experts.

The hon. member for Houghton has just been moaning terribly about interrogation which is supposedly so cruel, and about solitary confinement. However, I have been doing some research. In the old days, when adultery was still a crime, a person who was found guilty was punished in such a way that he was subsequently physically unable to commit it again. [Interjections.] The hon. member should therefore be careful when she talks about these light punishments. [Interjections.] I believe that a country like South Africa with its composition—and the commission also puts it this way—must have an effective system of security legislation, a system which can provide for every type of subtle crime or crime against society, e.g. insurgency, undermining of authority, subtle indoctrination, subversion, sabotage etc.— the type of crime which the policeman has to deal with every day. It was because this became evident to the hon. the Minister and the department that this commission was appointed in 1979. I think it is of great importance that for the purposes of this discussion we should consider the terms of reference of this commission, because in my opinion they are among the most open-hearted terms of reference ever entrusted to a commission. I quote—

I think it is important to note that the term “fairness” also appears in the terms of reference. We certainly did not try to give this narrower terms of reference. We could, for example, have said that the commission should simply investigate the adequacy or effectiveness of the legislation. However, we said that it should also investigate the necessity for and the fairness of the legislation. On page 213, the commission states quite objectively, in the spirit of the terms of reference relating to fairness—

That statement is made. Then it is qualified as follows—

And so it goes on. However, the commission does not conceal the fact that in certain respects there is unfair legislation. However, the commission continues—

That is essential. What follows is very important and I want the hon. member for Houghton to listen for a moment to this part of the report—

When one reads this, one asks oneself what the official Opposition would like. I see the hon. member for Houghton is not very interested, but that does not matter. One asks oneself what they really want. Do they want us to protect internal security by using the police, the magistrate’s courts and the Supreme Court, by regarding the activities in question as crimes against the State, or do they want us to regard such actions as hostile acts requiring military action? This is very important. There are many countries in the world that prefer to act on a military basis. In such cases one is not quite sure whether the trials take place in public, if they take place at all.

Probably one of the most important aspects of the Bill before us today is the provision made for the advisory committee and the board of review. The hon. member for Houghton passed over this very quickly. She will concede that. She scarcely touched on the subject. There use to be a facts committee which is now being replaced by the advisory committee. I do not want to deal with the advisory committee in too great depth, but it concerns the case where an organization or periodical is affected by a directive from the Minister. In that case the advisory committee must first carry out an investigation before the Minister can do anything. I should like to dwell for a moment on the board of review.

Order! The hon. member will not be able to touch on that either. His time has expired.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Roodeplaat made a speech on this legislation which I thought was very enlightening, but I think he repeated his previous mistake here today of trying to imply, when we are discussing the very serious matter of internal security, that there were hon. members of the CP who did not believe that there was a threat against South Africa. It seems to me that the hon. member should like to see the State have more enemies. It seems to me that that hon. member is trying to get more people to be opposed to the State or the police, or that he wants to indicate that we on this side of the House are not putting South Africa’s interests first.

Are you uttering a threat now?

Let me tell that hon. member that it would take more than his gossip-mongering to make me start uttering threats. There must be something tangible before I begin to utter threats. I do not threaten ordinary people like that hon. member. Let us take his piece of gossip about the hon. member for Jeppe. What did the hon. member for Jeppe say? He said that one should adhere to the truth. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Just listen to that! Balaam’s ass is talking again.

What?

Have hon. members never heard of Balaam’s ass? He is sit ting directly opposite me in this House. Every time someone else is talking, he tries to chip in. However, he never knows what is going on.

Who are you talking about now?

I do not want to call the ass by its name.

Order! Is the hon. member referring to an hon. member of this House as Balaam’s ass?

Mr. Speaker, as Balaam’s mouthpiece.

No, as Balaam’s ass.

Is the hon. member referring to an hon. member of this House as Balaam’s ass?

Yes, I am, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member accused the hon. member for Jeppe unfairly of not believing that there is a total onslaught on South Africa. That is not the truth. What the hon. member for Jeppe did in fact say was that the total onslaught should not be misused by politicians to create a certain psychosis in the country. [Interjections.] Every man has the right to say that. The hon. member for Jeppe served in the Army for 15 years. He received medals of the highest order for the defence of South Africa. That is the hon. member for Jeppe.

