I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill contains proposed amendments to the Public Service Act, 1957, its main object being to facilitate and to speed up the performance of the work of the Post Office Staff Board.

During 1963 amending legislation was passed (Act No. 71 of 1963, which amended the Public Service Act of 1957) in terms of which, inter alia, a staff board was established for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and to which body the Public Service Commission delegated certain functions and powers. This Staff Board has been in operation since 1 September 1963 and I can confidently say that this body has fulfilled its object and has performed its functions in a responsible manner.

It has, however, become clear through the course of time that there are certain shortcomings in the existing legislation which should be remedied so that the Board may function properly in respect of its sphere of authority and internal arrangements. The proposed changes will be explained when I deal with the various clauses.

In Clause 1 of the amending Bill the definition of “Commission”, i.e. the Public Service Commission, in Section 1 of the principal Act is being supplemented to provide that certain functions and powers of the Staff Board may be delegated to a member or members of that Board. This amendment is really consequential to the amendments of Sections 4bis and 5 of the principal Act by Clauses 2 and 3 of the amendment Bill, which will be explained later.

Clause 2: The wording of sub-section (1) of Section 4bis of the principal Act has the result that the Staff Board has been established and can function only in respect of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and not in respect of the Directorate of Posts and Telegraphs in South West Africa. Although the personnel of the aforementioned Directorate forms part of the establishment of the Administration of South West Africa, their names appear on the joint seniority and merit lists together with those of officers of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in the Republic, and they are also freely interchangeable. This hampers the task of the Staff Board because it cannot, for example, deal finally with a number of promotions or transfers or with the creation and grading of posts in which the personnel of the Directorate in South West Africa are concerned, but must refer the matter back to the Commission. Clause 2 (a) of the Bill amends the relevant sub-section to this extent, that the sphere of authority of the Staff Board is now being extended to cover the Directorate of Posts and Telegraphs in South West Africa also.

The object of Clause 2 (b) of the Bill is to make express provision for the appointment of an alternate for the chairman or any other member of the Staff Board who may be absent for some reason. In the past, on occasion, an alternate for the chairman of the Staff Board has already been appointed because it was considered that the present wording of sub-section (2), read with sub-section (3) of Section 4bis, provides for it. Legal advice has been sought and the opinion has been expressed that Section 4Ms does not make provision for it. Such a state of affairs can obviously disrupt the activities of the Board, and it is essential that steps be taken to remedy the position. The authority under which alternates may be appointed is the same as that under which the chairman and the members themselves are appointed.

The proposed amendment in Clause 2 (c) of the Bill, which deals with the situation when there is no unanimity among members of the Staff Board, is necessary because paragraph (c) of Section 5 (2) of the principal Act is now being divided into two sub-paragraphs in order to make provision for a general or special delegation to—

In Clause 2 (c) of the Bill there is, however, reference only to sub-paragraph (i) (of Section 5 (2)), namely to the Staff Board, seeing that this is the only situation or circumstance where a lack of unanimity may arise and which may make it necessary for the Postmaster-General to submit the matter to the Public Service Commission. Such a situation cannot arise where an individual member takes a decision under powers delegated to him.

Clause 3: Section 5 (2) of the principal Act provides that the Commission may delegate certain powers and functions to specified bodies. One of those bodies is the Staff Board, which may function in respect of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in terms of paragraph (c) of this sub-section. The redrafted paragraph (c), as embodied in Clause 3 of the Bill, amends the existing provision only in the respect that—

1. (a) powers and functions in respect of the Directorate of Posts and Telegraphs in South West Africa may also be delegated to the Staff Board, for the reasons already given; and
2. (b) provision is made for the delegation by the Commission of certain powers and functions in respect of the Post Office and the aforementioned Directorate also to a member or members of the Staff Board.

While the Commission may speed up the work in its own office by delegating powers to members of the Commission and even to members of the staff in its office, the board is hampered in this respect by the existing provisions because Section 5 (2) (c) of the principal Act does not allow of powers being delegated to individual members of the Board. The work will be facilitated by making provision for the delegation of specific powers to individual members of the board. Such powers, and in fact any other power of the Commission which may be delegated in terms of the Public Service Act, 1957, will of course be delegated by the Commission itself and only with the consent of the members of the Commission, and not for example, by the Staff Board to a member of that board.

We on this side of the House have no objection to this measure. We think it is very desirable under all the circumstances. It is a continuation of a practice which has been established in the Republic and now to be introduced in South West Africa.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if he could explain to us why the words “on the advice and” are being added in this clause. Originally the definition of “Administrator” was as follows: “The Administrator of a province acting with the consent of the Executive Committee”. If he acts with the consent of the Executive Committee one would have imagined that he would have consulted them in order to obtain their consent. Why was it necessary to put in amendment which, on the face of it, seems to be innocuous? There must obviously be some reason for it and we would like to know what that reason is.

In Clause 1 (b) it is suggested to add the following definition: “‘Republic’ includes any territory in respect of which Parliament is competent to legislate”. Parliament is competent to legislate in respect of the Transkei as well, I think, because in terms of their Constitution certain powers are reserved to the Central Parliament. I wondered whether the objective of this clause was to include the Transkei and any other territory no matter what its constitutional position may eventually be.

In connection with this particular clause the phrase “on the advice of and with the consent of” is so reminiscent of the American Constitutional proviso “advice and consent” that it may well have been the inspiration of the hon. the Minister in providing us with this amendment. As the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) has rightly pointed out one assumes that if and when the Executive Committee of the province concerned consents to something it does so after consideration of whatever it is going to consent to. That consideration involves, almost without saying, I think, the hearing or the acceptance or rejection, as the case may be, of whatever advice is proffered to the Administrator. So that this is a rather interesting and curious amendment which I think the hon. the Minister must have some reason for and which I hope he will explain.

Secondly, dealing with 1 (b), the “republic” includes any territory in respect of which Parliament is competent to legislate. As we are discussing the subject to-day we know the Republic comprises a certain area of land with certain known boundaries. Why is this proviso introduced: “Any territory in respect of which Parliament is competent to legislate”? Unless one projects this forward to the time when, in the opinion of the Government, there will be certain other territories, no longer within the Republic, but over which the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa will be competent to legislate? This is an unusual provision. We are dealing with a road safety measure which includes two important and constitutional provisions, which, I do think in all seriousness, require some kind of explanation or amplification from the hon. the Minister. We on this side of the House will rest our case there until we hear from the hon. the Minister.

In regard to 1 (a) I am advised that it is the usual form in all legislation, namely, to say “on the advice and with the consent”. It is a legal requirement; it has no significance whatsoever. The legal advisers say it is the usual form used in most legislation.

The second paragraph is to make provision for a territory like the eastern side of the Caprivi Zipfel, for instance, which is administered by the Republic but which is actually part of South West Africa. To bring that area in it is necessary to have a definition such as this. It includes the Transkei, of course, which is part of the Republic. The Transkei is not an independent county to-day. If it becomes independent, the legislation will have to be amended if we wanted to apply it there. At the present time it is applicable to the whole of the Republic, including the Transkei, all the native territories and the eastern Caprivi Zipfel.

The hon. the Minister has dealt with Native territories which may or may not acquire independence in the future. The point I am concerned with is whether it is really wise for us to have a clause like this at a time when international events are what they are, particularly the events at the International Court. We use a term “Republic” as meaning South West Africa as well. The hon. the Minister has referred to the Caprivi Zipfel but of course it is the whole of South West Africa. I am just questioning the desirability, the wisdom …

It is not only in relation to this Bill.

I am putting my question to the Minister, Sir. We are not moving an amendment, Sir, it is only a question of whether it is wise, in all the circumstances, to have a clause of this nature which would appear to indicate that in our laws the term “Republic” includes the whole of South West Africa. I am not concerned with whether it is legal or not, but is it not unwise to proceed with it in this form just at this juncture. As far as I am concerned we are not going to say anything more about it; we merely wanted to draw his attention to the fact that in the circumstances it may be unwise.

The hon. the Minister has dealt with the point raised by the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) about the Republic including the Transkei. The Minister said that if and when it became independent this Parliament would not be competent to legislate about it. I do not quite appreciate why it is necessary to define “Republic” as being a territory in respect of which Parliament is competent to legislate. Surely, Sir, this is taken for granted. Why is it necessary to insert a definition of the Republic? Surely this Bill, when it becomes an Act, is applicable only to the Republic. It could be applicable to Marion Island and Prince Edward Island as part of South Africa. I want to know from the hon. the Minister why “Republic” has to be defined? One usually finds in legislation of this sort that they say “This Act is applicable to South West Africa” for instance. I say this in answer to my hon. friend on my left (Dr. Coertze). Surely Parliament is not only competent to legislate in respect of the Republic. Parliament has had the power to legislate with extra-territorial effect since 1934 when the Status of the Union Act was passed. Such legislation as may be passed is only applicable outside of the areas of South Africa if, in fact, the Act extends such legislation to such a place.

The hon. the Minister talked about usual formulae but the usual formula, I would have thought, for the extension of an Act of the Republic of South Africa to the territory of South West Africa is to say “This Act shall also apply in the Territory of South West Africa”. This is done by implication in paragraph (a). I have never ever heard “Republic” defined as a territory in respect of which Parliament is competent to legislate. What I want to say is this: This Parliament is competent to legislate for any part of the world. My hon. friend on my left will agree with me. It has been competent to do so since 1934. The Status of the Union Act provides for it. The Colonial Laws Validity Act has been repealed. It is Section 4. This is no definition of “Republic”. In other words, the Republic includes the whole world in accordance with this definition, because Parliament is competent to legislate for the whole world, if it so wishes. We are free and unfettered and have been since 1934. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would deal with this. This is not a definition of “Republic”. If he means that this Act shall apply to South West Africa why doesn’t he say so, instead of providing the legal constitutional nonsense such as is provided here? Will the hon. the Minister please indicate what this really does mean?

