Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have had a long and indepth discussion of this Bill—a protracted debate in fact—both during Second Reading and the Committee Stage, when something like 100 amendments were moved and discussed by this House. Indeed, it can be said that we have had in effect two Second Reading debates on this measure, because the debate on the Rabie Commission report, which took place earlier this session, was virtually also a debate on this Bill. As a matter of fact, the draft Bill contained in the Rabie Commission report is virtually identical with the Bill that we have been discussing here this last week. I do not therefore intend—and I am sure it will come as a relief to some hon. members; I see the hon. member for Mossel Bay is nodding his head—repeating in great detail the arguments which we used at Second Reading and during the Committee Stage.

It would be water off a duck’s back in any event.

Exactly! As the hon. member for Pinelands intimates, no real purpose will be served by putting forward a reasoned argument at this stage. I intend limiting myself therefore to emphasizing what we in these benches believe the effect of the Bill will be as it has come from Committee.

Unfortunately the vast majority of the arguments which we used fell on deaf ears. I must say it was very depressing indeed that the hon. the Minister was not prepared to accept a number of what we consider to be eminently reasonable amendments which were moved from these benches and which we feel, had they been incorporated in the Bill, would have at least tempered some of the harsher aspects of this very far-reaching legislation. I have here a list of the amendments which were accepted in respect of seven clauses only. Some of them are repetitive, which means that the same amendment has been accepted in respect of two or more clauses. In any event, I cannot say that any of these amendments really has had any far-reaching effect on the Bill itself. We would have liked, for instance, notification of next-of-kin of detainees in terms of clause 29. We would have liked next of kin to be informed not only of detention, but of the place where the detainee was held, because, although the hon. the Minister brushed this aside and stated that detainees were generally arrested at home and their families therefore knew all about it, I can assure him of the anxious inquiries that I and other hon. members on these benches have had from the next of kin of persons taken away in the early hours of the morning. Many, many people are indeed not arrested at the homes of their families or other relatives, and it is a very disconcerting thing indeed when somebody near and dear disappears in the night without anybody knowing where they are. That is one tempering amendment which the hon. the Minister should have accepted. But he rejected it. The other very important one is the right to legal assistance throughout.

Sir, I am not discussing now the actual principles of detention without trial. I believe we did that at Second Reading, and we also did it when we discussed clauses 28 and 29 of the Bill. So there is no point in going over those principles again. These, however, we believe, were amendments which would have had some effect on tempering the Bill.

I must say that we were astonished that throughout the discussion the hon. the Minister displayed such a lack of confidence in his own colleagues in the legal profession, in his fellow lawyers and even, I might say, in the Bench, because our amendments to provide for access by a detainee to his legal adviser were brushed aside with the comments that certain lawyers were not to be trusted, etc. When we, the Association of Law Societies and the Bar Council asked that a judge be given access to detainees held in terms of clause 29 of the Bill, the hon. the Minister refused that as well. What possible ill-effects can there be if a judge has access to a detainee? The hon. the Minister has indeed not accepted any of the important suggestions sent to him by the Bar Council and by the Association of Law Societies of Southern Africa. I do not even know whether he has bothered to acknowledge receipt of those memoranda.

He is equally suspicious, we have found, of the medical profession. He has accepted one amendment moved by the hon. member for Parktown that a detainee be seen by a district surgeon in private, but this is of course not nearly as satisfactory as it would have been if the hon. member for Parktown’s amendment that a detainee be allowed to be seen by a medical practitioner chosen from a panel nominated by the Medical Association of South Africa has been accepted, for the simple reason that such a medical man would be outside the system. This may not seem important, except perhaps when I tell the hon. the Minister—as he may know, in fact—that there have been cases in which the district surgeon who has come to see a detainee has in fact been the house doctor of the man conducting the interrogation. Well, one could imagine the situation when the district surgeon is in fact the house doctor of the very man conducting the interrogation. I understand this cannot happen …

Who is casting a reflection on the medical profession now?

There is obviously a relationship between a medical practitioner and his patient, and he is obviously going to take a much closer interest in a detainee in those circumstances than now, where he confronts a person whom he has never seen before and whom no doubt, he suspects of having committed a number of crimes against the security of the State, although the man has never been tried by any court of law.

The hon. the Minister says doctors are not all angels, and one might easily add here: Nor are all police interrogators angels either.

Nor indeed are all hon. Ministers!

Nor indeed are all hon. Ministers.

The last thing that anyone wants—including the hon. the Minister, and I am prepared to concede that right away—is another death in detention. We have had enough deaths in detention and this has done South Africa enough harm throughout the whole world. I can only hope that the code of conduct in regard to conditions in detention and methods of interrogation which the hon. the Minister has told us will in fact be made public either in the Gazette or by some other means is going to be much more specific than the existing conditions which are set out in the warrant, a copy of which I have here, and also in the standing instruction which is entitled “Complaints and symptoms of illness of a detainee”. We believe that the code of conduct should be incorporated in the regulations issued in terms of the legislation and not simply left as a police instruction. I say this because regulations are much more binding than simply a police instruction and I also believe that they would be adhered to much more strictly if they were set out in regulations to this legislation. We also believe that the code of conduct should embody all the important safeguards which were suggested, for instance, for the Northern Ireland situation by the Bennett Committee report which the hon. the Minister may have seen, and in the Royal Commission which sat in 1981 on criminal procedure and which also laid down a number of proposals which should be incorporated in the code of conduct to safeguard the detainee. I refer here to matters such as hours of interrogation, the length of time, the proper serving of meals, obviously the prohibition of any inhuman or degrading methods, the name of the interrogator—all of these are important factors which we believe would control interrogation and would minimize the risk of any harm being done to the detainee. There is also the question of the keeping of records and so forth. I think it was the Bennett Committee which said that the primary aim was to secure a system in which a detainee who walks into a police office unhurt and unmarked shall be unhurt and unmarked when he leaves that office. That I believe should be the aim and object of any code of conduct in respect of interrogation which the hon. the Minister is going to frame.

One very important recommendation of the Bennett Committee which has been adopted in the case of Northern Ireland is the monitoring of interrogation, the actual monitoring of interrogation by means of closed circuit television. I am quite sure that the 10th floor of John Vorster Square could easily be adapted to accommodate this proposal. As the memorandum from the Association of Law Societies points out, the greater the powers granted to the State, the greater should be the measure of the supervision and control by effective bodies or persons of those who exercise extraordinary powers on behalf of the State.

I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that we were very disturbed by his sarcastic remarks concerning the dangers of solitary confinement. We had a long discussion on this subject during the Second Reading debate and at the Committee Stage and I and other hon. members were amazed and dismayed to hear the hon. the Minister make sarcastic remarks about Prof. Chari Vorster of RAU.

I shall make those remarks again.

The hon. the Minister says he will make them again. I do not know what purpose that will serve.

There was nothing sarcastic about it at all. I was answering him on the merits of his statement.

I should like to know on what authority … [Interjections.] I am prepared to accept the view of people who know more than I do, which more than the hon. the Minister is prepared to do.

The hon. member is prepared to accept anything as long as it is against the Government.

Not at all. Now the hon. the Minister is beginning to talk like his predecessor and I was hoping very much to avoid that sort of silly argument with him. The important thing is that there are authorities that have written books and articles on the dangers of being left alone for lengthy periods, on being isolated from one’s fellow beings on solitary confinement or what have you. I am not concerned about the semantics of the thing. I only know that there are authoritative works that state that there are very grave ill-effects as a result of such treatment. The hon. the Minister does not think so despite the fact that Prof. Vorster, Prof. Alvino, Prof. Mathews, Prof. Saunders and Prof. McKenzie have expressed this view. They are all experts in their field, and I do not know on what basis the hon. the Minister dismisses their views.

I never said that. I only criticized Prof. Vorster and I never referred to Prof. McKenzie or to Prof. Saunders.

Then I commend the hon. the Minister to read these other authorities since he obviously has no respect for the views of Prof. Vorster, He should read the other authorities, and I shall give him the actual references.

The Commissioner has stated that there is no solitary confinement. This I read in the paper this morning. After all, there is the magistrate who visits, there is the inspector who visits and there is the district surgeon who visits. There are also occasional visits by other people, and the interrogators are also visiting. In the case of interrogators, I say they are charming company! There is nothing like an interrogator coming to break one’s solitary confinement. [Interjections.]

Order!

That, however is not the point. The point is that people are locked in for months on end without the company of their fellow human beings on a normal basis. That is the sort of treatment that has these ill effects. If the hon. the Minister does not think so and the Commissioner does not think so, I invite them—this idea I borrow from the hon. the Prime Minister who put this forward at his meeting at Springbok a little while ago—to tell me whether they would change places with the detainees being held alone without the company of others.

When did he say that and to whom?

The hon. the Prime Minister said that in answer to a man who questioned the need to give rights to the Coloured people. The hon. the Prime Minister said: “Would you put yourself in the place of a Coloured man?”

No, you are quite wrong.

Did he not say that?

Just quote me correctly.

Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister’s double said that. Perhaps it was Pieter Dirk Uys. [Interjections.]

I still commend the idea, because I think it is a very good idea. If the hon. the Prime Minister said that he did not use the idea, I use the idea. I invite the hon. the Minister and the Commissioner to put themselves in the place of a detainee—I do not think there is any harm in this—and after six weeks of such treatment I shall see whether they have changed their ideas.

Do you not have better arguments?

The hon. the Minister did accept a few amendments apart from the one about the district surgeon seeing the detainee in private. He accepted, for instance, an amendment which lays down that there should be a further hearing by a review board at intervals of not less than three months following the original six months in detention. That is a good amendment, but I must say that by then the man would have been in detention for nine months. I want to know, again using the hon. the Minister’s argument, what on earth does anybody think somebody has to tell the Security Police, if he has not talked after nine months. I think it is absurd. Such people are either never going to talk or they have told all they know. I therefore cannot see that there is any justification for keeping a man that long.

The other amendment which the hon. the Minister accepted, was his undertaking to incorporate in a notice—not in the Bill, unfortunately—which is served on persons, something about their rights, to tell these people what rights they have. We look forward to seeing at least some slight improvement when the hon. the Minister frames his notice.

He did accept in some instances a period in which certain procedures will have to be carried out, but that is all. That is the sum total. I have said before and I am going to say this again, but very briefly because I do not want to repeat myself, that we in this country who are hoping for real modifications in our internal security legislation as a result of the Rabie Commission’s investigations …

All you want is a repeal of the lot.

No, but I would hope that South Africa will return to a situation where one can, in fact, repeal the lot. That will be the best situation South Africa could possibly be in.

We were hoping that there would be considerable modifications, but all we have really, is that we are back to the state of affairs which Northern Ireland via the British House of Commons and Israel had before they modified their stringent security legislation. Both those countries still have terrorism. They still are combating the IRA in the one instance and the incursions of Syria and the surrounding States in the case of Israel. They decided it was worth their while to come back to the normal processes of the law and modify their security legislation. [Interjections.] That is not the point. We have not had a modification in this country of this stringent legislation because all this is really short-term stuff. We have said it before and I say it again: Until there are real changes in South Africa, until there is a real move to erase discriminatory legislation and practices in South Africa, we are …

But this Bill is not discriminatory.

No, this Bill is not discriminatory, but I am not talking of that now.

You are mentioning those things under the wrong Bill. Discrimination has nothing to do with this Bill.

If the hon. member will stop making these irrelevant interjections, I would not have to react to him. The point I want to make is that as long as there is discriminatory legislation on the Statute Book—not this legislation, because this applies to people of all races—but legislation such as the Group Areas Act, the pass laws, the Separate Amenities Act, the lack of franchise, discriminatory education, and so on, we will continue to have terrorism, notwithstanding the most stringent measures which this House takes to suppress it. This is, as I say, short-term stuff and is not going to work in the long term. The first to admit that was the Rabie Commission itself.

The changes that have been introduced to our security laws via this Bill, as amended at Committee Stage, will in no way, we believe, remove, the basic obnoxious powers that have been handed to the Minister of Law and Order whereby he, his security officers and the Commissioner of Police can exercise the most far-reaching authoritarian measures in respect of hapless people, people who are denied the most elementary civil rights, such access to courts, legal advice, etc. This Bill does nothing to bring South Africa back within the normal parameters of civilized countries adhering to the well-tried and well-respected processes of the law. On the contrary, we believe this Bill brings the administration of justice in South Africa into disreput throughout the world, and because this Bill in no way conveys or incorporates any indication whatsoever that it will remain on our Statute Book as a temporary emergency measure—for all the other reasons I have mentioned—I move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, you may be surprised to hear that in one respect I actually find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Houghton. When she started her speech she remarked that we had argued all the principles and considerations involved in this particular Bill at length during Second Reading and had also discussed all the details of the Bill during Committee Stage. I agree with the hon. member that there is, therefore, hardly any point in going over it all again, Nevertheless, the hon. member, after having said that, proceeded to do exactly what she said would be pointless to do.

*Apparently it is typical of the hon. members of the official Opposition to argue both ways at once and to end up by falling between two stools.

I do not intend to follow up the hon. member’s arguments on this legislation. It is quite clear that there is a basic difference between the approach of those of us on this side of the House and the approach of the hon. members of the official Opposition, and in a certain sense also the hon. members of the NRP, with regard to this legislation. Evidently the hon. members of the Opposition are scared to death that action may be taken against some of their friends in terms of this legislation. This was the basic consideration underlying their behaviour, both during the Second Reading and during the Committee Stage. They are afraid that action may be taken against some of their friends in terms of this legislation. In this connection I refer to the question of the hon. member for Berea when he asked me whether I had ever come into contact with any people detained in terms of security legislation, and to hon. member is angry reaction when I told him that I do not count such people among my friends. The obvious deduction that must inevitably be drawn from this is that the hon. member for Berea does count these people among his friends. Then it also becomes clear why the hon. members of the Opposition are so vehemently opposed to this kind of legislation.

The hon. members of the Opposition refuse to entrust anyone with the exercising of the powers created by this Bill. For example, they do not trust the hon. the Minister. With all due respect to the hon. the Minister, I could still understand it if they had tried to justify their attitude by pointing out that the hon. the Minister is a member of a political party which was trying to perpetuate a specific political standpoint by means of this legislation. But the hon. members of the Opposition do not only distrust the hon. the Minister. They also distrust the Commissioner of Police, a highly respected official. They also distrust him with regard to the exercising of these powers. They go even further than that. They also distrust the Attorney-General, who is an officer of the court. They also distrust the district surgeons, as we heard the hon. member for Houghton say here this afternoon. They simply distrust everyone when it comes to the exercising of the powers created by this legislation.

The hon. members of the official Opposition are adopting an extremely legalistic attitude. They pretend that they want to see the ordinary legal processes applied and maintained at all costs and they do not care what the result of this will be, just as long as the ordinary legal processes are maintained. I ask myself why these hon. members are clinging so fiercely to the normal legal procedures. Is it because they do in fact have so much appreciation and admiration for the normal legal procedures?

Have you heard of the rule of law?

Or is there another reason? I think there are two reasons for their conduct. The first reason is that these hon. members are trying in this way to project a respectable image of their party and its standpoint. In my opinion this is one reason why the hon. members also insist so vehemently on the maintenance and application of the normal legal procedures in the case of security legislation.

The second reason why the hon. members adopt this pattern of behaviour is because they in fact want to frustrate effective action against terrorism, sabotage and subversion. I cannot arrive at any other conclusion but that the hon. members cannot be so naïve that they do not realize that these powers are essential for the effective combating of terrorism, sabotage and subversion in the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself at present. If they are therefore not so naïve, I must of necessity accept that they are deliberately acting in this way. They are deliberately acting in this way to frustrate effective action against these people.

In contrast I want to make it quite clear that we on this side of the House are second to none our commitment to the rule of the law. I dealt with this at length in my Second Reading speech, when I said that we on this side of the House set just as much store by the maintenance of the rule of law as anyone on that side of the House.

You have your own rule of law.

However, we do not believe that the rule of law is in any way at issue here. The hon. members opposite are dragging the rule of law into this discussion because they lack a good argument and now they are hiding behind the fictional argument that the rule of law is ostensibly at issue here. In my Second Reading speech I dealt at length with the concept of the rule of law, and hon. members had sufficient opportunity to refute my standpoint in this connection. However, they could not succeed in doing so. They are now coming forward with the same old stereotype story, namely that the rule of law must be maintained. We on this side of the House also set great store by the normal legal procedures being maintained.

†The hon. member for Houghton on Friday correctly summed up the attitude of hon. members on this side of the House by saying that, in her view, we on this side of the House were equally unhappy with the provisions of this Bill. I nodded in agreement, because it is a fact that we do not introduce this type of legislation because we like it. It has, however, been stressed over and over again that we only do so because it is essential in the present circumstances in which we find ourselves in South Africa.

*Can one make this any clearer, Sir? We do not like this kind of legislation either, because there is always the danger that it can be misused. However, one must realize— and the Rabie Commission indicated clearly that this is in fact the case—that legislation of this kind is essential to protect South Africa against terrorism, sabotage and subversion. It is therefore more than naive, more than foolish, indeed it is blatantly irresponsible if one does not adopt these measures. That is the reason why we on this side of the House support this legislation. If one becomes involved in a street fight with thugs, one cannot save or preserve oneself by observing the Queensbury Rules. When one is up against people with no respect for the rule of law, with no respect for the normal legal procedures, one cannot depend on or preserve oneself by means of the normal legal procedures. Then one must take exceptional steps to deal with an exceptional situation. That is why it is necessary for us to place this legislation on the Statute Book.

I agree with the hon. members of the official Opposition when they say that this legislation should only remain on the Statute Book as long as there is a threat. The hon. the Minister has also given repeated assurances in this connection. But the hon. members are not satisfied with this. However, I am asking them in all fairness how one can insert in the legislation that it will only apply as long as a threat exists. Merely from a formulation viewpoint this is not possible. The hon. the Minister has on his own behalf and on behalf of the Government repeatedly and unequivocally given this House the assurance that this legislation will only be retained for as long as it is necessary for the purpose for which it is being introduced.

The hon. members of the Opposition also argued that this measure be enforced with the greatest circumspection, and once again I find that I agree with them. I do not believe there is anyone more aware of the delicacy of the situation than the hon. the Minister and the Commissioner of Police, and no one sets greater store by this measure being implemented or applied with circumspection than they do. The fact that there is a danger that the measure may be misused is insufficient reason not to introduce measures to safeguard South Africa. In contrast to the hon. members of the official Opposition I have the utmost confidence in the hon. the Minister, the Police, the Attorney-General and, last but not least, our courts to ensure the positive exercise of these powers which the Bill grants to various persons. I concede that the people who have to exercise these powers are fallible, but law and order and the security of the State do not take care of themselves. They cannot maintain themselves. This must be done by fallible people, and if I must select from among these fallible people certain people to exercise these powers, I cannot think of anyone more suitable than the hon. the Minister, the Commissioner of Police and his staff, the Attorney-General and judicial officers. I cannot imagine more capable fallible people to grant these powers to.

If I therefore weigh up all the advantages and the disadvantages of this Bill there is no doubt in my mind that under the specific circumstances in which we find ourselves this House would be neglecting its duty if it did not place legislation such as that at present under consideration on the Statute Book. For this reason I support the Third Reading of this Bill with the greatest confidence and pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, much of what the hon. member for Mossel Bay said is right on the mark. However, as regards lack of confidence in the hon. the Minister, the Commissioner of Police and other people involved with this type of legislation, that is not the result of the actions of that party; it is a direct result of the legislation itself. The legislation lays itself open to that very sort of misuse, and it has an Achilles heel because it incorporates methods which are foreign to the norms of our society. So, I think the point made by the hon. member for Mossel Bay must be seen from both sides. That is in fact the main point I wish to deal with today in this Third Reading debate.

There is no doubt in the minds of the members in these benches that the attitude taken by this party in respect of this legislation is correct. We accept the necessity of security legislation without any question at all. It is accepted internationally. However, the careful and considered method of applying it and combating the results of this legislation which will automatically be used against the country are the areas about which we are most concerned. One lays oneself open to all manner of criticism, allegations and far-fetched reporting where in fact only a few members of the executive hold the answers in most cases. Those answers are not available to the public. So, this legislation bedevils the circumstances it tries to create if it is not handled with the utmost care and the utmost balance. Wherever possible, it is absolutely essential that these methods must be used to the minimum.

I just want to remark on one or two points made by the hon. the Minister in the Second Reading debate. He was somewhat belittling about this party’s amendment and indicated that we should not sit on the fence but should take one point of view or the other. It is very strange that in fact the hon. the Minister’s entire Second Reading speech revolved around the matters raised in our amendment.

I accepted some of your amendments. I did not belittle them.

I am talking about the Second Reading debate.

We did not have the amendments before us then. We discussed the amendments in the Committee Stage.

The hon. the Minister was not happy with our point of view, and in fact he then proceeded to debate …

You have been looking for trouble since the Second Reading.

That is a typical reply from the hon. the Minister. One gets used to that. In point of fact it is quite a useful method for getting people off the track. The fact is that the amendment put by this party was the whole centre of the debate. The whole Committee Stage exactly revolved around those points made. The areas of concern must remain safeguards as regards the detainees themselves, the prohibition of unacceptable methods of interrogation and limiting the possibility of false allegations. We acknowledge that. The hon. the Minister must not think for one moment that, in being critical and in mentioning the points we did, we were just making wild allegations. These are the facts of the case, and as far as South Africa is concerned the allegations that are being spread are damaging. It is in that area, we feel, we should concentrate in order to eliminate any possible use of such allegations against us in the light of the very extraordinary powers given the executive in terms of this legislation. We are not arguing against these powers being given to the executive. What concerns us is the possible way in which the executive could use such powers, and also the attitude of the executive towards the input by the public sector. I must state though that from our point of view the hon. the Minister’s attitude towards the Law Society and the General Bar Council appears to be strange. It seems as though he is merely brushing aside the suggestions put forward by these bodies and that he is not in favour of any sort of interference, as it were. During an earlier stage when I made a remark in connection with the inspector of detainees, the hon. the Minister reacted by asking me how I could make such a remark when indeed until very recently the record had improved tremendously except for the most recent death in detention. Well, that is a strange thing for the hon. the Minister to say, as far as we are concerned, because if a death has resulted in spite of that system the system obviously does not work. That is quite obvious.

After years there has been one death, a very unfortunate death.

It has been a terribly unfortunate occurrence.

Until that stage we had accomplished a very good record because of the inspector system. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister, and I …[Interjections.] We in these benches happen to have a different view of these matters. There should be no death in detention. The hon. the Minister quoted figures in connection with the United Kingdom but he failed to tell us how many deaths had occurred in the UK. The fact that they use the same system … [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister, also in his Second Reading speech, referred to the Detainees’ Parents Support Committee and said the members of that committee were liars because they had failed to substantiate the claims they had made. Their reply was that the hon. the Minister was no doubt aware of the fact that the CID was indeed investigating these allegations. We feel that hon. members on the Government side are evidently incapable of concerning themselves with the results of this legislation. We in these benches believe that this new legislation and the new post that has been created will again emphasize the duty of the public to be concerned about these matters. Every time the hon. the Minister has been requested to reconsider his attitude towards the judiciary in regard to this specific piece of legislation—and that has been the case throughout this debate—his reply has been that that would amount to an infringement of the findings of the Rabie Commission regarding the powers that should be given to the executive. The hon. the Minister, it seems, believes that should more access be allowed to the judiciary the powers granted to the executive would be weakened. I do not think we should approach the matter in this absolute manner. I believe that the executive, once it has exercised its powers and detained a particular person, should continually seek to secure public confidence in the actions it takes, and should also prove itself open to any form of control. It is quite logical though, as is also stated by the Rabie Commission, that the police evidence before that commission indicated that the chief source of information that could lead to the prevention of sabotage and terrorism was obtained during interrogation. That immediately raises the question—the very logical question—whether this is not the area in which maximum surveillance, maximum monitoring and the maximum control of details should take place. This is the area about which people are definitely going to ask questions. Whilst this is the area in which people are going to ask questions it is also the area in which we are going to be vulnerable to allegations. We feel that this is the aspect in respect of which there is something missing as far as Government thinking is concerned.

