Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

1. (1) on Thursday, 10 June, shall be:
   14h15 until 22h30;
2. (2) on Friday, 11 June, shall be:
   10h30 until the House adjourns upon its own resolution.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, Standing Order No. 56, as hon. members will know, relates to the stages of Bills. We object to the suspension of this Standing Order. When a Bill is opposed by the Opposition it is done in terms of the rules of this House. One of the forms of opposing a measure is by using this Standing Order in order to refuse the taking of more than one stage of a particular Bill on the same day. We are now being denied our right of employing the provisions of this Standing Order.

It is sometimes necessary to have a Committee Stage in order to move and discuss amendments arising from the discussion during Second Reading. In terms of the motion now before the House we are also being deprived of this right. While we are prepared to co-operate, extended sitting hours are now being forced upon us, thereby aggravating the burden we already have to bear. We have shown our willingness to co-operate by supporting the previous motion moved by the hon. the Leader of the House. Nevertheless, we are now being deprived of our right to refuse stages, a right which we consider necessary in the face of controversial legislation which we still have to discuss. One such controversial measure on the Order Paper affects the freedom of the Press. This measure is being forced upon us at this very late stage. Normally we would have been able to block the passage of this obnoxious Bill by refusing the taking of more than one stage in one day. The suspension of Standing Order No. 56, however, enables the Government to pilot this measure through the House by sheer weight of votes.

In these circumstances we will oppose this motion in the strongest way available to us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow merely rose to kick up a little dust. The fact of the matter is, however, that this is surely not a new kind of arrangement. Surely the hon. member knows that over the years, matters have been organized in this way on the last day or two of a session in order to allow proceedings to function more smoothly.

Sticking to this sort of practice still does not make it right!

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to say.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, one would have expected the PFP and the CP to put their policy to us during the debate on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, particularly in these days of constitutional turmoil in which we find ourselves. In these circumstances one would at least have expected the PFP and the CP to have been able to tell us what their policy would be when they took over the Government. I want to put a question to the CP: How much time have they had to formulate their policy? Do they know that they have had four months to do so? The next question is: How much more time do they want? [Interjections.] All we have had from the CP was an account of or a lecture about consociational democracy. We have heard of messrs. Lijphart, Degenaar, Dutter, Barrie and Venter, but the fact of the matter is that the hon. the Leader of the CP was wide of the mark. With great respect to the hon. the Leader, he spoke at length, but as I say, he was wide of the mark. However, the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition saw the point. The hon. the Leader of the official Opposition said (Hansard, 9 June)—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke as if that was precisely what the President’s Council advocated. If we have such a misinterpretation as far as the issues relating to the President’s Council are concerned, then what is there in the speech of the hon. the Leader of the CP that could provide any guidance at all? Outside this House it can only confuse people; that is all it can do, because it offers no guidance.

The premise of the NP is the following: We “are convinced of the necessity to stand united—to further the contentment and spiritual and material welfare of all in our midst”. As you know this appears in the preamble to our Constitution. Do hon. members believe that we should further the welfare of all? That is what I read in the preamble to our Constitution. When looking at this, we should also look at what our past leaders have said. After all, the hon. members of the CP claim that their party is the historical NP, but I want to point out to them that Dr. D. F. Malan said—

That is exactly the point—

The phrase I have just quoted deserves to be underlined. Surely that is the civilized Christian norm the NP stands for. On the occasion of a recent meeting the hon. the Prime Minister said the opponents of the NP “sal hulself te pletter loop teen die NP wat op die rots van vaderlandsliefde gebou is”. That is the theme, the golden thread of the NP. The NP has been built on patriotism.

It seems to me as if the CP no longer believes that it is essential that we stand united. They no longer believe that. They do not believe in consultation and co-responsibility. They are actually rejecting what General Hertzog said when he expressed himself as follows—

If my people honour the memory of Dr. Malan and Gen. Hertzog, they must reject the CP, for the CP rejects the principles of consultation and co-responsibility and they are alienating the Coloureds. On the basis of what principle do they do this? They have no principle on which or norm according to which they are doing this! And to this extent they stand condemned!

I want to quote something about which I believe all of us in this House can agree. It was also quoted by the hon. the Prime Minister and said by the hon. leader of the CP—

I also want to quote something to hon. members in English—

They are nursing a malicious attitude towards the NP.

†I think I ought to revert at this stage to the constitutional policy of the PFP. I ought to revert to that because as the official Opposition they are entitled to some measure of attention. I should like to revert to their national convention. We must look at their national convention to establish whether it indeed is the panacea for all the constitutional ills that they say it really is. I would say that their constitutional plan is a non-starter. It has no chance of success and I shall tell hon. members why. Basic to the success of their national convention there is the requirement of unlimited time for negotiation, and that is why I say it has no chance of success. For the PFP there is no urgency in granting the Coloured people their justifiable constitutional rights. For the PFP there is no urgency in an escalating conflict, which they deny but which for us is of paramount concern.

I would like to explain why I say this. Why do I say that for the PFP time is not of the essence, and why do I say that they require unlimited time for their national convention? Let me explain. I want to refer to this blue book—the PFP constitutional proposals 1978—which I hold in my hand and refer to a number of points. The first point which I would like to refer to is the constitution of this national convention. The representatives who will attend this national convention will be decided upon by a judicial commission, and I think we all agree that judicial processes are notoriously time consuming. It will take a certain amount of time—I would venture to guess between three and four years—simply to ascertain who the representatives are to be who can attend the national convention. Then, having identified the representatives, they will have to agree to a set of principles. The next chronological event that will have to take place, is to decide upon a set of principles. From experience one can say that this will also take another two to three years. And once the convention has decided on the principles, the convention itself, in the words of this little blue book, will “last until consensus is reached”, “no matter how long it takes”; “and if the first attempt fails”, “then a second attempt will follow”. I would venture to say that this whole process will take at least between 10 and 15 years. [Interjections.] This means that the Coloured people will have to wait 10 to 15 years in terms of the model of the PFP before their justifiable rights can be granted to them. This is the untenable position the PFP finds itself in. Their constitutional policy has become irrelevant in a dynamically changing situation. They have become irrelevant and stagnant in a changing situation. Considering the success the recommendations of the President’s Council has among the Coloured people, the PFP really has no chance of ever succeeding in getting a national convention off the ground.

I want to make another point. The PFP has decided not to take part in the deliberations of the President’s Council. What has happened to their much vaunted principle of “freedom of association”? When the Whites, Coloureds and Indians get together, the PFP say it is wrong, and they castigate these people. Why then are these people not to be free to associate with whom they want? I say this belies the whole principle that the PFP applies to themselves because they deny freedom of association to the people serving in the President’s Council.

I want to say the following to the voters in South Africa: Firstly, if you believe that the rights of the Coloured people should be kept in suspension for another 10 to 15 years, then you have to vote for the PFP. Secondly, if you believe that there should not be freedom of association—as there is freedom of association in the President’s Council—then you must vote for the PFP. Thirdly, if you believe that there is no escalating threat against this country, then you must vote for the PFP. [Interjections.] You will then vote to perpetuate the constitutional injustices and inequities towards the Coloureds for another period of 10 to 15 years.

*The NP believes that the time has come for us to grant these people their rights. The principle of justice adopted by the National Party did not end in 1966. Neither did it end in 1977 or 1978. Our principle of justice is not time-bound. I believe that it should be adapted to the times. That is why there is enthusiasm in the NP today. There is solidarity; there is purposefulness and there is mutual confidence in the party. And this is why I believe in what Dr. Malan said, viz.: “… liefde vir Suid-Afrika, en dit sluit die hele bevolking in”.

I want to conclude by quoting the words uttered recently by the provincial leader of the Transvaal, viz.—

We believe that with this policy of ours our prayers will be blessed. We can believe that; we dare believe that. And we can support the NP with enthusiasm.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria West is full of sheer breathtaking political effrontery. I do not think we have heard political arguments of this kind in the whole of the debate. He went for the Conservative Party. As a Nationalist he actually has the effrontery to quote General Hertzog on the Coloured people’s rights. General Hertzog was in fact driven out of the NP. He died a broken man, and ringing in the ears of the National Party at that time was his charge of “falseness and infidelity” towards the Coloured people.

What would you say about your old party?

You do not have to worry. I was not one of them then. What did General Hertzog say? He said that falseness and infidelity were the stigma which attached to the NP as far as the rights of Coloureds were concerned.

What did Gen. Hertzog say about your people?

You do not have to worry. I will come to the hon. the Prime Minister in a minute.

The next thing he said was that if you want to postpone the political rights of Coloured people, you should support the PFP. This NP has been in power for a third of a century.

More than that.

Actually for 34 years. Where are the rights of the Coloureds? It is 25 years since Dr. Verwoerd announced his new vision. Where are the rights of the Blacks? It is 13 years since this NP drove the Coloured representatives out of this Parliament. Where are their rights? It is nine years since the Erika Theron Commission suggested that we should move away from the Westminster system. Where is the Government now? It is five years since the Government produced the 1977 plan, and this is still a matter of dispute between these two parties.

We predict that this Government, whether it calls it a “national convention” or a “beraad”—we do not mind what name they are going to give it—somehow, before we can get a constitutional settlement in South Africa, this Government or Slabbert’s Government is going to have to talk to Black and Coloured people and negotiate a future for South Africa.

We have had many interesting contributions in this debate. It has been dominated by the feud between the former and the new NP. We have had some predictable speeches, but I must say that, for sheer political pyrotechnics, I do not think anybody could compete with the speech of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development last night. He was very angry that he was being accused of being the Cabinet Minister who gave the leak. The more angry he became, the more he indicated who that Cabinet Minister was who gave the leak because while he was angry that his honour was impugned he was the person who had acted without honour.

Listening to all the speeches, there was one speech from the other side of the House which I found significant. [Interjections.] I do not hand out bouquets lightly, but I want to say that I believe that the speech of the hon. member for Innesdal was a speech that was well worth listening to. I do not agree with all the details, nor do I agree with his overall concept. However, I say that it was a sensible speech. In a sense it was a courageous speech, in fact more courageous than any speech that we have had from the Government benches for a long time. If other hon. members would adopt the same serious and—I believe—constructive approach to the very sensitive issue of Black, White, Coloured and Indian relationships in South Africa, then perhaps this House would be doing something more worth while towards the future of South Africa.

Listening to the hon. member and to some other hon. members I have to say that the one good thing that the emergence of the CP has done is that is has enabled the Nationalist of today to hold up a mirror in front of his face and when he sees the CP he sees the NP of the last 30 years. They can actually stand back and take stock of themselves. There may be a difference in style, there may be a marginal difference in philosophy and there may be differences in policy, but I have sat here under four Prime Ministers and I do not see any significant, fundamental difference between the NP of Strydom, Dr. Verwoerd, Vorster and the CP of Dr. Treurnicht. There may, however, be differences of style. In fact, I would say the party of Strijdom and Verwoerd was actually slightly more racist than the CP. Nevertheless, it remains the same party. When the NP hold up this new mirror, that is their reflection. If they want to see what they have looked like for the past 30 years, look at those people now. That is what the NP has looked like for 30 years. And when they look at that party today and they analyse it, they can realize what damage the NP itself did to South Africa’s race relations over the past 30 years. When the mirror of the CP is held before the face of the NP, they can see what changes the NP still has to make before it can make a constructive contribution to peaceful coexistence in South Africa.

The hon. member for Waterberg—and I do not want to dwell for long on him—gave us a quasi academic critique of consociational theory. He argued and came to the conclusion that a consociational model in South Africa could not bring about political co-operation. It would be a source of conflict rather than an instrument for elimination conflict. I listened to the hon. member’s argument very carefully and while there was a difference in degree there was no difference in principle between his argument and Dr. Denis Worrall’s argument in the President’s Council. The difference is one of degree. While the hon. member for Waterberg says that Coloureds, Indians and Whites cannot co-operate within a consociational model, Dr. Worrall says that Coloureds, Indians and Whites and Blacks cannot co-operate. So they come to the same conclusion. The one widens the field, but basically these two parties say that there cannot be co-operation in one South Africa on the basis of a consociational model. I find the academic arguments of the hon. member for Waterberg as to why he rejects Coloureds and Indians just as superficial and unacceptable as the arguments of the President’s Council for not including Blacks. It is the same argument; it is merely an extention of the scope.

We have listened to the CP and I must say to the hon. leader of that party that it is easy to shoot down other people’s political policies. It is easy to shoot down other people’s models and intentions. However, what is required in South Africa today is that political leaders should state their model, solution and vision for the future of South Africa. We hope that before this Parliament wastes much more time, on the CP we are going to get its vision, whether we agree with it or not.

Secondly, the hon. member for Waterberg says that consensus and coalition cannot work across group or race lines in South Africa. He says that if there is one South Africa, one cannot have consensus or co-operation. We in the PFP do not agree with that basic approach. We believe that given the correct leadership and encouragement co-operation in the field of sport, labour, service organizations, management, churches and education, exists. Consensus and cooperation can also be found in the political field. Just as leadership in the other fields is important, let me say that if there is going to be co-operation and consensus in South Africa, it is going to depend very much on the calibre of the political leadership which exists in South Africa. Political leaders, no matter to which party they belong, who stick stubbornly to the point of view that political co-operation and consensus cannot be reached between the races in a single South Africa, while they may, because they are leaders, be able to make it impossible for that cooperation to take place, they will be part of a dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy. They would have made their point of view but they would have stopped co-operation and consensus and would have destroyed the possibility of peace in this country. Therefore, wherever they are, if there are political leaders—and I say this to the Government as well as to that party—who say that we cannot within South Africa find consensus and co-operation between White, Coloured. Indian and Black, if they stubbornly accept that point of view, they shall deserve the indictment of future generations for destroying peace in this country. [Interjections.]

I should now like to refer to the comments of the hon. the Prime Minister when he referred to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Frankly, I was disappointed with the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech, and I believe that the country is justified to feel disappointed as well.

If you were disappointed, it is all right.

By trying to score a few political points off the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the hon. the Prime Minister came perilously close to slamming the door on any hope of achieving political co-operation or consensus between the Government and a Black leader, namely Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. He came perilously close to slamming the door. What is the position? Here is a significant Black leader who was elected to operate—not because he wanted to do it—through the system of government that the State has created. He says—

The hon. the Prime Minister read that. He says he’s prepared to look for alternatives, and for this purpose the Legislature of KwaZulu appointed a commission which made recommendations that were the product of a form of negotiation and consensus and a significant departure from the simplistic “one man, one vote” system in a unitary South Africa. [Interjections.]

What has been the Government’s response? Here is a Black leader who says: “This is my point of view, but I am prepared to look together with other people for alternatives.” First of all, the Government refuses the invitation to serve on the commission, and, when in fact the commission makes its recommendations the Government rejects them summarily because, they do not accord with the basic philosophy of the NP. I find this fascinating, Sir. The hon. the Prime Minister says he is not prepared to speak to Buthelezi or anyone else in regard to the question of “one man, one vote”, but he nevertheless invites people who believe in “one man, one vote” in a unitary State to serve on the President’s Council. [Interjections.] Mr. Du Preez was the chairman of the CRC committee which advocated “one man, one vote”. [Interjections.] Yet the hon. the Prime Minister says he is not prepared to speak to Chief Gatsha Buthelezi because he believes in “one man, one vote”.

I am not prepared to accept the principle.

The hon. the Prime Minister said he was not prepared to speak to him but yet he is quite prepared to speak to his colleagues in the Black Alliance. He is quite prepared to speak to Alan Hendrickse who also believes in “one man, one vote” in a unitary State. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister attacks the Leader of the Opposition because he says the Leader of the Opposition wants to have people who believe in “one man, one vote” at a national convention. The Leader of the Opposition says that he will use that opportunity to argue with them. However, in the same breath the hon. the Prime Minister says that he wants a Black council to come and meet and talk to the President’s Council. However, he must know that most of the members of a Black council, if they are representive of Black society, will be people who believe in “one man, one vote”. [Interjections.] Is he prepared to make such a farce of that forum of negotiation that he will not have people on it who believe in “one man, one vote” and will not even allow them to argue their case? [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister says he is only prepared to speak to people of colour only if they accept the policy of the NP. [Interjections.]

I want to put something to the hon. the Prime Minister in all seriousness in this closing debate of this session. I believe that he owes it to South Africa at this stage to say on what basis he would be prepared to negotiate with Black South Africans. Is he, like Buthelezi, prepared to say: “I have a point of view, but I am prepared to sit down with you to look for alternatives”? I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister: Is he or is he not prepared to look for alternatives to the NP’s policy of partition? [Interjections.] The only thing he says to Blacks is: “You can talk to me if you accept apartheid; you can talk to me if you will renounce your South African citizenship, but short of that I am not prepared to negotiate with you”. What does he hope a Black council will achieve? I want to put a question, in all seriousness, to the hon. the Prime Minister, and I want him to think very carefully before he answers, because his answer could mark a turning point in South Africa’s history. Is the hon. the Prime Minister prepared to keep the door open for the inclusion of Black South Africans in a constitutional dispensation, together with Coloureds, Asians and Whites? [Interjections.] Is he prepared to keep that door open? He says he is not prepared to speak to people on the basis of one man, one vote, but is he prepared to keep that door open? I ask this question because I believe it is the most critical question that this hon. Prime Minister has to answer. He cannot shield behind the President’s Council or behind “beraad” with his caucus. It was not a recommendation of the President’s Council. He must tell us whether he is prepared to consider Black people coming into a dispensation or not. [Interjections.] I ask this question, because every time he says he is not prepared to speak, is not prepared to look to alternatives, he pulls the rug out from under the feet of moderate Black leaders in South Africa. [Interjections.] Whilst we in this House, and moderate leaders like Buthelezi, are making their verbal statements, statements of another kind are being made in South Africa. [Interjections.] Statements are being made with bombs, arson and sabotage. They are all political statements. We condemn terrorism and violence. We deplore the tragedy and the seemingly senseless loss of life that goes with it. Our hearts go out to Mrs. Gillian Younghusband whose innocent husband was killed the other day in one of these terror attacks. But if we are serious with ourselves, it behoves us to consider the political import of what is taking place. We can say quite easily that it is just the work of outside agents. We can say that these acts are inspired by an alien ideology. But every time the hon. the Prime Minister pulls the rug out from under the feet of a moderate Black leader, every time he tells a Black leader he is not prepared to look to alternatives which are not NP policy, he weakens those moderate leaders and plays into the hands of those who believe in violence in South Africa. I believe that one of the most useful things that the Buthelezi Commission did was to do a survey of Black opinion in this field. It is chilling to note that it is said that more and more Black people are turning to violence in South Africa, and not because they want it or like it. While more and more young Black people—this is evident from the survey—are leaving the country for military training, we in this House are passing a Bill to recruit White people for military training. We should ask ourselves at the end of this session: If we go on as we are going, who is going to be fighting whom in South Africa of tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes at my disposal I should like to refer to the speech the hon. Minister of Co-operation and Development made last night, a speech in which he made a scathing attack and vented his wrath on the hon. member for Waterberg. In this connection he made the following remark—

However, I now want to state here that both these allegations by the hon. the Minister are absolutely unfounded. In the first place, the Dutch Reformed Church has never in its history appointed an editor of Die Kerkbode with whom the church has been dissatisfied. After the hon. member for Waterberg resigned as editor of Die Kerkbode, the D.R. Church wrote some of the finest words of appreciation which have ever appeared in its minutes regarding the service the hon. member for Waterberg rendered as editor of Die Kerkbode. This alone proves that that statement was absolutely unfounded. [Interjections.] However, this afternoon I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister, and I want to do so in all fairness and in all honesty. Am I wrong when I say that the hon. the Minister, when he accused the hon. member for Waterberg of causing division and of having acted controversially at Cottesloe is a supporter of Cottesloe, the Cottesloe conference and the decisions taken there. Is this so? Does the hon. the Minister endorse them? Does he subscribe to them? If he does not approve of them, why is he condemning the hon. member for Waterberg? I want to add that if the hon. the Minister approves this, he is in conflict with the decisions of all the Synods and all the synodal commissions of his own church.

I only referred to the controversial aspect of his role … [Interjections.]

It does not matter what controversial statements were made at Cottesloe, because the hon. the Minister endorses Cottesloe and the Christelike Instituut which was established as a result of it.

I have before me the thesis on Cottesloe written by Dr. Braam Luckhoff, a supporter of the Cottesloe decisions and standpoints. In this book this gentleman says—

I did not express any opinion on that whatsoever.

The hon. the Minister said that the hon. member for Waterberg had acted controversially there, and he could not have said that if he had not agreed with the decision at Cottesloe.

I did not agree with it.

He agrees with it, otherwise he would not have said that. [Interjections.] I want to say that Cottesloe is knows as the most important event in the history of the church at which an effort was made to cause a rift in the church. Cottesloe is known not only for having tried to divide people within the Dutch Reformed Church but also for having tried to divide the Afrikaans churches. I call the hon. member for Potgietersrus, who is a member of the Nederduits Hervormde Kerk, as witness of the unpleasantness between the Nederduits Hervormde Kerk and the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk which resulted from Cottesloe, unpleasantness which would never have arisen if it had not been for Cottesloe. I also want to say that had it not been for the intervention of the hon. Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, when he said that he just wanted to remind people that Cottesloe did not represent the standpoint of the church and they should not lose their heads, I do not know whether it would all have ended.

However, the Cottesloe disaster was averted and a rift in the church was prevented because the church leaders of the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk stood firm. Among those church leaders there were two who unfortunately, were not delegates at Cottesloe. The hon. member for Waterberg was not a delegate at the Cottesloe conference. He was not even there. How, then, could he have acted controversially? Today I want to place on record that if the hon. member for Waterberg and the late Dr. Koot Vorster had been delegates at Cottesloe, the circumstances at Cottesloe and the decisions which almost split the church, would never have leaked out, but would have been smothered in the meeting because those two people would have ensured that the church was not jeopardized in this regard. I know what goes on in the church. I have attended every synod of the church, including the last two general synods and I want to say that in 1978 I personally, on ecclesiastical grounds—hon. members can look this up in the minutes and the annexures to the minutes of that general synod—prevented a co-ordinating synod from being established which would have destroyed the church.

Today I also wish to put the question: Why did the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development refer yesterday evening to the church and link the name of the CP to the church, and also address a word of warning to us in connection with the church? Is it because there are clergymen who are joining the CP? [Interjections.] Over the years when clergymen supported the NP, this was applauded. At that time it was not suggested that they were bringing politics into the church; that they could cause a rift in the church. When Stormkompas appeared last year, a spear-point driven into the heart of the church—why was that not also condemned. These 123 clergymen and theologians who are now causing a rift in the church, why do we not condemn them? These are the people who are now demanding: Do away with the Group Areas Act! Do away with the Immorality Act! Do away with the Mixed Marriages Act! Do away with everything which gives effect to apartheid and separation among the racial groups! [Interjections.] Those people are of the same mind as the hon. member for Innesdal, if I am to judge by the speech he made here yesterday. I only regret that I do not have the time at my disposal to go into detail about all these matters. I should also have liked to have said a few words about the Mixed Marriages Act and its origin, which was largely at the insistence of the church itself. If the Mixed Marriages Act had not existed, I should like to know what the situation would have been in this country today.

There is one thing I want to state categorically and unequivocally. In the eyes of the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk the hon. member for Waterberg is a respected figure. [Interjections.] On one occasion the hon. member for Waterberg was approached to become a lecturer at the Stellenbosch Seminary. An appeal was made to him to train ministers for the church, an appeal which was made on the basis of the confidence the N.G. Church had in him. To the best of my knowledge …

He was also called by the HNP. [Interjections.]

To the best of my knowledge the hon. member for Waterberg was the youngest assessor the N.G. Church has ever had in its General Synod. This is another indication of the confidence they had in him. [Interjections]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point raised two matters here. One of these concerned Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, and the cooperation or lack thereof in connection with the proposals from that quarter. However, I want to point out to the hon. member that he and his party are the last people who should refer us constantly to proposals by Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. The fact of the matter is that the Government is going out of its way to create machinery for co-operation, whereas that party rejects it every time. Meanwhile, however, they are circumventing the authoritative organs of the State, and are forming ties with other people; they are also undertaking investigations of a different nature.

It is not a contravention of the authority of the State to do so.

The hon. member for Sea Point also had something to say about the security situation. Not only the hon. member for Sea Point, but most of the hon. members of the PFP, have no right to join in when we are discussing the security of the country in this House, particularly in view of the record of a party that has not yet approved a single security measure which this House has tried to take in the interests of this country. Particularly in the light of the PFP’s reputation as a party which intercedes for people who are a danger to this country, they should not join in when security matters are being discussed in this House. However, that is all I have to say about the hon. member for Sea Point and his party. The hon. member knows that his party and its reputation are open to inspection.

What is the charge this time?

Perhaps the hon. member for Koedoespoort should rather have made the speech he intended to make before the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development spoke yesterday. Instead of that however, he unleashed a tirade about Cottesloe. It is rather late in the session, but there will be plenty of opportunities in future to discuss Cottesloe if we want to. However, if the hon. member wants to point a finger in this connection, I just want to remind him of the good advice given by his hon. leader yesterday in his speech in this House. When you point a finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you.

You should tell Dr. Piet Koornhof that too. [Interjections.]

When intrigues are being discussed, the hon. member for Koedoespoort should very definitely not take part in the discussion.

I think everyone will agree that the session now drawing to a close will be remembered for three matters which I want to mention briefly. In the first place, I think that this session will be remembered because while we were gathered here under unique circumstances there was a glimmer of hope, a possibility that a solution, which we had so long been waiting for, could perhaps be found, to these difficult problems in South Africa concerning the entire position of people of colour, that there could be an opportunity in future for us to arrive at some sort of dispensation in South Africa which would be acceptable to all of us—and when I say all of us, this in fact includes the Coloureds who have been waiting for over 30 years for something to take the place of what we took from them. This House is therefore rising in the knowledge that this glimmer of hope exists. In this connection I also want to say that if we are grateful for this, then we can all say that this would probably not have happened if it had not been for the unique leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister was personally involved in this; as a matter of fact, he made it his life’s work. If we express the hope, therefore, that the future will produce the results which we trust it will, then his influence must be seen in it. I think all hon. members will agree with me when I wish the hon. the Prime Minister everything of the best in the period ahead with regard to the unique qualities of leadership he will have to display in the future as well.

I think this session will also be remembered for another event. While we were here, some of our colleagues decided not to go any further with us along a road in regard to which we had earlier agreed we would wait until certain proposals were made and would then consider them. Unfortunately those hon. members became impatient and decided they were not going to accompany us on the road we were seeking towards joint responsibility and joint decision-making with the retention of the right to self-determination. We are sorry about this, but I shall not discuss it any further at this stage.