I was very interested to hear the hon. the Minister saying, in reply to our question regarding the insertion of the words “on the advice and”, that it had no significance. We know the hon. the Minister as a man who, unless he becomes very angry, uses very few words. If these words have no significance why go to the trouble of inserting them in this legislation? I say again that it is unusual in so far as we have had a number of Bills during this Session in which the phrase “With the consent of” has been adequate to meet the requirements of the particular Bill. The Minister now says it is considered correct and proper to say “on the advice of and with the consent”. With due respect to him. to say, as he has told us, that these words have no significance, is the best reason for not including this amendment. I think the Minister owes us that much of an explanation.

The question of “Republic” including any territory in respect of which Parliament is competent to legislate raises a very interesting position. The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze), by way of repetitious interjection, tried to explain the particular amendment by saying “What about South West Africa?” I would point out to him that in sub-paragraph (a) South West Africa is already included in the ambit of this Bill and that South West Africa cannot therefore, ostensibly at any rate, be the reason why this unusual constitutional proviso has come into this particular Bill. We would ask the hon. the Minister, since all of us, I take it, want to ensure that our legislation makes sense, that the words which appear in it are necessary and have the meaning which is ordinarily attached to them, to give us a reasonable explanation for both these amendments.

I have already given my reply in regard to (a). As far as (b) is concerned, this Act is being extended to South West Africa. The principal Act applies only to the Republic. This is the definition suggested by the law advisers and I prefer to accept the recommendation and advice of the law advisers to that of the hon. member for Durban (North).

May I suggest to the hon. the Minister that instead of just blindly accepting things, he should apply his mind to them. What he has just said indicates that he has not applied his mind to it and that he is not going to apply his mind to it. May I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he asks the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) to rise and to say that what I have said is not, in fact, correct. I want to repeat: Since 1934 this Parliament has been competent to legislate for the whole world. We have the power to legislate with extra-territorial effect. We have had that power since that date. We did not have that power before. That being so the definition of “Republic” as it appears in this Bill is not a definition of the Republic but of the whole world. It says, in fact, “Republic” means the whole world.

Order! The hon. member must not repeat the same argument.

Perhaps the hon. member for Standerton, who has been very vociferous in his interjections, will lend his voice to this argument or against this argument so that the Minister can have something to which he can apply his mind.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister why he has added the word “remuneration”. According to the explanatory memorandum it says—

Before this amendment was contemplated the clause merely provided for the payment of allowances and travelling expenses.

By “allowances” we understand that if a member is sent to do a particular job of work as a member of this board, he would be paid his travelling expenses. His allowance would be so much per day to cover his normal expenses, such as hotel expenses, taxis, refreshments and so forth. Is the objective here that actual fees should be paid in the form of special emoluments for a particular type of job? It says further “the expenses will be determined generally or in any particular case by the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance.” The allowances and travelling expenses, in any event, were to be dealt with in consultation with the Minister of Finance. It can now be done generally or specifically, depending on what matter arises. We should like to know what the Minister has in mind. The reason why we ask this question is because he brings about these amendments, as he said himself during the course of the second reading, in order to give effect to what he has called the recommendations of the committee of inquiry over which the Administrator of the Free State presided. I assume his objective is to try to do what was specifically asked in that report, namely, that there should be a pepping up of the action committees. In other words, something much more effective should be done and that the action committees should do some work of operational value. We do not decry that, Sir, in fact, we are with the hon. the Minister entirely on that particular point. We fully agree with him that, when he gets a report of this nature, a report which recommends action, and that action appears to be sound action, he should do what he is asked to do in that report. In such a case we are entirely with him in his actions to amend the parent Act in order to ensure that the terms of the Act are effective in their operation.

It was necessary to issue an explanatory memorandum because the amendments do not, by themselves, contain the full implications of what the Minister has in mind. I think the House would be very interested to know what, in terms of this simple form of amendment, the Minister has in mind in implementing the report in the manner provided in this clause. If the Minister would help us in that respect we would, together with the explanatory memorandum, have a much better picture of what he has in mind and a better appreciation of what the value of the Road Safety Council Act is going to be in dealing with this very serious problem which faces South Africa to-day. During the course of the second reading the hon. the Minister said that he has had the opportunity on an earlier occasion of giving a fairly full report on the question of road safety in South Africa. We appreciate that, Sir, but we would like to have an even clearer picture of the situation, not only of statistics, but a clearer picture of what is contemplated. Does “remuneration” mean, for instance, that members of the board, members of the action committee, will become field officers in a sense for a specific undertaking? That we don’t know. It is important to know what specific undertakings they will be engaged upon. One does not lightly pay remuneration to members of an action committee, many of whom, are already serving officers of the Government, some of whom may be voluntary representatives appointed from various public bodies. And when remuneration is paid to them specifically, there must be a specific form of activity they will undertake. If the hon. the Minister would take us further into his confidence in regard to this clause, I do feel we shall be able to accept this clause in a happier frame of mind than we are in at the moment.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that Section 7 of the principal Act, which is now being amended, constitutes the Council as a non-profit making body. It explains it by saying, inter alia, “The Council shall not engage in trading or in any other activity for profit in competition with any commercial agency or undertaking provided …” that the Minister may make exception. The point is that this amendment is really the most important difference between the Act as it exists and the amended Act, namely, the remuneration of members of the council. The Minister knows better than we on this side of the House do that the propagation of road safety throughout South Africa, whether through this council or whether through the Road Safety Associations in the various cities, with some of which some of us have had rather intimate contact, has been a voluntary undertaking on the part of citizens of motoring organizations, chambers of commerce and industry. public bodies which have realized the importance of ensuring that there is the maximum know-how, the maximum awareness of road safety in order to curb the rising incidence of death and accidents on the roads. The hon. Minister is aware, better aware than I, that deaths from road accidents are heading for 5,000 per annum, and may exceed that number. He also knows that these are due to a number of factors …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause. The question is why they should be paid remuneration.

Mr. Chairman, I was about to say that at this time the involvement of the citizens, the individual and organizations interested in road safety should be on the same voluntary basis as it has been hitherto. In other words, that whereas allowances and travelling expenses have been the norm, now that remuneration comes into the picture it is going to create a totally different approach to the question of road safety—the professional, the paid approach. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that this is not a desirable development because at this time, as I have said before, when accidents are increasing, and so are road deaths, the need for as many people as possible taking some part in all the precautionary and preventive measures in order to ensure a minimum accident and fatality rate, the Minister is now going in the other direction and he is going to put the obligation onto a council whose members will be entitled to receive remuneration. I think it is well known here in this Chamber and elsewhere that whereas a voluntary effort does involve the community as a whole, the moment you set up a board as such, a council as such, whose members are being remunerated and paid, it does have the effect of eliminating and certainly diminishing the interest of the general public and of citizens and of interested organizations in the very work which this safety council was set up to undertake. For this reason, and because we are faced with the fact that there is a probability that accidents will increase because of the increase in the car population and the number of people who drive, and the fact that there is this prosperity which allows more and more people, regardless of their real economic circumstances, to go driving on the roads, that we now want to maintain the voluntary aspect of this Road Safety Council, and the hon. the Minister has not given us any reason yet …

You have not given me an opportunity to give the reasons.

With great respect, when the hon. member for Florida sat down, I hoped that the hon. the Minister would rise as he did on the previous occasion.

If you give me the opportunity to reply …

If that is the case, then I misunderstood the position, and I am very happy to sit down and wait for the explanation.

The du Plessis Commission recommended that the position of deputy-chairman should be a fulltime position, and if that is the position, he obviously must receive remuneration. At present this section only provides for allowances.

I would like to say that we are pleased with the hon. the Minister’s reply, because in fact that was the very point that one wanted to have elucidated. The difficulty is that in the explanatory memorandum there is no reference made to that, and that is really what puzzled us in this matter. I was originally going to raise the point on the previous clause which provides that a deputy-chairman can be appointed on the recommendation of the Administrator, but the fact that it was not referred to in the memorandum is one reason why we were not able to fully appreciate the significance of this wording here. Neither in the Bill, nor in the principal Act there is any reference to the fact that the deputy-chairman will be full-time, but as the du Plessis Committee recommended, the hon. the Minister has found, probably through the law-advisers, that by adding the word “remuneration”, he will be in the position of making the deputy-chairman a full-time member of the Council. That was a very strong recommendation of the Committee. Had this been explained, one might perhaps not have been in some doubt in regard to this term. My question is whether this term “remuneration” will also apply to others. In terms of the Act the Council consists of some 70 members, a maximum of 70 members. Some of them are persons who are elected by local road safety associations …

It is not applicable to them. Only to people in a fulltime capacity.

Thank you.

I am very relieved to hear from the hon. the Minister that the intention behind the amendment in respect of “remuneration” is that it will apply only to the deputy-chairman.

Anybody appointed in a full-time capacity.

We accept that wholeheartedly, but, of course, if that had been in the amendment, we would not have discussed it. Now the only question that remains is: Does the hon. Minister at this stage know, or has he any idea, as to what the remuneration of this deputy-chairman will be?

No. The Action Committee will decide that.

With all due respect to the hon. the Minister, the clause does not say what the hon. Minister has now said at all. We have to pass the Bill as it is in front of us. The Bill itself is perfectly clear. It says nothing about full-time officers or chairmen. It says—

I want to point out that the point raised by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is perfectly valid and I think we are entitled to get some enlightenment from the hon. the Minister.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

Clause 5 says in (b) “the remuneration …” It again refers to “remuneration”, and then it says that the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, may pay an officer of the State, who is apparently seconded to do work in connection with road safety, or in connection with the Council to which he is appointed. So now we find that in this sub-section the term “remuneration” goes further. It does not only include the deputy-chairman; it also includes any such member who is an officer as defined in Section 1 of the Public Service Act who devotes the whole or a substantial portion of his time to its functions as a member, and then it says “the remuneration payable to him as such an officer, and any amount payable by the State in respect of him to any fund referred to in paragraph (d), or so much of such remuneration or amount as the Minister so determines”. Now virtually I am coming back to the point I raised originally and that is: To whom is this term “remuneration” going to apply?