On our side as well?

What is more, he was dishonourably discharged.

The hon. member for Florida is telling an absolute untruth. Now we come to the second statement which he made, his statement about the AWB. Who ran away with the AWB story, stocking pulled over the face? The hon. member for Pretoria Central had T-shirts which he displayed here. To this day he is unable to tell this House how he came by them. He also denied that he bought them on the 18th in Pretoria—two days before our meeting.

I deny it.

The hon. member had two T-shirts here. Where did he get them from? He got the fright of his life when I asked him where he got them from.

I got them from one of my supporters.

The next Sunday a report appeared in the Sunday newspapers that the hon. the Minister had advised the police not to become members of the AWB.

I prohibited them from becoming members of the AWB.

Just a moment. The police are now being dragged in. I do not believe any of them were members of the AWB.

What do you say about members of the CP who are members of the AB?

There are also members of the NP in the AB!

The hon. member for Turffontein and I are talking about very confidential matters.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pretoria Central must please contain himself.

The hon. member for Roodeplaat also involved the hon. member for Koedoespoort in the matter, amiably at first, but as he got more “laughs” he became more acrimonious. I do not think it is becoming, when an hon. member on this side of the House has made a really good speech on South Africa’s security situation, to make jokes of that kind.

I want to say that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North disappointed one today. It was disappointing to hear what kind of arguments the PFP were raising in this House. I want to refer to a few aspects of his speech. Inter alia, he referred to the fact that during the 1976 riots the people of Soweto were unarmed. The hon. member did not witness the riots. I saw cans of petrol being emptied over people—this was also shown on television—and how people, dogs and other animals were drenched in petrol and set alight. And then the hon. member still says that those people were unarmed. A man whom I knew well, Dr. Edelstein, who was responsible for health services in Soweto, lost his life in those riots. Whose doing was that? It was done by the people whom he had helped. One could also refer back to a previous case of the nun in East London who was killed by people whom she had helped. When this kind of situation arises, it gets completely out of hand and one has to be careful that one does not become an instrument or mouthpiece of the terrorist, while one is making certain statements, possibly out of mere humanism. One of the greatest problems which the Free World has in combating terrorism is to have sufficient clout—as the Americans call it—to counteract the actions of those people without restricting the rights of others. But what did that hon. member say? I want to give him an earnest talking to about his remarks. He referred to deaths in detention, to the Soweto riots and other problems. He also alleged that many Coloureds wanted to support the ANC because—so the hon. member claimed—Coloureds had been shot dead in the streets of Elsies River. If an overseas newspaper reports events in South Africa today, the true state of affairs is not reflected. It is not said that there had been an insurrection, that people had been killed in the streets and that the police had not acted of their own free will, the police did not chase people through the streets and shoot them. However, when reports on insurrection are published overseas, they are presented in such a way that it seems as if the police deliberately gunned people down in the streets.

That is old news.

Yes, but it is old news which the hon. member has now revived.

He revived the old news in a calculated way.

Lenin once said: “Use the Parliaments of the world to preach communism throughout the world, for they are the institutions that have credibility”. Lenin said this several times.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member implying that the speech by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North was aimed at using this Parliament to spread communism?

Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly explain. Any speech that an hon. member makes quite unintentionally may be used as propaganda by the communists. Many people feel that they have made out a case for somebody else, but it could be interpreted as propaganda for communism, without perhaps their intention of doing so.

The law of this Parliament spreads communism as well.

Order! If the hon. member is saying that another hon. member had the intention of doing so, he must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying it is the hon. member’s intention to do that. [Interjections.]

The hon. member may proceed.

Let us consider the statements that people make. Here is one particular example: “Vroue en kinders is doodgeslaan”. I shall now tell hon. members who said that. Before we participated in the Korean war, the Communist Party in South Africa disseminated a certain story in which they made it very clear that they were not going to allow people to go overseas to murder women and children. What kind of statement is that, Sir? Long before our soldiers went to Korea, these people were already saying that they were not going to allow people to go there to kill women and children. Are there hon. members in this House who want to deny that there were members sitting in this House who were subsequently identified as communists, and who made precisely this type of statement in connection with the Korean war.