Let us look at the result of the lack of this type of monitoring. I am not only referring here to deaths in detention. Allegations are being made that are spreading suspicion throughout the country and the Inspector of Detainees, district surgeons and even magistrates are within this system viewed with suspicion by virtue of the fact that they have been drawn into and become part of certain occurrences. This is a terribly unfortunate situation which one could liken to the situation of a person inflicting wounds on himself simply by allowing a system to continue in such a way …

Tell me then who must do these inspections. If we have an inspection system, who is to do it?

That is a nice question but the hon. the Minister knows that a suggestion was made that private medical practitioners be permitted to attend these detainees. If the hon. the Minister adopted that proposal, it would show his willingness to expose a situation to people other than those within the State system. This would also automatically back up the district surgeon and give the whole situation credibility in the eyes of the public.

And who else?

A lawyer from the Association of Law Societies.

There is also the legal aspect. The hon. the Minister made the point, and obviously it is a valid point, that where security is concerned, one has to be very careful in regard to those persons who have access to detainees because of the possible security risk. However, the district surgeons themselves are not automatically above reproach just because they are district surgeons.

And the moment it happens to the other practitioners, there will be the same accusations that the hon. member is making now.

Well, if the hon. the Minister really feels that that would in fact be the situation, then the obvious thing is to put it to the test because, by so doing, he will be able possibly to disprove any allegations and he will be doing himself, the district surgeons and others a favour. My point is that our whole idea is firstly to show that we have nothing to hide in this regard and that the methods that are used have, as their primary concern, the question of security. Secondly, and possibly equally important, there is the question of the effect of the legislation on the country. I do not say this in a derogatory sense but I think it is important to say that the type of reassurance given by the hon. the Minister and his approachability in respect of that sort of input must indicate that the hon. the Minister himself shares that concern and those fears and is very aware of them. I believe that that is the main problem area that has not been covered as far as this legislation is concerned. The Government in its wisdom and with its voting strength has seen fit to reject certain amendments which we believe would have brought about a better balance in regard to the question of monitoring and checking. As I say, that problem area is as yet uncovered as far as its effects upon the country are concerned and the fact that the hon. the Minister in his great concern to cover the security aspect does not see his way clear to still the fears and doubts which must naturally flow from the passing of this legislation. I feel that this is a very important aspect of the whole matter.

This legislation has been very well debated over a period of many hours and I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister is aware of our point of view as far as this legislation is concerned. We are equally aware of the seriousness with which he views the security situation and we appreciate the enormity of his responsibility in this regard. We have respect for that responsibility which the hon. the Minister bears in this regard.

Certainly we feel that every effort should be made, and as frequently as possible for the matter to be reviewed in order that any easing or relaxing of the situation to the benefit of the country as a whole as far as the attitude is concerned, can be considered and naturally the Executive in its wisdom will know the feasibility of such action.

Accordingly we in these benches shall not support the attitude of the PFP towards this Third Reading, but we shall vote against the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to state briefly that the CP supports the Third Reading of the Bill.

Certain matters were brought out very clearly in Second Reading speeches and in the marathon Committee Stage discussion. They were, firstly, that security legislation is intimately bound up with the realities which necessitate it. The Rabie Commission clearly states that the demands of the realities which South Africa has faced for the past two decades, viz. the abnormal emergency situations which the Republic has been faced with from time to time due to increasing terrorist activities, have necessitated legislation to assist in ensuring security and order in South Africa. This is necessary because Marxist, communist-inspired organizations such as the ANC and other subversive movements are, through violence, making stable administration impossible in our country.

As far as these facts are concerned, one would wish to say that there is a considerable degree of consensus among all the different parties in this House. When I say that, I must at once add that unfortunately I cannot include the PFP.

I was just going to differ with you.

After having listened to the standpoint of the NRP as well, however, I reached the conclusion that that party has constantly fallen between two stools. One gains the impression that that party suffers from a lack of grasp of what I want to call the threatening situation in our country. Apart from the qualifications I have added. I say that there is consensus among the parties. However, it is true that the PFP does not in fact agree on the necessity for and the need for the legislation before us at present.

The PFP believes that the legislation does not protect the interests of the individual sufficiently, and that the security and the interests of the Republic of South Africa should not be given the highest priority. The point of departure of the PFP is that the situation of unrest in South Africa does not justify unqualified support for security legislation.

In view of adequate and sufficient evidence before the Rabie Commission the commission issued the following clear finding which, I think, must be repeated briefly because it is certainly of the utmost importance in assessing the effectiveness of the legislation. In the first place, the Rabie Commission states that the individual cannot be deprived of the rights he enjoys in the normal course as a citizen of the State by executive or administrative action, unless such action is duly authorized by law.

The second point singled out by the Rabie Commission is that the individual must be able to turn to the courts of the land to protect him against improper or unauthorized deprivation or infringement of his rights. The commission also mentions that it is only in special circumstances that there is justification for granting authority in terms of which executive or administrative action may infringe the rights of the individual and impose a restriction on the right of the individual to turn to the courts to protect his rights.

But the findings of the commission, as reflected on several pages of a very comprehensive report, reflect the fact that there is indeed adequate evidence that South Africa is a threatened country to such an extent as to justify the emergency measures incorporated in this legislation. That security legislation is therefore essential and must be effective, and that in South Africa’s present circumstances it is also reasonable, cannot be denied. We agree wholeheartedly with these findings of the commission and we are of the opinion that the legislation before us will prevent us from following the path of disorder and chaos. We therefore take pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in reacting to the hon. member Mr. Theunissen, and I say that I agree with him that in the circumstances of today one cannot but support the legislation.

The hon. member for King William’s Town said that security legislation was necessary, but that they questioned the methods of implementation of such legislation. Accordingly I find it strange that while the hon. members of the NRP opposed the principle of the Bill during the Second Reading, they agreed with several of the clauses during the Committee Stage. If I could give the NRP a little advice, in the circumstances I would advise them rather to move amendments of clauses they do not agree with during the Committee Stage, since they did, after all, agree with the principle of the legislation throughout.

If there has been one piece of legislation that has been fully argued and discussed from all angles, then it is undoubtedly this legislation, the Internal Security Bill, which has now reached the Third Reading. The official Opposition opposed virtually every clause of this Bill. I think that the official Opposition has not displayed great responsibility with regard to our security legislation in the past, and this is also true of the present legislation. In the midst of the innumerable security risk in South Africa, it has been clear to me throughout the debate that it would in fact have suited the official Opposition far better if there had been no security legislation whatsoever. I fail to see what they seek to achieve by such an attitude. As pointed out by hon. speakers on this side of the House during the debate, there is virtually no Western country which has no security legislation in the present times. To the best of its ability the Rabie Commission investigated the security legislation in countries such as Israel, Great Britain and Bophuthatswana. It is striking that in a young country like Bophuthatswana, a sound example of such legislation has been set in the form of their State Security Act of 1977. Bearing in mind that Bophuthatswana only became independent a few years ago, and the exceptional successes which this country has achieved in other spheres, and the fact that the Rabie Commission states in paragraph 11.4.1.29 of its report—

The Government of the RSA can rightly be proud of its policy in regard to our Black States. We have proved time and time again that this policy succeeds and will continue to succeed as it is implemented and as it will ultimately be fully implemented. Now the Rabie Commission has come forward with the recommendation that a board of review be established in terms of this legislation. The commission was, quite rightly, of the opinion that the final decision as to what action was in the interest of the security of the State and the maintenance of law and order, was in the hands of the executive. However, to ensure separation of the functions of the executive and judicial authorities, the commission is of the opinion that a system of review should be introduced. Accordingly the legislation also makes provision for a board of review in terms of clause 35. The State President may appoint two, or even more, boards of review. If one considers the appointment of such a board, the responsibility with which it is appointed is striking. In the first place, the chairman has to be a highly qualified lawyer who must above all have a great deal of experience. I believe that every hon. member in this House will agree with me that members of our Bench have distinguished themselves over many years as honourable, reliable and highly objective people. I concede at once that we are nevertheless still dealing with people, and this being so, mistakes can be made. However, we must note that the second person who will serve on the board of review must also be a person with a degree or diploma in law. Moreover, to ensure objective decisions, the decision of two members of the board of review constitute a decision of the board. This, of course, is in accord with the democratic practices which are applied to such good effect in this Republic. If it were otherwise, such a board of review could find itself in a dead end. This would be pointless, and could also mean that the principle of a fair and just implementation of our law could suffer. When I refer here to the fair and just implementation of law in the Republic, I believe that hon. members of the official Opposition will agree with me, particularly those who are also lawyers, that there are countries in the world that, like South Africa, can boast of being fair and just in the implementation of their laws. But no other country can boast of being fairer and more just than South Africa in the implementation of its laws. This legislation will be implemented with the same reasonableness and justice as all our other laws.

Looking at clause 38 of the Bill, one sees that it imposes an obligation on the Minister to submit all documents and information to the board of review as soon as possible after the expiry of the period of 14 days prescribed in clause 25(2) and clause 28(9). What is more, this obligation must be fulfilled as soon as possible, and the Bill provides expressly for this. Nor must the board of review be regarded as a trial court. Therefore it is only with regard to a notice handed to a person in terms of section 18, 19 or 20 that he may not use a legal representative for the submission of oral evidence in terms of clause 38(4). However, there is no restriction preventing such a person from making use of legal representation in drawing up representations. We should also note that the board of review must act as a check on the actions of the Minister. This board goes into the merits of the case, but it does not try the detainee. It only investigates all the information that induced the Minister to reach his decision. Outsiders are not admitted to the submission of evidence.

Events in the past have taught us that there are members of the legal profession who have been active in subversive activities, and in its report the Rabie Commission mentions the name of some of these lawyers, inter alia, Abram Fischer, Joe Slovo, Alexander Hepple, Joel Carlson and Oliver Tambo. It is evident from this that certain lawyers would use such investigations to obtain more information about aspects of our security. Indeed, many people would be only too happy to know what information was at the disposal of the State.

Moreover, unnecessary delays and hampering of the task of the board of review by the appearance of legal representatives could mean that it might not be possible to act in the interests of the person concerned, the interests of the security of the State or the interests of law and order.

As far as the board of review is concerned , it must also be pointed out that if the Minister does not give effect to the recommendations of this board, and the measures applied are more stringent than those recommended by them, the Minister has to refer the whole matter to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice, or a judge of appeal designated by the Chief Justice, may then, in certain circumstances, set aside the steps taken by the Minister. This underlines one aspect very clearly, viz. the objective and reasonable implementation of this legislation. Indeed, the hon. the Minister also said that the Government felt that it was its task to ensure the security and welfare of the Republic and that of all its inhabitants. He added that the legislation would be implemented purposefully but sympathetically, and that it was also the desire of the Government not to retain the measures for longer than was necessary.

In view of statements of this nature it is inexplicable to me how the official Opposition could object so strenuously to the legislation. However, one thing that has been very clear throughout their arguments, is that they are always concerned about the offender. Their concern is for the terrorist who is detained, and not the lives that are taken or that the terrorist planned to take. The issue is the restricted person, and not the security of the State and its inhabitants that are undermined.

Nor does the hon. member for Houghton hesitate to attack the Rabie Commission, as she did again in yesterday’s Sunday Times, in which she said that her first impressions of the Rabie Commission’s report, viz. that it was “most disappointing”, had been confirmed. Nor did hon. members of the Opposition come forward in the course of the debate with better proposals or with debatable proposals; they simply levelled criticism, and on top of that it was negative criticism. In my opinion they made no significant contribution to the debate. Nevertheless, I believe that deep in his heart the hon. member for Yeoville welcomes the legislation, because I think that he is far more attuned to our security problems than some of his colleagues in the PFP. Perhaps that is why he has not been present so regularly during this debate.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Losberg has spent a good deal of his time talking about the new revision procedure contained in the Bill. He is correct when he says that this is an improvement, and we have acknowledged it in all stages during the debate on this Bill. We believe that it provides some limited form of check on the executive, and we have conceded that we on this side of the House welcome this. We have also said, of course, that in our view it does not go far enough. We do not believe that the protection it affords detainees is in any way sufficient.

The hon. member also made the allegation that the PFP were totally irresponsible when it comes to matters of our security legislation in South Africa. He suggested that we were, in fact, opposed to any form of security legislation. That is, of course, not correct, as I shall show in the remarks that I am going to make. Nor is it correct to say, as the hon. member said, that no country in the world was more reasonable than South Africa in the implementation of its laws, because particularly when one looks at the history of our security laws and their implementation, one sees that there has been very considerable abuse of the powers given to the executive in the implementation of such laws.

I shall deal with other aspects of the hon. member’s comments during the course of my speech. I want to spend a few minutes, however, on the hon. member for Mossel Bay who said, when he spoke this afternoon, that one of the reasons why we in these benches opposed the legislation was because we feared that action would be taken against our friends. That is not, however, the reason why we oppose this legislation. We are interested in the rights of individuals in South Africa, be they our friends or our enemies. We believe that there is a basic principle involved. The hon. member went further and, in support of his allegation, referred to a question that I had asked him during the Second Reading debate or perhaps the Committee Stage. I asked him whether he had ever had any contact with, or experience of, the families of detained people. He then gave a glib political answer by saying he did not have friends like that and did not have any contact with them anyway. I cited a specific example, however, and other hon. members have had exactly the same kind of experience, though perhaps he has not. As a member of Parliament I have been confronted with a situation in which the parents of young people who have been detained have come to me. I have not known them, but they have come to me, as a member of Parliament, and expressed concern about the plight of one of their children. I am thinking, in particular, of parents who saw me about their daughter last December. She had been detained for a period of some six weeks. Those people were totally apolitical, as far as I could understand. They were just nonplussed and concerned parents. They told me that their daughter had been detained for some six weeks, said that they were concerned about her health and asked what they should do, what their legal rights were. It is a chilling experience for a person to have to look at them and to tell them they have no legal rights whatsoever. I could go to the police and ask whether their daughter could be seen and whether she could have medical treatment, but if the police said “no”, there was nothing I could do about it. Anyone who has any compassion must, I believe, realize that this is a very difficult situation.

That is why I asked the hon. member whether he had had any experience like that, because I believe that in a sense it goes to the root of much of what is in this Bill, and here I am referring to the fact that a person can suddenly be picked up—even a young person—and be detained. The family is obviously going to be concerned, but the family has no rights. The parents do not have the protection of being able to go to the courts, of obtaining any sort of clarity, any order or anything of that kind. This is one of the fears that we have in regard to this particular measure. Having dealt with that particular aspect, let me say that the hon. the Minister will be aware of this, because he is now going to be responsible for the same sort of thing. He is going to have distraught parents and the representatives of parents coming to him with similar situations.

Let us, however, now get back to the principle. We are now in the Third Reading stage, dealing with the effect of the Bill. The principle was accepted at Second Reading. It includes the principles of detaining people without trial, the detention of people for the purpose of interrogation, the restriction of people to specific areas and places, the banning of organizations and publications. All these things were accepted by this House in principle when the Second Reading of this legislation was passed. At that stage we opposed the Second Reading in the strongest possible parliamentary terms, and during the Committee Stage we opposed the specific clauses relating to each of these powers. We also moved a number of amendments, a few of which were accepted by the hon. the Minister, and the hon. the Minister introduced a few amendments himself, but none of these amounts to a material alteration of the effects of this Bill that we are discussing at this Third Reading stage. Our attitude therefore must be, as has been indicated by the hon. member for Houghton, one of continued outright opposition to the passing of the Third Reading of this Bill.

The Bill, as we know, is an re-enactment of all the main provisions of the previous security legislation, with one or two improvements, but despite those improvements it remains in my view—I said this during the Second Reading debate—a compendium of all the old horrors of the previous legislation. Its effects, which we are considering now, must not merely be what we think will flow from the extreme powers that the executive is taking, but also include our certain knowledge of how the executive, in the past, has abused those powers given to it in previous legislation.

Let us look back at some of the history of this. Hon. members on the other side must not, then, be surprised at our suspicion of the powers we are giving. There have been nearly four dozen deaths in detention, of people who have never been brought before a court and tried. There has been the inhuman detention of people for long periods.

What about those who died of natural causes?

The fact of the matter is that, of the people who have been removed from society, who have been detained in the custody of the executive, some four dozen have died while in such detention. This should be a cause for concern, whatever the cause of death may be. They died in detention before they had been brought before a court and tried. No one knows whether they were guilty or innocent. That is why I say that this is a situation about which the hon. the Minister should show real concern, whatever the cause of death may be.

Induced suicide.

Then there have been many others who have been detained for very long periods, and more often than not they have eventually been released without even being tried before a court of law. There have been harsh and restrictive banning orders on people, restricting them to particular areas or places. Sometimes these orders have been renewed again and again with disastrous consequences for the people concerned. There has been severe damage to the health of detainees and the health of their innocent families. All these have been the results of the unrestricted and unfettered executive power which legislation of this kind has given to the authorities.

For these reasons, notwithstanding the review mechanism contained in this Bill, the effects of this Bill are likely to be the same. The hon. the Minister must therefore not be surprised that we are suspicious of it. It is because this measure reinforces this unbridled power of the Minister in matters which the Minister, in his judgment, believes fall within the sphere of threats to the security of the State; it is because it is in the Minister’s judgment and he is the person who is going to be responsible for judging whether the activities of a certain person fall within the sphere of a threat to the security of the State, after which he can employ these powers. It is on this issue—this is also in answer to the hon. member for Losberg—that the great divide between this side of the House and the Government benches comes about. It is on the issue of a single man being able to take a decision of this kind. Can it be justified that one man, acting on behalf of the executive, can have the right to decide on the freedom of an individual, without any effective supervision or surveillance by an independent judiciary and the protection that that affords to a free people? We on this side believe that the answer to that is that there can be no such justification. That is not to deny that it is the function of the executive to look after the security of the State. Nobody denies that. It is also not to deny that, particularly in a situation such as the one that exists in South Africa today, there is a need for security legislation and there is of course a need to ensure that proper law and order is maintained. We do not deny that. However, along with the acceptance of those needs must go the realization that in South Africa we live in a society of imbalance, a society in which injustices are built in and a society in which even now it is almost common cause between that side of the House and this side of the House that there is need for change and reform to correct these stark imbalances. In that situation it is even more important that the discretion of the executive be under the surveillance of the courts in matters relating to individual freedom.

The Government members—I think particularly of what the hon. member for Verwoerdburg said in the earlier stages of this Bill—has referred repeatedly to the need to be able to apprehend what the hon. member for Verwoerdburg termed “terrorists in the bush” to justify the powers given to the executive in this Bill. Certainly there is justification for powers to deal with that sort of situation, with investigations and with appropriate punishment, but in the end it must still be the courts who decide on the guilt of a person so involved. No one has sympathy for bomb-throwers. No one has sympathy for terrorists who deliberately set out to subvert law and order and who cause loss of innocent lives. However, this measure goes far beyond dealing with the terrorists in the bush, and the hon. the Minister knows it. Past experience, as I have said, has shown that these powers …

And terrorism on the campus.

… have been used far beyond the aim to curb the activities of terrorists in the bush.

This is the danger which we fear. Those who say that this is the argument, the justification for this measure, I believe, should tell us how many of those detained in South Africa over the past 15 years in terms of our security legislation can be classified as terrorists in the bush. How many? I am sure it is a very small percentage, Sir. When we express our fears about the danger of unbridled power given to the executive in this measure, without effective judicial checks and scrutiny, we are not alone in this. We are not alone in this at all. It is not just a group of PFP people who are expressing these fears, a group of …

Starry-eyed liberals!

… starry-eyed liberals, yes. It does not matter whatever term is used. We have cited repeatedly during this debate the other people who have expressed exactly the same fears that we have expressed in regard to this legislation. We have cited the views of academics, many of whom are not politically sympathetic to those of us sitting in these benches.

They are not responsible for the security of the State. It is very easy for them to talk!

They have a responsibility towards society. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mossel Bay says they have no responsibility for the security of the State, and it is easy for them to talk. Surely, people in authority, academics, etc., have some responsibility. They are after all intelligent members of our community. If the hon. member for Mossel Bay does not like academics, I can cite the attitude of the Bar Council. We have already cited the attitude of the Law Society. Why does the hon. the Minister ignore these views and believes that he knows all the answers? Why does he believe that all these other people do not have a say at all? Let us look at the view expressed by the Associated Law Societies of South Africa. In their memorandum on the Rabie Commission report they express a number of very important comments, which happen to square pretty fully the point of view of this side of the House. I quote, from their memorandum—

It then goes on to say—

This is the Bar Council that points this out—

It goes on to say, on page five of its memorandum—

It then goes on to say—

It is referring here to powers in terms of chapter 6 of the report—

This is what the Association of Law Societies says. We have said this too, but the hon. the Minister rejects it. So one could go on to quote from this report, which is not a report compiled by a group of starry-eyed liberals or anyone of that nature …

Also a group of sickly humanists!

Certainly not a group of sickly humanists, or whatever other term one should like to use. It is the considered opinion of the Association of Law Societies of South Africa. They also go on and make recommendations. They advocate, for example, that a private doctor should be allowed access to detainees. They advocate that the next of kin should be allowed access to detainees. The hon. the Minister rejects all of these recommendations.

The hon. the Minister therefore knows better. He knows better than all the Law Societies. He knows better than the Bar Council. He knows better than all the academics. All these things were summarily rejected by the hon. the Minister. He also, of course, throughout the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, maintained that doctors were no angels and asked why he should give them special treatment. He also said he could not allow lawyers access to detainees. I have also already referred to his remarks in regard to academics.

But what the hon. the Minister’s attitude in fact amounts to—and that brings us back to the crux of the matter—is that he believes in the total executive authority, and in a minimal authority given to an independent judiciary to supervise and to scrutinize what the executive does.

Time is running out, however. In the last two minutes at my disposal I do want to address a few remarks directly to the hon. the Minister. The principle of this Bill has been accepted and the Bill is soon to become law. I want to commend the hon. the Minister for the way in which he has handled the passage of this very controversial Bill up to the present time. I say this advisedly because I think the hon. the Minister has debated his point of view, apart from one or two outbursts, without undue rancour and certainly without resorting to the sort of political histrionics that were used in previous debates on security legislation by many of his predecessors. I commend him for this because I think it has resulted in a fairly high level of debate. We have agreed to differ on basic principles and, although not agreeing with it, the hon. the Minister has acknowledged our point of view. I believe that the hon. the Minister knows in his heart of hearts that despite a vastly different approach and despite our deep difference in principle on these matters we on this side of the House are as concerned as he is that the security of the State in South Africa be protected and that true law and order be maintained. However, this Bill gives the hon. the Minister wide and almost unfettered powers. We have said this time and time again. In the way in which it is couched, the Bill also gives the hon. the Minister a direct personal responsibility for those who are detained.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we will watch with great diligence and with great concern how he exercises the responsibility that is now his. He will never improve the principles to which we object but if he can exercise a degree of discretion and a degree of compassion greater than those of his predecessors he may in some way alleviate some of the drastic effects of this Bill. I say this because he must realize that many of the people who have been caught up in the detention dragnet in South Africa over the years have not been people who have had malicious intent towards South Africa per se. Many of these people have been motivated by considerations of conscience in regard to all the wrongs inherent in an unjust society such as we have in South Africa. Many of these have been intelligent young people who have a contribution to make towards South Africa and who should certainly not be alienated from our society. Perhaps in the eyes of the Government all these people are looked upon as being misguided but nevertheless they should not be subjected to victimization. Once they have paid the penalty of being detained for a period the hon. the Minister should view their situation with compassion and humanity and in that sense at least in exercising his responsibilities he may do something to allay the fears that have been created very naturally and very really as a result of the experience that we have had in this country over the past 15 years in respect of the abuse of powers given to the executive in terms of legislation of this nature. Therefore, we shall watch the hon. the Minister with great care and great diligence.