There are 70 members of the Council, some of whom are members of various State Departments, and others are members of the public. I would like the hon. Minister to accept from me that I have had members of the public who represent important facets of the economic life of the country, who serve on these regional and local bodies, some in Cape Town, some in Johannesburg and some in other parts of the country, and they say that their whole purpose is, that if the Council works satisfactorily, to devote their time to this work, but if on the other hand—and I trust the hon. Minister will not misunderstand me—it works at the pace of an ox-wagon, then they say they are wasting their time. What I am trying to find is something that will help me to satisfy these people in their queries to me. I am trying to find out whether the hon. the Minister can satisfy this august body which virtually has to reactivate the whole parent Act. If remuneration is to be paid for specific jobs, then we will understand that the Council is going to undertake a certain field of activity which will enable some of its members who may be obliged to go lecturing from time to time or who are obliged to set up further voluntary bodies in other parts of the country, or will be called upon to do certain organizational work, that their services will be remunerated, and if they are public servants, then there will be some adjustment “technically” between the Road Safety Council Fund and the funds of the State as represented through the Public Service Act. I really cannot understand why the hon. the Minister is so reticent in telling us this. This is an important matter in the affairs of South Africa. Some time earlier in the course of this Session, the hon. the Minister gave us a comprehensive picture of the facts of road safety and what is taking place. We appreciated that, because Parliament and the country should know. I do not want to repeat this ad nauseam, but it is a very nauseating picture that is presented when every morning you open your paper and you find that four, five or six people are dead on the roads.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

Yes, Sir, I merely wanted to satisfy you in regard to the emotional sincerity which moves me to bother the Minister in regard to these particular aspects, because in getting clarity on these matters we will know what is taking place.

Order! The hon. member must not make a second-reading speech now.

Well, Sir, then, with all respect, you may help me by telling me whether an inquiry for whom remuneration is made available is not an important issue.

I am always prepared to give all the information at my disposal. If hon. members merely put a question without making a long speech, we will make some progress. This is merely for the purpose of enabling the Action Committee to pay an officer of the Public Service who is seconded to the Road Safety Council his salary. That is the whole purpose of this amendment.

The hon. Minister’s reply applies only to the words in subsection (b) which follow the word “and” in line 24. The first part of this paragraph (a) ol sub-section (b) refers to members of the Council. It speaks of the remuneration payable to members and alternate members of the Council, members of the Action Committee, and so on. Now the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) raised a point when the previous clause was under discussion which is even more applicable here. The hon. member for Natal (South Coast) pointed out that there is nothing in the clause which restricts it to certain people. But it is even stronger in this case, because the previous clause provided for remuneration to be paid generally or in any particular case, but in the clause now under discussion remuneration is to be paid to members of the Council, not generally or in any particular case. In the normal course of events that does not include the power in any particular case, except where he is an officer as provided for from line 24 onwards. So the power is given here to provide for a remuneration of the members of the Council. There are 70 members of the Council and it would not be competent for the Minister to pay someone as opposed to all members who is not an officer a remuneration. “Remuneration” means exactly what it says. It is not an allowance, it is not a travelling allowance. It is a remuneration, a fee, a salary, a wage. Would the hon. Minister deal with that aspect? And may I raise another question with the hon. the Minister. It provides in paragraph (a) that the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of South West Africa may also appropriate moneys for the Council, for the purposes of the Act. This is something new. Now without a proper definition as to whether or not this Act is to be applied to South West Africa, it seems to me that this has become a nullity. You see, Mr. Chairman, the position is that we have competence to legislate for anywhere in the world, but unless the Act specifically extends these provisions to another part of the world, it does not apply. Hon. members will remember a charge under the Immorality Act where the offence had been committed over the borders of South Africa, in one of the High Commission Territories. Now this Parliament has the competence to pass an Immorality Act and to say that it shall apply in respect of offences committed say, in Basutoland. It has the authority to do so and those people would have been convicted had it done so. But the Immorality Act did not do so, and therefore it is presumed not to apply outside the Republic. The person charged was therefore acquitted. That has not happened here. The hon. Minister for some reason or another has decided to adopt another formula and therefore it seems to me that the provisions of paragraph (a) whereby the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa is given the power in terms of an Act not made applicable to South West Africa, has no meaning whatsoever. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can give us information on that point.

When we were discussing the previous clause, the hon. the Minister chose to treat me with a considerable amount of discourtesy, which I regret.

I know these delaying tactics.

Is the hon. Minister suggesting that I am trying to delay this Bill deliberately? May I tell the hon. the Minister that this is our Bill, not his. The Minister may not like the discussion.

You do not have to be frivolous.

We are entitled to discuss this clause in Committee of the whole House, and if the hon. the Minister chooses to sit dumb instead of answering the questions put to him by this side of the House, what kind of reaction does he expect? He is treating us with the utmost discourtesy. I put a real decent question to him on the subject matter of this Bill, and he chose to lie there in his seat and to take no notice of it. If the hon. Minister continues to adopt that attitude, we will know how to treat him. This is Parliament. We are not his servants. We are here to legislate in the interests of the country, and the Minister must behave himself and show courtesy to us, and then we will show courtesy to him.

In this particular clause the position is— and I am not going to let it go by default— that provision is made for remuneration to be paid to members of the Council. The hon. Minister says it is going to apply to those people who are seconded from the Public Service. That is laid down in the clause from line 24 onwards. But before you get to line 24, the language could not be clearer, and as has been pointed out in this particular clause in contradistinction to what appeared in the previous clause, the Minister has no right to particularize, in other words if there is to be a payment to members of the Council, it must be payment to all members of the Council, and we asked the Minister why has he put in this particular power here, allowing the remuneration to be paid to all members of the Council whereas he said just now that he does not intend to exercise the power at all. It is a power we do not want to put in the hands of the Minister who disclaims any intention whatever of exercising the power. Ab initio he disclaims any intention of exercising it. Then why does he take these powers? I am not going over the reasons why we think that this should be a voluntary organization. If people are giving their full time to it, they can be paid. We accept that. But why insert a provision here for payment to all members of the Council, when the Minister has no intention of doing so?

The hon. member should be the last member to speak about good behaviour. I did not want to be provoked, but if hon. members are continuing in this strain they are merely out to provoke me. I have been in Parliament long enough to know when members are really sincere in discussing a provision in the desire to improve it. I did not come into Parliament yesterday. I know the tactics of hon. members. Because during the second-reading debate their speeches dealt with irrelevant matters that have nothing to do with this, and I objected to that, they decided among themselves to delay the Bill at this stage. That is what is happening. This type of question was put to me whether we are going to pay all the members of the Council a remuneration. I explained what the object is. A remuneration will be paid to any member who serves in a full-time capacity. Then they asked why it is not specified in this clause which is an enabling clause for the Road Safety Council to pay the remuneration to officers or any member who serves in a full-time capacity. Now that is perfectly obvious. This is not the only Bill which contains such a provision. But the point is that hon. members do not really want information.

You are given the right to pay them.

I am not paying them. That is a matter for the Road Safety Council. I am not paying the remuneration. As I say, I am always prepared to be courteous to hon. members and to give the necessary information and to meet their arguments if they are sensible arguments with arguments, but if there is a deliberate attempt and a campaign, merely because they are dissatisfied with what happened at the second reading, and if they ask silly questions, which have nothing to do with the Bill at all, then I am going to give the reply to any relevant question, but for the rest I will decline to reply.

I hope that the hon. Minister will not question my sincerity, because if I am entitled to speak, Mr. Chairman, and you rule that I am entitled to speak, then I assume that my sincerity cannot be questioned. Frankly, I do not know what this is about. I am not going to argue with the hon. Minister of his experience or mine in Parliament. Sir, in terms of Clause 4 remuneration, as the Minister said, was limited to the deputy-chairman, but now when we come to Clause 5, there seems to have been a boom since that time, and now we find that allowances and travelling expenses, as well as remuneration may be payable to members and alternate members, members of the Action Committee and members and alternate members of subsidiary committees. Mr. Chairman, if you know anything about the organization of road safety in South Africa, as the hon. Minister does, you will realize that this may well cover several thousands of persons, and all we are trying to do, very courteously, I submit, and in terms of the procedure in this Committee, is to ask the hon. the Minister “why” and to ask him furthermore, whether he can give us some idea of whether there is any limitation to this, and if so, what it is. The Minister merely gets angry and says that we are trying to provoke him. I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that there is no desire to provoke the hon. Minister at all, but when he talks of a “full-time capacity”, then surely he knows that the experience to which he referred us, of parliamentary procedure, tells us that if this Bill had merely said, before the insertion of the words “and, if the Minister, in consultation …”, from lines 24 to 35, “whose services have been rendered or are being rendered in a full-time capacity”, there would have been no discussion in the light of the Minister’s explanation of Clause 4. But we merely had the off-the-cuff ad hoc and rather angry assurance of the hon. the Minister that this, that and the other is the reason for remuneration. With great respect to the hon. the Minister, I do not think that he should take umbrage when we ask for information, especially as he has been heard to say twice “all you need do, is to ask”. Why does he not tell us now before he gets angry all over again.

I also want to say that I think the hon. the Minister has in a sense provoked us. When I put this question to him originally on this particular sub-section with which we are dealing, he drew my attention to the remainder of the amendment in that particular paragraph, and he said to me “this refers only to members of the Public Service when they are seconded to this particular council”. I sat down and accepted that. But the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. member for Hospital have read it out more fully, and I was therefore caused to consult the principal Act as well, and the principal Act makes it absolutely clear—

that is in a section above where it talks about funds being administered by the Council—

Now, Sir, the clause seeks to include in respect of these expenses the question of “remuneration”. If one goes to sub-section (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the parent Act, one finds that it says this—

Therefore by normal interpretation it is quite clear that the question of remuneration has been added to allowances and travelling expenses to all those who serve on the various bodies and who are not fulltime or paid officials of those bodies only. In other words, if a member who represents the Federated Chamber of Industries, Cape Town Branch, is a member of the Cape Town Regional Committee of the Road Safety Council and he is asked to go to Worcester to deal with a matter there, he can be paid remuneration. That is what it can mean and therefore I do not think the Minister should say that we are trying to provoke him. The Minister knows we are interested in road safety, otherwise we would not be discussing this. We had no score to settle with him on the second reading. We accept Mr. Speaker’s ruling in a debate. If Mr. Speaker rules that a person is out of order, he is out of order. We have no issue with the Minister. The only purpose we have in wanting to know whether remuneration is payable is to be satisfied that there is going to be a broadening of the whole operational activity of road safety work throughout South Africa as represented by the various bodies established by the Council.

