Mr. Speaker, last Friday, in an interjection I used the words “dishonourable discharge’’ with reference to the hon. member for Jeppe. I withdraw those two words.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned on Friday I had just put two questions to hon. members of all parties in this House. Those questions were briefly whether, in terms of this Bill, the means justified the end, and, secondly, whether the pursuit of justice, possibly by unjust means, was in fact morally defensible. I believe these are questions which every single hon. member of this House should ask himself before they actually entered this debate, in particular those hon. members who stand in defence and in support of this Bill in its entirety. The questions which arise from this is what is in fact the end which we visualize will be attained by this Bill.

One of the ends is certainly that South African society should return to normality in terms of its internal security. We in these benches do not deny that the protection of the State and its inhabitants gives the executive certain rights and obligations. It is in fact the duty of the executive to defend and protect the State. It is also, however, the responsibility of the executive to ensure that the end which we are striving for is also a just and democratic State. We visualize that this type of legislation is merely a means to an end and that what we are all striving for is a return to a truly democratic and just society in South Africa. What we do wish, in other words, to attain in the end is the rule of law and habeas corpus. We put it to the hon. the Minister that the question that has to be asked is whether the rule of law is in fact the end result of this activity or not. That is a very serious question indeed.

What are the means available to the hon. the Minister and to the executive in terms of this Bill? What means are available to him to try to ensure the protection of the State and its inhabitants and also to ensure the achievement of the end result, which is a just and democratic society? If we are unable to return to the rule of law and habeas corpus, this exercise in itself will indeed be partially futile.

But what are the means and powers given to the hon. the Minister in terms of this Bill? Firstly, he is given the power of arbitrary arrest. The hon. the Minister, by his own decision, and perhaps in consultation with others, has a ministerial authority for arbitrary arrest and detention. That detention, in the majority of cases today, has resulted in detention without trial. In many cases it has indeed ended up with solitary confinement as one of the means available to the hon. the Minister for the extraction of information or for the confinement of the individual from society. The means created in terms of this Bill also incorporate house arrest, and, of particular importance, the incommunicado status of a detainee. That means the mass media may not quote statements by people arrested in terms of certain clauses of this Bill. That has a very important bearing on what I am going to say very shortly.

Although it makes provision for review boards and the involvement of the Chief Justice, this legislation in itself still allows the hon. the Minister of Law and Order to overrule the recommendations of the review board regarding further detention, and also to overrule the recommendations or attitude of the Chief Justice.

[Inaudible.]

Oh yes, of course it does. I put it to the hon. the Minister and to this House that no Minister of the executive in South Africa in the history of this country has ever had such unfettered powers as this hon. the Minister gets today in terms of this measure, unfettered powers over the life and death and future and freedom of individuals in society and organizations in South Africa, without any form of constraint by a court of law.

Where does this legislation give me unfettered power of life and death? Where do you find that in the Bill?

Of course it gives that power.

Where do you see that in the Bill?

If this hon. the Minister decides an individual must be kept in solitary confinement, that can happen.

What has that got to do with power of life and death?

If an individual dies under those circumstances because he is not able to withstand solitary confinement, I put it to the hon. the Minister that he has in fact the power of life and death.

You are worse than the Progs!

No, Sir. The hon. the Minister does not want to stand up and face the consequences of the seriousness of the decisions he has to take. That is the position. Without any form of constraint by a court of law this hon. the Minister can exercise these powers. In fact, I go as far as to say that even this Parliament is unable to exercise constraint or control over the hon. the Minister. That is the de facto position because this new measure confirms that the hon. the Minister alone carries the responsibility for the powers given to him in terms of this Bill. I do not believe the hon. the Minister will disagree with us that that is what this Bill really does.

The hon. the Minister is therefore accountable, by convention only, to this Parliament for his actions. He is not constrained by any particular law, and he is also not obliged to reveal information. If we do an analysis of the hon. the Minister’s accountability we will see that, by the conventions, the hon. the Minister, in the first instance, is responsible for his actions to the hon. the Prime Minister, and of course also for the consequences of the decisions taken by the hon. the Minister. Secondly, by convention, the hon. the Minister will also be responsible to the Cabinet. Thirdly, the hon. the Minister will be responsible to this Parliament for his actions. There are therefore only conventions involved in the hon. the Minister’s responsibility.

I want to come back now, first of all, to the function of any Opposition party in this Parliament, regarding granting the hon. the Minister powers in terms of this Bill. Because of the secrecy surrounding the actions of the hon. the Minister, I believe it is impossible for any Opposition party in this Parliament actually to control and to monitor the actions of the hon. the Minister. I want to tell you, Sir, that unless an Opposition party or, in fact any member of this Parliament, is able to exercise control over or to monitor the activities of the Minister, they cannot morally defend or support a Bill such as this. Under these circumstances it is the function of the Opposition party to coerce and pressurize the Government constantly to return South Africa to a normal justice situation. Under those circumstances it is impossible for any Opposition party actually to support this Bill at Second Reading. I refer here too to the CP and their particular standpoint in this regard. Because of the secrecy surrounding the actions and the decisions of the Minister, it is morally impossible for the Opposition party, in fact for all members of this House actually to support this Minister.

I want now to come to the responsibility of the Prime Minister and the question of collective responsibility for the actions of this Minister. We must bear in mind the fact that only the Prime Minister and the Ministers of the Cabinet are actually privy to the actions of the Minister. I do not believe that any other member on the Government side of the House can stand up here today or in this debate and assure us that he knows what happens after the Minister has made a decision in regard to detention without trial or solitary confinement or house banning. Is there any hon. member on the Government side who can stand up here and assure us that he actually knows what happens after the Minister has exercised his powers and prerogatives in terms of this legislation? If there is no hon. member on that side who can get up and tell us that he knows what happens and that therefore he is able to monitor what is happening, then I believe once again that morally those hon. members opposite cannot support this Bill. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister through the hon. the Minister of Law and Order whether the hon. the Prime Minister who is privy to secret information is prepared to say that he accepts joint responsibility for the actions of the hon. the Minister of Law and Order flowing from this Bill. I want to ask the other Cabinet Ministers whether they also accept joint responsibility for the actions of this Minister.

Of course.

Hon. members say “of course”, Sir. I want to refer hon. members to a previous occasion on which we had arbitrarily executive action on the part of a Minister involving secret funds. In the debate that took place in this House on 7 and 8 December 1978, every single member of the Cabinet, including the then Prime Minister, refused to accept joint responsibility for the executive actions of the Minister. I ask again: Do members of the Cabinet accept joint responsibility for the actions of the Minister of Law and Order? [Interjections.] Those hon. members who say “yes” must tell us so and, if they do not accept that responsibility, they must tell us that as well.

I want to refer hon. members to the speech made by the Minister of the Interior and Immigration at that stage and I want to quote from page 119 of Hansard of 7 December 1978. I want to do so, Sir, because I say that if the hon. the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are not prepared to accept responsibility for the actions of the hon. the Minister of Law and Order, then how can anybody expect any Opposition Party of this House to do so?

Where do you find that in the Bill?

It has a lot to do with the actions of this Government. [Interjections.]

I shall come back to that. I say that joint Cabinet responsibility in this particular instance is the only constraint that can be exercised on the hon. the Minister of Law and Order in respect of the powers given to him by this Bill. I want to ask all the Ministers of the Cabinet whether they deviate from the statements made by the Minister of the Interior and Immigration on 7 December 1978. In order to refresh the memories of those hon. Ministers and of hon. members of this House, I should like to quote a fairly lengthy extract from that debate. This is the Minister himself speaking. He had this to say—

I think the Ministers of the Cabinet are thinking the same today. The Minister went on to say—

This was a report of the Erasmus Commission. The Minister quoted further—

May I substitute “the public’s money is regarded as a sacred trust” by “the authority of this House is regarded as a sacred trust when it gives the Minister the powers in this Bill”. I quote further where my hon. leader interjected—

The Minister: Please, Mr. Speaker, hon. members who have already talked so much nonsense about this matter must give me an opportunity to put my side of the case. In the first place I refer to page 69 of the report of the Erasmus Commission where they quote Verloren van Themaat as follows—

I have spoken about conventions here today—

The hon. the Minister then said that he did not accept that particular statement on collective responsibility. He then quoted Constitutional Law by Wade and Bradley on page 87—

The hon. the Minister then continued—

I ask all Cabinet Ministers today whether they have any doubts about or objections to the arbitrary powers given to that hon. Minister. If they do not, then every single member of the Government, in particular of the Cabinet must accept joint responsibility.

Of course.

The hon. the Minister says “Of course”. I am pleased that we, in fact, have that response recorded in Hansard here today. I do not believe that if an individual or a party is not privy to information which will give them the opportunity to assist in the measurement and the control of the administrative and executive powers given to this hon. Minister, they can morally support the Bill.

I wish to repeat that no political party in Opposition can, in fact, morally support a Bill such as this in these circumstances.

I want to speak very seriously to the hon. the Minister about developments and the trend of developments to date in terms of internal security. I want to ask him a few questions. Firstly, I should like to know whether the position is getting better or whether it is getting worse in South Africa. Is it the intention of the hon. the Minister to make the Cabinet and the hon. the Prime Minister privy to specific details regarding detention without trial and bannings? I want to ask the hon. the Minister directly whether, in fact, the Cabinet is privy to this information. Has the position got getter or has it got worse? Do we have to detain more people? Do there have to be more bannings and arrests without recourse to the courts? Does the hon. the Minister visualize that we have now reached the peak and that he foresees that we shall be able to revert to normal justice in the near future? I should like to ask him further whether he would be prepared to allow, from time to time, a Select Committee of the House to be privy to that information.

I am not saying that a Select Committee of this House will in fact be called into being. It may even be doubtful whether hon. members of the Opposition parties would be prepared to serve on such a Select Committee, because, having been privy to certain information, it may be very difficult for them actually to participate in debate. The question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister is: To what extent is he prepared to make what is now secret information available to hon. members of this House, whether they be Cabinet Ministers or members of a Select Committee?

[Inaudible.]

I am referring to all the information regarding detention without trial and bannings, in fact, to most of the powers given to the hon. the Minister in terms of this Bill. We are caught up in a conundrum here and it is an impossible position in which we find ourselves in this Parliament today, because we give the hon. the Minister power which he can exercise arbitrarily while there is no restraint on his actions at all. And not only that, there is no way possible that this Parliament can be privy to the information the hon. the Minister has.

I should like to reiterate what I said at the beginning of my speech, that the NRP is fully aware of the threats against South Africa. We believe there are circumstances when executive action is necessary, necessary in fact for an individual to be taken into detention, but we stand by our statement that the executive action must be subject to judicial control. That judicial control includes the rule of law and that a man must be brought to court and tried. What justification can there be for a man to be held incommunicado and in detention, and often in solitary confinement, for periods in excess of six months which do not warrant sufficiently serious a charge for him actually to appear in court? If a man can be kept in detention for more than two, three or four weeks without bringing him to trial, then there is something wrong with the vision we have of justice in South Africa.

In conclusion, I want to say again to every hon. member in the House: If you are not able to assure this House that you can actually monitor the activities of the hon. the Minister and his department, then you too have no moral basis for supporting this Bill.

I should like to refer hon. members to the statement made by the Chief Justice in the case of the Nuremberg trials, although I do not have the verbatim quotation with me. Anyway, an officer was condemned at that trial for participating in the socialist system in Germany during the war and he claimed innocence because he did not know what happened to the victims at the end of the process in which he was involved. He was only responsible for arrest and for putting people onto trains to be sent off to another destination. He claimed immunity from responsibility for the atrocities. The Chief Justice said to him: “The first time you transgressed the principle of participating in a system without asking the question ‘What actually happens to the individual?’ you are as guilty as the man who perpetrated that particular action.”

Mr. Speaker, I am actually very disappointed at the attitude the hon. member for Durban North displayed here this afternoon and at the language he used. His behaviour attested to the same spirit as that of the predecessor of the NRP, the United Party, in the discussion of a very important Bill, one of the most important this Parliament has ever dealt with. That was on 20 June 1950, and the Leader of the United Party at that stage was Advocate J. G. N. Strauss, and he used the same arguments as the hon. member has just used. He also made the same type of predictions and conjured up the same spectres. I want to quote to hon. members what Adv. Strauss said here that day (Hansard, Vol. 73, col. 9534)—

This was the Suppression of Communism Act, which is being restructured by the Bill under discussion. The extract continues—

He then went on to base his standpoint on the same argument the hon. member has just used. He said—

That Minister, Advocate Strydom, later became Prime Minister, and the Mr. Strauss who was speaking here, was thrown out by means of the democratic process in South Africa when those hon. members elected Sir De Villiers Graaff as their leader in 1956. I now want to forecast that the NRP, as they sit here, will disappear just like the United Party did.

Tell us about the results of that legislation.

Advocate Strauss went on to say—

That was Advocate Strydom—

That police state became the Republic of South Africa, and the NRP linked its name to that Republic and called itself the New Republic Party. Why did they not choose the name “Police State”?

Generally speaking, everyone in South Africa should be grateful for that legislation. We ought actually to be proud that the security of our state can be maintained in 1982, in an era in which, over the past few years, we have watched Western countries and States become weak-kneed and crumble before communist subversion and other activities. We must realize that if the security of the State is not maintained the State will collapse, and with it all forms of life and political parties, including the NRP and the PFP. However, it is thanks to this legislation that the PFP still has the right to speak in this House and outside it. If it had not been for that legislation we may have had a communistic dictator.

If one analyses and considers the deeperlying content of this Bill, the first question one asks—and one can ask many other questions, too, but this is the most important—is whether it is in the interests of South Africa. I contend that this legislation is indeed in the interests of South Africa, because it affords protection not only to the Whites of South Africa, but also to the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians. We can actually say that we can write across this Bill in large red letters that it is in the interests of South Africa. We know that the PFP and the NRP and their predecessors do not have a good record when it comes to judging whether a matter is in the interests of South Africa. Usually they side against South Africa, as happened in 1961.

For any legislation to be effective, it must obviously serve as a deterrent. The terrorist, the saboteur, the person involved in subversive activities and the communist must and will think twice before they act unlawfully. Anyone not involved in unlawful activities has nothing to fear. This legislation therefore serves as a warning, and its aim must also be to serve as a deterrent. People cherishing such ideas or making such plans ought to be deterred by this legislation.

We must also bear in mind that this legislation will have a paralysing effect on our enemies outside South Africa. It reduces their points of contact inside South Africa wherewith to undermine our country from within. That is why it is important always to assess this legislation in general, and in particular the power to prohibit meetings and gatherings in certain cases, or to make the holding of such meetings subject to certain provisions, in the light of our internal security situation. If one does not take the internal security situation of our country into consideration one cannot accurately assess the value of the legislation now before this House.

Legislation which grants the authority to prohibit meetings, gatherings, processions and services in certain cases or makes them subject to certain conditions is on the face of it drastic legislation, because the right to hold meetings, to arrange gatherings, to attend funeral and commemorative services etc., is surely one of the basic freedoms of the individual and the community. In the light of the RSA’s position internationally, in the ideological conflict in the world and the spiritual conflict between nations, this legislation is not drastic, however, but in point of fact obviously necessary. When certain things happen, certain steps must be taken, and I want to give a few examples of this. When the public peace is seriously threatened by the holding of meetings, and when it is in the interests of the security of the State that those meetings be prohibited, for example, to maintain the public peace, then those meetings must be prohibited. Such meetings must also be prohibited when it is necessary to prevent hostility between the various population groups or parts of population groups of the RSA from being caused, encouraged or incited.

However, I feel one should go even further. When a police official with the rank of Warrant Officer or higher suspects that a gathering or meeting which has been prohibited is still going to take place, he must have the authority to have the entrance to the building in question barricaded or made inaccessible. I am convinced one should go a step further to ensure greater effectiveness. Under such circumstances that police official must have the authority to tell people who attend a meeting which has been banned to disperse and to order them to disperse within a certain period of time. If such an order does not have the desired effect further steps must be taken, and the question arises what such steps must be. I believe that the police official concerned must then order the policemen under his command to disperse the meeting, by force if necessary. In addition the use of firearms and other weapons which could possibly cause serious bodily injury or even death should be allowed, subject of course to the proviso that a greater degree of force than is actually necessary may not be used. To put it another way: The force used must be moderate in relation to the circumstances and the aim that is contemplated.

I should now like to deal with the criticism that the legislation may be too drastic. When considering this question, one must ask oneself whether one is on the side of the police, the wielders of authority who want to maintain law and order, or whether one is on the side of the rioters. If one is on the side of the police, one must give them the necessary instruments to act effectively. Our people, our nation, our country, our State is a peace-loving one. Our nation is a nation of peace. We prefer to build rather than to break down. We seek peace at any price, but we are in deadly earnest when we tell supporters or advocates of violence, agitators, rioters, inciters, terrorists, saboteurs, communists and everyone else who threatens our security, or seeks to destroy good order, that we shall meet violence with violence.

That includes the Progs.

We do not say that in a spirit of aggression. We say it in a spirit of law and order. The aim of these gatherings or meetings may be, among other things to promote the aims of communism. Other gatherings, such as funerals and commemorative services, can, unfortunately, be abused and may lead to disorder and violence. The report of the Cillié Commission of Inquiry into the Riots at Soweto and Elsewhere states the following in chapter 18, page 514, par. 18.1.1—

The report goes on—

It is not only in the RSA that this has taken place; in Northern Ireland it also occurs. Nevertheless the legislation is fair, because a magistrate has the authority to lay down conditions for a gathering, meeting or procession, as is the case in Northern Ireland, where the route to be followed and the vehicles to be used are prescribed. I am convinced that the measure in question is not only essential but is also practical, effective and fair.

I should now like to touch on another very important principle which is at stake here and about which a great deal of fuss has been made. I refer to short-term detention. The consideration of this principle, too, gives rise to certain questions. Is short-term detention necessary, fair and effective, and is short-term detention in the interests of the security of the State and the individual? We all know that during the past few years riots have taken place from time to time in various parts of our country which have caused great disruption, violence, loss of life and damage to property. The riots which took place in June 1976 in Soweto and in 1977 in various other areas, were and are a source of great concern to all of us. After that riots also occurred in various other parts of the country. In 1980 there was the unrest which started with the school boycott in the Western Cape and eventually led to rioting and violence in various parts of the country. We all realize that rioting of this kind threatens the foundations of a stable community. When such situations arise, it is the duty of the State to restore law and order as soon as possible. As far as this task is concerned, a solemn and weighty responsibility rests on the police not only to maintain order, but also to quell rioting and violence in the execution of their duty, while they themselves must use as little force as possible. In this connection I should like to quote the following from the Cillié Commission report (par. 5.2.1, page 429)—

Throughout the report mention is made of the part played and behaviour of the police in the fighting. The Force’s real positive objective was to be present where there was a threatened disturbance of the peace and to attempt to prevent this. If rioting broke out, it has to be suppressed, and once peace was restored it had to be maintained.

Now, we know that it is not always easy to control rioting of this nature or to put an end to it. The Rabie Commission remarked that it was particularly difficult to do so when, as occurred in the past, the rioting was organized and planned in advance, and that the problem was further aggravated when the organization and planning took place simultaneously in various parts of the country. We realize that as far as the combating of rioting is concerned, persuasion by influential members of the community and by the police in the initial stages or rioting can sometimes help a great deal to calm feelings and to decrease or put an end to violence. That is in the initial stages. However, if persuasion is not successful, what must be done? Equally, a ban on gatherings is not always an effective way of prohibiting and preventing rioting. In the first place, the public interest specifically requires that this rioting be prevented. What must be done? In line with this, the Rabie Commission found that the provisions authorizing the police to disperse noisy or prohibited gatherings are not always sufficient to prevent a repetition or continuation of rioting. Any reasonable person must agree with this. What does one do in such a case?

The Rabie Commission recommended that the existing measures be supplemented by a measure enabling the police to put an end to continued rioting in a better and more effective way than is at present possible and to prevent a repitition. The measures proposed by the commission in this connection are contained in clause 50 of this legislation. This measure provides for the arrest and temporary detention—detention for not more than 14 days—of the leaders and instigators of riots. The commission feels that this will contribute towards smothering the rioting at an early stage. Any reasonable person must and can agree with this. This afternoon the PFP and, it would seem, the NRP as well, are being unreasonable. It must be borne in mind that here one is not only concerned with terrorists or saboteurs, but also possibly with young people, and even schoolchildren, who are involved in the rioting. I feel that such a measure is imperative, to enable the police to nip in the bud disturbance of the public peace, disorderliness, rioting or public violence which may develop at any place. The measure is fair. On the expiration of the period of 48 hours after his arrest, the detainee must be released unless a magistrate issues a warrant for his further detention on the basis of information submitted to him under oath by the police. The total period of detention may, however, not exceed 14 days from the time of arrest.

Detention for a short period has the important advantage, which one must not lose sight of, that people detained for a maximum of 14 days have a chance to calm down during this period. These may be people who on the spur of the moment were carried away by tremendous emotion and tension which characterizes such noisy gatherings and were unable to assimilate the violence and the chaos and who at that moment, under abnormal conditions, did rash things which they would never have done under normal circumstances. This measure protects these people.

Certain critics claimed that security legislation of this nature should only apply for a limited time, and should not be permanent. This criticism is not only illogical but also unrealistic. We have, for example, the Riotous Assemblies Act (Act No. 17 of 1956), which is basically a reordering of the Riotous Assemblies and Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1914, as amended. It is therefore legislation drafted 68 yeas ago, and amended in 1926—56 years ago—and further amended by the Riotous Assemblies Amendment Act of 1930—52 years ago. Since 1930—i.e., for the past 52 years—the Minister of Justice has had the authority to have a meeting banned if he had reason to fear that a feeling of hostility between White residents of the country on the one hand and any other part of the population of the country on the other would be aroused. I tend to agree with the Rabie Commission that in the light of the composition of the population of the Republic of South Africa, there cannot be any doubt that there is a constant need for a measure of this nature.

With the aid of a quotation from Mr. Brzezinski, President Carter’s security adviser, I should like to show how dangerous a mass meeting can be. He said—

That is what Mr. Brzezinski said. Gatherings of this nature simply must be banned.

Another important aspect I want to emphasize is that we must realize that we must always be prepared for any eventuality. The classic state of emergency no longer arises. It exists constantly, latent and in a harmless form. As far as the communist onslaught against the world is concerned—and South Africa is included in this—there will not be a declaration of war. The special correspondent of one of our well-known daily newspapers, Die Volksblad wrote the following on 9 December 1971—i.e. 11 years ago—

Today of course, we can add the Russian communists as well as the East Germans and the Cubans. Last Thursday, 13 May, we read in the same newspaper—

In the light of these things, ministerial powers cannot be linked to a classical declaration of a state of emergency. Therefore the hon. the Minister also has the right to take action if it is in the interests of South Africa. The PFP sometimes kicks up a big fuss and alleges that we place the State above the individual, they say that they put the individual first, and then the State. This point of departure of the Opposition is incorrect. The State and the individual exist side by side; one is not above the other. If one puts the State first, one makes of the State an absolute, and this amounts to universalism: the State is the highest entity. If the individual is put first, then the individual is made an absolute, and this amounts to individualism. In the history of politics there are numerous examples of this. However, I do not have time to deal with this in detail.

I just want to refer briefly to the Christian standpoint in terms of which both these schools of thought are rejected. The State and the individual, and all the forms of life he is part of, are sovereign in their own right. The State may not act unjustly towards the individual and the other non-state life forms but the individual and the non-state life forms or organizations may not act unjustly towards the State either, because in both cases such behaviour would amount to an offence. In the same way, in the legislation before this House, an individual may not act unlawfully towards the State. If he does so, he commits an offence, and his rights must be restricted. I should like to make an appeal to the public at large not to take any notice of the spectres the PFP is conjiving up. Fortunately, our reasonable and normal people, the man in the street, realize that they need not fear this legislation. Since 1948 the judgment of our general public has always been sound and they know very well that this sort of legislation is not aimed at them but at these who undermine good order. The Opposition have made predictions of a frightful police state, and in practice this has always been proved to be untrue. There is an unbridgeable gap between us and the PFP. We shall never be able to agree with them or with the NRP on these matters, because our points of departure differ, our aims are not the same and we differ radically with regard to the task of the authorities. The PFP believes that an authority must govern in the interests of the majority, in the interests of the Black majority. The NRP believes it must govern in sectional interests, in the interests of Natal, and the CP would seem to believe that it must govern in the interests of the nation. The NP believes that a government must rule in the interests of everyone. This is the radical difference between the NP and all the other parties. In the years ahead, in the distant future, history itself will pass judgement on the weak attitude of the PFP, and the matter which becomes clearer in these debates, which was as plain as a pikestaff in this debate, is that we cannot leave the security of South Africa in the hands of the PFP.