However, apart from that, the fact remains that this is a bad Bill. It contains very considerable dangers to the freedom of the individual in South Africa and it embraces principles which wé on this side of the House find totally repugnant in any democratic society. We therefore sustain our outright rejection of the Third Reading of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for the contributions they made today. I shall return to the essence of the difference between the official Opposition and the Government, but at this stage I want to make a few general remarks.

This legislation has been administered for quite a number of years now, approximately 20 years or more, by the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice. Because, within a few days, it will officially and legally be the position that that department and that Ministry will no longer in practice be responsible for the application of this particular legislation, I think this is an opportune moment, after so many years, to express a word of thanks to the relevant Ministers who were responsible for it and the heads of departments and officials who applied this very difficult and sensitive legislation. I should like it placed on record that although there were times when criticism could be voiced, we certainly cannot disagree that the Ministers and senior officials, the heads of departments and other senior officials applied this legislation over this period of 15 to 20 years in a balanced way and in the best traditions of our administration of justice. [Interjections.] It was done in that spirit and I thank them for it.

I thank the hon. member Mr. Theunissen for his support and also for the support of his party for the legislation. Unfortunately I do not have the time to elaborate on this, but I can understand why the hon. member supports the legislation and took so much trouble over it. This is because he and I have been correspondents over the years. I can still see the good results of this in the hon. member’s behaviour in this House. Perhaps he should have associated with me a little longer; then things would have gone even better with him in future. [Interjections.]

I want to make one remark concerning the hon. member for King William’s Town. He simply cannot get away from his concern for the treatment which detainees receive. Does he, however, not realize that these detainees are visited every hour in their cell by the guard? Does the hon. member expect us to do this throughout the night as well by switching the lights on and off so that we can be accused of keeping these people awake? Does the hon. member expect us to place a separate uniformed police guard before the cell door of every detainee on a 24-hour basis? I could put many similar questions to the hon. member.

I want to tell the hon. member this: He would be doing us all a favour if he looked at the provisions of the legislation pertaining to the matter which he is so concerned about. He should also look at the amendments accepted in the course of the discussion of the legislation. If he were to do this, he will certainly not be able any longer to adopt that standpoint of his with as much conviction as he now does.

In the course of my speech I shall reply in more detail to the representations of the hon. member for Berea. He referred to the four dozen persons who died in detention over the past 20 years. Surely the hon. member knows that the figure is not four dozen. Surely the hon. member knows how many of those people died of natural causes. If a man dies in hospital, there is nothing wrong with that, but if he dies in a police cell, there is. If someone dies in gaol, there is nothing wrong with that either. A man was arrested because he brutally murdered a well-known Roman Catholic priest in Johannesburg. He was arrested and identified as the murderer. When he hanged himself four days later, not a word was said about it. It does not matter where a person dies, whether he kills himself or whether he dies of natural causes; not a word will be said about it. Just as long as he does not die while he is being detained in terms of security legislation, even if he dies of a heart attack for which no-one is to blame, for then this is used in speeches to imply that the system or the police were to blame. No, we cannot go on like this.

Unfortunately there is very little time left and as a result I want to make only a few remarks on the situation, since we are now dealing with the Third Reading. In the course of the Committee Stage, various amendments were accepted to improve the legislation. As regards its implementation in future, I want to point out a few of the most important amendments.

In all cases, except the clause 29 cases, proper information will be furnished in the relevant notices served on any person, information on his rights, the representations he may address in writing to the Minister and the further procedures which may follow. In addition, a detainee when he is examined by a medical practitioner, will be examined in private.

By the way, I wonder whether hon. members opposite realize that this system has already been abolished or will be abolished in the near future, so that a district surgeon no longer receives such an appointment? Appointments are usually made from among doctors in private practice in the specific town or city. One of those medical practitioners will be the man who has to undertake the examination.

In the third place the position of a clause 29 detainee who has been detained for more than six months will subsequently be considered every three months by way of review. In addition, the Minister must, in terms of clause 72, report to Parliament if he does not accept the recommendation of a board of review. Furthermore, certain periods have also been shortened or lengthened. These are some of the most important amendments.

I want to return to two aspects which I myself raised in the course of the discussions.

In the first place, I repeatedly stated that it was the standpoint of the Government that it was our earnest desire to keep these measures on the Statute Book only for as long as was absolutely necessary. I also emphasized that the Government could constantly consider the necessity for retaining this legislation. In practice, information on the functioning and implementation of the security laws would constantly be received from the respective Attorneys-General, the South African Police, the Inspector of Detainees, magistrates and doctors who visit the detainees and the Minister of Law and Order, and the Government would take the necessary decisions in the light of this information.

I also gave the assurance that within the Directorate of Security Legislation there would be constant monitoring of the functioning and implementation of the legislation, and where adjustments appeared to be necessary, these would be made. Owing to circumstances, no specific time limit can be placed on the Act because its continued enforcement depends on circumstances.

It is interesting that in the United Kingdom the so-called temporary Special Powers Act of 1933 was kept on the Statute Book for 40 years. The Prevention of Violence Act of 1939 was in force for two years, but this was later extended to 13 years. The Prevention of Terrorism Temporary Provisions Act of 1976 has thus far been extended by the British Parliament every year.

It is interesting to note that the extremely important standpoint I adopted on behalf of the Government in this debate elicited virtually no comment from that side of the House. The Government’s standpoint regarding the temporary nature of the legislation and regarding the monitoring of the legislation elicited virtually no comment.

Because that is not in the Bill.

No, Sir. As soon as anything positive is done and an argument is raised which cannot be repeated again tomorrow, no further notice is taken of the matter. One asks oneself to what extent the hon. members are in earnest about this.

I come now to the second matter. I announced that I had decided in consultation with the Commissioner of Police and the Director of Security Legislation to go into the existing police force orders and instructions concerning the conditions under which people are detained and interrogated and that I would announce general guidelines in this connection later. Although it will not be a so-called code for interrogation and detention, I intend to go into this matter very thoroughly. I am certain the result will be very positive.

We are very pleased to hear that.

Yet again there was virtually no comment from that side of the House. If there was any reference to it, it did not contain a single positive word.

But I said that half an hour ago. You were not listening.

The Government said that through all these sources a continuous monitoring would be undertaken by the responsible Minister and that general guidelines would be laid down and published. It is disappointing that such important matters are of so little importance to the official Opposition.[Interjections.] I can understand why those hon. members do not like the standpoint I am adopting. However, is the reason for this not perhaps the fact that the official Opposition is not interested in any positive standpoint because they are opposed to this form of security legislation in any case? I could mention two recent examples in this connection.

In a debate in 1980, when these matters were also being discussed, the hon. member for Houghton, for example, made it quite clear that she wanted everything deleted and that it would serve no purpose for her to appear before the commission. She was referring to security legislation in general, which we are now, inter alia, engaged in dealing with. The hon. member for Groote Schuur said in this debate, after I had repeatedly asked him whether we understood one another, that the official Opposition was opposed to the principle in clause 4, namely that organizations threatening the security of the State should be declared unlawful organizations. The hon. Chief Whip expressly confirmed this. That is why I say it is the standpoint of the official Opposition that they are opposed to all forms of security legislation. In contrast I want to tell hon. members that the Government will continue, in spite of the vehement opposition to legislation of this nature, to apply this legislation because it is in the interests of our security. It is clear that the improvements we have made in the legislation and the successes we have achieved will never satisfy the official Opposition. I can again mention two examples to illustrate why this is so. When it was made clear how many safety devices had been built into the legislation with regard to the treatment of detainees, some of the hon. members opposite were in reality disappointed that in terms of the present provisions of the legislation it was no longer possible for anyone to “disappear from the face of the earth”. They are actually disappointed that they can no longer make that accusation.

Now you are talking a lot of nonsense.

I watched those hon. members for more than 30 hours while we were discussing this legislation. Some of them are actually disappointed that they would not in future be able to say that someone had “disappeared from the face of the earth”.

I want to refer to a second example. Some of those hon. members—and I am also including an hon. member of the NRP here— are actually disappointed that the system of Inspectors of Detainees is such a success. They are actually disappointed that after a few years and thousands of visits only a handful of complaints came to light. This became obvious more than once in this debate. The standpoints of any authoritative South African, in which any of the basic principles were set out, were also unacceptable to many hon. members in this House. They like to quote standpoints which oppose the system, which are opposed to the system, but the moment any authoritative person adopts a standpoint in favour of it, they do not consider it to be definitive. The hon. member for Houghton went so far as to refer to the legislation in its entirety as “revolting”. This is the position. Because this is a fact and because it is in the interests of our country and the people reading about this debate, I should like to put a few paragraphs on record on what other authoritative persons have, and about what we have been debating for almost 30 hours. I want to refer very briefly to a paragraph in an article by Lord McDermot, in which he said the following—

Hon. members opposite say we must not continue to detain people for interrogation. We must not continue with preventive detention. There are various provisions in the legislation which are absolutely condemned by the hon. members of the official Opposition. What does the Gardiner Committee say in this connection? This is a very well-known committee which published a very important report in Britain. The committee said the following—

This is an argument we have heard repeatedly here in this House. The committee went on to say—

And now a final short quotation from another authoritative person, namely Lord Diplock, who had the following to say—

I should also like to tell the official Opposition and other hon. members that in all the general guidelines I shall lay down and make available for publication during the next few months, there will be certain basic legal approaches which are in any case applied by the S.A. Police and in our legal system, and from which there may be no deviation. I should like to quote one reference from the Rabie Commission report to affirm this standpoint. The commission referred with approval to certain court verdicts, namely the case of the State vs. Hassum and Others and the State vs. Gwala, an unreported case in March 1980, where, inter alia, the following was said in the court verdict—

The court went on to say—

The S.A. Police also subscribe to these principles laid down by the courts.

With a view to the future there are many precautionary measures built into this legislation in connection with those persons who are involved. Assurances have been given in this connection, and they need not remain unsubstantiated, but will appear in documents in future, and as an example I refer to the notification of the right of a person who is restricted, to appeal to the Minister either in writing or verbally.

The importance of our security situation was identified and confirmed in this discussion and in the investigation carried out by the Rabie Commission. This legislation opens channels for people to bring any complaints they may have to the attention of the State. When one therefore considers this matter in its entirety I believe that I am entitled to say that we can expect all persons involved in these matters in future, whether they be detainees, their families, friends, interested persons, their critics or even their representatives on public bodies, or representatives in this House, at least to try to tell the truth when they discuss such matters. When people make allegations surely we are entitled to expect them to at least try to substantiate these allegations. In addition we can surely expect the wild and far-fetched allegations that are being made in some circles in our country to cease now. Although all the channels now exist and although it is clear to everyone that these are the channels that may be used, surely the State should also be entitled to protection against wild and far-fetched allegations concerning its behaviour. That is why I feel I am justified in saying that this could also be expected as a result of this legislation.

I outlined the Government’s approach to this legislation on a previous occasion, but as the responsible Minister I want to confirm the fact that the department responsible for this and I will try at all times, when applying this legislation, to protect the interests of the individual, but with the proviso that the interests of the State are more important than those of the individual.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In this measure a number of changes are proposed to the provisions that were inserted in the Post Office Act in 1972 on the interception of mail, telephone calls and other communications for reasons of security. Although, in my view, the changes are in no way controversial, they concern a sensitive subject and it is therefore fitting that I deal with the background in a fairly comprehensive manner.

Hon. members will know that the relevant provisions of the Post Office Act—in section 118A—were originally included in the Act as a result of recommendations made by Mr. Justice H. J. Potgieter, who as a one-man commission conducted an inquiry into the security set-up of the Republic during 1970. Basically the arrangements made in the existing section with regard to the manner in which interceptions may be carried out are as follows:

Firstly a request, which must be in writing and must state the grounds giving rise to it, for the issue of an order directing the interception of a particular person’s mail, telegrams or telephone conversations for a specified time, must be made to the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications or any Minister who is a member of the State Security Council. According to the Act, such requests may only be made by persons in the service of the State who have been designated by the State Security Council to do so. In practice these persons are the heads or deputy heads of the three security services of the Republic, namely the National Intelligence Service, the Security Police and the South African Defence Force.

Secondly the Act requires the Minister concerned to consider the request, and if he is satisfied that the interception is necessary for reasons of security, he may issue a written order for it to be carried out. The Minister may order the interception for the period requested by the applicant or, if he considers that it should be granted for a shorter period, for such shorter period. The order is then passed to the Postmaster General, who arranges for its implementation.

The Act also makes provision for the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to authorize an officer of the Post Office to issue orders for interceptions at the request of the persons designated by the State Security Council. This arrangement is necessary because in practice Ministers are not always available to deal with the cases in person.

The arrangements I have sketched establish a fixed statutory procedure to be followed which ensures that interceptions Cannot take place on a loose footing or in arbitrary fashion. Any proposal by a designated officer of a security service that a particular interception be carried out, is, according to this procedure, subject to scrutiny by a second authority, this being either a Minister or officer charged with responsibility for the privacy of the communications that are to be intercepted. The arrangements moreover ensure that an interception cannot continue indefinitely but has to be reviewed when the period for which it has been granted expires.

Over the years since 1972 the functioning of the arrangements has been generally satisfactory. As hon. members know, however, an incident occurred that led in 1980 to an inquiry by the Advocate General, Mr. Justice P. J. van der Walt, into a particular interception that had been made. Arising from this investigation the Advocate General made certain recommendations aimed at improving the legislation. These were, in the main, the following:

Firstly, that the law be amended to provide that, in a case where an interception is ordered by a Minister who is a member of the State Security Council, this may only be done in consultation with the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. The reason given for this recommendation was that it was necessary to avoid the possibility of an interception of communications provided by the Post Office taking place in such a case without the knowledge of the Minister who is responsible for the Post Office and who therefore has to see to the privacy of the citizen’s communications.

Secondly, that while the Act at present also permits an officer of lower grade than Deputy Postmaster General being given the delegated power to issue orders directing interceptions, the Act be amended so that only the Postmaster General or a Deputy Postmaster General may be given this power. Similarly, that the Act be amended to require that a person designated by the State Security Council from time to time as one who may make requests, shall have a grading of head or deputy head of a Department.

*The Advocate-General also recommended that his report be sent to the Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation—the Rabie Commission—for consideration of the aspects raised therein.

After completion of its comprehensive inquiry into security matters, the Rabie Commission’s main recommendations with regard to the question of interceptions were that—

1. (a) the responsibility of taking decisions about interceptions should be assigned to the Ministers responsible for the three security services;
2. (b) in urgent cases, when the Minister concerned is not available, that Minister should be able to authorize another person to take the necessary decisions for a specified limited period;
3. (c) the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications should be advised of the decisions since he has to provide the facilities necessary for carrying out the decisions; and
4. (d) interceptions should be permitted for a maximum period of six months at a time, and that on the expiration of the period allowed it must be considered afresh whether a further period of interception should be allowed.

In the Bill at present before the House, the recommendations of both the Advocate-General and the Rabie Commission that I have mentioned are given effect to, but with certain changes that are considered necessary for practical reasons.

In the first instance, the proposed rewording of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) provides, as recommended by the Rabie Commission, that the three Ministers responsible for the security services, and no longer all Ministers who are members of the State Security Council, will issue orders for interceptions. Furthermore, provision is being made, in accordance with the relative recommendation by the Advocate-General, for orders to be issued with the concurrence of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications.

As regards the arrangements that will apply when the Minister concerned is not available, it has been decided for practical reasons to retain the existing arrangements whereby the power to issue orders may be delegated to officers. On the question which officers should be empowered to issue orders—namely, whether they should be officers of the security services or the Post Office—it was also decided that the existing arrangement, whereby requests by the officers of the security services are forwarded to the officers of the Post Office for the issue of the orders, should continue. As the power to issue orders has to be delegated to the officers of the Post Office by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, that Minister should himself also have that power; this is the existing arrangement in the Act and in this respect, too, it remains unchanged. In accordance with the relative recommendations by the Advocate-General it is being stipulated, however, that the grade of officers of the Post Office by whom this power is vested should be at least that of Deputy Postmaster-General, and similarly that the grade of officers of the Public Service designated to make the requests should be at least that of Deputy Director-General. This ensures that the function will be performed only at a highly responsible level.

In practice, the arrangements that will apply when Ministers do not deal personally with the cases are that the head or deputy head of the security service desiring an interception will request it from the Postmaster-General or the Deputy Postmaster-General concerned. If the last-mentioned officers are not satisfied on the basis of the reasons given that the request is based purely on security considerations, or if they have any other misgivings on account of which they do not deem it in order to grant the request, the Postmaster-General will be able to take the matter to his Minister, just as the officer of the security service, for his part, will be able to take it to his Minister. The Ministers concerned will take the final decision on the case.

I am convinced that the adjustments to the legislation now being proposed are improvements on the existing arrangements and ought to be acceptable from everybody’s point of view. The central aspects of the arrangements are still that interceptions are subject to a fixed legal procedure and that interceptions are scrutinized by a second authority that is not itself directly responsible for the security side but is, in fact, primarily responsible for the privacy of the communications. I do not think anyone can say that in these arrangements the protection of the privacy of the individual is not being properly seen to, and the change to which I have referred, whereby it is ensured that the functions will be performed only at a most responsible level, can serve to further reinforce the protection. I do not think it is necessary to devote much time to the other changes proposed in the Bill. As recommended by the Rabie Commission, the existing legislation is being adjusted to limit the period for which an interception may be requested to six months at a time. This ensures that each interception will be reviewed at least every six months. For the rest, adaptations are made, as also recommended by the Rabie Commission, to keep pace with technological developments and new services that have come into being in the ten years since the legislation came into effect. These adaptations consist in substituting, where applicable, the concept “communication transmitted over a telecommunications line” for the word “telegram”, as the definition of the word “telegram” no longer covers the most modern forms of telecommunications. As hon. members know, the public telegram service is declining and giving way to new techniques.

I do not think anyone in this House will deny the need for communications being intercepted in the interests of the security of the State. Nor do I think that anything can be read into any of the adaptations in this Bill that amends the legislation in a way prejudicial to the privacy of the public. I believe that the legislation, particularly in its proposed improved form, does everything possible to provide a proper balance between, on the one hand, the requirements of State security and, on the other, the right of the individual to privacy in his communications. I therefore confidently request the support of all hon. members for this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the Advocate-General Mr. Justice Van der Walt, in his report dated 22 April 1980, said on page 9, paragraph 11, dealing with section 118A—this is the section with which we are dealing at present—

In giving our support to the measure before us, we approach this matter on that basis.

The principle of the amendment, as we see it, is one which aims at maintaining that delicate balance in so far as the preservation of the privacy of the individual is concerned. The rights of the individual must be jealously guarded in a democratic State. We therefore have to approach this with the greatest amount of caution and circumspection so that the private individual living in our country shall not in any way feel threatened and shall not feel that his personal liberty is in any way jeopardized or interfered with in the free and open society in which I believe we should live. That being the case, we must then weigh up the very words used in the Bill before us, viz. “the interests of the security of the Republic”.

I do not know whether any lawyer is capable of defining that very phrase. I think it will be difficult to try to determine by definition “the interests of the security of the Republic”. Therefore, in its implication, it is wide and capable of wide interpretation. It is also capable of a discretionary interpretation by the person who has to exercise a discretion in dealing with it.

I should like to remind the House of Mr. Justice Potgieter’s recommendations. Mention was made of them when this principle was first discussed during 1972 and I should like to quote col. 9185 of Hansard of that year—

I therefore feel that it is incumbent upon us, when we deal with this measure, to obtain from the hon. the Minister certain assurances, certain safeguards and certain guarantees in so far as the legislation affects the privacy of the individual in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will interpret “the interest of the security of the Republic” in the strictest sense in so far as the security of the State and not the security of a political party, is concerned. It must not simply be applied to detect somebody sending something unlawfully through the post which could lead to a prosecution. The interest of the security of the State must be the prime consideration. An obvious example is a KGB agent who does espionage in the country or somebody who is trying to subvert military intelligence. These example beg the answers themselves and there are not problems as far as they are concerned.

When the 1972 amendment to section 118A was brought into effect, caution was sounded in this House by various hon. members—including the hon. member for Houghton—that it was a case of placing power in the hands of individuals. It was questioned at that time how these individuals would interpret their discretion and powers, particularly in a case where information had to remain secret. The special powers that are being given are delegated specifically to certain people. The hon. the Minister mentioned today that the three security services were involved and I am pleased to learn that the individuals concerned will be Heads or Deputy Heads of departments as well as the functionary himself. I find it necessary to raise this point so as to ensure that what happened in the HNP case of Beaumont Schoeman and the Afrikaner is not repeated. In that case, in their interpretation of section 118A and the operation of that section since 1972, the HNP lodged a complaint in which they alleged an abuse of the power of the State and the use of State moneys for political purposes. They went so far as to allege that in particular the head of the National Intelligence Service was in fact the Prime Minister, who in turn was the leader of a political party. The allegations were in fact that this threatened the security of their political party.

A very unfortunate thing happened here which I do not think was intended. The law was intended to be a strictly interpreted law administered very circumspectly and this was in fact not done. Mr. Justice van der Walt found, firstly, that the tenor of the law had not been properly carried out and, secondly, that it had been carried out negligently. It had not been carried out properly because section 118A(2)(b) states that when an applicant makes application for interception he must state—

1. (i) the grounds upon which such a person believes that such interception is necessary for the maintenance of the security of the public;
2. (ii) were applicable, the period in respect of which such interception is required; and
3. (iii) sufficient particulars to identify any postal article, telegram or communication involved, including particulars relating to the name and, where known, the address of the person, body or organization concerned, and any number allocated by the department in respect of any telephone service involved.

But what happened in this case? The person who made the application to the functionary in this case did not comply with that section. He did not make out a case, he did not state the grounds for his application and he did not ask for a specific period of interception. He did not comply with any of those provisions. All he did, according to the evidence before Mr. Justice van der Walt, was to make a request. I quote paragraph 8.5—

On that application which failed to comply with section 118A(2) the functionary then granted the application. Once the application had been granted the judge then found that the underlying idea and principle of section 118 was that a second, separate decision had to be taken by the functionary acting as a sort of instrument of review. In other words, he must have sufficient information in front of him to enable him to exercise a separate discretion and take a separate decision to act as a kind of review instrument to ensure that they are doing the right thing. He could not possibly have done so on this information that was placed before him. Therefore, they were negligent in carrying out these provisions. They did not carry them out in the spirit in which they were intended to be carried out and neither did they carry out the letter of the law.