Order! The hon. member is just repeating old arguments.

But I have to impress it because the only answer I got was that I was provoking the Minister.

I know hon. members are trying to prolong this debate because they do not want to discuss a Bill further down the Order Paper … [Interjections.]

Order!

But I do not want to help them. I am merely rising to say a few words in order to put the record straight in respect of the amendment in (b). It says that all moneys appropriated by Parliament or a Provincial Council or the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa … I would be the last person to say that that is the only way in which this clause could be worded. In this case the law adviser could just as well have said all moneys appropriated by the Republic of South Africa or a province or South West Africa. But they mention the bodies and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it if you wish to mention the bodies by name. As far as the amendment in (b) is concerned on which hon. members have had such a great deal to say it is clear to me that they have not read the clause because the question arises which items can be debited against the Road Safety Fund and then certain items are mentioned. In terms of the old Section (a) certain items could be debited but that was obviously inadequate, or it had to be extended for other reasons, and that is what is proposed in this new amendment. You can debit the following against the fund: remuneration, allowances and travelling expenses payable to (1) members, (2) alternate members, (3) members of the action committee and (4) members of the subsidiary committees. A new group is now added, namely, members of the Public Service. What objection can there be to that? [Interjections.] The Minister says whether either an officer’s whole salary or portion of it, as determined by the Minister, may be paid from the fund and that is exactly how the old section read. It refers to administration costs i.e. costs that may be debited against the fund such as allowances and travelling expenses payable to members and alternate members of the council.

But the word “remuneration” does not appear there and we want to know what that means.

Look it up in a dictionary. The point is that certain items may be debited against the fund. What are the items that can be debited against it? The three items: remuneration, allowances and travelling expenses. That is in terms of the Public Service Act. There is reference to it. Hon. members must really forgive me for thinking they are simply wasting time and seeing bogies. That was what that hon. member did with his “advise and consent”. He spoke the biggest nonsense I have ever heard. In this case the items which may be debited against the fund are merely extended. The Road Safety Fund is made available by the Republic of South Africa, you can say if you want to, but you can just as well say by Parliament. It can even be a province. Why must we argue on a constitutional legal point. What is the most elegant way of formulating such a provision? Must you say the whole or must you say a part? As far as I am concerned it makes no difference as long as the law is clear. After all a law must be drafted not in such a way that everybody understands it but in such away that nobody understands it and there is nothing to misunderstand here.

I am encouraged to rise again not because of anything the hon. member for Standerton has said but because the Minister gave the Committee his assurance that he will get up to answer sensible arguments. But I do not think the Minister has appreciated the point raised initially on this clause. We are not quibbling about the fact that a full-time member of the Public Service is to be paid remuneration. Obviously if an officer of the Public Service is employed full time by the board, the board has to pay what he is normally paid by the Civil Service. That is what the hon. member for Standerton has been talking about, but it is not what the hon. member for South Coast or I have been talking about. What we have been talking about, and what we have not had an answer to, is the first part of sub-section (b). What the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Standerton have dealt with is that half of the clause from line 34 onwards. The former part has not been dealt with by the Minister, and the only contribution we have had in this regard is an interjection by the hon. member for Ceres to the effect that it does not say that all the members must get remuneration. But the answer to that is that it does not say that only some of the members shall get remuneration, and the Minister, and no one else, has the power to do so, if this is passed. There is no question of only some of the members getting remuneration. The Minister spoke about the officers of the Public Service in full-time employment. The hon. member for Ceres surely does not say that all the members must be paid, but he does not say that only some must be paid.

All or some of them.

There is a Bill specially passed specially to provide for the remuneration of members of Parliament, but it is not within the power of anyone to prescribe that some people shall be paid this remuneration and not others. This is the point that the Minister has not appreciated, and I think it is worthy of some consideration. If the Minister’s case is that apart from the officer who is in full-time employment there are others who may be in full-time employment who will be paid remuneration, if that is the Minister’s intention then it is not affected by this clause and in fact he will be frustrated in his attempts to make that position flow from the provisions of this clause. That is what we want to know. Are all the members to be paid a remuneration or not?

Order! The hon. member has made that point over and over again.

I am afraid the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) is too clever by half. If he reads the principal Act it will not be necessary to split hairs and to advance this type of argument we have had from him. Section 13 of the principal Act is amended by the inclusion of the word “remuneration”. It deals with the allowances and expenses of members and alternate members. It says that the members of the Council and their alternates and the members of the Action Committee and members of any subsidiary committees established under Section 11 and the alternates may be paid such allowances and travelling expenses … It says “may be paid”; it is entirely within the discretion of the Council. [Interjections.] Now keep quiet; you have spoken enough. Their alternates may be paid such allowances and travelling expenses from the fund as may be determined by the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance. We have inserted the word “remuneration” to make provision for the payment of any member. We have in view at the moment the deputy-chairman being there in a full-time capacity, but every other member appointed in a full-time capacity must obviously receive a salary. That is dealt with in Section 13. If the hon. member turns to Section 16 of the principal Act, he will see that the heading is, “Establishment and Control of Central Safety Funds”. The first paragraph says that the Council shall establish a fund into which shall be paid all moneys, etc. etc. The second sub-section says the fund shall be administered by the Council which shall, after defraying there from all its administration expenses, use the balance in the following ways, and then it mentions promoting and encouraging road safety, etc. Then it talks about administration expenses in sub-section (3), and that shall include the allowances and travelling expenses payable to members of the Council and their alternates and of the Action Committee, etc. We include the word “remuneration”, but it is entirely within the discretion of the Council. If the Council decides to pay more than one member or half a dozen members a remuneration instead of an allowance they can do so.

That is the whole point.

But it should not be necessary for me to tell the hon. member that. His own mind should tell him that, and if he had any intelligence he should have known it without asking me all these questions. Now it is perfectly clear that if the Council so decides, it can pay any member in full-time capacity of the Council remuneration, but it has to be submitted to the Minister, who after consultation with the Minister of Finance can either accede to or refuse that request. Now that is the full explanation and more than that I cannot give.

I am pleased the hon. the Minister has attempted to give an explanation, but I want to say to him that obviously you do not get travelling expenses unless you travel. Obviously if only one of the 70 members of the Council travels, you do not therefore pay all 70 a travelling allowance. In the case the Minister quotes, where travelling allowances are paid to members and alternates, obviously you must distinguish between the members who travel, and only they will be entitled to travelling expenses, but here we are not talking about travelling expenses. Travelling expenses itself distinguishes one member from another member of the Council, and obviously only those who travel will be paid. I would have thought that was obvious to any intelligent person who looks at the Bill. But here is being provided remuneration. What is remuneration? It is not something you qualify for because you travel or stand on your head. It is something you qualify for by your membership of that body. If remuneration is prescribed for a member of that body, all the members of that body are entitled to remuneration.

Absolute nonsense. Is your contention that every member of the Council should receive remuneration if this clause is passed?

Of course.

Then you should go back to the university again.

It is not an allowance and it is not travelling expenses, but what is remuneration? The Minister is putting in the word “remuneration” as distinct from an allowance or travelling expenses. We know what those are. Travelling expenses are expenses incurred in travelling and an allowance is to cover some other expenditure, but a remuneration is a fee given to someone because of something. Because of what? Will the Minister say that remuneration does not mean a salary or a fee or a stipend? Will he tell us what the remuneration is to be paid for?

The Minister will pardon me if I ask him to look at the language used in the preceding section. The issue is now a clear one. It is simply this: Can remuneration be the subject of discrimination between one member and another? Is there power to discriminate? In the previous paragraph we find the words “generally or in any particular case”. That was put in there because it was intended to discriminate. But because those words are lacking here there is no power to discriminate.

It says “may”.

Yes, they may pay remuneration, but it does not say they may discriminate, and the very fact that the preceding clause contains the power to discriminate and it is lacking in this one makes us wonder.

But they do not give a uniform remuneration to everybody. They may discriminate in regard to the amount of the salary, between one fulltime member and another. It is entirely within their discretion.

Our contention is that that is not the position as the clause is framed here. The law advisers were well aware of it in the preceding paragraph and that is why they used words which permitted discrimination, but there is no right of discrimination here, and we believe that will lead to trouble.

Sir, before I am advised to go back to university, and it appears that the Minister thinks that the hon. member for Durban (North) went to the same university as the Minister himself …

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

I merely want to point out this, that the insertion of “remuneration” creates completely different administrative bodies as far as road safety is concerned. [Interjection], How I ever got into this House I do not know.

Order!

This has created a completely different kind of council, and it is a serious matter. I want to impress, if I can do so, on the Minister that he had a council which consisted of persons who could receive reimbursement in the form of allowances and travelling expenses. It does not help us when the hon. member for Standerton merely gives us the Afrikaans equivalent of allowances and travelling expenses. What we are talking about is remuneration.

You forget the context. That was decided in the previous section.

I am talking about Clause 5 now, and not Clause 4.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

What I am trying to emphasize is that the question of remuneration falls into three parts, (a) the principle of remuneration; is that a good principle or a bad one, and that has nothing to do with allowances or travelling expenses; (b) the number of persons who could conceivably receive such remuneration, and (c) the amount of money that could be involved. What is clear is that this present Council which has consisted largely of volunteers and public-spirited citizens and organizations who are interested in preserving road safety will now be in a position to say: You have a Council consisting of persons who can receive and in some cases do receive remuneration. This is the point, that it becomes a professional or commercial activity, whereas it was not so before. I appeal to the Minister again to consider this aspect of the matter. I say that the introduction of remuneration into the spirit of the Council is a bad principle. I hope the Minister will give a reason why it has been found necessary, apart from the deputy-chairman, to provide for the possibility to remunerate hundreds or thousands of persons …

That point has been made repeatedly.