In conclusion, I want to say that this legislation does not take away any rights or freedoms except the right of the communist or the underminer or the terrorist or the saboteur to destroy the security of the State and the maintenance of law and order. They are being deprived of these rights. The legislation is aimed solely at the underminer of the security of the State and at no one else.

Mr. Speaker, I hope to reply in the course of my speech to a few of the points raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein East.

I should like to come back to one of the contributions made right at the beginning of this debate, viz. the contribution by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, who is unfortunately not present in the House at the moment. He put a question which I thought was an important one. It was a simple question but in my opinion was an important one. He asked whether it was necessary for us to have security legislation.

†Mr. Speaker, when one tries to answer that question one has obviously to take into account the prevailing circumstances in our country as well as a fact which I think is generally accepted and that is that we have started entering a stage of transition in South Africa in which the White ruling group is loosening up and is starting to consider the possibility of transferring certain rights and powers to the other population groups. This situation, this stage of transition—I see the hon. the Minister of Justice is smiling because this topic is being raised again.

Apparently the hon. member has now studied page 310 in its entirety.

Mr. Speaker, I promise the hon. the Minister that I will not bore him by referring to that page again. I am not referring to that at all. In a stage of transition one has to take into account the realistic problems that do arise. Firstly, as far as the Whites are concerned, the stage of transition goes hand in hand with a fear of the future and insecurity. It goes hand in hand with the growth of reactionary elements among the White group and in this regard we have already heard noises made by far right wing factions uttering threats of violence. At the same time some of the Blacks and the other racial groups, because they have been depressed for so long, will be spurred on by over-inflated expectations whilst others, in order to retain their power bases, will deliberately and sometimes through violence attempt to ruin such a transition. I believe that one has to accept that during a stage of transition it may be difficult to rely exclusively on common law or on the normal legal procedures. I shall deal at a later stage with what I mean by normal legal procedures.

It would in my view be unrealistic—it has never been put on that basis from this side of the House—to say that we are in favour of the concept of no security legislation at all. That has never been our case. [Interjections.] We have indicated that any security legislation during the stage we are in at the moment is only justified if it exists side by side with adequate checks and balances with judicial control. This again is something with which I shall deal at a later stage.

It is during a stage of transition that one has to start loosening up security legislation. One has to start liberalizing it. Again this is a point which has been made before, and the hon. the Minister of Law and Order in another debate a few days ago suggested that exactly the contrary should happen, viz. that that would be the stage where one starts tightening up.

No, that is not what I said. I said that because of an escalation in the situation one should have a tightening up.

The present legislation and the provisions contained in the Bill will be seen by the majority of the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Asians as a device—they need not see it as such because it actually is a device—to maintain and entrench the present White political structure, the present White political domination.

Only wilful people will see it that way.

That is how it is seen, and I believe it is doing exactly that.

How do you see it?

Opposition to the status quo in terms of this legislation is seen as opposition to Government policies as a whole. It is not necessary to be involved in violence or to make use of violence in order to be covered by the security legislation. The interests of the State and those of the present political structure are seen as one and the same thing. We have a good example. The hon. brave member on my left who is prone to spit out political sludge indicated last Friday that in his view—of course I am now referring to the hon. member for Langlaagte—many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Houghton in the House have, over the years, done inestimable damage to this country.

Agreed.

Yes, when the hon. member made, that statement there were a number of “hear, hears” on that side of the House.

Because it is the truth.

That is probably the best indication of a blurring of the interests of the political party which forms the Government in power and the interests of the State. That is exactly what the security laws are being use for in many instances. They do not make a distinction between the interests of a particular political philosophy which is at the moment being implemented by the Government and the real interests of the State.

The Bill contains a simple long title which explains that the Bill deals with the security of the State and the maintenance of law and order. The proposition which was made by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt was that if we voted against this Bill, it would mean that we were against law and order and against maintaining the security of the State. That is a simple, nonsensical proposition. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Turffontein is the type of person who would believe in such nonsense. He is a person who can only talk in terms of extremes and he justifies everything in terms of a communist threat and in terms of a war which is going on at that level. Let us examine the proposition made by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. Perhaps one should by way of comparison look at legislation dealing with monopolies. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt no doubt is in favour of the concept of free enterprise. At the same time he will probably agree that to some extent there has to be an inroad into that concept, e.g. by legislation dealing with monopolies. If legislation is introduced, in the name of promoting free enterprise, to prevent every possible merger or takeover, obviously he will vote against it, but his so voting will not mean that he is against free enterprise. It is as simple as that. We cannot and will not accept that this Bill does in the long run promote law, order and the security in the State, and for that reason alone one should vote against it.

I should like to deal with a few aspects of the Bill itself and indicate why a number of principles are objectionable and unacceptable. I will only deal with five principles, but there are many others.

I deal, firstly, with the question of access by lawyers to detainees. That is an aspect which is dealt with in, inter alia, clause 29(7) and clause 31(4). Clause 29(7) incorporates into the present Bill section 6 of the Terrorism Act and clause 31(4) deals with the detention of witnesses by the Attorney-General. In both these clauses clear and definite provision is made for excluding the access of lawyers, deliberately and in clear language.

Yes, that is right.

The concept of excluding the right of access by lawyers is to us unacceptable. One has to look at the Rabie Commission report in order to see how the commission approached this particular aspect. On page 189 the commission dealt with the right of lawyers to assist at a particular stage, viz. before the review committee or the advice committee. I quote paragraph 11.4.8.1—

The commission regarded this as a “netelige” problem. Yet we have had no indication from hon. members on the other side of the House so far that there are any “netelige” problems at all in this Bill. To them it is an easy Bill, with no issue really which one ought to worry about. It is straight-forward, and they give it their wholehearted support. The commission, in considering whether or not lawyers ought to have access to detainees, looked at examples in other countries. On page 189 they refer to the Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act of 1973 and clearly point out that in terms of that Act lawyers were allowed. It is true that they were not always allowed to be present when evidence was given which was particularly sensitive, but the concept of a detainee having access to a lawyer is most definitely enshrined in that Act. Then they also referred to the Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act of 1978. In that Act there is no specific provision allowing for the right of legal advisers to have access because it is axiomatic, it is assumed, that that must be the situation. The only way in which that Act deals with the question of whether or not lawyers should be allowed, is in a reference which states that in obtaining legal advice or assistance in connection with the preparation of any representations, the detainee may get financial assistance.

In both these Acts, the concept of having the right to a lawyer is enshrined, although, as I stated earlier on, he is not always allowed to be present. Against that this Bill, in clauses 27 and 31, deliberately excludes access of lawyers to detainees. This we cannot accept. Situations exist in other Western countries where even under martial law the detainee has the right of access to his lawyer.

There is another aspect which we cannot accept, and that is the concept of a detainee possibly disappearing from the face of this earth as far as the public is concerned. I refer in particular to clause 29(7), which states—

1. (b) shall be entitled to any official information relating to or obtained from such person.

No-one is therefore entitled to any official information relating to the detainee. No-one is entitled to know whether he has been arrested, where he is being kept, since when he has been arrested, in terms of which law he has been arrested or whether he is in good health. These are questions to which we shall not be entitled to receive answers. Parents, wives or the Press will not be entitled to this information. Mr. Speaker, this type of provision can only create bitterness and resentment. The Detainees’ Parents Support Committee can only grow in strength, can only grow in influence and they will grow in influence in circumstances like these. The inevitable sympathy from the public at large, particularly from those who do not have a vote, will grow when they come up against a provision like this, because it cannot be understood by the average man in the street. We cannot accept, as a matter of principle, that news and information about detainees should not be available to even the closest relatives of detainees.

Thirdly, I wish to deal with the question of banning orders and restriction orders. That is dealt with in clause 19 of the Bill. Let us now look at page 171 of the Rabie Commission report and try to determine how the commission arrived at supporting the concept of banning. They looked at systems in other countries. How do they view similar banning provisions in other countries? The only situation they refer to where banning orders were in existence is a reference on page 171 to King Solomon, where King Solomon in his days banned a king to the precincts of Jerusalem and threatened him with death if he were to leave Jerusalem. That is the only reference to bannings in the past, to bannings under any other legal system, and I am talking mainly of the Western systems. But those were days when King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines; so one cannot really rely upon King Solomon’s mores and norms. There is no other Western civilized country that I am aware of—and I would have liked the hon. the Minister to have given us examples—where similar banning provisions are in operation. I am not aware of one country, and I would appreciate it therefore if we could be given more information. The Rabie Commission therefore probably had problems justifying and substantiating its support for the concept. It is a concept that is aimed at a category of individuals who has not, in the view of the hon. the Minister, really committed an offence, but who, in his view, constitutes a danger and a threat to the security of the State or to the interests of the State generally. That is a dangerous grey area where the hon. the Minister in his discretion will decide how individuals can be painted, whether they are pink, red or black. The hon. the Minister makes that decision. That is a grey area where the Government’s political opponents can be pulled in and where people such as Beyers Naudé can be pulled in, people who are banned or restricted at this stage. It is a grey area that the State can exploit and which the State will use in dealing with political opponents, unless there are adequate checks and balances, something which does not exist at the moment. [Interjections.]

Sir, may I just in passing deal with another aspect of this Bill, although it does not really constitute the gravamen of the objections that we have. It is interesting to note that hon. members of this House may find themselves kicked out of Parliament if they are convicted of the crime of possessing a publication that was published on behalf of an unlawful organization, or if they are found to be in possession of, for example, a student newspaper that has been banned. If they are convicted of that offence, the hon. the Minister may, in terms of clause 33, suggest or see to it that such an hon. member of this House loses his rights to sit in this House, and he may not again stand as a candidate. [Interjections.] This is the type of arbitrary power that is given to the hon. the Minister.

I should now like to deal with the fourth basis on which, I believe, this Bill cannot be approved of.

The Minister can only act on a report approved by the Assembly.

Does the hon. the Minister believe that in its present setup, the Assembly will not approve a suggestion made by him? [Interjections.] I certainly cannot see that happening, particularly when it comes to the hon. the Minister of Law and Order.

I should now like to deal with a further concept in the Bill. In clause 58 a new concept is introduced, in that additional punishment is provided in regard to people who are convicted for protesting against any particular law. That is one of the most far-reaching clauses and concepts relating to punishment in this Bill. One almost gets the impression as though the State, through that clause, is telling its subjects: We will teach you a lesson if you think that you are entitled to criticize our laws. If, for example, a group decides to protest against petty apartheid signs and if during that demonstration or procession a petty apartheid sign is removed, the individual responsible can be convicted, in addition to the usual sentence for damaging property, to a maximum of three years imprisonment or a fine of R3 000. There is to my mind no possible justification for an additional punishment when people exercise their right of criticizing a particular law and their right of criticizing a particular application of a law. That is a concept that cannot possibly be accepted, but must be rejected. We oppose the Bill for that reason as well.

The last aspect that I wish to raise relates to judicial safeguards. It has been said that the introduction of a review board is an improvement. We see from the provisions of the Bill, however, that if the hon. the Minister’s view coincides with that of the review committee, the matter is not taken any further and there is no further reference to the courts or a judge, and if the matter is to be referred at all, it is only on certain specific grounds. Very often, from the other side of the House the example of Israel is held out. We are told that the system in Israel is a system we can rely on. What, however, is the position in Israel? Let me just say in passing that I would not mind if we were to have a similar situation in our country, taking the relevant circumstances into account. In 1979 Israel reformed its security legislation, which it inherited from the British system in the late ’forties. In terms of of the amended legislation, a detainee has to be brought before a judge within 48 hours of his arrest, and the judge has the power to confirm or set aside the order in terms of which he was arrested.

No detention.

The courts and judges have access to the full security docket on the detainee and the court decides what information may be given to him and what material is too sensitive for disclosure. The court does not view its task as being one of substituting its judgment for the judgement of the Minister, but it does examine the merits of the decision to see that adequate grounds for the detention exist. This is a security law—one dealing with detention—that comes as close as possible to remaining within the concepts of the rule of law, i.e. the right to have access to lawyers, the courts and the right to have proper checks and balances. We did not even attempt to come close to the conditions prevailing in Israel. In the Rabie Report there is no discussion in depth of this particular provision in the Israeli law.

I have merely dealt with a few particular points arising from this Bill. The hon. Member for Houghton highlighted aspects such as the permanency of the laws envisaged. She also highlighted aspects of judicial control and many other aspects too. The package, as it has been presented to the House, is such that it contains so many objectionable and unacceptable provisions that it cannot be accepted.

The hon. member for Durban North pointed out another reason why it is difficult to support the Bill as such. He referred to the unfettered discretionary powers of the hon. the Minister, something we in the official Opposition—in fact Parliament as a whole—cannot check upon. That is therefore another valid reason that was raised.

We can therefore not support the Bill, and I therefore support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose replying in detail to what the hon. member for Durban Central has said. In fact the aspects of the Bill that he finds objectionable will be canvassed fully in the Committee Stage. I shall therefore confine myself to certain principles inherent in this legislation and in doing so I shall also respond to some of the arguments raised by the hon. member.

*If the Bill is considered from a purely academic point of view and in isolation, one could probably with a certain degree of justification, find fault with it. I want to concede this immediately.

Thank you very much.

However, I want to suggest that this is not a meaningful approach to the measure. After all, we are not involved in a school debate; or in an academic exercise. What is happening here is that the sovereign legislative authority in the Republic of South Africa is involved in the serious consideration of legislation to protect the country and all its people against terrorism, subversion and sabotage. The Bill must therefore be evaluated against the background of the existing realities in South Africa.

On the basis of what the hon. members of the Opposition have already said in this debate, I feel that I am entitled to assume that they agree that there is in fact terrorism, subversion and sabotage in and against the Republic of South Africa. They do not deny this; therefore I assume that my assumption is well-founded and, in addition, that these things do in fact constitute a threat to the country and its people. I also assume that the hon. members of the Opposition agree that action must be taken against the threat. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Durban Central and prior to that, the hon. member for Durban North, admitted this.

It appears from the arguments that these hon. members specified certain requirements with regard to the action taken to protect the country and its people against terrorism and subversion. In general these requirements amount to the following: Firstly, that no excessive action is to be taken; secondly, that there must be effective control measures by the courts; and thirdly, that the rule of law must apply. Let us analyze these three requirements as specified by the Opposition.

In the first place there is the requirement that no excessive action is to be taken. In this connection the hon. members—the hon. member for Houghton also did so—referred to the position in Northern Ireland and the position in Israel—to which the hon. the member for Durban Central has just referred. The fact of the matter is that the position in the Republic of South Africa differs in various respects from that in the two countries to which the hon. members referred. I cannot mention all the differentiating elements now, but in passing I should like to make two observations. In Northern Ireland the security position has not improved since the stricter security measures ended in 1975.

It did not get worse either.

On the contrary, it did become worse.

I do not think so.

As far as Israel is concerned, internal security is taken care of by the Defence Force …

They have itchy trigger fingers.

… and the Defence Force has wide powers and authority to take action against terrorism, subversion and sabotage. I believe that the hon. member for Verwoerdburg will refer to this in more detail when he takes part in the debate

It is virtually impossible to define the concept of “internal security”. Internal security depends very much on the value-judgement attached to a specific situation. It depends very much on the concept of the “maintenance of law and order”. What is excessive and what is not therefore depends on the reply to the question of what minimum action is needed effectively to ensure law and order according to the value-judgement attached to a specific situation.

After a thorough investigation the Rabie Commission also confirmed the necessity for such legislation as the measure now under consideration.

I am in full agreement with hon. members of the Opposition when they say that there must be effective control measures. In fact, the Bill now before this House is a serious attempt to improve the control measures for which earlier security legislation made provision. For this reason alone one would expect hon. members of the Opposition to support this measure. However, hon. members of the Opposition are not satisfied with the measures contained in the Bill to improve effective control over the exercise of powers. They want control by the courts. The function of the courts in South Africa is, however, to administer justice. The courts must therefore not be involved in an executive task. I believe we in South Africa are justly proud of the high standard of our courts. We are justly proud of the absolute impartiality of our courts. For this reason I believe it would be an evil day when we drag our courts into the political arena to fulfil an executive function by, as it were, exercising control over the wielding of executive powers by members of the executive.

The preservation of internal security is, on the other hand, the function of the executive. I believe it is the Government’s first duty to preserve the security of the State and all its people for which it is responsible. To this hon. members of the Opposition react by alleging that it is not only the Government’s duty to serve the interests of the State but also to protect the interests of the citizens of that State. Once again I concede that I agree entirely with this. However, the question which arises is: Who are the people whose interests have to be protected. The hon. member for Durban Central suggested very cynically that the people whose interests have to be protected are the White minority. I reject that statement of his as not only being irresponsible, but also a dangerous statement to make under the present circumstances. In this connection when we speak of protecting the interests of the citizens of South Africa hon. members of the official Opposition only see those people against whom action is taken in terms of security legislation. They do not see the millions of law-abiding citizens of all population groups in this country, whose interests must also be protected. Hon. members of the Opposition show no understanding of the fact that if the interests of the individuals who constitute a threat to law and order were to be accorded the highest priority—as those hon. members want—this would in fact be contrary to the best interests of the millions of law-abiding citizens of this country. When the interests of the large number of law-abiding citizens of South Africa have to be weighed up against the interests of individuals who constitute a threat to law and order, there can only be one choice: The interests of South Africa and of all its people must then of necessity be accorded the highest priority.

This brings me to the third requirement specified by the hon. members, namely that the rule of law must apply. Whenever this House is considering security legislation we have become used to hon. members of the Opposition alleging that the Government and we on this side of the House have no respect for the rule of law or that we are deliberately or unwittingly violating the rule of law. In this debate we have also heard this argument repeatedly. To my surprise we also heard it from the hon. member for Durban North.

I want to state quite clearly and unequivocally that we on this side of the House set as much store by the preservation of the rule of law as any hon. member on that side of the House. [Interjections.] Precisely because we do, we also set store by the preservation of the structures which are necessary for upholding this principle, because one cannot preserve the rule of law in South Africa if one allows those persons who constitute a threat to the security of the State to have their own way. In no State in the world where attacks against the existing law and order have succeeded, has anything remained of the rule of law. As a matter of fact the rule of law was one of the first victims of the overthrow of the security and of law and order in those States and we in South Africa cannot allow ourselves the luxury of the naivety of simply adopting the standpoint that we want to uphold the rule of law without caring what becomes of the security of the State within which we want to do so or without preserving the structures which are essential for this purpose.

Hon. members who speak so readily about the rule of law must ask themselves what the rule of law entails and in the time at my disposal I should like to refer to this briefly. In 1885 the British constitutional lawyer R. B. Dicey laid down the rule of law as a norm for British constitutional law in his introduction to the study of the constitution—note, as a norm for British constitutional law. He defined this rule of law as follows—

That is what Dicey had to say about the concept of the rule of law.

When forming an assessment of Dicey’s interpretation of the rule of law it must be borne in mind that he was writing against the background of his time about the British constitutional system, in which no written constitution exists. I wonder whether the hon. members of the Opposition who always have so much to say about the rule of law have the slightest notion of what this means. [Interjections.] Dicey says it makes a difference; I have just quoted what he said. It makes a substantial difference.

Principles remain the same.

That is why the courts in Britain play a far greater role in the preservation of civil liberties than in countries with a written constitution in which civil rights are clearly spelled out. This fact is admitted by Dicey in the portion of his work I have just quoted. It is specifically stated that in contrast to Britain, in countries with written constitutions there is not the same need for supervision by the courts as there is in Britain. In this respect British constitutional law and South African constitutional law differ tremendously.

There is therefore absolutely no justification for applying Dicey’s views on the rule of law without further ado to the situation in South Africa.

Why?

I am going to tell you why. In the preface to Dicey’s Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, Prof. E. C. S. Wade places the writer’s views in perspective—

Therefore, since Dicey’s time, an essential difference in the position of the State towards its subjects has arisen according to the learned writer.

It is therefore being admitted here that under today’s circumstances it is occasionally necessary for the rights of the individual to be subordinated to the rights of the community as a whole. One may not therefore become obsessed with the rights of the individual to all forms of freedom, including the freedom to commit acts of terrorism, subversion and sabotage, and overlook the right of the community to an orderly existence and security.

It is significant to note what certain other constitutional experts have written about the rule of law. I am referring to the constitutional expert who would seem to be fairly popular among the hon. members of the official Opposition, namely Prof. A. S. Mathews, and I am quoting from p. 3 of his book Law, order and liberty in South Africa. He wrote the following—

The writer to whom he refers is Burnett Harvey an article on The Challenge of the Rule of Law. Another writer, Norman S. Marsh, in his book article on The Rule of Law as a Supra-National Concept wrote the following—

In conclusion I quote from L. S. Fuller’s book, The Morality of the Law, on page 211—

These writers all accept that the Parliament as the sovereign legislative authority cannot and must not be restricted in its legislation by the rule of law. As a matter of fact, Dicey himself emphasized the importance of the sovereignty of the Parliament for the preservation of the rule of law. I am quoting from page 411 of his abovementioned book—

Mr. P. C. CRONJÉ: Provided Parliament can support it.

That hon. member knows too little about this matter, he should rather keep quiet.

On page 411 Dicey said—

But they respect civil rights.

Oh no, now the hon. member is again singing her old tune about respecting civil rights. Was the hon. member not listening while I expounded my argument? She is still singing the same old tune she has been singing all these years.

Correctly seen, the rule of law consists of nothing more and nothing less than the following: In the first place, an established authority as is for example represented by this Parliament, established and supported by the politically organized community. If hon. members want to suggest that that community is not correctly structured, that could be an argument for some other day. In the second place the rule of law consists of a lawful source of authority, such as the Parliament once again or if hon. members want to take it further back than that, the electorate. In the third place the rule of law consists of general rules laid down in advance by the Government itself, as is done in legislation and other enactments. In the fourth place the rule of law entails an independent judiciary. This is what the rule of law consists of, nothing more and nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member concede that on the basis of those four criteria the rule of law applies in Soviet Russia?

I am not an authority on the constitutional position in Soviet Russia, but I do know something about the constitutional position in South Africa. I can state without fear of contradiction that the rule of law applies in South Africa.

Well, then you have emasculated it to nothing.

I want to accuse the hon. members of the Opposition of not contributing to the preservation of the rule of law by constantly bartering with it and attaching all kinds of interpretations to it whenever it suits them. Once again I quote from the work by Prof. Mathews in which he wrote in the preface—

The hon. member for Houghton must listen to this now—

Do you know what Prof. Mathews thinks of this Bill? Why do you not tell us?

I quoted what Prof. Mathews wrote about the rule of law.

Tell us what he thinks of this legislation.

I am not giving the opinion of all and sundry on this legislation.

Why are you quoting him then?

(Mossel Bay): The behaviour of hon. members of the Opposition, when they are dealing with the rule of law, makes one more inclined to agree with the damning statement of the writer R. M. Jackson in his book Machinery of Justice in England in which he said—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Mossel Bay on a very well-considered speech. He gave us a lecture on constitutional law which could only have come from a person with a doctor’s degree in that field. The hon. members of the PFP will undoubtedly conduct very fruitful debates with him in the future.

As far as the hon. member for Durban North is concerned, there is one aspect he mentioned to which I should like to react. He said that anyone who was arrested had to be charged. Surely that is the position in South Africa. Anyone who is arrested is charged in a court as soon as possible. More than 99% of those arrested are charged almost immediately in a court. The mistake the hon. member makes is to lay too much emphasis on that fraction of 1% who are not charged immediately. He forgets that the basis of the law still stands. My advice to him, therefore, is not to make a big principle out of a small exception. The people who are indeed detained before being charged are in any event charged as soon as possible.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East said something I should like to stress and that is that the legislation does not take away rights, except those of the communist. I agree with the hon. member that rights are only taken away from those who form part of the total onslaught of South Africa.

The hon. member for Durban Central asked whether security legislation was indeed necessary. For our part we want to give him the assurance that it is of course necessary. It is necessary to be in a position to take action against the total onslaught; it is necessary for the maintenance of law and order and stability. Extraordinary powers are necessary for this purpose. The hon. member also said that his party was not opposed in principle to security legislation as long as there were adequate measures of control. Why, then, did they vote against the principle of this legislation?

The hon. member for Durban Central stated the interests of the State and those of the NP in such a way as to make them seem indivisible, as though the Government only looked after the interests of the NP. However, we on this side of the House believe that the Government is sincere as regards the security of everyone in this country and that they do not only take the interests of the NP into account.

In my support of this Bill I want to adopt as a point of departure today the total onslaught on the Republic of South Africa. A State makes laws because there is a need for such laws and not because it has nothing else to do. The need of the Republic of South Africa for security legislation is based on the fact that there is a total onslaught on our country. Because I firmly believe that there is such an onslaught on South Africa, and I also believe that greater emphasis should be placed on our counter-strategy, I wholeheartedly support this Bill. I am sometimes amazed that there are people who do not believe that there is a total onslaught on South Africa. It amazes me even more that there can be people who want to make use of the total onslaught in an effort to score cheap debating points. I am also amazed that the hon. members of the PFP do not wish to take a clear standpoint on the total onslaught. Perhaps one should once again ask them pointedly whether they believe that there is a total onslaught on South Africa and whether that total onslaught is indeed a reason for this security legislation.