Because of this another thing happened. The original application was granted for one year, i.e. for the period February 1979 to February 1980. At the end of that period another application was granted for a further year, i.e. from 1980 to 1981. In the second year the application for the interception of communications was granted in respect of four telephone numbers of Beaumont Schoeman of the Afrikaner. However, in the second year one of Schoeman’s telephone numbers changed. Notwithstanding the fact that the telephone number changed they went on intercepting calls to that number until there was a complaint to the Advocate-General. Only then was it stopped. This shows how wrong these things can go. I raise this point to show how careful and circumspect one has to be in carrying this out because it is a very serious matter affecting the privacy of the individual. Therefore one must exercise the greatest circumspection.

Having dealt with those particular recommendations that were made, Mr. Justice Van der Walt suggested that the recommendations be submitted to Mr. Justice Rabie chairman of the Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation. Mr. Justice Rabie did in fact go into the matter and in its report the Commission reacted as follows (page 208, paragraph 13.2.28)—

The Commission goes on to emphasize—

Then the Commission goes on to mention the Ministers who in its opinion should have the responsibility for taking such decisions. The situation that has now developed is that because of the complaints and because of the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Van der Walt and the Rabie Commission we now have an improvement in the section of the Act in question.

In his speech today the hon. the Minister said that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications should be advised of the decisions since he has to provide the facilities necessary for carrying out the decisions. It is clear from the Van Der Walt report and particularly the Rabie report that there was a grave omission in that the Ministers responsible for State security at that stage could make a decision without consulting the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is the man who is responsible for the department in which the actual interception of telephone communications and postal articles takes place and this could have taken place without his knowledge or the knowledge of the Postmaster-General. That was very wrong. It boiled down to interference in his department and, therefore, he should be consulted. However, looking at the changes that are proposed, we welcome the fact that if the powers are delegated they shall not be delegated in the case of the applicant to a person occupying a post of a lower grading than that of Deputy Director-General in the Public Service and, in the case of the functionary, to a person occupying a post of a lower grading than that of the post of Deputy Postmaster-General. We also welcome the fact that the period for which an application may be granted will now be limited to six months and that the interception cannot be continued indefinitely. If an extension is needed, a fresh application must be made and the functionary must satisfy himself that the extention is necessary. However, we do have a bit of a problem with a most important provision in this Bill. One can have the situation where the applicant in a particular department can make an application to his own Minister. For example, somebody in military intelligence can make an application to the Minister of Defence as functionary. It will be wrong if they keep the decision within their own sphere of activity if I may put it that way. There should be another mind which can be applied to the functionary’s decision to grant the interception. It should be an outside influence. If another mind can be brought to bear upon it, the interests of the security of the State can be weighed up and it will not be merely localized.

Read what it states.

I am coming to that. The hon. the Minister has said today that he should be advised of the decision because he has to provide the facilities that are necessary for carrying out that decision. I do not believe that that is his sole function. Where the Bill refers to the Ministers involved, acting with the concurrence of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, I do not read into this and I sincerely trust that the hon. the Minister does not read into this that it is merely being done for the purpose of advising him so that his department can then do the interception because it falls within the purview of his department. I hope the hon. the Minister does not read it in that way. I hope the hon. the Minister reads it in the way in which I believe Mr. Justice Rabie and Mr. Justice Van der Walt intended it to be read, i.e. acting with the concurrence of the Minister, so that when any of the four Ministers who are mentioned in the Bill makes the decision, he does so with the concurrence of this Minister, and the word “concur” to my mind, means that he will exercise his discretion on the application made by the applicant to give careful consideration to his decision as to whether in fact he can grant it. In other words, there are now two Ministers involved in making that decision. I hope that position will obtain. However, what causes us certain difficulty is the wording of paragraph (ii) where it states “or the Minister”. This could mean that in the absence of any of the Ministers referred to in paragraph (i) the application could be made direct to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. I think that in view of the principle that two Ministers should exercise their minds in this regard, this provision is wrong. This hon. Minister is well versed in his own Department of Posts and Telecommunications. He knows exactly what goes on in his department.

Who told you that?

Well, I assume that he does.

He certainly did not know that they were tapping my telephone and opening my mail.

No, he did not. That is why there is this amendment. What I am saying, and I say this with the greatest respect, is that this hon. Minister, on his own, does not have sufficient knowledge of what goes on in the National Intelligence Service, in the Department of Law and Order or in the Department of Defence. Therefore I think this is placing an unfair burden and onus of responsibility on this hon. Minister to have to make the decision as the functionary on his own. I hope the hon. the Minister does not take this to be a reflection upon him personally, because I certainly do not intend it that way. However, because we are dealing with such a delicate matter, I feel that the concurrence should still take place. In other words, I should like the Bill to read “the Minister who administers the National Intelligence Service, the Minister of Law and Order or the Minister of Defence in consultation with the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications.” In other words, there should always be two. This hon. Minister should not be left in the position where he alone has to exercise this function or even delegate this function as he is entitled to do in terms of the legislation to the Postmaster-General or any of the three Deputy Postmasters-General. I also feel that it is unfair to place the burden upon them. When I move an amendment in the Committee Stage, and I am giving the hon. the Minister notice of it at this stage, I hope that very serious consideration will be given to it so that we can improve the legislation on that basis.

For those reasons, with the greatest amount of circumspection and in the realization of what we are doing in the interests of the State to protect the security of the State, we shall support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow expressed his party’s support for the principle of this legislation and I wish to thank him for this. However, I must point out that the way in which he expressed that support left one a little in the dark. In effect he said that this legislation was the result of an investigation by the Van der Walt Commission, as a result of an incident involving interception, and that the legislation was rectifying certain shortcomings in section 118A of the Post Office Act, as it reads at present. He also asked for certain assurances from the Minister, assurances which, in reality, are already contained in the legislation. One cannot understand what other assurances the hon. member for Hillbrow requires from the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member also referred to the problem of defining the security of the State. I do not wish to go into that, but I wish to point out to him that there is a footnote on page 205 of the Rabie Commission report in which a definition given by the Australian legislature of the concept “security”, is quoted. Reference is also made in paragraph 13.2.9 of the report to the definition of the security of the State by the Potgieter Commission, and in the same connection, reference is also made to action taken in Canada. I therefore believe that it is reasonably clear what is meant by this concept.

I have already stated that we are grateful for the support of the official Opposition, but it would really have been odd if they had not supported this legislation, since the principal feature of the amendments is, after all, the greater amount of protection that is being granted to the privacy of the individual.

The official Opposition are very fond of asking for judicial inquiries. However, this legislation is not the result of only one, but of three different judicial inquiries. The hon. member for Hillbrow referred to the Potgieter Report of 1972 which gave rise to section 118A as it now appears on the Statute Book. He also referred to the investigation into a specific incident by Mr. Justice Van der Walt in his capacity as Advocate-General, and then there was also the comprehensive investigation that took place from 1980 to 1982, and to which the Rabie Commission devoted four pages.

I think it is important that we take cognizance of the fact that this legislation is not concerned with the principle of interception. This principle was not only placed on our Statute Book as far back as 10 years ago; it was also supported by all three these judicial enquiries to which I referred.

In view of the necessity for interception, this legislation is simply concerned with insuring the greatest possible measure of reconciliation between the two conflicting interests at stake here, viz. the individual’s right to privacy and the protection of the security of the State. In three respects, individual privacy is now being afforded better protection than it has in existing legislation. The responsibility for interception is now being transferred to those three Ministers, to those three Ministries charged with the security of the State. It has to take place in consultation with the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications who, in turn, is primarily responsible for the privacy of individual connections and communication.

Secondly, while delegation is necessary for practical reasons, this amendment now ensures that this will take place at the most responsible level, since delegation is now being limited, on the one hand, to the head of the department dealing with security legislation, and on the other to the head of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, the Postmaster-General, or their respective deputies. Thirdly, this legislation provides for periodic review, after periods not exceeding six months.

When one takes into consideration, apart from this extension of the protection of the privacy of the individual, that the only other provision in the legislation is an acknowledgement of the technological progress which has been made in the field of telecommunications, one can arrive at no other conclusion than that this legislation is an improvement in all respects, simply from the point of view of individual rights or individual privacy. In this regard, it is also fair and logical that we can expect support for this legislation from all sides of the House, and we on this side have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, we in the CP support this Bill submitted by the hon. the Minister with the greatest of pleasure. The hon. the Minister’s speech, which was an excellent and clear speech, brought a great deal of clarity, as the hon. member for Umlazi also indicated in his speech. This is definitely a vast improvement on existing conditions, and particularly on conditions which prevailed years ago and to which I should like to refer in a moment, because years ago similar legislation was seriously misused and this led to a great deal of unhappiness. Bearing in mind the facts the hon. the Minister stated in his speech, I doubt whether there is a single patriotic person who can be opposed to this legislation. This legislation will, for example, eliminate many things. Of course, it will have to be properly administered, so that there are no malpractices, such as those which occurred many years ago. The hon. the Minister of Defence and the hon. the Minister of Law and Order—indeed, everyone involved with State security—will never need to look over their shoulders at those of us on this side of the House when it comes to such security measures. This applies to any field in which the continued existence and security of South Africa is at stake.

Although we support the legislation, I still want to ask that it be applied with the greatest circumspection. We know it will be, because the hon. the Minister spelt this out quite clearly. I now want to give examples of how such legislation was applied between 1939 and 1945 and what tremendous unhappiness this caused. At that time I was still a child, but I remember what happened to many of us who definitely did not belong to any organization that wanted to overthrow the State. We belonged to the former Herenigde Nasionale Party of Dr. D. F. Malan and we were called Malaniete. We stood for peace in all fields, yet there were people who waged personal vendettas against certain other people. However, this sort of thing cannot easily occur in terms of this legislation. The attitude of the Herenigde Nasionale Party of that time, under the leadership of Dr. D. F. Malan, was one of neutrality during those war years. For this reason people frequently seized on certain things to get at other people.

I shall never forget that during those war years an organization known as the Waarheidsridders came into existence. The task of the Waarheidsridders was to ferret things out; they were self-appointed “investigators” who had to inform on people. Many of these people ended up in internment camps and many of them encountered tremendous problems without ever knowing why. During those years the Waarheidsridders earned themselves a nickname which I would rather not mention in this House. This was because they waged personal vendettas against certain people. That is why I am glad that this sort of thing cannot easily happen now with this legislation. People were for example restricted to their farms. People were sometimes interned and intimidated without knowing what was happening. As a result of personal vendettas people were frequently prosecuted in terms of similar legislation. Families were broken up and frequently there was tremendous enmity. Even church life was affected. Often enmity arose which lasted beyond the grave. This is how bad things can be when legislation is not good. That is why I am glad that this piece of legislation is so well drafted.

On 26 May 1948 the documents of the Waarheidsridders, which were locked up in the Union Buildings, had to be hastily removed so that no one could read them. I was a Jeugbond leader in those days and I remember very well how the late advocate Eric Louw, one of the greatest campaigners for freedom, gave us as a Jeugbond a very good description of those people. He said—

This sort of thing cannot easily take place in terms of this Bill. We therefore support this Bill and we are glad that it has been introduced, because it is necessary. We are also glad that the Minister will use all the discretion at his disposal before he applies these provisions and that everything possible will be done to ensure that history does not repeat itself. That is why it has been drafted in this way and submitted to this House. We on this side of the House and all patriotic people will at all times try, in any constitutional way, to put the security of the State first. This is a good thing.

In conclusion I want to say that we are prepared to sacrifice everything—even ourselves if necessary—to ensure the continued existence of South Africa. I also support this Bill because I believe that the hon. the Minister will give this House the assurance that it will not be misused.

Mr. Speaker, I am gratified to hear that the official Opposition and the CP support the Bill at present before this House. Of course, this is a particularly sensitive subject, but I believe that in view of the investigations and the commissions which have already gone into these aspects, we have the assurance that this aspect is in safe and responsible hands; particularly in view of the actions of the NP.

This kind of legislation is not only applicable in South Africa. In the report—I think it was a very good report—of the Commission of Inquiry into matters concerning the security of the State, under the chairmanship of the former Judge of Appeal, Mr. Justice Potgieter, specific reference was made to countries such as Rhodesia, Australia, the Netherlands, West Germany, as well as Great Britain. Mr. Justice Potgieter reached certain conclusions at that time—that was in 1971. I could just point out that this particular section 118A in Act 101 of 1972 originated from Mr. Justice Potgieter’s report—section 118 had previously been substituted by Act 37 of 1963. What is extremely interesting is that Mr. Justice Potgieter had this to say in his report (paragraph 212)—

He referred in particular to paragraphs which had a bearing on the laws of Rhodesia, Australia, the Netherlands and West Germany—

This is precisely the case in this Bill.

The hon. member for Hillbrow referred to the position in the past. Unfortunately, I cannot quote history as the hon. member for Nigel did. At that time I had not yet been born, and I do not wish to go into that. However, the hon. member for Hillbrow referred specifically to a case which came before the Advocate-General and about which a report was tabled in this House. The report is dated 22 April 1980 and it was issued in terms of section 5(1) of the Advocate-General Act, 1979. That report deals with the particular matter to which reference has been made. I think the hon. member for Hillbrow ought to read this report properly. I wish I had the time to put this report to the House in its true perspective, since what the Advocate-General pointed out in it, is specifically being embodied and streamlined in this Bill.

What did I say?

However, the Government has gone further. Before this was made applicable, we had the report of the Rabie Commission.

Arising from this matter, and with particular reference to the report of the Advocate-General, the Rabie Commission mentions it on page 207 of its report. It is extremely important that what the Advocate-General has to say, should be placed on record here. On page 11, paragraph 12.0 of the report of the Advocate-General, we read the following—

For the sake of the hon. member for Hillbrow, I think the words, “die beskerming van die burger se reg op privaatheid in sy kommunikasies” should be emphasized. I quote further—

I wish to suggest that the hon. member for Hillbrow also take note of the recommendations made by the Advocate-General in this report. I do not wish to take up a great deal of time in this House, but I quote briefly from page 12 of the report.

I have already read it! You are wasting your time!

The hon. member has the wrong report. I am now quoting from the report of the Advocate-General.

That is precisely what I also read!

Paragraph 13.1 on page 12 of the Advocate-General’s report, reads as follows—

This is precisely what is being done now by way of this legislation. We also trust the hon. the Minister in this matter. The Government may also be trusted in matters of this nature. This is precisely why the present legislation is now before this House. I do not know why the hon. member for Hillbrow has to act as spokesman for Jaap Marais and the HNP. I think they are small enough to take care of themselves. Smaller people than they do not have to take care of them. Therefore I do not know why the hon. member for Hillbrow wishes to try and look after their interests. [Interjections.]

The question now arises as to what decisions are embodied in this Bill. This is what is of cardinal importance to us. That is why we should stop trying to score political points off one another, as Jaap Marais and the hon. member for Hillbrow do, who are of no consequence. [Interjections.] What decisions are embodied in the present Bill? Let us concentrate on positive and more concrete facts. [Interjections.]

Order!

Firstly, as recommended by the Rabie Commission, the three Ministers in control of Security Services, become functionaries in the place of other Ministers who are members of the State Security Council, but their actions as such take place with the concurrence of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. Not only does the latter regulation ensure that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications will be aware of all instructions given to the department by the other Ministers, but also that the Minister who looks after the security interests of the State, as well as the Minister who has to look after the privacy of the communications of the department, have to agree to the directive, and that a balance is therefore maintained between these conflicting interests.

With these few words, I gladly support this Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is noteworthy that few hon. members who have spoken so far have made reference to the fact that this type of legislation does not only apply to South Africa but that it also applies in other parts of the world. I do not believe we have to make any excuses for the fact that we have this type of legislation in our country. I do believe, however, the hon. member for Overvaal has made rather heavy weather about it.

I think that when it comes to listening in to other people’s telephone conversations, we South Africans have a fine old tradition. Those of us who come from the rural areas and who have had experience of party lines have surely listened in to conversations. [Interjections.] I believe it was at one stage almost a national pastime in certain parts of this country. I used to put in my couple of hours for a few shillings a week in the local exchange. On the party line, before I rang a number, I had to ring another number at the same time if a certain person was calling because Tant Sannie had to listen in to that conversation. So we even used to tip people off! [Interjections.] Well truly, we should not be over-sensitive about it. [Interjections.] I see the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare is smiling. He obviously knows the exchange I am talking about.

What they do is to cut your conversation off while they change the tapes. [Interjections.]

We are concerned about the privacy of the individual. There is no question about that. However, we do not believe for one moment that this amending legislation interferes with that privacy in any way whatsoever. We sincerely believe that we have before us something that does much to improve the situation as it exists at the moment. I think that the envisaged amendments go a long way towards helping us to walk more warily along that fine line between the right to privacy and the security of the State. There is a very fine dividing line between the two and these amendments before us definitely improve the present situation quite considerably.

In this Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister gave us a very comprehensive background to and history of this situation, and it is pleasing to note that the hon. the Minister has taken note of the recommendations of the Advocate-General and the recommendations of the Rabie Commission. I believe that he has certainly improved the situation considerably by virtue of the fact that it is also envisaged that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications who is, after all, the responsible Minister must at all times be aware of what is going on. It is also noteworthy that only the Postmaster-General or a Deputy Postmaster-General has authority in terms of the amendments before us and furthermore, that it is now the responsibility of either a head of a department or a deputy head of a department, in other words, a Director-General or his deputy. Now we are getting somewhere. As far as the recommendations of the Rabie Commission are concerned, I believe that we have before us a measure which makes use of the best of both worlds. It uses the best of the recommendations of the Rabie Commission as well as the best of the recommendations that emanated from the report of the Advocate-General.

I believe that we have here something that is going to make life a great deal easier for the officials. It is also going to make the line of authority more clearly identifiable and it is going to make it far easier for anybody to know exactly where authority and responsibility lie in respect of the interception of mail or any telecommunication interchange that may take place.

For these and for many other reasons which I believe one could elaborate on at some considerable length, we on these benches will support this amending legislation and I feel that congratulations are once again in order in that we see before us an improvement in the situation that has been brought about by taking cognizance of the recommendations of the Advocate-General and of the Rabie Commission. We feel that this is a definite improvement and we will always support improvements in any legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a happy day for South Africa when all parties in this Parliament agree on a piece of legislation as sensitive as this. Accordingly, I should like to thank the hon. members for Hillbrow and Umhlanga, the hon. spokesman of the CP and the two hon. members who supported the legislation on behalf of this side of the House, for their very thorough contributions. I think that hon. members who took part in this debate have grasped the essence of the problem.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga made the remark that there was a very fine dividing line between privacy and the security of the State. I think that remark is most appropriate. The hon. member also said that this legislation before us is a very good attempt to take the best from the report of the Advocate-General in 1980 and that of the Rabie Commission earlier this year. That is actually what we have tried to do, and I can assure hon. members that quite apart from making a study of those two reports as well as the Potgieter report of 1970, this legislation required a great deal of effort on the part of myself, the senior officials of my department and senior officials of the Department of Justice. I want to thank them all most sincerely for their assistance in this regard. It was no easy task because we realized that we were dealing with a particularly sensitive issue.

*Perhaps I should just elucidate this briefly by pointing out how sensitive a matter this is. I do not know whether they are present at the moment, but there are hon. members of the official Opposition, and even members on this side of the House, who have come to tell me in the recent past that they or their friends had received postal articles that have been opened on one side. They suspected that something of this nature was going on. However, according to our findings those postal articles had apparently been opened for some mechanical reason. What security service or decent department like the Department of Posts and Telecommunications would open an envelope, even if it had to be done, and send it, opened, to the addressee? I point this out merely as an example.

Then, too, I have had letters from an hon. member of the Opposition blaming me because letters from the same person had been sent from here to two overseas countries and had been received there opened on one side. It was immediately assumed that those letters had been opened here in South Africa. I do not want to say who the hon. member is, because there are two professions for which I have great respect. Both of those professions teach one that one should first seek the truth before passing judgment. However, the truth is not sought; the judgment is summarily passed. I do not say this in a spirit of recrimination; I merely point this out to indicate how sensitive this subject in fact is.

Accordingly, I wish to convey my highest appreciation to all the hon. members who took part in this discussion today with great responsibility, because after all, this Bill is not there to enable intrigue to take place, but makes due provision for action to be taken, where necessary, to ensure the security of the State. Another issue is that the privacy of the individual must be protected at all times. The hon. member for Hillbrow was therefore quite right to say that we have the legislation before us in an effort, as he expressed it, to strike a delicate balance between these two elements.

The hon. member for Hillbrow said that he would propose certain amendments in the Committee Stage tomorrow. I do not take it amiss of him. I am impressed by it, because in the first place he has knowledge of the subject since he is the chief spokesman of the official Opposition in this regard. He sits just behind the hon. member for Houghton, who cannot resist telling me now and again by way of interjections across the floor of this House: “You are reading my letters and you are listening to my telephone”.

Do not spoil it now.

Why should I be interested in that hon. lady’s private affairs. That is just the kind of remark with which she tries to influence the public at large.

But she has had experience in this regard.

No, she did not have any point to make, She said exactly the opposite of what the hon. member said.

I convey my thanks to the hon. member for Hillbrow. He understood the situation perfectly, and that also goes for his quotation from the report of the Advocate-General. It is that balance, the delicate balance, as the hon. member referred to it, that we must maintain.

The hon. member asked me for certain assurances. My sole endeavour in the responsibility I bear in this post is to assure the public that inroads will not be made on their privacy. Action will only be taken when there are clear signs of interference with the security of the State.

I feel almost like the hon. member for Overvaal because I, too, want to look for a little trouble with regard to this whole matter, even though it has gone well. Accordingly I wish to say to the hon. member for Hillbrow that if, in his efforts to find something, he had taken a good look at the report of the Advocate-General, he would have seen on page 3 …

But I quoted from it at the beginning of my speech.

Yes, but the hon. member referred to other aspects. I cannot take it amiss of the hon. member for Overvaal for having asked the hon. member why he kept championing the cause of the HNP. He also referred to the HNP case again. The Advocate-General found (paragraph 4.2)—

The HNP was not at issue here. The issue was an individual. The Advocate-General made further findings and in paragraph 5.0 he says—

The HNP telephone number happened to be the same as that of his newspaper at that time—

In paragraph 6.0 the Advocate-General states—

The Advocate-General made a clear finding that there had not been any abuse.

Read paragraph 8.6.

What is stated in paragraph 8.6 is that there was an apparent authorization in the sense that the functionary had not duly, personally and in writing satisfied himself in general—although concisely. The point I really want to make is that in the 10 years since 1970, the Government has never abused this for party-political purposes.

As far as we know.

The hon. member wishes to have that assurance from me. There was no abuse in this case which was brought to the attention of the Advocate-General either.

The hon. member made another mistake as well. He said that the HNP’s number had changed in the course of the year. The HNP’s number is included in the target number for which approval has been requested. That is what happened in the course of the year.

The number was taken over by Jaap Marais.

No, it was not taken over by him. The two integrated with one another.

Not that party; they are totally opposed to integration.

They integrate in their own, different way. The hon. member also referred to the involvement of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications in the procedure, as specified in the legislation under discussion. I do not think the hon. member quite understood this. He mentioned a case and said that he thought it was not desirable that the applicant from the division of military intelligence should approach his own Minister. What else? After all, it is the Minister of Defence who has to decide on military affairs.

But he does not understand it. It is a domestic matter.

The hon. member must read the Bill properly. The relevant section of the Bill reads as follows—

†In other words, there are two Ministers. The one has to guard the privacy of the individual and the other one has to decide on security issues.

The hon. member also made a further point.

*Despite the fact that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications can also act as a functionary, and an application would come to him, viz. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, from one of the three security services, the hon. member says that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications lacks authority to decide on the matter. However, the point is that the applicant is a senior official of the security service concerned. He must have in-depth knowledge of the matter. The function of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is to keep a watchful eye over privacy and other aspects. The expertise as regards aspects of security surely comes from the applicant, who must be at a very senior level in one of the security services.