Recently we had a case in the Senate Chamber in which one of the hon. members of the PFP quoted from a newspaper report dealing with precisely this kind of matter. Newspaper reports of this nature are distributed all over the world, and have a definite impact which is detrimental to South Africa and the security of this country. That is what I want us to guard against. [Interjections.] This Parliament is an institution which we must use very carefully.

For many years the hon. member for Houghton sat in this House as the lone representative of her party, and I believe that she built up a certain degree of frustration. As years go by, however, frustration can become part of one’s personality, and it can exert such pressure on one that one subsequently does things which, upon reflection, one cannot believe that one had done.

Are you speaking from experience?

That hon. member is doing this country incalculable harm with some of her statements. For example, she stated quite clearly today, and also on a previous occasion, that she believed that the ANC was a political party.

Is Swapo a political party?

I believe that every political party in South Africa must be able to participate in current affairs and in the democratic process.

When did I say that?

Just wait. I shall tell you just now.

I shall wait patiently. [Interjections.]

The hon. member also said that she would recognize the right of the Communist Party to operate in this country.

Not unconditionally! Please be honest!

Not unconditionally. However, Bram Fischer said something which he subsequently confessed to. Surely the hon. member for Houghton does not wish to tell me that she did not frequently intercede for Bram Fischer after he had been caught.

Yes, certainly!

On many occasions the hon. member for Houghton has referred to a little good news for some people in this country, but eventually it has turned out to be bad news for the country as a whole. I really want to ask the hon. member to be careful. We live in dangerous times.

Too late, old boy. The damage, as you can see, has been done!

I think the hon. member wants to tell me that apartheid is the cause of communism in this country. Can the hon. member tell me whether we had apartheid in this country in 1917? She should ask Dr. Tsele who admitted that in the ANC they started the Communist Party in 1917. It continued until 1945. Was there apartheid in 1945? Did Gen. Smuts have a policy of apartheid?

But what does this have to do with the Bill?

Wait a minute. I think the hon. member is afraid. Did the hon. member belong to the Port Elizabeth Movement in 1947?

Order! The hon. member may not say that another hon. member is afraid. He must withdraw that statement.

Sir, I withdraw it.

I ask the hon. member whether she belonged to the Port Elizabeth Movement in 1947.

What movement?

It was merely called the Port Elizabeth Movement.

She was not born then! [Interjections]

This is not a joke at all. In Johannesburg we had one of the biggest movements, but in certain areas it was referred to as the Port Elizabeth Movement.

We do not know what you are talking about.

Sometimes up to 10 000 people gathered on a Sunday night on the steps of the Johannesburg city hall.

I did not belong to it. [Interjections.]

Sometimes up to 10 000 of these people gathered on the steps of the Johannesburg City Council, for at the time the Communist Party had not yet been banned. There we heard what the objectives of the party were, how it would operate in this country and how it would use the institutions of this country.

What is the nature of this legislation? It is preventative. A person who does not commit an offence, is not punished. Why cannot we as members of the House of Assembly say to the general public that we in this country are opposed to terrorism and communism without qualifying it? We must say that we are opposed to such people, and no “buts” about it. If we did that, we would not need this legislation, because then those people would not have a mouthpiece. The terrorists would not hear sounds emanating from this Parliament indicating that there are after all people in this country who support them, however it may be interpreted. We dare not project an image as though there were such people.

A man like Sukarno said in 1962 that one should bring the Communist Party into the ordinary democratic process; a year later he wept copious tears when hundreds of thousands of his people were killed because of communist uprisings in his country. Then Sukarno sang a completely different song.

[Inaudible.]

One only has to say “communist”, and the hon. member begins to talk. We must sometimes think how erroneously we can say things. The hon. member for Houghton said “free Mandela”. Bram Fischer told us that that man had for years been a member of the central committee of the Communist Party. [Interjections.] Certain people and other institutions say—

Were you in favour of the release of Robey Leibbrandt?