There is a third matter for which this session will also be remembered. This is that thousands of people outside were looking forward to something else. They were looking forward to the emergence of a war in this House, a great new leader, who would see the political scene in perspective. They expected him to produce new initiatives and a new message for South Africa, as well as a new direction in the times in which we live. Has there ever been a time so full of opportunities for creating and planning for the future? If we just consider this for a moment, then we know that there are perspectives which can be awaited. We are concerned with the perspectives of co-operation between people, and we are formulating plans in this connection. That is how we can see the situation in its entirety. But, instead of receiving a message and gaining clarity, what did we get? We got an anti-climax. The hon. member for Waterberg, who had been looked up to during this session as that great leader who would come to the fore, stood up in this House and instead of giving perspective, he gave us a lecture on a man called Lijphart. Must the voters of Waterberg be satisfied with a lecture on a man called Lijphart? [Interjections.] And that is not all. It is also a question of what the hon. member for Waterberg neglects to do. During the past month a few things have happened in connection with which I think this House will agree with me that it would only be fair to expect clarification. Many of these matters concern the security of South Africa I have here in my hand an article which I want to read and I want to express the hope that although there will not actually be an opportunity to reply to it now, we shall receive a reply to it before the end of the session. Perhaps the Standing Orders of this House will allow this later. I want hon. members to listen to this. I think this is serious, because the hon. the Leader of the CP served in the Cabinet, and just as every member of the Cabinet is given information in this connection, he was also given information. In Die Transvaler of 13 May 1982, however, the hon. the leader of the CP is reported to have said the following at a meeting held at RAU. I want to immediately add that I have not seen a denial of this in any newspaper. I quote—

Well, I like that—

After the hon. leader had discussed the fact that the CP was being reproached for quarrelling, he is reported as having said—

Statistics are available to give us an indication of how the onslaught has escalated, but when sentiments such as these are voiced in these times, I think this House and South Africans are entitled to an explanation. The security of the country is at stake here, and it will be a sad day if we have to gain the impression that such a party is making light of the onslaught on the security of South Africa. I hope there will be an opportunity to react to this, because thus far there has been no reaction.

I do not want to say much more about this, but I do want to say that it was an anti-climax because we had expected everything to be made crystal clear, but that did not happen.

This debate is taking place against the background of the things that are happening around us, with regard to the political position of the Coloureds as well, and all the coloured groups in our country are looking forward with keen anticipation to what will ensue. The debate is also being conducted, and the session is drawing to a close, against the background of the decisions which will have to be taken in the future, perhaps even this year. Decisions will be taken and no one will say that he is totally unconcerned about what will happen in South Africa.

At this stage of my speech I want to maintain that it has always been at important moments such as these when the country has had to decide in what direction it was going, that the NP has displayed two characteristics. The first characteristic is that it has always been able to act with daring and initiative particularly at those times when it was necessary to get the country to move if it was to win. The other characteristic displayed by the NP is that it has not allowed itself to be held back no matter what delaying tactics have been used to hinder it in the course it had embarked upon. If it had not been for this I do not think South Africa could have been what it is today. There have been times when it was necessary to act with daring, and the NP has always done do.

Like in 1939?

It has also been in times like these that the NP has changed its policy. You can delve back in history and you will see that people balked and immediately accused the NP of having changed its policy. The most courageous leader we have had, the man who made the greatest changes, the man who was able to adapt the policy of the NP in the quickest and most courageous manner, was not the present hon. Prime Minister, and I have the greatest respect for the things he does and the way in which he does them. Do hon. members know who that was? It was the late Dr. Verwoerd.

I just want to point out to hon. members how courageous that man was and what radical changes he made. He would have made an about turn in the policy of the NP if that was necessary. One day—at that stage it was still our policy—he realized that we could no longer dream of sending 250 000 or more Indians back to India. He then said that the interests of South Africa demanded that he say that henceforth this would no longer be the policy and that the Indians could remain here. Dr Verwoerd did this and it took courage to do so. Do hon. members know who slandered him then and who referred to him as the Dutchman who was supposedly handing over South Africa to the Indians? On top of that, this person used an abusive name for the Indians. Do hon. members know who that was? It was a man who is very close to hon. members of the CP today, namely Dr. Albert Hertzog. After all, hon. members know what he said at that stage.

I want to go further. Hon. members will also remember that while it was still the policy of the NP that South Africa would give its people their own rights, but that it was not the policy to excise parts of South Africa and make them independent, Dr. Verwoerd said that in future we would excise parts of South Africa and make them totally independent. The argument then was: What would happen if those areas became communist? To this Dr. Verwoerd replied: “Then they will become communist, but remember if they are all gathered in one place I shall be able to deal with a difficult situation, because my people are all under my wing.” Do hon. members know who said that this mad Dutchman was fragmenting South Africa and giving it away? It was the CP’s good friend Dr. Hertzog. I also have a very strong suspicion that many of the hon. members who are now in the CP agreed with Dr. Hertzog and not Dr. Verwoerd at that time.

I want to mention a further example. One day Dr. Verwoerd decided that his good friend, leader and predecessor, Adv. Strydom, had been wrong to insist that two-thirds of the nation must be in favour of a Republic. Dr. Verwoerd said that a majority of one would be sufficient and the Cabinet agreed with Dr. Verwoerd.

I also want to mention yet another example. There was a time when we all said that a Black man may not drink White liquor in South Africa. Dr. Verwoerd was one of the people who believed this and he was responsible for legislation in this connection. However, one fine day he said that this had become a situation with a racist connotation and that South Africa had changed. From that day on the policy was different. Those things happened, but no one can accuse a single leader—Dr. Malan, Dr. Verwoerd or the present hon. Prime Minister—of ever having changed the principles of the NP in his policy-making. That is what matters.

The hon. members of the CP went along with us in respect of many of these things. They went along with us up to a certain date, namely 23 February of this year. From the very next day, this party no longer did anything good. From the very next day all the things we had decided on together and all the things we had propagated together were no longer good. Suddenly everything was wrong. Those hon. members do not only differ with us politically. They do not only differ with us regarding the future constitutional dispensation. In actual fact they differ with us in all other fields, even if they do not say so. I shall prove this in a moment. They not only resist the recommendations of the President’s Council; they also resist, in advance, any decisions which we may take, the nature of which they do not even know yet. They do this because in essence they are opposed to something else. Do hon. members know what they are opposed to? In essence they are opposed to Whites and Coloureds co-operating. That is the point. In essence they are opposed to co-operation with Coloureds. That is why they ran away in good time, before there was an opportunity for us to sit down and talk together. Hon. members on that side of the House agreed at the congresses, and on political platforms, to tell their people, as we all did, that we must wait until we knew what we were dealing with. Then we would decide together. However, they were not prepared to wait and see what happened. They left before the time. Why? In any case they were basically opposed to everything.

But I do not want to spend too much time on this. I should very much like to quote from a document here. I notice that the hon. member for Waterberg has just walked out. I would have been very glad if he had remained here, because I should very much have liked to hear his standpoint on this. The passage I want to read comes from a speech by the hon. member for Brakpan regarding an allegation he made during the Committee Stage. He said the following, and I quote—

He is now referring to me as Minister of Manpower—

Now I want to ask the hon. member if he still stands by what he said.

Yes, definitely.

Now I want to ask the hon. member if this also refers to the legislation he and I passed together.

I mean the policy of separate development.

No, wait a moment. What is involved here is certain legislation, and this actually concerns three things. I want to ask the hon. member straight out: If his party were to come into power, would they place statutory work reservation back on the Statute Book?

My reply is in Hansard.

No, I want to hear it now.

My reply is in Hansard.

No, I want to hear it now.

Why, if you know what appears in Hansard? [Interjections.]

If the hon. member is very certain of his case, he must tell me now.

But it appears in Hansard. Just read on a little.

I am asking the hon. member if he would place it back on the Statute Book.

Meaningful protection of workers. [Interjections.] You are also in favour of that.

I am asking the hon. member whether he would place statutory job reservation back on the Statute Book.

We stand for meaningful protection of workers. [Interjections.]

The hon. member need not stand for that; we have already given the worker that.

But it must be meaningful.

The hon. member says that he disagrees with the policy of the NP. I am now asking him whether he would bring back that important policy, which was a policy for over 30 years, namely statutory work reservation.

You have it in my Hansard.

The hon. member does not have the courage to say yes or no. He does not have the courage. I want to ask him another question. Would the hon. member, if they were to come into power, alter or retain the position of Black workers, the position which has been created to give Black workers a say in the bargaining process?

We shall change it.

How?

Give me a chance and I shall tell you how.

I want to tell the hon. member that when he was still in this party we passed this legislation together. We spent hours on it. We spent hours on it not only in my office, but also in the group. I still remember how he congratulated me after we had helped him to understand what was involved. At that time he supported it. Now I want to say to him: He no longer supports it. Is that correct?

You cannot state it in such general terms. Do you agree with the rejection of power-sharing?

I am asking the hon. member whether he no longer agrees with this.

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

No, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

But you are asking me questions.

The hon. member made a very definite accusation here. That is why I am asking him: Does he no longer agree? You see, Sir, this is what one gets when people go about gossiping about these things.

However, I want to deal with a second passage. The second passage reads as follows, and the hon. member must please listen to what he said and see whether I am reading it correctly—

Does the hon. member stand by that?

But surely it is true.

Very well. Can the hon. member now tell me what legislation the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Lichtenburg, in the time when they belonged to the NP, put before the congress before it was tabled so as to get the permission of the congress to introduce that legislation? Remember, both of them dealt with legislation here.

The hon. member now says I should have taken it to a congress, and he blames me for not doing so. But I say that is not the way we do things. These things are cleared at congresses in other ways. Meanwhile they are gossiping about this in Waterberg and elsewhere. I now want this placed on record. Tell me: What measures did those two hon. members, when they were still in the Cabinet, submit to congresses before they were passed to allow the congresses to decide about them?

Just take a look at the programme of principles of the NP.

When those hon. members are face to face with us here in this House they cannot give replies. I am now asking the hon. member for Brakpan: Which one of the Acts we passed when he and I worked together would they repeal if they came into power? Just mention one.

Curious, are you?

The hon. member for Rissik did not understand much of this. He understands very few things, except how to scheme and connive. However, he also agreed. That hon. member piously cast his vote, but I suspect that while he was on this side of the House, the hon. member for Rissik differed with us without having the courage to say so.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Manpower has continued with the theme that has dominated the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill on Tuesday, yesterday and again today. I refer to the bitter “broedertwis” between the NP and the CP. This is not my light, nor my party’s fight, so I do not intend following up what the hon. the Minister said.

I want to tell the hon. members of the NP that they can no longer afford the luxury of believing that they have South African politics by the tail. I think this debate has clearly indicated that. By their own admissions, and by the admissions of the hon. the Prime Minister himself, they have admitted that they have been wrong in the past with their ideas about the future constitutional developments in South Africa. In the process of these initiatives they have now opened a can of worms and we have seen a lot of it during this debate. However, after having listened to this debate, I honestly feel that many of them do not fully appreciate the dangers that face us in South Africa today. We had an indication of these in the dying minutes of the debate last night when the hon. member for Constantia spoke. He said (Hansard, 9 June 1982,—

He was talking of those on the left and the right in South Africa. He said further—

The last sentence of his speech reads as follows—

If the hon. member for Constantia is correct in what he says, namely that there is going to be this confrontation between these two forces and that the CP and the PFP are going to be the only two parties that will be of any concern, then I say that South Africa is indeed in for a bloody confrontation and disaster. [Interjections.]

Our recent history has proved that the Verwoerdian myth of the type of apartheid to which the CP subscribes will not work. After all, the Government has tried for 34 years to implement it, and that is why there has been a split in that party. To try to implement that myth, that Verwoerdian dogma, means without doubt that the hon. member for Constantia is correct; it means that there is going to be White minority domination over certain sections of our Coloured and Black groups, and this will result in conflict, disorder and turmoil.

There is also another myth that has been actively propagated by the PFP, and by its Press, and that is the myth that the PFP stand for power-sharing. During the Second Reading I asked hon. members of the PFP to stand up and prove that their constitutional policies do stand for a sharing of power. [Interjections.] We in these benches believe that the PFP policy stands for a transfer of power from White minority Government to Black majority Government. [Interjections.] They have not availed themselves of debate after debate to counter my accusations. Instead they have often said: “Can you not read? It is all in print.” I have the constitutional proposals of the PFP before me, and in paragraph 5.4.1, on page 26, there is a description of their entire constitutional proposals. The first subparagraph says—

This is “one man, one vote”, Sir, on a proportional basis.

In what?

In a federal State.

It makes no difference. They go on to say that there will be a minority veto, and that it will protect the interests of the minorities. [Interjections.]

However, the PFP has now hung its future on the findings of the Buthelezi Commission, and I have here a copy of that commission’s constitutional proposals for Natal. On page 160, in subparagraph 6.7.4. one reads the following—

This is identical to the Zimbabwean constitution that is presently applying in Zimbabwe. It goes further to say—

We believe that these are no guarantees at all … [Interjections.] I want to challenge the PFP that when they appear on public platforms during their report-back meetings, to prove to the people, with their constitutional proposals, that their policies will not lead to Black majority rule. I challenge them to prove to the public of Natal that the constitution proposals of the Buthelezi Commission’s report, which they are supporting, will not lead to Black domination in Natal. [Interjections.]

They do not worry about Natal.

I want them to deny that their policy will lead to Black majority rule, and if they deny it, let me tell them that they are being either extremely naive or else very devious with the public of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I have very little time at my disposal, but I do want to add that we in these benches appreciate that as it moves into the area of reform and change, the Government is not going to find it easy. We in these benches know this from bitter experience. [Interjections.]

Throughout our five years of existence we have had to put up with many snide remarks. For example, we had one from the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday in Parow. We do still get them, but for the hon. the Prime Minister to say that this party has no future, shows a complete misunderstanding of the very ethos of this party, a misunderstanding of the credo of the NRP. We in the NRP are not petty party-political hacks. We in these benches are dedicated to the creation of the new Republic of South Africa, to the creation of a confederation of Southern African States, bound together by a new constitution based on pluralistic political and constitutional principles. The very name of our party proclaims our objective, the new Republic of South Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister might make these snide remarks about our having no future, but I want to tell him and other hon. members in those benches that the new Republic that is being conceived at present in the President’s Council, the new Republic that is coming about through negotiations with various Black States, is the future of this party. This is what we fought so hard and long for in South Africa. We see our future all around us. [Interjections.] As my hon. leader said on Tuesday, the hon. the Prime Minister has yet to learn that in order to create this new Republic he will not only require the support of former political opponents amongst the Whites of South Africa, but also the support of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks in South Africa. [Interjections.] We in the NRP recognize and acknowledge our limitations as a party, especially in the light of the power of the hostile Press that sought to destroy us. In the process many obstacles were placed in the way of our democratic right to have our voice heard by the people of South Africa. However, this party did not give up. We took our cause to the people of Natal—the Coloureds and the Indians—through our provincial council, and negotiated the Natal Plan for local government we took it to the Quail Commission, we took it to the Schlebusch Commission and we took it to the President’s Council. We also stated our case over and over again in this hon. House, and what has been the result? The recommendations of the President’s Council, especially those on local government, are a vindication of the views and beliefs held by this party.

Mr. Speaker, allow me, at the very outset, to refer to my masterly speech of a few days ago when I introduced this Third Reading debate.

Where did you make that?

Right here in your presence. In referring to the Government’s very fine record on pensions, I am told—Hansard confirms this—that I referred to the Government’s “unenviable record” on pensions.

Quite right.

Quite obviously the whole context of my speech … [Interjections.] … shows that what I was doing was referring to a particularly enviable record. [Interjections.] I should just like to put that matter straight.

*To proceed, Mr. Speaker, permit me to pay tribute to a good personal friend of mine and a very good friend of South Africa of whose passing I have just been informed. It is with real sorrow that I must inform this House that our embassy in Brussels has reported that Senator Wim Jorissen, a member of the Belgian Senate, and for years a friend of South Africa, died yesterday at the age of 60 years after a few weeks’ illness. Senator Jorissen was the founder and chairman of the Belgian-South African Interparliamentary Association in the Belgian Parliament, and also the deputy chairman of the Protea Friendship Association in Belgium, that sought to strengthen the bonds of friendship with the Republic of South Africa. Senator Jorissen visited South Africa on several occasions, often as the leader of groups of members of the Belgian Parliament who came to South Africa as guests of the Parliamentary Association of our Parliament. He also acted as host to South African parliamentary deputations to Belgium. Senator Jorissen was a very doughty champion of South Africa and often defended our country’s cause in the Belgian Senate. He was also the author of the book Zondebok Zuid-Afrika in which he put our country’s case in a comprehensive and convincing way. Senator Jorissen was a personal friend of mine and I often met him here and in Belgium. He was also the friend of other Cabinet colleagues of mine and members on both sides of this House. I am sure I speak on behalf of all of us when I convey our profound sympathy to Mrs. Jorissen and the family, and express appreciation for the outstanding service he rendered South Africa. I believe that the work done by the late Senator Jorissen will serve as the foundation for further development.

†Returning to the debate and in thanking hon. members for their participation in this last budget debate, I am bound to say that any connection between this debate and the budget has been purely coincidental, if not accidental. We have heard a great deal “about it and about”, as someone said, but we certainly have not heard a great deal about finance: But be that as it may.

*We have heard about the radical rightists and we have heard about the radical leftists.

And the stupid ones in the middle.

Yes, I do not know who is in the middle. The hon. member had better decide for himself where he stands. I think that the hon. members of the CP have had a hard enough time of it in one debate and that it is not necessary for me to rub it in further. Indeed, it is the custom in this House that when replying to a financial debate, the Minister of Finance should try to confine himself to financial and economic matters and policy. However, I must say that I am strongly tempted to take part in that same debate today.

†As far as hon. members on the far left are concerned, I listened to all their speeches, and all I can say is …

Who are they?

Well, if it is a case of identity, I am referring to the hon. members of the official Opposition.

Is that the far left?

All I can say is: “Brother, what a dream; brother, what a performance!” The hon. the leader of the Opposition did explain to me that he could not be here at this point in time and I appreciate that.

*However, I should like to ask where the hon. leader of the CP and his colleague the hon. member for Lichtenburg are. Both participated in this debate and my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Manpower, had scarcely started his speech when the hon. member for Waterberg walked out. I do not know whether it was a coincidence, but it was just when my hon. colleague was putting a few questions to him. [Interjections.] That is so.

It does not behave you to say that.

During the second Reading debate the hon. member for Pinelands said I should feel relieved because I had very little to which to reply in that debate. If that was said then, I must feel even more relieved today because I have virtually nothing to which to reply as far as financial and economic matters raised during this debate are concerned.

There is one matter, however, to which I should like to refer. I shall be very brief though.

Inflation!

That is indeed inflation. [Interjections.] As I have said before, the inflation rate is too high. I also said before that this was an exceptionally complicated and complex issue. I do believe that it is indeed fair to say that if one were to assess throughout the world economy today the one issue in the field of economics and finance which is causing the greatest worry, it is this issue of inflation. In reporting my speech on Tuesday in their Wednesday edition, The Argus were, I thought, perfectly fair. They wrote what I thought was a very factual report, but then they rather spoiled the effect with the sub-leader in which they seemed to query how much of a policy we had particularly in respect of inflation. Since the same issue was raised by two or three hon. members of the Opposition, I should like to say something about the matter.

First of all I should like to pose a question. Where did this worldwide and vast problem of inflation really arise, and when? It arose particularly in the USA in the period after August 1971 when the USA closed the gold window, as it was put. The USA terminated the convertibility of the dollar into gold, and ever since then the discipline which then existed in the sense that the world’s most important currency had that link with gold, came to an end. The termination of that link has since caused increasing turmoil in the world’s monetary system. The problem today is immense. A year or two ago a number of countries had an inflation rate much higher than our own. Some of them are lower while others are very much higher. There are also tremendous fluctuations in the inflation rate. A country such as Great Britain a few years ago had an inflation rate of 28%. Subsequently it went down, but rose again to about 18% not long ago. Now it has gone down again. Not long ago the inflation rate in the USA was approximately 14%. Since then it has moved down. These things move up and down constantly, just like a yo-yo.

I should also like to express a brief word of caution in one particular respect. We are very much inclined to take an uncritical view and to make rather hasty comparisons of the cost of living among a whole number of countries. We should be very careful because the way in which these costs of living indices and inflation indices are calculated, can differ quite substantially from country to country. We should therefore be very careful before alleging that one country’s rate of inflation is necessarily much higher or lower than that of another country as reflected by a given calculation.

If one takes the average over the last 12 months until April and compare that with a previous similar period, the inflation rate in South Africa is at the moment 14,8%, which, as I said a few days ago, is unacceptably high. There is no question about that. Let us just for one moment, however, try to establish what sort of inflation this is. What are some of the causes of this inflation? First of all, no doubt—I think this is a matter of complete agreement—there is an element of an imported inflation, particularly in respect of a number of very important capital goods. Then there is of course also an element which we and the country as a whole have in a sense introduced ourselves. That is an inflation arising from a deliberate policy that has been followed in this country over a number of years, the policy of deliberately raising the wages, particularly of the lower-income groups, virtually as high as possible, as a rule far higher than any increase in productivity. That is done not so much for economic reasons—one can certainly query the policy on strictly economic reasons—but for broader social and other reasons. We felt that that may be a very good investment for the future, particularly in the context of the population composition that we have in this country. I am not criticizing this because it does have advantages for the country as a whole in the sense that it undoubtedly increases the size of the market and, by improving the material position of a large number of people, I think it brings other benefits with it besides. However, it is undoubtedly an inflationary factor of some magnitude.

Another factor that we are inclined to forget is that in this country, whether we like it or not, we are in what I would call almost a near war position. We have to spend increasingly larger amounts on the safety and defence of this country. For instance, when we consider the position in South West Africa where we are constantly being urged to deploy some of our forces and our police in order to maintain law and order and to secure the country against incursions from without, we find that those amounts have been increasing very rapidly. Where a country like South Africa has today to find an amount of something in the region of R3 000 million for defence and where, from the nature of things, in terms of strict economics, a very large portion of that amount is strictly uneconomic expenditure—although on other grounds I am sure we are all in agreement that it is essential—obviously we are here again dealing with a substantial inflationary factor which is, I think, much bigger than some people even imagine. I have in fact seen calculations to indicate that simply from the point of view of a deliberate wage policy which I explained a moment ago—the deliberate raising of wages substantially year by year, particularly for the largest numbers of the population—and the need not only to maintain and strengthen a powerful defence force but to arm it, to build up a substantial armaments industry in the face of a scandalous arms boycott against us by the United Nations, these two reasons alone may account for fully half of the present inflation rate. If we had a more normal security position, we could easily perhaps have a defence budget of something in the neighbourhood of, let us say, R1 500 million instead of R3 000 million. Hon. members can imagine what we could do with that money. We could reduce taxes and we could spend a good deal more on outright productive activities in the economic sense. Therefore, these are very important factors which I believe we often tend to overlook.

There are, of course, other reasons as well. When one looks at the private sector one realizes that there is no doubt at all that costs and prices have been rising substantially in the private sector. Costs and prices have been rising substantially in the public sector as well, particularly the so-called administered prices such as those for power, transport, steel and so forth. Unfortunately, this is one of those cases in which inflation tends to feed upon itself. Once there is a sufficient escalation of costs and prices it is very difficult to prevent that becoming an ongoing process. Therefore, in order to curb this cancer in our society—it occurs in many other societies as well—we are, I believe, going to have to give a very great deal of attention to this matter as we go along. I have no doubt at all that this is going to require sacrifices.

There is one respect in which I think we can certainly claim that we have done everything in our power to hold the line against further inflationary forces and that is in respect of Government spending. For a number of years now the increase in Government spending in real terms has been fairly negligible and, at the moment, under difficult circumstances, I think we have a better control of the money supply. However, we have had difficulties in this regard. Particularly when we had a huge increase in the gold price in 1980, it proved to be an extremely difficult matter in the short term to contain and hold down this huge increase in cash and money flowing into the country. So we have to have a co-ordinated fiscal and monetary policy as well all the time.

I would say that the private sector’s influence on the inflation rate in South Africa is also a much bigger factor than we often tend to imagine. This is after all a predominantly private enterprise economy. If one should ask me how much was private enterprise and how much public enterprise, I would think possibly in the order of 75% to 25%, or thereabouts. It is a difficult calculation but I think such a reply would not be far off the mark. One can imagine that if there is a general increase in costs and prices in many aspects of the private sector, then clearly there is going to be another rather powerful inflationary factor. I say again that it is a much more complicated issue than people imagine. I think I have said enough to suggest that certainly it is not only the Government’s responsibility, but the whole country’s responsibility to deal with inflation. If one looks at the countries which seem to be most effective with their anti-inflationary policies, one almost invariably finds that in those countries this issue has been tackled on a nation-wide scale.

I therefore would suggest that the time has come when we should think in terms of a national effort against the general increase in costs and prices—this, in fact, is what inflation is about—because unless we do that, we are not easily going to surmount what is in my opinion the biggest single economic problem in this country. I believe it is the biggest single economic problem in the whole word. Ahead we shall have to watch this issue very, very closely.

About 18 months ago we had in Johannesburg a national conference on inflation. There we had more than 100 leading professional men, economists, bankers, businessmen, top officials and top people from the public sector as well. It was an all day discussion and we put there what we thought was a fair representation of Government policy. We invited prominent people from the private sector to put their side, and at the end of the day there was a very substantial consensus on the nature of inflation and how we might set about holding it down.

However that was at the time of the very big increase in the price of gold which substantially increased our earnings from abroad. The sale of gold in one year sent up our earnings from abroad from R6 billion in 1979 to R10 million in 1980. While that of course had very far-reaching beneficial effects for the economy as a whole and the standard of living, it certainly gave us many headaches particularly in respect of the control of the money supply and, in that sense, the control of inflation.

My object today is merely to say that I do not think there is any profit to be gained by anyone pointing the finger at anybody else, the private sector pointing to the Government or the Government to the private sector—it has to be an all out national effort. I do not think there is any point in underestimating the importance of this issue.

In the last instance I can only express the wish which I have expressed year by year at the International Monetary Fund and in other forums, that the sooner we can return to the days when the dollar—the dollar is of course the world’s leading currency—is again made convertible into gold, the better. If that should occur we would be able to reintroduce that certain basic discipline in the world monetary system, and the sooner that can happen the sooner we will be in a position to counter what is in fact today an international problem of vast proportions.

I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to the debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr.

Speaker, I move—

I think hon. members will agree with me that this motion for the instruction and the amendment I intend to propose in terms of it, do not affect the principle of the Bill, but widen the field of application of the Bill. I think the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech did in fact support the point I have just made by mentioning that referendums may also be necessary for Blacks. One would not expect him to mention that fact if it were in conflict with the principle of the Bill. I think this is an important point. We on this side of the House feel that it would be as well to make provision even now, preferably in this Bill, for Blacks too, to be consulted in South Africa by way of referendums.

There are all kinds of reasons for this. One can say, inter alia, that it is a good thing if a uniform measure exists and that it could give rise to greater orderliness if we provide for it in this Bill. I shall come back to this later.

Were you asleep during the Second Reading?