The answer is no!

Has the time not come for us to conduct a meaningful debate on this issue of a total onslaught on South Africa? Responsible speakers could then take part in such a debate and all of us could move a little closer to the whole truth. It would be quite interesting to listen to contributions from all parts of the PFP.

This legislation is necessary in our effort to defend South Africa against the total onslaught. It therefore forms part of South Africa’s total counter-strategy against such an onslaught, and I should like to say a few words about the total onslaught.

In my opinion the purpose of the total onslaught on our country is the overthrow of the existing order in South Africa and the surrender of White to Black. This onslaught is waged both from beyond and within the borders of our country, and without legislation such as that which is being introduced at present, it will not be possible for the Republic of South Africa to avert these onslaughts. At this point, therefore, I ask the PFP pointedly whether they believe that it is Russia’s declared aim to dominate the world and that it regards South Africa as a primary target in Africa.

Yes, but is it Reagan’s objective as well?

If they believe that, then do they also believe that legislation is necessary to defend South Africa against that total onslaught? Immediately the hon. Chief Whip falls silent. If then, there is a total onslaught …

There is not.

The hon. member for Berea now says that there is not a total onslaught on South Africa. The problem now is that the hon. Chief Whip of the PFP concedes that there is an onslaught against us, while the hon. member for Berea denies it.

The USA does not have legislation like this.

If there is a total onslaught against us, how are we to defend ourselves against it without legislation? The total onslaught necessitates more stringent legislation. The gravity of the total onslaught also determines the degree of stringency of legislation.

I am pleased you believe there is a total onslaught.

The hon. member Mr. Vermeulen should know that the total onslaught is not something which should be brought down to the level of cheap politics. One does not do so in order to score cheap debating points or interjections. As far as I am concerned, the total onslaught manifests itself on such a wide front that such legislation is indeed necessary. Politically speaking there is a total bloc formation against the Republic of South Africa in the UN. Pressure is exerted on our neighbouring States there. In our homelands and in our Black communities, racial hatred is incited …

By you too. You also do that.

The hon. member for Durban Central has had his turn.

That is part of the total onslaught.

Efforts are even being made to divide the Whites. That is the political onslaught. Ideologically speaking, we are faced with the totality of Marxism. There is also a psychological aspect of the onslaught, and it is aimed at us by the media throughout the world. The good things done by the RSA are not mentioned, but the least thing that is not good is widely publicized. Words are conjured with in a subtle and very dangerous way. Words such as “liberation”, “just war”, “majority Government” and “peace” are the order of the day.

What about “power-sharing”?

Those words are used without being properly defined.

Yes, that is what you do.

In die economic field, too, there is a total onslaught against the RSA. There are boycotts against us, the freezing of foreign assets, capital that is withheld, extortion by large corporations. There is an onslaught on us in the cultural sphere as well as in the fields of sports and religion. Traditions are exploited. There is permissiveness, liberal provocation and the stressing of race differences. In the diplomatic field, too, there is an onslaught against us.

You are becoming paranoid.

There is the breaking of diplomatic ties with South Africa. Our homelands are not recognized. Diplomatic support is given to Swapo, the ANC and others. Attacks are then launched on us. In the military field there is active insurgence, a latent conventional onslaught and arms boycotts, and assistance is being given to our enemies.

The provisions of this Act may indeed seem drastic, but they are aimed at the protection of South Africa and all its inhabitants against a total onslaught by Godless communism. How else is the total onslaught to be fought, without legislation such as this?

In conclusion, we on this side of the House should like to thank the people who worked on the Rabie report, and we want to thank the SAP in particular for the fact that they guard the freedom and security of the RSA.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Jeppe for his support of the Second Reading of this Bill today.

There are three areas in particular concerning which we in this House cannot agree, and I think that as a result, this debate lost a great deal of its effectiveness during the early stages. We cannot agree at all at the level of the factual circumstances which prompted this side of the House to request the Rabie Commission to investigate our security legislation, and the Commission’s finding which indicated why we have such urgent need of security legislation. It is with a measure of disappointment that one sometimes has the feeling that hon. members who make speeches here, either have not read chapters 6 and 7 of the Rabie Commission’s report, or do not associate themselves with it at all.

I have.

This hon. member indicates that he enjoyed reading chapters 6 and 7. However, I do not think we interpret the factual circumstances which necessitated security legislation in precisely the same way. However, I shall deal with this in greater detail in due course.

There is a second reason why there is no proper contact when we are debating these matters with one another. This has to do with the weight or the role which we allocate to the executive, and the responsibility which the executive has to bear in order to protect the security of the State. Because we do not agree on this, we also do not agree on precisely how serious the security situation is to which security legislation has to be adapted. We on this side of the House are convinced that the measure we are now discussing, establishes a fairer dispensation than the laws which are being consolidated in this particular piece of legislation. We are seeking a dispensation by means of which we can ensure State security without tampering unnecessarily with individual freedom. We are simultaneously striving to achieve both effectiveness and fairness. It is not true that we are trying to make greater inroads on the freedom and movement of the individual than the threat to State security as such requires. To the amazement and surprise of so many members, I wish to state that we on this side are looking forward to the happy day when this legislation, as it appears before this House at present, may fall into disuse because it is unnecessary to implement it. However, our argument is that we are in urgent need of this legislation for the immediate and foreseeable future, to ensure security and order in this country. Since a serious effort is being made to meet the requirements of the times, we are of the opinion that it should take place in an atmosphere of tranquility and with the maintenance of law and order.

However, an element of unreasonableness can be detected when hon. members opposite enter into debate with us on this measure. I am referring now to the speech made by the hon. member for Houghton. I am not going to provoke her to the extent that she finds it necessary to withdraw from the Chamber. I wish to quote what she said.

You have got manners—unlike others.

Do not be a guttersnipe.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Langlaagte permitted to refer to another hon. member as a “guttersnipe”?

It is a bird.

Order! The hon. member used it in a degrading sense. He must withdraw it.

I did not. It is a bird.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member for Houghton said in her speech—

The hon. member went on to refer to that excellent lecture in which Advocate De Villiers intimated that the security legislation of three years ago did not meet the requirements of reasonableness and fairness and that the necessary mechanisms of control were lacking. Now it is interesting to note that this learned gentleman, as reported in Die Burger of 5 February this year, points out four outstanding characteristics of the Rabie Report in particular, in respect of which we on this side of the House are in complete agreement with him. Firstly, he points out that anyone with a legal background finds it lamentable that legislation such as that which we are discussing at present, should be necessary. He points out that judge of appeal Mr. Justice Rabie himself laments the fact; the judge’s view that the Acts are, in fact, necessary, is respected. This is an excellent analysis of how we on this side of the House see the matter.

At an earlier stage in this debate, the hon. member for Houghton asked one of my colleagues what kind of legal mentality one was displaying if one suggested that there were sufficient measures of control. I wish to assert that this is not a reasonable remark. The legal mentality we are displaying, is, after all, that the legislation is in conflict with the heart and soul of our sense of justice. Like Mr. Justice Rabie, however, we find this legislation to be necessary. Secondly, Advocate De Villiers indicates that there are specific control measures which this Commission recommends after comparing them with those of other States, and that he finds these control measures relatively positive and satisfactory. Thirdly, he points out that this security legislation cannot be a permanent solution to our circumstances in this country. Fourthly, he is delighted about the fact that we define particular crimes more specifically and directly.

I mentioned all of those.

Yes, in all fairness I must admit that the hon. member for Houghton mentioned all these aspects. However, she referred to a speech delivered prior to the release of the Rabie Report. My case, on the other hand, rests on the claim that Adv. De Villiers believes that all the demands set out in his speech prior to the release of the Rabie Commission report…

All his demands?

He is pretty satisfied with the Rabie Commission report, as well as with the legislation resulting from that report.

I also mentioned some positive aspects of the legislation.

Yes, I know the hon. member mentioned some positive aspects that resulted from the Rabie Commission report. I am afraid, however, that we are arguing at cross purposes when it comes to the heart of the matter.

There is no heart in this!

The hon. member for Parktown says there is no heart in this. I think the hon. member needs a heart transplant. He should allow me to perform that heart transplant on him.

You need a transplant between your ears!

Marius, you have nothing between your ears. You therefore do not know what we are talking about! [Interjections.]

It is indicated here that there will be definite developments. I am not referring to minor matters, which are indeed, in a sense, extremely important, for example, the re-institution of presumptious, the reinstatement of the res iudicata rule, and certain minimum penalties. This is not the case I am making. My case is that this measure is ensuring for the first time, in a meaningful way, that control measures are built into the legislation. I wish to argue the matter.

Hon. members have tried to imply that the actions of the hon. the Minister of Law and Order simply take place in isolation, that he takes decisions hidden under a cloak of secrecy, and that no-one is in any way placed in a position to examine these circumstances closely. I believe this is not at all true. Nor is it in any way correct.

Of course it is not in any way correct.

One need only take note of the variety of procedures followed when the hon. the Minister takes action against organizations or publications. One could also take note of the procedures followed in respect of preventive detention, membership of organizations, the restriction of people’s movements, and so on. One could take cognizance of all these procedures, and would then find that the hon. the Minister is, firstly, compelled to give written reasons for acting as he does. Furthermore, we find that if the person affected does not agree, he may appeal for a process of review within 14 days. If he does not follow the correct procedure to contest the direction of the hon. the Minister in court, he may appeal for a process of review.

The arguments that are now being put forward as to why this process of review is a minor, watered down process, are not merely disappointing; one also detects an element of malice in them. On the one hand, the Government is being attacked because it is supposedly continually preoccupied with colour, and because it supposedly attaches racial connotations to all its measures. However, when the hon. the Minister of Manpower introduces legislation to which no colour or racial connotation is attached, we find that not only hon. members on this side of the House, but also hon. members of the official Opposition shout: Hurray! This is right; this is what we are looking for; this is what we want. When the hon. the Minister omits to indicate in this legislation that the three persons who are going to serve on the review board need not be members of a particular population group, then people say this is unfair, this is not correct. They ask whether the time has not come for specific representation to be made that one of those members of the board of review, should be a member of a particular population group. This is an unnecessary effort to find a colour connotation in a matter relating to a control measure, since nowhere in the legislation is the Minister prohibited from deciding that someone who has special knowledge or meets a particular need and who is a member of a particular population group may serve on it. Therefore no colour restriction is incorporated in this measure.

Furthermore, the critics of the legislation, as well as of the Rabie Commission report seek to contend that this board of review will conduct it’s proceedings in secrecy; that this board of review is going to be a board the members of which will not be made known. Nowhere in this legislation is there proof that this criticism is well-founded.

A further matter which I think is extremely unfair as far as the legislation, as well as the Rabie Commission as it stands, are concerned, is the argument being put forward that someone with the status of a magistrate, because he is part of the system or the State machinery, will not be competent to express a reasonable, fair and objective opinion. When someone appears before a magistrate in a criminal or civil case on an important matter, that person’s sense of justice is so developed, that the man in the street is confident that he will return a fair and reasonable verdict. However, when discretion has to be exercised with regard to security legislation, he is attacked.

Another argument arising out of this is that after the actions of the Minister have been checked by the board of review and the Minister does not, as far as this argument is concerned …

It is not for the purposes of checking.

Yes, Sir. The hon. member for Durban North is helping me. He says that it is not for the purposes of checking.

To furnish advice.

I think the hon. member would do very well to try and determine the spirit of the board of review. The attitude of the board of review is that all the documents which induced the Minister to reach the conclusion he did, must be made available to that board of review.

Plus further evidence.

Plus further evidence. A person being affected by this, may be assisted by a lawyer.

And after six months.

After that review board has reached a decision, an independent decision, it discloses its motivation and reasons to the Minister and if the Minister does not agree …

It cannot compel him.

That is correct. I say that if he does not agree, he is compelled to consult the Chief Justice. [Interjections.] In this regard, a very interesting anomaly is to be detected in the reasoning of hon. Members. Over the years, hon. members on the Opposition side have argued with regard to the handling of security matters that one does not trust politicians and the executive with these important matters. If one does not wish to restructure one’s constitution so that the courts accept responsibility, one should then subject this arbitrary or discretionary decision-making of the executive to the supervision of the judiciary or to someone with a legal qualification. There should therefore be administrative control in respect of the decisions taken by the executive authority. Now that the Government has this approach, hon. members are flinching from this reality, because their argument is now that the Government is empowered to expose its political opponents by means of this security legislation. This argument has been advanced. This cannot be correct, of course, since the Chief Justice is now empowered to decide on certain grounds that the Minister’s decision is not justified, for example when it is felt that the Minister has acted in bad faith, that the Minister has not acted within the framework of the legislation, or when he has not considered the relevant facts. That is why their argument is not a correct and well-founded argument.

I wish to assert that the control mechanisms that are incorporated in this measure are such that the Minister has sufficient opportunity to ensure the security of the State on the one hand, and on the other hand, at the same time, to promote fairness for the individual. This is our argument, the argument which hon. members on the Opposition side do not wish to accept.

If one asks oneself if it is essential that certain preventive measures should be available to be able to take action against people before they commit the act in question, one gains the impression that it is precisely on these grounds that the hon. members say that this is a Draconian measure in the hands of the State, an ill-considered measure. The Rabie Commission points out very effectively that preventive detention and preventive measures are measures which are not exclusive to this country; that they are measures which are also characteristic of so many other countries. I think it was Mr. Justice McDermond who indicated that—

The hon. members sitting next to me, the hon. members of the NRP, are almost implying that if there should be a state of emergency, there would be more justification for security measures. The hon. members of the PFP are asking that there should be a state of emergency. However, hon. members do not grasp the spirit of the Rabie Commission when that Commission points out that it is of vital importance to have that security legislation now, because one can thereby ensure a certain measure of security, since in the opinion of specific individuals and organizations we need this measure for the immediate, foreseeable future. I think therefore that I can state without fear of contradiction that…

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member, in the light of his statement that he believes that the review board is a very well qualified board to assess the situation, whether he is prepared to support the idea that if there is a difference between the Minister and the review board, the review board should be given the statutory power to overrule the Minister’s decision?

Why should he?

The argument which the hon. member for Durban North is putting forward, is typical of the underlying philosophy whereby they seek to justify their standpoint. It is also typical of their reasoning. That board of review is not a court. If one draws a parallel between a board of review and a court, one finds that in a court there is unlimited evidence and opportunity for cross-examination …

Is the Minister a court, perhaps?

The Minister is not a court either, but the argument is that the Minister, as a representative of the executive, accepts responsibility for the security of the State. In contrast, the board of review is an institution which operates under restrictive circumstances. [Interjections.] These restrictive circumstances lie in the fact that security information is being dealt with, security information which one does not shout from the rooftops. Furthermore, there should be the freedom to protect the State’s evidence and information. When they do not agree with the Minister, the process goes to the Chief Justice, who must then determine whether the Minister acted in bad faith, or whether he acted within the framework of the Act and considered the relevant facts. I wish to suggest that hon. members read the articles of learned friends on this matter. Prof. Frans Venter, for example, points out in an article in Woord en Daad of April 1982, that if people feel that the courts should play a more important role than at present in order to temper the actions of the executive in this regard, this would require a fundamental adjustment to the constitutional dispensation of the Republic. We are convinced that we can meet the requirements of the times and, at the same time, allow reasonableness and fairness to prevail.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Krugersdorp took the same line as this party takes in the objective which he set for this Bill. He said: “Ons streef na billikheid en regverdigheid”.

*That is exactly what this party is trying to achieve as far as this Bill is concerned. In fact, it must be the endeavour of anyone who believes in the democratic way of life. Our standpoint is that this Bill does not achieve that objective. That is our standpoint, and I shall come back to that in greater detail later on.

The hon. member for Jeppe contended that 99% of all people arrested are brought before the court.

I was referring to those who were charged.

That is utter nonsense, of course.

Why?

Why? Was the hon. member referring to those who were being detained?

I am speaking about everyone in South Africa.

It is still utter nonsense.

However, it is still the truth.

After all, we have the figures at our disposal. I do not have them before me at the moment, but the hon. the Minister of Justice is constantly providing information in this House in reply to questions about the number of people who are being detained and who are never brought before the court. Therefore the hon. member’s argument is ridiculous.

†As far as the NRP is concerned, I want to make it very clear that this debate is not about whether or not we should combat subversion, sabotage and revolution. We have no argument about that at all, and we are totally committed to co-operating and supporting the combating of those dangers. It is not even, as far as this party is concerned, whether special methods and powers are necessary—powers which are in normal times, in a peaceful democracy, abhorrent to any man who believes in democracy and the rule of law. We are not arguing about that, and we accept that in certain circumstances it is necessary for the State to have powers which are normally abhorrent. These are powers which we totally reject in a normal peaceful society. That is not the question. The question is: To what extent and how far are powers necessary and unavoidable and how are they used? We in this party accept, and it was stated by the hon. member for King William’s Town, that South Africa is in a state of undeclared war. We have national servicemen, the young people of South Africa, dying on the border in defence of South Africa’s territorial sovereignty and safety. Power installations are being sabotaged and innocent civilians are being killed, maimed, abducted or otherwise endangered, not only in South West Africa but also here in South Africa. Therefore, this party accepts that in that situation, in a state of undeclared war, special powers beyond the normal which would be acceptable in a peaceful and democratic country are necessary. We accept that they are unavoidable for the protection of the security of the State.

Let me in passing deal with this term which I used, i.e. a state of undeclared war. I used this term rather than the term which the official Opposition uses, i.e. state of emergency. In a war one has an enemy, and the enemy in this case, whatever the original motivation may have been and whether it be so—and it usually is so—that he is or was a citizen of South Africa, by the time he pulls the trigger, by the time he places the bomb, he has already been indoctrinated, trained and armed by a foreign country. His operations are directed externally by a communist country or a communist satellite country and he is committed to the taking over of South Africa by subversion, violence or revolution.

Therefore, we see this as a state of undeclared war where a person is directed, controlled, indoctrinated, trained and armed by a foreign country for using violence and armed aggression against South Africa. The official Opposition prefers the term emergency but we see it that a “state of emergency” implies the breakdown of law and order and of authority and that it demands the suspension of normal administration. It automatically invokes a mass of other laws and powers which disrupt the economy, the smooth operation of the State and normal everyday life. We do not believe that South Africa is remotely in a state of emergency. However, that does not mean that it is not in a state of threat or danger. It is, however, not in a state of emergency where the normal law and life of the country have broken down and has to be dealt with under the drastic provisions of a declaration of a state of emergency. Neither is it remotely true in South Africa, nor do we believe that it is necessary for South Africa.

The opposition of this party to this Bill is founded on totally different reasons to those which are advanced by the official Opposition. I want to make it clear at this stage that for that reason, because our reasoning, our objectives are totally different from those advanced by the official Opposition, we cannot support their amendment. We cannot support their amendment because it implies a total rejection of everything contained in this Bill. Their amendment that the Bill be read this day six months and notice already given of clauses to be negated at Committee Stage—implies that all the powers …

[Inaudible.]

I shall deal with it in a moment. Their amendment and the amendments they propose for the Committee Stage seek to negate all the power which this Bill re-enacts. Therefore they are opposed and they make it quite clear, to the use of any exceptional or abnormal authority or methods in the combating of terrorism and revolution. That we do not go along with. What we object to is the form and the scope of some of the powers granted and the method of implementation; but more particularly we are opposed to the measure on the basis of what is not included in the Bill and what it does not achieve. To put the record straight, I move as a further amendment—

1. (1) adequate safeguards, by means of early judicial review, against executive action against persons;
2. (2) statutory prohibition of unacceptable methods of interrogation; and
3. (3) limiting the possibility of false allegations against the security services by permitting detainees’ own doctors to accompany State medical officers when visiting them.”.

These among others, are the three important qualifications which we believe would do a great deal to improve this measure.

When did you decide upon that? Was it over the weekend?

Unlike that hon. member, this party has not changed sides. It has not sold its principles, it has not sold its ideology and it has not joined another party. It is taking exactly the same line which it has always taken, a line which it took in the Schlebusch Commission—the line which it took in that commission of which the hon. the Minister was chairman, where we said that certain powers were necessary but that there had to be judicial review—we called it a judicial tribunal—which would act as a protection against the abuse of power and would guarantee that we got as close as possible to the rule of law. The hon. member for Turffontein used to believe that. Where are his principles now? Where is his belief in a judicial tribunal? He voted for a judicial tribunal. He supported it. He wanted it, but where are his principles now? What does he believe in now? Where is his belief in the power of the rule of law?

You sold yours to Kowie Marais.

I take no notice of a person whose principles are so cheap and mean so little to him.

I want now to deal further with this Bill. Terrorism and attacks on our borders from beyond South Africa are facts. Sabotage and subversion are facts. They exist. It is naïve to think—now I answer the hon. member for Pinelands—that these things will just go away if—and heaven forbid that this should ever happen—there should be a PFP Government.

Hear, hear!

I am glad you agree.

He agrees. I have a supporter who agrees that it would be naïve to think that if there were a PFP Government in power, sabotage, subversion and terrorism would just go away. I now have somebody who supports me in the PFP.

Good old Pinelands!

Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question? As the hon. member for Durban Point is the third speaker to speak on behalf of the NRP and they have only now moved their amendment, may I ask the hon. member whether he believes in detention without trial? He can answer yes or now.

Where has that hon. member been for the last 15 minutes? I have said loudly and clearly that in the circumstances of an undeclared war, special measures and methods are necessary which would otherwise be abhorrent. My answer is that with …

So your answer is yes. Thank you, that is all right. [Interjections.]

That is a typical Prog “slenter”.

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point is still replying to the hon. member for Pinelands.

Sir, I did not say “yes”, as the hon. member for Pinelands has suggested. That was a dishonest attempt to put words into my mouth. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. member for Durban Point it say that this was a dishonest attempt? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point must withdraw the word “dishonest”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words “deliberately dishonest”.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “dishonest”.

Mr, Speaker, I withdraw the word “dishonest”. I was in the middle of a sentence when the hon. member for Pinelands said: “Then your answer is yes.”. I do not know what that means, Sir. I do not know what other words I can use. [Interjections.] I was saying that under certain circumstances—and that was when I was interrupted—and with the necessary judicial safeguards, through a judicial tribunal or other judicial review, we accept that a certain type of detention is necessary in a state of undeclared war. [Interjections.] That is my answer.

[Inaudible.]

I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton who spoke on behalf of her party whether she imagines that the brainwashed “comrades of the revolution” are suddenly going to turn into angels under the PFP government.

Of course not, but there would be much better conditions.

The hon. member says they would be much better.

I said there would be better conditions in South Africa which would also make a difference.

Let me just paint a picture, Sir, of a PFP government and the CP— not the Conservative Party, the Communist Party—suddenly saying: “We revoke violence; we are now all comrades in peace; we are all now operating legally”. The PFP then says: “Fine, you are now a legal political party and you can operate legally.”. Is it correct that that is the policy of that party, that the Communist Party may operate legally?

What a silly question!

I want to know whether that is the policy of that party.

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must give the hon. member for Durban Point an opportunity to complete his speech.

If he asks questions I must give him answers, Sir.

Order!

If they do not have the courage to say what their policy is, their leader in the Provincial Council has, and I quote from the Hansard of the Cape Provincial Council of 1 March 1982. The following question was put to the leader of the PFP in the Provincial Council—

[Interjections.] If hon. members of the PFP in this House are not prepared to come out into the open, their provincial leader is prepared to. Therefore I repeat, Sir, imagine the scene with the Communist Party legitimized, acting openly, and then we are told that suddenly these brainwashed, indoctrinated terrorists are going to change into angels. They will suddenly become Helen’s angels, and the police will sit quietly with their arms folded, waiting until the bombs go off or the violence starts. Then they can act, as long as they do not hold anyone for more than 48 hours. [Interjections.] That is what they stand for.

[Inaudible.]

That is why we dissociate ourselves from their attitude to this measure. Under their Government, national servicemen could all be working in the fields in a peace corps by free, conscientious choice. That is the sort of security we would have. Therefore we cannot support the total rejection …

We do not want your support.

… of special measures

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

I have no time to answer questions from that hon. member or people of his ilk. [Interjections.]

Are his questions too difficult?

No, but beneath my contempt and probably in keeping with the attitude that hon. member displays towards South Africa’s security. [Interjections.]

I now want to come to an interjection by the hon. member for Houghton in which she said that conditions would be better.

[Inaudible.]

Political reform is, of course, the only final solution. Everybody agrees with that. The police agree with it, Defence leaders agree with it, we agree with it and I think that even the PFP agrees with it.

What about the Communist Party?

The Government also claims to agree with it.

And the CP?