The hon. member is now talking about Robey Leibbrandt. He said he was not born in 1938.

I can read, though.

The hon. member should rather talk about matters he knows something about.

He was a convicted assassin.

I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she and Nelson Mandela will be on different tickets when the people vote at Wits next week. What is the difference as far as South Africa is concerned in the view of hon. members sitting here?

*What is happening in this case? I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton, if people have to choose between her and Nelson Mandela for that chancellorship, what the difference between the two of them is. We must know so that we can tell those people.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I should like to draw your attention to the rule of relevancy in this House. That is the first point. In the second place, the hon. member has made certain innuendoes and insinuations in regard to the hon. member for Houghton. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Langlaagte has just said that in the forthcoming election for the chancellorship of Wits University there are two candidates, Nelson Mandela, who is at present serving a prison sentence and who has also been described as a communist, and Mrs. Suzman, the hon. member for Houghton. These are the two candidates in that election and the hon. member for Langlaagte says that there is no difference in outlook between them. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Langlaagte say that Nelson Mandela and the hon. member for Houghton held the same standpoint?

No, Sir. I asked what the differences was. What is the difference between the two of them?

What is the difference?

Well, the one is a man and the other is a woman. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I do not know whether you appreciate the point. It is a question of simple English. By posing the question in that form the hon. member for Langlaagte is making an insinuation that there is no difference at all between Nelson Mandela and the hon. member for Houghton. In the light of Mr. Mandela’s being a convicted prisoner and in the light of his political beliefs, I submit that that is not parliamentary or something that can be allowed in this House. If the hon. member for Langlaagte says that there is no difference, then that is clearly unparliamentary. However, if he poses the question in the manner in which he did—and if you were listening, Sir, you would have heard it—it cannot possibly mean anything else except that he is inferring or insinuating that the hon. member for Houghton is no different from Mr. Mandela. Under the circumstances, Sir, I cannot see that you can rule the way you have.

Order! What did the hon. member for Langlaagte mean by that?

Mr. Speaker, so much has been said now about what I said but what I actually said to the hon. member was this: What is the difference between her policy and the policy of Mandela? [Interjections.] That is more or less what my question boiled down to and the hon. member can give me a reply to it. I said that the people who have to vote there must know what the difference between the two is.

The hon. member did not use the word “policy”.

You are a horrible, dishonest man, apart from anything else.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Very well, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I referred earlier on to the question of relevancy, Sir. Could you please give a ruling on the relevancy to this Bill of the argument on the hon. member for Langlaagte in respect of the hon. member for Houghton and Nelson Mandela?

The relevancy of the argument is that communism is an ideology which is opposed by the forces of law and order in this country. That fact is therefore very relevant to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in view of that ruling, I want to submit that the implication of what the hon. member for Langlaagte has said regarding the hon. member for Houghton and Mr. Nelson Mandela is very, very clear. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to instruct the hon. member for Langlaagte to withdraw his statement. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, all I want to know from the hon. members of the PFP is whether they dissociate themselves from Nelson Mandela.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation under discussion deals, inter alia, with terrorists and terrorism in South Africa. In terms of this legislation steps must now be taken against them. Now, they are convicted terrorists in prison, but certain people are arguing that they should be released. These are people who argue that convicted terrorists should not really be in prison.

They are interceding for terrorists.

Yes, for terrorists. This legislation deals with the security of the State. The hon. member for Houghton must please not be over-sensitive now. She refers to certain people and then uses the word “banned”. Surely the hon. member knows what the word “verban” means, does she not? To “verban” someone, means to expel him from his country to some other pleace. [Interjections.]

No, that is “exile”!

You can banish (verban) a person from a party as well!

In the eyes of the entire world “verbanning” is seen as the expulsion of someone from his own country. Then such a person is “verban”. Surely the hon. member knows about the “verbanning” of people to India, Ceylon and elsewhere.

No, they were exiled!

The meaning is the same.

Why not try “inperking” now!