All I can tell the hon. member for Barberton is that he should at least understand that we have been involved in power-sharing and consultation with the Blacks for longer than they have. He must not therefore, expect me to take his criticism too seriously.

We on this side of the House believe that Blacks should be consulted just like other inhabitants of the country when important decisions are taken which affect them and which would justify a referendum if it were applicable to members of any of the other population groups. Allow me to add immediately that there would be little point in submitting a draft Bill to Blacks by means of a referendum if that draft Bill totally excluded the Blacks from participating in the administration of the country, and when Blacks have even been excluded from the negotiation process which led up to that draft Bill. Then there would not be much sense in submitting such a constitution to Blacks. Of course, these are the very conditions which apply to the proposals of the President’s Council at this stage. Such a referendum among Blacks would not contribute in any way towards getting them to agree to it, for obvious reasons. We need not pursue this matter any further.

It is evident from a study of the Bill before this House that referendums can be held on matters which are not necessarily of a constitutional nature. With regard to such matters the holding of a referendum among Blacks could indeed represent a considerable improvement for them, bearing in mind that Blacks have no other say in the administration of our country and there is no other way in which they have a say of equivalent value to that of a referendum. The Government may even feel that certain limited constitutional questions can in fact be put to Blacks, in spite of the shortcomings I have mentioned. In this connection the envisaged local government system for Blacks—the Bill already appears on the Order Paper—may be considered as a subject for such a referendum. 1 mention this by way of illustration that here is a matter of a constitutional nature which does affect Blacks. As a matter of fact, it only affects the Blacks. It is of direct importance to Blacks, and a good case could be made out for such a system to be submitted to the Blacks by means of a referendum. Because the proposals of the President’s Council relating to local government, which make provision for Coloureds, Indians and Whites, may quite possibly, in terms of the undertaking of the hon. the Prime Minister, be submitted to Coloureds and Indians by way of referendum, it would only be consistent to submit similar proposals, as contained in the Black Local Authorities Bill, to Blacks by way of referendum.

I have already referred to the fact that the hon. Minister even made mention of the possibility that Blacks would be consulted in a referendum, and I feel that this indicates that the Government has no objection in principle or any other objections to the idea that Blacks may be consulted by way of a referendum under certain circumstances. However, the hon. the Minister also mentioned that for the purposes of such a referendum, and when it may be necessary, the voting proclamations and the voters’ rolls of the national States could be used for that purpose; in other words, the voters’ rolls and the election proclamations used for the election of the legislative assembly, could be used in those States. We have certain practical problems in this regard, over and above the policy standpoints. The practical problems are, in the first place, that to the best of my knowledge, at this stage no voters’ rolls in fact exist for the purposes of the election of a legislative assembly. I may be wrong as far as one or two of the legislative assemblies are concerned, but in any case, as far as I know they do not all have such voters’ rolls. As a matter of fact, the elections take place on the basis that a person presents himself with his identity document and these are stamped to show that the person is entitled to vote, that he can cast his vote and the document is then stamped to indicate that he has in fact cast his vote. This is one way of holding an election, but I want to say immediately that it is of course satisfactory to the same extent that a referendum or an election, based on a proper voters’ roll, can be. This, then, is the first practical problem.

When we go on to talk about the use of voters’ rolls or voting regulations designed for the purposes of an election of a legislative assembly, we immediately find ourselves in a problem situation. For example, if the Government were to want to hold a referendum for some reason in Soweto, among the inhabitants of Soweto—one can think of various possibilities in this connection, and I refer you, inter alia, to the Black Local Authorities Bill—then they would be dealing with Blacks belonging to different population groups, and if the recipe of the hon. the Minister were followed, these Blacks would be subject to a variety of election proclamations. Therefore, if there were voters’ rolls at that stage, their names would appear on a variety of voters’ rolls.

As far as these election systems and election proclamations applicable to Blacks for the election of legislative assemblies are concerned, I understand that an urban Black votes, and that his vote is counted for the purposes of a constituency based on his place of birth. In other words, wherever such an urban Black may be, his vote counts in the constituency in which he was born. Of course, this link is so tenuous that it makes an election rather unrealistic. For argument’s sake, this person may have left his place of birth at such an early age that he no longer has any real links with that area. On this basis I feel that one may find oneself in a problem situation if one wants to test the opinions of a group of Black people who are in a certain area, whether it be an urban area, a province or a region, whatever may be of interest at a specific moment.

Another problem which in our opinion is of importance is that election proclamations issued for the purposes of the election of a legislative assembly, do not necessarily make provision for the holding of a referendum. Let me say at once that I should be surprised if the election proclamations of the national States, as they have been issued at this stage, make provision for a referendum.

They could be amended for that purpose.

Yes, that in fact brings me to the point. If proclamations or legislation must in any event be amended to make this situation possible, I feel it would be desirable that we do so by way of legislation rather than by way of proclamation. I therefore see no reason why the hon. the Minister or any hon. members on that side of the House should oppose this idea.

I now want to react to the statement of the hon. the Minister that they can be amended for this purpose. If the hon. the Minister wants to amend those proclamations, it goes without saying that he must have the co-operation of the national States. I can well imagine a situation where, for example, the question that can be put by way of a referendum is of such a nature that the legislative assembly in question is not willing to grant that co-operation. Jf, for example, the Government wants to hold a referendum among the Zulus, among the citizens of KwaZulu on the question of independence, and their legislative assembly feel that they do not want to give their co-operation in such a situation, this means that this Government will have to make changes to those proclamations against the will of those people in order to test their will. I can therefore foresee that under those circumstances they may encounter problems.

An argument of a purely legal nature—I am speaking under correction and I mention this as a doubt in my mind rather than as a definite standpoint—is that I doubt whether this Government, with the Bill as it reads at present and if it is passed in this form, will in fact have the authority to hold a referendum among Blacks. Even if the hon. the Minister were to have the proclamations amended in some way to make provision for a referendum, I believe that legally speaking he would lack the authority to hold a referendum among Blacks. If this is in fact the case, I do not know what the aim of this Bill is. The aim here is to create the possibility by way of legislation for a referendum to be held among Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Chinese. If we do not make similar arrangements for Blacks, I doubt whether the Government can hold such a referendum among Blacks without consulting the various legislative assemblies of the national States and obtaining their co-operation. If the Government foresees the possibility that Blacks must be consulted in a referendum, then in my opinion it is an extremely unsatisfactory position that the Government and this House have to be dependent on the co-operation of other authorities who could perhaps refuse such co-operation.

Thus I believe that as far as the holding of such a referendum is concerned, the technical problems I have referred to could create major problems for the Government if they wanted to hold a referendum, and I cannot understand why hon. members cannot agree to this instruction so that we can make provision at this stage for the possibility already mentioned by hon. members on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to spend much time on the discussion of this Bill … [Interjections.] … because there is a fundamental difference between the PFP on the one hand and, I could almost say, the rest of the political parties on the other, in their approach to the political set-up in South Africa. The simple fact is that generally speaking, provision was not made in the past for the holding of referendums. Now provision is being made for an opportunity to be created in the legislative process to hold referendums for the Whites, Coloureds and Indians, respectively, on separate voters’ rolls. The Electoral Act makes provision for the holding of elections for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, and there are voters’ rolls which are used in this process. The legislation in connection with the referendum, which is now before us, is largely based on that foundation, and provision is being made to create the possibility that questions may be put to the respective population groups.

In the legislative process there are separate bodies and organizations for the Blacks, enabling them to maintain their own political systems in the national and self-governing States as far as national politics is concerned. When a referendum has to be held on any matter, the government of the national State can make provision by way of proclamation for the holding of such a referendum among its people. Last year, in fact, the Ciskei voluntarily approached the Government and indicated that they wanted to negotiate on independence. Arrangements were then made by the Ciskei for Ciskeian citizens throughout South Africa to have the right to express their opinion on independence for Ciskei in a referendum. They used the authority they had. There is legislation already before the Select Committee on the Constitution which provides for the establishment of Black local authorities in White South Africa. Those local authorities will have the right—if, for example, as the hon. member for Wynberg suggested, there has to be a referendum in Soweto on a matter of importance to Soweto—to hold a referendum in Soweto, just as, two years ago, King William’s Town had the right to hold a referendum among the inhabitants of King William’s Town. In other words, there is provision for this. However, in the processes we foresee at the moment there is no reason why, in general, provision must be made for the inclusion of Blacks in referendums which may be held countrywide. All this amounts to is simply that the PFP is obsessed with the idea of a unitary State and unitary political structures. They want to do everything possible to make it possible to operate according to their models. However, there is no need for this in South Africa. The vast majority of the total population of South Africa has no need for this, and I include the Blacks, because the vast majority of the Blacks—even if they are not linked to the national States as such—have an ethnic loyalty, ethnic bonds, an understanding of ethnic culture. Therefore, as far as the Government is concerned, it is not desirable or necessary to accede to this request on the part of the PFP.

Mr. Speaker, we have already voted against the Second Reading of the Bill. This proposal put forward by the PFP amounts to a further extension of the legislation, which to us is totally unacceptable. For this reason we are opposed to it.

The hon. member for Klip River alleged that as far as standpoints based on principle are concerned, the PFP is far removed from other parties in this House. To a certain extent he is right, but recently it has seemed to me as if the NP and the PFP are actually moving closer to each other. [Interjections.]

I think the official Opposition discovered too late that they made a mistake during the Second Reading debate of this Bill, because, contrary to their basic philosophy that as far as any possible constitutional dispensation is concerned, they draw no distinctions between Whites, Coloureds, Asians or Blacks, it was rather a surprise that they swallowed this Bill as it stood. I can only assume that since then they must have received instructions from elsewhere to convert them, and now—actually it is too late—they have come forward with this proposal.

We are unable to go along with it.

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading debate we in these benches supported the concept of the Bill making allowance for the inclusion of Blacks in referendums. Various statements were made by the hon. the Minister at the time which do not completely satisfy the thinking on this side of the House. We still believe that situations may arise in which Black opinion may be needed, especially in regard to non-homeland Blacks. We believe that in terms of the wording of clause 7(1)(a) it is realistic and practical to include the Blacks as well as the other races in this Bill. We do not believe that it would do any harm and it may in fact avoid problems in the future. Certainly, it would be creating a non-racial piece of legislation. We do not necessarily believe that it is desirable to include them for the same reasons the hon. members of the PFP advanced, but we do believe that, when one is making a piece of legislation such as this, it makes sense to cover any potential requirements of the future. One cannot possibly say that one is not at some stage in the future going to require Black opinion. I am aware that the self-governing homelands do have the power—this point was made by the hon. member for Klip River—to hold referendums in their own homelands, but as far as we can see there is still a problem particularly in relation to the non-homeland Blacks. Therefore, we propose to support the instruction.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umbilo has once again focused attention on an almost inexplicable aspect of the NRP’s approach to matters. The NRP claims that it is in favour of the recognition of the plural nature of South African society. It claims that it will recognize and encourage the existence of group identities. Yet when the PFP, which is obviously not of the same opinion, moves a motion which is really nothing but a clever move to cast everyone into the same melting pot, to regard all South Africans, irrespective of whether they are White, Brown, Indian or Black, as members of one society, then the NRP supports that policy. [Interjections.] It is the same old story we came to expect in Natal from their predecessors, the United Party. We are seeing the same attitude from the NRP these days. They say one thing, but when it comes to the test, they advocate a different approach.

In fact, the hon. member for Green Point quoted as an example his argument that there may be certain Black Governments that may be disinclined to support or permit a referendum among those Black people. He said that this Government would then have the right to force such a referendum upon them. It is no use my trying to argue with the hon. member for Green Point, for his approach is different to ours. We believe that for decades there has been a specific constitutional dispensation which accommodates the Black peoples in this country. In certain cases, those Black peoples are served by their own independent Governments in their own independent States. In any event, those who are not members of independent peoples, have self-government and autonomous Governments which supervise their affairs. Out attitude is that we wish to encourage and strengthen those ties between individual Black peoples and their Governments, and most certainly do not want to break them down, as would be the case with the example the hon. member for Green Point mentioned. Consequently we cannot go along with this approach at all. If it is deemed to be in the interests of a particular Black people by its Government and its own people that the opinion of that people should be gauged then the means to do so can be found—the hon. member for Klip River referred to examples in this regard—but we cannot go along with anything which would contribute to encouraging all the people in South Africa to identify themselves with one undivided State and one undivided group on the one hand, or anything which could contribute to dividing Black peoples and their legally elected Governments on the other, and that is why we cannot support this instruction.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with legislation in respect of referendums, which form part of the process of constitutional change in South Africa. It is envisaged that this will be a mechanism whereby it will be possible to gauge the reaction of people to the proposed constitutional change. Particularly after the debate of the past two days, I find it quite strange that hon. members on the Government side do not wish to accept the Instruction moved by the hon. member for Green Point. All that is being asked for in this instruction, is consultation. After all, the hon. the Minister himself said that all this was concerned with at this stage was consultation, and certainly not a joint say, and it is true that the Black people also want a measure of say. When the hon. the Minister was taking the CP severely to task about their opposition to this measure, he asked, inter alia, whether hon. members of the CP were opposed to this measure because they did not want people to be consulted. He also wanted to know whether they were opposed to the process of the consultation of other people with regard to those matters that affected their lives.

There are at least 10 million Black people living in the so-called White areas in South Africa, and the constitutional changes, as proposed by the President’s Council, are definitely going to affect them as well. They are going to continue to affect them, their children and their grandchildren from here to eternity. Is this, then, not a matter about which we ought to consult them? Is this not a matter which affects their own lives? There is no such thing as semi-logic. One cannot only apply logic until it no longer pleases one. If, for example, there were 600 million Chinese in South Africa, I am sure that they would not be included in referendums. This is all about numbers. The logistics of the matter, as the hon. the Minister explained to us here, are completely foreign to us. The hon. the Minister also maintained that to subordinate one population group to another, irrespective of which one will be permanently subordinate to the other, is a recipe for destruction. Of course, he added his usual rider and said that this only applied to the population groups referred to here. However, I wish to remind the hon. the Minister that we are dealing with people here. There are millions of Black people in so-called White South Africa. There are therefore more Black people who are going to be affected by the proposals of the President’s Council, than the hon. the Minister thinks. The hon. member for Klip River said that the Blacks could hold their own elections, that they could also hold their own referendums. However, to them a referendum is outwardly only a one-way street. I wonder whether the people of Soweto are allowed to hold a referendum to determine whether they may take part in the process of constitutional change? I see that the hon. the Minister is laughing. Are they allowed to hold such a referendum or not? Of course, the hon. the Minister has added his own rider once again by saying that as far as the Government is concerned, this is not desirable. However, we are talking about the people of South Africa, people who are involved in this and whose lives are going to be influenced by this very thing.

As the hon. the Minister put it, it is only consultation which is being envisaged at this stage. The hon. member for Klip River also said that the PFP were in the minority, that there are few people in South Africa who agree with us in this respect. However, we request the hon. the Minister to accept the inclusion of Black people, so that we may test its effectiveness. Let the first referendum be held on the question of whether the Black people ought to be consulted, so as to determine whether they do, in fact, wish to be included in this process or not.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the standpoints stated by the hon. members with regard to the Notice of Instruction by the hon. member for Green Point. If I understand this correctly, I think the hon. member for Greytown really supplied the basic motivation for this. In his motivation of this, the standpoint of the official Opposition is, after all, very clearly identified.

You should have listened to my speech during the Second Reading. I motivated it then already.

Oh, please! I was listening to the hon. member while he was speaking.

One does not find it easy to listen to him.

It requires a real effort to listen to the hon. member for Greytown. I concede at once that the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs is correct. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Greytown says that we should approach this matter with pure logic. What, according to him, is the pure logic with which we should approach the matter? He says that numbers are pure logic and that therefore they are the only standard we should apply in assessing this legislation. If, therefore, we apply this pure logic of the hon. member—and I am working on his premise now—we should also accept the results of his pure logic. What did he say? The hon. member said that there were 10 million people outside the national States who were members of Black Nations. His logic tells him that we should use them, and the people in the national States, to determine what form the constitutional development of the country should take.

No, I said at least them.

No, Sir. According to his argument, this means that we should be prepared to subject what will happen in respect of White, Brown and Asian, to the logical numerical domination of the other peoples. This explains the fundamental standpoint of the hon. member for Green Point, although he could have put it with a little more finesse than the hon. member for Greytown. Let us go a little further.

Why does the hon. the Minister then foresee this in his own speech?

I should like to reply. If the hon. member would just give me an opportunity, I should like to reply. I wish to repeat what I said in my speech. I said that if the need should arise for a referendum among Black peoples …

Not Black peoples, but Blacks.

Does the hon. member for Green Point want to make my speech for me? I say again: If we wish to hold a referendum among the Black peoples, it is possible to do so in the legislative assemblies in terms of the 1971 legislation on the constitutions of national States by way of proclamation. Surely the hon. member knows that there are various legislative committees for the various Black peoples. Why, then, is he advancing his old, semantic remarks in the meanwhile? One’s remarks should at least be in context. This once again explains the fundamental difference in premise between us and the party of the hon. member for Green Point, and that is that he simply wishes to see these people as Blacks, while we say that we cannot define all Black peoples under a collective name, as he wishes to do. [Interjections.] I now wish to ask that hon. member, who is so concerned about consultation, who asked them to give notice of this Instruction on behalf of the leader of any legislative committee? Who requested this? [Interjections.] Not one of them requested this. This, then, explains another element in the make up of those hon. members, and that is that they have set themselves up to be the spokesmen or apologists for Black peoples, thereby adopting this arrogant attitude towards those people who are not permitted to talk for themselves. [Interjections.] I shall reply as soon as the hon. member for Greytown keeps quiet. I have said umpteen times that if he would only keep his mouth shut for a change, his brain might get a chance to work. I know that this is highly unlikely, but I am giving him good advice. See how that hon. member is arguing. He says that we are going to experience problems with the legislative assemblies of the Black national States in respect of the alteration of the proclamation. Then we would be ignoring them. However, now he is asking me to pass legislation which ignores them. What kind of logic is that? He is asking me to make an amendment whereby I would be ignoring their legislative power—yet this is his argument. At the same time, he is accusing me of ignoring them in respect of an amendment by proclamation, if I do not obtain their cooperation.

That is not what I said.

What nonsense we are dealing with now as a result of the hon. member’s argument!

I wish to make it very clear that there is a difference between this side of the House and the official Opposition. There must be no doubt about that. The basis of the argument of the hon. member for Green Point and the basis of the argument of the hon. member for Greytown, is not to emphasize that difference in premise. The hon. members opposite pay lip service to the concept of plural society when it comes to putting its implications into practice.

Are the Blacks not plural?

Do you not believe in a plural …

I think the hon. member for Durban Point should rather keep quiet; I am not arguing with him.

What does “plural” mean?

I think if the hon. member were to look in the mirror, he would know.

As an institution, the President’s Council owes its establishment to the fact that we were seeking an instrument to deal with a constitutional dispensation for White, Brown and Asian, on the assumption that in terms of the philosophy of this side of the House, White, Brown and Asian have to find their own political dispensation within the same national State. In contrast, the various Black peoples have to find their political dispensation within their national States. [Interjections.]

The political systems of the various Black peoples therefore lean just as heavily on the recognition of political participation by Black people to promote their national and human aspirations. I maintain that the Government is in fact giving visible recognition to the need for constitutional structures for Blacks to realize their aspirations and value systems. The structures for this process of consultation with Black leaders, makes specific and definite provision for a fundamental cultural-historical truth, and that is ethnic diversity. And every argument raised by the official Opposition is diametrally opposed to this. [Interjections.]

Secondly, I must point out that the official Opposition wishes to ignore ethnic diversity, thereby ignoring the reality of society. They do so because it is unpopular to talk about this in certain circles, and in the circles in which they move in particular, since their power base is different from that of the Government and the NP. That is why they are advancing the arguments we have heard from them.

To me it is surprising that the hon. members do not wish to understand or observe that the ethnic factor in the multiplicity of government systems in Black Africa is so spontaneous, and that it is basic. Why should we ignore or negate this in South Africa? Why should we do this? Simply for the sake of a logical argument of the hon. member for Greytown? What makes South Africa an exception, to act in a different way to other African States or to be assessed in a different way as far as the diversity of peoples is concerned? Not one hon. member opposite raised any argument whatsoever about this.

It would be politically dangerous, morally dishonourable and practically foolish to deny the existence of ethnic units such as the Tswanas, Swazis, Zulus, Vendas and others. We have never stood in the way—and I wish to emphasize this—of the grouping together of ethnic units that wish to be grouped together. I repeat: This Government has never stood in the way of units of peoples who wish to be grouped together. But we are not going to force this on them either.

Since when?

The hon. member for Pinelands does not know what the word people (volk) means. This is his basic problem, since he does not have one to which he belongs.

We wish to avoid a power struggle by in fact creating structures which exercise power, and which accommodate the diversity of values and cultural systems of South Africa and give expression to these. Let us disagree about this if we wish, but let us not try to bring a standpoint in through the back door which is not a standpoint of the Government—as the hon. member for Green Point is trying to do with this Instruction in this House. That is why we are not prepared to accept this Instruction and we shall vote against it.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

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

I should just like to motivate it very briefly. This amendment goes together with the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper on clause 7. The purpose is to provide for a referendum to be called in a geographical unit, other than an electoral constituency. At the moment the whole Referendums Bill is structured on the building block of electoral divisions. It may be that the Government would wish to call a referendum in a local authority area or, indeed, in a suburb, or in a number of local authority areas but those areas may not be contiguous to electoral divisions. Let me give a practical example. If it was desired to hold a referendum in the village of Pinelands, in terms of the Bill as it stands at the moment it would not be possible because the Pinelands electoral division extends outside of the village of Pinelands. Similarly, if you were to have a referendum in the Constantia local area it would not be contiguous with the Constantia division. So one can take examples right around the country. What this amendment will achieve for the Government is to widen the scope of the kind of referendum that could be held. I think this amendment should in fact be welcomed by the hon. the Minister. There are many examples. Every member of this House will be able to imagine an example in his own area where a logical area for testing in terms of a referendum on any subject would not necessarily be contiguous with an electoral division. I, therefore, hope the hon. the Minister will accept the amendment as it will give him extra powers which he should welcome.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member’s amendment is not acceptable. This Bill is concerned with one thing only, viz. referendums. There can be no question of a referendum within the area of jurisdiction of a local authority. The Afrikaans word “volkstemming” means precisely what the word says it does, viz. a “stemming” (plebiscite) by the “volk” (people). That is why the hon. member’s amendment is not acceptable. If a need arises—and there may be such a need—for a referendum for particular local purposes to take place in the area of a local authority, there are other authorities which have to effect the statutory amendments to make provision for this.

Then the English word should be “plebiscite”.

Well, move an amendment to that effect.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 2 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 3:

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

In view of my reply to the Second Reading debate, I just wish to explain briefly what the implications of this amendment is. In view of the fact that the Chinese people have been accepted as a permanent part of the South African population since the ‘sixties, and the fact that most of them have become South African citizens since then, it was now possible to provide that only Chinese people who are 18 years and older, and who are South African citizens, will take part in referendums. Regarding the number of Chinese people who are 18 years and older, and who have already been enrolled on the population register, the position is that 5 497 of them are South African citizens, while only 737 are not South African citizens.

Mr. Chairman, if we look at clause 3 as it reads at present, and as it is to be amended by the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister, I wish to refer to subsection (2). In this regard, clause 3(2) should be read in conjunction with clause 5(3). It is provided in clause 3 who is entitled to vote in a referendum. Clause 1 refers to every White, Coloured and Indian voter whose name appears on certain voters’ lists in terms of the Electoral Act of 1979. Clause 2 refers to the fact that if the Electoral Act of 1979 is not yet applicable to the Indian Council or the CPRC at the time that a referendum is held, the existing Act apply as far as the Coloureds and Indians are concerned. I find it strange that the hon. the Minister has moved an amendment, an addition to clause 5(3), but that there is no amendment in respect of clause 3(2). I think there is a conflict here, and I do not know whether the hon. the Minister and his law advisers have considered this.

I said during my Second Reading speech that I thought this legislation was premature, since one could not but read it in conjunction with the Bill that had already been referred to a Select Committee. If one were to look at the proposed amendments to the Electoral Act, of which notice was given in this House, and specifically at clause 4, one would observe that once again (3)(b) reads that every Indian who is permanently resident in the Republic will have the vote, and no provision is being made that he shall be a South African citizen. What is more, as soon as the new Electoral Act comes into operation, the provisions of clause 3(2) fall away, as do the provisions of clause 5(3), which means that the proposed amendment of the hon. the Minister is, in the case of clause 5(3), only a temporary measure which temporarily provides that an Indian who is not a citizen, will not be able to vote. As soon as the new Electoral Act comes into operation, which provides that only an Indian who may live here permanently will have the vote, this means that they will also be able to vote in a referendum.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Barberton is aware of the fact that the Electoral Laws have been referred to a Select Committee, and naturally the same amendment will be effected by the Select Committee to bring those laws in line.

Amendment agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 5:

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

Once again, I wish to explain very briefly what the circumstances are. Before the Union of South Africa came into existence in 1910, all the provinces had their own legislation in respect of Asians within their own borders. From 1927, a system of assisted immigration to India and other countries was organized for Indians in the Union who wished to avail themselves of it. It was the policy of successive Governments that the Asians could not be accepted as a permanent part of the South African population, and that attempts should be made to repatriate Asians to their countries of origin. On 16 May 1961, the then Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr. De Klerk, declared in this House that the Asians were being accepted as permanent residents in this country, that most of them were South African citizens and that accordingly they were entitled to the benefits which this entailed. With the introduction of the Electoral Act for Indians, 1977 (No. 122 of 1977), provision was made for all Indians who had been permanently admitted to the Republic, and who were 18 years and older, to qualify for registration as voters. Hon. members opposite did not object to that legislation. The reason why provision was not made that only a South African citizen might qualify, was that at that stage, as a result of the previous policy of repatriation, many Indians would not qualify for registration as voters because they had not yet obtained citizenship in terms of the 1961 announcements. The position has changed considerably since then, and since most Indians are now South African citizens, provision is being made that only Indians who are 18 years or older and who are South African citizens, may take part in referendums. As a matter of interest, I could mention the following figures: There are 1200 non-South African Indian citizens, and 139 084 who are South African citizens.

Amendment agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to say that it is amusing that the hon. the Minister has turned down an offer of an extra power. However, I should briefly like to take issue with him on his statement that a “volkstemming” in terms of this Bill is for the whole “volk” while, in fact, his Bill says something quite different. The Bill states that the purpose is to hold a referendum in the Republic or any part thereof, and right throughout the Bill one comes across the phrase “in the Republic or in a particular region of the Republic”. I believe the hon. the Minister should explain himself. The Bill refers to a geographic region in the Republic, while his reference is a “volk”. I accordingly move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

(including any area, or part thereof, under the jurisdiction of a local authority as referred to in section 84(1 )(f) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961 (Act No. 32 of 1961))

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to clause 7(1) and to the fact that this clause creates the situation that the respective ethnic groups can go to the polling booth on the same day and vote on the same matter. [Interjections.] The hon. member can laugh; however, he should first listen to what my objection to that situation is. White political parties and groups will, as a result of this provision, have the opportunity to expound their political views to other ethnic groups, something which our legislation prevented in the past. However, as a result of the provision it now becomes possible that the various population groups can go to the polls on the same day. This creates the possibility that the boundaries of polling stations for the various ethnic groups may coincide. I am saying that it creates such a possiblity. On that point the legislation is not absolutely clear. However, it is clear that the respective ethnic groups may vote at one polling station. In my view racial friction could arise because of this, and this is something we have tried to prevent over the years. [Interjections.]