However, it is naive— and I say it again—to imagine that political change would suddenly alter the situation of terrorism and violence. Terrorism and violence will continue, but what political reform can do and should do—in fact that is why it is such an urgent priority—is to dry up the stream of future recruits before they become indoctrinated overseas and are lost to peaceful negotiation and reform. This is the urgent target for the Government to aim at, but it is not going to change the situation on our borders or the position of those who are here now or are waiting to infiltrate with a view to creating unrest and sabotage. That is why we in this party are so concerned at the missing elements in this Bill.

That is not what Rogers said.

I am referring to the opportunity to cripple the effect of segments of the propaganda war against South Africa. Nobody will deny that there is a propaganda war—a total onslaught, as it is called— against South Africa.

What are the elements of that propaganda war? One of them is the picture of South Africa as a police State. There is an urgent need to eliminate legitimate grievances, bitterness and frustration and to destroy the breeding-ground from which the ANC, Swapo, the PAC and Umkhonto we Sizwe recruit their forces. For that we should be giving priority to positive action before giving attention to ideological theory. One can give full citizenship and a vote to everyone in an independent State like Ciskei, but if the people are still unemployed or hungry, one has not solved any problem. The President of Ciskei said only last week that 2 000 Ciskeians had left South Africa for training overseas in the past year. In other words, one has not solved anything by virtue of a political change alone. There will consequently still be a threat or danger, and ideologically based political moves are not going to stop this. Progress would, yes, as would economic development, the provision of jobs, learning, job opportunities. Those things could do it. Another part of this picture of the police State also involves the right of detention at the whim of a politician, presented as indefinite detention without trial, and with it all the pictures of police brutality, etc., that are used. This is indeed effective propaganda. I have here a pile of letters from Amnesty International addressed to me. These are just the letters for this year. I receive two to three per day from all over the world. They come from Australia, Washington D.C., Norway, San Francisco.

Throw them away.

You see, Sir: The reaction I get is “throw them away”. This is why we oppose a measure like this. The hon. the Minister and the Government have no concept of the harm being done to South Africa. I hoped that I would get a more intelligent response, but the hon. the Minister says “throw them away”. [Interjections.]

Even if I wanted to, I simply do not have the time to deal with them. I could not do it if I wanted to because of time alone. I quoted this to indicate the effect of this propaganda campaign on the outside world and the fact that they can organize and orchestrate a campaign like this letter-writing campaign. Do you know, Sir, what everyone of these letters asks about? They all ask about a detainee, mentioning his name. They ask where he was arrested and whether I will please find out what has happened. They ask me to find out whether he is going to be brought to trial. All these letters form a pattern.

I hope you are going to do something about it.

Well, you can imagine!

Well, I do not want to cross lines with the hon. member for Houghton and that party. I prefer to do what I am trying to do now …

Nothing; sitting on the fence.

… and that is to strike at the legislation which creates this sort of campaign.

It would be so easy to knock the bottom out of that propaganda campaign. Or has the Government so little faith in the judiciary?

Just persuade me of how easy it is.

I am going to. Does the Government have so little faith in the judiciary that the hon. the Minister does not care what the world thinks of us? He does not care that it accuses us of being a police State. He does not care that people accuse us of brutality. He is not interested in the fact that they denigrate our country. I want to repeat that it would have been so easy to knock the bottom out of this campaign by providing the adequate safeguards I listed in my amendment.

During the debate on the Rabie Commission’s report we pleaded—we shall deal with this again in the Committee Stage—that the review process, which we welcome and which is an improvement, should not take place after six months but should start as early as humanly possible. The Minister can be allowed two weeks and then after a month it must go to a judicial review. What we are anxious to do, is to take the sting out of this legislation by showing that any action taken under security powers is tested by an impartial judicial tribunal or body at the earliest possible stage. If one just did that, one would knock half the force out of the criticism that is levied against South Africa. Surely the police do not act without prima facie evidence or without cause? Surely it could be put before a judge in a short time. It would not be a trial to establish guilt or innocence, but simply a hearing to establish whether more time is needed in order to reach a decision.

Do you now want to have two trials?

I am not suggesting a public platform to warn accomplices. It would be a hearing in chambers. There are regulations in existence for the treatment and interrogation of detainees. Why not put them in this Bill for the world to see? Let us demonstrate that we have clean hands. No single incident has done South Africa more harm than the Biko case. Let us show that that can never happen again by putting into this legislation the proof that we take this seriously. A doctor accompanying a district surgeon is not a reflection on district surgeons but would serve to counteract and negate false claims by detainees.

So one can go on, but unfortunately my time is running out. Nobody can question our dedication to the security of South Africa. That is certain. It is not enough that justice should be done. It must be kosher. People must see it for that. The Army have learned. They send political correspondents and defence correspondents to the operational area straight after an operation so that they can see and report on what has happened. The police have to learn that lesson. They have to learn that that is how one protects South Africa against false attacks and false compaigns. Let the public see that what is done is right and above board.

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

I have no time to answer questions. My time is almost expired. Sorry.

In conclusion I want to point out that because of this and other features we have no option but to oppose this Bill. Our objections are in fact fundamental objections. We will pin-point all those objections during the Committee Stage. We stand on the threshold of a new future in South Africa. What a wonderful way to prepare a new road for South Africa if this hon. Minister and his new Ministry were so to tailor this legislation that it would indicate that we are entering a new Republic with a new approach to the rights of individuals.

Mr. Speaker, with the best will in the world I really cannot understand why hon. members of the NRP are opposing the Second Reading of this Bill.

They are a lot of political jellyfishes!

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Turffontein when he says that they are really political jellyfishes. [Interjections.] The long title of the Bill reads clearly—

Clearly that is a principle which hon. members of the NRP do not agree with, or else they would not have opposed the Second Reading of a Bill of this nature. [Interjections.]

I wonder what other problems hon. members of the NRP have. I have an idea that those hon. members have far more problems than that. However, I shall come to that later. As clearly indicated by various hon. members on this side of the House, I believe, there can be no doubt about the necessity of security legislation in the specific circumstances in which the Republic of South Africa finds itself.

You therefore agree with me?

I believe that the opposition advanced by the official Opposition is artificial, clinical and for a very specific purpose. It is evident that hon. members of the NRP in particular are acting with a very specific purpose in mind. I believe that in time the hon. members of the NRP will pay dearly for this. I believe, too, that in his heart the hon. member for King William’s Town was by no means convinced of what he said in this House. His heart was certainly not in the opposition he had to put up here, and he stood there like a puppet put up by hon. members of that party. [Interjections.] I really believe that they should take him and his feelings into account to a greater extent.

The hon. member for Durban North advanced an interesting argument. However, it was even more artificial than that of the hon. member for Durban Point. Clearly the hon. member presented his argument in such a way that it could at least have some substance. However, I am beginning to wonder if he did not advance that argument with a view to the coming congress of the NRP. Is he not simply trying to show his political muscle to some extent at this stage, in an effort to oust the hon. member for Durban Point as leader of that party, this time at least? [Interjections.]

If one asks oneself what may be motivating them in their approach to the present security legislation, it seems possible that their opposition is based on the realization that specific recommendations have been tabled in this House which are being carefully considered by those hon. members at this stage. In the light of those recommendations I think that those hon. members also realize that that party will either disappear out of this House completely, or will no longer exist as a factor in Natal. This may also be an aspect of the motivation for their approach. Perhaps they are trying to raise a fuss at this stage so as to find favour in the eyes of the official Opposition, and are already beginning to court that side in the hope of being accommodated there.

A further basis of opposition is perhaps to be found in the following twofold consideration, viz. that a Government established in a democratic way has been established in terms of a specific ideology or policy on a plan of government recognized by the majority of enfranchised voters as the most acceptable solution to a country’s problems. Opposition is ideologically based on other poles which the Government of the day either partly supports or condemns in their entirety. Depending on the degree of disapproval, one encounters the position that a specific group expresses its disapproval by way of a negative vote at an election or in regard to a specific Bill, or they support some Government legislation but not all. Then there are others that attack all Government legislation because they are fundamentally in conflict with the ideology of the Government, such as the official Opposition. Moreover, the position also sometimes occurs that a party decides to express itself more strongly about specific legislation and institutions created by the Government by boycotting such laws or parliamentary institutions or by threatening to launch such a boycott campaign. The latter can also be associated with liaison with or servitude to radical or revolutionary organizations.

The next group of persons are those who are frustrated to such a degree by the improbability or impossibility of embodying their ideology within the parliamentary context in an evolutionary way that they resort to the other pole, viz. to overthrow democracy by way of revolution. The hon. member for Houghton has always followed a consistent ideological path, and although I cannot say that of all her other colleagues within the official Opposition. I at least respect her for that. However, I should like to qualify this immediately by saying that whereas I am not making out that the hon. member and the party to which she belongs deliberately support elements that seek to overthrow the existing order in the RSA, I nevertheless believe that hon. members may unintentionally serve the forces which seek to overthrow the existing order in the RSA.

The more pleasant part of debating in this House is undoubtedly the setting of ideology against ideology, as flavoured, and to some extent refined, with the salt and pepper of personal relations among parties and hon.members within this House. However, that does not form the bulk of the activities of this hon. House. The most important task of this Government is the consideration and discussion of measures submitted to hon. members, and after that the amendment and acceptance or rejection of such measures to serve as valid statutory principles and contribute to orderly government.

I should like to thank the hon. members for Ermelo and Bloemfontein East in particular for the very sound contributions they made in regard to their specific subjects. The clear exposition they provided leaves no room for doubt as to the intention of the legislator in regard to those specific clauses.

I should now like to confine myself to chapter 2 of the Bill, viz. Measures in respect of Certain Organizations and Certain Publications. For the most part this chapter deals with the powers of the Minister to declare organizations unlawful or to prohibit publications. However, before the Minister may exercize his powers as such, he is first obliged, in terms of clause 7 of the Bill, to give consideration to a factual report and recommendations by an advisory committee appointed by the State President on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice. Such an advisory committee investigates all matters relating to such an organization and publication and then submits the necessary recommendations.

The hon. member for Ermelo has already pointed out the distinction between the functions of the Minister of Law and Order and that of the Minister of Justice, as well as the need for that distinction in the appointment of various officers, boards and committees. However, in order to furnish a proper perspective for this explanation I should like to refer to this very briefly.

The Minister entrusted with the security of the State and the maintenance of law and order is, in terms of the Bill, the Minister of Law and Order. The Director of Security Legislation, as appointed in terms of clause 2(2), is an official with high legal qualifications appointed by the Minister of Justice with the concurrence of the Minister of Law and Order. All secretarial work of the Director of Security Legislation is done by officers in the service of the State designated for that purpose by the Minister of Justice with the concurrence of the Minister of Law and Order.

Then, too, there is the post of liquidator, the occupant of which is appointed in terms of clause 13(1)(b) by the Minister of Justice. As soon as an organization is declared unlawful in terms of clause 4(1) or (2) by the Minister of Law and Order, all property, including all rights and documents, shall vest in the person appointed by the Minister of Justice as the liquidator of the assets of such unlawful organization.

There is also an advisory committee as designated in terms of clause 7(2). It is appointed by the State President on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice. The advisory committee investigates and submits recommendations in terms of clause 7 relating to the organizations in question and periodicals or other publications. As already mentioned, the Minister of Law and Order is not empowered to take action against such organization or publication in terms of clause 4(1) or 5(1) unless he has considered the factual report and recommendations of such advisory committee appointed in terms of clause 7 of the Bill.

Then, too, there is a board of review as designated in terms of clause 35(3) and which is also appointed by the State President on the advice of the Minister of Justice.

We have all read the Bill.

This board carries out investigations with regard to the acts of the Minister of Law and Order in respect of persons in terms of clauses 18, 19, 20 and 28.

As is evident from the above, there is only one official who is directly appointed by the Minister of Law and Order and has to account to him directly, and that is an authorized officer. That authorized officer appointed by the Minister of Law and Order is appointed by him if he has reason to suspect that the activities, purposes, control or identity of an organization are such that in terms of clause 4(1) or (2) it may be declared an unlawful organization. This authorized officer has broad powers which he may exercise in order to submit a comprehensive report to the Minister and by so doing enable the Minister to reach a decision as to whether he wants to apply to an advisory committee for advice or declare such organization or publication illegal in terms of clauses 4 and 5. His powers have been extended. For example, he has the right to enter premises, interrogate people and gain clarity with regard to any aspect which may cause him difficulty. I shall deal further with these aspects during the Committee Stage.

Then, too, there is the question of the submission of evidence, which is done under oath or affirmation to tell the truth. When such a person submits evidence he enjoys exactly the same privilege as a witness in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court of South Africa. No person who appears as a witness before an advisory committee in terms of clause 7 is, however, entitled to legal representation, but any person desiring to submit facts or representations in writing to the advisory committee in terms of this clause shall be entitled to the assistance of a legal representative in the preparation of the relevant documents. Nor may anyone attend the proceedings of an advisory committee except the director or any person authorized thereto by the director, or a person engaged in giving oral evidence before that advisory committee, or a person in the service of the State whose presence is considered necessary by the chairman of the advisory committee or the director. After such an investigation has been completed, the advisory committee has to submit a report to the Minister of Law and Order and recommend whether the organization in question ought or not to be declared unlawful in terms of clause 4(1), and also, in the case of a periodical or other publication, whether such publication or the publication or dissemination thereof ought or ought not to be prohibited. The deliberations and recommendations of the advisory committee are not disclosed, except to a person whose duty it is to deal with the subject matter of the disclosure. No one outside the official channels has access to any record or proceedings of the advisory committee. No court of law is empowered to pass judgment on the activities or recommendations of such an advisory committee. Anyone who fails to comply with a direction of the committee or is guilty of any offence stemming from the activities of the advisory committee, is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R500 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or to both.

If, after consideration of the factual report of the advisory committee and all other relevant information, the Minister of Law and Order is satisfied that a particular organization is one which ought to be declared an unlawful organization in terms of clause 4(1), or that the printing, publication or dissemination of a particular periodical ought to be prohibited in terms of clause 5(1), as the case may be, the Minister may in accordance with the provisions of clause 4 declare that organization to be an unlawful organization or, in accordance with clause 5(1), prohibit the printing, publication or dissemination of that periodical or other publication, as the case may be. In making such a decision the Minister of Law and Order need not accept or give effect to the relevant recommendation of the advisory committee. An hon. colleague of mine will at a later stage give attention to the issue of the control of the executive power which is not subordinate to other facets of the Government in that regard.

If inquiries arise in this regard the Minister furnishes his decision in regard to a periodical or other publication that has been prohibited as well as newspapers registered under the Newspaper and Imprint Registration Act, 1971. In that case the Minister must of his own accord and within a period of 14 days furnish reasons and information to the publisher of such publication.

Moreover, by way of clause 11 of the Bill a procedure has been created in terms of which an interested office-bearer of an organization that has been declared unlawful by the Minister may take steps by way of either a petition to court in order to approach the Chief Justice, or, alternatively, by initiating proceedings in any Supreme Court in South Africa within whose jurisdiction that matter falls. The Minister of Law and Order is then obliged to submit to the Chief Justice the petition, the report and recommendations of the advisory committee, as well as the reasons as provided by him, as well as any other additional and relevant reports and information relating to the matter. I wonder whether the hon. Minister could perhaps give us an indication as to whether these other reports to which reference is made may also be reports referred to him by the authorized officer or that have perhaps come into his possession through the liquidator. This is an aspect of the legislation which is not quite clear to me. An organization which has not received notice of such investigation in terms of the provisions of this Bill also has the opportunity to submit its petition to the Minister or the Chief Justice and is also given the right to submit further representations to the Minister. The Chief Justice can only interfere in certain fixed and specified circumstances. This, too, will be dealt with by another hon. member on this side of the House.

The procedure of review as enunciated in the Bill, in no way restricts steps by an interested party and in no way restricts the right of any person to institute proceedings in a competent court, as I have already indicated in the course of my argument.

Moreover, an interested party can make use of the review procedure. He can institute proceedings in court to have the Minister’s actions in terms of clause 4(1) or clause 5(1) declared null and void. Thus, various safety valves are provided by this envisaged legislation, for example, the operation of the advisory committee, the right to institute proceedings in a competent court in order to have the Minister’s decision declared null and void, the obligation on the part of the Minister to furnish reasons and then, too, the full review procedure.

Mr. Speaker, these new provisions are undoubtedly a great improvement on the previous measures and the principle of audi alteram partem does apply in all respects in this regard. As the committee mentions on page 176 of its report, the review of preventive security action with regard to the declaration of organizations as unlawful organizations is an extremely unusual phenomenon in legislation elsewhere. As far as publication is concerned, it must be noted that in terms of clause 5(2) the Minister is also empowered to withdraw the notice in terms of which he prohibits the printing, publication or dissemination of periodicals or other publications. This, too, is an improvement on the previous legislation.

Particularly in view of the fact that the commission clearly indicates that this review procedure is by no means a common phenomenon elsewhere, including foreign systems of law, and that it represents a development and a major improvement, I take pleasure in supporting it.

Then I should like to refer to the appointment of a responsible officer by an organization to keep a register of specific persons found guilty in terms of specific aspects of legislation, such list also to be supplemented by both the authorized officer and the liquidator. In that regard the functions of the liquidator and that of the authorized officer correspond to a large extent. The powers and duties of the liquidator are set out in full in clause 14 of the Bill and will be dealt with at greater length during the Committee Stage.

Clauses 16 and 17 deal chiefly with the activities of the proposed Director of Security Legislation and the drawing up of the list to which reference has already been made, containing the names of certain persons. The activities of the director or the authorized officer or liquidator in this regard are summarized in those rights which the director also enjoys. In this way that consolidated list is drawn up of persons who, in terms of clauses 54, 55 and 56 of the Bill, have been found guilty of various offences and of any conspiracy, incitement or attempt to commit any of those offences. The names of certain prohibited persons, and persons who will be detained in terms of clause 8 of the Bill, are also included in that list. The names of persons in the list of the authorized officer in terms of clause 6 of the Bill, and the names of several other persons specifically set out in clause 16 of the Bill, are also in this list. In any prosecution in terms of this Act or in any civil proceedings arising from the implementation of the provisions of this Act, it is presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the name of any person appearing on the consolidated list has rightly been entered in the list. No proceedings for the removal from the consolidated list of the name of any person appearing on the consolidated list shall be instituted after the expiration of a period of 12 months as from the date upon which the name of such person has been entered in the list.

I should like to take a broader look at measures in respect of certain organizations and publications and also certain measures in respect of the registration of newspapers.

As far as organizations are concerned, it is a well-known fact that if a person or persons function as shareholders or officebearers of a company or as a member of some organization, the public involvement of such a person is not direct but is under the cover or protection which such company or organization may afford such a person. Accordingly, it is usually easier for such a person to evade responsibility if problems arise out of the activities of such an organization. In addition, the hon. the Minister indicated in his Second Reading speech that the fact that terrorist activities are planned and carried out by the supporters of organizations which seek the violent overthrow of the existing order in the Republic, and the fact that those organizations enjoy support and assistance from communist countries in their activities aimed at achieving those objectives, as well as the fact that these activities can be carried on from territories beyond the borders of the Republic, make it essential for it to be possible to act against this type of organization as well.

A further qualifying factor, too, is the fact that members of these organizations can sometimes also be afforded shelter, without major difficulties, by persons within the Republic of South Africa who are well disposed towards the aims and objectives of such an organization. Like any Western country, the Government of the Republic of South Africa also recognizes the right of free association. However, where such association or organization threatens the security of the State or the rights of its citizens, it cannot be tolerated, and any self-respecting Government would declare such an organization unlawful. The approach adopted by the Schakelten report in this regard is in line with this point of view, and in this regard one must consider the very clear statement in this regard on pages 9 and 10, par. 29, of the report. This document states, inter alia—

It goes on to say—

It goes on to say—

I, too, wish respectfully to suggest that even all other Western countries are experiencing this same problem. They are also finding that the actions of terrorists do not tend to go away. In that regard I immediately call to mind the hon. member for Yeoville. I wonder where he is today.

He is in Johannesburg.

I wonder whether he is today again absent from this House so that he need not specifically vote against this particular legislation.

He is ashamed to be here.

If one looks at the exposition of the activities and evildoing of organizations as set out on pages 57 to 82 of the Rabie report, one realizes afresh the absolute need for security legislation. The ANC was established as long ago as 1912, and particularly after the Second World War became very active. In 1953 they issued the Freedom Charter, and in 1954 the PAC was founded. This was a far more radical organization than the ANC. Out of these two organizations developed Umkhonto we Sizwe, or the Spear of the Nation, and Poqo, which means pure black, as the military arms of these organizations. At the beginning of 1960 we had the Sharpeville incident, and during the subsequent state of emergency, on 7 April 1960, the Unlawful Organizations Act, which serves as a basis for the present legislation with regard to unlawful organizations was passed. From the end of 1962 to the beginning of 1963, Poqo committed 15 murders and 21 attempted murders, and on 11 June 1963 the arrest followed of the whole top management of Umkhonto at Lilienfield, where they planned to revolt in South Africa with 7 000 men. On 26 April 1964 the African Resistance Movement was responsible for the station bomb episode, and from 1965 Swapo began systematic infiltration into South West Africa. For almost 30 years now we in South Africa have been dealing with terrorism, and we must realize that these people will continue to operate, with increasing guile and purposefulness. A typical example of this is the statement by Joe Slovo, an important member of the Revolutionary Council of the ANC and the SACP, and a banned communist from South Africa. He clearly stated his standpoint when he sent a group of young people back to South Africa, saying—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, before I reply to hon. members on that side of the House, and in particular the hon. member for Roodepoort who has just spoken, I want to remark on the complete difference in tone and attitude between the hon. member for King William’s Town and the hon. member for Durban Point. [Interjections.] It sounded like two different parties speaking, Sir. [Interjections.] The NRP was reasonably represented in this debate until the hon. member for Durban Point showed his hand. It seems that he has learnt nothing since he voted in favour of section 6 of the Terrorism Act in 1967. What I cannot understand, however, is why he is now voting against clause 29, because it is in fact slightly better than section 6 of the Terrorism Act. The hon. member for Roodepoort has said that the hon. member for Durban Point is a jellyfish. I do not, however, think that is true, because no jellyfish can be balanced on a fence that long. [Interjections.]

You should know.

I should like to first deal with the parameters of this Bill and will then deal with the hon. members who took part in the debate.

You ought to know a lot about it, after all the time you spent dealing with it.

This Bill is in effect a codification of the existing security laws. This new consolidated security code bears the signs of better drafting and more sophisticated treatment that one would expect from minds more scholarly than those normally employed to draft legislation in this country. In addition, certain inelegant and sledgehammer provisions have been eliminated, or made more palatable. There is, furthermore, a greater precision of definition in this Bill, and a more accurate isolation of the essential elements of terrorism, subversion and sabotage. However, the Bill does not depart from the underlying principles enshrined in the existing legislation. For example, the underlying principles in the existing legislation which are not departed from are the following: Permanent, not temporary laws that replace access to and protection by the courts; secondly, that the executive have total power over any citizen, including witnesses and innocent people; thirdly, that habeas corpus or the interdict de homine libero exhibendo, as it is called in our law, is ousted and, fourthly, that accused people should be questioned and be coerced into making statements by interrogation if possible. The fifth principle that is not departed from is that judges’ rules are abolished, and the sixth principle that is not departed from is that suspects and witnesses should have no right to lawyers. In the seventh place there is the fact that the onus of proving the essential elements of the crime does not rest with the State, it having to rest upon the accused to negative those elements. Those principles are not departed from.

Vause Raw likes them all.

Having said that, let me deal next with the procedural changes in this Bill, some of which are an improvement. I just want to mention them briefly. The first significant change is the definition of terrorism, because now terrorism must include an act of violence, whereas the present Terrorism Act is not concerned with an act of violence, and a large number of people have been convicted under that Act who have never lifted more than a pen in anger.

So you approve of that?

I am thinking for example of the Saso and BPC people who were writers, and there were 13 of those, nine of whom were convicted. We are accordingly moving away from the technical or clerical terrorists, a development that is to be welcomed.

The crime of subversion is defined in clause 54(2) of the Bill and approximates most closely to the existing crime of terrorism. Instead of the potential death sentence, however, there is merely a potential sentence of 20 years in prison, which is a change for the better to a very limited extent.

Then there is the question of applications for in camera hearings contained in clause 65 of the Bill. It is laid down that applications for matters to be heard in camera—which after all is derived from the same source as the Afrikaans “in die kamer”—should themselves be heard in camera. That removes the discretion of the judicial officer. It is a peremptory provision, not a discretionary one, and that is a further move, in this Bill, away from judicial control and also a further move away from open court proceedings. We are opposed to this. We obviously have greater confidence in our judges and magistrates, where this is concerned, than the Government has.