Unfortunately I have not the principal Act before me, but as I see it the clause now under discussion, Clause 5, refers to the debits to this fund, and Section 13 of the principal Act which we have just dealt with deals with the remuneration fixed by the Minister. So that Clause 5 refers to Clause 4, and Clause 4 provides that in a particular case the Minister may pay remuneration to a certain member, and the remuneration mentioned now in Clause 5 refers to that remuneration which the Minister has already fixed and which we have dealt with. Therefore the arguments now used by the Opposition should have been used under the previous clause, which has been disposed of. I therefore submit that this argument is now out of order and irrelevant. It says clearly that remuneration, allowances and travelling expenses payable to members (referring to Section 13) can be debited against the fund. Therefore the matter seems to be quite clear.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

This clause contains the power to appoint certain officials. These officers are those whom the Council may deem necessary to assist it to achieve its objects and to perform its functions and duties. I want to put to the Minister two crisp points, firstly, whether in terms of the new set-up provided for here he can arrange or use his influence with the body concerned to try and establish a uniform system for checking speeds in South Africa.

Order! That has nothing to do with the clause.

With respect, it says that these officers are to assist the committee.

That is the existing law.

And that is what is being amended.

That is not under discussion.

I am sorry, but the question of what they can do is dealt with in (b), and that is entirely new and therefore I say I can discuss the functions of these officers who are being appointed.

The hon. member may proceed.

In regard to research and education and guidance, the Council has full executive powers. In regard to legislation, they are an advisory body. Therefore I ask whether the Minister can use his powers so that these officers can try and establish a uniform system of speed trapping throughout the Republic, and secondly, whether research can be undertaken in regard to the classification of accidents so that there will be a clear plan of all accidents at a particular spot. Reference has been made to engineering problems in the report of the Du Plessis Commission. The collection of statistics is of vital importance to road safety. When it has been shown that over and over again accidents take place at a particular spot, one should look at the engineering problem which may be involved. Such statistics are of great importance because timeous investigation of such spots may save lives. Therefore the two questions I ask are with a view to saving lives on our roads.

The matters raised by the hon. member for South Coast not only received the consideration of the Council but they are actually doing what he suggested. But it is not really relevant to this Bill, because this clause merely deals with the appointment of some temporary officers or officers in a full-time capacity, but I have no objection to replying to the hon. member. If he visits Pretoria again, I should like him to visit the C.S.I.R. They have a special section which confines itself to research in regard to road accidents. I visited it a month or two ago, and it is really worth while paying a visit there. They compile statistics in regard to accidents. Obviously, before you can find a cure you must diagnose the illness. They have tabulated accidents in certain cities. They note the spots where the accidents have actually taken place, and then they compile statistics by getting information from the police and from other persons who know about the accidents, to try to establish the actual cause of the accidents.

In regard to the speed traps, the gasometer the hon. member spoke about in the second reading, I do not know whether they have done anything about it. But as I said in the second reading, I gave as full an explanation as I could when the debate took place on the motion of the hon. member for Green Point in regard to what the Road Safety Council is actually doing. I fully agree with the hon. member that research is one of the most important things. They are concentrating on research. That is why they have these different committees, committees under the chairmanship of people who are experts in their particular sphere. The hon. member as an ex Administrator knows they have no executive powers; they can only give advice and make recommendations to the Provincial Administrations who are responsible for the administration of the Traffic Ordinances.

I wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether any of the people to be appointed under this clause will be Coloured people; whether Coloured people are going to be allowed to play their part in this very important matter of road safety.

The clause does not provide for any discrimination.

I have made no insinuation that it is discriminatory.

The council has the right to appoint Coloured people, if they wish to do so, and they probably will do so. I think it would be a very good thing, so that they can propagate the principles of road safety amongst the Coloured people.

I agree with the hon. the Minister that it would be a very good thing.

I am informed that some have already been appointed.

I would like to make certain comments on this clause but not because I disagree with it at all. I am very happy indeed to see the terms of this Bill. This clause is obviously being inserted in pursuance of a further recommendation of this particular committee of inquiry whose purpose it was to inquire into and report upon …

The clause has nothing to do with that.

This clause deals only with the staff.

That is exactly what I want to comment on. I just want to explain why I am pleased to see this clause. Surely, with great respect, Sir, it is not necessary only to criticize the clause. I am commenting on it in Committee; we are in Committee at the moment and members are entitled to unburden their hearts to one another.

Order! If the hon. member has any comments to make, then he must proceed to do so.

The original section gives the council the right to enter into contracts with various people for rendering casual services. The clause goes further and enables the council to appoint people either for a probationary period or permanently. Section 1bis also sets out the purpose which they will be able to serve. Sir, I take it that the objective in appointing these people is to enable the local bodies of the Road Safety Council to have more operational officers both in the field and directing the course of activity of the various councils. I am going to presume that. My objective to-day has been to get the Minister to give us a statement on that point.

If the hon. member wants a statement on the Bill he should have asked for it at the second reading.

I did, Sir, but I am now dealing with this clause, not with the Bill. In view of your ruling, Sir, let me ask the Minister why he has now found it necessary to appoint permanent officers, and also to explain what his objective is in appointing persons on a temporary or any other basis, whether fulltime or part-time, for certain purposes as set out in sub-section (b) of Clause 6. The clause then goes further in (c) and says that employees can be appointed, not on such conditions as may be laid down, but that they shall receive salaries, wages, etc. All that envisages that persons will be appointed for certain specific objectives.

[Inaudible.]

It is all very well to be facetious, but people are concerned as to what the work of the Road Safety Council is going to be; people write to Members of Parliament on this issue and here, fortunately, we are presented with a particular clause which is in pursuance of the recommendations of the Commission and we want to know from the Minister what purpose these appointees are going to serve. We are not saying that we do not think they are going to serve any purpose, but we would like the Minister himself to tell us. The Minister tells us that he takes a very great interest in this work and we have no reason to doubt that. We know the work of the C.S.I.R. I commended the Minister for opening a particular building of the C.S.I.R., which is used in connection with road safety work. But the Minister should pay the country the courtesy of explaining what these men are going to do. That is why these questions are being put here. One has only to talk of traffic officers in other parts of the country to know that they are worried about this whole issue.

Read Section 5 of the principal Act.

I do not need the advice of the hon. member because he has not advised the Minister on the drafting of this Bill.

We want to hear some of those letters.

I say that Clause 6 is one of the most important clauses of the whole Bill because here something really constructive is being done and that is the appointment of people in permanent posts to carry out certain work. The hon. the Minister has not satisfied members of the Opposition. [Interjection.] I know the hon. member for Standerton is not concerned; he is only concerned about time.

Read some of those letters to us; we want to see them.

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) entitled to cast aspersions on the honesty of the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller)?

I simply asked the hon. member to read out some of those letters. We would like to hear what they say.

Sir, may I address you on the same point of order? The hon. member said: “We would like to see those letters.” In my submission that is a clear imputation that the hon. member received no such letters.

Order! The hon. member must accept the word of the hon. member for Vereeniging.

I will conclude by saying that I can assure the hon. the Minister that the discussion on the details of this Bill is motivated by the inquiries and the concern of members of the public and particularly those who are serving members of the action committees.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to this clause.

All I want to do is to ask the hon. the Minister to give us some detailed information.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill mit and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

When this debate was interrupted by the adjournment of the House on Monday evening, the matter at issue had become rather obscure, and the contribution of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) certainly helped to increase the obscurity. I think it is necessary, therefore, to get the record straight. The operative clause of this Bill, which is designed to amend the Official Secrets Act, No. 16 of 1956, is Clause 2. The effect of Clause 2 is that the Bill now extends the purpose and the effect of this legislation, which by definition—and I repeat, which by definition—has thus far related exclusively to matters which may be prejudicial to the military administration of the country and in that way, of course, also prejudicial to the safety of the State. But the Minister proposes now to extend this legislation to matters relating to civil administration, i.e. police matters. That is the new principle in the legislation. And the Minister proposes to do it in a way which completely lacks definition. That is the reason why the Opposition finds it impossible to support the Bill in its present form. There is a complete lack of definition as to what is meant by the term “police matter”. That lack of definition is, of course, quite fundamental, and that defect in the Bill is not cured by the words which follow and to which the hon. member for Heilbron in particular drew attention; those words are to the effect that the person concerned “publishes” (a statement) “or directly or indirectly communicates it to any person in any manner prejudicial to the interests of the State”. I say that it is obvious that there is a defect which is not cured because firstly there is this presumption section in the principal Act, Section 8, which reverses the onus of proof as to what is prejudicial to the interests of the State.

That is found in all legislation of this sort.