I also object to the fact that the State President is now being empowered to formulate the questions which he may promulgate in the Gazette, because it could be formulated in such a way that one cannot get a true answer to a specific question. We are not opposed to the principle of referendums if they are held on an ad hoc basis, but when legislation is introduced to authorize a referendum, it makes me think that the Government wants to govern by means of referendums, and that it no longer wishes to govern in the traditional way where the voters are consulted about matters. The legislation gives me the impression that one may now put a question by means of a proclamation in the Gazette and that the opinion of the people may be obtained on that question alone. Consequently I want to ask that we should once again give attention today to the issue having to be an important one which has to be discussed in this House. [Interjections.] It must be discussed in the House of Assembly. This is the place where it must be discussed. What gave rise to the issue must be debated by the country, so that everybody will have the opportunity to know precisely what it deals with. [Interjections.] As I said, referendums are not something completely foreign to us, but to embody it in legislation is indeed something foreign to us. As I have indicated, we have had referendums in the past and we had no problems with them because the issue gave rise to the referendum.

S. P., what are you really trying to say now?

People should not tell me that it is strange for me to ask that the various people, the various population groups, should have distinguishable ballot papers. I shall explain why I say that. Why are there for example ballot papers of different colours, a green one and one of some other colour, when elections for the provincial council takes place? What is the reason for that? Why should there be a green one in particular? Is it to indicate that perhaps a person does not like the provinces? Is it an indication that one wants them to be abolished? Is this the reason why they have been counted separately over the years? [Interjections.] I cannot understand the objections to ballot papers of various colours for various people at all. I think it is essential…

One white one and one black one.

… because in a referendum mistakes can occur with the counting of ballot papers, and this can perhaps lead to the fact that a definite desire on the part of one group is not taken into account. [Interjections.] For that reason we ask that attention be given to this provision.

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. It seems to me the hon. member was well aware of that when he moved the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do in fact want to move an amendment on the question of the formulation of the issue on which the referendum must be held. Consequently I move as an amendment—

Basically it is of the utmost importance that clarity must be obtained with regard to the issue which is subjected to a referendum by way of these ballot papers. In this regard I should just like to stress that this piece of legislation is an enabling piece of legislation which enables us to obtain, by way of referendums, the verdict of the nation, or parts of the nation—Whites, Coloureds and Asians—on specific issues. Therefore this legislation does not only have a bearing on constitutional issues. Theoretically it would be possible that aspects other than only those aspects in connection with the Constitution of South Africa, may be subjected to the test of a referendum. I think that the hon. the Minister could for example consider employing the machinery of a referendum to determine—even if it is only among the Whites, how strong the feeling is that the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act should be retained or not. In this way it would therefore be easy for the Government to obtain guidance on matters in respect of which it is in certain circumstances not clear to the Government what course it should adopt. In addition, it is essential that any result of such a referendum should possess the largest possible degree of acceptance or legitimacy. To obtain that legitimacy it seems essential to me that with the drawing up of the issue which is being subjected to a referendum, it should not only be left to the executive to determine the issue. Furthermore I want to say—and here I concur with what was said by the hon. members for Langlaagte—that it could sometimes be essential to put the question in such a way that the reply to it is not a simple “yes” or “no”. Alternatives may possibly be put, and if this were to happen, it may be necessary to, in addition to the “yes” and “no” options also to provide for people who say: “No, we prefer the status quo to be preserved.”. I am merely mentioning this as an example to indicate that the way in which the question that is going to appear on the ballot paper is formulated, is going to be of the utmost importance. It seems to me that if we really want to create a situation which will make the result of such a referendum meaningful, knowing full well that the referendum is merely advisory in respect of the executive, if we want to create a situation which will really lend weight to the result of the referendum, it is essential that we focus attention on the way in which the issue which is going to be subjected to a referendum is going to be stated.

There are various ways in which provision is made for referendums in other countries, and in which the relevant issue is formulated. In some countries it is in fact a Bill which is submitted to a referendum. After the Bill has been discussed by the particular Parliament or legislative constitution, it is then subjected to a referendum. In other instances other machinery exists to determine how the particular issue should be formulated. What I suggest in my amendment is, firstly, that a committee of this House be designated by the State President to determine what issue is going to be submitted and how it should be formulated.

My amendment states further that with the composition of that committee the State President shall take the strength of the various parties in Parliament into consideration. I want to say immediately that we prefer the Select Committee on the Constitution to undertake this task. However, hon. members and the hon. member will realize that I cannot mention the Select Committee on the Constitution in my amendment, because it could be a temporary body, etc. However, that is the intention here. We feel that such a Select Committee as the Select Committee on the Constitution, which is representative of the parties in the House of Assembly, should really undertake this task. The way in which the amendment is worded, shows that not every party should necessarily be represented in the committee. I leave it to the discretion of the State President, because theoretically it is possible that there could be a number of very small parties in the House of Assembly, and each of those small parties does not necessarily have to be represented on the committee.

However, my amendment also contains a further aspect. If one or more of the other groups—Coloureds or Asians—is also involved in a referendum, my amendment provides that the State President will add representatives of the other population groups to that committee to assist with the formulation of the question. After all, the acceptance of the result of the referendum by those population groups will be of the utmost importance. We are not dealing here with something which conflicts in principle with the Bill or with the principle of referendums. In view of the fact that it is enabling legislation, I merely want the question to be formulated in such a way that the referendum will indeed enjoy the largest possible measure of fairness, justice and acceptability, once again with a view to the result of the referendum.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to confirm what the hon. member Prof. Olivier said and, in addition, ask the hon. the Minister a question about the issue or issues which can be decided on a referendum. This clause provides that the State President may by proclamation in the Government Gazette determine that a referendum be held in which people’s views on a matter are requested. What I want to know now is whether or not more than one issue can be decided in the same referendum, and whether the State President would be able to promulgate more proclamations on the same day to determine that referendums may be held on the same day in respect of several issues. Basically we are not opposed to a referendum on more than one issue taking place on the same day. After all, referendums are expensive things, and I can think of many issues which should be dealt with at this stage. Consequently, if it can be done on the same day, so much the better.

I now proceed to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The effect of my amendment will be that section 2(c) of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act (Act 51 of 1968) will not apply to matters dealt with by way of a referendum. Section 2(c) of the said Act reads as follows—

I therefore believe that one can, by implication, accept that the hon. the Minister will in fact approve of my amendment.

Why do you say that one can accept it by implication?

During the past few days we have very regularly heard the hon. the Minister rebuking other people for having signed a publication in which mention was made of a joint say. To talk politics together, to say one’s political say together on the same platform, surely amounts to a joint say. We say our say together.

Now you are completely lost!

If one cannot even say one’s say together, I cannot understand how a joint say can be acceptable. Consequently I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will have to accept my amendment. Because we are, after all, dealing here with the bringing together of people, and also in view of the fact that the hon. the Minister has just said that the Government has never been opposed to people or groups or peoples wanting to see themselves together, I believe that he should now put his words into action and accept my amendment. If, for example, a yes vote in a referendum included the NP and a few Coloureds, while the no votes included the CP and the NRP, surely there would still be no reason why …

Your whole plea is of no avail to you!

I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept that for the purposes of a referendum, a member of one population group may not address members of another population group.

Mr. Chairman, today of course I saw another fine example of the fickleness of people, also with regard to standpoints they adopt in this House. In the Second Reading debate on this Bill the hon. member for Pietersburg was the main speaker of the CP. On that occasion, after he had referred to what I had said in my Second Reading speech, he had, inter alia, the following to say (Hansard, 1982, col. 7906)—

Then follows the most relevant aspect of the hon. member for Pieterburg’s argument—

However, when the hon. member Prof. Olivier moved his amendment, the hon. member for Jeppe said “Hear, hear”. [Interjections.] Then he expressed agreement with the hon. member Prof. Olivier. If I now want to apply the hon. member for Pietersburg’s norm a principle was accepted here … [Interjections.] Yes, it is interesting. It is like those double exposure photographs the hon. member for Jeppe published in his newspaper.

The amendment of the hon. member Prof. Olivier is unacceptable to me. [Interjections.] If the hon. member will just give me a chance, I shall tell him why. The hon. member Prof. Olivier argued that it enhances legitimacy and acceptability. The legitimacy and acceptability of what? Of the issues, Sir? Surely that is not what we want legitimacy for. The people who will decide on referendums after this legislation is passed will be the Government of the day, just as it was the Government of the day that formulated the questions in terms of the 1960 legislation. However, we now have a new situation in this House, which is that the non-governing parties in this House want to take over the function of the Government. This is basically what it amounts to. We must now leave the formulation of the questions in connection with which the Government wants to know the attitudes of the voters, to our opponents. Surely that does not make sense. The hon. member Prof. Olivier would be entitled eventually to express an opinion on the result of a referendum. He would also be entitled to do so here. In terms of the arrangement we have, if that referendum concerns constitutional matters, he would also be able to discuss it on the Select Committee on constitutional matters. However, there must not be any doubts about one aspect, which that the initiatives for a change in legislation, including legislation implying and incorporating changes to the constitutional dispensation, remain with the Government of the day. Hon. members are at liberty within the rules of the House to make suggestions to the Government regarding subjects they think our people should be consulted on. However, the Government considers this and then accepts responsibility for it. For this reason we cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member Prof. Olivier.

The hon. member went on to argue that what he actually wanted to say in the amendment was that the Select Committee on constitutional affairs should formulate the questions. However, he says that because that select committee is not defined in a statute, he could not frame his proposal in that way. That is what I understood him to say. However, that Select Committee does not consist of people outside this House. It consists of people in this House. For this reason the motivation of the hon. member cannot be correct. He also said we must ensure that at least one member from the other population groups may be consulted. Surely we are consulting those people, but in another way. For this reason I cannot accept it.

I now come to the hon. member for Langlaagte. Of course I agree—the hon. member for Green Point raised this matter during the Second Reading debate—that the questions should be formulated in such a way that people can react to them. They must therefore be formulated clearly and crisply. After all, the legislation makes it possible for alternatives to be stated.

The hon. member for Langlaagte knows I do not mean to be unkind, but I want to ask him where in this legislation it is stated that we want to use the referendum process for ordinary elections. Where is that stated in this Bill?

Where is it not stated in the Bill?

Where is it stated in legislation that one may not beat one’s wife?

We cannot trust you.

Oh, please.

We have a record of that.

Yes, the hon. members have a record of unreliability; that is true. [Interjections.] The hon. member is right—they have a record of unreliability.

Let me tell you we have concealed methods.

Yet again the hon. member is right—they have concealed methods. In addition, the hon. member has had concealed motives for years.

To tell the truth, he himself is concealed.

I want to give the hon. member some advice—do not look for your own faults in another.

He himself is at fault and then he looks for those faults in other people.

The hon. Minister of Health should rather go and talk to Buthelezi, because he does not know what is going on here in any case.

Sir, I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member for Langlaagte; why would I want to do that? What is he saying? He is trying to get away from the other remarks of his party by referring to the possible colour of ballot papers. He said we ought not to be opposed to the ballot papers being of different colours. For the election of MPCs and MPs the ballot papers are now of different colours but that is because different representatives are being voted for. However, when one holds a referendum, surely it is on the same subject.

Not for the various population groups?

It seems to me the hon. member’s argument is that the ballot papers should be the same colour as the respective population groups using them to cast a vote. [Interjections.]

I now come to the hon. member for Greytown. I want to give the hon. member some friendly advice. He should not discuss subjects which he knows nothing about, for when he does so all he does is place himself in an embarrassing position. He also embarrasses his party colleagues whom he wishes to support.

I think you are the one who is embarrassed.

What did the hon. member actually say? He said that when people all have a say, that is a joint say. With all due respect, his entire party agreed that what is at issue in this Bill is a consultative mechanism to get standpoints formulated and to ascertain people’s attitudes on this. What is therefore the origin of his naive remark? I am trying to be as kind to the hon. member as possible.

It was meant as a joke, but you have no sense of humour.

Only a sense of “Heunis”.

That is good sense and the hon. member ought to learn this for a change, for if he had done so he would, when he was working for the Provincial Administration, have done his job instead of riding around. He would then have done the job he was being paid to do.

I now come to the hon. member’s amendment. For his sake I must now read it. Section 2(c) of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act of 1968 reads as follows—

Now I am asking the hon. member: What is involved in a referendum? It does not involve a candidate or his candidature. It does not involve furthering the interests of a political party either. It cannot. How can it? The only thing which is involved is to consult the voters on a specific question.

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

No, not now. How can this provision prevent people from propagating, a specific standpoint on a matter on which a referendum is being held? How can that happen?

In the discussion of my Vote I explained—the hon. member will remember this—that it is my standpoint that members of one population group ought not to be members of a political party of another group.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member says he agrees with this. In the second place persons of one political group should not be allowed to act as agents or in another capacity for another political party …

You are now referring to the Act. Refer instead to the Bill before this House.

I am not referring to the Act. I shall now proceed: or to address meetings to promote the interests or candidates of that other political party. This is not what referendums are concerned with. That is why that legislation does not prevent political leaders of the various population groups from discussing topical matters of current interest. We do so every day—that we exchange ideas or differ with one another but that does not prevent us from negotiating with one another. In terms of the provisions of this legislation they may do so at any time, and for this reason they may, during a referendum, propagate a specific standpoint on the question put. For this reason it is not necessary to amend the legislation in question.

May they furnish information on the organization and arrangements for example?

Of course they may. After all, they are not benefiting a political party. They use the mechanism to reply to a question and to formulate their standpoint on it.

It is possible not only to ask more than one question, but it is also possible to put the questions as alternatives so that one can ascertain specific preferences in connection with the advice sought.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister can say what he likes, but he has still evaded the whole issue. The hon. the Minister is not so naive as to tell me that where there is talk of a referendum, all politics is all of a sudden going to disappear. Political parties are going to have specific views regarding the issue; they will hold meetings, etc. The hon. the Minister says that political leaders may hold discussions. However, I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister can tell me categorically whether when, for example, the CP uses a poster urging people to vote “no” during a referendum, a representative of that party may address a meeting in which other population groups are also involved. I should like to know this. If the hon. the Minister can say categorically that this will not be seen as an attempt to influence the party’s affairs, then I am quite prepared to withdraw my amendment. However, the hon. the Minister did not say this categorically.

Mr. Chairman, that hon. member’s leader held a political meeting with Chief Buthelezi a week or so ago.

It was a symposium.

Very well. He held a symposium with Chief Buthelezi, and he put forward his party’s standpoint there. Chief Buthelezi also stated his standpoint, and they shared their dreams with each other. They were not charged for doing so. They did not infringe a law.

He was charged by the leader of the CP in Natal.

In addition, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition together with Chief Minister Ntsanwisi, Chief Phatudi, Dr. Connie Mulder and myself, put forward our respective political views at the Afrikaanse Studentebond in Bloemfontein. Surely words have meaning, Sir. Surely we do not promote a particular political party during a referendum. Political parties do have a view on any particular matter, but surely, what is being promoted here is not the cause of political parties, nor that of a candidate. In other words, in terms of my interpretation it is not a transgression.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is very quick to refer here to people who are disloyal and goodness knows what else. However, I now say to the hon. the Minister: We cannot accept these statements of his to the effect that one can get on to a platform and then say that one is not adopting a political viewpoint on a certain point and that certain viewpoints will not then be propagated across the colour bar. Surely we are not living in a fairytale world.

Let us take as an example the situation in 1961. As a party the UP said “No” to a Republic. As a party the NP said “Yes” to the Republic. These were the views of the two parties. However, all that happened was that individuals were converted to one of the two views. All I want to ask is the following: If people of the same colour and of different colours liaise with one another on this basis, or in discussions concerning convictions, does the abovementioned Act apply or does it not? This is my viewpoint. I think that when one talks about this legislation, one has to ask questions. I do not think that the point at issue is the people asking the questions. We are certainly not all lawyers, but I can nevertheless tell the hon. the Minister that I have the opinions of seven advocates. I obtained their opinions because the hon. the Minister made certain statements and told me that I did not know how to read the Bill. I accepted it then. I do not only have seven opinions, but twelve. I have received still more. I allowed the legislation to go through. Does the hon. the Minister still want to tell me today that I did not know what is going on? It is reported in the newspapers that the question was put, and I told the hon. the Minister out of decency: “Yes, possibly you have a point. I have checked it.” But did the hon. the Minister really have a point?

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to find out whether I understood the hon. the Minister correctly. Did I understand him correctly to say that the Government intends first referring the question which is going to be put in a referendum, to the Select Committee on the Constitution for discussion?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member misunderstood me. I was dealing with the argument of the hon. member Prof. N. J. J. Olivier. I said that he had said that he intended by way of his amendment that it should happen in this way. However, I said that the amendment also includes people outside the Select Committee. That is all I said.

I do not want to argue with the hon. member for Langlaagte at length. All I said was—and I do not want there to be a lack of clarity in this regard—that the Prohibition of Political Interference Act prohibits the furtherance of the interests of a particular political party of one population group by another population group. Secondly, it prohibits the furtherance of the candidature of a candidate of one political party against a candidate of another population group. I said that in terms of what can be done by way of a referendum, one seeks advice and one does not promote the view of a particular political party or of a particular candidate, although particular political parties have viewpoints on the question which is being put. This is all I have to say, and that is why this does not fall within the ambit of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to react very briefly to the hon. the Minister’s reply to my amendment. I am fully aware that as matters stand at the moment, a Select Committee of this Parliament can only comprise members of Parliament. It was not, therefore, necessary for the hon. the Minister to harp on this particular point. If the referendum is only for Whites, the Select Committee on the Constitution would be the appropriate body. However one makes provision, not for the Select Committee on the Constitution, but for a committee comprising members of Parliament and, when other population groups are involved, for one or more representatives of that other population group as well. Secondly, the hon. the Minister is inclined to put up his own straw dolls and then to knock-them down. I am indeed aware, and I said so very clearly, that the legitimacy I seek—the acceptability—relates to the result of the referendum. I put that very clearly.

We can debate that here.

I went on to say that I know that as far as the Government is concerned, the referendum is consultative. I have never suggested that I, or anyone else wants to tie the Government down in this way. I further gained the impression from the hon. the Minister that he was saying that in fact we were seeking to dictate to the Government in this way. In the nature of things, the State President deals with the composition of such a committee on the advice of the executive, and this means the Cabinet. From the nature of things, I cannot simply accept that that committee will be composed in such a way that there will be a minority of Government members serving on it. Nor can the hon. the Minister say that because other parties are represented on the Select Committee on the Constitution, those other parties are prescribing to the Government what they should do, surely that is absurd. I want to say in all sincerity that the hon. the Minister has not replied to the substance of my arguments, and he has not convinced me that this is the proper way to raise the issue.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the hon. member’s argument. The flaw in the hon. member’s argument is that the Select Committee considers the legislation after it has been initiated by the Government.

Amendment moved by Prof. N. J. J. Olivier (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. P. C. Cronjé negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 9:

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

1. (1) On page 15, in line 62, after “division” to insert “or divisions”;
2. (2) on page 17, in line 1, after “division” to insert “or those divisions”.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clauses 10 to 13 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 14:

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

I just want to explain that this is a consequential amendment. In the Electoral Act Amendment Bill, provision is made for the date of 1 July 1982, the date on which the voters must be in possession of identity documents, to be replaced by a date to be determined by the State President by proclamation in the Government Gazette. The Referendums Bill is consequently being brought into line with this. This means that the furnishing of the identity number will not be obligatory in an application for a special vote.

Amendment agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clauses 15 to 28 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 29:

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

This is just a textual amendment to bring the Afrikaans text into line with the English.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clauses 30 to 35 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 36:

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

I just want to point out that in the Population Registration Amendment Bill, provision is being made, among other things, for the compiling of voters’ lists from the population register. Since these provisions will only be given effect to by proclamation by the State President, and as soon as the Electoral Act Amendment Bill, which has been referred to a Select Committee, has been finalized, the reference in the section concerned in the Population Registration Act, which refers to voters who are resident in independent States, is consequently being replaced, and the clause will now refer directly to these persons.

Amendment agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clauses 37 to 57 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 58:

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

I just want to point out that I have considered the point made by the hon. member for Umbilo. I have tried to embody that in the amendment which I have now moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 59:

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

Since the hon. the Minister has convinced the entire House that referendums are not concerned with politics, and that they are only intended to ascertain people’s opinions by enabling them to say “yes” or “no”, one may foresee, for example, that all those in favour of saying “yes” may join forces and may, upon request, be regarded as an organization which in the opinion of the officer has an interest in the referendum concerned. If all these people claim to be an organization which is in favour of a “yes” vote, they will approach the electoral officer and say that they would like to have people appointed as agents, etc. It is quite possible, therefore, that this group may include people of several colours. Then it is very strange that in such a case, the referendum agents may belong only to one population group, because, as the hon. the Minister has said, the issues will not be specifically political. Therefore those in favour of saying “yes” may include members of various population groups, and if the organization formed by those people wants to appoint someone, it is impossible, after all, to specify to what population group the chairmen, etc., of these people should belong.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

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

I want to use the same argument, because it concerns the same matter. [Interjections.] I do not know how the hon. the Minister is going to decide which of the yes-men constitute the population group referred to in this clause. What would happen if the number were the same, for example, 50 Coloured people and 50 Whites? What would the colour of the referendum agent be then? [Interjections.] The same applies in the case of the subagents who may be appointed. For the same reason, therefore, I am asking the hon. the Minister please to accept this amendment so that sub-agents need not belong to the same population group as the majority of members either.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not acceptable.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 61:

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

The hon. the Minister refuses to accept that a referendum agent or a subagent of the people who are in favour of saying “yes” in a referendum may belong to any population group. Will the hon. the Minister accept, perhaps, that a clerk or a messenger of an organization may be a member of any population group?

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not acceptable to me.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clauses 62 to 67 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting.)

Clause 68:

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

The amendment relates to subsection (4) which creates a strange new offence, making it a criminal offence to defame a politician, to defame a member of the President’s Council, the House of Assembly, a provincial council, the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council or the South African Indian Council if in doing so one’s utterances could have an influence on the referendum. One has to take into account that all the individuals who are to be protected by this clause have the privilege of their various Chambers. One finds, for example that members of this House and members of the President’s Council have the right to use extremely strong language against others. Defamatory language is very often used. This clause now seeks to pamper and to protect politicians and the members of the bodies mentioned when they are outside and involved in a referendum. We cannot see why politicians should now receive special protection through a provision which makes it a criminal offence to defame them. Common law provides ample opportunity, and is wide enough, to cover defamatory utterances and defamatory publications which are aimed at politicians or individuals from the bodies mentioned. One suspects that this proposed criminal offence is aimed at, for example, the Conservative Party. There have been numerous allegations from the Government side and also from the side of the Conservative Party against each other that they are each busy with “skinderstories”, “skandalige optrede”, etc. If that is something which the government wants to prevent by creating this criminal offence of defamation, I want to say that they will not achieve the aim. The common law is wide enough to cover that.

One knows that the office of a politician or a member of the President’s Council or one of the other bodies mentioned can be a controversial office. Such members normally make strong statements. They should also be subject to strong criticism and to strong views held against them. One knows that the laws of defamation provide a wider latitude in respect of statements which are aimed at politicians and which attack politicians than applies in other cases when those statements would be considered defamatory. If the hon. the Minister can give us an indication why he has found it necessary to introduce this particular offence with regard to politicians and members of the bodies mentioned, one can debate from there onwards, but at this stage there seems to be no justification for a measure of this kind, particularly if one takes into account that a fairly stiff penalty is provided for this new offence.

Mr. Chairman, the subsection which the hon. member is objecting to refers to the protection of members of the House of Assembly, the President’s Council, provincial councils, etc., against defamation when they are conducting a referendum.

Why?

But I am replying. What can we do with a referendum? Whereas an ordinary election revolves around the person of the candidate and the party he stands for, a referendum does not revolve around a person or a political party, but around the fact that people are acting in official capacities to perform certain functions in order to ascertain the standpoints of people on certain questions. Whereas in an election, the person of the candidate may be relevant, what is relevant here is the question. All we want to do here, therefore, is to ensure that the attention of the electorate will not be distracted from the question and directed at the person of the MPC or the MP or the member of the President’s Council.

I would therefore have expected hon. members of the official Opposition to welcome this approach so that we could focus attention on the subject of the referendum and not on the person of the man who is performing a specific function in a referendum.

Why should this not apply to ordinary elections as well?

I have just explained to the hon. member for Durban Central that during general elections for the House of Assembly or a provincial council, the person of the candidate is also relevant; sometimes very much so. In the case of a referendum, however, the person of the man concerned is not relevant, but the subject of the question is. The only intention with this clause is that the voters should not be distracted by personalities, but that the emphasis should be on persuading people to give a specific answer to a question.

Very poor motivation!

Then the hon. member for Yeoville will understand it. It is all the hon. member will understand. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville claims to have studied law. In all fairness, the remark he has just made has no foundation in law.

Of course it has!

It has none at all. In the case of general elections, there has always been protection.

[Inaudible.]

Can the hon. member for Yeoville not please keep quiet until I have finished?

But you are talking such a lot of nonsense! [Interjections.]

Order!

As the hon. member for Durban Central has said, there is still protection under common law. In this particular case, this protection is being extended for a specific reason. That is what this is all about. If the hon. member for Yeoville does not like it, he can vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister’s reaction to the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central is indeed hopelessly unconvincing. Let us examine the historic situation with regard to this Bill. This Bill was introduced in this House together with a Bill amending the polecat legislation, the Electoral Act, legislation in which exactly the same protection is embodied. Therefore it is very difficult to believe now that the argument which is being advanced to draw a distinction between the situation which prevails in a general election and the one which would prevail during a referendum can be used to motivate the provision of this kind of protection.

If the hon. the Minister feels so strongly about the fact that personalities should not play any role in determining the answer given to a question in a referendum, why does he stop at this? After all, there may be other people as well who have a very great interest in a referendum. In fact, the hon. the Minister knows very well that the inclusion or exclusion of Black people in the process of a new constitutional dispensation in South Africa is of tremendous importance. In the category concerned, no reference is made to anyone who is involved with Black politics in South Africa, for example. Of course, I am not implying that a meaningful line can possibly be drawn here. Nor am I implying that when one wants to write a provision of this nature into the legislation concerned, it is in any way possible to draw a meaningful line. Inevitably, all that can be done is to determine who is to be included and who is to be excluded. I am really not convinced that members of the House of Assembly, members of provincial councils and members of the President’s Council need protection of this nature. As long as politics remain open enough, people still have more than enough opportunity to disprove defamatory allegations very effectively. In any event, when the matter is thoroughly debated, it very seldom happens that anyone is influenced in an election or in a referendum by an allegation which can in fact be proved to have been defamatory.