He has to be at a low level, according to Mr. Justice Van der Walt.

But we now have provisions to the effect that he cannot be at a lower level than that of Deputy Director-General of that service. [Interjections.] We can argue the matter further when the hon. member moves his amendments.

In conclusion I wish to convey my sincere thanks to all the hon. members who took part in the debate. I think it can only be regarded as a good day for our country and its security, and a good day for the establishment of a tradition, that on the one hand, we guard over the privacy of communication of the inhabitants of the country, but that we should also be proud and ensure that we do not make of the security affairs of our country a matter to be debated in public so that our enemies can derive benefit. I wish to thank hon. members sincerely for this.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the discussion of this measure was adjourned, I was reacting to a speech by the hon. member for Sandton, who is unfortunately not here today. However, I want to continue to comment on a few of the points he raised. The hon. member argued that the Bill was unacceptable, and to support his standpoint he made the statement that the mere repetition of a provision from previous legislation does not necessarily make that provision acceptable if it was unacceptable in the previous legislation as well. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member in this regard. Something which is unacceptable does not become acceptable through mere repetition.

However, he then went on to state that if this Bill were not agreed to and passed, it will not mean that confidential information would be without protection, because, he argued, it would still be protected by the Official Secrets Act, 1956. Now I suggest that this is an obvious contradiction in terms. It is hardly logical to argue in one breath that something which is unacceptable per se is not made acceptable by repetition, and thereby imply that the existing measure is unacceptable, and then calmly turn round and argue that we need not accept this Bill because the existing legislation, which was not and is not acceptable, will give the necessary protection. That is a totally futile argument.

With reference to clause 2 of the Bill, the hon. member also stated that the wording was too vague. The hon. member argued that he had no fault to find when reference was made to behaviour “for any purpose prejudicial to the security of” the State. He said, however, that when reference was made to “the interests of the Republic”, this was too vague. I cannot understand how he can allege that “any purpose prejudicial to the security of” the State is not vague, but that “the interests of the Republic” is too vague. I cannot see any difference in vagueness or clarity between these two expressions.

As far as clause 3 is concerned, the hon. member also objected to the terminology. He alleged that it was not acceptable to him when reference was made to the other interests of the Republic. He felt that this was too vague. He said that if it was the intention to protect the military, diplomatic and security interests of the Republic, this should have been stated. Once again, I cannot discern any difference between the vagueness or clarity of the other interests of the Republic and the military, diplomatic and security interests of the Republic. If it could be argued that things could be read into one expression which was not the intention of the Bill, I am of the opinion that this could be done just as readily with the other expression. We on this side of the House accept that it is the intention only to involve sensitive and confidential material in the Bill, and for this reason we have no objection to the wording.

The hon. member also referred to the presumption created in clause 10 and argued that it was not necessary to prove “a prejudicial intent”. I concede that the State will probably make use of the presumption that is being created there, but it is also stated quite clearly in clause 3 of the Bill that it is always concerned with the intent. It is provided that “any person who, for purposes of the disclosure thereof to any foreign State …”. In other words, the person must have the intent, “he must have the purpose”. In sub-paragraph (iii) of subsection 3(b) mention is also made of “any other matter or article, and which he knows or reasonably should know may directly or indirectly be of use to any foreign State”. In other words, his actions must be deliberate and he must give that material or information to a foreign, hostile State. This is per se an indication of “a prejudicial intent”. I can find no fault with the way in which the prejudicial intent of the relevant person is defined in this Bill.

The same also applies to clause 4, where the hon. member advanced the same argument. He referred to “a total, catch-all type of clause”, and when the hon. the Minister pointed out to him by way of interjection that only “qualified information” was involved, his reply was: “Yes, but it is in the hands of the hon. the Minister”. This amounts to a blatant motion of no confidence in the hon. the Minister’s handling of these powers.

During the past few days we have argued ad nauseam about whether an hon. Minister or specific officers could be trusted with certain powers, and what I said in connection with another measure will suffice in this connection, namely that all this amounts to is that the official Opposition is opposed to powers being granted to anyone who will ensure that this legislation is applied efficiently and effectively. I therefore do not attach much value to this hackneyed argument of the hon. member for Sandton, and on behalf of this side of the House I want to express our unqualified support for the measure.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Mossel Bay, and to indicate that the CP also supports the Second Reading of this Bill.

During the past few days we have had quite a number of Bills before us which resulted from the recommendations of the Rabie Commission inquiry into security legislation. Because all the previous legislation and the Bill before us now were concerned with measures aimed at ensuring internal security, the same arguments were frequently used for or against a specific standpoint in the discussion of the previous legislation. Consequently one must also accept that in the discussion of the legislation before us we are probably going to be faced by the same situation in which the same arguments are going to be raised for or against a specific standpoint. As a matter of fact, the speech of the hon. member for Sandton has already indicated that in certain respects there is a fundamental difference in approach to security legislation between the official Opposition on the one hand and the other parties in this House on the other.

The NRP has not yet had an opportunity to state its standpoint and as a result we do not know what it will be. Therefore I am not yet able to judge whether it conforms to that of the CP and the NP. However, I feel that there is a difference in attitude as well, in other words that they have a different attitude to that of the PFP towards this matter.

The fundamental difference to which I referred is that the PFP attaches a higher priority to the rights and interests of the individual than to the security and interests of the State. The security and interests of the State and the community must always be weighed up carefully against the interests and freedom of the individual when it comes to the consideration of measures which have to be introduced to ensure the protection of the security and the interests of the State. This must be weighed up against the aims of individuals and organizations which are not favourably disposed towards the Republic of South Africa. This must also be weighed up against the onslaughts and plans of hostile States or organizations whose aim or intention it is to undermine and destroy the existing orderly dispensation in the Republic. The Rabie Commission also, in carrying out its assignment, took the aforementioned considerations thoroughly into account and tested every measure against the demands of necessity, adequacy, fairness and effectiveness. In assessing the Bill now before us, the Protection of Information Bill, one can apply the same tests in every respect. This party is satisfied that the Bill meets all these requirements. In combating the threat to the security of the State and to the interests of the State, and protecting information which for security reasons cannot be made known or disclosed to the public, it must be accepted that extraordinary measures must be used. The Rabie Commission also took cognizance of the fact that there are those persons who are of the opinion that in the introduction of counter-measures to ensure the security of the State and the maintenance of law and order, care must be taken that the authorities do not over-react and introduce measures which will be counter-productive. The Rabie Commission definitely had this in mind when it, inter alia, considered the criticism voiced against the Official Secrets Act of 1956, particularly the objections that the Act covers too wide an area, that it is too vague and too clumsy, it gags the Press unnecessarily, etc.

In his speech the hon. member for Sandton raised some of the objections I have just mentioned when he moved his amendment and indicated why the legislation should not be read a Second Time. One of his objections was that the provisions of the Act were so wide that they would prevent the disclosure of information when it might be in the public interest for it to be disclosed. The second objection was that certain provisions of the Bill were worded so vaguely that they were impossible to interpret unambiguously. He also raised two further objections, namely that unlimited authority was being given to the State President to declare any foreign organization a hostile organization, and that the penalties were excessive. I believe these objections will be reacted to during the Committee Stage when the official Opposition move their amendments, and I see that they do in fact have several amendments on the Order Paper. Their objections can then be discussed in more detail. As I said this afternoon during the marathon discussion of the Internal Security Bill, the same objections were raised time and again by various PFP speakers. Of course, we are now interested to see whether subsequent speakers on that side will use the same arguments or will come up with new arguments in connection with this legislation.

The wording of clause 2 of the Bill led the hon. member for Sandton to object to the vagueness of the words “interests of the Republic”, to which the hon. member for Mossel Bay also referred. He objected to the vagueness of the words “interests of the Republic”. I do not at this stage want to conduct an in-depth debate with the hon. member about his statement that the words are too vague. I should like to make a few general remarks on this matter.

In any prosecution arising from an offence in terms of clause 2, it will after all be the courts that will have to interpret the meaning of the words “interests of the Republic” and not the Minister or any other person. A specific place, namely a prohibited place, is what we are concerned with in this specific clause. We do not think our courts will have any difficulty in attaching the correct interpretation to the words “interests of the Republic”.

The hon. member for Sandton’s criticism regarding the vagueness and obscurity of the specific words was dealt with in general terms in the Rabie report. The commission took cognizance of complaints that some measures were too wide and vague and that some offences were defined so widely that relatively innocent behaviour could also constitute an offence. However, I believe that the Rabie Commission’s finding, point of departure and reply to those objections is to be found in the following sentences—

In the light of prevailing conditions in the Republic of South Africa, where we are frequently faced by violent attacks by saboteurs on national key points, etc., measures such as those contained in clause 2 are justified. In the Krohn case Chief Justice Innes ruled as follows—

The protection of security plants, places and objects necessary for the defence of a country and information regarding such works, places and objects, is of cardinal importance to the security of any State. It is not always only information on military matters which is extremely valuable to the enemy. The interests of the State intend over a far wider area than that. The gathering of certain scientific, technical, economic and even political information on certain strategic minerals, water works and nuclear power plants could be of great value to the enemies of this country, because this information could eventually be used against this country. That is why one of the most important aims of this legislation is to ensure that security information is kept from terrorist organizations and their affiliated organizations. It therefore gives us pleasure to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP will be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. We are in support of the principle of this legislation. Initially, however, we did have some problems with it, but I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for assisting us in gaining a clearer understanding of this measure. I also thank the officials of his department for their assistance in this matter.

It is very clear, as is also indicated in the report, that the official secrets legislation of many other countries, for example Canada, Great Britain, etc., must be brought up to date from time to time. In all countries legislation of this nature has to be reviewed in the light of new situations that arise which are not covered by existing legislative measures. The official secrets legislation in nearly all the countries mentioned derives from the original Official Secrets Act which was passed in 1911 by the Westminster Parliament. It is true that the terminology used in this type of legislation is often vague. This problem, however, is adequately discussed in the Rabie Commission Report. It is in fact admitted in the report that it is indeed difficult to narrow down the terminology any further without losing the efficacy of such legislation. As the hon. member Mr. Theunissen has indicated, all the provisions in the Bill are subject to the final decision by a court of law in so far as the actual interpretation of their wording is concerned. In most instances a court of law, in coming to a decision with regard to such interpretation, will have to take three or four important factors into account.

There are one or two matters though which we should like the hon. the Minister to clarify. This question is covered, I must admit, by the Rabie Commission. It does, however, still leave doubt in respect of certain aspects, particularly regarding information in respect of detainees. In this respect I should like to refer to paragraph 8.7.1.55, on page 120 of the Rabie Commission Report, where, in a footnote, it states as follows—

It then goes on to say—

It puts both sides of the case but the doubt still remains in respect of the application of the provisions contained in clause 4, to which I have already referred. It also concerns the whereabouts of a detainee, and the ability of the State to divulge information in connection with a detainee’s whereabouts because the State happens to be intimately affected by the application of legislation of this nature. This is just one of the aspects on which we should like to obtain some confirmation from the hon. the Minister.

Clause 4(2) of the Bill, in my opinion, simply defies logic. It happens to be a direct transcription of a stipulation in the original Official Secrets Act. We have problems in understanding how any person, at the time when any secret official code or password or any document, etc., is disclosed to him in contravention of this legislation, is to know what the true nature of such information is because, until one has actually received the information, it is difficult to evaluate it in order to establish whether or not it falls within the ambit of this particular piece of legislation. That means that one would necessarily have to compromise oneself by receiving the information first before evaluating it in order to decide whether it is actually prohibited information or not. In terms of the stipulation contained in clause 4(2) any person who simply receives such information is guilty of an offence. This is really causing us some measure of concern, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would be able to clarify the situation.

The Bill also contains a number of presumptive clauses. One realizes of course that there are at the present time a considerable number of cases in which this kind of presumption is acceptable. One may perhaps accept this rather unwillingly, particularly in legal circles. There are some areas there, however, which we should like to discuss. Finally there is the question of the power of the State President to proclaim in the Gazette, in terms of clause 14(b), “any association of persons …”.

These are the areas we should particularly like the hon. the Minister to deal with because, notwithstanding the fact that he referred to them in his introductory speech, they require some clarification. I come back to the point that in the final analysis it will be in the decision of the courts to find whether a person has received information or whether he has been involved in any illegitimate procedure prejudicial to the interest or the security of the State.

The word “interests” crops up again and again and the official Opposition had some problem in that connection. I have gone through the available literature and to me it seems that generally all other countries have broadened the scope. Although it is impossible to bring about a situation which one would obviously like to have here in the sense that all articles, models, sketches and other items referred to in the legislation could become classified so that it will leave no doubt in anybody’s mind, the term “interests” has been clearly expanded upon in paragraph 12.9.8 of the Rabie report. In the Canadian Official Secrets Act it has been extended to information which is not even classified. If one should go for a system of classification, one would still not be in a position to cover all the areas which one would like to have covered. The term, in its use, will be dependent upon the judges’ interpretation of “interests of the State”.

With these words we in these benches shall support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member Mr. Theunissen and the hon. member for King William’s Town for their support of this measure. I would even go so far as to thank the hon. member for Sandton for, and compliment him on his attitude in this regard. In his speech he emphasized without hesitation the necessity for every State to have legislation of this nature in order to protect confidential information. I wish to suggest that this is in sharp contrast with the attitude of certain hon. members of his party when the Internal Security Bill was being discussed. They were not even prepared to make that general concession. It is only a pity that the hon. member was not prepared to support the Second Reading.

The hon. member for Sandton then criticized a number of clauses, and I now wish to deal with them briefly. The issue in Clause 2 is that the purpose of a person approaching or passing over a prohibited place must be prejudicial to the security or interests of the Republic. As far as this is concerned, the hon. member said that because this offence was not confined to military matters, the definition “purpose prejudicial to the interests of the Republic”, was too broad. In this regard, he also referred to clause 10, which establishes a presumption.

Firstly, it must be stated that it is extremely important that it is not only information concerning military installations which must be restricted. Espionage is not confined solely to military installations; there is also a great deal of other information which must be restricted in the country’s interest. I am simply pointing out a few, and I do not think it is possible to give a restrictive list of this information. Information concerning the generation of power, scientific information, research information, information concerning certain inventions, national supplies, strategic reserves, as well as diplomatic information, fall under this. The most conclusive evidence that we should take steps to restrict information other than purely military information, is the recent Christie case. In this case, the accused was found guilty of various offences, inter alia, that he undertook to send reports in respect of South Africa’s energy position to the ANC and the International University Exchange Fund, that he visited Escom head office and obtained sketch plans of the Koeberg project, and that he tried to send these to the ANC. He visited the Duvha power station near Witbank, as well as the Kriel power station and the Amcoal coal mine for the same purpose, viz. to obtain information to send to the ANC and the International University Exchange Fund.

The other objection which the hon. member for Sandton raised, was that the words “purpose prejudicial to the interests of the Republic”, are too broad. The hon. member for King William’s Town pointed out that this clause contains precisely the same wording as section 1 of the British Official Secrets Act of 1911 and that it has existed in that form since that time. The wording has therefore stood the test of time. There have been a number of cases in this connection, not only in South Africa but in Britain as well. In the English case Chandler vs. Director of Public Prosecution, a House of Lords case in 1962, this concept was studied in detail and it was decided that the interests of the State means “organized society”, in other words, action against organized society.

An important case in this regard was a case in our own Appeal Court in 1981(3), viz. the case of the State vs. Du Plessis, where this aspect is dealt with in detail. In this regard, judge of appeal Mr. Justice Corbett had this to say—

His first point is, therefore—

He also makes a second point—

There are, therefore, two criteria being applied here. Firstly, there is the subjective criterion: What is the man’s purpose? This the court must determine. Secondly, the court has to measure that purpose against the objective criterion, viz. against the criterion of the reasonable man, in order to determine whether the purpose was prejudicial to the Republic. This is a factual question—the hon. member Mr. Theunissen also pointed this out—which has to be decided having regard to all the circumstances. The hon. members of the Opposition are so fond of saying they have so much confidence in the courts and that they would prefer to have cases referred to the courts. In this instance, the case is, in fact, referred to the courts. The courts therefore have to decide on an objective basis whether an action was in the interests of the State or the Republic or not. I think this is most fair in all circumstances.

As far as the presumption in clause 10(1) is concerned, I wish to suggest that it is not as far-reaching as the hon. member wishes to intimate. As I see the presumption, it is in the first instance for the State to prove that on the balance of probabilities a person had the purpose of acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Republic. Only when this has been proved does this presumption come into effect. I think one could be very practical in this regard. If someone is found in a nuclear power station with a micro camera or a micro transmitter in his possession, this ought to be prima facie proof that he was there with some hostile intention and in all fairness, the onus probandi should rest on him to prove that his intentions were innocent.

As far as clause 3 is concerned, the hon. member said that it, too, was too comprehensive. I suggest that we analyse the requirements. Firstly, someone must have the intention of disclosing information to a foreign State, agent or hostile organization. This is a tremendous requirement, and it excludes any innocent intention. Moreover, it is a new requirement which did not appear in the previous legislation. Its aim is to restrict this offence to a greater extent. However, it is not the only requirement. There also has to be a secret document, or this document must be in connection with a prohibited place or armaments, or it must be used in the combating of terrorism, or he must have had reasonable knowledge that it could have been of use to a foreign State. I wish to suggest that when someone wishes to disclose the contents of a document to a foreign State or prohibited organization, he should be extremely circumspect about it, particularly when it concerns the matters mentioned in this section, viz. when it is a secret document or when it is connected with armaments, etc. In such a case he must be extremely careful about this. If it is not in connection with this, the clause has a further safety device in that he must at least have suspected that it concerned matters which ought not to have been disclosed to such bodies.

I am of the opinion that this Bill, like the Internal Security Bill, the Demonstrations in or near Court Buildings Prohibition Bill and the Intimidation Bill, has an extremely sound basis, viz. the Rabie report. All these amendments and insertions are discussed and expounded in detail in this report. In this report they have been assessed in terms of the demands of the practical situation. They have also been compared with the legislation of other countries. With reference to the Steyn report, the Rabie Commission investigated this kind of legislation. The Steyn report found that there was a need for more clarity and precision as far as this legislation, which deals with confidential information, was concerned. As an example, it was pointed out that in our legislation there was no comprehensive description of what constitutes an official secret. At present, protected information is to a large extent identified by referring to its nature or origin, or by referring to the way in which the information was obtained. As a result, that information is no longer necessarily a secret or of a confidential nature. This Bill improves that situation in various respects. It also adapts our legislation to changing circumstances in important respects. I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Sandton has already indicated, it is generally accepted by the hon. members in this House, the representatives of the various parties, that statutory protection is required for the preservation of secrecy, in any State, I suppose. It is certainly necessary in any State which finds itself in any situation of conflict, even if only of a diplomatic nature. Now the question is: How far can one take this kind of statutory protection before it becomes open to abuse, before it becomes counter-productive, and before it gives rise to other problems and encroaches on the rights, functions and obligations of the ordinary citizen within a democratic community? The PFP attaches very great importance to democracy and to democratic principles. This is common knowledge. Referring to what was said by the hon. member Mr. L. M. Theunissen, it should be pointed out again at this stage how strongly we feel about democracy and why we are therefore not prepared, in certain cases, to give our support to measures which we believe to be unnecessary or inimical to those democratic principles. Indeed, a democracy only functions properly in a society which is properly informed, and that is where the problem lies. There is always some conflict, of varying intensity, between the need to protect confidential information and the need for a well-informed society. Point 2 of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandton makes this aspect very clear. Often in the past, when dealing with legislation concerning national security, military matters and so forth, the Government has shown itself to be prepared to cast the net of legislation very wide and, in the process, to make all kinds of more or less innocuous things illegal, not necessarily deliberately, but precisely because it casts the net so wide, it makes all kinds of things illegal which should not necessarily be illegal. Then it acts selectively within that net and institutes prosecutions selectively where the authorities believe tha’t these are justified.

As far as the administration of justice is concerned, this approach is also unacceptable to us on this side of the House. On the one hand, it creates a contempt for the law, especially because conduct is often declared unlawful while the ordinary citizen really cannot see anything wrong with it. He cannot see any moral problem underlying this unlawful conduct. I believe that the ordinary citizen would like to be convinced that something is in fact wrong in terms of his own morality before it has to be declared unlawful. Otherwise this would make it difficult for the ordinary citizen to respect the law as he would normally want to. However, there is a further problem. Because of the wide discretion in the implementation of such comprehensive laws, the impression is sometimes created that the fact that one is breaking the law is not so terribly important in itself, but that the fact that it is being broken is a way which will bring one into conflict with what can be termed the powers that be, the authorities of the day, is in fact more important than the mere technical fact that one is breaking the law. This is also due to the fact that when the legislation is very wide, the authorities are obliged to institute prosecutions selectively. They believe that it could theoretically create the impression, and it does in fact create this impression in practice, where people say “Not to worry. I should not find myself in hot water as a result of this. I know such and such a person and I’m sure that they will accept my bona fides in that connection.” I think this is wrong. There must be clarity in so far as this is at all possible. There must be clarity about what is legally, permissible and what is legally impermissible. Furthermore, as far as this is at all possible, statutory provisions should correspond with moral obligations, so that people may not find themselves in a dilemma when they have to live under a certain legal dispensation.

Of course, the wording of this legislation is fairly wide, as I have already indicated and as the hon. member for Sandton has said. Even though this Bill is based on legislation which existed in South Africa in the past, we are afraid that it may lead to restrictions on the free flow of information. Already it is a situation which is causing serious problems in South Africa. We want to avoid at all costs the ridiculous situation which has repeatedly occurred with regard to South Africa, where the South African public is completely in the dark about a specific matter which is of great importance to them, while the entire international community is able to read about this in their newspapers every morning. There was the invasion of Angola, for example. We also know, for example, that with regard to the oil tanker Salem, there was a news blackout in South Africa, while information in this connection was freely available in overseas newspapers.

In the first place it is clear, therefore, that such a situation cannot have anything to do with the combating of espionage or with the protection of the security of the State, because if information of that nature is so freely available beyond the borders of the country, there is no point in restricting it within this country. This in its turn creates the impression, of course, that the legislation is aimed at avoiding political embarrassment for the Government, rather than at protecting the security of South Africa, which is the true purpose of the Bill.

In that respect, too, this Bill is open to abuse. In motivating their support for the Bill, hon. members have already referred to the report of the Rabie Commission. In my opinion, it is regrettable that the report creates the impression—even in the hon. the Minister’s quotation—that the commission is not 100% convinced of the need for a particular prohibition. The mere fact that such a prohibition may possibly be useful forces the commission to recommend such a prohibition, unless very good reasons can be advanced for not imposing it. The commission therefore shifts the onus of proof in dealing with the submission made to it, and I believe that this is a mistake, because information should be freely available, unless there is a very good reason why this should not be the case. One should not restrict information, unless there is a good reason why it should not be freely available.

Something which has often occurred in legislation we have dealt with in the past—one aspect of legislation concerning the police is being repealed by this Bill, inter alia—is that the impression is almost created that it is indeed impossible to ensure internal confidentiality in a military security or an armaments production unit. Therefore I want to place on record—and I believe that hon. members will agree with me—that if one wants to keep information confidential, the most important consideration is to obtain the co-operation of those who are in possession of such information. The statutory restrictions imposed in terms of legislation or by regulation do not have 10% of the effect one would obtain if one had the co-operation of those who have access to the information. Confidentiality is of the utmost importance in military and security action, and when it is successful, in 90% of the cases it can be attributed to the fact that there was mutual co-operation, or that the persons involved were loyal and convinced of the fact that it was essential and meaningful to ensure confidentiality, rather than because they were forced to do so by some statutory restriction or other.