“Inperking” means that a person has been restricted to a certain area. However, the hon. member for Houghton used the word “banned”, while she knew what connotation is attached to that word. However, she is not prepared to present the country and the police in a favourable light. She wants to try to create the impression that there are negative motives and ulterior motives on the part of the police and of the State when they restrict people.

You are not only dishonest; you are also ignorant.

The hon. member for Houghton must please not speak of “dishonest” here. [Interjections.] I want to put one question to the hon. member for Houghton today. Has she ever dissociated herself from the bomb incident on the Johannesburg Station in 1964? [Interjections.] She is one of those who asks that terrorists be released. She is also opposed to the death penalty.

I would not abolish the death penalty if they wanted to hang you!

I want to quote a few things to hon. members today.

Mr. Speaker, you are affording the hon. member for Houghton hardly any protection at all.

At the time of the bomb attack on the Johannesburg station…

Order! What did the hon. member for Sandton say?

Mr. Speaker, I said the hon. member for Houghton was receiving hardly any protection from you at all.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir, but I would be grateful… [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In his speech the hon. member for Langlaagte firstly relates the hon. member for Houghton to Nelson Mandela, and then also associates her with the bomb explosion on the Johannesburg railway station. Sir, is the hon. member for Langlaagte allowed to make such insinuations in respect of an hon. member of this House, something he is clearly doing in a way aimed at circumventing your ruling. Sir, I seek your protection for the hon. member for Houghton, please.

Order! Did the hon. member for Langlaagte mean it in that way?

No, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton knows that during all the years in which she has sat in this Parliament, statements made by her have caused this country incalculable harm. [Interjections.] Whether she made those statements wilfully, I cannot say today. However, she made statements in which she asked for pressure to be exerted on South Africa so that internal changes could take place. In various places abroad she made attacks on the police, on the Defence Force, on the Government, on every organization in South Africa that has to maintain law and order here. [Interjections.] That is why I say that we support this Bill.

I am ashamed to be called a Barnard.

I do not associate myself with that hon. member at all.

You ought to be the member for “Laughlaagte”.

No government places legislation on the Statute Book—including legislation such as this—if it does not need it. It would be ridiculous for any State to place legislation on the Statute Book which it did not need to ensure the security of the country.

As a politician you do not understand.

I just want to tell that hon. member that an eagle does not catch flies. Consequently I am not even going to reply to him.

Some eagle!

You ought to be the hon. member for “Laughlaagte”.

This legislation is necessary in South Africa. The police do their work under the most difficult circumstances. [Interjections.] Only the police know what hardships they have to endure. For example there are the long nights they have to work. I wonder whether hon. members have ever thought what it entails to stop a protest march of 10 000 or 12 000 people when you only have ten or twelve men to do it with, and all this to protect the lives of other people. Those people can flee; they can stand aside. They can seek safety for themselves, but the police cannot. That is why we must have this legislation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Langlaagte has made a long speech. Under the ordinary rules of debate I would have liked to associate myself with him, but that presents me with something of a problem. Therefore I want to sum up his speech as follows: He was expressing his opposition to the Progs and the communists. This is a matter on which we agree with him. He is also in favour of the Bill, and for that we thank him.

However, I should like to draw attention to the practical administration of the legislation which is before this House. The Rabie Commission gave a great deal of attention to how the Bill would work in practice, how it would be administered and what its practical implementation would entail. In its recommendations concerning this matter, the commission concentrated on four questions which I also want to discuss briefly. The first question is whether the administration of the Act should be entrusted to the executive, i.e. directly to the hon. the Minister, or to an official. In other words, who is to exercise the powers in terms of the Bill?

[Inaudible.]

…especially with regard to some of the preventive security measures. Having this done by an official would have certain advantages. The one advantage would be that one could remove the whole matter from the political sphere and deal with it at the level of officials. It would have the further advantage that the ministerial responsibility would not fall away if this were done, for as a member of the executive, the Minister would still be responsible to this Parliament for any decisions taken and acts performed within his department. Nevertheless, the commission found that decisions of this nature, concerning preventive security measures, should rather be the responsibility of the Minister himself, and not of an official. The reason for that finding— which I strongly endorse—is that action taken in terms of this legislation is bound to interfere with the freedom of the individual, or at least with that of certain individuals. Then the Rabie Commission refers in its report to the British Gardiner Committee. [Interjections.]