Therefore I really do not see the validity of the hon. the Minister’s argument. In fact, I would be ashamed, as a member of the House of Assembly, to have protection of this nature embodied in a Bill for my sake, protection which does not apply to anyone outside, to anyone whose role in a referendum, in terms of the hon. the Minister’s own arguments, is just as important as the role of anyone in this House.

Mr. Chairman, initially I had it in mind to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central. However, on giving the matter considerable further thought, I came to the conclusion that the referendum was not confined simply to the White community. Having had considerable experience in the handling of election affairs in relation to other communities, in particular the Indian community which has less experience and sophistication in these matters, I felt that it was just possible that in these circumstances there might be an advantage in retaining this antidefamation clause. I say this because whilst it is accepted that people in public life must be big enough and tough enough to be able to look after themselves and take a bit of a hammering, as well as the fact that common law will protect them up to a point, there is the question of the expense involved in the application of common law. As I said earlier, knowing what happened during the elections for the South African Indian Council in Durban and some of the appalling things that were said by certain individuals about other individuals and certainly some of the ghastly things certain of the candidates said about one another, particularly in relation to sitting candidates, I felt that it was just possible that in spite of the fact that this was contrary to the protection normally afforded politicians, because of lack of experience and because of lack of sophistication it might well be desirable.

May I ask a question? As the hon. member knows, a provision similar to this one appears in the Electoral Act Amendment Bill which is now before a Select Committee. In view of the argument he has just advanced, would the hon. member be prepared to support the retention of that prohibition …

There is no such provision in that legislation.

Yes, there is. Would the hon. member be prepared to support the retention of such a prohibition to protect, for instance, candidates for the Indian Council standing in an election?

Mr. Chairman, this is obviously not before the Committee. I presume the hon. member for Green Point is referring to the electoral legislation that was referred back because we now have another one which does not have that inclusion. I feel it is a little unfair to put such a question to me but I do believe that in relation to the Coloured and Indian population they do have problems in appreciating the mores of voting and that sort of thing in South Africa. That problem does not exist overseas because there they have had experience over a longer period. However, I am inclined to say that there may well be some merit in having a similar provision in the Electoral Act because, as envisaged, this legislation will involve the Coloureds and Indians as well as the White community.

Mr. Chairman, this clause is unacceptable to me. I can tell you that there is adequate provision in terms of common law. We must not introduce legislation to provide for a special matter, particularly where similar matters occur in the country. As regards the argument of the hon. the Minister, that what is at issue here is a question and not a person, I think it is more likely that a person may become an agitator in an ordinary election than that the question should be disparaged. For that reason, I do not think there is any justification for protecting only MPS’s, members of the President’s Council and others. What about the people who are presiding officers? What about the people who act in certain capacities at the polling stations? Then there are the people who have to put across the standpoints. I think we should rely on common law. Moreover, we have enough legislation to enable us to deal with anyone who is really defaming anyone else.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill which is before the House …

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Minister prepared to take a question?

No. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the hon. the Minister can be allowed to proceed with this Bill when the National Press Union is at this moment flying to Cape Town to make representations to him on this very issue?

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. member is trying to obstruct the business of the House. I think he should be censured for doing so.

The Bill which is before the House concerns two separate matters of principle. [Interjections.] Firstly, measures are being proposed which are intended to support the news media in their attempts to lay down norms from within their own ranks and to ensure that those norms are complied with. [Interjections.]

You are talking nonsense, so you must expect interjections.

Order!

I know the hon. member for Sandton does not have any manners, but I do not think he needs to demonstrate it in this way.

You have no culture either.

Order!

In addition, the Bill provides for films shown on television by the SABC to be subject to the same norms as other films from now on. [Interjections.]

It is often said that the pen is mightier than the sword. In my opinion, the truth or otherwise of such a statement would depend on where one finds oneself. In a true democracy, the pen is certainly more powerful than the sword, but under a dictatorship, the pen very quickly becomes just another instrument of oppression in the hand of the man who bases his authority on the sword. So show me the government, and I shall tell you what its newspapers and its media are like; furthermore, show me the newspapers, and I shall tell you what the government is like. The more the newspapers praise the government, the poorer the government will be and the more servile the Press and the media; the more the newspapers criticize the government, the better the government is able to be and the freer the Press. I do not think there are any hon. members who would dispute this.

This is a criterion which is recognized all over the world, and I invite the whole world to measure the degree of freedom of the Press in South Africa and the quality of the South African Government against this norm. [Interjections.] Whatever anyone may say, it is the intention of the Government to maintain the freedom of the South African Press and the media. But now we are also being confronted with a dilemma which is as old as the first printing press itself and which has been philosophized and argued about down the centuries.

[Inaudible.]

I want to say that the hon. member for Sea Point will have an opportunity to formulate his standpoints in respect of the legislation, and I think it would be a good thing if the hon. members would observe the custom followed during Second Reading speeches and would listen to the motivation contained in such a speech. [Interjections.]

At least try to be sincere!

Order! If the hon. member makes another interjection, I shall be forced to take action. [Interjections.]

The dilemma is highlighted in the comparison which is so often made between the power of the pen and the power of the sword, because if they are powerful instruments, they are both dangerous instruments as well. Therefore each one has the potential to cause terrible damage if it is used negligently or maliciously.

The potential for harm which the media have affects, the first place, the individual whose good name may be irreparably damaged by a report which does not even have to be defamatory in legal terms or who may go out of business as a result of such a report published at the wrong moment.

On the other hand, the potential for harm affects orderly society. A negligent or reckless attitude in the operation of a newspaper or a group of newspapers or other media may be harmful to order and morality. Needless to say, the potential for harm is unlimited if media fall into the hands of malicious people or if the media are infiltrated by such people.

In the final analysis, the only reason for the existence of any government is its responsibility to protect its citizens against the violation of their rights by anyone else and, with the same end in view, to create and maintain an orderly state so that its citizens may lead a peaceful life in that state.

The dilemma in which governments of goodwill are finding themselves is the question of how to perform that task without at the same time interfering with the freedom of the media. For totalitarian governments, there is no problem: those newspapers which they cannot close down they simply take over. One sees this process all over Africa, and a recent example is to be found just beyond our own borders.

For the Government this remains a dilemma, and our own history dearly demonstrates that the Government has always tried to resolve the matter in co-operation with the news media themselves, rather than by confrontation. We are still in favour of self-discipline, with the retention of independence of Government pressure, rather than State discipline, with the real or alleged Government control and influence which that would entail. That is why there have been frequent negotiations with the media since the earliest years of this Government’s existence. In the same way, commissions of inquiry have been appointed from time to time which have been able to investigate the matter in an unprejudiced way and which have enabled everyone, including the media, to express their views—which they in fact did—once again in preference to imposing Government control over the news media.

Since the early ‘sixties, the news media have been allowed to regulate and discipline themselves. For that purpose, the news media were granted exemption from the Publications Act. In this way, the news media were in fact placed in a very privileged position compared with the ordinary citizens of the country; to what extent one only realizes when one thinks of the fact that an ordinary citizen, who is a layman in this field, can be prosecuted in a criminal court for producing an undesirable publication, while members of the Press Union, who are, or ought to be, professional people, are not exposed to the same possibility. I mention this because I want to emphasize a certain attitude on the part of the Government towards this democratic institution.

In the seventies, too, legislation was repeatedly considered when it became clear that the news media simply could not succeed in regulating and disciplining themselves—this is not my contention, but that of the news media themselves—legislation which was then abandoned in favour of further attempts on the part of the media themselves.

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

No.

Why are you so edgy tonight?

The hon. member is being rude.

Another point was reached with the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry into the Mass Media on 27 June 1980. The report of this commission, generally known as the Steyn Commission, was tabled in this House and discussed earlier this year. Therefore it is not necessary to discuss it at any length this afternoon. The relevant aspects of that report can be classified briefly into findings and recommendations.

The commission found that in spite of its heterogeneity and the diversity of its cultures, the South African population formed a community with quite a number of common interests; that South Africa was a dynamic developing democracy which was still being developed and which was burdened with malicious perceptions which urgently required correction; that the Republic was at present entering a period of reform in which top priority should be given to stability and that the security requirements and interests of South African society, and the satisfaction of these, were a primary priority in this respect; and that the Republic and its people were being subjected, internally as well as externally, to a comprehensive onslaught of increasing intensity, that this onslaught originated with the Soviet Union, its allies, its proxy forces and its fellow-travellers, supported by the Third World and certain Western circles, that the world situation was dangerously unstable as a result of a growing tension between the Third and the First Worlds, which introduced a serious additional element of danger into the South African conflict situation.

There really cannot be much argument about these findings of the commission, and I believe that they are generally accepted, perhaps with differing views as to the extent and intensity of the onslaught, and differences of nuance as to its origin.

The commission also found that the media were actively contributing to increasing the extent and intensity of the conflict and political polarization and that they often encouraged the revolutionary forces operating in the country; that some of the media were guilty of creating a negative climate; and that the ill-will and negative attitude towards South Africa in the foreign Press were to a large extent based on reports, impressions and observations which had originated in South Africa, including the local media circles.

There are many who would not seriously question this group of findings either, especially when one looks at the extremes of the political spectrum. Of course, there will not be the same degree of unanimity about these findings as there is about the preceding group. It is a fact, however, that the media community also recognizes the existence of the threat and the danger and that it also believes that self-discipline is not yet being effectively exercised in the ranks of the media. That is why, even before the report was published—this is important and I want to underline it—owners and editors began to work on an amended media code, the establishment of a media council and the formulation of procedures for such a council. We must not fail to take cognizance of these steps taken by the media, because they confirm the need that was felt to exist in this connection by the media themselves.

As far as the recommendations of the Steyn Commission are concerned, there are two groups of recommendations that are relevant now. The one group concerns statutory remedies for monopolistic conditions in the media industry, and the other group concerns the professionalization of journalism, which, in the opinion of the commission, should be accompanied by a system of registration of journalists controlled by law.

Curiously enough, the extremely important findings of the commission did not receive so much attention in the Press and on the other side of the House, but it was these recommendations of the commission which caused the commission to be subjected to a torrent of abuse—I use that word advisedly—even in this House by people who like to call for a judicial evaluation of human rights, and who are always urging that commissions of inquiry which may affect people’s liberties should be judicial commissions. Those same people did not hesitate, when the recommendations of a judicial commission did not suit them, to insult and condemn that commission in the crudest language within the protection of this House.

As for the Government, it has not yet taken a stand on these recommendations, nor is it doing so now. We did what I undertook to do, namely to consult with the organized news media. I myself had talks with representatives of the Press Union, together with representatives of the conference of editors, who together accepted the existence of a problem situation.

What we differed about was the remedy; and only one particular aspect of it.

I am not surprised.

I can understand why the hon. member for Pinelands has just made a cynical remark, for to him, freedom means licence without discipline. His life and his conduct testify to this.

The Press Union and the editors put forward proposals for the establishment of a media council on which representatives of the Press Union, editors and journalists would serve, together with an equal number of representatives of the public.

The South African Broadcasting Corporation could also be represented if it wanted to participate in the scheme. The group was to have approached the SABC directly in this connection.

Procedures for the functioning of the council were described and a modified code was drawn up. The council will be able to hear complaints and to give corrective and disciplinary rulings, including the imposition of a fine. The council will also be able to investigate specific matters of public interest which, according to its findings, affect the conduct and image of the media, and to provide the media with guidelines for future conduct. I take it that such investigations and guidelines could also relate to the question of monopolistic conditions.

†For my part I was satisfied that the proposed new arrangements, with possible minor procedural adjustments, could be a great improvement, especially with representatives of the public, editors and journalists serving on the council.

There is only one point on which we could not agree. The media group felt very strongly that participation in the scheme, and submission to the council’s disciplinary authority, should be on a completely voluntary basis, without any statutory foundation at all being given to the arrangements. [Interjections.] The council would also have authority to pass judgment on the actions of newspapers or other news media which did not voluntarily accept the council’s authority, and I should like to emphasize this, because it is very important. The group was, however, of the opinion that the publicity given to these judgements would, in itself, have the desired remedial effect.

I was—and still am—of the opinion that this is exactly where the basic weakness of the present system lies. [Interjections.] I agree with the group that effective self-organization and self-discipline are the answer, but then all newspapers should be involved, and the disciplinary judgments emanating from within the ranks of the media themselves, should be enforceable.

Another important reason for my point of view is that there just cannot be two sets of norms applied by two different bodies. It stands to reason that these norms can, by their very nature, only be formulated in broad terms, thereafter becoming more closely defined and prescribed by subsequent judgements. Chaos and degeneration into ineffectiveness must result if different bodies individually try to apply a different set of norms in the same media field.

The Government therefore tried to find a solution in which the news media would be able to undertake—and I should like to emphasize this—unfettered self-organization and self-discipline, with a minimum of statutory measures being adopted in an attempt to ensure, as far as possible, that all newspapers take part in the process. These measures are embodied in the Bill now before the House. Let me illustrate what they are.

In section 47 of the Publications Act a newspaper, of which the owner is a member of the Newspaper Press Union, is exempted from the provisions of the Act. That section is to be amended now in clause 3 of the Bill so that the exemption may apply to a publisher belonging to a body recognized by regulation. The media council proposed by the Newspaper Press Union and the editors could be such a body.

Does not have to be.

I said “could be”. Does the hon. member not understand English?

I was emphasizing the point you are making.

I can emphasize things for myself. [Interjections.] The amendment constitutes the redefinition of the existing provisions that are necessary to accommodate the proposed new arrangements. I should like to stress this: The amendment under consideration in this regard is to accommodate the new arrangements initiated by the Press Union and the Conference of Editors before the Steyn Report appeared. Just as the provision in its present form does, the amended section will make it possible for a newspaper to escape the provisions of the Act by voluntarily associating itself with a system of self-organization and self disciplining. No new principles are involved at all. I may add that I intend introducing an amendment to this clause and to clause 1 at a later stage to delete the words “the control of” where they appear in the new wording.

That does not help.

I think the hon. member for Pinelands should talk to the people who requested the amendment.

In clause 1 of the Bill a new sub-section is added to section 4 of the Newspaper and Imprint Registration Act, making it possible for the Minister of Internal Affairs to cancel the registration of a newspaper if he is satisfied that the publisher does not subject himself to the discipline of the media body—not to the Minister’s discipline, but to the discipline of the media body.

All you can do is cancel the registration!

Yes.

That is not very serious!

The hon. member will have the opportunity of explaining to us how he would propose that effect can be given to discipline over non-subscribers, if he believes that there should be discipline.

By the laws of the country.

Depending on the circumstances, I foresee that cancellation of registration will be considered when a decision of the body is not complied with. I have not submitted details of this provision to the Press Union and the editors’ group, but I am sure that they would not have agreed to it, because they were opposed to any form of legislation sanctioning the authority of the media council at all. I repeat: They were against any proposals in the form of legislation sanctioning, not the actions of the Government or the Minister but the actions and authority of the media council itself. However, I hope that, although they cannot support this provision, they will nevertheless find it possible to continue, in parallel, with their efforts towards the establishment of a system of organized self-discipline, something which, after all, they themselves consider not only desirable but also necessary.

In concluding my remarks on this part of the Bill, I want to report to the House that my deliberations with the representatives of the Press Union and the editors took place in a cordial atmosphere and one of co-operation.

Did you tell them about this Bill?

I have sincere appreciation for the new spirit of understanding of the existing problems and of the will to meet those problems that obviously also exist on their side.

*There remains a second principle which is dealt with in this Bill. Clause 3(b) amends section 47 of the Publications Act in order to make any film imported or produced by the SABC subject to the same norms as are applicable to other films meant to be shown in public.

The Government realizes that this amendment will cause specific practical problems for the SABC which are not experienced by other film distributors, but the Directorate of Publications will be requested to assist the SABC as far as possible with special arrangements.

Order: Just before I call upon the next hon. member to speak, I want to point out that it has come to my attention that the hon. the Minister said a short while ago that certain hon. members were being rude. “Rude” is unparliamentary, and I therefore request the hon. the Minister to withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that probably the only sincere word spoken by the hon. the Minister today was that word which he has just had to withdraw.

Order! Does the hon. member mean that to be a reflection on the Chair?

No, Sir, not at all.

I instructed the hon. the Minister to withdraw a specific word.

That is correct, Sir. What I have said, is not intended as a reflection on you at all, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Minister started off by stating that the pen was mightier than the sword. I believe we should state immediately that one of the tragedies this evening is that the hon. the Minister is in effect proving that bluster is mightier than reason. Mr. Speaker, I was forbidden by you to make any interjections while the hon. the Minister was delivering his Second Reading speech. So, I had to sit in silence listening to some of the most obnoxious political claptrap that I have had the misfortune to hear for several months.

The hon. the Minister started on a humorous note by saying—

In other words, the hon. the Minister says this is a measure to assist the media to discipline themselves, to assist them in their efforts to bring better publications to South Africa. The hon. the Minister refused, while delivering his Second Reading diatribe—it cannot be described as a speech—to reply to any questions. He therefore escaped, while he was speaking, the censure of this House for certain most outrageous statements. I am only quoting one of those statements, as follows—

That is an outrageous statement. The hon. the Minister was in fact saying that during the seventies, the decade which we have just left, legislation was considered because, in his view, the media were departing from the norms of reasonableness. I want to know from the hon. the Minister on what basis does he make a statement like that.

On the basis of fact.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay says it is made on the basis of fact. I am asking the hon. the Minister now—and if the hon. member for Mossel Bay is going to take part in this debate at all, he can also do so—to justify that statement. Which newspapers were irresponsible? Which newspapers gave rise to that comment? The hon. the Minister departed from his normally humorous vein and descended to a level a little less funny when he said that, of course, in totalitarian countries there is no problem. He said that those newspapers that are not closed down by the Government are merely taken over. Let us think back to The World in October 1977. It was summarily closed down without warning and without having been given any chance to explain itself, without being given a hearing, without appeal. I can only describe this as sneaky. I am not referring here to the hon. the Minister himself, but I am referring to the sneaky way in which the Government utilized the law to ensure that the Argus publication The Post was discontinued after a strike at that newspaper. The hon. the Minister cannot talk about totalitarian countries closing down newspapers without pointing a finger at his own Government. The hon. the Minister also said that in totalitarian States, if these newspapers are not closed down, they are simply taken over. May I suggest, like The Citizen, Mr. Speaker? It was merely taken over. Here was a newspaper established secretly with public money in order to benefit that Government sitting opposite us and then, after that paper was found out and after the chicanery that had gone into the establishment of that newspaper had been laid bare to the public of South Africa, what happened? It founds its way into Perskor, not by public auction but by private treaty. It was a private deal. Therefore, it was taken over in order to promote the interests of the Government. Therefore, when the hon. the Minister says that in totalitarian States they have no difficulty, I want to tell you that we have a precedent for that in this very country. I suggest that the hon. the Minister put his hand in his own bosom before he makes allegations of that sort.

The hon. the Minister will be less than surprised that this side of the House will afford him no support whatsoever in the passage of this Bill, not because we are bloody-minded, not because we wish to be obstructionists, not because we do not wish to have a responsible and fair-minded Press In South Africa, but rather because we see this Bill as representing the thin edge of the wedge in so far as Press freedom in South Africa is concerned. What worries me more than anything else is that in all his public pronouncements and even when he was given full rein last night on television, during the past 48 hours the hon. the Minister has not displayed even a passing awareness of what the implications of this legislation are.

However, let us start at the beginning. When we debate this Bill, let us try at least to understand what the present situation is as it affects the Press in South Africa. The overwhelming majority of newspapers, with the exception possibly of three or four, voluntarily subject themselves to the authority of the Newspaper Press Union. This is a non-statutory body which is representative of all the major groupings in the country. Through its organ, the Press Council, and by agreement, by mutual consent, it exercises discipline and control over its members. It is headed by a senior judge …

John Wiley does not like judges.

No, especially judges of appeal! [Interjections.]

… and it enjoys the respect of both the public and of the industry. Initially, in the years of its inception, the hearings of that body that was utilized by the Press Union were largely informal. Its proceedings were conducted in a relaxed and friendly atmosphere. It settled disputes. From time to time it required newspapers to publish apologies, retractions, explanations and even rebuttals in respect of those who had been aggrieved.

Like the Sunday Times did.

The hon. member for Simon’s Town is well-known for his attitude of antipathy towards the English-language Press. The strange thing is that those who decry the value of the Press Council have in fact not used its machinery.

If one can get there.

The hon. member for Simon’s Town says that one cannot get there. What he is really worried about is that the Press Council will not find in his favour. That is what he is worried about, not because he cannot get there. It was only under the threat of Government action against the Press that the Press Council was given real teeth by its own members. There is, for example, the power to impose heavy fines, up to R10 000. A far-reaching code of conduct was introduced and agreed upon by the members of the Press. The proceedings of the Press Council were formalized. It was given a judicial authority of a court with a judge as its chairman. When complaints were lodged editors suddenly found themselves in a situation, because of the new powers given to the Press Council, that they now had to brief counsel, they had to incur certain expenditure and taken up, had to prepare long argument. Many man-hours were dealing with matters brought before the Press Council. And yet the pronouncements of the Press Council have enjoyed wide prominence and have been accepted by all its members. Strangely, and as I said a moment ago in response to an interjection by the hon. member for Simon’s Town, this disciplinary mechanism, judicial and impartial, has hardly been used by the Government at all. Of the eight complaints lodged by Government departments in 1981 and put on the table of the Press Council, seven were either withdrawn or allowed to lapse. In one case satisfactory redress was given. In truth the only institution in this country—not the Press industry or the newspapers—which has not given this high level body a real chance to function is the Government itself.

How many complaints were made in any one year and how many of them were actually heard by the Press Council?

I am not the Minister of Statistics and it is not Friday today. However, I will tell the hon. member that in 1981 eight complaints were lodged by Government departments to the Press Council, of which seven were withdrawn or lapsed and in one case satisfactory redress was given. I think that is a fair and correct answer to the hon. member’s question. If the hon. member for Simon’s Town is so anti the English-language Press and if he feels that the English-language Press is doing a disservice to this country, to him and to the Government, how many complaints has he lodged with the Press Council and what has been the result of those that he lodged? [Interjections.] And if he has not lodged any complaint, or if he has lodged complaints and allowed them either to be withdrawn or lapse, how can he possibly criticize the council which has not been given a chance to work?

Not a sound!

Let me say that no one can negate the fact that on a voluntary basis the Newspaper Press Union and the Press Council acted as an effective deterrent upon their members in the limiting and even preventing of licentious reporting. If the Press Council has not satisfied everyone, then it is because that council is too independent, not orientated towards the whims of Government, too impartial and its machinery has not been used by those who feel aggrieved.

However, that is not the only brake. That is not the only limiting factor in existence on the Press in South Africa at the present time. All newspapers are subject to a myriad of laws which govern the right of those newspapers to publish or to comment. Every newspaper, whether it is part of the NP or not, is liable and subject to the laws relating to obscenities and the laws relating to the protection of information, which can prevent the reporting of detentions. Every newspaper is subject to the provisions of the Internal Security Act, which has very great relevance for newspapers. Every newspaper is subject to the provisions of the Prisons Act, the Police Act, the Key Points and the Defence Act. Every newspaper, whether it is a part of the NPU or not, is subject to the laws of this country relating to racial incitement. If there are newspapers in this country that have in the past years been guilty of racial incitement, then the Government presently has the machinery to deal with those newspapers. It needs no new machinery. Every newspaper—every single one in this country—is subject to the laws relating to giving offence to religious sections of this community. Every newspaper is subject to the laws relating to blasphemy and every newspaper is subject to the ordinary common law relating to libel, defamation and assault. All the newspapers are also, if I may say so, subject to numerous other laws which are already there, which peg the Press down and which ensure that the Press can hardly give offence to an over-sensitive Government.

On top of that, those newspapers that are not subject to the Newspaper Press Union, that are not part of the Press Council system, that will not subject themselves to the discipline of that council or to the judgments of that judge, are indeed subject to all the provisions of the Publications Act of 1974, which gives the authorities the right to censor or to stop publication of material which is considered to be pornographic, seditious, undesirable for a number of reasons, racially divisive and offensive to the religion of the religious feelings of any group. All newspapers are subject to those restrictions.

Therefore, all newspapers, and not only some, are in fact already subject to a vast array of laws and of Governmental parameters which may not be crossed. Most important of all is the fact that the vast majority, all except three newspapers that I can think of, submit themselves voluntarily to the discipline of their peers, and this has worked well. We have a lively Press in South Africa, not a docile Press. We have a Press which is critical; a Press which is reasonable and a Press which gives great respectability to what is left of democracy in this country.

But this appears not to be enough. The Government has been wanting stricter control for a long time. As was mentioned in the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister, the Steyn Commission was appointed. It sat long and heard evidence. It did not come up with a judicial report but rather with a political manifesto, a great deal of jargonistic mumbo-jumbo. It was a report that was slavish in toeing the line set by the Government on its version of the state of South Africa. It was a report which recommended against all the evidence, all the advice given and against all the documentation written by professional people, the establishment of a form of Press Council, a Press council which would have teeth and could fine, suspend and ban journalists from performing their professions and their crafts. It recommended, secondly—and I mention only the two main recommendations—a compulsory register of journalists and people professing to be journalists, who were not part of that register, would be prevented from performing their tasks in the Press world.

As the hon. the Minister has said, most of the recommendations of the Steyn Commission have neither been accepted nor rejected. However, what they did was to evoke a huge response. They evoked a huge response in this country, and outside of this country, a response which has done damage to our country, and not only to this Government. It was a response which has done damage to the interests of all of South Africa. It was a response from academics, and not only the academics of the English language universities, the so-called hotbeds of liberalism. From every university in the country came a response which condemned the recommendations of that commission. It was a response from Opposition parties and from political groups in this country and from all the law societies, the adovcates’ societies, the people involved in the administration of law throughout the country, and all of this was condemnatory and deprecatory of the commission’s recommendations. It was a response from the entire press corps of South Africa, whether it be the corps of Nasionale Pers, Perskor, The South African Associated Newspapers or of the Argus. It was a response which said that South Africa should not accept those recommendations. It was a response which threatened to cool the diplomatic atmosphere between South Africa and the Western countries with whom we have ties. The Government has studiously avoided saying whether they accept or whether they reject the recommendations of that commission. But, and here lies the rub, while the recommendations of the Steyn Commission have not yet been implemented, the report has been well used by the Government in its dealings with the Newspaper Press Union.