As far as this legislation is concerned, one may also refer to events in South African politics over the past few years which could have had an effect on this, and of these, the Information scandal is only one example. I do not doubt for a moment that many of the essential pieces of information which led to the exposure of that scandal fell under the restrictions proposed by this Bill.

This immediately brings me to the concept of “the interests of the Republic”, which is repeatedly written into this legislation in connection with security. Surely one could talk about diplomatic interests or information interests, if it were said that certain actions of journalists, and even of the judge who began to expose that scandal in the first place, could indeed be interpreted as being prejudicial to a particular information project or effort of the then Department of Information. In that way, the restrictions that are being written into this Bill—and which were even written into the Official Secrets Act—could quite possibly be applicable to that situation. That is the kind of thing one should try to avoid. It is important to avoid it, because it is not conducive to good government. Indeed, it is very destructive in that respect. To sum up, therefore, I just want to indicate that generally speaking, South Africa has suffered much more as a result of a lack of information, of a lack of the free flow of information and standpoints that it has suffered as a result of these things being freely available. [Interjections.]

There are specific aspects in the legislation to which one could refer. However, I do not wish to deal with them in great detail. There is the reference to the National Intelligence Service, however. It is provided that any matter which is dealt with by the National Intelligence Service is automatically classified as one of those aspects which have to be regarded as confidential and the disclosure of which would constitute an offence. However, this is obviously an aspect which gives that service carte blanche to commit all kinds of abuses. After all, hon. members are aware of things that are happening at the moment, matters which are the subject of a court case at the moment and which we are therefore not allowed to discuss at this stage. There are also certain things which have happened in the past, and it is very clear that because abuses can easily take place, they do in fact take place. The predecessor of this National Intelligence Service was the Bureau for State Security, and I shall never forget how the then Minister of Internal Affairs, the present Vice State President, stood on that side of the House and asked very seriously whether the powers of the then Secretary for Information, and the fact that he was not accountable to a body with adequate powers within the Government set-up, would not give rise to problems. He asked in this House whether it was not time for some restrictions to be placed on the powers of that person. I doubt whether anything has been done about that, but this simply indicates that the mere fact that it is a national intelligence service does not mean that the people concerned can be given carte blanche. From the nature of the case, it is important that they should do their work in the greatest secrecy, but if they cannot preserve their own secrets, and if information is in fact disclosed which indicates a corrupt situation within such a service, it can only be in the national interest that this be made known at the earliest opportunity so that the public may take cognizance of it.

†In a democracy it is often necessary for the public to be well-informed, and not only well-informed in order to make a sensible decision at the ballot box, as part of the democratic society, but also for them, in turn, to inform their members of Parliament who in their turn should inform members of the Cabinet, because strange as it may seem, we had some very interesting revelations, particularly in the course of the debate on the information scandal, about how certain Cabinet Ministers were totally unaware of what was happening in the departments of their own colleagues, highly improper things, not things that were completely covered up, but things about which suspicion was doing the rounds, things about which there were news reports, things about which questions were being asked in Parliament. In spite of that, a number of those Cabinet Ministers remained remarkably ignorant of what was happening within their own administrations, even if not in their own departments. This again illustrates how important it is for a free flow of information to be allowed. That scandal has shown how easily one can be locked up in an ivory tower in spite of the fact that one finds oneself in a very senior position in the Government. This is the sort of thing hon. members on this side of the House are worried about and this is the reason why we are not prepared to give our unqualified support to this kind of Bill.

There is one further aspect I should like to raise. It concerns the question of hostile organizations. Once again, there should be no difficulty in extending the espionage provisions of the old Official Secrets Act to hostile organizations and not just limiting them to hostile States. There should not be any problems with that because obviously it makes sense in terms of security. What does create a problem, however, is once again the fact that there may not be agreement on what a hostile organization in fact is. Just to refer to one aspect, there is the fact that an organization which has been banned by the Government automatically falls into the category of hostile organizations. That is obviously a contentious matter and a matter that is going to cause grave difficulty, because there is no doubt that there are grave doubts in the minds not only of hon. members of the Opposition but, I believe, also of the hon. members on the other side of the House whether all the bannings of the past few years can be justified. Therefore, automatically to include such an organization in the definition of a hostile organization and in this way making certain acts on its behalf or in connection with it illegal does nobody any good. For these reasons, very briefly, I have pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Sandton.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point has made an interesting contribution which merits a considered reply. I shall probably react to it after supper.

I think that all the hon. members will agree that this debate has been conducted in a fairly calm and highly responsible atmosphere. In this respect the speculations in certain newspaper were wide of the mark. I have in my hand, for example, a newspaper cutting under the heading: “Nats face fierce opposition in secret information debate”. I would say that the hon. members of the Opposition were anything but fierce. This applies in particular to those hon. members who do not support the Bill. Then I have another newspaper cutting under the heading “The shutters will be nailed firmly in place”. With this report there appears a picture of the hon. member for Pinetown, who has been so silent today.

“Pitman vir die Witman”!

Throughout the Second Reading debate, there has been no suggestion whatsoever of an absolute ban on information or of a situation where we on this side of the House have darkened our house by closing the shutters so that fresh information cannot flow in.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended, I was indicating that this debate had been conducted in a very peaceful atmosphere, in spite of predictions that the official Opposition would launch a fierce attack on this Bill. This really showed us, of course, that hon. members of the official Opposition had seen the light. Therefore we shall be able to deal with this matter in a much calmer atmosphere in future.

Unfortunately, the hon. member for Sandton is not in the House at the moment. However, I believe that he will probably be present during the Committee Stage. Then we may be able to resolve some of the aspects which he mentioned. The hon. member spoke about the very vague and wide definition of certain aspects of the Bill. I should just like to dwell for a moment on one of the matters which he raised, namely the interests of the State which are at issue here, and which according to the hon. member have been too widely defined. The Chandler case has been referred to by the hon. member Mr. Schutte, inter alia. He also gave a very good analysis of that case, as well as of all the arguments contained in it. One of the matters discussed in that case was the scope of the concept of “the interests of the State”. For the sake of the record, I shall just quote briefly from the submission of Lord Pearce. We find it on page 160 of the report on the case concerned, as follows—

Of course, this supports the approach of hon. members on this side of the House, the official approach that has been followed over the years up to the present day, as well as the approach of the NRP and of the CP, i.e. that we should judge the interests of the State, not as we would like them to be, but as they are at the moment, and as they have been laid down by the policy-makers concerned. I quote further—

Then the question arises, of course, whether we are really concerned only with the security interests of the State. Why, then, are we defining it more widely? I have already quoted what the intention was in the ruling in the Chandler case. However, I also want to refer to a very interesting quote from a textbook on the activities of the KGB, in which the following targets, among others, are identified for the purposes of the KGB’s infiltration and espionage processes. The targets in America, according to this textbook, are—

Now it is important to note which other targets are set as far as the interests of the State are concerned—

unions, youth organizations, journalistic organizations …

These are all target groups for the purposes of infiltration and espionage. I therefore suggest that when we are talking about what the interests of the State are, they are extremely wide.

Furthermore, I want to refer to a book called Administrative Secrecy in Developed Countries by Rowat. On page 191 of that work, the author refers, with regard to the situation in Britain, to a finding by a committee of jurists. In it, the following is said, among other things—

This has a bearing on clauses 2 and 3, but it could also have a bearing on clause 4, because all three clauses concern the interests of the State. I read further—

All this is very wide.

Our own authority in this connection is of course the Potgieter Report, which pointed out to us in the early ‘seventies that there could of course be a threat to the State in various spheres. In paragraph 127 of its report, those spheres are specified. I want to leave it at that.

The hon. member for Sandton objected that the penalties were too severe. In this connection I want to point out that clauses 2 and 3 contain the same penalties. The explanation is very simple. We must remember that under certain circumstances, acts such as those referred to in clause 2 could constitute high treason. The penalty for high treason could be death. Apart from this, sabotage can also be punished in terms of clause 2, and the penalty for sabotage laid down by the Internal Security is 20 years’ imprisonment. Therefore we cannot accept the standpoint that there should be different penalties in this connection. The penalty must be the same.

This brings me to the hon. member for Mossel Bay, who made a very constructive contribution. I want to say at once that in his analysis, the hon. member pointed out to us, among other things, that we could rest assured that the new dispensation was not very different from the old, except on a few points. Therefore the argument of the hon. members that because they did not subscribe to it in the past, they cannot subscribe to it now either, is not a valid one.

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen made a very important contribution. He pointed out, among other things, that in the final analysis, the courts based their ruling on the purpose, the prejudice and so forth. I should like to refer the hon. member to the State vs. Marais. If the hon. member wants to convey a message to Mr. Marais of the HNP, he should listen to this. In the State vs. Marais, Mr. Justice Wessels, Judge of Appeal, said—

The hon. member raised a very important point in this connection. Also from the Chandler Case, we have the following very important quotation—

Therefore the State must discharge its onus every time. I think the merit of the hon. member’s contribution lies in the fact that he called the official Opposition to order. Since they are always trying to involve the courts in matters relating to security, this is their opportunity to give their strong support to the courts.

†The hon. member for King William’s Town asked me about the application of clause 4. I think it is important that one should distinguish between the suppression or withholding of information in regard to detainees on the one hand and the non-pub-location of information which is known on the other hand. The question of whether a man can disappear has been satisfactorily answered. The hon. the Minister of Law and Order has proved adequately that it is impossible and that it has never happened. Therefore I can state now that if the police ask the Press not to divulge any information known to them, or when the Press through some source or other comes to know of such a detention, which is not generally known, then surely the Press should consult with the police before publication because such publication may hamper the police in the course of their investigations. For instance, a little while ago a newspaper published information about an arrest. The rest of the terrorist gang were not alerted only because they had been cornered somewhere in South Africa. It was only because of this fact that the publication of the information did not alert them. However, it goes to show that this is a possibility and therefore I think one may conclude that arrest is not a subject of total secrecy unless the police so decide. The initiative should be left to the police to decide when to divulge information and when not. Sooner or later information will become known. However, again I must emphasize that information which is generally known and is disclosed by the Press cannot lead to prosecutions. This has been adequately argued in the Rabie report. If the hon. member will refer to the case of the State vs. Marais he will find that information that is well known cannot lead to prosecution. That is the general principle in this regard.

I should like furthermore to refer the hon. member to the case of the State vs. Du Plessis as far as clause 4(2) is concerned. The hon. member will recall that in that particular case the accused was placed in possession of certain documents and that only after a while did he realize how sensitive the documents were. I want to quote what was said in this case—

And now the crucial part—

In other words, clause 4(2) aims at enforcing co-operation if by chance a person comes into possession of sensitive information. Again, if such information is handed to him and he disseminates it, naturally clause 4(2) will also apply.

*Mr. Speaker, I believe I have replied quite fully to the hon. member for King William’s Town. I have also referred to the contribution of the hon. nominated member Mr. Schutte. I just want to add that if one read his Hansard, one would find that the Chandler ruling was an absolutely decisive ruling, especially with regard to clause 2 of the Bill.

This brings me to the hon. member for Green Point. This hon. member succeeded in saying a lot of poisonous things in a calm way. I think the two of us should have a talk about this. The hon. member suggested that it was possible under the existing Act and would be possible under this Bill to control the free flow of information in such a way that the Government could cover things up. That was the effect of what he said. The fact is that there was a commission and that its reports were published. They hurt, but it was done in spite of that. If the hon. member argues that it was possible under the existing Act to suppress information, I just want to point out to him that the Attorney-General had the power even under that Act to prosecute or not to prosecute, a power which he exercised in the national interest. He has the same power in terms of the new Bill. The same applies in England. There the Frank Committee investigated this matter and found that it was in the best interest of the national situation that the position should remain as it was. But let us leave it at that. The fact is, however, that even if it had been possible in terms of the existing provision, by not applying or enforcing it, I want to look the hon. member in the eye and ask him: Please have the courage to admit that you were wrong to suggest that information was suppressed in terms of the existing Act. Was there a prosecution?

No.

No, there was not. Why is the hon. member talking nonsense, then? Let us now examine the new Bill. If the hon. member has read chapter 12 of the Rabie report, he will remember that it is concerned, among other things—it is in this connection that the Steyn report is quoted— with drawing a distinction between information which merits protection, i.e. information which could be important to the State for security or other reasons, and information which does not merit protection. The Rabie Commission concedes in its report that the umbrella is too wide, that the catch-all effect, to use a term which has been used in a few rulings and also by the Steyn Committee, is too wide. Accordingly, the Rabie report suggests a change in this connection. I really do not want to read the whole of the Rabie report to the hon. member, but the hon. member should have the courage to rise and say that he has made a mistake. In paragraph 12.10.3 of the Rabie report it says—

“en ten opsigte van welke skets, ens. die betrokke persoon weet of redeliker-wys behoort te weet dat die veiligheid of ander belange van die Republiek die geheimhouding daarvan vereis”.

The hon. member is implying a number of things. One of them is that we are misleading this House by saying that we have accepted the Rabie report, but producing a Bill which is different from what the Rabie report recommends.

No, I did not say that.

If that is not the case, then the hon. member has not read the Bill, because the following qualification is added at the end of clause 4(l)(b)(iv), i.e. “and the secrecy of which document, model, article or information he knows or reasonably should know to be required by the security or the other interests of the Republic”. In other words, information, an article, a model or a document which does not effect the security or other interests of the Republic, and in respect of which secrecy is not required, therefore, is not relevant here. The intention is precisely to make it possible for the Press, for researchers and for all interested parties to know what may be published and what has to be protected. This is dealt with in clause 4, after all. What other clause does the hon. member have in mind? Clause 2 is about sabotage and espionage and clause 3 is about espionage. Clause 4 is about the obtaining of the code, password, document, model, etc. and about the way it is disposed of. That is all it is about. If the hon. member had been Prof. Mathews, and if he had listened to the hon. member for Sandton, he would have known that the hon. member for Sandton felt that clause 4 was too wide. Therefore I am replying to him at the same time. The qualification has been built into clause 4. Therefore I must honestly insist that the hon. member withdraw what he said. However, that was not the only mistake he made. He also said that this clause could now be used to cover up the political sins of the Government and to enable the Government to avoid embarrassment. I want to state categorically that there was a court ruling which clearly indicated that such a thing was not possible. That ruling was in the case of the State vs. Niesmann, 1973.3, on page 588 to 589. In the case of Du Plessis, Mr. Justice Corbett referred to this case approvingly. In his summary of the relevant principles, he quoted this case approvingly. What was the ruling in that case? I quote—

its political relations with States which are not enemies within the meaning of the Act, does not assist the prosecution …

And this is important—

That is the corresponding section. I hope the hon. member’s remarks are not publicized.

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

No, let me finish. The hon. member can ask his question later. The hon. member owes it to this House, and I am not going to reply to his question before he tells us here this afternoon that he was wrong in his interpretation of the previous information situation and of this clause. We cannot allow such blatant propaganda.

Many questions have been asked by various parties about this matter and interested parties have corresponded with us and made submissions. The hon. member could also have had the benefit of information. It was available to him. I am not aware of any request by the hon. member for clarification.

Before I leave the subject, however, I just want to say that it has been possible to have a very sensitive matter dealt with in a responsible manner, generally speaking, with the co-operation of many authoritative bodies in South Africa. There were professional groups and other groups which negotiated with us, which asked for information, but which also gave us the benefit of their views, which we actually utilized.

Furthermore, I want to take this opportunity of conveying my sincere thanks to the person who was principally responsible for the Bill, Mr. Japie de Bruyn, for excellent preparation and staff work in this connection. I also thank all those who assisted him. It was a difficult Bill to draft.

Finally, I want to refer to the hon. member for King William’s Town. He criticized clause 14, and I listened to his arguments. In the light of his arguments, I may consider an amendment, because he made out a very good case beforehand, and he has done so again in the debate today.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Mnr. Speaker, it was a month or two ago, in point of fact on 29 April, that this piece of legislation was last discussed. It was the first in a series of Bills which we have since been dealing with, legislation which is aimed, on the one hand, at withholding information in regard to the actions of the Government from the public, and on the other of restricting public opposition to the Government. One need only listen to the titles of the pieces of legislation to realize this. For example there was the Demonstrations in or near Court Buildings Prohibition Bill, the Intimidation Bill, the Internal Security Bill and the Protection of Information Bill. Even the Post Office Amendment Bill was concerned with information. These are all pieces of legislation which are aimed, on the one hand, at withholding information from the public and, on the other at obtaining information from individuals in one way or another. Furthermore they are aimed at curbing opposition on the part of the public—i.e. individuals—and the Press. The refrain we heard over and over again from Government speakers was that the security of the State was involved and that everything was justified because of the total onslaught. After a marathon debate on all these pieces of legislation we are still not convinced that the primary consideration is the continued preservation of peace in South Africa. We are far more inclined to view all the legislation as a desperate attempt to ensure the continued existence of the NP. Possibly the preservation of secrecy is there in order to conceal the blunders of this Government.

To return to this Bill, with the misleading title of the co-operation and development Bill, and to refresh the memory of the House, I can say that it consists of four clauses, the last two of which do in fact deal with co-operation and development. For example it makes certain financial aspects easier, it grants Community Boards certain borrowing powers, as well as the power to invest funds which cannot immediately be used. Naturally we agree with these two clauses because they certainly facilitate the financial administration of the department. However, one sees in the long title already that the first two clauses deal with—

It is because of these two clauses, which in our opinion have nothing to do with co-operation or development, and which will do nothing to promote these two activities either, that we shall not support this legislation.

If we examine the reasons advanced by hon. members on the Government side for this preservation of secrecy—we must bear in mind that we are referring here to a commission which has been doing its work for 60 years now without this secrecy clause—then we see that a number of very strange reasons have been advanced, none of which we can accept as being good enough. The hon. member for Pretoria West, for example, said that certain submissions have to be made in secret because that will give the people the confidence to come forward and testify before the commission. In Hansard, column 5626, he said—

How ridiculous that sounds! Open discussion in secret! He then went on to say—

We do not accept this argument at all. Surely a Black leader or, for that matter, any person who has to testify before that commission or participate in the discussions, represents an interest group. Surely the commission is not a body to which people go as individuals to negotiate or barter in person with the Government on certain matters. They will be representing certain groups, and for that reason they must report back. Perhaps they have to canvass opinions in public on what they are going to say before the commission. They must be able to promote their case in public debate, for example on the basis of the conviction of their followers, and after the commission has reported they must also be able to test the outcome against their own submissions. With a penalty clause of R1 000 or imprisonment for a year, I really do not believe that this will be conducive to candidness. Consequently we reject that argument in its entirety.

The hon. member for Pretoria West went on to state that certain experts were sometimes required to furnish the commission with advice. He said that the commission was of course not omniscient and that it had to obtain advice from experts. He also said that experts were given assignments which they had to carry out scientifically, and he added—

Once again this is indicative of an erroneous argument because the “scientific method” of investigation is in fact based on its being tested by other experts, on this being done in public and on the results being subject to debate. In fact, I believe that every organization with which experts of this kind are associated insists on open-heartedness if it is worth its salt, except of course if the hon. member is referring to academics who would prefer, as in the old days, to dress up the skeleton of apartheid in academic robes.

Nic Olivier!

There are academics who try to do this, in order, in a certain way, to present apartheid as acceptable. Fortunately such academics are becoming very rare these days. [Interjections.]

Order!

In addition I am also certain that they may want to remain anonymous, particularly if they do not, as some of the others do, enjoy the protection of the President’s Council.

The hon. member for Klip River alleged that a further reason as to why secrecy had to be preserved …

Why do you not make your own speech?

Mr. Speaker, I am still coming to the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. He must simply remain seated and remain calm and listen for a while. I shall get round to him before long.

I have not even made a speech in this debate Yet! What do you have on which you can try to reply to me? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, for almost a month now we have been sitting here in this House, listening to reasons as to why we should have legislation in terms of which certain things have to be kept secret. Now I should just like to refer for a while to the arguments which hon. members on the Government side advanced to justify this. That is precisely what I am dealing with now. [Interjections.]

If only you would make your own speech!

Well, if only the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt would give me a chance, I would be able to proceed with my own speech.

It is not necessary to stand there and preach to us. We are not children. [Interjections.]

Order!

The secret documents of the hon. member for Klip River have to be protected, for example the documents from the State Security Council. The hon. member alleged that the Opposition had no concept of this, and could not understand it either, because the Opposition had been just that, an opposition, for at least 34 years. Yet I find it strange that the hon. member for Klip River has had to make do with the same legislation for the past 34 years, but without the secrecy clauses. It seems to me it took 34 years before he realized what it was all about. It is indeed ridiculous. Does the hon. member for Klip River now wish to suggest that if one wants to discover State secrets, all one need do is summon a person to testify before the commission, to have those secrets disclosed? If what we are concerned with here is really State security, other existing legislation is already sufficient for the purpose. Consequently we certainly do not accept that argument either.

Additional reasons advanced by hon. members on the Government side were, inter alia, that people could enrich themselves. The hon. member for King William’s Town has already replied in part to this argument. However, I just wish to add that if the proceedings were to be open, everyone would have an equally good chance of enriching themselves or burning their fingers, while the preservation of secrecy would merely aggravate gossip campaigns if, for example, a former Minister or a person acquainted with the workings of the Government, happened to purchase a farm in such a consolidated area. [Interjections.]

The final reason advanced was that so-called “delicate matters” were being dealt with. The hon. member for Pretoria West referred to these as “delicate matters”. The hon. member for Klip River, on the other hand, called them “sensitive matters”. Consequently it now sounds as though everything is delicate or sensitive when it comes to national security. But the hon. member for Ventersdorp did not act all that delicately when he furnished his reasons for the need for secrecy to be preserved. What did the hon. member for Ventersdorp say? He said (col. 5638-9) that such information could fall into the hands of people who might use it in a thoughtless or irresponsible way. As an example of such people he referred to the official Opposition or certain Press groups which did not agree with the implementation of this policy of the Government, people who might try to use this to promote their political aims and to embarrass the Government. It is a tendency on the part of the Government to conduct more and more of its affairs in secret, something which we are strenuously opposed to, as indeed we are opposed to the Bill under discussion. The Government therefore maintains that it may pursue its own political designs, but the information required by the public to be able to put the Government’s political designs and its policy to the test in good time is being withheld from the public.

To say that consolidation is delicate is of course true, but to say that it should for that reason be kept secret, precisely because others do not adopt the same attitude towards consolidation are able to criticize it, is nothing but disgraceful. In addition it is contrary to people’s democratic right to know. The information required by the public to make a choice between political parties or policies, for example, dare not be withheld from the public.

The Steyn Commission found that South Africa was a developing democracy, but I wonder what that commission would say if it had been able to be present here in this House during the past month.

The Government is now admitting that consolidation is such a hot potato that it may be used against it politically. However, consolidation is the basis of the Government’s policy for the Black people as far as the future is concerned. In the President Council’s report it is stated—

The report goes on to state—

Order! The hon. member should consider returning to the Bill.

Sir, what we are dealing with here is consolidation and it is very important that we should in fact see what consolidation …

Order! The hon. member must obey the rulings of the Chair.

Partition has therefore been accepted as a solution, but then consolidation—the legislation now before this House in fact deals with consolidation— must be “fair”. That is what we now hear from the President’s Council. In addition consolidation must be based on negotiation and on co-operation as well as on “proper” consolidation. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt has already stated that geographic consolidation is impossible. What, then, is “proper” consolidation? How can one now remove what is the basic premise from the political debate by doing it in secret?