I see that the official Opposition is now leaving the House. That is more or less to be expected of people who are in any event trying to boycott certain institutions of this House. I hope the hon. member for Hillbrow will remain seated, though. [Interjections.] I am not very concerned about the fact that those hon. members have left the House. It is in any case a rather irrelevant official Opposition that we are dealing with.

I have said that it is the standpoint of the Rabie Commission that the implementation of our security legislation should be entrusted to the Minister himself, and that the commission bases this standpoint on the British Gardiner Committee of 1975, which held a similar view. On page 166 of the commission’s report this finding of the Gardiner Committee is quoted. It reads as follows—

That is the executive—

That is why, in the Bill which is before us, the Minister is personally charged with the exercise of the powers conferred on him by the Bill in respect of preventive security measures. I want to mention just a few of these. There are the declarations of organizations to be unlawful organizations, the prohibition of publications, restrictions on people, the detention of people—and one could go on to mention a whole series of preventive security measures.

The second question which the Rabie Commission had to answer was why these powers in terms of the Bill should be vested in the Minister of Law and Order and not in any other Minister.

Colin, you are not allowed to stay here.

I am just taking a message to our Whip. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, in case the hon. member for Sea Point does not know, I just want to tell him that the rest of his party has walked out. [Interjections.] There he goes.

If I could have the attention of my colleagues again, I want to go on. The powers embodied in the laws which are being replaced by this Bill were virtually all vested in the Minister of Justice. We know that for a very long period in the past, the Police component in our national administration was the responsibility of the Minister of Justice in any event, but under our latest dispensation we have a separate Ministry for the Police which falls under the hon. the Minister of Law and Order. The Rabie Commission asked itself which ministry was best suited to exercise the powers in terms of this legislation. In answering that question, the nature and purpose of this legislation had to be the primary considerations. There are two matters that are immediately apparent in this connection. The nature and purpose of the legislation which is before the House at the moment is, in the first place, the security of the State and, in the second place, the maintenance of law and order.

There were two considerations which influenced the commission’s assessment. Firstly, there were the factors of appropriateness and efficiency. As far as this legislation is concerned, the executive is very much dependent on the police with regard to both components, i.e. State security and public order. We know that in practice it is the police who watch over these security matters. They are the watchdogs who have to ferret out events and persons that may endanger the State, and who must then sound the alarm to the authorities and report to their Minister. They are also the people who, when the authorities have decided on a course of action, have to contain the dangerous situation in practice and to take physical action against it.

The Minister who is in control of the Police Force, who in our case happens to be the Minister of Law and Order at the moment, is therefore the person who receives information from the police on a daily basis, who is acquainted with the security situation in the country on a daily basis and who is aware of matters which have a bearing on the security of the State and on law and order in this country. That was why the Rabie Commission found that the Minister of Law and Order was best equipped, as a result of his direct connection with the police, to assess the threats with regard to the security of the State and the maintenance of public order, and then to decide on preventive action.

The latter is a particularly important element, because preventive action may be urgently necessary in certain situations to ward off a specific threat. Under the present dispensation, where the Police Force does not fall under the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Justice is therefore not as well equipped, administratively and otherwise, the Minister of Law and Order. That is why the Rabie Commission recommends that the Minister of Law and Order be charged with the implementation of the legislation.

There is a second consideration which was investigated by the commission, which I found very interesting to follow in the Rabie report and which I also agree with because the argument contained in it is so valid. This is the argument that the exercise of the powers in terms of the legislation by the Minister of Justice could have an adverse effect on the prestige and image of impartiality of the judicial organs of our country, or that it could possibly have such an adverse effect.