In the last three months there have been four meetings between the hon. the Minister and the Newspaper Press Union. If I read the newspaper reports correctly, there have been a great deal of comings and goings of senior people of major companies in this country, scurrying in and out of the hon. the Minister’s office. There were also emergency meetings. I want to say it is an unedifying spectacle to see an hon. Minister and a Government which is so puffed up that it holds a threat of this nature over the major industries of South Africa and causes people who have contributed far more than that Government will ever contribute to this country, to scurry in and out of the offices of Ministers as if they were lackeys in the hands of those who run this country. These were cap-in-hand discussions. “We want to have discussions with the Minister”, says the NPU. Why do they say that? They say that because the hon. the Minister—and he knows it—has the power—and that is where the pen is mightier than the sword—to sign a Bill that can destroy the rights of those industries, journalists and every civilized South African and his right to know what is going on in this country. [Interjections.] Hon. members can shout at me as long as they like. I am going to say what is on my mind and on my conscience, whether they shout, whether they praise or even if they walk out. I on behalf of my party and on behalf of Press freedom in South Africa am going to state what has to be said. The NPU, through the medium of the Steyn Commission, is being forced to make concessions to the Government. I can see the hon. the Minister’s negotiating point. I can see him sitting in his office, his curtains drawn, the chandelier shining bright and looking across at the NPU and saying: Gentlemen, if you do not agree to this you know what I will do. I shall go back to the Steyn Commission and start introducing some of the measures that it suggests.

That is not true.

I am glad the hon. the Minister says that that is not true.

You are talking through your neck.

That, however, is my viewing of the sort of negotiating power that is used by him. It is against that background, those precipice politics—if you do not jump, I shall push you—that the further urgent negotiations have taken place. The NPU appear to have leaned over backwards in order to meet the needs of the Government. The hon. the Minister has mentioned some of the points in his speech. Some of the other points have been mentioned by Mr. McLean, the chairman of the NPU, only 24 hours ago. They have agreed, under pressure from the Government, to streamline a new media council. They have agreed to take virtually all the steps that the Government has asked them to take. A new, improved media council, on a voluntary basis, is in an advanced stage of negotiation. However, while this process is in midstream, the hon. the Minister has, without the agreement of the NPU, without consultation with the NPU or with other interested parties and without any reasonable warning to this House, to Opposition parties or to anyone else, introduced this Bill. The views of the SA Society of Journalists who wrote a personal letter to the hon. the Minister only yesterday were not even to be heard. They have been denied even the privilege of addressing the hon. the Minister on the issues involved because the ears of the Government and the ears of the hon. the Minister appear to be closed to anyone wishing to put his point of view. It is not untrue to say that the Conference of Editors has been shoved to one side, the NPU has been bypassed. Mr. Peter McLean said only yesterday that they had no knowledge of the contents of the Bill. The hon. the Minister gave the impression that he has taken the NPU along with him 99% of the way in his negotiations, but that on one particular point he differed. When this Bill was published the chairman of the NPU said that he had no knowledge of its contents. I want to know whether that is true. Did the hon. the Minister not even suggest to them that he might be walking in this direction? How can the hon. the Minister have three or four meetings with the NPU and at the end of those meetings introduce a Bill that has caught the whole NPU, the newspaper world, journalists, editors and opposition parties in the dying days of the session completely unaware? How can the hon. the Minister say that he has consulted with the NPU?

But you have said journalists were scurrying in and out of the hon. the Minister’s office. What were they doing there?

Mr. Speaker, I think that that is a rather frivolous question. For the edification of that hon. member however, the crux of the matter, the gravamen of my allegation is that the NPU has over a period of months been in the hon. the Minister’s office at least four times. I think that is correct. [Interjections.] When this Bill was published, the chairman of the NPU, after all these negotiations and discussions, says: “I have no knowledge of the contents of the Bill”. If that is the case, what sort of discussions and negotiations has the hon. the Minister been having with the NPU? Has he misled them? Has he not told them what he intends doing? Has he kept this Bill up his sleeve? Why has he not timeously disclosed to the NPU the intention of what he is doing tonight? That is the question that we ask. [Interjections.]

We have a few questions to put to the hon. the Minister, and the first is this: Why does he come with this Bill at this time in the session? Why does he bring it at a stage which allows no time for consultation on the issues and the implications of the Bill? Why does he introduce this Bill when there is no time left in the session for proper preparation or a debate, for proper preparation on the part of the journalists and the editors of the NPU? Why does he bring this Bill at a time when there is hardly a moment left in this session to do any real research in regard to the import and the implications of what this is going to mean to South Africa?

The hon. the Minister listened this afternoon to the hon. the Leader of the House when he proposed the suspension of Rule 56, and he therefore knows that there is no time for a proper debate on this Bill. He knows that unless the Orders of the Day are changed by the Leader of the House, immediately the Second Reading of this Bill is completed, the Committee Stage will be taken. He also knows that after the Committee Stage, we will immediately take the Third Reading. Moreover, he knows that within 48 hours of introducing this Bill, it is going to be law, signed by a pen that is mightier than the sword, and that law was rushed through this House without pause. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister in all honesty: Why this surprise move? If this Bill was so necessary, why was it not introduced earlier? Why was it not brought before the House a month ago? The Steyn Commission’s report was published in February; therefore the hon. the Minister had ample time to consult with the NPU. Why was this Bill brought at this stage so that it has to be rushed through Parliament in the dying moments of this session?

Sneaky!

Why was it introduced at a time when there was no opportunity to negotiate on the details? This fact was brought starkly to light because the executive of the NPU met only today—so surprised were they by this Bill.

Why did they not meet in February? Why did they not meet after the Steyn Commission’s report was published? [Interjections.]

I know that the qualifications for becoming a Deputy Minister are becoming increasingly lower these days. In fact, I am not sure whether that post requires any qualifications at all. [Interjections.]

Not as low as you are going.

I almost despair of the hon. member. [Interjections.] Let me just deal with the hon. the Deputy Minister who is sitting a little behind the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. Let me just tell him that when the Steyn report was published, the editors and journalists of South Africa and the Newspaper Press Union of South Africa held several important meetings. [Interjections.] The answer is: Yes, they did. As I was trying to explain to the House a few moments ago, the hon. the Minister, used the volumes of the Steyn report, which he plucked off the floor—which is where they should have stayed—to tell them that if they did not do this or that he would introduce something that was perhaps far worse.

That is not true.

The hon. the Minister says it is not true, and I hope he can prove it, because there are people who say it is true. [Interjections.]

You are putting your foot in it.

What the NPU did not know, however, was that the hon. the Minister was going to bring this piece of legislation to this House in the dying minutes of this session.

That is also not true.

Is the hon. the Minister saying that the NPU was well aware of the fact that this legislation, containing these details, was going to be introduced in this House this week? [Interjections.]

I am telling you that you are telling an untruth.

The hon. the Minister is very quick to say that I am telling an untruth, but what he is not prepared to say, and I am asking him directly across the floor of the House …

I shall reply to you.

Well, I am asking you to tell me now. [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon. the Minister, who is looking so frustrated at the moment, that if he would answer the question I have put, it would assist the debate, and I am only asking because he interjected while I was speaking. I therefore want to ask him again: Did the NPU know that this legislation, in its present terms, was going to be brought to Parliament this week? [Interjections.] He simply has to answer “Yes” or “No”. The whole problem is that that hon. Minister loves to interject and score debating points, but when he comes to the crunch, he is quiet. [Interjections.] That is the point.

Silence is consent.

One of my colleagues says that silence is consent. I am not quite sure about that, but I do feel that when the hon. the Minister makes so important an interjection he should at least immediately be able to substantiate what he says. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. the Minister why, at this point in time, he introduced legislation that risks souring the relations between the Government and the NPU, the editors of South Africa, the journalists of South Africa and our friends and allies abroad?

Why are you so concerned about the Government?

Is there a valid reason for bringing this legislation to this House. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to speak while that hon. member for Roodeplaat is so constantly interrupting. One can never hear what he says, but he just says it loud enough to destroy one’s train of thought. [Interjections.] Hon. members will know—including the hon. member for Roodeplaat—that I have an hour to speak, and I am going to use it. So the more hon. members interrupt, the longer it is going to take me to say what I have to say.

It cannot take longer than an hour.

Order!

Is there a valid reason for introducing this legislation at the very end of a session, or is the true reason perhaps that the hon. the Minister believes that under the pressure of other work being done in this House, or under the pressure of other news, this legislation would only be a four-day wonder?

I have a second question I want to put to the hon. the Minister.

He is hiding.

No, he will be back in a moment. Why did the hon. the Minister take the NPU by surprise? What style of politics is being practised in South Africa today that legislation of this sort, which affects the very rights of an entire industry, can be introduced without any warning to that industry? Why was the NPU not given reasonable time to react and why are its views discarded?

How many more times are you going to ask that in order to use up your time?

I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he is going to do about the confrontation situation which is developing between the Newspaper Press Union and the Government at this moment. I want to read a statement that was issued at 2.15 this afternoon unanimously by the Newspaper Press Union. It reads as follows—

I am reading a statement issued by the Newspaper Press Union comprising all four major newspaper groupings. It goes further—

The statement goes further—

This statement, which is a very strong statement, goes further—

Their wishes do not matter.

I quote further—

Yet, before those urgent representations could be made, the Minister presented this Bill to the House for debate. I want to say that this statement and the Bill as introduced by the hon. the Minister amount to nothing short of a confrontation between the newspaper industry and the government of the day. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he is going to do about it. Is he going to set up—if the NPU refuses to co-operate—a body independent of the NPU, an alternative body, a Government-oriented body? I want to point out to the hon. the Minister—and we in this party all agree on this—that if he attempts to set up a body which is Government-oriented, a statutory media council apart from the NPU, no self-respecting media man will ever serve on that body. If he does not set up an independent media body—an alternative Government media body—his only alternative is to withdraw this bill.

There is a third question which I want to put to the hon. the Minister. Why was the conference of editors brushed aside? It is clear from all the editorials which I have read so far since this Bill was published, both in the English language Press and in the Afrikaans language Press, that the Government stands alone on this issue. It has no support whatsoever. It has no support except from the ranks of those hon. members sitting behind the hon. the Minister. It has no support for this measure which the House is asked to pass this evening. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether the editors of the media in South Africa are regarded as irresponsible, stupid and unpatriotic. Why were their views summarily brushed aside only a few days ago? Does the Government’s relationship with the Press and the NPU count for nothing.

There is a fourth question that I want to put to the hon. the Minister as well. Why was the South African Society of Journalists denied even a hearing? Why? The Society of Journalists is a responsible body representing an enormous number of journalists in this country. That Society is not bound by the views of the editors. It is not bound by the views of the NPU. Why is this pocket Napoleon approach being adopted towards responsible members of a major industry in this country? Does the Government or the hon. the Minister derive a sort of Freudian pleasure from behaving in such a dictatorial fashion? Is that what democracy is all about? Is that what parliamentary Government is all about?

Let us look at the bill now. Basically it provides for three things. The first thing it provides for is for all newspapers to submit themselves to one disciplinary authority.

An unknown body.

Yes, an unknown body. Secondly this bill enables the hon. the Minister summarily to close down those newspapers who do not comply with that first requirement. Thirdly this bill opens a way for a yet to be created media council, which will be sanctioned by the Government. It relates therefore not to the licencing of journalists, as the Steyn Commission proposed, but to the statutory licencing of newspapers. It is the Steyn Commission running on two cylinders. That is what it really is. It is the Steyn Commission in second gear.

The Steyn Commission in drag!

The Steyn Commission in drag, yes. It is, however, a provision with an ominous promise for tomorrow, and the ominous promise lies in the final five lines on page 3 of the bill. It reads as follows—

1. (i) issued by a body striving for the attainment and maintenance of the highest possible standards by persons disseminating news, and which is recognized by regulation …

It is clearly the hon. the Minister’s wish that the body mentioned here will be an NPU body, or that it will at least be a body functioning under the auspices of the NPU. In the quote I have read out, however, the Government is given power to recognize that body by regulation. In other words, the Government is given the power to dictate. If one wants to use the more refined word, one could say the Government is given the power to negotiate. In fact, the Government is given the power to dictate the composition of the body, the powers of that body, the procedures and the codes of conduct of that body. That means that we are entering into an era of indirect control of the press by the Government. The Minister is asking the Newspaper Press Union under Government licence to do the work of disciplining newspapers in the way that the Government wants. If the NPU refuses then the Government will have the power in terms of this legislation to set up its own media council, probably along the lines as suggested in the Steyn Commission Report. This places the NPU in an impossible situation. It is a form of pressurization that is being used against them: “Do what I say and, if you do not, I shall do something that you will not like at all.” It is a form of political extortion and it opens the door to confrontation between the media and the Government.

An independent body like the NPU cannot be asked to exercise authority over those who decline to submit themselves to that authority. The NPU knows that if it wishes to retain national and international credibility and if it wishes to retain the confidence of its members it dare not accept this compulsory brief. As I know it, the NPU will never agree to be a part of machinery enshrined in statute defining and prescribing its norms to exercise Government sanctioned control of the Press, especially when it is provided that if the Minister is “satisfied”, that is, in the subjective, non-appealable view of the Minister, that the newspaper concerned is in default of the law, then the Minister can without notice effectively close such a newspaper down. No matter what sweet words are used to describe it and no matter how reasonable the hon. the Minister may have sounded in introducing it, this Bill is no more than a crude bludgeon to force a relatively free South African Press to submit itself to the prejudices of the Government of the day. It is a giant step in the direction of Government control of the dissemination of political news and views. It is an attempt to tame those media that are critical of the Government. It is an undignified move to tighten the reins of power in regard to what the public may or may not be told.

As has often been pointed out, the great distinguishing feature between the Press of the Western World on the one hand and the Press of the Communist world on the other, and even of the Third World, is that the Western Press is not subject to Government regulated discipline. However, by adopting this measure 150 years of relative Press freedom are finally being thrown overboard.

It is for these reasons, Sir, that I wish to move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I should like to know from the hon. Opposition whether they endorse what the hon. member for Sandton said when he claimed to be speaking on behalf of the PFP and Press freedom. I should like to know whether they endorse this behaviour of the hon. member. They are silent. It is very clear that they do not endorse it.

The answer is “yes”.

There you have one of the members of that party, who is the same kind of person, saying that he endorses it. It has been a long time since I last experienced such arrogance and so many insults. In fact, this made me think of a cartoon I saw recently with the caption “Hiert, jou wilde dierasie!”. The only difference is that in this case, the picture I saw in my mind’s eye was not that of a tortoise, but an anaconda. This kind of irresponsible behaviour on the part of the hon. member for Sandton surely cannot be endorsed by anyone who has any kind of responsibility in politics and in public life.

The hon. member asked why this kind of legislation was necessary. I wish to refer in this regard to the Steyn report and at the same time ask the hon. member whether or not he accepts that what the Steyn report had to say is correct. The Steyn report said, inter alia—

Die Republiek en sy mense buite- sowel as binnelands is die voorwerp van ’n omvattende aanslag, eskalerend in intensiteit. Die aanslag het sy oorsprong by die Sowjet-Unie, sy bondgenote, sy proksie-magte en sy meelopers, gerugsteun deur die Derde Wêreld en sekere Westerse kringe. Die wêreldsituasie is gevaarlik en onstabiel as gevolg van ‘n groeiende spanning tussen die Derde en Eerste wêrelde, wat ’n ernstige emosionele element van gevaar in die Suid-Afrikaanse konfliksituasie bybring.

I should like to know from the hon. member for Sandton whether or not he accepts that that statement of the Steyn Commission was based on a factual analysis of the situation. I accept that since the hon. member is not prepared to reply to that statement, it is probable that certain elements or spokesmen of the PFP could be regarded as apologists or spokesmen for precisely what was being referred to in this paragraph. I am convinced that the Steyn Commission’s résumé was justified and that is was a correct interpretation of the conflict situation in South Africa.

In my opinion, the hon. member for Sandton reacted in an extremely irresponsible way. I wish to put it to him that the freedom of the Press could never be greater than the freedom of the individual in society. However, the responsibility of the Press ought to be far greater than the responsibility of the individual, for when an individual adopts a standpoint or makes a statement, it is physically limited to a small circle. In contrast, most newspapers have a circulation of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and, in some cases, even millions. That is why the responsibility which the Press has to exercise, is, or ought to be, so much greater than the responsibility of the individual.

I have no problems with a responsible Press. I accept that most newspapers in South Africa are reasonably responsible within the limits of the situation. Overseas visitors who are specifically associated with the media, have commented from time to time, that the Press in South Africa is much freer than they expected, in any case, much freer than the Press in the rest of Africa. I maintain that the role of the Press in a democratic country is extremely important, and that the free expression of opinions and standpoints is of great value, but only in so far as it does not undermine the norms of democracy. The Steyn Commission made it very clear that when it was a question of control, those newspapers which endorsed and practised the standards of democracy, could not be affected. Only those media which did not support democracy and the democratic way of life at all were affected.

South Africa is a multi-national country in a world of unrest, and here we have every potential for the escalation of conflict and unrest. There is not only unrest in South Africa, and unrest does not only revolve around radial issues. There are extraneous forces which are intent on exploiting the potential for conflict and the potential conflict situations in South Africa to serve other interests. They do not have the best of intentions as far as South Africa is concerned. I maintain that primarily, they are in no way concerned about the interest or welfare of the Blacks, the Coloureds or the Indians in South Africa, nor are they interested in the official leaders of the PFP. Here I am drawing a distinction between the interests of the official leaders, and certain spokesmen of the PFP. Nor are they interested in the freedom of the Press per se. There is a wilful attempt on the part of these forces to abuse the freedom of the Press to undermine and counteract the freedom being striven for in South Africa. How many communist States have freedom of the Press? How many States in Africa have freedom of the Press? In how many States in Africa, where the cry of “Uhuru” has been heard and which have been ‘Treed from the yoke” of colonialism, has there been an improvement in the quality of life of the general population? Then we are not even talking about Western standards, about security, about freedom and democracy.

The struggle for Africa and South Africa is concerned with far more than simply the peoples and populations of South Africa and Africa. Since the powers that be in South Africa are not prepared to capitulate to the demands to renounce the recognition of community identity and rights, and since the Government of South Africa is not prepared to introduce a system of “one man, one vote” in a unitary State, South Africa has become an outcast in virtually all international forums and South Africa has become the focal point of the conflicts. Because destabilizing conflict in the present situation could be taken too far and could lead to an overall collapse of orderly existence in South Africa, the Government deemed it desirable to appoint a judicial commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Steyn to institute a thorough investigation into the role of the media in South Africa. The Steyn Commission instituted an extremely comprehensive investigation and submitted a report with findings and recommendations. In the Report, criticism was levelled at the Government, on the one hand, and at the actions of the media, on the other. When the Steyn Commission report was debated in this House, the PFP deliberately omitted to discuss the findings of the Commission. They attempted to disparage the members of the Commission and to set up a billowing smoke screen to divert attention from the findings of the Judicial Commission.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he concurs with the type of plagiarisms we find in the report of the Steyn Commission?

The hon. member for Sandton is once again trying to divert attention from the real findings of the Commission. If the Steyn Commission used the words of certain people without referring to its source, this is an issue in itself. However, what we cannot get away from, is that the Steyn Commission instituted a thorough, in-depth investigation into the total conflict situation of South Africa, and the role of certain media in it. Of that situation the Steyn Commission said, inter alia, that the media made an essential contribution to the escalation, the extent and intensity of the conflict, as well as to political polarization, and that they often encouraged the revolutionary powers at work in this country; that some of the media were guilty of creating a negative climate; that a great deal of the malice and negative attitudes towards South Africa in the foreign Press were based on reports, impressions and observations which had originated in South Africa, in local media circles as well. These were the findings of the Steyn Commission. If these were the findings, and the Commission stated further in its report that the Republic was experiencing a period in which the highest priority ought to be accorded to stability, and that the security interests and needs of South African society and the satisfying of these needs were number one priorities in this respect, then surely measures of this kind are not excessive. After all, we are not trying to undermine the freedom of the Press. We are not trying to slight the responsibility of the Press. As long as the Press does its work in a responsible way and discharges its obligation within the freedom of a free society, a critical Press has every right to criticize the Government, as well as society. There is no question about that. This is not what is at stake. We are dealing here with the conflict situation and the potential for an escalating conflict situation in which South Africa finds itself. This is the reason why the premise in this Bill is primarily to take cognizance of the recommendations of the Steyn Commission. The Government took cognizance of them and have attempted to give attention to this criticism and, as far as possible, to rectify the deficiencies. I have said before that criticism was also levelled at the Government, but in so far as it is trying to deal with the criticism of the Steyn Commission as far as the news media are concerned, the premise is held that a solution has to be found in a responsible way. The hon. the Minister held long talks with representatives of the Press. The hon. member for Sandton himself admitted that long talks had been held. The premise is primarily to ensure that self-discipline is applied, but then it has to be effective self-discipline. This is also the premise of this legislation. The role of the NPU and the proposed Media Council to which the hon. the Minister referred, will be decisive. However, it is obvious that self-discipline, if it is applied on a voluntary basis, can only be applied by those institutions which are members of the NPU. That is why the legislation has to provide that in regard to publications which are not members of the NPU and which transgress and on which judgment is passed in certain ways by the Media Council if they do not adhere to the proposed disciplinary measures which may be applied in a voluntary way if they wish to comply the Minister may take the necessary disciplinary measures in such cases—”may” take.

Firstly, the premise is that disciplinary measures should be instituted and maintained voluntarily. That is why this legislation is not an attempt to restrict the freedom of the Press in South Africa in any way in so far as the freedom of the Press is exercised in a responsible manner with regard to the overall situation in South Africa, the situation in which there is potential for conflict, the situation in South Africa in which we need peace and calm to an increasing extent. I can only appeal to the Press to accept that role with responsibility. Then it will not be necessary to take any steps against them.

Mr. Speaker, just as other hon. members did, I too listened attentively to the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech. The introductory ideas which the hon. the Minister put to us, are ideas I shall read through again. I think the hon. the Minister was trying to strike a balance between the responsibility of a Government and the role, nature and position of the Press in a community. In my opinion many of those ideas were quite striking, and most of us could associate ourselves with them.

There are certain aspects the hon. the Minister mentioned which I should like to emphasize and which I shall return to later in my speech. Inter alia, he referred to the fact that we are living in a time of reform. The hon. the Minister went on to refer to the onslaught of communism on Southern Africa and to the fact that revolutionary forces in South Africa could be strengthened.

A Government has basic responsibilities. No one can get away from that. Any party which finds itself in the position of having to govern, will have to shoulder the responsibilities which go hand in hand with governing. Those responsibilities entail that in the community one serves and in the territory in which one lives one has to ensure peace, stability and prosperity for one’s people, preferably on the basis of the principles one adheres to. In Southern Africa the heterogeneity of the population structure of South Africa makes it far more difficult for any Government to govern than in a country with a homogeneous society. Even in a country with a homogeneous population there may be very marked ideological differences, which also make matters difficult for the government concerned. In a country with a diversity of races and peoples this is to a great extent accentuated.

In 1948 this Government came into power after we had been subjected to an imperial regime for some time and at that stage there were peoples in South Africa which merely fell under the jurisdiction of the Government. Since the Government is now in the process of granting independence to various regions, this makes matters even more difficult in South Africa. Consequently I think it is very difficult to ensure order, peace and stability for the various population groups in South Africa and still remain in power. After all, it is the endeavour of any governing party to remain in power, for no party will fight an election to come into power without striving to remain in power. I can therefore understand the Government’s problems in this connection.

Having accepted that the Government of South Africa has great responsibilities, one must on the other hand take the responsibilities of the Press into consideration and also take cognizance of the role which the media plays in modern society. One must also accept that in a democracy one does not want a dictatorial Press. One must therefore ensure that the Press enjoys protection in a democracy but at the same time one must also ensure that it fulfils its role in such a way in a democracy that it does not destroy that democracy and its ideals. [Interjections.]

What I am now going to say applies to all the parties in this House. A Government, a party, representatives and candidates are all subject to many control measures. I think there are few people in a society who are tried and tested to such an extent as Government or Opposition members, irrespective of whether they are candidates or representatives. We as representatives of the nation are constantly subject to close scrutiny by the Press. In addition we are also subject to close scrutiny by public and every three, four or five years, we must go back to the nation to be tested again. Therefore members of Parliament are constantly being tested by norms the Press itself perhaps cannot always be tested by. The norms applying to a newspaper director, a board of directors or the people controlling the newspaper industry are very different from the norms that apply to public figures.

I have said that in a democracy the Press should not become dictatorial. But then there is also the question of who controls the Press. The Press is sometimes referred to as some kind of mysterious phenomenon, but there are also forces which control the Press. If we consider the State vis à vis the Press, freedom of the Press, etc., the question which arises is which people operate within the freedom of a democracy. Who are the people who control the Press? On the one hand the Press is an institution with financial aims. It wants to make money for if it does not make money it obviously cannot exist. On the other hand the Press in modern society has adopted the role of influencing people, of pushing the public or political parties in specific directions. Whereas the State, the Government, and political parties have a specific function and are tested before they are placed in a position of power, the Press has merely taken the role of influencing people upon itself. Now one must ask oneself what restrictions can be placed on that influence, or to what extent that influence can be subjected to the rules and norms of democracy. One may also have a Press monopoly. There may be a dictatorial Press, or a Press which plays a very prominent role, and there may be such a Press monopoly that it could destroy the best characteristics and ideals of democracy. If the Press owners live in the country concerned and are subject to that country’s laws, it is still not entirely bad, but the Press owner could also—and I ask myself how often this is the case—live outside the country’s borders, in other words, they could be people who are not citizens of the country. I therefore want to associate myself with the hon. the Minister’s introductory words, and say that one needs a very delicate balance between the Government on the one hand and the Press and its role on the other. Of course any Government also has a co-ordinating responsibility. In other words, there is not only a relationship between the Government and the Press. There is also a relationship between the Government and the other facets of society.

With those specific guidelines as a background, I now come more specifically to the Bill itself. In the Bill there are in fact certain aspects which worry me and on which I should briefly like to express an opinion, indicating at the end of my speech what the proposals of my party and I are. In the first place I want to refer to the proposed new section 4(4)(a). Here I feel that the smaller newspapers could be forced to become members of the Press Union. I can understand that in the Press Union its members lay down certain norms according to which the members can be “corrected”, if I may use that term. However, I do not think we must allow those that who do not want to join voluntarily, to be forced to become members of the Press Union. It could happen that smaller newspapers will form such a small part of the whole in such a large Press Union that they will in actual fact not have much of a say. I do not think this is something we should enforce.

In terms of this clause the hon. the Minister is given very wide powers. When I was still seated on that side of the House and could see what was going on and why certain things were being done, I frequently voted for legislation which gave control to the hon. the Minister. However, from this side of the House I must now say that I am not completely happy with the role the hon. the Minister has to play here. If a position that a Minister wants to maintain, is clung to over-anxiously or rigidly, it may happen that he negates an opponent’s newspaper or the standpoints of smaller opposition newspapers through his action. This is one aspect which worries me, and is something with which I cannot agree. In any case I think the hon. the Minister is receiving powers here which are far too extensive.