At first the Government got away with the kind of bad news that apartheid was no longer working. We saw how work reservation was abolished and how sport was thrown open, and so on. This was followed by the additional bad news that what had to happen next was the surrender of land.

What clause in the Bill are you discussing now? [Interjections.]

When it comes to the sacrifice and we have to give up land, the Government now says that we should cover up. The public should be kept in the dark over a matter which is fundamental to the acceptance of the solution as proposed by the President’s Council for example. Now we can suddenly wake up one morning …

Order! I request hon. members to converse a little more quietly. The hon. member for Grey-town may proceed.

In this way we shall perhaps wake up one day and perhaps find that Waterberg is suddenly part of Bophu-thatswana, that Barberton is first to be given to Kangwane and that Kangwane will then be given to Swaziland, that Kuruman is to be given to Botswana and that Pietersburg is to be given to Lebowa. This is the kind of thing which the public should be kept informed of. If the Whites have to make sacrifices in order to be rid of the Blacks for all time by drawing them back into a homeland which stretches from Mossel Bay to Cape Point, I am certain that not even the hon. member for George will be certain of his constituency any more. Knowledge of consolidation is of cardinal importance in the political choice which is now facing the people of South Africa. It is not the security of the State which is at stake, and even less the continued existence of South Africa. This preservation of secrecy merely serves the purpose of keeping the public in the dark. It serves no other purpose whatsoever than that of giving the Government a bit of a breathing space, and consequently we shall oppose this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorely tempted to cross swords with that hon. member. The hon. member reminds me of the joke I heard as a young boy. I do not wish to comment any further on the speech of the hon. member, except to tell this joke. A man was overheard praying at a prayer meeting for the reunion of our little nation. His prayer was: “Here, plaas tog verstand in die koppe van-die Sappe dat hulle na ons toe kom, want wij naar hulle, never, never, never”. [In-terjections.] I shall leave it to the hon. member Prof. Olivier to reply to the speech of the hon. member, because I saw how embarrassed he was by that ignorant hon. member’s remarks with regard to this matter. I promised the Whips that my reply would be very brief.

Hear, hear!

I should like to tell the official Opposition that if they have not been able thus far to find fault with the way in which the commission is handling these matters, they have no reason to expect that it will be different in future. What we are asking here, is very simple. The provision being amended here, empowers the State President to make regulations. The State President may make almost any regulation. There are approximately 18 subjects on which the State President may make regulations. However, there is one matter we found to be a problem, and that was that in contrast to matters dealt with in terms of the Official Secrets Act, or whatever the case may be, we could be placed in the position that a report of the commission to the Cabinet cannot be treated as a confidential document. It is as simple as that. The sessions of the commission where evidence is submitted take place in public. The Select Committee meets in the Committee Rooms of Parliament. In addition, no other work of the commission is secret. Does the hon. member wish to tell me that the minutes of a meeting of the commission are not a confidential documents until such time as they are approved at the following meeting?

[Inaudible.]

That is precisely the point. The member is now shaking his head. It just goes to show how ignorant he is. I do not care two hoots what argument was used by whom, but the hon. member ought to know better. If he does not know better, the hon. member Prof. Olivier ought to, and with his knowledge he could have assisted the hon. member. All we are asking is simply that as long as a report which has been submitted to the Cabinet has not yet been considered by the Cabinet, it should be regarded as confidential. This is how simple it is.

Why do you not put it in the Act?

Good gracious, let me just tell that hon. member something and then we could perhaps omit the entire Committee Stage. If those hon. members agree with me, they have a moral obligation to agree if the hon. the Minister requests that we deal with the Committee Stage as well this evening, since then we shall not need to debate the Committee Stage at all. The present provision states that the State President may make regulations “prescribing the procedure at meetings of the commission and the conduct of its business”. This is how it reads at present and we are asking for an alteration which will read as follows, that the State President may make regulations “providing for the procedure to be followed at meetings of the commission and in the conduct of its business and for the preservation of secrecy in connection with matters dealt with by the commission”. That is all. We are not asking for anything more than that.

It is not only the minutes.

But I am reading to the hon. member what appears in the proposed clause.

That is not what you said either.

Good gracious, then I do not know whether the hon. member wants to understand. I quoted what the hon. the Minister had said, since I was not here at that particular stage. I know what we based these matters on when we prepared the Bill, and we know what the problem is that we wish to deal with. We still deal with the proceedings in such a way that the general public has the greatest degree of access. In fact, we have instructions from the hon. the Prime Minister as far as consolidation in particular is concerned. Go and read the statement issued by the hon. the Prime Minister in February 1979. I think the hon. members are crossing their bridges before they come to them. I am not perturbed. As far as I am concerned, any of those hon. members may attend a meeting of the commission. I have no objections. However, the point is that we cannot allow certain matters on which the Cabinet has only adopted a broad standpoint simply to be blazoned abroad as if they were facts, and to permit this incorrect information to bedevil relations in South Africa. We cannot do this. The Cabinet may reject any recommendation of the commission at any stage. Surely this is general knowledge. What we want protected are the facts, so that we do not create the wrong impression by publicizing incorrect information. I really do not think hon. members should see anything sinister in this matter. The hon. member commenced by referring to a whole series of Acts which have to do with secrecy. I must say I have never seen such a group of such inquisitive old women as those hon. members of the PFP. They always want to know what we are doing. It reminds me of the old professor who went around his house shouting, “wha, wha” just to bluff other people. This is how those hon. members want to behave. They want us to go around shouting “wha, wha” at every turn.

I should like to tell the hon. members of the Opposition that we should not waste time on a matter which is really not worth wasting time on. We are asking for something simple. It appears in the Bill. The hon. member Prof. Olivier raised the matter and that hon. member has come along and yapped about this matter this evening. If I had the time, I could really have tackled that hon. member, but we shall leave that for a later stage. All I want to say, is that we do not want incorrect information to be publicized as the truth, nor do we want relations between White and White and White and non-White in South Africa to be bedevilled as a result.

Mr. Speaker, allow me, with further reference to what the hon. member Mr.Van der Walt, the chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, has just said, to say that I am in full agreement with what he said. On this occasion I also wish to stress several comments on this Bill. The Bill was occasioned by leaks to the Press of secret reports on consolidation of the commission to the Cabinet, as well as certain proposals that had been made in the past. This is something which is being regarded in an extremely serious light.

As has already been indicated here, a moment ago by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt as well, this Bill is not in any way an attempt to gag the Press as far as general reporting on the commission, its assignments and its activities are concerned. Nor does it in any way restrict the Press from reporting on unclassified reports or reports released by the commission. What this measure is concerned with is solely to prevent the contents of reports of the commission which have been classified as confidential, which deal with sensitive matters and are the privileged property of the State, from being dealt with in an irresponsible way or reproduced in some form or another in the Press, thus creating unnecessary uncertainty and even false expectations among the public as though that were the final standpoint of the Government, while the Government, the Cabinet, has in no way yet reached a final decision on the issue. It must be realized that the Commission for Co-operation and Development is a permanent Government institution which furnished the Government with advice on a continuous basis, and that such advice does not necessarily result in reports which, in contrast with an ordinary commission of inquiry appointed for a specific purpose, will in due course be tabled in the House of Assembly. In fact it is quite ironic that ordinary commissions of inquiry enjoy statutory protection in respect of the preservation of secrecy of certain documents and of even their proceedings, while this is not the case in respect of the Commission for Co-operation and Development. Consequently the intention here is to place the Commission for Cooperation and development in a position which is at least comparable with that of ordinary commissions of inquiry so as to enable the commission to carry on with its activities in an efficient and impartial way, and to ensure the privacy of its domestic activities in respect of only those matters which are of such a sensitive nature that it is essential and in the interests of all the people of the country that they be dealt with in this way. This does not apply in respect of any other matter.

Let us examine a few of the functions of the commission. The commission, for example, undertakes investigations into and makes recommendations on the consolidation of the national States. Several hon. members have argued here that since the commission has existed for so many years— some hon. members were incorrect while others were closer to the correct number of years; the fact of the matter is, however, that the commission has existed for a considerable number of years—what earthly reason do we have for coming forward with this legislation now? But in the meantime a very striking difference has developed. The Government has adopted a specific resolution that consolidation is to be finalized. This was not the case in the past. That is why a problem has cropped up in respect of certain matters, not all matters, only certain matters, because there has been a change here in respect of the finalization of consolidation, something which, by virtue of the fact that a person is working with land, is an extremely emotional matter. Our experience has been that the position was being grossly abused by certain parties and that expectations were being created that could in no way be fulfilled. Those expectations were then exploited in a base manner and to such an extent that considerable amounts of money were lost in the process. Because this kind of unfair practice was occurring, the State looked into this matter very carefully, not with the purpose of coming forward with this matter of the preservation of a secrecy in order to conjure up new fears, but to regulate this matter and only in respect of those few aspects which could be exploited and which had in fact been exploited—by way of regulation within a fair and reasonable framework. In the long run it means that land will be bought out, and if information in this regard is not kept secret, improper speculation in connection with that land may take place. I say that we have had bitter experience of this in recent times.

Furthermore, the commission has a say in the Department of Co-operation and Development and more specifically in the budget of the South African Development Trust, and the formulation of that budget. Consequently the enlarged commission now has a far more comprehensive task as far as budgetary matters are concerned, in which the Black people outside the national States are also involved now. The leaking of information in this connection prior to the approval of the budget will be extremely undesirable for the Government, which should be able to do its financial planning in an impartial way, as hon. members opposite will after all be able to understand. Surely this is a new situation which has arisen, and consequently hon. members must in all fairness not keep on asking why, if this system has been good enough all these years, it is no longer good enough now. The circumstances have changed, and I have just furnished two examples to substantiate my statement beyond any doubt.

From time to time the commission is also involved in investigations into and the formulation of legislation long before it is even considered by the Cabinet in principle, and the leaking of information in this connection is highly undesirable, at a stage when the Government has not in any way committed itself to such legislation yet. Hon. members have argued that if such a leak should take place, it must have been from the commission. However, that is not the case, for at least 44 copies of each report are made available to a variety of persons and bodies who are involved in these matters. Hon. members are now suggesting that any leak could only occur from the commission, but that is not correct at all. Copies of reports, as I have said, are made available to at least 44 people, and in the process there are other bodies involved as well.

Forty-four people cannot keep a report secret. [Interjections.]

That hon. member must not try to be funny now. The fact of the matter is that leaks occurred, and all hon. members in this House know that that was the case. These leaks caused major problems. That is a fact. [Interjections.] The hon. member must not argue here that 44 people cannot keep a report secret. These are the facts of the situation. [Interjections.]

I should like to furnish a reply to the question put by the hon. member and I wish to place it categorically on record here that his interpretation of clause 1 is not correct. The preservation of secrecy which is desired relates only to the matters and I emphasize “the matters”—dealt with by the commission, and to nothing else. The relevant part of the present section 15 of the Black Affairs Act, 1959, reads as follows—

The amended wording reads as follows—

That is one aspect. But then we come to an entirely different aspect, namely “and for the preservation of secrecy in connection with matters dealt with by the commission”.

Surely it is not fair to keep on arguing that these two things should be lumped together, because it is not stated like that in the legislation. We called in the law advisers on this matter and held repeated discussions with them, but they say that no other interpretation can be attached to this if it is viewed in conjuction with the rest of section 15 of this Act.

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. the Minister please indicate how the matters which are being discussed by the commission can be kept secret if the proceedings themselves are not kept secret?

The hon. the chairman of the commission has already replied adequately to that question, and I fully endorse his reply. In reality I am simply associating myself…

That is not what is stated here.

I shall quote it again. The amended provision of this specific Act reads as follows—

That is one aspect.

There is no comma.

Well, if that hon. member wishes to insert a comma there, he will simply have to do so, because that is one aspect. [Interjections.] Then follows the second aspect—

The hon. chairman of the commission has already stated that a regulation has to be made …

I do not believe him. I believe what is written here.

But I am in fact dealing with what is written there now. This is the amended wording. We are concerned here with two different matters for which the regulations have to make provision and which must not be confused, namely the regulations prescribing the procedure at meetings of the commission and the conduct of its prisoners, and that is the one matter—I am saying this for the record—and the preservation of secrecy in connection with matters dealt with by the commission. The English wording is identical, and according to the law advisers there is no difference which could give rise to a conflicting interpretation. I shall quote the English text of section 15 again—

And then—

In the English text as well, two different aspects are clearly mentioned, viz. “the procedure at meetings of the commission and the conduct of its business” and, as a separate matter, the “secrecy in connection with matters dealt with by the commission.” Consequently it cannot in any way be said that the wording is too vague, particularly not after I have now spelt it out very clearly for the sake of the record. It must therefore at least be clear to all what the intention of the legislation in this connection is. The law advisers themselves state that it is worded in such a way that it is regarded as two matters. If one reads the legislation in its full context, what I have just said here—the law advisers also say so—is correct.

In addition, hon. members must bear in mind that the provision is merely an enabling provision. In any case, the regulations pertaining to the preservation of secrecy in connection with the matters dealt with by the commission still have to be drawn up, and in terms of section 17 of the Interpretation Act, Act No. 33 of 1957, the regulations will be tabled in Parliament. The Commissions Act, Act No. 8 of 1947, also confers a similar power on the State President, viz. to make regulations “which make provision for the preservation of secrecy”. The envisaged regulations will quite probably be similar to those made in terms of the Commissions Act pertaining to the preservation of secrecy. The fact that the Commissions Act confers such powers, and that such regulations are made in terms of that Act, also refutes the allegation that the persons who have to furnish the commission with information, will be prevented from doing so for fear that they may contravene the Act. Commissions appointed in terms of the Commissions Act of 1947 take evidence which enables them to report, but their documents and reports may and are, at least in respect of the preservation of secrecy, protected in so far as that is necessary. I hope I have, for the purposes of the record—with further reference to what the chairman said—replied adequately to this matter. For the rest, hon. members can find out for themselves from the law advisers whether or not the interpretation is correct.

Then I wish to reply to the hon. member for Rissik, who asked that the assurance be given that activities and reports would be made available to the Opposition parties. I can give him and hon. members of the other Opposition parties the categorical assurance that activities and reports of the commission will of course be placed at the disposal of the Opposition parties. However, when a report is classified as a secret report, it will be made available to the Opposition parties in the manner in which this is normally done, viz. by means of the leaders, who must at that stage of course also bind themselves to preserving secrecy. Then, at a later stage, the information, as well as classified information, will be made freely available to the Opposition parties. I hope I have given the hon. member an adequate reply in this connection.

The argument of the hon. member for King William’s Town in fact confirmed the need for the preservation of secrecy. He referred to the events in regard to consolidation in the King William’s Town area, and to the half-truths and untruths which sowed confusion among the public. If the Commission for Co-operation and Development had at that time enjoyed the protection of the preservation of secrecy in regard to certain resolutions and documents, the hon. member would not have found it necessary to make these allegations in this House. The public would then have known that no credence could be attached to information which had not been officially published.

In this country it is the duty of the State, inter alia, to ensure that relations between Whites and Blacks are not bedevilled. As the responsible Minister I want to say that the potential for the bedevilling of relations, which arose as a result of the most despicable stories which were being circulated at the time, was just not true. If this protection is not afforded at some stage or another, this kind of thing is likely to cause an explosion between Whites and Blacks in this country.

I request the co-operation and understanding of the hon. members of that party and of all the Opposition parties in regard to this matter which we are trying to deal with as gently as possible. We do not wish to apply the secrecy provisions if we can in any way help it. As the hon. member, who is the chairman of the commission, put it so aptly, we are simply asking for protection in respect of a few delicate matters which, as experience has taught us during the past two years, create major problems for us. Consequently we shall deal with this matter with the utmost circumspection. There are certain matters which are extremely sensitive. For example, the commission sometimes has to make recommendations in regard to matters which were dealt with by the Cabinet. Cabinet resolutions are secret in accordance with a very long Parliamentary tradition, and it could create problems if the recommendations of the commission in respect of certain sensitive matters were not kept secret. It also happens that matters contained in a classified document, for example a Cabinet or State Security document, are referred to the commission for consideration of a certain aspect. Obviously such a document and matters in connection with such document must surely be treated as secret. Finally, the commission considers and makes recommendations in regard to draft legislation. In this connection principles could be raised—we have experienced this in practice on more than one occasion recently—which still have to be considered by the Cabinet and may perhaps in the end not even be accepted by the Cabinet. Consequently, if these documents fall into the hands of the Press and others at the wrong time, it creates enormous problems, not only for the State, but also for the people whose interests have to be served by the State.

There is one irresponsible statement which the hon. member for Greytown made which I cannot allow to go unanswered—there are other matters as well which I would have liked to have discussed with him, but which we shall simply have to do this on some other occasion. When consolidation is being discussed, a young member and a backbencher must, so help me, display sufficient sense—if he has no feeling for this matter— not to talk about large towns and cities in this responsible place as he did this evening as though they were simply being dished out, just like that, to Black people. I consider this to be extremely irresponsible. In any event, it is absolutely untrue, and I think it is “gemeen” (base) of the hon. member to arouse feelings in such a responsible place as this in the manner in which he did.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “gemeen”.

Sir, I withdraw it, but I think the hon. member understands what I meant.

No, the hon. the Minister must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally, Sir.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Order! The hon. the Minister of Defence has asked me for an opportunity to make a statement. I now afford him that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, in response to inquiries made by the hon. member for Durban Point as well as the hon. member for Sea Point concerning a report which appeared this afternoon in the newspapers of the Argus Group, I feel it incumbent on me to make a short statement in this House this evening.

It is generally known that it is the policy not to furnish any particulars concerning South Africa’s transactions in armaments, ammunition and other military matters. Tonight, however, in the light of this speculation, I want to depart from the policy for once, because we are now being involved in a conflict.

Contrary to reports, South Africa has not provided or sold any missiles or aircraft spare parts to Argentina in any way before or during the Falklands conflict.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I should like to comment briefly on the hon. the Minister’s statement. I want to say from these benches that we had very little warning that the hon. the Minister was going to make this statement. However, we do appreciate the fact that he has made a statement on a matter which would obviously have had very serious consequences for South Africa, a matter which, as reported in tonight’s newspaper, was very serious indeed and which certainly called for comment by the Government. The hon. the Minister has just made a statement in this regard and we will take time to consider that statement. [Interjections.] We believe that it was necessary for him to make the comment that he had made.

Mr. Speaker, arising out of the statement that has just been made by the hon. the Minister, may I ask him whether he can give an assurance that no such armaments have been supplied during the same period to any other South American country for possible diversion to Argentina … [Interjections.] … or to a South American country acting as an intermediary for Argentinia? I ask this question in view of the tremendous seriousness of this matter in respect of our international relationships.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to appeal to hon. members once again not to discuss these matters in this House. Since it is a serious matter, I wish to assure the hon. member for Durban Point, in reply to his question that this has not happened.

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

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister’s amendment is obviously an improvement which will go some way towards meeting some of the objections which have been voiced against this particular measure in that at least it will give some notice to employers of manpower of any increases in levies which might be effected. In that sense the amendment is an improvement. As far as this clause is concerned, we have voiced our objection to the fact that subsection (3)(b) deletes the provision which absolved domestic employers from paying levies in respect of their employees. We believe that is totally wrong. The previous legislation exempted employers from paying for their domestic servants and certain other people. We believe the deletion of that provision from the principal Act is a bad thing. We believe it imposes a burden upon the employers of domestic servants which is totally unreasonable and unnecessary. Therefore we are opposed to the clause.

We also believe that the whole question of allowing the Minister the total discretion of deciding what sort of levy should be paid is incorrect and one of my colleagues will move an appropriate amendment in that respect. I think our objection to this particular provision was well voiced during the Second Reading debate and therefore I do not want to pursue the matter further.

Mr. Chairman, as he rightly remarked, the hon. member for Berea discussed this matter at some length during the Second Reading debate. On that occasion he referred to problems which the Federated Chambers of Commerce supposedly foresaw, but then also conceded that the amendment of the hon. the Minister would accommodate the problems of that organization to a great extent and would probably eliminate them completely. I do not think we should overlook the fact that the Federated Chamber of Commerce—which actually stated a case here via the hon. member for Berea—is an organization which is geared to private initiative, and this being so, we must not rely too much on protection or subsidization. I think the hon. member will concede that point. We should rather let private initiative take its course. The hon. member for Berea saw fit to refer again to two aspects under clause 3, firstly, the possibility that the entrepreneurial spirit might be dampened, and, secondly, the fact that the original section 3(2) relating to domestic servants would no longer be applicable. I want to ask the hon. member for Berea whether he or one of his colleagues is prepared to say tonight in this House to (a) the pensioner in South Africa who also still pays tax, (b) the low-paid man with a family who pays tax and (c) the Brown man, the Asian and the Blacks who pay their 5% sales tax why R99 million has to be paid out of that tax this year to subsidize the Black employees of industrialists entrepreneurs and businessmen when they travel by bus? If the hon. member is prepared to do so, then I shall say he is consistent. Then the hon. member must go and tell the voters in Berea: I voted in favour of your paying tax so that Black people could be transported by bus for entrepreneurs with whom we have nothing to do. What is more, the hon. member must also be prepared to tell those voters, whether they be pensioners or entrepreneurs in Berea, why they have to pay for the luxury of the conveyance of those Black domestic servants. It is easy to echo the views of a group of people, a small component of the electorate. However, one must realize that Opposition members, too, have a certain responsibility. I think the hon. member realizes this.

The hon. member also realizes that in 1957, the ordinary taxpayers subsidized only 42% of the Black people in their use of bus transport, but the projection this year is 87%. 87% of the Black people who are going to be transported this year will be subsidized by the ordinary taxpayer who does not make use of the labour of these Black people. And then we have not yet put the hon. the Minister and the department in a position to establish a structure in terms of which a new system could develop. All we are asking is that we give the hon. the Minister the opportunity to establish a structure within which a new system may develop. In the Second Reading debate I put it to the hon. member that the first levy of 5 cents per, week per worker in 1952 was imposed in terms of other legislation. This went up to R1 per worker per month. The levy has only been revised three times in 30 years. Therefore we are now calling for a more workable formula, which will mean that the hon. the Minister, together with the National Transport Commission, will be able to decide when it is essential to adjust the levy, and how it is to be adjusted. The hon. member for Berea knows that he and his party are not being consistent when they oppose this proposal, because only the other day that same hon. member and his party voted with the Government for a similar amendment to be effected in another Act, viz. the old Industrial Conciliation Act, for reasons of efficiency. I think the hon. member was right to agree with us, and I do not think that he should now, in his party’s interest, go against this proposal that we should change the position so that the hon. the Minister, in co-operation with the National Transport Commission, can adjust this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to what the hon. member for Roodeplaat had to say. I must say that I agree with him that the ordinary taxpayer at the present time is carrying a rather heavy burden in subsidizing bus passengers. As the hon. member said, that subsidy represents something like R99 million. I go along with what the hon. member had to say in regard to the fact that possibly the taxpayer should be given a bit of a break and that perhaps those who are benefiting from using the buses should pay a greater proportion of the actual cost. However, we in these benches are opposing this particular clause for the reasons which I made very clear during the Second Reading debate. We do not believe that this House should give the hon. the Minister the power to determine willy-nilly the size of the levy which should be imposed on employers. We say this because we believe that any legislation passed by this House which extracts money from the employers of this country should come before this House for approval and that it should not be within the power of the hon. the Minister to determine the size or the amount of the levy. That is the main reason why we are opposing this clause.