Then there is the res iudicata rule—it has already been mentioned in this debate— which simply means, of course, that in terms of this new legislation the accused who is charged a second time with the same set of facts will be able to plead autrefois acquit, something he cannot do at the moment, and so it prevents him from being in “double jeopardy”, as the Americans call it. That is clearly a change for the better, but before the Government gets too elated with itself, let me hasten to add that this change, I have no doubt, is born out of necessity and not out of goodwill or a respect for legal principles, because the police know that when section 6 detainees have to come to court on a second charge, after they have been released the first time, there is virtually no prospect of their giving the evidence they gave on the first occasion. That was borne out in the case of the State vs Sexalli and others when Judge Davidson died during the first trial and they were all acquitted the second time because they would not give the same evidence.

This brings me to the question of sentences. This aspect has already been mentioned in relation to the three pieces of legislation, the Internal Security Act, the Terrorism Act and the legislation involving sabotage. At present there are mandatory minimum sentences and, secondly, juveniles may not be sentenced as juveniles. The mandatory provisions are not contained in the new Bill, and from now on judicial officers will be able to impose lesser sentences than the minimum of five years and will also be able to suspend sentences. They will also be able to treat juveniles as juveniles, and this is something we welcome because it is an improvement.

I just also want to mention the presumptions against an accused. Under the new Bill an accused will not have to rebut a presumption “beyond all reasonable doubt whatsoever”. Now he will only have to rebut the presumption on the balance of probabilities. In this regard the present situation is actually a ridiculous one, because it is virtually impossible for an accused to rebut a presumption beyond all reasonable doubt, because a judge has to say to himself at the end of the case: The State has not shown the accused to be guilty, the accused has shown me his innocence, but he just might reasonably be guilty, and therefore I have to find him guilty. That is, of course, a ridiculous situation, so thank goodness we are moving away from that. This brings me to section 335 of the code of the ordinary Criminal Procedure Act. That is the section that provides that if an accused has made a statement he is entitled to that statement. In this Bill that section is now being overruled for the first time. Now an accused will not be entitled to his own statement, unless of course he is cross-examined on it when naturally he must get it. That makes very grave inroads into an absolutely fundamental principle of our law. It overturns the decision of the Judge President of Natal in the State vs Hassim in 1971. It also overturns the decision of the Judge President of Transvaal in the case of the State vs. ffrench-Beytagh in 1971. I also want to refer the hon. the Minister to a judgment in the Cape Provincial Division in 1982. It appears in Vol. II of this year’s Law Reports on page 257. There Judge Williamson, dealing with section 335, said—

We are very much against this protection to the accused being taken away, because it is fundamental that no party should be denied access to his own depositions before a trial. It is a thoroughly bad provision. May I just mention on that point that I see in the Rabie Commission’s report that the reasons for this advanced by the police in their evidence was that the accused’s evidence could contain sensitive security matters. I just want to say in that regard that we have had that all along. We have had it in cases where the accused were terrorists trained by the ANC. We have had it where their statements contained detailed drawings of AK-47s. We were given them by the prosecution. The prosecution said: “Here are the statements. Have a look at them and study them, but please return them to us.” It has worked perfectly. I am absolutely satisfied, and the hon. the Minister ought to be satisfied, that no security policeman has ever had to worry that the defence would use such information to the detriment of the State.

The Attorney-General’s power to prohibit bail is also contained in this Bill. That also takes away the discretion from the courts. A court can hear bail applications in camera. Our judicial officers are responsible people. I submit that the Attorney-General should not have that power.

Finally, on the procedural aspects, I want to refer to clause 69(7) of the Bill which provides that the State President can prove facts in a court of law by simply proclaiming them in the Gazette. He can proclaim that a body has the object of overthrowing the State by violence and that is then proof of that fact in a court of law. That offends against fundamental principles of law and we are totally opposed to it.

Apart from the procedural aspects which I have spoken about, in relation to the overriding principles of the Bill as a whole NP speakers have manifested a fairly consistent attitude towards these benches and our arguments. Basically, what they say is, firstly, that the official Opposition does not appear to support security legislation at all. Some hon. members, like the hon. member for Langlaagte, have even suggested that we actually support the forces of anarchy. Thirdly, NP speakers have asked us: “If you support security legislation, what sort of legislation would you have?” I want to deal with those points. The hon. member for Pretoria Central, who is unfortunately not here now, posed certain questions to us. He asked whether we accept that the ANC is violent; whether we accept that the ANC co-operates with the Communist Party; whether we accept that the ANC has a militant wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe; whether we accept that the ANC is a foreign organization; whether we accept that the ANC launches campaigns to recruit young Black people for military training; whether we accept that the ANC has arms caches in South Africa; and whether we accept that the purpose of having arms caches is violence, murder and bloodshed. He said that until we answered those questions there could not be any meaningful debate. Let me say in answer to that that it is a complete misconception for that side of the House to take the attitude that this party does not believe that there is a planned campaign of violence, both in the urban and in the outlying areas of South Africa. Of course there is! We also know it is growing. We also know that it is increasing in intensity, and we also know that it leads to tragedy. It is not because we do not accept that, but because we do accept it that we are in these benches. We in these benches did not stand as candidates in the last general election believing that we would be the Government on 29 April 1981. [Interjections.] We did not believe that our election would shortly see us enjoying the fruits of office and the personal rewards of governments. On the contrary, most of us in these benches forfeited careers in other fields precisely because we are concerned about … [Interjections.] … the security of South Africa … [Interjections.] … and also because we hoped, however remotely, and still hope, that we may be able to help prevent the growing polarization in South Africa and the escalation of the security threat in South Africa. [Interjections.]

We accepted the intellectual malnutrition and poverty of argument on the part of hon. members of the NP. We accept being in opposition but we are here to tell hon. members opposite and the Government why their measures are destroying South Africa. Therefore our answer to the question posed by the hon. member for Pretoria Central is that we know all about it. We know all about the campaigns of violence waged against us by the ANC. We know that they have arms caches in South Africa. We know that people are sent out of the country for military training. We know that there are campaigns to recruit new members. We also know, however, that the ANC is not a foreign organization, as the hon. member for Pretoria Central contends. The ANC is not a foreign organization. It is a South African organization, comprised of South Africans.

It is a communist organization!

Communist is not a nationality, my friend. It is an ideology. The ANC is a South African organization which has taken advantage of foreign aid in the form of training and in the form of weapons. In fact, I know precisely where they are trained. I know they are trained in Teterow, in East Germany, in Jijinski, in Northern Russia, and in Pirivali, in the Ukraine. We know that.

Our object in opposing this Bill in the strongest parliamentary manner available to us, namely that the Bill be read this day six months, is to bring home to this Government the fact that grossly arbitrary laws are the essential sustenance of revolution …

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

But do you condemn the ANC?

The hon. member for Umbilo wants to know whether I condemn the ANC. [Interjections.] I have told the hon. member about the arms caches of the ANC. I have told the hon. member they are out for bloodshed. I have six children in this country, and the hon. member still asks me whether I condemn the ANC! [Interjections.]

Do not waste your time on him. He cannot understand any logical argument. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying our view is that arbitrary laws are the essential sustenance of revolution. Without arbitrary laws the revolutionaries’ battle is largely lost. With arbitrary laws, however, their battle is half won.

You suggest that we should commit suicide in order to prevent being murdered!

As the hon. the Prime Minister said at Springbok this weekend, according to newspaper reports civilization in South Africa can only triumph on the basis of justice. The ANC recruiter only has to say to others “Look at the Internal Security Bill”, “Look at the security legislation in South Africa”, and then to pose the question whether there is any right to liberty in South Africa. He has to do only that, and he has an instant supporter.

The last people who will bring justice to this country are the ANC.

Mr. Speaker, I concede that point. I concede completely that the present course of the ANC is not a course that I can support in any way. I am totally opposed to it. [Interjections.]

If, on the other hand, we were to interpose to ANC recruiters by saying: “Look at our judges. Look at our courts. They are fair in South Africa,” the answer to that would certainly be: “Look at the Internal Security Bill? What powers do the judges have? What powers do the courts have?” None!

That is not true.

The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt advanced the argument that the Opposition contended for temporary or emergency legislation. He is correct. That is what we do contend for. The hon. member said that that was not necessary. It was not necessary to have temporary emergency legislation because the Government looked at this type of legislation from time to time. That is not the point at all. Power given is never relinquished. That is the lesson of history and that is the nature of man. If Parliament divests itself of the power and gives it to the Security Police or whomever it may be—I am not at this stage blaming the Security Police for accepting it—it is never relinquished. The protection of law and procedural safeguards have not come about over the centuries through the unilateral action of rulers. As an eminent legal person, Mr. E. P. Thompson said—

I want to say that the Afrikaner nation knows this better than any other nation. Habeas corpus was not a donation by King John in 1215 AD; it was a concession wrung from him by determined barons. The Government knows this. That is why the Government has the Riotous Assemblies Act—which it has re-inacted in this very Bill—which only allows gatherings to be banned for a year. Why does it only allow them to be banned for a year? It is because it is known that this is a fundamental right that should only be suspended temporarily. In fact, the position is in effect that the greater the powers given, the greater the exercise of supervision or control over those powers ought to be. When I say this I am quoting what the President of the Association of Law Societies of South Africa said to the Minister on 4 February of this year. [Interjections.] Well, it has now been changed to this hon. the Minister. The main reason is that when one takes away fundamental rights on a permanent basis one sells oneself into slavery. Here in South Africa we had 90-day detention, but that was not enough. We then went down the slippery slope to 180-day detention. Eventually we resorted to permanent or indefinite detention, that bottomless pit contained in Act No. 83 of 1967, the Terrorism Act, and also in this Bill. However, much worse than that, in 1963—I just want to give hon. members a few facts—a former Chief Justice of South Africa, an Afrikaner, said that even the threat of 90-day dentention was a form of torture. In 1982 a future Chief Justice of South Africa actually advocates not 90-day detention but indefinite detention. [Interjections.] I say that this heralds a very sad day for South Africa.

It is a very sad day when we have to listen to you.

In 1956 Mr. Justice Rumpff who was destined to be a future Chief Justice of South Africa said it was unthinkable that the State should take away the right of a person to a lawyer.

The hon. member is now being very unfair to both of those eminent judges.

I must make these points and I regret having to do so. I shall no doubt have to appear before that hon. Chief Justice …

You are making the point out of context and you know it.

… but I have to make the points if they are relevant and if they are important to South Africa. I think it is a tragedy that we have reached the Stage…

I say that you are making the point out of context. That is what you are doing.

It is not out of context at all.

You speak of both of them … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. the Minister will have a chance to reply to me later on.

Let’s have a little law and order!

Mr. Speaker, I have just made the point that in 1956 Mr. Justice Rumpff said that it was unthinkable that people should be deprived of their right to a lawyer. In 1963 the State created the unthinkable. In 1982 the Government is actually indignant that we oppose such a measure! That is how South Africa has deteriorated under this Government and with this Bill. In 1960 in what was then Rhodesia the Chief Justice of the Federation was Sir Robert Tredgold. He watched what he called in his biography “the build-up of harsh laws with something approaching agony”. When even the mere right to public assembly was circumscribed in 1960, he resigned like the honourable man he was. How much terrorism did those harsh laws prevent in Rhodesia? Then we are asked by hon. Government speakers in this debate what security legislation we in these benches would accept. The answer has been given by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a number of occasions. Let me say that extraordinary, emergency security laws are permissible and necessary, but they must be subjected to two things: firstly, they must be temporary, of a limited duration and, secondly, they must be subject to control by the courts. All extraordinary powers must be subject to an independent judiciary. The reason for that is obvious. It is because human beings are human and therefore power will be abused if it is not controlled. It is not fundamentally the fault of the security police or its officials, but it is fundamentally the fault of those who give uncontrolled power. Let me be perfectly frank: The blame for death in detention does not fundamentally rest with the Security Police; it rests with those people who gave that uncontrolled power. The blame therefore rests on that side of the House.

I want to put this argument to the hon. the Minister: Never mind for a moment what we say; never mind for a moment what the vast majority of South Africans say …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to insinuate that the powers that have been granted to the Security Police are the cause of the deaths of detainees in our prisons? Is the hon. member allowed to insinuate that the Security Police kill people in prison? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pinetown may proceed.

What does the Society of Advocates of South Africa say? Are all the advocates of Pretoria, Cape Town, Bloemfontein, Johannesburg, Durban, Pietermaritzburg, Grahamstown and Kimberley not disturbed by this Bill? Those are the people who are going to be our next judges, and the most important people in our judicial system are the judges. They came to see the hon. the Minister recently and they made representations to him through their chairman, Adv. Robin Marais. SC. What did they say? Will the hon. the Minister tell us? Why does he not tell this House what their recommendations were and what their worries are? Does he regard their views as a danger to the security of South Africa?

Why do you not read their views in the newspapers?

Is the hon. the Minister not prepared to play open cards with this House? Will he tell us the gist of what they said?

What about the attorneys of South Africa? The Association of Law Societies of South Africa made representations to the hon. the Minister of Justice, and in August 1977 also to the then Minister Schlebusch about security legislation. Two lawyers from each province had at that time carefully gone through all the security legislation and they suggested all kinds of safeguards about detainees. For example, firstly, they suggested that security laws should only be temporary. Secondly, they suggested it should have application only in a real emergency. Thirdly, there should be a standing commission of lawyers to supervise the security laws and report to Parliament. Fourthly, the treatment of detainees ought to be supervised by a Judge President or by senior judges. Fifthly, a system of meticulous record-keeping by police officers ought to be enforced. They still made many other suggestions. The hon. the Minister must tell us if the whole legal profession is then of no account in South Africa. Why does the hon. the Minister not tell the House? It is not only the PFP that is concerned; all lawyers in South Africa are too.

We in the PFP are being asked what security legislation we would accept. Mr. Speaker, we will accept what the lawyers suggested. The Government is destroying in this Bill the last vestige of respect for the law in South Africa. This Bill is a manifestation of the degeneration of standards in South Africa and it can truly be said of those who now govern that with this Bill they have destroyed better than they know.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say that we on this side of the House support the Bill and reject the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton—it is a pity that she has now left this House, because I wanted to say a few words to her—and the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point. It was with disappointment that we took cognizance of the standpoint of the hon. member for Durban Point and his party. This measure seeks to preserve law and order in South Africa, and I do not know why the NRP side with people who do not want us to preserve law and order in this way. [Interjections.] I do not think it will benefit those hon. members. In all decency I want to tell them that I think they are failing in their duty to South Africa and to the people who are entitled to the preservation of law and order in this country.

This afternoon the hon. member for Pinetown began his speech reasonably well. He demonstrated to us that he is a member who has a lot of experience of these cases. If one takes into consideration how much knowledge he has of these matters, involving people who are conspiring against South Africa’s security, it surprises one …

Most senior advocates have that knowledge.

There we have the hon. member for Groote Schuur sounding off again. If this is the case, it surprises me that the hon. member adopts the particular standpoint he has adopted. At any rate, the hon. member did give credit where credit was due. He said that improvements were being made to the law. We are pleased that he did at least spot that. Furthermore, he also admitted that there was a threat and then he said that that was why he was saying what he was saying. But we must listen carefully to all the things he said this afternoon. I shall come to that in a moment. The hon. member has still not replied to the question asked by the hon. member for Umbilo as to whether he condemned the ANC, to which he could simply have replied yes or no. [Interjections.] I did not hear what the hon. member said. He made no reply at all. What is more, that hon. member …

He did answer. You did not listen.

But just tell us now, is it yes or no? Does the hon. member condemn the ANC, yes or no?

I condemn the ANC in its present course absolutely.

You see, Mr. Speaker, we receive no replies from the hon. member.

But he has just said so.

Do you condemn Swapo?

Yes, I condemn Swapo, if the hon. member must know. Does that hon. member condemn the ANC, yes or no? We shall not receive a reply.

The hon. member said here this afternoon that the members of the PFP held the judges of South Africa in a very high esteem and had confidence in the judges. We have now had a judicial commission that took evidence for three years, the Rabie commission, and the legislation now before this House is based on the recommendations of that commission. What is the standpoint of those hon. members in regard to the Rabie Commission? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton, who is interrupting me again, said the commission did not do good work and that its report was disappointing. The hon. member for Pinetown, who kicked up such a fuss about the judges, must tell us what his standpoint in this respect is. Here we have a commission which took evidence for three years from everyone in the country who wanted to give evidence. Did any member of the PFP go and give evidence? The hon. member for Pinetown has had a great deal of experience of these cases. I think his evidence could have proved useful to the Rabie Commission. But what did the hon. member do? He did not go and testify, yet rises in this House to say that that commission did not do good work. I think it is a disgrace for an hon. member to talk like that, to act like that, and to adopt such a standpoint and attitude in respect of the Bench and in respect of a judge of the Supreme Court who brought out a very good report. The hon. member for Houghton said the report was disappointing, and that it relied too heavily on police evidence. Her insinuation was that because these people ostensibly function within the system, they cannot be trusted. But who protects those hon. members sitting there? Surely it is the people within the system. Surely it is not people outside the system. Who protects those hon. members? People within the system. Are the hon. members of the PFP not capable of rising above petty politics? [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. member for Green Point has started laughing. Mr. Speaker, unless you tell me to withdraw it, I want to say his laughter is like the sound an empty vessel makes. Are those hon. members incapable of rising above petty politics? Are they unable to assess such a report as the one we have received here, and on the basis of which we have produced modifications which are improvements—the hon. member for Pinetown admitted this—on legal grounds?

That is what he did.

But in the same breath he said it was not a good report. The hon. member assessed it in political terms. The hon. members of the PFP are only capable of assessing a report from the point of view of their own political ideology, and if the report does not square with their ideology they will have nothing to do with it, they reject it. We maintain that this is a report of a very high standard, the contents of which testify to the integrity of the compilers. Our responsible people have taken cognizance of the contents of that report and we shall react to it, as the hon. the Minister and the Government have indeed done with this legislation.

In their blind and prejudiced criticism of the Government is security legislation, the official Opposition has completely overlooked one of the most important premises of the Government’s approach to legislation of this nature. Their accusation against the Government was that this legislation would be on the Statute Book permanently, and the hon. member for Pinetown said: A power once granted will never again be removed. But where are these Rip van Winkles living? In this country of ours, that is surely not true. Do those hon. members not see that the Government is now devolving the power which it has over people to other people, or giving it away?

I should like to see that first.

In this country we have liberated States; we have given power away. Now those hon. members are accusing us of being power-mad and of not wanting to give power away. Those hon. members must not use this argument to try to get at us. Surely that is an argument which has no substance. The standpoint of the Government was very clearly set out in the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister when he said—

Furthermore, the hon. the Minister said—

Could those hon. members wish for anything clearer than that? Why are they accusing us of trying to make the legislation permanent?

Your promise means nothing.

Here we are spelling it out for you.

You said the same thing in the sixties as well.

No one will express any appreciation for this.

The hon. the Minister is right. Not a single hon. member will say that they took cognizance of this. They do not want to take cognizance of this, because it does not suit them. They are trying to get at us, they want to make this legislation suspect in the eyes of the general public, and they want to use it to cause trouble so as to make it less easy for us to govern this country safely.

When we say this, we also say that as long as a need for this legislation exists, this measure will remain on the Statute Book. After all, this Government realizes our responsibility towards the majority of the general public, people who want peace and security to prevail in South Africa, without terror or unrest, and who are entitled to it. We are not prepared to deviate from this principle.

From what I have just said it is clear that the existence and necessity for security legislation in South Africa is not something which rests solely in the hands of the Government. I want to make this clear. Surely it is true that the life of security legislation, of this type of legislation, depends mainly on the actions of terrorists in South Africa. That is, after all, what the legislation is for. It is not there for anyone else. In this connection I want to quote as witness Mr. Griffiths, a British member of Parliament, who said the following in the British Parliament—

This is in column 964 of the British Parliamentary Debates of 1979. Why is this legislation on the Statute Book?

Is there to be another “walk-out” now?

Now everyone is walking out again.

I am not that formidable, am I? I hope they are not walking out because I began speaking. Surely I was not quarrelling with them to that extent. [Interjections.]

Is there any evidence whatsoever that the threat to South Africa is waning?

Precisely!

The answer is no. That hon. member has now seen the light somewhere. Because there is security legislation he now thinks there is a threat. However, the hon. member is mistaken because that is not true. There is not a threat because there is security legislation. The hon. member does not have the vaguest conception of the security history of South Africa. However, the hon. member for Roodepoort indicated how this threat escalated over the years and we ultimately had to adopt security measures in order to combat it. I shall refer to this again later.

In the Rabie Commission report certain evidence was quoted—it is reliable evidence—which indicated that there is a real danger than the activities of organizations which are a threat to South Africa are going to increase. This is factual evidence, Sir. I want to quote what Robert Sobukwe said in 1977—

Here we have a clear indication that this is a continuing struggle. [Interjections.] The authors Ganne and Duignan in their book, Why South Africa Will Survive, which was published in 1981, are of the opinion that South Africa can in future expect an increasing onslaught in the form of urban terrorism. These are the facts, and I believe that the Government should take cognizance of them. We cannot dismiss them out of hand.

Only recently the hon. member for Houghton—she is not here at the moment— told me by way of interjection, or in a speech, that the report of the Rabie Commission had become my Bible. That is not true, but I want to tell those hon. members that if we do not take cognizance of and react to the recommendations of the Rabie Commission, we shall not for much longer in this country be allowed to read the Bibles which all of us are accustomed to reading. This is a fact, and we must take cognizance of it.

The best demonstration of the Government’s willingness to regard measures of this nature as being only temporary is also to be seen in the fact that the Government appointed the Rabie Commission with instructions to inquire into and report and make recommendations on the necessity, and so on, of security legislation in South Africa. The Government placed the future of security legislation in South Africa in the hands of the Rabie Commission for it to decide on.

What about the De Lange Commission?

That hon. member must not bring up the De Lange Commission. What became of the Buthelezi Report which he did not want to sign? [Interjections.]

When the hon. members of the PFP in general, and the hon. member for Houghton in particular, accused the Government of trying to make this legislation a permanent part of the administration of justice in South Africa, it is not only not true, it is also unfair to this side of the House. Let us therefore accept it as a fact that the Government considers these measures to be of a temporary nature, and that these are measures that have been adopted to cope with real threats to existing values, threats which do exist. We do not differ on that score, because we accept that hon. members of the PFP also wish to preserve the values which all of us here have. [Interjections.]

Since we are now discussing the permanency or temporariness of the measures …

It is time you came to that.

… let us consider how the same kind of measures are being applied in other countries, for the examples of other countries in which security legislation has been introduced were mentioned here. The first example I want to refer to is Northern Ireland. In order to cope with the political violence, the Civil Authorities Special Powers Act was passed by the Northern Ireland Parliament in 1922. It came into force in April 1922, and was initially intended to remain in force for a year. However, that Act was repeatedly re-enacted until in 1933 it was placed on the Statute Book permanently. In 1973 it was replaced by an Act of the British Parliament. I know hon. members will now tell me that this a proof that the Act remained on the Statute Book permanently. However, that is not true. The hon. member for Houghton herself told us recently that that Act had been changed, and that is the evidence we have as well. As a result of the activities of the Irish Republican Army, however, the British Parliament passed The Prevention of Violence Temporary Provisions Act of 1939. It came into force on 28 July of that year, and was to have applied for a period of two years. Eventually the Act remained in force for 15 years, and that was in the cradle of democracy, and I am going to indicate in a moment why it was essential, why those people felt that they had to keep the legislation on the Statute Book for as long as the circumstances were such that it was essential for the survival or preservation of the values of that democracy. The Prevention of Terrorism Temporary Provisions Act of 1976 came into force on 25 March 1976, with an initial term of operation of 10 years. The Act is renewed annually.

Have you read those Acts?

Yes.

Do they provide for the detainees having to be brought to trial?

Since March 1966 this has been done every year, and the temporary law has therefore, relatively speaking, acquired an aspect of permanence. This is a feature of temporary legislation in the United Kingdom. The temporary Special Powers Act of 1933 remained on the Statute Book for 40 years, and the Prevention of Violence Act of 1939 was enacted for two years, but subsequently remained in force for 15 years.

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

No please. I have very little time. [Interjections.] The point I want to make is that the circumstances there were such that they necessitated the legislation that had to be placed on the Statute Book becoming legislation which subsequently existed for quite a long time. It was also the responsible Government that was governing there that ultimately changed the law and then removed it from the Statute Book, but the aim was to protect and preserve that democracy and not to allow it to be destroyed. Over there the legislation remained on the Statute Book for as long as it was necessary to deal with those specific circumstances, but here in our country it may not even be placed on the Statute Book.

The second example is Israel. The Israeli’s have the Emergency Powers Detention Law, and this measure was preceded by Regulation 111, which was inherited as part of the 1945 Defence Emergency Regulations of the British authorities in the former Palestine. This measure remained in force in Israel during the late seventies. The hon. member for Durban Central admits that this legislation still exists in Israel. He said that it existed, and that people should simply be taken to court. In other words, that kind of measure still exists in Israel today because of the prevailing circumstances. [Interjections.] They also retained it because it was essential for the preservation of their security and the maintenance of law and order. The hon. member for Houghton, however, says that it is right in the case of Israel, Britain and Northern Ireland, because the circumstances there are more dangerous than they are here in South Africa. After all, Israel is in a state of war and surely the situation in Northern Ireland is more serious than the situation prevailing here in South Africa!