No, I would like to correct the hon. the Minister. I am dealing with what is in this legislation. The Minister is adding something to the existing legislation and I am trying to show what the effect of the addition is. There is a heavy onus placed on a person charged under this Act. The onus is here reversed and placed on the person charged. Sir, I do not want to read out the section; the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has already done so and I leave it there. But the second reason why it is obvious that these words do not cure the defect is that even allowing for the presumption section, the gravamen of the defect still is that there is this lack of definition as to what overt act on the part of the person concerned will bring it within the ambit of the term “police matter”. The hon. the Minister has given an explanation as to what he believes may be included in that term. But nobody knows better than the hon. the Minister that no court will rely for its interpretation of the law on what has been said in this debate. If the hon. the Minister knows of circumstances in which police information deserves the same protection as military information, in the interests of the State, then it is obviously his duty to particularize the matter and not to particularize it by mere statements to this House but to particularize it in the Bill. Both the hon. member for Germiston (District) and the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) have made that point abundantly clear. But I want to say again that if there are instances where police information or police action deserves, in the interests of the State, the same protection as military information or military action then let the Bill say so. Let it say so in terms so clear and distinct as will also meet the interests of justice, because that is an essential feature if we are going to change the ambit of the Bill in the direction in which the hon. the Minister is now doing so. You see, Sir, the House is here concerned with a penal provision. The Official Secrets Act creates by definition a number of offences which are specifically designed to safeguard military and naval intelligence or information in the hands of those state officials who are concerned with the military or the defence administration, as distinct from the civil or police administration. That is no doubt why the first penal provision in the Act, in Section 2, relates to espionage; it relates to such matters as secret official codes and military or naval installations or military and naval plans. That is also the reason why, I believe, a standard work on “Criminal Law” such as Gardiner & Lansdowne classifies offences under the Official Secrets Act amongst offences directed at the safety and tranquility of the State, a classification which is completely distinct from offences connected with the administration of justice, which affords specific protection to the police as peace officers and as servants of justice. Sir, much play has been made of the introduction of the term “military matter”. Both the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Miller) and the hon. member for Heilbron made great play of the introduction of those two words, but personally I regard the inclusion of this term as being quite tautologous, as being quite unnecessary, because the very essence of the Act deals precisely with that; that is what the principal Act deals with; it deals with military matters. As soon as you put in the words “military matter” without definition, then why not also put in “naval matter”? Because it seems to me that the inclusion of “military matter” without definition will exclude naval matter under these circumstances. I should not think that that is what the hon. the Minister desires to do. But I see no objection to the inclusion of the words “military matter”. As I say, that is precisely what the principal Act is designed to deal with, and any court trying to interpret them will obviously use ejusdem generis rule of interpretation and will look to the words which precede them to determine what it means. The very first words that precede this term are the words “munitions of war”. A court would also look at the definition section in the Act, and the definition section in the Act is directed essentially—not altogether, because there is a term such as “Government”— to matters affecting military administration and naval administration and not civil administration. Sir, where in this Act is any court going to find, either in the new subsection (2) of Section 3 or in the definition section, anything to assist it in confining the term “police matter” to those incidents which the hon. the Minister himself used as examples. There is nothing in the Act itself to assist the Court in this regard. In fact, the addition of the words “police matter” simply amount to the addition of some ill defined concept of civil administration to the principle Act, and the addition of these words also adds some ill defined concept of the term “official secrets”. The hon. the Minister knows very well that in the administration of justice there is no place for official secrets and there is no further need for the provision of trial behind closed doors such as is provided in Section 12. The Minister knows perfectly well that the courts already have adequate powers to protect the interests of the State with regard to any unnecessary disclosure of confidential matters. The courts also have adequate powers to protect the public interests and public morals against needless invasion. Furthermore, as the law stands to-day it allows adequate safeguards to the police as servants of justice against interference or against any hindrance in the execution of their duty as police officers and as servants of justice. The hon. member for Heilbron posed this question: He said, “would it improve matters if the Security Police were transferred to the Defence Department”? Sir, I do not want to comment on that. I would like to see a substantive proposal of that kind before I comment on it. But I certainly do think it will improve the law as now proposed here if police matters are defined as relating to those particular aspects of security police activity which need special protection. If the hon. the Minister can do that, then of course the objection to this complete lack of definition will be modified to a degree and perhaps removed entirely.

For those reasons, Sir, the Bill as presented to us to-day certainly does justify the Opposition’s objection to it and justifies the Opposition in asking for a definition of this new offence which is now to be included in the penal code.

That is not what you are asking for at all.

Of course we are asking for a clearer definition.

Your amendment shows that you do not want the Bill at all.

I made it perfectly clear that the Bill deals with one aspect which by definition confines it to a particular type of administration, namely military administration, and now we are being asked to extend it to civil administration without any definition. I am trying to make that position quite clear. Sir, the Minister said that he was able to persuade the Press Union, the N.P.U., of the need for this new addition to the penal code. I can only say that the Minister must have been very persuasive indeed.

I did not persuade them at all. They used their common sense.

After listening to your explanation as to what the Bill meant.

The hon. the Minister told us that he had explained the matter to them and that he had persuaded them that the Bill was quite acceptable. I repeat therefore that he must have been very persuasive in the light of the objections which have been raised from this side of the House or, on the other hand, if the Minister is right in saying that he did not persuade them in direct terms, then I can only say that the N.P.U. was in the mood to be persuaded very easily.

Or did not read the Bill.

Yes, possibly they did not read the Bill. I am sure that in spite of that persuasion of the N.P.U., newspapermen will soon learn that the term “police matter” is far too wide and far too vague a term on which to make any assessment as to what may safely be published in practice. If the Press is to publish matters at its peril then at least let the nature and the extent of the peril be quite clear to the Press. I believe that this lack of definition is going to place the Press in great peril, quite out of proportion to the evils which have thus far been disclosed and which are known to this House.

Why not leave it to them to judge?

Why have Parliament then?

Surely the Opposition has a duty. I can assure you, Sir, that newspapermen are soon going to realize what this means.

Are you suggesting that they are so stupid?

But the private individual is also affected. The man who gives information about what happens next door to him is also affected. If a private individual receives information in regard to what the Minister calls “a police mustering to deal with some subversive element” and he discloses that information, he is also subject to the penal code which is now provided for in this Bill. Sir, I wish to indicate that the Argus in its leader last evening does seem to begin to appreciate the implications of this new legislation, and after dealing with what they called the assurances by the hon. the Minister they do go on to urge that an attempt should be made to give effect to the legislation …

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to read from a newspaper article or a leading article at this stage.

Sir, this is an opinion expressed in a leading Press article.

The hon. member may not read extracts from newspapers referring to debates in this House during the same Session.

You cannot use other people’s brains!

This editorial points out that the legislation may place them into difficulties and they urge the Minister to include in the Bill itself what he says he intends to safeguard therein.

Sir, you will not allow me to deal with it but it is very specific in regard to this matter that if you do not amend the clause you leave it in the hands of some petty official to shield behind this provision.

It is nonsense to talk about a petty official and you should know it.

Why should I know it?

Of course you should know that only the Attorney-General can decide in this matter.

But that is not what their complaint is. The complaint is that the petty official will shield behind this and say “I cannot tell you”. That is what they are complaining about not about the Attorney-General who prosecutes. It is before they can even get the information; that is what they are complaining about. They would not have complained had it not been a positive factor to be taken in consideration.

There is another aspect. I think it is extremely healthy that publication of matters in which the police are involved should take place. When publication does take place in regard to what the police have done, whether they did it badly or whether they did it well, is a circumstance which indicates that the administration of justice in the country is completely healthy.

Finally I can only add this; without a clear definition as to what is intended by the words introduced here, I can only see this legislation as erecting yet another fence against the freedom of the Press and therefore against the liberty of the individual. As soon as you erect legislative barriers of this kind it must affect one or other, or both, those freedoms. I can only say that the Bill, in the form in which it has been presented to this House, is unacceptable. It should never have been introduced into this House in this defective state. It would not have been introduced into this House had the Government not on many other occasions have indicated their intolerance to Parliament dealing with matters of this kind, and to the Opposition seeking clarity as to what the implications of the legislative proposals. Those are factors which we must face to-day. There is intolerance to it; the attitude is that Parliament is becoming a waste of time. The Bill itself should never have been presented to the House in the form in which it is before us to-day.

Once again it is clear to us that the Opposition is incapable of learning a lesson. Once again they have advanced arguments based on theories without taking any notice of what is happening around us. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask you to cast your mind back to the period after the riots in Paarl when a vehement attack was made on the hon. the Minister of Justice in this House because he did not take timeous action. He pointed out that he could not have acted timeously because he did not have the necessary power. Emergency legislation was then introduced and we had the same type of opposition we are having here to-day. We had similar opposition; they voted against the first reading. They then tried all sort of delaying tactics but they voted for the third reading. The occurrences after the passage of that emergency legislation, legislation which they opposed just as they are opposing this legislation, proved conclusively that that legislation was absolutely necessary and that the hon. the Minister was absolutely justified in his action.

What has happened in this debate? The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) acted as he did at that time. He presented the freedom of the Press and of the individual as being something sacrosanct. That is a basic principle to which we all subscribe in normal circumstances but are we living in normal circumstances to-day? That is the big question. I think the Opposition have been struck so blind by the results of the recent provincial council elections that they can no longer see what is happening in the world around us. The whole world knows we are involved in a cold war and that South Africa is right in the front line. Not only is a cold war being waged against South Africa—and they also know that; or they ought to know it at least—but they know that people are trained in the rest of Africa how to attack us. The United Party knows that African countries appropriate moneys in their budgets in order to train people to act against us. Not only are they trained in military methods but in sabotage methods as well. The United Party must concede, therefore, that we are not living in normal circumstances and that the freedom of the individual and of the Press must of necessity stand back for the safety of the state.

The hon. member for Germiston (District), who is not here to-day, said something else. He said this legislation made provision for circumstances in which not only the safety of the state was concerned but also in which the interests of the state were concerned. He said it was wrong because it was too wide. The hon. member knows that these words “interests of the state” appear in the existing legislation. This is not new wording. This legislation has been taken over from the English law and it has been proved over the years that the words “interests of the state” were merely inserted in order to close loopholes. It is nothing new therefore.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) says this legislation is so wide that a person may be prosecuted unjustly. The previous speaker also raised that point. That is, of course, the position in theory and the hon. the Minister has admitted it. The hon. the Minister pointed out that he too would have liked more definite wording had that been possible without opening loopholes. But unfortunately that is not possible. We were faced with the same difficulty in connection with the other legislation. There too we could not get the exact wording. As I said a moment ago they had to insert the words “in the interests of the state” in the English law in order to avoid leaving loopholes. That is why the Act is as wide as it is. As the hon. the Minister has pointed out it is provided that only the Attorneys-General may order a prosecution.

The hon. member for Durban (North) committed the biggest faux pas of all. He proved that it was really the hon. the Minister and not the Attorneys-General who had that power. That, Mr. Speaker, is the biggest political faux pas of all. I am not speaking on behalf of the Government but on behalf of the whole country when I say we have full confidence in the hon. the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the ultimate say lies with him they will now vote wholeheartdly for it if they had any doubts previously.