We shall accept the hon. the Minister’s amendment because we believe that it improves the clause in that employers in the future will have at least 12 months’ notice of any increase in the levy. I must say that that amendment has been effected as a result of representations made to hon. members of this House by Assocom. I also recall that during the Second Reading debate hon. members on that side of the House actually criticized hon. members of the Opposition for raising this matter and asked whether they were the lackeys of Assocom or such organizations. The fact that the hon. the Minister has conceded this point is indicative of the fact that we are after all representatives of the people and we should at least listen to their objections.

Do you identify yourself now with the PFP?

I am not identifying myself with the PFP. What I am saying is that the hon. the Minister put this amendment on the Order Paper and therefore he is identifying himself with the objections lodged by Assocom. It has nothing to do with the PFP or the NRP. It is just common sense that in the interests of good business, good planning and good budgeting the Minister should not have the power to raise the levy willy-nilly because it would upset the budgeting of most big industrial concerns in this country. That is my answer to the hon. member for Roodeplaat. If there is one criticism that I do have of the hon. the Minister it is that he did not take these amendments to organized commerce and industry before bringing them to this House. Here is a case of his admitting the error of his ways and so having to move an amendment himself.

Having said that, we shall be opposing this clause on the basis that we do not believe that it is in the interests of South Africa or of good parliamentary democracy to give the hon. the Minister the power to increase levies as he sees fit. It should be the prerogative of Parliament and not of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, we are not opposed to this clause in principle. Nor are we opposed to the hon. the Minister obtaining the right to determine the scale of contributions from time to time. I think it is as well that the hon. the Minister has amended the clause to provide that there will now be a period of notice. However, there is one matter that is not very clear. The clause provides insufficient explanation as to which people are now going to pay. To have a domestic servant in Johannesburg and to make provision in terms of the Act, the building regulations etc. imposes a heavy burden on the employer. If one provides rooms for servants one will also have to provide transport for them as the clause reads at present, although one will not be using that transport. Therefore I think it should be more clearly stated. The proposed new subsection (1) reads—

In other words, not a person who necessarily makes use of bus transport. I think that this clause should perhaps be better phrased. I believe that the department does not intend taxing those who do not use that transport. We agree entirely that people who make use of the transport should pay for it. We also agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Minister that we cannot allow other people to pay for the transport of people employed by someone else, and we therefore ask that this be attended to.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Roodeplaat made some extraordinary comments. I do not think that he really knows how industry and commerce operate because he suggested that if in fact the levy is paid by the employers of the people who use these bus services then the taxpayer is not being charged with this particular amount of money. The reality of the situation is, however, that in the event of the industrialist having to pay that levy, he is simply going to add it to his costs and he is going to recover it from the public at large or from whoever buys the product that he manufactures. This levy therefore ultimately works right through the economy. It does not simply mean that the employers pay it and that that is the end of the story. This levy eventually forms part of the costs and so it works right through the economic system. If it is increased by an abnormal amount, it will cause a further increase in the inflation rate. I must add that, according to a news report this evening, the inflation rate in South Africa has now risen to a figure in excess of 16%. We believe that it is increases of this nature that are constantly being announced that add to the horrific inflation rate in South Africa which is basically far higher than that of the rest of the Western civilized world.

During the Second Reading debate on this Bill we took exception to this total power that is being given to the hon. the Minister in terms of clause 3. He can now set any figure that he sees fit after consultation with the commission. We on these benches and the NRP objected to this at the Second Reading. However, we feel that it is not sufficient simply to object to it. We believe that it is necessary to move an amendment to this clause in an effort to improve it and also to limit the power that the hon. the Minister has in terms of being able to increase the levy. As the Act reads at present, the hon. the Minister has the right to levy a charge of R1. He is given the power in terms of section 3 of the principal Act. I therefore move as an amendment—

I believe that it is only fair that the hon. the Minister should have the right to increase the levy because this figure of R1 was set some time ago. We do know, that inflation has taken its toll, and we feel that it is better to increase the amount in the Bill rather than to have a situation where the hon. the Minister can set any figure across the board. That is the first amendment that I wish to move to this particular clause and the reason for it is self-evident.

The second amendment that I wish to move is very similar in its wording to the amendment that the hon. the Minister has moved. We accept that his amendment is an improvement but at the same time we have a big problem in this regard. I do believe, that we did not canvass this during the Second Reading debate, and so I wish to do so now. I therefore now move as further amendment—

The effect of this amendment will be that industry and commerce—in fact, employers generally—will have to be given 12 months’ notice of even the first alteration the hon. the Minister wishes to make to these charges in terms of this amending Bill. The situation, is that we in these benches believe that this is one of the measures to be used in the decentralization or de-concentration situation as outlined in the Good Hope plan of the hon. the Prime Minister, and we think it is entirely possible that in certain metropolitan areas the hon. the Minister could drastically or dramatically increase the charge to employers. If this does, of course, occur those industries should, we believe, have the right to have 12 months’ notice of such an increase. Thereafter the increases would, I believe, perhaps be minimal, with adjustments being made because of inflation, etc. In this particular amendment Bill, however, we really have a basic change of principle involved, and it is fairly obvious that this is going to be used to create a situation in which metropolitan areas would be penalized, whilst the decentralized or de-concentrated areas do not have to pay anything.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. In his first amendment he wants to limit the hon. the Minister to a subsidy amount of not more than R2. However, I do not think that this is a realistic approach if the contribution of the private sector is taken into account—a matter to which the hon. member for Roodeplaat referred. If consideration is given to the percentage reduction in that contribution, that is not a realistic figure. Therefore, to seek to limit the hon. the Minister to a maximum amount of R2 would not be fair.

In the second place, he also wants to make the first tariff increase subject to a period of notice of 12 months before it comes into operation. It was very clearly explained in the Second Reading debate—indeed, it was stressed—that a problem has already arisen in connection with this service and that a subsidy of R99 million has to be paid. Accordingly I do not think we should delay this matter any further. I therefore trust that the hon. the Minister will not accept the relevant amendment.

However, I want to go further and say that the hon. official Opposition does not adopt a consistent approach. It has repeatedly been confirmed in this House that they seek to make themselves out to be the champions of the people of color. In this measure a subsidy or increased contribution is required from the employer so that he can contribute towards a realistic bus transport tariff for people of color. Now, however, the hon. official Opposition are the champions of the employers. [Interjections.] It is the small group of people on the Rand with heaps of money that they are now trying to protect. [Interjections.] Now they want to come along with the story that it is a coincidence that they stated the case of Assocom here. I have nothing whatsoever against Assocom, but the fact remains that in this instance they are stating the case of the employer here. Nor do I have anything against the employer, but all the Bill asks is that there should be a contribution on the part of the employer, in all fairness, to get his worker to his place of employment. The worker must be conveyed, and the employer must make a contribution.

The hon. member for Langlaagte discussed domestic servants. I think that one of the other hon. members also referred to this. The Minister can consider matters on merit. If he finds that in a certain instance the employer of a domestic servant does provide accommodation and that the servant in fact hardly uses the bus service, then he may make such a concession. This matter was discussed at great length during the Second Reading debate, and the various standpoints on the matter were argued in depth. I think it has been proved convincingly by speakers on this side of the House that this legislation is essential; that it is in the interests of employees that make use of bus services, but that it is also in the interests of the employers, because these tariffs mean that employees will be more contented. In some cases these people have to travel long distances, and it is essential that the tariffs they pay for the bus services are reasonable. Accordingly I have no doubt whatsoever that the clause as it stands is essential and that the employers must also make a reasonable contribution towards these services.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for Berea for not repeating what he said in the Second reading debate. The problem the Opposition has, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has said, is that power is given willy-nilly to the Minister to decide. That is the only problem they have. They did not complain when the Minister of Finance took powers upon himself to alter the general sales tax without coming to Parliament. That was okay. He can increase the price of bread without coming to Parliament, but in this case it is different.

The hon. member asked for an amount of R2. When we initially implemented this, the State contributed about R20 000, but in the coming year we shall contribute R140 million. If we have to go to the taxpayers and ask each one of them to contribute more, that would be inflationary. What we are doing is asking the employers to contribute towards the cost of transporting their workers.

Let us then agree to differ on the question of the Minister being given powers willy-nilly.

*It seems to me that my efforts are futile. I shall not manage to convince hon. members opposite. We had better pass the clause. The Opposition will not want to divide because so few of them are present that we need only note their objection.

Do not be provocative.

I thank the hon. member for their contributions. I do not wish to repeat arguments. The hon. member for Roodeplaat refuted all the arguments. I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment with regard to the R2.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister what sort of increase he envisages in the first instance?

Taking into account the inflation rate since the initial application of this measure, it might be in the vicinity of R4 a month against the original R1 a month. I do hope, however, it will be less than that. Quite frankly I believe it will be less than that. Should we succeed in achieving more success on the revenue side, I believe, it might even be R3 a month. I cannot, however, give any firm undertaking, although I do not believe it will exceed R4 a month.

*The hon. member for Langlaagte intimates that he, too, wants to ask a question. I just want to give him the assurance that he is quite right in his argument with regard to domestic servants who live in. Perhaps I did not state the matter with sufficient clarity during the Second Reading. However, we even satisfied the Chamber of Mines. In cases where they have approved compounds and their workers do not make use of bus transport, we shall not levy money from them. The same applies to live-in domestic servants who do not make use of bus transport. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that there will not be any problem in this regard.

As the hon. member for Welkom said, the other matters were duly ironed out during the Second Reading. Therefore we shall not achieve anything by quibbling about this further. The argument relates to clause 3. I have replied to the question of the hon. member for Berea in regard to approved housing and I believe that hon. members of the Opposition must leave it at that. I cannot accept any further amendments.

†I should like to put it to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, however, that Assocom was satisfied with my amendment. Why then should I alter it again by accepting the hon. member’s amendment?

They will be even more satisfied with my amendment.

Well, I think everybody would have been more satisfied if I had dropped all legislation in this respect; if I had abolished all tax contributions for this purpose. One cannot, however, govern a country in such a manner.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. D. J. N. Malcomess negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. D. J. N. Malcomess negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by the Minister of Transport Affairs agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting)

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the Committee. The clause stipulates, however, that the hon. the Minister may enter into an agreement with the government of any State or territory with regard to any matter which relates to a provision contained in this legislation. Could the hon. the Minister tell us what, he envisages, we are referring to here? Are we referring here to a State or a territory which is formally part of the Republic of South Africa or are we envisaging something which goes far beyond that?

Mr. Chairman, this clause relates to agreements we entered into with Bophutha-tswana and Ciskei by way of the exchange of notes when they became independent. The only reason for this clause is to conclude such agreements in terms of the Act in future. The hon. member asked a similar question in connection with the Colored people, and I decided to delete this clause in respect of the Coloured people. We do however, already have an agreement with Bophutha-tswana and Ciskei.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

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

Mr. Chairman, purely for the sake of the record, I want to say that our objections to this clause are almost identical to our objections to a similar clause in the previous Bill and for reasons that were well stated during the Second Reading debate. We believe that the Minister should not be given unlimited discretion and we also believe that the imposition of levies on employers of domestic servants is not right. We have expressed our opposition to this and I want to register the fact that our opposition is maintained.

Mr. Chairman, I too would like to express our opposition to this clause on behalf of the NRP. Although we shall be supporting the hon. the Minister’s amendment, we shall be opposing this clause for the same reasons that I gave during the Committee Stage on the previous Bill. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister when he replies to the discussion on this clause to tell us what increase he envisages in this particular case. I see that previously the levy fixed was 20 cents and I can only assume that he is now going to increase this to R1. I want to say that the fact that the hon. the Minister has now seen fit to increase these levies by something of the order of 300% to 400% is an indication that in the past he did not pay attention to this problem. In fact, I think it is going to hit business considerably to suddenly be faced with this tremendous increase. Had the hon. the Minister used the powers which already existed in this legislation by coming to Parliament over the past few years with smaller increases, he would not have been in the position in which he finds himself today.

There is a further point I wish to make to the hon. the Minister and that is in regard to the contribution which the employee is paying in this regard. There are three persons or bodies that are contributing towards the cost of these bus services, namely, the employer, the employee and the State through the medium of taxation, and I should like to know by how much the contribution of the employee has been increased over the years or whether the employee has simply been enjoying the benefit of the subsidies from both employers and the State.

To reiterate, we shall accept the hon. the Minister’s amendment but we shall vote against the clause for the reasons I have given.

Mr. Chairman, we have made considerable progress in discussing this Bill and I must say that the arguments we have heard in this regard from both sides are virtually the same as those advanced when the Committee Stage of the Black Transport Services Amendment Bill was being considered a short time ago. No new arguments are being advanced and the answers that are provided from this side are basically the same as those provided in regard to the other Bill. As far as I am concerned, the arguments advanced in regard to this Bill have been repeated ad nauseam. I do not believe there is any need for us to discuss the legislation further.

Mr. Chairman, for the same reasons that I moved amendments to clause 3 in the previous Bill I now wish to move the following amendment to this clause—

As I say, my reasons for moving this amendment are the same as I indicated in respect of the previous Bill and the amendments are virtually the same.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Berea was very reasonable in telling us that he was not going to waste the time of this Committee because the position here is the same as that in respect of the previous Bill.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked me what the increase will be. If we base it on the inflation rate, it will be more than R1 per week. However, I foresee that it will not exceed R1 per week. Hon. members must not forget that we are going to have a period of 12 months to discuss this whole question with the employers to try to find further solutions in this regard. I do not want to disrupt the whole thing and encourage inflation. Employees’ salary increases have been much higher than we envisaged and we therefore have to increase the contributions of both the employee and the employer. The contributions of both will have to be increased because we have had an increase in bus fares. The employer has therefore to pay more. I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

Amendment moved by Mr. D. J. N. Mal-comes negative (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by the Minister of Transport Affairs agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting) Clause 5 negative.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill provides for the construction of a guaranteed single railway line between a terminal point on the farm Schoongezicht in the magisterial district of Thabazimbi and a point on the border between South Africa and Bophuthatswana where it will connect with the line to be constructed through Bophuthatswana territory to Middelwit. The Board of the S.A. Transport Services investigated the proposal and recommended the construction of the line. Full details of the proposed scheme are provided in the board’s report which has already been tabled, and my remarks will accordingly be brief.

The quarry of the Pretoria Portland Cement Company at Pienaars River which at present supplies limestone to its factories at Jupiter and Hercules is becoming exhausted and will have to be replaced by the end of 1983. As the company holds the rights to large deposits of limestone on the farm Schoongezicht, the economic life of which is expected to be in excess of 40 years, it has been decided to construct a facility for the manufacture of cement clinker at Schoongezicht and it is intended to provide the above-mentioned factories with limestone from that source. The cement works will enable the company to meet the increasing demand for cement in the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vereeniging area. Accordingly the company approached the South African Transport Services in regard to the construction of the proposed railway line from Middelwit to the cement works it intends constructing on the farm Schoongezicht. The company has undertaken to finance the construction of the railway line, build it in accordance with the standards of the S.A. Transport Services and transfer it, on completion, to the S.A. Transport Services, which will then exploit it as a public line under guarantee conditions. This offer is acceptable, particularly since the S.A. Transport Services will spend no capital on the construction of the line and in any event will not be able physically to undertake the work at present. The terms of the agreement entered into with the Pretoria Portland Cement Company, the S.A. Transport Services will be compensated for operating losses during the guarantee period of 20 years. The expenditure on capital on the railway line, including interest, will be recovered during this period by way of the payment of a special surcharge on outgoing traffic, which will also be used to defray any operating losses on the line.

†Approximately 1 230 000 tons of limestone and cement will be conveyed over the proposed railway line annually from 1986 and this volume is expected to increase to approximately 1 860 000 tons per annum by 1990, with a further anticipated increase to 3 120 000 tons per annum by 1993.

The proposed line will be approximately 24 km long and cost an estimated R13,3 million to construct. From its point of take-off at Middelwit station the proposed line will be located in Bophuthatswana for approximately 20 km and only approximately 4 km of the line will be located on South African soil. The cost of construction of the portion of the line traversing South African territory will be approximately R2,1 million. Diesel traction will initially be used but provision has been made for the line to be electrified by 1986.

The establishment of the proposed cement manufacturing plant and the construction of a railway line to serve it, can be considered an excellent opportunity for co-operation between the two neighbouring countries to their mutual benefit.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister’s very carefully worded introductory speech was read in great haste. However, it finds approval on this side of the House. Quite clearly this is a reasonable business deal. It also has the merit of linking the South African Transport Services with a neighbouring territory. Therefore, it should have our support, particularly in view of the fact that this is going to involve no initial capital expenditure on the part of the South African Transport Services. A private company is going to finance the building of the line initially and this is to be welcomed. Hon. members on this side of the House support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister explained to us why this line is being built and what benefits it will entail for us, particularly for Pretoria Portland Cement. I do not wish to cover the entire field sketched for us by the hon. the Minister, but I should just like to raise a point or two which in my opinion are important for this House to know. They are that when we have grant approval for the construction of a line of this nature or the expansion of an existing line, there are certain questions that one has to ask oneself. The first question one has to ask is whether a proper survey has been made or whether a proper investigation has been carried out. That investigation was carried out by the Transport Services Board in South Africa, and the recommendations of that Board to this House are very positive.

The second question one has to ask oneself is whether such a line will be economic, and whether it will result in new economic activities. I am of the opinion that in both these cases they will be economic for us and will also mean that new economic activities can develop on South African soil. I have already mentioned that the council has duly investigated the matter. This will certainly play an important role in conveying to an intensive industrial area an essential commodity used in the construction industry.

Secondly, I think that it is only a short line that has to be built on South African soil. It is only 4 km long, apart from that section of the line passing through Bophuthatswana. R2,1 million will be necessary for that part of the line which passes through South African territory. However, it is not money that we are going to spend; we get that money back. The company itself will be responsible for the construction of this line. We are not being asked to invest any money in it. Still less are we being asked to construct the line. We are also sure that alternative routes have also been investigated. It was found that the alternative routes would be too expensive. This proposed railway line is the cheapest that could be built.

As far as I am concerned the most important advantage this entails is that it proves once again what can be done on the basis of reciprocal co-operation among neighbouring States. It makes these things increasingly possible. This step also shows that grounds for co-operation between neighbouring States are legion.

We accordingly support the acceptance of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House also support this Bill. I think this is an exceptionally sound business transaction. As has already been said, co-operation among States is always in the interests of one State or the other, and in most cases of both. Here one only wishes to point out the advantage that Bophuthatswana can derive from this. For example, job opportunities will be created in that national State. The S.A. Transport Services in particular are to be congratulated on this kind of contract that is negotiated. Anyone who investigates this kind of contract will see that it is absolutely watertight. Accordingly I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the S.A. Transport Services on the negotiations they have conducted in this regard. We take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is indicating that I must be very brief. No doubt he is smiling because there is no opposition to this particular Bill. I cannot see how there can be any opposition because as the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for De Kuilen have said, this legislation deals with a railway line that is urgently needed. It is going to assist in providing South Africa with much needed commodities, namely cement and limestone. We do know that there have been cement shortages in the past which have not only held up construction work in South Africa but have also necessitated in some years that South African construction companies have had to import cement. So I think this is a very worthwhile project from that aspect. From the S.A. Transport Services itself it requires no capital, which pleases me, and it also has a 20 year guarantee on the operating costs, i.e. the company will meet any operating losses. Therefore from the S.A. Transport Services point of view it is a very worthwhile transaction.

Finally, as hon. members have already stated, it indicates that there can be co-operation between South Africa and neighbouring States. I know that my colleagues in these benches would like to see this particular aspect expanded in South Africa. We believe that the S.A. Transport Services can play a tremendous role in this particular regard. Having said that, we shall be supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! I appreciate the support of all hon. members.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The road transport industry is a dynamic industry. No wonder, then, that the Road Transportation Act, No. 74 of 1977, which came into operation as recently as 1 January 1978, has been amended every year since 1979 This merely goes to show once again that deficiencies and loopholes soon become evident in practice. Of course, changing circumstances and practices also make amendments essential.

†The purpose of clause 1(a) is to limit the concessions which the Road Transportation Act contains in respect of decentralized industries to those industries which receive or have received decentralization benefits or assistance from the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism via the Board for the Decentralization of Industry. Hon. members must also bear in mind that such decentralized industries must be situated in an area declared to be a decentralized industrial area under section 2(c) of the Road Transportation Act.

During the 1980 session of Parliament this definition was also amended, inter alia, to try to limit the concessions available to decentralized industries to bona fide decentralized industries only. Although this goal was achieved to a great extent, there are still industries which can claim to be decentralized industries although they may in no way whatsoever have been involved in the decentralization process. I am referring to those industries which are situated within declared decentralized industrial areas and which may have some or other connection with an industry which is not situated within a declared area.

By emphasizing in the proposed amendment the fact that it must be an industry which receives or has received decentralization benefits or assistance from the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, only those industries which take part or have taken part in the decentralization process will benefit from the concessions. On the other hand, the present definition excludes an industry established as a new undertaking in a decentralized area before the declaration of such an area. The proposed amendment will rectify the position if the industry receives or has received decentralization benefits.

Paragraph (b) of the existing definition already makes provision for those undertakings which are established in decentralized industrial areas after they have been declared as such.

*The advantage for a decentralized industry as defined by the Road Transportation Act is to be encountered in section 1(2)(v) in particular. Briefly, what this amounts to is that a decentralized industry may in the course of its business convey its own goods country-wide without a road transportation permit by means of one goods vehicle of which it is the owner which is identified in the manner prescribed and the carrying capacity of which does not exceed 8 000 kilograms.

In order to give further momentum to the Government’s efforts to achieve greater decentralization, the concession incorporated in section l(2)(v) is being extended so that a decentralized industry will in future no longer be limited to an 8-ton goods vehicle, but will be able to use a 14-ton vehicle.

Since the term “carrying capacity” is not defined, there is no legal way of determining whether a cargo vehicle can carry more than is provided in terms of the concession. Accordingly, it is difficult for law enforcement officers to institute a prosecution if it is suspected that a cargo vehicle can carry more than is prescribed. Moreover, the carrying capacity of a goods vehicle can easily be manipulated. “Gross vehicle mass” is a term defined in the various provincial road transport ordinances, and is, moreover, inscribed on the goods vehicles by the manufacturers. Therefore it is a figure which can easily be checked, and accordingly it is proposed that the term “carrying capacity” be replaced by “gross vehicle mass”, as also occurred in 1979 at the time of the insertion of section 1(2)(1A) when malpractices concerning the use of 1-ton trucks were encountered. 14 000 kg carrying capacity converts to 26 000 kg in gross vehicle mass in the case of a goods vehicle, and 18 100 kg in the case of a trailer, and this explains the figures that appear in clause 1(b).

Clause 1(c) proposes an amendment of section 1(2)(z). What is envisaged here is to prescribe by regulation the manner and conditions in terms of which exempted goods may be conveyed. Exempted goods are conveyed countrywide without any road transport permit. Many of the items have been declared exempted items by the Minister in terms of section 2(d) on the recommendation of the National Transport Commission due to their fragility. With the coming of containerization and improved packaging methods, the original reason why these items were declared exempted items, viz. their fragility has largely disappeared. Here I refer in particular to the so-called ISO container, an international container that is used for the packaging of goods that are imported or exported. The container is used on a large scale for the shipping of goods.

Containerization has not only eliminated the fragility of certain items; it also creates problems for law enforcement officers. Containers are placed on vehicles in such a way that it is impossible to open the doors of containers. Provision is now being made for these inspections to be held in future in order to prevent any irregularities. That is the reason for the amendment of this section.