They do not have any Progs.

But what does a state of war have to do with this matter? These measures are being utilized to clamp down on people who are a threat to law and order within the country. It does not matter whether the State is in a state of war or not. On the contrary, if a state of war has been announced, it is far easier, because then one does not have so much trouble with those people. Then it is easier for members of the general public to accept the measures which exist to combat this kind of activity, but we have in fact not declared a state of war or a state of emergency, and there are very good reasons for not doing so. In Israel a security situation applied, and probably still applies there today, a security situation which makes it essential for those people to come forward with special measures. We are not arguing with them on this score, we accept that they have every right to do so. All we want to ask the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members is to be fair to South Africa. All they have to do is admit that this Government has the same right and duty to counteract the dangers which exist in South Africa, in its own way. They must not pretend that ours is the only country in the world where such measures exist. That is not true. With that impression which they are creating, they are only causing us embarrassment abroad. This is the kind of thing which causes us problems. The hon. member alleged that the situation in Britain and Northern Ireland was far worse than it was here in South Africa. That is not entirely true either, and I should like to indicate why it is not. I want to quote from a doctoral thesis by Advocate M. F. Ackerman entitled “Politieke Terrorisme: ’n Strafregtelike analise.” He said—

That is true. I quote further—

This is our standpoint. He goes on to say—

He quotes evidence of how the police and the Defence Force in Northern Ireland carry out house-to-house searches. In 1973 they went through 75 000 houses. Living in that territory are 1,5 million people who are potential supporters of the Irish Republican Army. They searched 75 000 houses, almost a fifth of all houses in Northern Ireland. They were able to question people at will on certain personal particulars. All this information was computerized and is available to the police and the army if acts of terror are perhaps committed, so that it may be easier to combat these deeds. This is an important distinction. We have to grab a person whenever we get the chance. He is only here once. Once he has fled, he is gone. This is the second point which is made—

The point is just that the situation which is prevailing in South Africa and the things which are happening around us are not less dangerous or less unsafe than those in Israel and Northern Ireland.

Another aspect which must very definitely be taken into consideration in our case is the fact that South Africa finds itself in a difficult period of change today. It is a difficult time, a time in which it is very easy for emotions to run high. We can see what is happening in the country. In such a time feelings can very easily reach boiling point and there may very easily be serious problems. In such a time the political terrorist is at his most active, and at his most dangerous to peace and stability. It is then that hon. members of the PFP come here and say that the legislation which we are now introducing to cope with this situation should not be placed on the Statute Book. They want, at all costs, to prevent it from being placed on the Statute Book. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton is causing me a problem. She does not want this Bill to be read a Second Time. It seems to me, therefore, that she is totally opposed to it. But in a report in The Argus of 20 January it was stated—

But not like this.

This afternoon the hon. member for Pinetown said that they accepted that there had to be legislation. Would they rather that the laws which are at present on the Statute Book should remain there in the place of what we are now proposing?

He replied clearly to that.

That is in any case a technical argument.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, just before business was interrupted we were debating the question of whether or not the official Opposition accepts the necessity for security legislation. [Interjections.]

That is not what this debate is concerned with.

There is no debate on that question. [Interjections.]

Oh please, just keep quiet now. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I think that the word of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this connection is good enough for us. He said that he accepted the necessity for security legislation. In my heart, however, I have a problem with some other hon. members of the PFP.

Like who? [Interjections.]

I think we shall just leave them at that. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, if that is so, the only remaining question is the question of what form that legislation should assume. Consequently we do not differ on the question of whether there should be legislation. That is why I am delighted that the hon. member for Pinetown told us that this legislation should meet two requirements. In the first place, it should be of a temporary nature. In reply to that I have indicated that it is, in fact, of a temporary nature. The Government is not trying to accept it as a permanent part of our legislation.

Where is that stated in the Bill? [Interjections.]

How do you arrive at that?

Mr. Speaker, those hon. members were not here when we discussed the matter. They should rather keep quiet so that we and the other people can discuss matters, those who know what is happening. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinetown also said that this legislation should be subject to control by the courts. These are the two requirements laid down by the PFP. However, we prefer not to involve our courts in these matters.

Why not?

We would prefer not to drag our courts into politics. [Interjections.] We believe that the executive has a responsibility in this connection. That is why the decision-making in regard to this important matter rests with the executive authority, i.e. with the hon. the Minister.

If that, then, is the only difference between us and the PFP, I want to take it very seriously amiss of the hon. members of the official Opposition for speaking the kind of language we hear them speaking in regard to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, you should have heard their language during the past two days this debate has been in progress. They have used words and terms such as “inhuman”, “degrading”, “devastating effect”, “miserable cases”, “repulsive measures”, and so they carry on. I think it is unseemly for hon. members of this House to use language of this kind to describe legislation which is being discussed in this House. I think it is disgraceful. Hon. members of the Opposition ought to be ashamed of themselves for doing so. [Interjections.]

These measures are aimed at clamping down on the political terrorist. This is not the kind of person one can tackle with one’s bare hands. These are not little angels we are dealing with here. These are difficult customers. These people are engaged in subversion, subversion which is defined as follows—

These are very serious things these people want to do. They seek the total destruction of the community in which we are living. For that reason one cannot deal gently with these people; and one must know what to do with them. That is why we believe that one should handle these fanatics with care, yet with determination, or else they will destroy law and order in this country. The law and order in this country or in the State may be described as being the internal situation of peace and tranquillity, the situation which results from complete obedience to the law of the inhabitants of the State. [Time expired.] [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I must state quite clearly that as a person who has been at the receiving end of a terrorist attack—in this particular case a rightwing attack—I am most emphatically in favour of internal security regulations and legislation. [Interjections.]

Hon. members may remember that in January 1981 a bomb was exploded at my home and endangered the lives of my wife and children. I think hon. members will appreciate that I was not amused. In terms of existing security legislation, the Security Police and the South African Police between them succeeded in apprehending the people concerned. They were duly brought before court and prosecuted and at the present moment are incarcerated in one of these rather delightful hotels we keep for prisoners. As this is the first opportunity I have had to do so, I should like to say publicly that I want to thank the people concerned for the excellent job they did in apprehending these terrorists. [Interjections.] I say this because, whether they are rightwing or leftwing, if they start using bombs, as far as I am concerned they are terrorists.

Having said that and having made the point that I am in full support of the concept of security legislation, I must say that in so far as this particular Bill is concerned it is virtually impossible for any member of an Opposition party to be able to support it at the Second Reading stage.

Now you are spoiling a good speech.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Turffontein said: “You are either for law and order or you are against it.” Is that correct?

Correct.

As far as I am concerned, I agree with the basic principle enunciated by the hon. member. As far as the sentiment generally is concerned, one cannot fault it. However, that does not mean that one can unequivocally support the principles contained in this particular Bill.

What are the principles?

I say this because this Bill modifies, consolidates or repeals 28 different Acts that have been brought into being since 1950. Many of these pieces of legislation have, in themselves, quite substantial principles that were opposed on matters of principle during their passage through this hon. House. Therefore, as far as I can see, we have a whole proliferation of principles in this legislation which I have not even noticed at this stage. The point is, however, that while I unequivocally support the concept of security legislation as any sensible person must, I feel that to support this Bill at this Second Reading stage would place hon. members in these benches and, I think, hon. members in opposition as a whole, in an impossible position. I say this because there are so many diverse principles involved in this Bill. I am not referring here to details but to principles. As I say, the consolidation of so many Acts has placed us in this position and we as a party in these benches do not believe that we can afford to abrogate our right genuinely to oppose the principles that are in this Bill with which we disagree.

Is the hon. member going to say anything at any stage?

Is the hon. member going to finish his speech in his time and let me finish mine in mine? [Interjections.] As a person violently opposed to communism I want to make this point again: This is the reason why I tackled that hon. member. I want to ask him about his ANC friends and ask him whether he has repudiated them. They are his friends; he befriends them in court.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Umbilo appears to be rather excited. He referred to the hon. member’s friends of the ANC but he was looking in this direction. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not think there are any hon. members in this House who are friends of the ANC as the hon. member for Umbilo has intimated. The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry; they are not his friends, they are his clients. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, if I must withdraw that remark, I withdraw it. [Interjections.] I want to raise the point of communism in so far as those hon. members are concerned because in certain amendments which have been placed on the Order Paper by hon. members of the PFP and which we will be dealing with in due course every reference to communism has been withdrawn.

That is absolute rubbish!

It is not rubbish. In respect of clause 4 the hon. member for Pinelands has called for a withdrawal entirely, in respect of clauses 5 and 6 the hon. member for Sandton has asked for the withdrawal and in respect of clause 1 the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North has asked for it only to be banned in respect of violence. So everything relating to communism has been withdrawn, which clearly indicates to me that the hon. members in the official Opposition are the great friends of communism. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker I withdraw that they are the great friends of communism, but it is obvious that…

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Order!

I have done nothing wrong.

Order! Did the hon. member make a point of order? He must not argue with the Chair. The hon. member for Umbilo must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw the remark. I have been opposed to this murderous cult for the past 40 years. I have been to the breeding-ground of this cult, on several occasions, to Russia where certain other people may be going in the near future. [Interjections.] They may have the opportunity of seeing this type of vermin in its own habitat. As far as we are concerned this is not a cult that we can lightly endure and certainly not enjoy.

Hear, hear!

However, the reason for my making great issue of this is that I would not like to see us in South Africa in this particular Bill sink to the level of these communists whom I have so strenuously opposed. This is why I believe that we must look very carefully at what we have before us today.

I believe we have weapons as potent as those of the enemy, of communism. I believe we have to fight on every front but, if we are to retain our self-respect and the right to call ourselves part of the Christian Western World, then we must fight with the weapons of morality, justice and civilized norms.

Did you hear that, Alec?

We believe too much use is being made of the executive and not enough of the judiciary, and this has been the gravamen of the speeches made by hon. members in our benches and, with due respect to the PFP, by hon. members in their benches as well.

Now you are doing all right!

Let me, by example, make a few points. Some of them have already been made by other hon. members in these Opposition benches and, in spite of what has been said by hon. members of the PFP, there has been no difference of opinion and there is no difference except in method of delivery between the hon. member for King William’s Town, the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Durban North. Bluntly there is no difference between what I have to say and that which they have said. [Interjections.]

As far as detention without trial is concerned, this Bill gives the Minister, a politician, the right to authorize arrest and virtually to authorize indefinite detention. The whole operation is handled by the executive. We accept that for efficiency and security the Minister should have the right to authorize arrest, but in the shortest possible time afterwards, perhaps seven to fourteen days at the most, it should surely be possible for a special judicial tribunal to be convened and for the police to prepare evidence to convince this group of jurists that there is a necessity for prolonging the detention. Unlimited detention by the executive is the method used by the communists. If we wish to maintain security and to assert our moral superiority at the same time, I believe that we should achieve our objectives through the judiciary. Once again I refer to clause 6(3), the question of the entry of premises without previous notice. Quite obviously there are circumstances where it is necessary to go onto premises without notice. However, it must be remembered that the authorized officer, once appointed, virtually has unlimited authority to enter any premises on demand and to call for all the facilities that he may require. This also can be done solely on the authority given by the Minister. As I have said earlier, it is accepted that, for security reasons, one may find need to enter premises without notice, but surely it is not impossible to initiate a system of issuing a judicial warrant for normal circumstances and, in the event of emergencies or exceptional circumstances, to evolve a system whereby they can go onto those premises without any prior authority. However, having proved the necessity, they must have condonation afterwards. This would be a just and fair sort of method to ensure that there is not abuse of the system.

Mr. P. C. CRONJÉ: They can send them a postcard.

Clever boy! “Boy” is the operative word.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I ask you to order the hon. member not to refer to the hon. member for Greytown as a “boy”.

Order! The hon. member must address another hon. member only as “hon. member”.

The “hon. member” then. I refer to clause 33(1)(c). If a person in his youth and ignorance—as many of the hon. members of the PFP are— were a member of the Communist Party, has truly repented of his misdemeanours, decided that he wanted nothing more to do with the Communist Party and in fact really recanted and wanted to join the community of human Christian people, then, according to this Bill before us, he would not be able to do so, except at the will and whim of the Minister.

We in these benches believe, that this should not be so. I do not support communism. I think I have made that very, very clear indeed. [Interjections.] However, I do believe that communism is a political creed, and in all healthy politics, people do change from time to time. I can see hon. members on that side of the House, of the CP who were in another party at another time, and I can see hon. members over there who were in another party at another time. In all healthy politics there are changes from time to time. [Interjections.] I must assume that those who do make the change do so in sincerity with an intent to forget the past and go for their new party. I believe this can happen and it has happened in respect of certain people who in their young and silly days were communists. I do not believe that they should have to suffer a life sentence for that because there are instances where even a murderer can be pardoned and given another opportunity.

There are a number of other principles in this Bill, many of which have been mentioned by hon. members in these benches and by hon. members of the PFP, that are unacceptable to a responsible opposition. The hon. member for Houghton said that there was an increase in disorder because of South Africa’s racial legislation. To a degree that may well be so, but I am sorry to say that I believe that what is more important than that is the sloppy sentimentality towards the terrorist and criminal. That is a greater cause of the increase in terrorism. I am afraid that the do-gooders and the leftist liberals always seem to have a bleeding heart for the criminal but never for the person who has been made to suffer as a consequence of those people. [Interjections.] South Africa’s “racist” legislation does not apply to countries such as Ireland, the Central American States the Middle East and a whole host of other countries, but they certainly seem to have a great deal of disorder there and they cannot blame that on South Africa’s racist policies. The increase in disorder and contempt for law is endemic and world wide and it is caused by a variety of factors, e.g. racialism, greed, incompetent government, bad laws and the white-anting of non-communist systems by the USSR, its surrogates and, again, their leftist liberal allies.

We in these benches accept that internal security legislation is needed, that tough legislation is needed, but let us not forget democratic and Christian principles in its creation. We have been building our system for hundreds of years. We have been building a judicial system and moral codes. If we cannot defend them without resorting to the evil methods of communism and those of the Fascists … [Interjections] … I am not looking at the hon. member for Greytown now—it can only be because we have lost faith in ourselves and in Christianity, and therefore this legislation will never be able to maintain “our system”.

As far as we in these benches are concerned, although there is much in the Bill that we can support, there is a great deal that we cannot and therefore at this Second Reading stage we have no option but to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, we have become accustomed to very responsible speeches from the hon. member for Umbilo. We do not always agree with what he says, but he always argues very responsibly and there is a lot of common ground between us. He also stated very strongly that he was in favour of law and order. However, I am afraid that we cannot say that of the official Opposition.

*After two days of debating this measure we are still waiting for an explicit, simple and unambiguous statement from that party indicating that they are in favour of security legislation. Up to now we have not had this from them. That is simply asking too much of them.

At the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Pinetown raised this matter, with reference to the questions which the hon. member for Pretoria Central had put to him, and vaguely suggested in passing that sometimes at least they were also perhaps in favour of security legislation.

The hon. member for Durban Central was just as apologetic about his party’s standpoint in this connection. He said that his party’s standpoint should not be interpreted to mean that they were not in favour of security legislation under certain circumstances. He was so careful, so afraid he would perhaps lean over too far in favour of security legislation. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member agree with the measures that the Law Society of South Africa unanimously proposed?

I fully agree with Mr. Justice Rabie’s attitude. He is, after all, a lawyer of many years standing. [Interjections.]

*It is simply asking too much of the official Opposition to adopt a strong standpoint with regard to the necessity for security legislation, because if they did so, they would have to enter the debate on what form such legislation should assume in all earnest and adopt a standpoint on the merits of the case. They would then have to produce arguments in connection with Mr. Justice Rabie’s standpoint. This legislation is not insubstantial, Sir, but is based on principles, as set out in the Rabie Commission report. This is reasoned legislation, every aspect of it, and up to now those hon. members have not yet in any way opposed any of the arguments which were raised in the report. [Interjections.]

We do not expect the official Opposition to agree whole-heartedly with this legislation or with the standpoint of this side of the House. All we ask is that they should in principle adopt a strong standpoint in favour of security legislation, that they should put forward proposals in that connection and comment on the merits of the Rabie Commission report.

That is asking too much of them.

If they do not do that, Sir, they are guilty of political terrorism, for then they are merely detracting from, questioning and disparaging everything, and are making no positive contribution. Reviling people on this side as little Hitlers and reproaching us with being bad, will not achieve anything. The official Opposition must accept the bona fides of this side.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Can the hon. member say that if the official Opposition does not provide certain answers, they will be guilty of political terrorism? [Interjections.]

Did the hon. member say that?

Mr. Speaker, I said that if they did not make constructive suggestions, they were guilty of political terrorism. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, may I ask on what you base your ruling?

The hon. member made that statement with certain reservations.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The reservations …

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. member Mr. Schutte may proceed.

Time to walk out! Walkies!

Mr. Speaker, those hon. members must accept the bona fides of this side of the House.

Walkies! Walkies!

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I cannot address you as long as hon. members do not keep quiet. [Interjections.] The rules clearly state that when a point of order is raised, hon. members shall be silent. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may put his point.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to your ruling when I stood up a second time, is it now a ruling that we may not argue a point of order before you?

No.

Well Sir, why then cannot…

Order! I gave the hon. member my reasons.

No, Sir, you gave no reason at all. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member Mr. Schutte may proceed.

Those hon. members must accept the bona fides of this side and acknowledge that on this side of the House there is the honest intention to preserve security and order, and that the dispensation in terms of which these things have to be preserved, is as fair as possible. Only then can we conduct a power debate on the proposals of the Rabie Commission and the merits of those proposals. However, I am afraid that up to now, not one of those hon. members has in any way tried to refute in a systematic way the argument of the Rabie report.

I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Krugersdorp when he said that we did not like this legislation. That is indeed the case, and we do not want this legislation on the Statute Book for long. When there is more stability in the political sphere, internally and externally—and in our neighbouring States as well—and when there is in addition, more stability in the military sphere and in the labour sphere, a sphere which is now experiencing a new dispensation, and, finally, more stability in our national States where new dispensations and new constitutions have come into existence, we should like to abolish this legislation. That is also the prospect which the hon. the Minister held out. Of course this is also the basis of the Rabie Commission’s recommendations. In the meantime, however, no reasonable government can divest itself of the responsibility of according the highest priority to security and order. These must be maintained at any price. If the Government were to allow peace and order to be violated, the first freedom which would in turn be violated as a result of that would in fact be the freedom of the individual. There can be no doubt about this. In the final analysis, this legislation is there to protect the freedom of the individual. [Interjections.] And in order to guarantee this freedom, there must be stability and order, there must be security for community organizations. The security of the State must be ensured. This legislation is not therefore an absolutization of the individual. It is in fact an attempt to ensure the safety of the State for the sake of the freedom of the individual.

In this connection I should like to refer to a quotation from the first report of the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council where, on page 14, reference is made to what Clinton Rossiter said in the foreward to The Federalist Papers. He said—

This is an absolute prerequisite for any development and for any constitutional development as well. All individual rights are based on order and stability and are dependent on the safety of the State. If we must make a mistake, let us rather allow more emphasis to fall on order and stability rather than to endanger it, particularly in these times of major constitutional development, in which there are changes and developments in so many spheres, and in which there is also an intensified terrorist onslaught against us. Once order and security are jeopardized, far more stringent and unpleasant means will have to be utilized which will cause permanent damage and disruption.

The official Opposition is so fond of referring to the right of access to the the courts. But if there are no courts, there can be no access to the courts. This legislation is there to ensure that there will be courts.

That is convoluted reasoning.

The plea of self-defence is a recognized ground of justification and a defence in criminal law. When one is attacked, when one’s life is in danger, one may make use of unorthodox methods. One cannot then say to the attacker: “Hold on a minute; I am going to call the police so that they can lay a charge and take you to court”. One must act right then and there. This principle, which applies in respect of individuals, applies equally stringently in respect of States. When States are attacked in unusual ways, they have the right to hit back at their attackers with unorthodox and extraordinary methods. This principle is internationally recognized. I do not want to refer to the numerous decisions of foreign courts quoted in the Rabie Commission report. Not only is this recognized in case law, but it is also accepted in the statute law of almost all countries. I wonder whether there is any country in the world which does not have security legislation and which does not make provision for extraordinary action in the case of extraordinary onslaughts. When it comes to South Africa, however, this cannot simply be accepted. Then hon. members opposite are very dubious about whether this can be accepted. Then the safety of the State is just not all that important.

I believe we are living in a time of an undeclared, low intensity terrorist war. It is a planned, orchestrated onslaught over a wide front. To refrain from counteracting it with unorthodox methods, would amount to suicide.

The official Opposition is very fond of comparing this country to other Western countries as far as security legislation is concerned. I want to suggest that that is not fair. What Western country is in the same position as we are? What Western country has three Marxist States on its borders; and what is more, three Marxist States which are new and which all, to a large extent, came into existence as a result of guerrilla warfare? These are States in which there is as yet no real stability and in which there is no real control over people who wish to infiltrate from thence into this country. What Western State has the possibility of the large-scale infiltration of terrorists from neighbouring States which South Africa has? What Western State has such a population miscellany consisting of so many population groups and racial groups as has South Africa?

The USA.

Almost all the Western States have populations which are very homogenous. What Western State has, in the constitutional sphere, undergone so much change and development as South Africa has? I want to suggest that if one wants to compare this country to other States, we should be seen as part of Africa. We are not situated in Europe; we are situated here. We are dealing with the instability of Africa. We are facing a tremendous onslaught and if we are to be compared with others, we should be compared with the rest of Africa and in that case I am convinced that in no other country in Africa are the internal security actives controlled as openly and regularly as they are in South Africa.

† The hon. member for King William’s Town said on Friday that the Government had no credibility when it came to security legislation. I submit that the first statement that should be made about the Rabie Commission is that that commission in itself is incontrovertible proof of the Government’s bona fide and serious intention to subject security legislation to the independent scrutiny of a non-political commission.

It is an improvement, but it does not mean we have to agree with it.

The Government has credibility on account of that. That is the point the hon. member wanted to make. What more should the Government have done than to appoint a judge of high standing to investigate the matter?

[Inaudible.]

Every witness was given the opportunity of placing its views before the commission. This was in fact done. This commission sat for two and a half years, during which time 119 individuals and institutions submitted memoranda and 69 people gave evidence before the commission. The report is 254 pages long, and deals with 35 different Acts of Parliament. One can criticize this report in many respects, but one must concede that it is a very sincere, unbiased, thorough and scholarly attempt at investigating our existing security legislation.

It is clear that the Rabie Commission dealt at length with all the objections and arguments placed before it in as objective a manner as possible. The findings of the commission have been criticized by many people, but nobody has so far ventured to suggest that the commission did not deal with all the arguments placed before it.

What about interrogation matters?

The commission dealt with that as well. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, another attribute of the Rabie Commission is also that it compared the existing legislation with current security legislation of other Western countries. The basic approach of the Rabie Commission also forms the basis of this Bill, and those who disagree with this Bill should state clearly with what findings and with what fundamental approaches of the commission they differ. The first and most fundamental approach of the Rabie Commission was that personal freedom should be given the highest priority, and that recourse to courts of law should be affected only in special circumstances, and also that the intention should always be to strike an ideal balance between the rights of the individual and those of the society as a whole.

The second fundamental approach of the Rabie Commission was that the security legislation of a country could never be assessed in isolation, but that it always had to be judged and tested in the light of the actual circumstances prevailing and expected in the forseeable future. It is also not intended to be a final answer to our security legislation.

The third fundamental approach relates to the so-called principle of the rule of law. This rule which implies that everybody should at all times have recourse to a court of law is not a rule of law but rather a principle of what the law should be. It is also not an unqualified rule, but when the safety of the State is at stake the State has an inherent right to defend itself and its subjects. The commission then analysed the factual position and came to the conclusion that the country was facing a revolutionary and terrorist attack of major proportions from the ANC, the PAC, and inspired by the S.A. Communist Party. The ultimate aim of these organizations is to establish a Marxist State in South Africa by violent means. The Opposition must state their views on this. They must state clearly whether they agree with this or not. This is a basic approach of the commission.

The commission then comes to the conclusion that the common law and the usual procedural rules are undoubtedly not sufficient to ensure law and order in this country. It sets out the reasons specifically for coming to this conclusion. These reasons have not been dealt with by the official Opposition.