I have no problems with clause 2, but the proposed section 47(1)(a)(i) reads as follows—

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I myself am a very staunch supporter of strict and healthy discipline. I have no objection to institutions being disciplined as well. On the other hand, I am not prepared to give my support to a body I do not really know anything about, a body whose proposed composition and whose functions I know nothing about. For this reason there are doubts in my mind and in this connection I should very much like inputs to be made in some other way.

In conclusion I want to say that we on this side of the House want to make the best of this particular Bill. Against the background I have sketched and in view of the fact that we want to do the best for the country and want to make a contribution with regard to the delicate balance between the Government, the State and freedom of the Press, I think that the time available to discuss these matters is insufficient. Bearing in mind the Steyn Commission I think that it would be far more sensible and fairer in spite of all the functions we as members of Parliament have, for the hon. the Minister to refer this Bill to a Select Committee before the Second Reading is taken. I want to say that one would very much like to discuss the problems raised by the hon. member for Sandton and the Press itself critically, with members of all the parties present. On the one hand, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he may receive far more support from us than he thinks and on the other hand I want to tell hon. members of the PFP that they may also receive far more support for the freedom of the Press and the wonderful ideals we aspire to in this connection, than they can get in this debate. I think that hon. members of the official Opposition were far too critical to express a really balanced judgment on this.

You watch what happens to your party’s paper.

That was a wilful and malicious remark. [Interjections.]

If one has too strong a reaction from both sides, one may eventually harm the cause one wants to serve. For this reason I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we shall not vote in favour of the amendment of the official Opposition, but that we wish to move our own amendment by means of which I think we shall gain greater unanimity and greater understanding, not only for ourselves, but also with a view to the reaction to this measure from abroad. Since 1948 we have been aware that countries abroad and people who are hostile to us, would very much like to suggest that the Government wants to put an end to the freedom of the Press. If a Select Committee of the Parliament is therefore able to discuss this matter calmly yet speedily—I realize that the hon. the Minister needs the legislation, otherwise he would not have submitted it—we shall be able to iron out many of the problems I have referred to. For this reason I move as a further amendment—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik, on behalf of his party, raised certain objections to the measure under discussion and moved an amendment. From the motivation by the hon. member for Rissik of his party’s amendment, it is clear to me that hon. members of the CP have now come to realize that they made a mistake when they left the ruling party. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rissik acknowledged this himself in so many words.

Oh, please! You spoke so well yesterday. Why are you ruining everything now? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Rissik admitted that when he and his hon. colleagues were still on this side of the House, they frequently voted in favour of legislation in which powers as extensive as those contained in the Bill under discussion, were granted to a specific Minister. The hon. member added that in such cases they were fully informed of the necessity for such powers and authority. According to him they were in such cases also familiar with the background to and the facts of the matter and for this reason they were prepared to vote in favour of it. However, the hon. member for Rissik now finds that he and his colleagues are out in the cold.

Yes! After all, you kicked us out! [Interjections.]

Now the hon. member for Rissik finds it necessary to raise objections to the extensive powers and authority granted to the Minister in terms of this measure.

It is not democratic either!

I can quite understand the dilemma in which the hon. members of the CP now find themselves. In an effort to acquaint himself with the facts, to which he would normally have had access if he had still been on this side of the House, the hon. member for Rissik has now proposed a Select Committee. [Interjections.] Hon. members of the CP must not expect their folly in leaving the NP to be accommodated in this way. They will simply have to accept now …

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member for Mossel Bay think it is fair that an Opposition Party is given scarcely a day and a half to prepare itself to discuss this very complex legislation? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this is actually a very simple piece of legislation for anyone who approaches it with the necessary understanding. [Interjections.] Of course I am not referring to hon. members of the official Opposition. There is a basic difference in approach between them and us. However, this is a matter I shall discuss later in my speech. For anyone who wants to understand the contents of this Bill, it need not take long to become acquainted with precisely what this measure entails.

After a year Koos will still not understand it.

Hon. members of the CP will simply have to accept now that having excluded themselves from the game, now that they find themselves in the Opposition benches, they will be at a certain disadvantage as far as information in connection with legislation of this nature is concerned. They must please not keep on asking for the appointment of a Select Committee so that they can become acquainted with what is going on. I can understand their problem, but they must also show understanding for the standpoint of hon. members on this side of the House. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Rissik also indicated that he was a great supporter of discipline. I have known the hon. member for quite a number of years and I do not want to be unkind to the hon. member because that is not in my nature. [Interjections.] However, the fact of the matter is that if the recent behaviour of the hon. members of that party is taken into consideration there are people who would not readily believe that remark of the hon. member.

I do not think the hon. member for Rissik can believe that we shall seriously consider his amendment to refer this legislation to a Select Committee. In the first place I think that the hon. member will agree with me that no matter how many Select Committees we appoint and no matter how long those Select Committees deliberate on this measure, we shall never be able to accommodate the hon. members of the official Opposition.

Or the NPU.

They have a basic problem with this measure and that is why it is absolutely unrealistic to want to appoint a Select Committee in this connection.

The hon. member for Rissik—and this is my final reference to this hon. member—also stated that in terms of clause 1(a) of the Bill, newspapers could be forced to become members of the Press Union. However, there is no such provision at all in this clause. There is no justification whatsoever for coming to such a conclusion. It is only if one approaches the measure from a malicious standpoint that one can read such a possibility into it. It does not appear there at all. It is only people who consider this measure to be a draconian piece of legislation per se or by definition who will read such a negative motive or possibility into that clause. I want to say that I honestly cannot believe that the hon. member for Rissik can have such a negative approach to this measure, particularly when one takes the introductory preamble to his objections into consideration.

May I ask a question? If Die Patriot or Die Afrikaner or The Citizen refuses to become part of the body which the Minister envisages will form part of the NPU undertaking, is it not the main object of the Bill that the Minister can then cancel the registration of that newspaper?

No, that is not true.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandton is entitled to ask questions but he must not pose hypothetical questions. He must not put hypothetical questions to me and then expect replies from me.

But it is an implication of the Bill.

It is not an implication of the Bill at all.

What is the implication of the Bill then per se? Will the hon. member please tell us.

I shall proceed to do just that. The hon. the Minister has already done so, and I shall do so again. For the moment, however, I wish to return to the hon. member for Sandton. This Bill deals with the maintenance of certain norms and standards. I make so bold as to say that if one has regard to the way in which the hon. member for Sandton conducted himself during the course of this debate this evening, one can come to only once conclusion and that is that the hon. member for Sandton is either unable or unwilling to maintain the norms of ordinary decency.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member is being extremely personal. He says I was either unable or unwilling to maintain the norms of decency. That is not a Parliamentary comment, not in anyone’s language.

Did the hon. member for Mossel Bay make his point in that way?

I made the statement that if one had regard to the way in which the hon. member conducted himself in the debate in this House this evening, one could come to only one of two conclusions, either that the hon. member is unable or is unwilling to maintain the rules of normal decency.

You talked about decency.

Order! The hon. member for Mossel Bay must please withdraw the last part of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, if the objection is to the word “decency”, I withdraw it unconditionally. However, so as not to leave my statement hanging in the air, I shall say instead that the hon. member for Sandton was unable or unwilling to debate in this House without making use of the most disparaging, derogatory and personal remarks about the person of the hon. the Minister, and the hon. the Deputy Minister.

That is not true.

I want to add that I think it ill befits the hon. member for Sandton of all people then to object to somebody else being personal.

*Throughout his speech the hon. member was nothing but derogatory and disparaging, and then he has the temerity to be touchy about and object to personal remarks made by other people.

Are you prepared to take a question?

The hon. member has already been vitriolic enough this evening. He should sit still and listen for a change.

†If one has regard to the way in which the hon. member conducted himself in the course of this debate, it is not surprising that he has no appreciation of the objects of this measure, namely to maintain decent standards and norms as far as the Press is concerned.

Like all the members of the Press.

The hon. member for Parktown must not expect me to take any notice of him in this House. The only reason why I have referred to him now, was to place this on record.

My pleasure. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Sandton made a categorical statement, that the National Press Union would never submit to fulfilling an administrative role to discipline non-members of the union.

It is statutory control.

All right. Statutory control.

Is it the same?

For the purposes of my argument, it does not make any difference. Now I ask the hon. member for Sandton whether he holds a brief for the National Press Union. What possible justification can he have to make a categorical statement like that on behalf of the National Press Union. [Interjections.] I submit that this hon. member has been doing nothing else but trying to create the impression that he is the great protector and guardian of Press freedom in this country. I reject that impression with contempt.

The hon. member for Sandton also stated that the official Opposition would oppose this measure but not because they do not want a responsible and fair-minded Press in South Africa. However, the responsibility that the hon. member for Sandton displayed, was a weird and distorted type of responsibility. If that is the type of responsibility that they expect from the Press, then I submit that it would be a sad day for South Africa if the Press were to meet with their expectations. Fortunately, the Press in this country, in general, shows a much higher regard for responsibility than the hon. member for Sandton has displayed this evening.

As I said earlier, the hon. member for Sandton tried to project a respectable image of his party. However, unfortunately for the hon. member for Sandton, the hon. member for Pinelands let him down. He let him down in an interjection in which he indicated that he did not want disciplinary provisions at all. [Interjections.] He does not want disciplinary provisions at all, because he wants an open licence to publish. Now that was the dilemma that the hon. member for Sandton was facing. The hon. member for Sandton was trying to project a respectable image but the hon. member for Pinelands let the cat out of the bag. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandton also made the statement that the NPU had not been aware of the contents of the Bill we are now dealing with, and he took this strongly amiss of the hon. the Minister. However, yesterday the hon. member for Sandton stood up here in this House and objected to the introduction of this measure. Did he then know what the contents of the Bill were? The hon. member must now tell me whether he knew what the contents of this measure were—yes or no.

What is the question?

Did the hon. member for Sandton know the contents of this Bill when he stood up in this House yesterday and objected to its introduction? [Interjections.]

Not the precise contents.

Order! The hon. member for Mossel Bay must proceed with his speech.

The argument I wish to develop is that surely the hon. member knows that the contents of this Bill only became known yesterday. It therefore goes without saying that no-one had examined or had prior knowledge of the contents of the measure. The information was not deliberately withheld from anyone. The hon. member did not know, and other hon. members of this House and I did not know either. In spite of this the hon. member opposed the introduction of this measure on behalf of his party yesterday. In this way the hon. member revealed the basic attitude of his party to this measure. This was also the attitude displayed by the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. members are in their nature opposed to any measure aimed at maintaining decent norms and standards.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister very clearly set out the background and motivation and scope of the Bill. He made matters quite clear for any one who is unprejudiced. However, the hon. members of the official Opposition merely repeat in this House what other people have told them to say. What the hon. member for Sandton said here this afternoon we have actually already read in this morning’s Cape Times. In it Mr. Rene de Villiers …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it not unparliamentary and incorrect to quote from or to utilize newspaper reports relating to a debate which is before this House? To allege that I am guilty of unparliamentary conduct, which I was not, is a reflection on your standing as Speaker and I do not think that you should allow it.

Order! The hon. member for Mossel Bay may proceed.

The fact of the matter is that these hon. members receive orders from other people which they then give expression to in this House. For this reason one need not wait until they raise their argument here, one need only read the newspapers and then one knows in advance what standpoint they will adopt here. The gravamen of my charge against the hon. members is therefore that they approached the measure from a prejudiced standpoint. Without having the slightest idea of what was contained in the Bill, they opposed its introduction. At this stage, now that the contents of the measure are well known, the hon. members still stand by that same absolute opposition to the measure which they displayed at the First Reading. Their behaviour is therefore not based on facts, but is based on their inherent opposition to any disciplinary measures of this nature. The basic point of departure of these hon. members is that there should be no discipline whatsoever.

The hon. member for Sandton referred approvingly to the co-operation of the NPU. He said that the NPU bent over backwards to accommodate the hon. the Minister.

They went out of their way.

They went out of their way to cooperate. Now that it is necessary to take the logical legislative steps to implement the NPU’s attempts to put their own house in order, the hon. member is objecting. Surely that does not hold water.

I want to conclude by again stating categorically …

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

Since the start of this debate the hon. member has been obstructive. Even before the hon. the Minister had said a word he had already began to ask questions and raise points of order which were totally unfounded. Now he wants to keep on asking questions. We cannot go on like this. I want to state categorically that the purpose of this measure we are now debating is to help the organized media to maintain those norms and standards on which they themselves have decided. I emphasize that these are not norms prescribed to them by the Government. The Bill does not state which norms have to be complied with. These are norms and standards they have set themselves. All this measure is doing is to create the machinery to enable them to maintain those norms and standards. It is therefore void of all truth to suggest that the hon. the Minister or the Government want to prescribe to the media what norms and standards they should maintain.

If they do not say “Yes, master” steps will be taken against them.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that if they do not say “Yes, master” action will be taken against them. Surely that is ridiculous. They themselves determine, the norms and standards and it is against those persons who do not comply with those norms and standards set by the organized media that steps will be taken.

Why is this legislation necessary then?

Because without the legislation there is no sanction. That hon. member who is supposed to be a jurist knows that an agreement to which no sanction applies is not worth the paper it is written on. I repeat: The purpose of the Bill is to enable the organized media to maintain the norms and standards on which they themselves have decided and which they themselves want to maintain.

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

No, Sir, the hon. members are wasting my time.

The hon. member for Sandton objected to the powers granted in terms of clause 3(a)(i) to establish a disciplinary body by regulation. Surely the hon. member knows that this is not an unusual method in legislation.

It is.

After all, it frequently happens that a Minister is given the authority to establish a specific body by regulation, or to specify a certain date or to take steps to make the implementation of legislation possible. Why is the hon. member suggesting that the Minister is being granted an exceptional power here? I maintain that it is nothing out of the ordinary in legislation of this nature to grant the Minister the authority to put that legislation into operation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by agreeing with the criticism that has been voiced by the parties to the right of me on the timing and method of introduction of this measure before the House, on the fact that it has been introduced in the dying hours of the session and that it is to be bulldozed through the House as is being done. I think this in itself is perhaps the most serious criticism that one can make about the motive for the measure because there has been no explanation at all from the hon. the Minister on why the Bill had to be introduced at the last moment, why no time was given to study it and why so little time is being given to deal with it properly in this House, with proper consideration of stages.

However, Parliament is Parliament and, when the Bill landed on our tables, it was our duty to study it, as is the case with any Bill, and to evaluate it on merit. We were able to study it purely on merit, without any extraneous influences on us, because we as a party had received no representations from the NPU, either direct or indirect. There had been no published statement from the NPU until late this afternoon, and we were therefore able to deal with it purely from our own evaluation of the measure and not from what we were being told by anyone else or under any other influence.

There was a Press outcry from the journalists, that is true, but one has only to look at the Press gallery to see how important this measure is to them!

They wrote their editorials yesterday.

I think the Press gallery attendance has doubled itself in the last half-hour or so. However, it is an interesting little sidelight. This is the Bill that is supposed to be going to end Press freedom. This is the Bill that is to be the end of the freedom of the Press and yet the Press most affected are not here to listen to what Parliament is saying about the Bill that is going to put them into chains. [Interjections.]

They wrote their editorials yesterday.

Yes, they probably have already written their editorials for tomorrow. [Interjections.]

We had to judge this Bill on merit, and the only way we could judge it was against the attitude that this party adopted to the Steyn Commission’s report. To refresh hon. members’ memories and place it on record, our attitude was, firstly, that we agreed that there was a need for more effective safeguards against the abuse of Press freedom.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. members of the PFP will have plenty of time to make their speeches. We agreed that there was bias that led to abuse of the freedom to publish or to suppress that needed a more effective mechanism in the interests of the public and in the interests of the Press itself, its image, its reputation and its credibility with the people of South Africa. However, we opposed the proposed method of the registering of journalists. We believed that it was better that any method to safeguard the public—and to provide effective safeguards—should apply to what was published and not to the people who published it; in other words should apply to the content of what was printed in the newspapers. Therefore we proposed a different form of regulatory body to that proposed by the Steyn Commission. We made it clear, however—that was the essence of our approach—that that body should be a body controlled by the media themselves. It should be entirely under the control of the media which should deal with their own affairs, apply their own discipline and establish their own norms and standards. We opposed a body that might have been dominated by Government, saying that the media should put their own house in order. We believe, however, that it was only logical that if a body was to act as an effective safeguard, it should have enforceable authority, and such authority can only be enforced on a statutory basis. Those were the norms we applied to this Bill, and I must say that if, at the end of the hon. the Minister’s speech, I still had certain doubts about this Bill, perhaps because of its method of introduction and certain other features that I shall deal with, I must say that two things tipped the scales. One was the speech of the hon. member for Sandton, a speech that convinced me that there must be something wrong with a case that had to be put in such excessive language, with such hysterical exaggerations, such histrionics! The hon. member for Sandton can sometimes be quite entertaining. One can see by his gestures, the way he waves his notes around, that he practises in front of a mirror, but tonight he obviously had not practised. [Interjections.] So his histrionics were rather like those of a ham-actor who is clowning. That gave me my first suspicion that the case could not be a good one if it had to be put in the way it was put, for one whole hour, by the hon. member for Sandton. [Interjections.] The other thing that tipped the scales was the statement published in the late Press tonight by the NPU. From this it was quite clear to me that the objection of the NPU to this Bill was that it had teeth, that it could be enforced.

I believe that there are two tests that one has to apply to a measure of this kind. Firstly, does it restrict Press freedom and substitute Government control? Secondly, can it work and how will it work? On the first question there is no doubt in my mind that what is being proposed here is a media council entirely under the control of the media, with no Government representation, with no Government interference in its methods of operation, in the decisions it comes to, in the way it applies discipline or in the sanctions that it applies. There is no statutory or Governmental control on what it does. [Interjections.] If there is, where is it in this Bill? I have the Bill here. There is nothing in this Bill, not a single thing … [Interjections.] … that even says what the media body is to be. It is only said that it must be a media body that is recognized. [Interjections.] This gives the media a blank cheque to set up their own council, to structure it as they wish, to operate it as they wish, to make their own rules and lay down their own standards and to establish their own code of behaviour. In this Bill we could find nothing at all that showed any way in which the Government could control the body that is to regulate and ensure self-discipline in the newspaper world.

Then the second question is how it would work. Obviously, if there is to be a method by which any body can carry out its functions, it must have teeth; it must have the power to impose its decisions on those who do not conform to the standards and codes which it lays down itself. To us in this party it looked like—and we believe that it is—the least restrictive form of enforcement which could be applied. It would deal solely with the application of discipline to the Press—not with how it was applied or to what discipline could be applied, but one which simply said: “The media run their own show and will do their own thing and, after they have done their own thing, their body will be entitled to impose its decisions and sanctions on any newspaper.” I can think of no less restrictive way of doing it than by empowering this body to apply its authority to all newspapers.

It is forced.

Not, it is not forced. This body is given the power to enforce its findings.

What is the objection? That is why I say this is what tipped the scales in favour of our accepting this measure. I refer to the fact that the NPU made it absolutely clear that it was not prepared to enforce its decisions, to apply its code or to apply any standards whatsoever other than on a totally voluntary basis. It was not prepared to use that body to have those standards applied, which its own members voluntarily accept, by any other newspaper which refused to accept any form of discipline or direction. In other words, its attitude in its statement is: “We will control our own members, but other people can do what they like; we will have nothing to do with any abuses which people who are not members and do not voluntarily accept our discipline choose to allow themselves.”

What does one then do with those who reject the discipline? How does one handle them? Then one has to create another body to deal with those who reject discipline. One cannot have two bodies doing the same job, one on a voluntary basis and one to deal with the recalcitrants.

Why do you not let the President’s Council do it?

Because that party would boycott it and the newspapers might boycott it, when they would again be totally free of any responsibility for any standards or for playing any positive role in properly informing the public of South Africa.

Then he would want to have a lot to say about its recommendations. [Interjections.]

We are not the lackeys of anybody. We are not a party that can be told what to do. We have taken this measure and evaluated it on its contents—not on suspicion, but on what stands in it. If the Government were to come with an amendment of the law which gave it control of the council, if the Government were to introduce any provision which allowed it to interfere, we would oppose that totally. However, we believe that if the media are prepared to regulate their own affairs, then this is the way it can be done without interfering with the freedom of the Press. Unless one has something of this nature it becomes not a question of the freedom of the Press but a question of a licence to do what one pleases, a licence to be irresponsible, a licence to be dishonest, a licence to distort and misrepresent news and a licence to abuse freedom.

Like politicians have.

No. Politicians are under the control of this House and of Mr. Speaker. They are also under the control of the Standing Rules and Orders of this House, they are answerable to this House, they are answerable to the public and they are answerable to their electorate. [Interjections.] That is the difference between a politician and a newspaper. A newspaper is responsible to no one except its shareholders and it is only responsible to its shareholders in so far as it has to produce profits, because we are told by the editors that they are not controlled by the owners and that they are free agents in regard to the editorial policies of the papers. They are responsible to no one except in so far as they are expected to make a profit. Therefore, they are in a privileged position. They have the ability to influence events and to influence public thinking without having the responsibility of any sort of control or direction such as members of Parliament have. That is the basic difference.

When we look at this legislation, what can we really object to as far as a group is concerned that is forming its own body or council? I want to say, in passing, that I thought the hon. member for Sandton was most derogatory about the newspaper owners who were “scurrying in and out of offices cap in hand”. I do not think that the leaders of the Press in South Africa are the sort of people who scurry around cap in hand. I have known them to be pretty independent and forthright. I certainly would not go along with that criticism of them by the hon. member for Sandton. I would say that they are people who are quite able to stand on their own two feet.

We believe that one cannot have an effective regulation on an entirely voluntary basis. We also believe that what is best is a measure that leaves the determination and the application of regulatory matters entirely to the media without any Government interference in the form of a body which has the power to enforce what it decides. That power can only come from Parliament and therefore we shall support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by asking the PFP if they would be so kind as to reprimand the hon. member for Sandton and ask him to apologize to the hon. the Deputy Minister because the hon. member for Sandton treated the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance, Industries, Commerce and Tourism in a completely unmannerly way. I think the dignity of this House would be enhanced if the PFP Whips could persuade the hon. member for Sandton to do so.

As far as the hon. member for Durban Point is concerned, I want to tell him that he made a very good speech this evening. [Interjections.] He made a balanced speech and concentrated on the legislation before this House. He did not allow himself to be misled by gossip and insinuations either. I really appreciated the speech which the hon. member for Durban Point made this evening.

†We have heard quite a lot about Press freedom this evening, and I should therefore try to convey to hon. members what Press freedom means, because I am convinced that we should not speak without knowing what we are talking about. [Interjections.] I refer therefore to page 16 of the Steyn Commission Report. In paragraph 6(c) we read the following—

I should like hon. members of the official Opposition to tell me where in this Bill any right of a proprietor to publish is taken away from him. We should be honest about this. The next point that is made in this report is—

Where in this Bill is any editor deprived of this right? The next point made in this report is—

Where in this Bill is the freedom of the individual tainted? The next point made in the report is—

*When we consider what is meant by freedom of the Press, it is quite clear that the Bill under discussion does not in fact affect any rights of the Press. We must realize what we are discussing though.

†The hon. member for Sandton in his speech, alleged that this amending Bill was the thin edge of the wedge as far as Press freedom was concerned.

Quite right!

He said that without explaining it at all. He did not motivate that statement of his at all. His was merely an ex cathedra statement. It was not at all motivated or explained. The hon. member merely played for the gallery in making that statement. [Interjections.] His whole speech can be summed up in only a few words, as follows: “I am the champion of Press freedom. I am the champion of Press freedom. I am the champion of Press freedom.” That was really all he said. He repeated the same argument over and over, rendering it completely meaningless in the end. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member for Sandton did not discuss the merits of this legislation at all. As a matter of fact I think that we in this House should confine our attention strictly to the Bill under discussion. After all, that is what we are here for. Obviously this legislation does not adhere slavishly to the Steyn Commission’s report; on the contrary, there are clear deviations from that report discernible in the legislation under discussion. I should like to quote from today’s Beeld—

’n Statutêre beroepsraad en ’n lederegister van joernaliste wat deur die Steyn-kommissie na die media voorgestel is, is nie opgeneem in die nuwe wetgewing oor die Pers wat gister in Kaapstad gepubliseer is nie.

The submission I want to make is this. The hon. the Minister, in an impartial way, brought legislation to this House which in no way restricts the freedom of the Press. In this legislation we do not find a slavish adherence to what the Steyn Commission said. This legislation is worded objectively so as not to interfere in any way with the freedom of the Press to publish. What we are in actual fact concerned with here is that the Press is being given the opportunity to apply internal self-discipline in a self-sufficient way. What is wrong with that, I may ask? What is wrong with internal self-sufficiency and internal discipline?

Of course I agreed with the hon. member for Durban Point when he pointed out that the NPU had said that everything ought to be voluntary and that those that did not want to join the NPU voluntarily simply had to go their own way. This means that as far as these people are concerned, the NPU simply wants to let them do as they like. Those people can write what they want to, which means that the NPU is not willing to put its own house in order in all respects. This is the only logical argument which can follow from this. Of course I am not suggesting that the NPU is arguing in that way. What I am saying is that this is the only argument that there could possibly be.

Clause 3 of the Bill provides that a certificate is issued by a body striving for the attainment and maintenance of the highest possible standards. Would it therefore be wrong, when we establish a body which wants to maintain the highest possible standards—including the disciplining of its staff—for us clearly to define the highest possible standards of discipline? What possible objection could there be? It is not stated anywhere in the Bill that the hon. the Minister may interfere in any way. The Bill states very simply that if the Minister is satisfied that the publisher of a newspaper is not obeying the prescribed disciplinary rules, he may cancel the registration of the publication. How will the hon. the Minister satisfy himself that that is the case? Surely he is not going to sit in his office and suddenly become convinced of it. It is stated quite clearly in the Bill that there is a body that has to apply the rules and norms. It is the body which by definition has to apply the rules and norms. For this reason the Minister cannot do so on his own, after all. If he were to do so, the courts could find that he had either acted mala fide, or that he had not given proper attention to the matter. By implication it is stated in the Bill that the Minister cannot do as he likes. Nor does he want to do as he likes. That is not the idea behind the legislation. This Bill affords a method of settling the question of self-discipline. If one is disciplined by one’s equals, this is the highest form of fairness. On the other hand if one is disciplined by one’s inferiors, that is a different matter.

I want to associate myself with the argument of the hon. member for Durban Point and ask whether it is practicable for the Press to discipline itself. I sometimes get the impression that the Press does not think it is possible for it to discipline itself. I think they would like to discipline themselves, but they are shrinking from doing so and are saying that it is not possible in practice because they do not have norms. On page 142 of the Steyn Commission report I found something very interesting. There it is stated—

If it is true that these are the norms, I want to say that this legislation serves the application of norms in an excellent way. To tell the truth, these highest norms cannot be served if this legislation is not passed. I must honestly say that if one considers this legislation objectively and impartially, no objections can be made to it, unless one is unnecessarily suspicious.