In spite of the attitude of the electorate during the recent election, an attitude which proved that the public was not satisfied with the attitude adopted by the United Party in this House in regard to matters concerning the safety of the country, they continue to adopt the same methods. They say they are going to vote against this legislation at this stage. It is clear that the principle in this legislation is to take steps to ensure the safety of the state. If the Opposition votes against the Bill at this stage they will be voting against the principle that steps be taken to ensure the safety of the country. [Interjections.] That is clearly the position, Mr. Speaker. What happened at the time of the emergency legislation is again happening here to-day. The principle is to take steps to ensure the safety of the state. If they are not against the principle they must vote for it and then come forward with amendments in the Committee Stage in order to improve the legislation. Had they done that they would have done the right thing. They are doing what they are doing for the same reason they did it in the past. They have to take the progressive elements in their ranks into account as well as the newspapers which still support them. They want to vote against the Bill now and for it at a later stage so that they can say: “We voted against the law but we also voted in favour of it.” Then they will be satisfying everybody. It is clear, Sir, that the end of the United Party is not yet in sight.

I enter this debate as a simple civilian anxious to see where I stand under the law. I have listened to legal men, pundits, on both sides of the House telling us what this amendment to the Act means. I must say that the hon. member for Omaruru (Mr. Frank) has not helped me very much. I am surprised that he as a South West African should imply that we on this side of the House are not concerned about the safety of the state. He owes his very South West Africa to men on this side of the House who stood for the safety of the state. No South West African should ever accuse the United Party of that. So much for him!

My difficulty is this that I think this amendment is not clearly defined. I have read the Act—I am speaking as an ordinary layman who have not the legal knowledge which other members who have participated in this debate have—and I think the word that should not have been used in this amendment is the word “matter”. We speak of “military or police matter”. That word is not used in the original Act at any time. The nature of the offence, what can become an offence, is clearly defined in the original Act. We do not think we should speak of “a military matter”. I am leaving out the word “police” for the time being. I am now speaking of “a military matter”. How can one define “a military matter”? I do not think one can do so. In English the word “matter” has so many meanings. It is generally associated with a substance. It can even mean the puss coming from a wound. We have jargon, of course, such as “matter of law”, “matter of fact”, “the matter at issue”. I have heard the word used in that connection but I do not think one can define “a police matter” or a “military matter”. Therefore I say a new definition should have been given to us.

What should the hon. the Minister have done in this case? I see he wishes to apply the provisions of this Act to the police as well and he introduces it in this clause which amends Section 3 of the Act. I do not think it is appropriate there. Section 3 of the Act is the section dealing with munitions of war and not with this arbitrary expression “any military or police matter”. It is something quite different. It deals with guns, ammunition, things that we use as munitions of war and military installations. Those are munitions of war; it does not deal with information about some police or military matter divorced from that. This is the wrong section. I would suggest this to the hon. the Minister: He should introduce a separate Bill altogether and not link it up with this one. Or he can introduce a completely different clause introducing another section to the Safety Act. As far as I can see this is an amendment that can be interpreted very widely, so widely, in fact, that the ordinary citizen will not know what it means. I am not concerned with the Press; the Press have expert legal advisers but the ordinary man has not. When he reads this I am sure he will not have the faintest idea what it may actually mean for him.

I am surprised at the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), who says he is an ordinary citizen for entering this debate. In any case, I do not expect that from a teacher. The hon. member contradicted himself. At the beginning of his speech he said what was involved was the word “matter”. To me it is quite clear: “police matters” means everything concerning the police and which …

Everything?

Read it together with the rest of the sentence. As a teacher the hon. member for Kensington ought to know that you cannot just take a word and base your submission on that. You must read the whole sentence. Had the hon. member read the whole paragraph it would have been clear to him what it meant. “Any person who has in his possession … any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information which relates to any … police matter”. When you read the whole sentence, Sir, it is clear what it means. Then you must read further: “… prejudicial to the safety of the state”. That is important. The two have to be read together. That was how the Press union saw the position; they read the whole sentence. They analysed it and came to the same conclusion. The most important feature in the whole Bill is the safety of the state.

We know that.

What are you talking about then? Say, for instance, hon. members opposite are right and that the Press would be prejudiced in that they would not be allowed to publish certain things, which do they place first: The interests of the state or the interests of the Press? Answer me.

The interests of the individual come first.

The interests of the state come first.

May I say the Special Branch of the Police visited my house last night? Can I write a letter to the newspaper and tell them that.

What has that got to do with the safety of the State or with the interests of the State. Absolutely nothing. An ex-teacher ought to know that. I really cannot understand how hon. members opposite can argue that the Press will be prejudiced. The safety of the State is the main consideration. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) says the safety of the individual comes first. If that is so then that individual will no longer exist if the State is destroyed. That is how they argue about this clause, Sir, they do not know what they are talking about; they have not read the clause properly; they have not analyzed it otherwise they would never have come to that conclusion.

The hon. member for Kensington attacked the word “matter”. I expected him, as a former teacher, to suggest another word but he did not. But that is not really their objection. The hon. member for Germiston (District) said they objected to the legislation and that they wanted the second reading to be read to-day six months. That means they are opposed to the principle. The hon. member for Germiston (District) said that last Monday. Hon. members opposite no longer know what their members said on Monday. To-day they advance different arguments. It will not surprise me if the last speakers on Opposition side express themselves completely in favour of the Bill and tell the Minister he should already have introduced it last year.

In view of what the hon. member for Omaruru (Mr. Frank) has said— and I must say I am surprised it came from him; he being a lawyer—and in view of what the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) has said—and I am surprised it came from him; he being a lawyer—I think it is time that we refuted the accusation which has been made that the attitude this side of the House adopted at the second reading should have been adopted at the Committee Stage. Let us come down to the basic facts of the matter, Sir. Here we have a Bill which is virtually, to all intents and purposes, a one-clause measure. Only one clause has been discussed in this whole debate. Unless the Opposition had raised the points they had at this stage a real danger would have existed that they would not have been able to do so during the Committee Stage because it might well be ruled that the principle of the Bill was what is contained in this one clause. We would have been completely bound as to stating our objection to this particular clause which, of course, is also the Bill. There is no foundation at all, therefore, in this accusation which is being bandied about that, because the Opposition is against the clause which forms the Bill, at the second reading they are against the whole principle of protecting the interests of the State. Our procedure was correct. Had we not adopted this procedure we could well have been silenced entirely from voicing our objection in any respect. This is something which an Opposition always has to guard against. It is better that we state our objections now rather than find at the Committee Stage that we are not able to state any objections at all simply because of a rule of procedure.

Let us come to the measure itself. First of all, I want to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Omaruru. I was surprised to hear what that hon. gentleman had to say in view of the fact that he is a man who has achieved some distinction in the legal field. It is so easy to adopt an attitude such as the hon. gentleman has adopted, which is this: It is difficult to define a certain measure; therefore, rather than face the difficulty and apply one’s intellect to that difficulty in order to try to do it, one simply gives in and says: “Hand over the whole lot to the Minister and allow him to exercise his discretion.” There has been talk about the freedom of the individual. I am quite certain not a single member of this House does not believe in the fundamental principle of the freedom of the individual. But, Sir, we all agree equally that, in certain spheres, and the question of what is and what is not done prejudicial to the State is one of those spheres, there can be a justifiable invasion of the freedom of the individual. Unlike the two hon. members who have just spoken from the Government benches, what we should do is not simply to say: “Because it is difficult to define the limits of that invasion let us throw up our hands and retire.” What we should bring our minds to is surely to get a clear definition of the boundaries of the invasion. We all accept that there are instances where there has to be an invasion of the rights of the individual but what we should try to agree on, and what we on this side of the House have expressed as our objection to this measure, namely, the lack of it, is to make an attempt to define clearly where that invasion ends so far as the individual is concerned. I am not concerned only with the Press; I am concerned with the individual. I believe that there ought to be agreement on those principles. I believe there is agreement. I believe hon. gentlemen on that side would have contributed a great deal more to this debate had they tried to assist us in defining the limits within which this invasion can justifiably take place rather than simply saying: “It is a difficult problem and therefore we will not even try to solve it.”

The objection we have can be exemplified if one limits one’s attention for the moment to certain wording of this clause. I would refer hon. gentlemen opposite to these words—

That is the crux of the matter.

Of course it is the crux of the matter. What does that mean? First of all, if one falls within these words one commits an offence. One commits that offence even if the communication is indirect and that means this: Not by handing the information, for example, to the hon. gentleman who has just interrupted nor by sending it through the post. That is a direct communication. By asking the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) to convey it to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) is a direct communication. An indirect communication can be an inadvertent communication. It is still indirect although inadvertent. There is the first objection: A communication which is entirely inadvertent, and consequently entirely innocent, can bring one into the ambit of the penal sanction contained in this Bill.

It must be prejudicial to the safety of the State.

I shall deal with that issue as well. I accept that it has to be something prejudicial to the interests of the State; that is the whole essence of the measure.

I come to the second objection. I mentioned that as the first objection namely the lack of limits to the scope of this Bill.

The words “indirect” and “direct” come from the old Act.

I know that but as I tried to point out to the hon. the Minister earlier we agree that there is a sphere, i.e. the military sphere, within which you must accept some sort of invasion.

You have no objection to that?

No, because it is a comparatively limited sphere. I agree there is difficulty of definition but one must accept it within that sphere. Here that sphere is widened immeasurably because it refers, as the hon. member for Kensington has said, to “police matters”, which is in itself a wide phrase, and, secondly, because that is coupled with the words “prejudicial to the interests of the Union”. Let us consider an example there. Suppose, for example, there were to be, as there has been, an assault on a public road against a distinguished visitor to South Africa and suppose that there had been a mishandling of the investigation by the police of such an assault or that there had been a mishandling by the police in respect of the prosecution of such an assailant. Suppose this were to be published abroad. Can the hon. the Minister stand up and honestly say that that would not fall within the phrase “interests of the Union”?