The first reason for this is that the definition and the ambit of the common law offences are not wide enough to cover all the types of terrorism, sabotage and subversion, and this is confirmed and supported by Prof. Mathews. It also comes to the conclusion that because terrorists are trained in other countries and because they come to this country on a planned terrorist incursion, it is necessary to give the police wider powers of interrogation. This is important. The commission found as a fact that police action in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act in actual fact on numerous occasions prevented acts of terrorism and sabotage which would certainly have happened had the police not taken these precautions in terms of the Act. In other words, had it not been for these provisions there would have been more acts of terrorism in South Africa. Those hon. members opposing this Bill must tell us whether they agree with these premises or not and, if not, they must tell us what their grounds for disagreement are. This is a factual statement by the commission.

The commission also came to the conclusion that whereas the courts in their usual procedures may be effective in punishing criminals, they are not effective in preventing acts of sabotage and terrorism. This goes without saying. Terrorism is not a normal crime. It is planned well in advance, in many instances from outside the country. It is scheduled to be perpetrated on a very wide front with massive aid, international and otherwise, and the terrorists are always very well equipped. One cannot counter this sort of action by means of normal measures. Terrorism is not a normal crime. The official Opposition must state their views in this regard because these facts must be clear to every reasonable person.

The commission also came to the conclusion that to obtain convictions it is often necessary to keep certain information secret and not to allow witnesses to come into contact with certain people outside. Once again, there are provisions very similar to this in Germany. There are enactments in Germany which guard against legal representatives playing an active part in terrorism. In fact, they have now gone so far that in practice a legal representative in Germany is only allowed to defend a terrorist once in his legal career.

Another view of the commission is also that it is not in the interests of the image of the country to proclaim a state of emergency on every occasion when measures of a special nature are required. Surely those hon. members opposite must agree with this? Surely this is a reasonable attitude to adopt?

Another finding of the commission was that security legislation has of necessity a high political content and it is not in the interests of the court to handle cases of this nature. We have not yet had any answer on this very pertinent point from hon. members opposite although it has been raised many times by hon. members on this side.

Mr. Speaker, I should like now to refer to paragraph 7.45 of the report which contains a most significant statement, namely that not one of the legal experts who made representations to the commission submitted that the common law and the ordinary rules of procedure give the State sufficient power to secure internal security under the present circumstances. Not one legal expert made such a submission to the commission. However, apparently the PFP submits the opposite.

Having accepted the fact that extraordinary measures are required to ensure order, I submit that it is incumbent upon the critics of this Bill to come forward with specific suggestions as to what special measures should entail. Only when they do that can their good faith be accepted. I submit that the Rabie Commission has made a major breakthrough in streamlining our security legislation and making it more equitable. This Bill, which is in effect a recommendation of that commission, should be supported as being a great improvement and as being very realistic under the circumstances.

*Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that every new provision in the Bill is a great improvement and I want to confine myself to the new crimes which are being created by this legislation. There is firstly the crime of terrorism which was established by the Terrorism Act of 1967. The Terrorism Act is being replaced by this legislation and improved in two important respects. The aforementioned Act did not lay down violence as a prerequisite, and as soon as the State was able to prove that a person had a specific aim, that aim fell within the definition of crime. However, this was unsatisfactory, because it did not comply with the ordinary and recognized international definition of terrorism. In this connection the Rabie report referred to the Israeli, Australian and British legislation. The crime, as it is defined in this Bill, contains two elements. There must, in the first place, be the intention to overthrow the State to bring about constitutional, political, industrial, social or economic change, to induce the Government to abandon a standpoint or to demoralize the population or to intimidate it in some way or another, by violent means. The same penalty is prescribed for this crime as for high treason, but there is no minimum sentence. This is a great improvement, and the discretion of the court is therefore not being affected in respect of the meting out of punishment. Consequently this represents a great improvement over the previous system.

The next crime is the crime of subversion, which is a lesser crime than sabotage. This requires the same set-up as terrorism, but the same act is not required. Consequently violence is not a prerequisite. Eleven definitions of sabotage are specified, for example the creation of general disorder, the causing of disruption, the endangering of installations, the paralysing of production or inciting a person to do so. As far as the sentence is concerned, imprisonment for a minimum period of 20 years is laid down, but if the deed resulted in violence, and it was reasonably foreseeable by the person committing the act, imprisonment for a period of up to 25 years may be imposed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg earlier on made one very interesting comment towards the end of his speech when he said that the real issue was that they did not wish to drag the courts into politics. I thought that was rather a remarkable statement. I believe if the hon. member has not done his party a disfavour thereby he has done himself a disfavour because that rather reveals his own philosophy. The hon. member seems to want a system in which there are no objective controls on the executive at all. I am referring particularly to objective controls on those who hold political power. I want to tell the hon. member that in nearly all democratic countries in the world the courts have the power to limit the excesses of politicians. That is the role of the courts in those countries and they act as the preserver of a democratic society. [Interjections.] They prevent politicians from taking steps which are not in accordance with the principles of justice.

I also listened very carefully to the hon. member for Umbilo.

That was a waste of your time.

I may say that he knows far less about the subject that he spoke about than his predecessor knew about pensions. [Interjections.] One of the things I have a difficulty with with that hon. member and certainly his party is that even when the NRP opposes a measure they give the impression of supporting it. They can never in anything that they say in this House, except for the hon. member for King William’s Town upon whose speech I compliment him, take a clear stand on any issue at all.

It amounted to the same thing but you didn’t understand.

Give us a new line!

I have honestly seldom heard such flannel as we heard from the hon. member tonight. He said that he had been the victim of a terrorist attack and for that reason he was absolutely in favour of legislation to curb terrorism. [Interjections.] I want the hon. member to know …

That is absolute ruddy nonsense. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I honestly take no offence.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member permitted to use the word “ruddy”? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Ruddy is a shade of red. You ought to know all about it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. Whip but I take no offence because I honestly think we are all used to the nonsensical comments of that hon. member. I want him to know, talking about terrorist attacks, that it is nothing particularly special to have been a victim of a terrorist attack. The hon. member for Houghton’s office was almost destroyed as a result of a terrorist attack. My political office in Sandton was attacked by bomb-throwers. We in this party know precisely what it is like to suffer from terrorist attacks. I want to say at the same time that the hon. the Minister of Police was very helpful in trying to protect the families of those who were affected. We were grateful for that. However, using a personal experience of that sort to adopt a viewpoint in principle on a broad and massive issue, is as simplistic as when Mr. Punt Janson, who used to sit in this House, used to tell us how he sat under a tree on a stone with his Black farm labourer and that as a result of his discussions with that labourer he had a certain philosophy relating to co-operation and development.

You are a contemptible man.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Umbilo I think requires no further attention from anybody in this House. I do not think anybody really listens to him, fortunately.

I want to move on to the hon. member Mr. Schutte. He asked whether we were in favour of security legislation. I hope he will listen this evening to what I have to say during the course of the next few moments. Hopefully, I shall try to provide him with some of the answers. I cannot possibly answer all the questions he asked. However, I do believe that if he had listened—I am sure he did listen; perhaps he was absent—to the hon. members for Pinetown and Durban Central he would have understood that this party certainly realizes that are threats facing South Africa and certainly understands that there must be legislation to curb those threats. It is the nature of the legislation about which we are arguing. However, the hon. member Mr. Schutte then deviated from what I consider to be parliamentary tradition, because he said that if this Opposition party did not provide certain answers in respect of the standpoint it had adopted then we, who are the members of the official Opposition would be guilty of political terrorism. That is a very grave allegation to make against anyone. We in these benches believe that if the hon. the Minister does not withdraw the arbitrary powers to lock people up, does not give the courts the right to adjudicate upon the actions of the Minister and does not discontinue with detentions without trial, detentions which result in deaths, then that hon. Minister is guilty of political terrorism, he is guilty of institutional violence, and he is guilty of doing this against people who are not terrorists and who are not communists but who are citizens of South Africa, people who oppose this Government.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to say that the hon. the Minister is guilty of political terrorism against people who are not terrorists or communists?

Yes.

That is what this Bill is all about.

Order! The hon. member said that if the hon. the Minister did not do something then he would be guilty.

That is right. Mr. Speaker, I am following your ruling to the letter. If the hon. the Minister does not withdraw the violent provisions of this Bill he will be guilty of political terrorism against citizens of South Africa who are opposed to apartheid, who are opposed to enforced segregation and who are opposed to discrimination. After all, Mr. Speaker, if I may ask you the question: What is the difference between the hon. the Minister and Mr. Mandela in those circumstances? The difference is that the hon. the Minister holds power and Mr. Mandela does not.

Order! What does the hon. member mean by that?

Mr. Mandela was convicted of an act of political terrorism and therefore, as you, Mr. Speaker, allowed precisely the same question to be asked last Friday, I am now asking the question: What is the difference between the hon. the Minister and Mr. Mandela? There is no difference between the two questions.

You want Mandela free.

There you are.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Mandela was not found guilty of political terrorism; he was found guilty of high treason. If the hon. member for Sandton is equating Mandela to the hon. the Minister, I am of the opinion that he is injuring the hon. the Minister’s integrity.

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, only recently we had the very same argument when the hon. member for Langlaagte asked: What is the difference between the hon. member for Houghton and Mandela?

Order! When I asked the hon. member for Langlaagte about that he said that he was referring to the policy of Mandela and the policy of the hon. member for Houghton. That was an entirely different matter.

Then this is a similar argument. [Interjections.] The same principle is involved.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this point? The reference of the hon. member for Langlaagte to the view of the hon. member for Houghton is not an equivalent case. What is at issue here, as the hon. member for Verwoerdburg has rightly remarked, is that Mandela was not convicted for political terrorism. If he had been convicted for political terrorism, I would have admitted that the hon. member had a point, but Mandela is a convicted criminal. To equate the hon. the Minister with that in any way or to insinuate that there is a comparison is, with all due respect, not parliamentary, in my opinion. The hon. member should withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to address you on this point. I do not wish to argue against the hon. member for Mossel Bay. All I wish to do is to refer you to the precedent of Friday evening when you allowed precisely the sense of what I have said to be said in this House. I am only asking you to be consistent in your ruling.

Order! On Friday, after I had asked the hon. member for Langlaagte what he meant, he said that he was referring to Mandela’s policy and to the policy of the hon. member for Houghton. That was the difference. He first asked what the difference was between Mandela and the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this point of order? The hon. member for Langlaagte clearly indicated that he thought there was no difference between the policy advanced by Mr. Mandela and the policy advanced by myself. The policy advanced by Mr. Mandela is that of a person who has been convicted of treason, of sabotage, and he is serving a sentence in gaol. Is the hon. member for Langlaagte entitled therefore to insinuate that the policies that I follow are the same as the policies followed by Mr. Mandela? That is the point of order, Sir, and that is the point being made by the hon. member for Sandton.

Mr. Speaker, on this point of order: There may be similarities between people in respect of policies but we are now confronted with an allegation in the form of a question as to what the difference is between Mandela and the hon. the Minister in as much as Mandela is supposed to have been convicted of political terrorism, which is not the case. Mandela is a convicted criminal, and to ask what the difference is between Mandela, a convicted criminal, and the hon. the Minister, is in my view patently an un-parliamentary insinuation or innuendo on the part of the hon. member for Sandton.

Mr. Speaker, may I also address you on this point of order? One thing emerges clearly from the submission of the hon. member for Mossel Bay and that is what has been said today by the hon. member for Sandton is milder than what the hon. member for Langlaagte said. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Langlaagte drew a comparison between Mandela and the hon. member for Houghton. He said that Mandela had been convicted of a crime. I submit that it is a lesser thing to make a comparison with political terrorism because, Mr. Speaker, you have just ruled that political terrorism is not a serious thing of which to accuse someone. It is a lesser thing.

Order! The hon. member must not put words into my mouth. I did not say that. I did not give a ruling on the expression “political terrorism” alone.

Mr. Speaker, even if you did not do so, it must surely be a lesser thing to speak of political terrorism than to speak of someone having been convicted of a crime?

Mandela was not convicted of political terrorism. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the hon. member Mr. Schutte that he said that if we did not pursue

If you did not do something, in that case it would be political terrorism.

And you ruled that to be in order, Sir.

I say exactly the same thing.

What did the hon. member say?

Mr. Speaker, I said that if the Government does not withdraw its arbitrary powers to lock up people without redress—in other words, detention without trial—and when in some cases people die in detention, the hon. the Minister is guilty of political terrorism or guilty of institutional violence against those who are not terrorists or communists but who are citizens of South Africa. I then said: After all, what is the difference then between the Minister and Mr. Mandela? I have always believed that Mr. Mandela was convicted in this country for committing an act that was basically—it may have been sabotage or treason—political terrorism. I asked: What is the difference?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: There is no such crime as political terrorism. [Interjections.] It is totally irrelevant therefore to say that in the opinion of the hon. member, Mandela was convicted of political terrorism because there is no such crime. [Interjections.] In actual fact he was convicted of sabotage, and equating the hon. the Minister in this regard with Mandela, amounts to alleging that the hon. the Minister is also guilty of, not political terrorism as the hon. member has indicated, but sabotage, and that I maintain, Sir, is unparliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully suggest that you look into the matter and give your ruling at a later stage?

I accept the hon. member’s suggestion. The hon. member for Sandton may proceed.

The hon. member Mr. Schutte then queried the point made by some of our speakers that security legislation of this sort exacerbates rather than limits terrorism and unrest. I should like to quote from De Rebus, and the hon. member may realize that De Rebus is the attorneys’ monthly publication. I should like to quote from the editor’s page of the edition of April 1982—

Then there is reference to the Bennett Committee—

And they quote the Bennett report—

That is the standpoint of this political party sitting in these benches.

Now I should like to move away from some of the speakers who spoke earlier and come to the Bill itself. In the next few moments I shall largely confine myself to aspects of this Bill which are concerned with newspapers, publications and periodicals, more specifically clauses 5 to 12, clause 15 and clause 56. In considering the Bill, one cannot but cast one’s mind back over the recent history of the Government’s relationship with the Press and its attitude towards publications as a whole. In this connection I should like to remind hon. members, in no specific order, of a few past milestones, all evidence of the Government’s preoccupation with this subject. Since the NP’s accession to power I can remember at least four commissions of inquiry which have been appointed and have reported on the dissemination of news and views. In October 1977 the newspaper with the largest Black readership in South Africa, The World, which was published by the Argus Group, was summarily closed down by executive action and its editor was put in gaol.

Yes.

It was not that the editor of that newspaper or the newspaper itself had ever been accused of having done anything contrary to the law, and not that the publication or the editor was ever convicted of any crime.

Never charged.

No, never charged. Not a single charge was brought against the publisher or the editor himself. It was, however, a news medium which strongly opposed the Government and, of course, it paid the price. Is the hon. the Minister of Law and Order in the House?

No.

Is he in the House? [Interjections.]

He is listening to you; don’t you worry.

He is probably reading a newspaper somewhere.

I find it incredibly discourteous that an hon. Minister whose Bill is before the House does not have the courtesy to sit and listen to the arguments that are being raised against it.

Hear, hear!

I find that most discourteous. [Interjections.] Perhaps I shall not be listening to his reply either. [Interjections.] Let me, however, place it on record that the hon. the Minister seems to be too uninterested to listen to arguments from the official Opposition on his own Bill. [Interjections.] Honestly, when it comes to being a Parliamentarian, that hon. Minister does not know where to begin. [Interjections.]

Do you never feel the call of nature?

It was about that time—or perhaps it was earlier—that the then Prime Minister … [Interjections.] I am not interested in talking to the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare. All he knows about is R20 diets. What does he know about security legislation? [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare should go and have some coffee. He knows about Onverwacht in Houghton and R20 diets. Honestly, I do not know why he sits there at all.

You are being downright rude.

Mr. Vorster tabled the Press Bill which had as its main object disciplining of the Press.

Can you resist the call of nature all evening?

What is the hon. the Deputy Minister talking about? Does he want to ask a question? Why does he not go and play snooker or something he is more talented at?

You are being downright rude. [Interjections.]

This Bill drew such adverse comment, both internally and externally, that it was quickly withdrawn, though the threat of Government action remained. The Press Council was beefed up and brought into life. Ironically, the Press Council stands accused of being a failure.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Deputy Minister allowed to refer to the hon. member for Sandton as “onbeskof”? [Interjections.]

Sir, it has been said several times now.

Did the hon. the Deputy Minister say that?

I did, Sir.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Sir, I do not begrudge the hon. the Deputy Minister that. We all get cross quickly.

You are being unreasonable, very unreasonable.

Perhaps I am being unreasonable, but I believe that this Bill is also unreasonable. I truly believe that.

Do you expect the Minister to sit here the whole day? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, I expect the hon. the Minister to be present while spokesman of the official Opposition are addressing him, yes. If he wants to go out when members of his own party are speaking because he knows what they are going to say, I have no objection to that but I do not believe that it is correct that he should leave a debate while members of the official Opposition are speaking.

I was criticizing the Government for not using the Press Council. They brought this Press Council into being and they have never used it. On the few occasions when they have used it, the complaints have either been withdrawn or thrown out, except in one or two occasions. Perhaps it is the very lack of partisanship of the Press Council that has destroyed its usefulness as a tool in the hands of the executive. Then, in the aftermath of the revelations of gross irregularities in the handling of public moneys, stretching right into the Cabinet—here I refer to the Information scandal—the Advocate-General Bill was drafted and tabled, its main objective being not to curb corruption, oh no, but rather to curb the reporting of corruption. That was what its main task was.

Disgraceful!

Then in the middle of its passage through Parliament, the gagging clauses were dramatically dropped from the Bill to the amazement of the hon. the Minister who was introducing the Bill …

Where is he now?

… who is no longer here and who is no longer even a friend of the NP, and to the amazement of the Committee and members of the justice group who were not even informed by the hon. the Prime Minister at that time before they entered the House that those clauses would be dropped. Then in December 1980 and January 1981 …

What are you dealing with? This is history. [Interjections.]

Which principle of the Bill are you discussing now?

I am talking about the history of the Government’s relationship with the Press and about what it is doing to the Press in this Bill. In December 1980 and January 1981 the drama of The Post unfolded. Crippled by strikes, it ceased publication for a while and a technicality was used to prevent its reappearance once its registration had lapsed.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir, what I am saying is very much to the point.

It concerns the clauses on publications.

Clauses 5 to 12 deal with the banning of newspapers and publications and I believe that it is relevant to the understanding of this Bill to understand the Government’s history in relation to the Press in South Africa. That is a very widely accepted principle of debate in the House. I have never heard anything, to the contrary.

Round about that time the harassment and the detention of members of the Media Workers’ Association of South Africa and other journalists were stepped up. There were no prosecutions, no convictions; only lengthy detention. Since then the bombardment of ministerial utterances, ominous warnings to the Press to put their house in order, have not lessened. Finally the Statute Book is filling up rapidly with sections, with chapters, with measures that regulate what may or may not be reported or written. This campaign to put the brakes on the Press is therefore not a new one. As Mr. Harvey Tyson said in Madrid just a few days ago: “The press in South Africa is not entirely free, but nor then is it docile.” Of course, there is already in operation a formidable and complicated machinery to control what people may or may not see or read. For instance, apart from the provisions of this Bill, we have the Publications Control Act, which does not apply to newspapers but which is being used increasingly to prohibit publication and distribution of political material considered by the Government to be undesirable. In truth, and as the hon. the Minister has already pointed out, the Government already has the power to do virtually everything contained in this draft legislation to stop publication to close newspapers, and to ban publications and periodicals. Added to that, the courts are amply provided with legislation, precedents and common law provisions, entitling redress against publications, editors and writers who overstep the mark in the eyes of the law.

As I have said many times in this House before, South Africa has a press which is partly free but which is under siege, under constant threat of emasculation, even under threat of destruction, and now we have before us this Bill. On the face of it, this is a Bill which, in the narrow context of publications, the press, etc., does not afford the Government much more real power than it already has. It will be argued by hon. members opposite that this Bill lessens the power of the Government in that administrative machinery is being set up in terms of which certain formal procedures must be followed by the executive before action is taken against a publication or against its proprietors. Certainly, it can be legitimately stated that a situation is being created post Rabie Commission, which allows other means whereby aggrieved parties may in fact seek redress, a right which did not previously exist. To the extent, therefore, that this Bill makes the legislation regarding the suppression of publications more reasonable to the extent that certain limited avenues for the review of executive decisions are created—to that extent—this Bill does represent an improvement on an existing situation.

Let there, however, be no error. For an Opposition party, holding the views that we do, to defend, as we are trying to do, the retention of Western values, the freedom of the individual, the freedom of speech, the reasonable availability of information, it would be a folly to support a Bill merely because it improves marginally a previously indefensible and untenable set of laws and regulations.

We must try to look at the whole picture. Of great importance is our perception of South Africa today and of the threats and problems which confront us, as also our conviction of how to deal with these matters on the political, economic and social levels. We must look at this measure as a whole, standing on its own, and we must measure it against those criteria to which we subscribe and which are in fact the very basis of our existence as a political movement. We have to do this in the light of the realities of South Africa. It would be a foolish person who denied the existence of any threat to the security of South Africa. I want the hon. member Mr. Schutte to take special note of this. It would be a foolish person who denied the existence of threats to the security of South Africa. Certainly this country, and not only the Government of the day, has its enemies, enemies who seek to overthrow the established order by violent means. It is understood that the S.A. Communist Party is one such enemy. It would, however, be an equally foolish person who ascribed the whole threat…

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member reply to a question?

No, my time is almost up. I am sorry, but I cannot reply to a question now. [Interjections.]

† It would be an equally foolish person who ascribed the whole threat to a communist or Third World plot and closed his eyes to the very real and exploitable inequalities and injustices which exist in our society. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the contribution by the hon. member for Sandton was of such a nature that I do not want to react to it for if I did I would probably be in constant trouble with you, Sir.

I should like to return to a point raised by the hon. member for Pinetown. He said one of the advantages of the Bill was that it would at least ensure that young people who did nothing more than pick up a pen, did not end up in gaol. When he was asked to give an example of when this in fact happened under the existing legislation, he referred to the SASO and BPC case. If one reads the verdict of the judge in that case, one finds he said, inter alia, the following after having weighed up all the evidence—

Therefore, what the judge was saying here was that these people supported a total change in the political system, and that the methods they used were aimed at creating a power-bloc that was prepared to use political violence. That was their method.

I said they never participated in violence; did they?

It is true that those people themselves never committed any violence, but the point I want to make is that, according to the verdict of the judge the methods they used led to the use of violence. I suggest that those people could have been found guilty in terms of clause 54(1)(ii) of the Bill because provision is made there for an action performed and aimed at causing an act or threat of violence. The proposed legislation would therefore still cover the said offence. To suggest that we caused innocent people to end up in gaol by means of the existing legislation is very far from the truth. As a matter of fact, I want to go so far as to allege that the events which took place in the early ’seventies led directly to the riots which broke out in 1976 in Soweto and other townships. I am convinced that the orientation of those people led directly to the Soweto riots and laid the foundation for them as it were. That is how innocent those people were to whom the hon. member for Pinetown referred as people who never did nothing more than pick up a pen! These would seem to be the sort of people he wants to protect.

And he is their intercessor.

Returning to general matters I must say it seems to me one of the fundamental differences between this side of the House and the PFP and NRP is that the two Opposition parties would like the control measures with regard to security legislation to be absolutely in the hands of the courts, whereas this side of the House says that the control measures should not be of such a nature that they can totally hamper executive action. They should do nothing more than exercise control. I feel this is the fundamental point of difference between us and this side of the House and the NRP. I should like to broach this matter in a fundamental way and return to this point in due course to try to show why it is not possible to entrust this matter to the courts.

If one approaches this matter from the outset, one can ask why a community actually comes into existence. A community comes into existence because it can be to the advantage of people to co-operate with one another. However, this co-operation creates its own problems, in the sense that benefit can only be derived from co-operation if the cooperation takes place within the scope of a specific order. There must be order in the community before advantage can be derived from people co-existing. That order also includes a certain degree of stability. In other words, specific relations are created between people from which mutual benefit arises, but the continued existence of those relations depends on the existence of a stable order. Without this the benefit to the community and the individual in the community falls away. However, that order cannot exist on its own; there must be an instrument to maintain it. That instrument is the State. The State is established to introduce and to maintain that order. In this connection I should like to agree with a point made by the hon. member Mr. Schutte, that when action is taken to maintain this order, action is not taken on behalf of the State but directly on behalf of the rights of the citizens. In political history the struggle between the Government and the subjects has become so institutionalized and has become such a stereotyped struggle that whenever a person rebels against the power of the authorities, it is immediately accepted that he is doing so for the sake of greater freedom, to drive the State back a little as it were and to obtain a little more freedom for the individual. However, this is far from the truth in this sense that in this case the preservation of the State is a prerequisite for the preservation of civil rights. For this reason it is important that from time to time consideration be given to the interests of the State as the protector of civil rights. In other words, here we do not have the traditional struggle between Government and subject; it is actually a struggle between subject and subject, with the State as the object of the struggle.

If one bears these facts in mind, another matter arises, namely that when the State must take action to maintain this order, it must, inter alia, do two things. In the first place the State must exclude violence from the relations between subjects and ensure that the subjects do not settle their disputes by violent means for this would destroy the order and stability in the community and any benefit which the community derived from it would be lost.