Then the commission goes on to say that it had specific evidence before it with regard to this matter and that the argument was more or less as follows. If the Minister of Justice wanted to exercise certain of the powers relating to preventive security measures in terms of the provisions of this Bill, it could be said that he would be involved, as he was in the past, in a series of processes in which he would actually be acting in three capacities. When he is wearing one hat, he is the member of the executive who is responsible for initiating legislation to deal with the security situation. It could be said, therefore, that in that capacity he sees to it that there is a law. However, when he is wearing a different hat, he is the member of the executive who is responsible for the physical combating, by means of the Police Force, of the crime created by this law. In that respect one could say that when he is wearing that hat, he is catching the offender. When he is wearing the third hat, he is responsible, as Minister of Justice, for the maintenance of the courts that have to try that offender. Then it could also be said that he appoints the judge to try the man whom he caused to be caught and for whom he made a law. The argument is—although this is perhaps a very simplistic way of putting it—that this is a situation that should rather be avoided. This is the motivation behind the representation which the commission received, namely that it is desirable that under this dispensation, the Minister of Justice should as far as possible present an image of neutrality and impartiality to the outside world. If he were to be responsible for the implementation of security legislation—so the argument goes—it would be very difficult for him to maintain that image of our courts, and we are all very jealous of that image. It is possible, and this has actually happened, that through the implementation of these laws, he could personally become involved in a controversy, and the controversy could spill over from his person to our courts, with the result that the reputation of our courts could be compromised. For that reason the commission recommends that because administrative action in terms of this legislation should be kept as far away as possible from our normal judicial machinery and functionaries, this legislation should rather fall under the Minister of Law and Order. Effect has been given to this recommendation in the measure which is before us at the moment.

The third question which the commission had to answer for itself was why the Minister of Justice should nevertheless make an input. Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the appointment of the Director of Security Legislation, and it says in subsection (1)—

Clause 2(2) reads as follows—

The question is why the Minister of Justice should have any say in the matter and should make that appointment. The reason is actually very simple. For many years, the Department of Justice has been administering the 28 or more laws dealing with internal security, and in the process it has gained experience. In terms of the Bill which is before us, most of those Acts are being repealed and consolidated into one fine measure. The Department of Justice also has a special branch which is charged with the administration of this specific kind of legislation, and which has acquired expert knowledge, plus their experience over many years. This branch of the Department is staffed by officials of the highest order, with legal qualifications, and their specialized knowledge of the administration of legislation of this nature does not exist in the new Department of Law and Order at the moment. From a practical point of view, therefore, it is inevitable and essential in practice that these officials should be seconded from the Department of Justice to the Department of Law and Order to help the hon. the Minister with the administration of the legislation we are discussing at the moment.

With regard to the future, too, it is desirable that the hon. the Minister of Justice should appoint the senior officials of the Directorate which is being created in clause 2 of the Bill, but always after consultation with and with the concurrence of the Minister of Law and Order. The reasons for this can be summed up as follows: Firstly, those officials appointed by the Minister of Justice and seconded to the Department of Law and Order remain officials of the Department of Justice, although they will be subject to the control and directions of the Minister of Law and Order. The Rabie Commission also recommended that the Director and his staff should be civilian officials, i.e. not members of the Police Force or of the Defence Force, and that they should be completely independent of the Police component of the Department of Law and Order. Furthermore, the commission recommended that the Director should be directly responsible to the Minister of Law and Order for his work, and not through the head of the department in the person of the Commissioner of Police. The only way of achieving this is by having these knowledgeable men with legal qualifications remain officials of the Department of Justice and seconding them to the Department of Law and Order. If they remain officials of the Department of Justice, it goes without saying that they have to be appointed by the Minister of Justice.

A further aspect is that provision is being made in the Bill for many other powers in which the Department of Justice will play an important role, and the administration of which will in any event continue to fall under the Minister of Justice. That is why clause 2 reads as it does, and that is why it is necessary that the Minister of Justice should make this appointment.

Finally, I want to refer briefly to the question with which the Rabie Commission also occupied itself, i.e. what the functions of the Director and his staff will be and what the nature of his qualifications should be. In terms of clause 2 of the Bill, the Director of Security Legislation is being appointed as head of the administrative section to assist the Minister of Law and Order in the administration of the legislation.