This legislation gives the Minister the authority to withdraw certain concessions. This stabilizes the freedom of the Press and it is now being created in this Bill. Now the Press is free to discipline itself. We on this side of the House set as great store by the freedom of the Press as anyone else. We say this legislation is aimed at this.

It is a pity that there are certain objections to the legislation, because it seems as if the objections are aimed at maintaining the status quo. Everyone who is fair knows that the status quo is not bringing about discipline and self-sufficiency. The hon. member for Rissik stated, inter alia, that certain smaller newspapers may get hurt. He also referred to the proposed body and to regulations. I want to tell the hon. member that we on this side of the House are also concerned about the small newspapers. However, I want to suggest that the argument of the hon. member for Rissik will be well met when we see the regulations.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Barberton will be given an opportunity to speak. He is an eloquent debater. He can have a look at those regulations. I am flattering him and he must not let it go to his head. The regulations will be there with the aim of creating a body which will maintain the highest possible standards. With all due respect, the Government has indicated expressly in this legislation that it does not want to interfere with the freedom of the Press in any way. We can hold our heads high in the world and still say that in Africa there is not another country with greater freedom of the Press than ours and that we compare very favourably with the best in the world. We are proud of the fact that we are now able to have a disciplined Press.

I want to conclude in all fairness by addressing a request to the official Opposition. I want to ask them that when they argue about this matter they should not make use of clichés and inflammatory arguments, but concentrate solely on the legislation. If they find anything wrong in this legislation they should argue about it. However, by sowing the seeds of suspicion they are merely harming South Africa. I should like to support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I shall refer to the hon. member who has just sat down in a moment. I want to say to the hon. the Minister immediately that the thing that amazed me most, was that he was able to make his introductory speech with a straight face. How he could come into this House today and say the things he said and defend the kind of legislation which is before us with a straight face, I do not know. I can understand that he could do it, but that he could do it with a straight face is beyond me. [Interjections.]

The second point I want to make is that we on this side of the House had hoped that we had seen and heard the last of the Steyn Commission. We felt that even the Government itself believed that the Steyn Commission had gone overboard and that it was without merit. Unfortunately, they have waited until the last few days of this parliamentary session and they have based their arguments almost entirely on the Steyn Commission’s report. I am not surprised that the Government has done what it has done. We have heard for so long that they were going to do something like this. I confess that I am surprised—perhaps I should not be—at the NRP’s reaction. The hon. leader of that party told this House that he could not understand why the NPU and others were concerned because, after all, what was being done was that the Press were being given a blank cheque to put their own house in order. I want to put it to the NRP and their leaders that what this Bill does, brief as it is, is to give a blank cheque to the Minister because this is sanctioned by regulation. I want to develop that.

The hon. member for Durban Point cannot understand why the Newspaper Press Union does not want to go beyond a voluntary membership and therefore self-discipline. I shall put it in a word. The NPU, according to their own statement—if I interpret them correctly—are saying just this: They are not prepared to do the Government’s dirty work. I do not blame them. Why should they? The hon. member for Pretoria West also stressed that this Bill is about internal discipline, the self-discipline of the Press. What does the NPU say? I have not even read this in a newspaper. I have just been given this extract this evening. It reads as follows—

That hon. member makes no mention of the powers given to the Minister in this regard and then he says we are disregarding the Bill. He has totally disregarded the Bill and he comes here with this feeble excuse that all we are doing is giving the Press a marvellous opportunity to put their house in order.

Sanctimonious.

This hon. member and his Government are wanting to destroy that house and build a house to their design. That is why the Press itself is worried and disturbed and anti.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout entitled to remark that the hon. the Minister was sanctimonious? [Interjections.]

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, 185 years ago Thomas Jefferson wrote—

I believe that this statement written so many years ago highlights the importance of this Second Reading debate because what is at stake, I believe, is nothing less and nothing more than the freedom of the Press. Solzhenitsyn puts it in another way, but makes exactly the same point. He says—

It is our submission that with the introduction of this piece of amending legislation the Government is introducing a measure of statutory control of the Press. That is the heart of it. This is a very serious allegation and will be a devastating blow to South Africa with far-reaching and tragic consequences. Even at this late stage I appeal to the hon. the Minister to withdraw this legislation.

In 1977, after the First Reading—incidentally, the then United Party opposed the introduction of that Bill without seeing it, as we did with this one—a Bill which sought in far more outrageous and blatant terms to muzzle the Press was withdrawn. That was a very wise move by the Government and I urge the hon. the Minister to consider doing the same.

I said right at the beginning that I was not surprised that the Government had taken this step or indeed at the manner in which it had done so. South Africa has a long history of assaults on Press freedom. The very first attempt to curb Press freedom in South Africa was made by Lord Charles Somerset in the 1820’s. However, he was beaten by men like Thomas Pringle and John Fairbairn. Let me read for a moment to you Pringle’s account of his torrid interview with Lord Charles Somerset in 1824. I think some journalists will find this reminiscent of their interviews.

That is a lie too. That innuendo is a lie. [Interjections.]

I am not sure what the hon. the Minister is about. May I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. the Minister is quite well? I do not know what he is getting at. Can I just read exactly what Thomas Pringle said a very long time ago? [Interjections.] He said—

The concept of a privately-owned and published press in South Africa was prohibited by the authorities until the arrival of the 1820 Settlers. The right to publish was finally granted in 1829, subject only—and this is very important—to the ordinary laws and regulations of the land. That was the only proviso. This has been described by Prof. Piet Cillié among others as the Magna Char-ta of the South African Press and it is my submission and my fear that this Magna Charta is being torn up as we enter a new sombre era of our history today. History teaches us that there is always somebody in authority, someone who longs to get his hands on the Press and restrict its further performance, i.e. to interfere with its primary duty of giving the public all the facts all the time. This Government in particular has a phobia about the Press and it has adopted a threatening manner towards the Press over many years. Certain newspapers in South Africa trigger off what I can only describe as a Pavlovan response from Ministers and nationalist members alike. It only takes a courageous leading article or a striking or tough story to elicit a loud howl of protest, and abuse is heaped upon newspapers, editors and journalists. A Government that, as part of its history, bans people and newspapers cannot be trusted with the freedom of the Press. This Government has a basic distrust of democracy and in that lies its determination to control. [Interjections.] The threats which flow from Government benches with monotonous regularity have undoubtedly had their effect, sad to say. Editors have been driven to a form of self-censorship which in itself is not a good thing in South Africa, but they have chosen this way as being the lesser of two evils, always seeking to avoid statutory control. That was their response—always seeking to avoid statutory control. Yet, what amazes me, despite the Government’s paranoia concerning the Press, it always pays lip service to its belief in a free Press. The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs in 1977 during the debate on the introduction of that newspaper Bill that was wisely withdrawn by the Government, said the following (Hansard, Vol. 67, col. 3375}—

Government members are also fond of referring to the state of the Press—and the hon. member who has just resumed his seat did it again—in other parts of Africa and they rightly point with pride to the measure of freedom of the Press in South Africa. Gavin Relly, president of the S.A. Foundation, said only this week—

The fundamental difference between the rest of Africa and South Africa, as far as the Press is concerned—even up till today—is that here we have the total absence of statutory control. However, with the introduction of this Bill that position is being changed. This is the one card we will not be able to play as successfully as we have done in the past in our relationship with the international community.

In the same speech that I quoted from a moment ago, Mr. Relly went on to say—

That is the tragedy, Sir, that this Government has begun a journey that is going to take all of us away from something that we have held with pride.

The hon. the Minister has not come with a battering-ram or a sledgehammer. What he has done is to put his foot in the door that opens the way for an invasion of the remaining freedom of the Press. The formula is diabolically clever because it seeks to introduce piecemeal legislation that in the end can suffocate the Press.

Mr. H. F. Oppenheimer has rightly emphasized the connection between the suppression of the freedom of the Press and the growth of dictatorships or one-party systems. Indeed, it is my judgement that once the Press is fully controlled by the Government, whether this is done by frontal assault or by stealth, the step to eliminate parliamentary opposition is short and logical. This is simply because the prohibition of public expression of dissent does not eliminate opposition but forces it to express itself in a conspiratorial fashion so that any organized opposition inevitably must come to be looked upon as subversion. [Interjections.]

With this Bill we have begun the slippery slide to ever-increasing restrictions. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that this Government’s rapacious thirst for control appears to be quite unquenchable. Every session of Parliament without fail new laws are introduced that seek to limit the freedom of expression and the freedom of the individual. Will this Government never learn that by tampering with the freedom of the Press, they are really attacking the basic rights of the public at large, for in the final analysis the Press is the people? If one attacks the Press, one attacks the people. Every step taken to limit public knowledge about the activities of government, strips the public of the power to judge that government. This is nothing less than the prologue to a farce or a tragedy or both.

A newspaper can only do its job if it is free. It must be free in order to give its readers, the public, all the facts that, in its view, are in the general interest and therefore fit to print. The public, in its turn, is entitled to all the available facts in order to make up its own mind about the rightness and wrongness of things, and therefore can take an intelligent part in governing itself. Without these facts the community is at a serious disadvantage and cannot possibly participate intelligently or effectively in the government of the country, or cannot even understand what is being done for it or to it, or even in its own name. Are we not prepared to learn from what happened in Rhodesia, where information was deliberately suppressed, where censorship was imposed, where facts were deliberately withheld from the community, so that the end came with devastating suddenness to a people ill-prepared?

The Commonwealth Press Union approved the following statement on Press freedom—

Press freedom is never “safe” anywhere in the world, not whilst the Press is doing its duty, and I believe that the Press in South Africa—by and large—has served South Africa with professional pride and commendable courage. It has its own Press Council, and its voluntary character is of enormous strength to the discipline itself. It is not as if Pressmen are asking for rights beyond the normal rights of the individual…

Such as sensitivity training.

The hon. member for Durban Point has just mentioned “sensitivity training”. I suggest that if ever there was anyone so hopelessly and horribly insensitive as to need a great deal of training, now and in the future, it is that hon. member with his very bad past, and no future at all, come to that, at least according to the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban Point was described yesterday, by the hon. the Prime Minister, as an anachronism. I think he should just leave this place. He is an anachronism and even looks like one. [Interjections.] I find it intriguing that the hon. the Minister has remained absolutely quiet whilst I have been addressing this House. I appreciate that it must be very difficult for him to do so. I know I was not entirely quiet when he spoke—I concede that much—but who is it who is making all the noise?

That was the first interjection I made.

But that hon. member belongs to a party, does he not? I am speaking about the party, all eight of them! All the mumbling, grumbling, groaning, muttering, sighing and sobbing has come from that party.

Now you are being silly; it is only your stomach!

One only has to read Mr. Lionel Murray’s speech in Hansard, made as recently as 1977. [Interjections.] My goodness me! Upon my word, that was a good speech … [Interjections.] But how far has that party not fallen? [Interjections.] It is my view that the Press has an awesome task and a very heavy responsibility, and I believe that they have carried this out with some distinction, but have done so against enormous odds. The hon. member for Sandton seems to have disturbed so many people, and also influenced the hon. member for Durban Point. He could not make up his mind before coming into the House. He had to wait for the speech of the hon. member for Sandton. That was what tipped the scales, he said. If the hon. member for Sandton was against the Bill, he argued, I must be for it. [Interjections.] What a way to make up one’s mind about a piece of legislation! What a disgrace, and after all the years he has been in Parliament. [Interjections.] I have dealt with a lot of sinners, so that hon. member can go on if he likes. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Sandton referred to some of the difficulties under which the Press has to do its work. If we were to believe the hon. members opposite, the Press would be completely without any outside discipline whatsoever. According to Kelsey Stuart there are 75 statutes affecting the publication of newspapers. All newspapers have to be registered, for example, in terms of the Newspaper and Imprint Registration Act, 1971. We have already mentioned the Publications Act; the Indecent or Obscene Photographic Matter Act, 1967; the common law principles relating to defamtion; violating even the dignity or injuring the reputation of the State President; the publication of blasphemous matter is an offence under common law; the Prisons Act; contempt of Parliament, which is section 10 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, No. 91 of 1963; contempt of commissions; contempt of the Publications Appeal Board; restrictions on the right to attend court and on the right to publish proceedings; and restrictions under the Defence Act, under the Official Secrets Act, under the General Law Amendment Act, under the Terrorism Act, under the Unlawful Organizations Act, under the Affected Organizations Act, under the Riotous Assemblies Act, under the Inquests Act and under the Internal Security Act. The Press has to do its job subject to all of these, and many more.

Yet this is not enough for a power-hungry Government. Its tentacles have to reach out everywhere, seeking to stifle protest and dissent. Now not even newspapers will be exempt from statutory control. A newspaper has to belong to a particular body which in law has no substance. It is a phantom. Nowhere is it described what this body is. However, unless the newspaper is a holder of a prescribed certificate issued by this phantom body, it cannot function. Newspapers will be compelled to join and to submit to such a body and, once a member thereof, they cannot leave such a body except on pain of deregistration, which means being put out of business. Is that not serious enough—being put out of business and, once out of business, having to stay out of business?

Clearly, the Bill before us does not have the sanction of the NPU or the Conference of Editors. I would have thought that, at least, the hon. the Minister would have ensured that he had the support of the very discipline he is trying to discipline. On the contrary, Mr. McLean has made it very clear tonight that the Bill was not the product of negotiation between the NPU and the Government and that the NPU was not even aware of its contents. Am I putting it too highly when I say that this was nothing short of a double-cross? Were not the hon. the Minister and the NPU negotiating together, meeting each other? Yet, suddenly, out of the blue, we have this Bill. English and Afrikaans editors in South Africa are unanimous that this Bill is not necessary. Indeed, the Vaderland yesterday went on record as saying that the Minister of Internal Affairs nevertheless comes with legislation is to be lamented. Are they also part of the official Opposition? Are they also over-reacting? Newspaper after newspaper has condemned this legislation out of hand. We have no hesitation in doing so as well.

In conclusion, let me say that it is highly probable that the Minister has in his sights…

The PFP.

Not at all. He has in his sights Die Afrikaner and Die Patriot. Why should we become so excited about the possible shutting-down of these two newspapers if they do not join the phantom body? Certainly, we hold no brief for them. It is, however, our submission that freedom is indivisible, and if Die Afrikaner and Die Patriot are threatened today, will it be the Rand Daily Mail and The Argus tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands, in the same vein as the hon. member for Sandton, has been guilty of a flagrant, exaggerated representation tonight; the very thing a respectable newspaper avoids. The hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Sandton did the cause of the Press more harm than good with their arrogant tirades in this House tonight. Those two hon. gentlemen posed here tonight as sanctified guardian angels of the Press in South Africa.

However, as a former journalist, I wish to point out to those two hon. members that the Press just does not like such dust-raising and woolly argumentation. The Press dislikes political clowns. The Press likes political grovellers even less.

The responsible Press in this country gives preference to facts, correct information and an objective approach. They did not get this from these two hon. gentlemen this evening. The hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Sandton, after their performance here tonight, would be the last two people to be chosen by the Press to look after their interests.

The hon. member for Pinelands is holding a private conversation now, and is not listening to what I am saying. One of the allegations he made in his speech, was the following: “This Government displays a basic distrust of democracy.”

That is correct!

I wish to point out to the hon. member for Pinelands that this Government has displayed the greatest measure of democratic action in its handling of the Press over the past few years. I will demonstrate to the hon. member for Pinelands in a moment that this is, in fact, true.

You are always threatening the Press! [Interjections.]

As former journalist, and I still consider myself to be a good friend of the Press, I am pleased to be able to take part in this discussion tonight. This is a Bill with extremely sound objectives. The objectives are, inter alia, to assist the Press in their efforts to put their own house in order. We have a powerful, free and independent Press in South Africa, of which we may be proud in many respects. There are newspapers and magazines in South Africa which are comparable to the best in the rest of the world as far as their journalistic skill, expertise, content, presentation, appearance and technical production are concerned. We can be proud of this. The Government has placed no obstacles in the way of the Press which prevent it from achieving these heights.

I wish to make it clear that I have a great deal of sympathy for the Press, and, of course, for the Pressmen as well, because a newspaper represents one of the most expensive, one of the most vulnerable and one of the most complicated industries, and also because the task of a Pressman often makes superhuman demands on him. The task of a Pressman is, for the most part, an unenviable one. Most newspapers and members of the Press place a high premium on clear codes of ethics, and enjoy a fine image of credibility among members of the public.

Unfortunately, there are also certain black sheep in the Press industry. After all, every industry has its black sheep. There are also black sheep in the Press who are not so diligent in their observance of proper codes of ethics. In a leading article on 15 June 1979, Die Burger wrote the following—

It is a pity that this is the case. It is certainly not a good thing. It is not a good thing that a sword is continually hanging over the heads of the Press in South Africa. I consequently fervently hope that the present legislation will give rise to the creation of the necessary instruments whereby that sword over the head of the Press in South Africa will be removed.

Although it has sometimes had to speak harshly to the Press, the present Government has protected the freedom of the Press in South Africa for more than 30 years. The Government has repeatedly stated its standpoint that the freedom of the Press is one of the most important cornerstones of the democratic dispensation in this country. It has never been the Government’s objective to gag the Press so that it could not freely carry out its functions of news reporting and of being a watchdog. A healthy, vigilant and critical Press is still welcomed by the Government, while the Press have never been expected to be a subordinate yes-man. We have never doubted or disputed the right of the Press to expose and to dig deeply. The Government realizes that the Press could be a powerful ally in combating corruption and malpractice, in the State administration as well.

The Government has been exceptionally long-suffering towards the so-called destructive section of the Press in this country.

Name them.

I can tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that a large section of the Press which supports his party, is a destructive Press.

Despite the hatred, which sometimes knows no limits, of the Government by this section of the Press, the Government has been extremely long-suffering towards them. The hon. the Prime Minister even intervened on behalf of the Press on a previous occasion when legislation to discipline the Press was ready to be introduced. The Press was then given grace. It has happened time and again that the Press in this country has been given grace to put its own house in order.

The Bill at present before this House could once again be regarded as grace for the Press. It is not as drastic as the hon. members for Sandton and Pinelands claimed here tonight, despite the fact that the Steyn Commission accused the media of often encouraging revolutionary forces that are at work in this country, and of also being guilty of creating a negative climate.

The Government has tried to find a way in which the news media may practise absolute self-sufficiency and self-discipline, while at the same time a minimum of statutory measures are being adopted to try and ensure as far as possible that all newspapers are included in this process and take part in it.

I cannot associate myself with the attitude which has blown over to this country from the USA that the Press and the authorities are and should be sworn enemies, and that they should live together in a constant state of confrontation and war. The Press and the authorities ought instead to be allies fighting in the interests of democracy, since both are not only the creations, but also the cornerstones of democracy. If the Press and the authorities cannot reach an accord in the conditions we are facing, we are heading for a great disaster for both. The Bill in fact paves the way for the authorities and the Press to reach an accord and for the Press to discipline itself.

I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the way in which he has spoken to the Press recently. I wish to congratulate him on his contribution in opening doors between the Government and the Press and in keeping them open. The need for partnership and for sound relations between the Press and the authorities cannot be over-emphasized. We can achieve much by taking the Press into our confidence and by obtaining its voluntary co-operation in the interests of the country.

A sound, working relationship between the public, the Press and the authorities could be obtained through a greater understanding and tolerance of one another, and the hon. the Minister, through this legislation, is trying to create precisely such a relationship. The ideal situation is, of course, that the Press will discipline itself, that it will deal with the black sheep in its ranks itself so that there could be a greater measure of harmony between the Press and the authorities, and so that the sword of reckoning over the head of the Press, may be removed. I believe that this Bill paves the way for this.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North made some interesting observations. I was quite amazed to hear him say that he had sympathy with the Press. He also went on to say—and I am paraphrasing his words—that he hoped this legislation would remove the sword that has been hanging over the Press. I think that I am interpreting him correctly. I must say that I think that that is a remarkable statement for the hon. gentleman to have made. Furthermore, it is an admission, because he is indicating quite clearly to this House exactly what the hon. members for Sandton and Pinelands stated earlier, namely that the Government has been holding a sword over the head of the Press. We know that that has been the position. For the first time, this Bill now makes that sword part of the statutes of this country. We now have an element of statutory control of the Press and yet the hon. member for Bloemfontein North says that he hopes that this legislation will remove that sword. There is going to be a register and a body recognized by regulation.

I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Durban Point supporting this Bill. However, the particular point to which I want to refer is that when he was discussing the question of control over newspapers, he referred to the fact that newspapers that did not belong to the NPU were under no control at all, and he mentioned a list of the things that they could do, including being dishonest. He also used a series of other adjectives but I did not make a note of all of them. The hon. member was asked what laws applied to politicians—whether they are dishonest and whether they exaggerate and do some of the other terrible things that he was describing.

I spoke about bias, dishonesty and misrepresentation.

Very well. The hon. member mentions bias, dishonesty and misrepresentation. I think that those are even worse but nevertheless I am prepared to accept the hon. member’s statement. The question is: What is the position of newspapers that do not belong to the NPU? I am not a legal man, Sir, but earlier this evening a range of laws that apply was mentioned, the laws of libel, defamation and obscenity, as well as the Publications Control Act. There are a number of laws that apply to those newspapers and those same laws are deemed to be sufficient to control the Press.

May I ask a question? I want to ask the hon. member whether the laws he has referred to apply to the ordinary individual, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, except I imagine for the Publications Control Act, the answer is yes. That is exactly the point I was coming to. I wanted to point out to the hon. member for Durban Point that I do not think that the politicians of this world are exactly angels, irrespective of the party to which they belong. They can do these horrible things and, if they do them, then the public, organizations and individuals, have redress in terms of the laws I have mentioned.

May I ask the hon. member a question? When he cites all these horrible things that politicians are alleged to do such as lying, misrepresenting and exaggerating, is he giving a testimonial of himself?

For an hon. member who has spent a good part of his career licking the boots of the propaganda chiefs of the SABC I think he has rather a cheek to be asking that question. Furthermore, as an hon. member, who last year in this House in a moment of excitement in trying to make a point about truth and untruth referred to the “great Dr. Josef Goebbels”, to be asking a question of that sort does rather surprise me.

May I ask the hon. member another question. [Interjections.] Is the hon. member not perfectly aware that I was likening the PFP to the great Dr. Goebbels on a sarcastic note? I think the hon. member’s speech makes the point very well. [Interjections.]

I am not invited to Sunday News Reviews, so it is quite enjoyable to be questioned by the hon. member. I feel a bit like Pik Botha except that I was not given the questions in advance. [Interjections.] I was present in the House when the hon. member made that speech and I know it was in the process of attacking the PFP that the hon. member gave his low opinion of this party. He is entitled to his own opinion. However, the hon. member referred to the “great Dr. Josef Goebbels”, who personally I would not classify as “great” or put on my list of people whom I admire. Again tonight the hon. member referred to the “great Dr. Josef Goebbels”. I am surprised that the SABC permitted a man with such a penetrating intellect to leave them to become a member of Parliament.

I want now to return to the point that I was trying to discuss seriously with the hon. member for Durban Point. There are various laws that apply equally to individuals as they apply to newspapers that are not part of the NPU, and to other publications too. I do not think it is entirely fair to mention only the rules of this House, because clearly while members are within this House they are subject to the various rules and they enjoy a privileged position as well.

That is why you should compare them. They have privileges, power and responsibilities.

Once the politicians are outside their debating Chambers—either this House or the provincial councils—they are not subject to those rules but to the normal laws of the land. The only control, other than those laws, placed upon them, is the judgment of the voters, although nowadays there are certain hon. members and Ministers in the House who are not subject to the judgment of voters. Nevertheless, politicians are subject to the judgment of the voters as to their performance as members of Parliament.

Newspapers equally do not have a control in terms of a statute at this stage. However, the point is that they have shareholders and also readers. I think this is the critical point, namely that their readers probably exert as much control over the newspapers as the voters do over politicians when it comes to misrepresentation and the other things mentioned by the hon. member for Durban Point. [Interjections ]

I believe it is sad that we are discussing in this House tonight the statutory control of the Press. In terms of this legislation a body will be recognized by regulation and the regulation will in fact be made by the hon. the Minister. Therefore newspapers are all going to have to register and submit themselves to a body approved of by the hon. the Minister.

This is a further erosion of Press freedom and of the right of people to know, which is essential in any country that wants to call itself a democracy. While I certainly do not think that South Africa is a democracy, it does have, among the White people in this country, many elements of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, we need to ask two questions. The first question, in general, is: Why this Bill? I will come back to this in a moment. The other question is: Why this Bill now? This is the question that I would like to discuss first. Why had this Bill to be introduced at the end of the session without allowing the people who are going to be most affected, namely the newspapers and the NPU, to see the Bill or to discuss it or to give the hon. the Minister their comments on it before it was introduced in this House? Why? The hon. the Minister has made it clear that this did not happen. Why now?

The more I listened to the hon. the Minister earlier this evening, the more I came to believe what the real reason is. The real reason is that the NP in this country is in trouble with many of its supporters and former supporters. They are being described by members of the CP and others as having become too “verlig”, having become too reformist, having gone soft, having become liberals and having a “Prog” Prime Minister, as one hon. member said. In this context it seems that there is obviously a need for them to seem to be “kragdadig”. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, who in many respects is in the forefront of the Government’s constitutional development plans which form part of his responsibilities, is obviously a particular target for that kind of attack. Once again, I believe that South Africa, together with the Press on this occasion, but South Africa as a whole, is having to pay the price of the NP’s trying to maintain as much unity as possible and trying to retain support on a widespread basis so that it can look strong and not weak and vacillating as it has become now.

There is also the factor of right-wing newspapers which happen to be the ones that do not belong to the NPU. Those are certainly newspapers of which we do not approve. We do not like those newspapers. However, if the hon. the Minister takes his courage in both hands and those newspapers are inciting people to racial hatred and are bringing groups of people in this country into disrepute, then they can be prosecuted under a number of Acts. I think that the hon. the Minister should attempt to do that if he is concerned about those newspapers. He should not try to rely on what accounts to a sideways approach on this, a subterfuge. He should not try to get some other body to do this, some other group of people who do not want to do it, people who understand what Press freedom is all about and people who understand that freedom is indivisible. They understand that once one starts eroding one person’s freedom, once one starts eroding certain freedoms, the other freedoms begin to disappear as well.

Instead of doing that himself, the hon. the Minister, by way of this Bill and by way of the specific clause which enables him to appoint that body and force people to fall under it, is trying to hand his dirty work over to others. I predict that the first body that he will try to get to come into existence, a sort of media council, will be one which he will try to get the NPU to take the initiative to establish. He himself has said that a proposal for a media council has been under negotiation. However, they have not reached final agreement yet. I think that with this the hon. the Minister is only going to bring about confrontation at a stage at which he has said that there are good relationships. He said that there have been discussions, that they have their differences but that they are moving closer together. Instead of proceeding with this and trying to arrive at a very worthwhile conclusion, not only in the interests of the Press but also in the interests of South Africa, he comes along with this Bill.