That is common law.

Yes, it is common law. It is the standard. The fact that the State must keep violence and other abuses out of the community is as old as the State itself. Normally there is also general consensus among members of a community on what actually constitutes an offence. There is consensus on this so that when the State takes action against a murderer there is no danger that the citizens will rise up against the State because it took such action. The one reason why the State, why the Judiciary as such, can act in a certain way against ordinary criminals is that there is consensus among the citizens of the State on what constitutes an offence. This is the one basic difference between what we call ordinary offences and politically inspired offences, in the sense that whereas the citizens can disagree on the nature of the State, on what form the State should take, there is also that mutual agreement, for example in a State like the USA, the State may act in the same way against politically motivated offences as against ordinary offences, because there is no danger that if one person commits an offence, that offence could cause the entire community to explode. This is one basic difference between ordinary offences and political offences. Allow me to illustrate this. It is an ordinary offence to break a shop window, remove some of the goods displayed there and walk off with them. If a passer-by were to break a shop window in Adderley Street this evening and take some of the jewellery from that shop, this would not immediately cause every other person in Adderley Street to do the same, because it is an ordinary offence. But if a noisy procession is marching up Adderley Street and the leader of that procession, as a symbol of his contempt for the existing system, were to break a shop window and scatter the wares about the almost automatic reaction of his followers would be to do exactly the same. What is, objectively speaking, virtually the same action has dramatically different results for the community. This is why one cannot act in the normal way against politically inspired offences, because in ordinary offences the tendency to perpetuate, the tendency for the action of one person to be able to suspend all other social relations in the community, is absent. That is why the community can afford to act very cautiously with regard to offenders. That is why the entire judiciary is in point of fact geared to ensuring that not a single innocent person ends up in gaol accidentally. As long as symbolic action is taken against the offenders, as long as there is not a flagrant transgression of the law, the community remains united.

However, in the case of political offences it is completely different, in the sense that that tendency for such an act to be perpetuated, creates tremendous unrest in the community unless virtually 99% of the people who commit those offences, are brought to book. The tendency for this act to perpetuate itself will lead to all people either beginning to commit similar acts or, on the other hand, defending themselves and no longer relying on the State to defend them. That is why one must judge these two types of offences by separate sets of rules. It is true that the courts, as I have put it, are geared to deal with ordinary offences in a specific manner. I want to emphasize this. Over the years the procedures of the courts have formed the content of criminal procedure. Everything revolves around that one point of departure, namely to let nine guilty persons go free rather than allow one innocent person to go to gaol. The entire system developed on that basis. If one were to apply exactly the same law to the so-called politically inspired offences, one would have the same results, namely guilty people would go free to ensure that not one innocent person takes the rap; and under the circumstances, this would be untenable. That is why one cannot use the same procedures and legal rules in exactly their present form. That is why it is necessary to pass special laws for this purpose. It has repeatedly been suggested here that there are also other reasons for this requirement. I just want to refer to one example. There is no dispute about the fact that in times of war a State may proclaim martial law, that it may suspend habeas corpus, the rule of law and the like for as long as the war may last and that it may act arbitrarily and administratively. This is an established rule and is as strong as any other rule. This is further proof of this, because it is specifically in time of war that the temptation to commit political offences suddenly becomes very strong. If the USA were to become involved in a nuclear war tomorrow, then whereas in the USA today there may be virtually no temptation to commit a political offence, for many people there will suddenly be such a temptation. A situation can therefore change overnight, and the concept of martial law makes provision for this. All we have here is the same principle applied to other circumstances, those of low-intensity war. Along with this we have a low-intensity martial law with which we can deal with it. It is as logical as that. All one need still consider is whether these control measures which are now being introduced are really adequate.

We now come to the argument that we must use the courts to exercise control over the actions of the executive and to administer this legislation in its totality. This is the kind of argument that is being advanced. However, the courts are not equipped to deal with this sort of situation. It is a different situation from that for which they and their procedures were established.

I now want to return to the example of the SASO and BPC court case. It was obvious from that court case that if one considered the acts by those people in isolation, one by one, each one of those acts was insignificant. However, if one did what the judge suggested in this case and considered them in their totality, if one took all the information into consideration, the picture became clear. It is virtually impossible for the courts to build up this sort of picture in every individual case with the cumbersome rules which are really intended for criminal procedure. In many long drawn out trials we have seen what a tremendous task it is for the courts to find anyone guilty. It is a tremendous task to place all the details before a court, a task for which we do not really have the manpower. Under those circumstances, even if one were to try to submit everything to them, the courts would never be in the same situation as the executive, whose task it is to deal with this situation every day, to judge exactly what the effect of a specific person’s actions are on the political process, on the stability and order of the State. That is why the executive is in a much better position to judge. In contrast, the courts are not in a position to assess the totality of this situation equally well. I therefore believe that the at least initiative for these actions must rest with the executive. In addition the question arises whether the courts, with the power they have, can pass a really effective final judgment. In my opinion they cannot, because basically it is impossible for them to have all the necessary information. The only role which the courts can therefore play in this respect is to ascertain whether the assessment by executive is in good faith, whether it took all the relevant aspects into consideration and whether it allowed irrelevant considerations to play a role. In my opinion the courts may be competent to judge the process followed by the executive, and to judge the bona fides of the executive. However, to place the courts in a position where they must judge would set them a difficult task. I do not believe that the machinery at the court’s disposal and the restrictions to which they are subject would enable them to carry out the task.

Another point which has already been raised but which was not accepted by everyone is that actions of this nature are not always accepted by the public. These are steps taken against politically inspired offences, and there are always people who for some political motive will question such actions. If we were to allow this action to take place in court—i.e. if we were to make the courts the final arbiter in these cases—such political criticism would be aimed at the courts. As a matter of fact, we are experiencing this now in the case of the Rabie Commission report. Some of our most eminent legal experts were directed to investigate the matter. The investigation took the form of a judicial inquiry. What happened? Their report was torn apart. The fact that it was a judge who carried out this investigation did not mean that the report was unassailable in the eyes of the Opposition. Here, then, we have tangible proof that the result of every action by the court on this question will ultimately be politicized. However, I should like to spare our courts this criticism, because nowadays our courts are still considered to be objective and impartial by reasonable people, and if our courts lose that confidence, it will cause us inestimable harm. Let us therefore rather place this burden of criticism on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister of Law and Order. He is big and strong and can carry this burden, and if it becomes too much for him we can find someone else to do it. However, once the standing of the courts has been contaminated it can never be restored.

Various transgressions are now labelled as offences in this legislation, and in my opinion this is correct in principle, because one of the first of these transgressions which is now considered an offence is terrorism. The legislation is therefore aimed specifically at protecting the State against attacks by force. The primary function of society is to keep violence out of social dealings and the political process, and that is why it is a very meaningful step to protect it in this way.

This brings me to the second point, the crime of subversion, and this involves the protection of the ability of the State to maintain itself. The third crime is that of sabotage, and this actually involves the protection of the entire order of society against destruction. Then there is also the offence of communism, and I do not think this requires any further argument. In my opinion, the definition in the legislation is a vast improvement on the existing definition, in the sense that two elements of communism are stated to be unacceptable, namely on the one hand, the economic system offered, and on the other, the political system aimed at and the political methods used. For this reason any group of persons or school of thought which contains any of these three elements, is classified in the same group as communism. I think this is fair, because that school of thought runs counter to the entire reason for existence of a normal society. It is also well-known that the communists are the first to misuse the normal democratic protective measures such as the rule of law, court procedure, freedom of speech and the like with the aim of wrecking the system which incorporates these elements, and once this has been done, all these freedoms are lost.

In conclusion I just want to mention that it is not only South Africa which has these “draconian” laws. At one stage the same objections were raised against the Rhodesian security laws. However, a Black majority Government took over and is still in power there, but the same laws which were introduced under the Smith regime are still in force and are still being used. Therefore, if the PFP with its wonderful system were to come into power one day, I do not think that the need for security legislation would suddenly change.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the hon. member for Helderkruin, but I must say that I have never in my whole life heard such an unconvincing …

Oh, no!

… justification for the exclusion of the courts. It was indeed completely unconvincing. However, let me analyse a few aspects. Firstly, the basic reason why the hon. member for Helderkruin says that the courts must be excluded is that the courts would be contaminated, and also because the courts are not equipped to try this kind of case. These were two of his basic arguments. [Interjections.] However, why the courts should be excluded on the basis of those two arguments is beyond me, for even in our own history there was the 1914 rebellion, which was a political offence. There was also the strike on the Rand and even the Jameson Raid into the Transvaal. However, did we exclude the courts?

Never!

Never! We did not even think about excluding the courts, and yet these were all cases where political offences had been committed. To say now, however, that we should have excluded the courts at the time will not satisfy anyone.

What was internment, then?

Internment took place in terms of emergency regulations in war conditions. [Interjections.] I am talking, however, about the trying of people in the ordinary courts of law. Secondly the hon. member for Helderkruin spoke about politically motivated crimes. If these are really crimes, whether politically motivated or not, as appeared in the case of the trial of Nelson Mandela, our courts can try those cases. However, this measure is not primarily concerned with crimes that have been committed. It is concerned with the hon. the Minister’s belief that crimes may be committed. There is a fundamental difference. The whole premise on which the hon. member for Helderkruin based his standpoint therefor seems to me to be unfounded.

I just want to dwell for a moment on the basic assumption made by the hon. member for Helderkruin that the State has to maintain order and that in maintaining order, it is also upholding and protecting the rights of the citizen. In certain cases, and within a particular set of circumstances, that statement is correct, but if there are no other standards or ethical norms for the maintenance of order, this system is extremely dangerous, because it is exactly what is done in Russia. In Russia, order is maintained at all costs. To say, however, that the maintenance of order by the State in the communist countries means that the rights of the citizen are being protected at the same time is absurd, for if that were true, communism should not be abhorrent to us. I could go on like this. The same happened in Nazi Germany. To say that the maintenance of order in Nazi Germany meant the maintenance and the protection of the rights of the citizen is absurd.

It just depends on what your ethical norms are.

Yes, but the hon. member for Helderkruin never said that. To him, the criterion was simply the maintenance of order and nothing more. I just want to say that the maintenance of order per se cannot provide justification for this. I am glad that the hon. member for Mossel Bay agrees with me about this.

I want to come back to a point which was made by the hon. member for Helderkruin and which has been repeatedly raised in this discussion. I am referring to the sanctity, if I may use the word, of the Rabie Report, because Mr. Justice Rabie, whom I hold in very high esteem, was the chairman of that commission. Any report compiled by people with the status and reputation of the members of this commission certainly deserves the serious consideration of all thinking people in South Africa. We would be doing the commission, the cause and ourselves an injustice if we did not give serious consideration to the findings and recommendations of such a commission. [Interjections.] No, that alone cannot be the criterion. Whoever the members of the commission may be, we must still evaluate the findings and recommendations of the commission on the basis of what we regard as good and right. We have had many other judicial commissions. Not so long ago we had the Grosskopf Commission which made certain recommendations. I should like to see whether the Government will be prepared to say that because Mr. Justice Grosskopf was the chairman of that commission, it is prepared to accept the recommendations. Some years ago we had the report of the former Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Fagan, and no one has said that because of the fact that he was a Chief Justice the recommendations should be accepted.

But that is naive. The report has to be evaluated on merit.

The hon. member for Helderkruin virtually equated the proceedings of the Rabie Commission with those of a court. Therefore the hon. member for Mossel Bay must not quarrel with me, but with the hon. member for Helderkruin.

It is possible to appeal against the ruling of the court.

Hon. members on this side of the House, and specifically the hon. member for Pinetown, made it very clear that the commission has recommended certain improvements in the whole field of security legislation. He spelt them out. There are the abolition of the minimum penalties, the question of the juveniles, the question of the res iudicata and the question of the review procedure. So there are some improvements. It would be nonsensical, therefore, to allege that this report does not in fact contain some improvements for us. However, as the hon. member for Pinetown showed very clearly in his brilliant speech— and I do not believe that a single hon. member could have failed to be impressed by what he said—the essence of the security legislation, to which we had objected, remained unaltered. When we look at a few of those elements which are basically unacceptable and which should in fact be unacceptable to all of us—and I shall come back to this later—there is the conferment of enormous powers upon the executive. That is the first aspect.

Oh, no!

It is a fact. The second aspect is the fact that the legislation enables very drastic inroads to be made into individual rights and liberties in an arbitrary manner. I shall come back to this, too, at a later stage. The third aspect is the lack of any opportunity for the individual concerned to defend himself. The fourth aspect is the exclusion of the courts, to which I referred earlier. The fifth aspect is the fact that the legislation contains no element of temporariness. In this respect I want to come back to what the hon. member for Verwoerdburg said, when he alleged that this legislation was of a temporary nature. At the same time, however, the hon. member neglected to indicate where this could be inferred from the legislation itself, as against the words of the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech—for which I am very grateful to him—when he said that as far as he himself and the Government were concerned, they would like this legislation to be kept as temporary as possible. Nowhere in the legislation itself, however …

But how could that be embodied in the legislation?

Nowhere in the legislation itself is there any provision which imposes a time limit. Nowhere.

It all depends on the circumstances.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg says it all depends on the circumstances. Precisely. However, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg went on to refer to his enormous problem with which we were faced. He also pointed out that those facts of terrorism were going to escalate systematically. He said that they were going to keep on escalating. How can he allege, on the one hand, that we are going to need this legislation more and more because of the systematic increase in terrorist activities, while maintaining, on the other hand, that this legislation is merely of a temporary nature? Surely those two statements are irreconcilable. I am sorry to say this, but it is true. The hon. member cannot say that this legislation is merely of a temporary nature while saying at the same time that the circumstances which necessitate the legislation are going to grow steadily worse in future.

And you were a professor, Nic!

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the hon. member for Verwoerdburg must not come to me with replies like that. [Interjections.] Furthermore, there is no indication in the legislation that there is any time limit with regard to the powers which can be exercised by the Minister in respect of the orders directed against individuals, nor with regard to detention or anything else. If there had been any limits, I might have been able to concede the point to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg.

There are basically two criteria which one must use in assessing this Bill. The one is the question of what the nature is of the measures contained in this Bill. The second criterion is the question of how this legislation is going to be implemented. However, I want to point out specifically that these two criteria are equally important. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg says that by means of these measures we wanted to preserve the structures and the values of our country.

Of course!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg will agree with me when I say that it is impossible to preserve the values in which we believe if everything we do is actually in conflict with those values. [Interjections.] They simply cannot be preserved. [Interjections.] They simply cannot be preserved, for one of the basic principles of the values in which we believe is, as the hon. member for Sandton read out to us, the values with regard to the doctrine of the rule of law, which is part of our legal history, and which is absolutely fundamental. The rule of law does not exist because of obedience to man-made laws; it exists because of other ethical norms which the State in its legislation …

Mathews does not say so.

I should very much like to take the hon. member for Mossel Bay up on this point, but I just want to say that the rule of law …

It is a legal concept.

Yes, it is a legal concept, but the rule of law does not mean obedience to man-made laws; it is “rule by law” and not “the rule of law”.

That is right.

Correct. Then I also want to point out that the hon. member for Mossel Bay said that the rule of law, as it developed and as it was described by Dicey and others, served as an unwritten constitution.

Correct.

What the hon. member for Mossel Bay forgets is that the rule of law has gradually become associated with the protection of certain fundamental human rights …

No, no.

… just as the American constitution …

That is what Mathews rejects.

I repeat: Just as the American constitution provides—

But have you not taken cognizance of what Prof. Wade wrote about that.

In that provision in the American constitution we are in fact dealing with the rule of law.

All kinds of accusations have been made against the PFP, to the effect that we are the only ones who are opposed to this security legislation. The hon. members for Pinetown and Sandton have already indicated that serious objections have been raised to this security legislation by legal practitioners. I should like to read what is said by a man such as Prof. Marinus Wiechers. I do not know what his party political convictions are.

But you do.

I do not.

Really, Nic, you do know that.

In all honesty, I do not.

How can you say such a thing, Nic?

Listen to what Prof. Wiechers says—

This is what is emphasized—

It is correct that the commission did not ask this question and made to inquiry into this matter. I read further—

That is a real Prog story.

This is what Prof. Wiechers says.

Do you agree with it?

Prof. Wiechers goes on to say—

This is what the hon. member for Sandton also said—

To the detriment of everyone except the Progs.

I am therefore saying that it is not only this side of the House which objects to these measures. That is all I am saying. There is also an article written by Prof. D. H. van Wyk, professor of law at the University of South Africa. He speaks of the Rabie Commission in flattering terms. He is complimentary about the fact that the Rabie Commission has introduced improvements. It is not an unduly critical article against the Rabie report. On the contrary. Nor is it unduly critical of the need for security legislation, but he indicates certain basic shortcomings in the report and then comes to the following conclusion—

The Rabie Commission itself quoted this in its report, and for the sake of the record I want to read paragraph 3.18 on page 7—

Please note, these are not my words, but those of the commission—

This is what the Rabie Commission says.

That means that the commission did consider it.

I quote further—

But that is what we also say.

Throughout this entire debate I have been waiting for an hon. member on the other side of the House to say to us that the NP is aware of the fact that radical changes will have to be introduced in this country if security legislation of this nature is to be rendered unnecessary. I am still waiting.

I should now like to refer to another aspect of the security legislation which in my opinion has not received enough attention in this debate. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg, as well as other hon. members, has indicated that these measures are basically aimed at dealing with political terrorists.

That is correct.

The debate has to a large extent been devoted to detention without trial and other similar aspects, such as preventive detention and so on. However, the legislation contains some other really drastic violations of the fundamental rights and liberties of the individual, and in this connection I am referring in particular to the provisions of clauses 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23. What do these clauses provide for? I want to ask hon. members how we as Afrikaners would have reacted if at some other time there had been a Government which has possessed these powers. Clause 19(1) reads as follows—

Please note, it says “any person”; so it is not only a person who has committed a crime or who is guilty of terrorism, but any person—

[Interjections.] If it had been specified that this was limited to people whose names appeared on the consolidated list or who had been convicted of an offence, as provided for in clause 19(b), I could still have understood it. Here, however, it is being left to the discretion of the hon. the Minister entirely to decide whether the person might perhaps do something which would endanger law and order and the security of the State.

Where do you see that?

In clause 19. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon. member answer a question?

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but my time is limited and I still have quite a lot to say.

Just consider all the things which the hon. the Minister can do in the order which he addresses to that person. I quote—

It passes my understanding that it could be left to the discretion of an individual to impose all these restrictions on any other individual. I really cannot understand that. [Interjections.]

Clause 19(2) provides—

1. (b) who the Minister is satisfied is causing, encouraging or fomenting or will cause, encourage or foment feelings of hostility between different population groups or parts of population groups of the Republic in any area.

In such a case the Minister can also address an order to such person.

Using his crystal ball!

Thirdly, I want to examine clause 20.I quote—

1. (a) who the Minister is satisfied engages in activities which endanger or are calculated to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of law and order or propagates or promotes or is likely to propagate or promote such activities …

In such a case the Minister can address such an order to him. Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the fundamental violation of the rights of the individual without his having committed a crime. That is what provision is being made for in this Bill.

How do you know?

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg said that this Bill was directed against people who had committed crimes of terrorism. I want to come back to this and I want to quote some specific cases.

Let us examine clause 21. I quote—

Let me go on. Let us also consider clause 22(1). The Minister may by notice in the Gazette prohibit any person to whom a prohibition such as I have just spelt out has been addressed. He can prohibit anyone, even though he has not committed any crime. He has not done anything. However, the Minister suspects that he may do something. The Minister may furthermore prohibit such persons from—

1. (i) being or becoming office-bearers, officers or members;
2. (ii) making or receiving any contribution of any kind for the direct or indirect benefit; or
3. (iii) in any manner taking part in any activity,

Do hon. members understand that? The poor man has not done anything. In spite of that, he can be told: Look, you are not allowed to participate in a particular organization.

He must be a member of an organization mentioned in the schedule.

I am not talking about people whose names appear on the consolidated list and who are members of the Communist Party, for example.

Let us look now at clause 25(1). I quote—

So he is all-powerful in every respect. He decides whether a person is going to be restricted. He decides what information he is going to give to the restricted person. On pages 172 and 173 of its report, the Rabie Commission describes how these restriction orders are implemented. As hon. members will know, the three categories which exist are set out on page 172. No real justification is provided in the Rabie report. It is said that after considering the evidence, the Rabie Commission came to the conclusion that these things should be retained. There is no indication that the commission ever consulted any restricted person. Therefore there is no justification for the continued existence of the measures contained in the Rabie report, except the commission’s own words, namely that after consideration it decided that they should be retained. That is the final test.

When I look at some of the persons who have been restricted, I have no confidence that justice is done in the implementation of these measures. It grieves me to say that someone like Dr. Beyers Naudé, whom I have known all my life, has been subjected to these restriction orders. I say without any doubt in my own mind that I know few people of whom I can say: There goes a true Christian. Nor is he the only one. When I think of the Reverend Russell and of the students and others who have been detained in terms of these measures, then the essential element which should be present in the implementation of these measures, i.e. that it should at least create the impression that justice is being done, is lacking. In the light of the way in which these measures have been implemented up to now, I honestly believe that there is no real evidence that justice has been done.

Mr. Speaker, I shall react to the hon. member Prof. Olivier in a few moments. First I just wish to refer to something which was raised here by the hon. member for Sandton. Allow met to say at once that I am not prepared to discuss the merit of any of his statements. However, I think I should just point out that the hon. member raised a point of order while the hon. member Mr. Schutte was speaking. He objected to the use of the term “political terrorism”. But afterwards, when the hon. member rose to speak, he himself used that expression when he applied it to the hon. the Minister. I think we should also take cognizance of the fact that the hon. member had serious objections last Friday to a comparison which was drawn between the hon. member for Houghton and Mandela. He took such serious exception to this that his part …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order! With regard to this particular matter the hon. member for Randburg is now raising, you have ruled that you will consider the matter and that you will give a ruling later. I therefore do not believe that it is correct that this matter should be argued any further now.

I concede that point to the hon. member for Sandton. The hon. member for Randburg should rather leave the matter at that. I shall give my ruling tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, did you say that you were reserving you ruling on that point?

Yes.

Thank you. Then I shall not say any more. Let me come back, therefore, to the hon. member Prof. Olivier’s speech, in which he raised quite a number of points. He conceded the positive points, but also said that there were basic reasons why they could not support the Second Reading of the Bill. One of the aspects which he discussed at some length was the allegation that provision was not being made in this Bill for the idea of temporariness. That would have been a valid point if circumstances had been such that we could have considered making it temporary. But the Rabie Commission is very definite about the fact that we cannot expect any changes in the circumstances within the foreseeable future. The hon. member cited the legislation which governs the situation in Northern Ireland, i.e. legislation which can be reviewed every six months. However, I ask myself—and I should like to inquire whether the hon. member does not agree with this— whether this is not merely a symbolic approach. The people in Ireland realize, after all, that circumstances are not going to change all that much, and if the temporariness is linked to the question of how long such circumstances may continue, it is a valid point. It is also a point which has been made by hon. members on this side of the House. In my opinion, however, one should not argue that the fact that no limit is being provided for in the legislation with regard to how long the legislation will remain in force means that it will remain in force permanently and for all time. I shall also come back later to when it was originally introduced. Perhaps the hon. member can recall the introduction of the first 90-days provision in 1963, when the then Minister of Justice said that this was a temporary measure. The hon. member must also admit that the measure was abolished in 1965. When it was no longer essential, the legislation was repealed. At that stage all the people involved were either charged or released, and no one was detained any more. I must concede that the need for similar legislation arose again in 1966, but at that stage the Minister concerned also said that however much he disliked it, it would appear to him that this measure would be of a semi-permanent nature and that there would not be any change within the foreseeable future, and that we should therefore bear this in mind.

The hon. member also referred to Prof. Wiechers’s article in which the Rabie Commission was sharply criticized for not having ascertained what the effect of their proposals and this kind of legislation would be on people’s feelings. He also said that he had been waiting throughout the debate and was still waiting for an hon. member on this side of the House to concede that radical changes would have to take place to remove the need for this legislation. As far as that is concerned I want to make two points. Firstly, I believe, there is not a single hon. member in this House who does not realize that the existence of security legislation also has a negative effect on people’s feelings. However, there is another side to the matter. It is not only a question of feelings being aroused by the existence of such legislation on the Statute Book; there are also the harmful actions of people that have to be countered by means of such legislation. In the second place, when the hon. member says that we must wait for the day when the need for this type of legislation will disappear after this radical change, he is by implication admitting that there is in fact a need for the legislation which exists at the moment. If that is not so, the point which the hon. member made was not valid.

The hon. member for Pinetown also spoke about the temporariness of the legislation, and tried to answer a question which had been put, i.e. under what circumstances would the official Opposition then support this legislation?