It is interesting to examine the recommendations of the Rabie Commission. They lay down two very important requirements for the Director. Firstly, they said that he should have a high status. Therefore his status should be a matter of great importance. They also made a comparison—his status should at least be comparable to that of an attorney-general, one of the most senior officials within our State administration. Secondly, he said that he should also have high legal qualifications, and the Rabie Commission believes that he should preferably have been admitted to the Bar. Effect is given to this recommendation in clause 2(2) of the Bill, which requires that the Director should be a person holding a degree or diploma in law.

As far as the functions of the Directorate are concerned, it has to assimilate and evaluate the information collected by the police, and then it has to advise the Minister on whether action should be taken in terms of the Bill, i.e. whether or not preventive security measures should be applied.

Furthermore, the Director will also have to perform several other extremely important administrative functions in terms of the Bill. Among other things, he has to prepare documents for submission to the board of review, the judge of review and other bodies that are being created in terms of the Bill, and he can also appear before such bodies and examine witnesses before them. Another important duty of the Director is to keep up to date the consolidated list in terms of clause 16.

The Bill therefore provides in a practical way for the Minister, with a knowledgeable staff, to be able to exercise with confidence the extremely important powers conferred upon him in terms of the Bill, in the interests of South Africa, and in the knowledge that he has the full support of every law-abiding citizen.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ermelo has made a very interesting speech. We are very much interested in the aspects which he raised and in the reasons which the commission advances for the recommendations concerned. The hon. member will forgive me if I do not reply directly to what he said, because there are a few other matters I should very much like to raise.

†Mr. Speaker, in the first instance let me just say that in regard to the performance of the PFP, the official Opposition, in respect of their walk-out here today, I believe that they owe us an explanation and perhaps the hon. Whip who is here will take the opportunity during the debate on Monday or perhaps even today to tell us precisely what it was that motivated them to walk out of this Chamber.

What has that got to do with this Bill?

There is a very real danger that what they have in fact done is to cast a reflection on your ruling. I believe that the PFP …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: There is a rule of relevancy in this House, Sir. The walk-out by the PFP has nothing whatsoever to do with this Bill. I submit that the hon. member must speak to the Bill. [Interjections.]

Did your party cast a reflection on the Chair, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, that has nothing to do with the Bill.

You did not cast a reflection on the Chair?

Order! The hon. member for Durban North may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I think the message is very clear to the members of the official Opposition. We leave the question in their hands and we anticipate a satisfactory answer at some stage or other.

In regard to the whole question of the loyalty and patriotism of the NRP and its dedication to the fight against communism—and I refer here specifically to the speech of the hon. member for Turffontein who asked what the position of the NRP and its members was as regards those activities which this Bill intends to curb, prohibit and discourage—I should like to make it very clear that this party stands as committed as that side of the House, if not more so, on these issues. There is no question about it. I accept the right of the hon. member for Turffontein to have changed his mind. He was formally a member of the old United Party when these debates were held so his views are known. However, he obviously has changed those views to some extent, which is his right, and he now finds himself on that side of the House.

You will soon be joining him.

That also has nothing to do with this debate, Sir. That hon. Whip must take a little of his own medicine.

I can take my medicine.

It is very obvious that the hon. Whip of the PFP can take the medicine but there seems to be very little that can cure him of his ailment! [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon. member for Turffontein that the loyalty of this party and its commitment to the defence of those issues which that side of the House stands for is beyond question. However, the argument is not in fact whether these activities should be curtailed; our point of view is in regard to how they should be curtailed and whether the measures to be taken in this regard are morally justifiable. That is the question.

What does the preamble to the Bill state?

We know what the preamble states.

Then why are you going to vote against it?

I shall tell the hon. member in detail why we are going to vote against it. I want to say that that is really the gravamen of the argument, namely, what is this party’s stand on the means for achieving those particular objectives? The argument can be advanced—and this is really the central theme of my speech—as to whether the means justifies the end; or, to put it another way; Is the pursuit of justice possibly by unjust means in fact moral? Those are the questions we must ask ourselves. I hope that every hon. member on that side of the House has asked himself these questions as well. Let me also say that when the executive arrogates arbitrary powers over which there is no control by members of the Opposition and the majority of members in the ruling party, then those questions become burning questions that must be answered.