It won’t; it has nothing to do with that sort of thing at all.

How can the hon. gentlemen say this Bill has nothing to do with that sort of thing at all? That would surely be a communication of a police matter and it would be clearly prejudicial to the interests of the Union, particularly if that distinguished visitor were a man having diplomatic status. Now, Sir, the hon. Minister will get up and say that that is not the sort of example that he wants to bring within the provisions of the Act. I agree with him. Probably it is not the sort of thing. But the wording is so loose and so widely cast that that sort of example which I have given, and which we know has recently taken place, could have been the subject of prosecution in respect of a person who conveyed that information abroad. These are just a few examples which indicate our objection to this measure. It is so easy to stand up in this House and to say: Here is a measure. “This clearly falls within it”, and then to go to the other extreme and to say “this clearly falls outside it”. But the difficulty with this measure is that it is not black or white, the two extremes; it is cast in a manner which has a large area of grey in between, and it is that area of grey to which we have objection. We believe that it should have been better defined so that one could say with some clarity and precision and some certainty: Beyond this the measure does not go.

There is one further point that I should like to make. I believe and I think the hon. Minister will accept, and I am sure the hon. members for Omaruru and Prinshof will both agree with me that in all legislation, and legislation of this kind in particular, where a penal sanction is involved, one should try to get to the position that an individual can go to a legal adviser and say to him “I propose to communicate or publish this information. Am I committing an offence or am I not committing an offence”, and he should be able to obtain advice and so be able to stand within the law. The difficulty here is that no lawyer worth his salt would be able to advise in any particular situation whether the information could be communicated or not. He would say “I am sorry, I cannot tell you. You will have to go and ask the Minister, or the Minister’s Department.” I have no doubt that the Minister’s Department, if they are sensible civil servants, and I am sure they are, would say “We are very sorry, but we cannot give you any assurance on this: you better not publish.” The effect of that, whether one wishes it to be so or not, is that it will be a limitation, a clamp on what the Press can publish and what they cannot publish in an important sphere, viz. police matters. I believe that that is something we should not have. The Press should be able to find out what they can legitimately publish and what they cannot publish without committing an offence, and if they are ordinary people, as I am sure most journalists are, and they cannot find out whether they can legitimately publish a police matter or not, they will cease to publish it. And that, I believe, would be to the disadvantage of all, because these things, I believe, should be aired.

So I think it is fair to say that there is no doubt that the attention which has been given to the framing of this Bill, has not been adequate, and I think there should be rethinking in so far as the Bill is concerned, so that these difficulties which I have attempted to outline, can be done away with. Looked at in that light, I think the Opposition has taken up the proper attitude by saying: As this is a one-clause measure, we are against this clause and that the hon. Minister would do well to think again and to reframe this measure so that these difficulties can be overcome.

During the debate on the Bill, both to-day and on a previous occasion, we have had from Government members who have spoken in the debate the usual distortions of the attitude of this side of the House that we have learned to expect in regard to measures of this sort.

Have you got the right to say that we are distorting?

I will explain why I say that. Mr. Speaker. I would like to say at the outset that I think it is deplorable that Government members do not meet the arguments which we put up, but instead distort the arguments …

Order! The hon. member cannot say that. He must withdraw the word “distort”.

I withdraw it. But I say this, that it is deplorable that Government members who enter the debate do so on the basis not of challenging the arguments which we put up, but on the basis of putting up arguments which they say we put up (and which in fact we don’t) and then attacking us on that basis.

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

Yes, Sir, I will now explain why I have said that. All the Government members, including the attorneys and advocates on the Government side, who have entered into the debate have all said that this Bill has only one object, and in fact it is the point of view of the Minister as well, and that one object is simply to secure the safety of the State. Then these hon. members go on to say that because we on this side oppose this Bill, we are not prepared to assist the Government in securing the safety of the State. That is their argument against us and it is not a fair argument at all, because this amendment does not have to do only with the preservation of the security of the State. The previous speaker on this side of the House, the hon. member for Zululand, dealt with this to some extent, but I would like to refer to another aspect of this. I would like to point out that this amendment has two objects, namely the securing of the safety of the State, and secondly, the securing of the interests of the State. Now the two things are not synonymous. The safety and the interests of the State are not synonymous, and if they were intended to be synonymous there would be no need for the use of the two words. If the hon. Minister’s contention when he introduced the Bill was correct, namely that all that this amendment has to do with is the safety of the State, then there would be no need whatsoever to use the two words “safety” and “interests”, or “safety or interests”. One word would have been sufficient, viz. “safety”. There is no doubt whatsoever that there are two situations and the two are quite different, as I will show in a moment. But I would like to read this paragraph, leaving out the irrelevant words, to show that my contention is correct, that there are the two situations. It reads—

That is one situation. The other situation is similar, but with “interests” brought in instead—

The word “or” is introduced between the words “safety” and “interests”. Therefore it is perfectly clear that the two separate situations are envisaged. Having said that, it is perfectly clear, in my submission, that Government members are quite wrong to say that this Bill relates only to the safety of the State. It relates also to the “interests of the State”, and there are many things which may affect the interests of the State without prejudicing the safety of the State. E.g. adverse publicity overseas about some police action will certainly affect the interests of the State overseas, but it does not prejudice the safety of the State.

The hon. Minister and certain speakers on the Government side have said that the words “prejudicial to the safety or interests of the Union” were in the original section and that those words are not being amended. That is perfectly true. But the point is that those words now become tied to the words which are being inserted by the hon. the Minister and those words are “military or police matters”. In other words, those words being introduced must now be read in relation to the existing words, so that what will be affected by the amendment if passes is a police matter which could be prejudicial not only to the safety or the State, but also to the interests of the State.

When one deals with a police matter prejudicial to the safety of the State, it may perhaps be argued that in most instances it would be reasonably clear what such a matter is. But when one has to do with a police matter affecting the interests of the State, then in our submission the situations which could be termed “prejudicial to the interests of the State” are so wide that some definition of what is intended as a police matter in that context is necessary, and by that context I mean the context of a police matter prejudicial to interests of the State.

The hon. the Minister was referred by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) to a Press statement which the Commissioner of Police, Lieut.-Gen. Keevy, made, as reported in the Argus on the 23rd of last month, and the hon. member for Durban (North) pointed out that the situation complained of by the Commissioner of Police is one which could fall, or which could be held by a court, to be a police matter which prejudicially affects the interests of the Republic, and the hon. the Minister denied that and said that that was not so.

I did not deny it. I said he was talking nonsense.

That is even stronger, and with respect to the hon. the Minister, may I return the compliment and say that if he persists in that attitude, then I must say that he is talking nonsense. This is what the Commissioner of Police said—

He then went on to say—

Surely this sort of attitude in respect of a police matter must be termed to be one which prejudicially affects the interests of the State, because if the police are treated in an irresponsible way, if discontent is engendered where none existed, if an unscrupulous attack is made on the morale of the S.A. Police, surely that is prejudicial to the interests of the Republic. So I fail to understand the hon. the Minister’s attitude that this sort of police matter does not fall within the purview of the Bill. It may be that the hon. the Minister does not intend this sort of police matter to fall within the purview of the Bill. But that is precisely our complaint against the Minister: The amendment is so widely framed that it does fall within the purview, and if the hon. Minister’s intention is that this type of police matter should not fall within the purview, then he ought to come to this House with a more confined definition of what a “police matter” is.

The hon. the Minister stated that the National Press Union, after discussing the Bill with him, was satisfied that they need not fear the implications. Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing in my view that the N.P.U. has taken this point of view, but in any event it does not appear to be supported entirely by the editorial section of the Press. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) referred to the attitude of the Editor of the Cape Argus …

He was one of the deputation.

Order! The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) was ruled out of order.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this point of order? I wish to refer to, not to read, the editorial by the editor of the Natal Daily News in last night’s paper. The relevant rule of the House, Mr. Speaker, is Standing Order 120 which reads “No member while addressing this House shall read any report of or any comments upon a debate of the same Session”. Mr. Speaker, it is significant in my submission that the previous Order, 119, reads—

There is a clear distinction made between these two orders. The one says that in the case of a pending judicial decision, no reference can be made to it, but in the case of Standing Order 120, the prohibition is simply to “read”, and in my submission I am perfectly entitled to refer to this editorial, although I am prohibited from reading it. The editorial appeared in last night’s Daily News to the effect that although the editor accepts in good faith the assurance given by the hon. the Minister …

Order! The article refers to the debate in this House, and the hon. member must abide by my ruling.

May I not refer to the editorial at all?

No.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member has referred to two different Standing Orders and we would like to have your guidance as to why in the one case the Order speaks of “referring to a case” whilst in the next section it refers to “reading”. I submit, Sir, that the hon. member has put up a case, and I would like you to give your ruling as to why there is this difference?

The hon. member is long enough in the House to know that Mr. Speaker does not have to give reasons. He gives his ruling.

I would merely say that it would appear that certain editors of newspapers are now having second thoughts about the effects of this Bill.

You mean the United Party has persuaded them?

Order! The hon. Minister must not lead the hon. member astray.

May I refer to …

The hon. member must not put his foot into it.

So much for the attitude of the Press. As was pointed out by several speakers this afternoon, it is not only the Press that is affected by this Bill, but it is also the members of the public, and we on this side of the House are here to put the point of view which we believe to be justified on their behalf. We believe that if there is an unreasonable curtailment of Press reports, as undoubtedly this Bill will do, that that is prejudicial to the interests of the individual, because it is in their interests to know what is happening in this country, to know what the police are doing, except perhaps only in situations where the security of the State is involved. As has been pointed out by other members on this side of the House, in such situations we would have no objection to a curtailment along the lines suggested by this Bill. But our complaint is that as worded at present, the Bill goes far beyond the “prejudice to the safety of the State”.

Another interesting aspect is, I believe, that in the past there has been voluntary cooperation between the police and the Press, and I believe that in the main, with perhaps a few exceptions that the hon. the Minister may be able to point to, this has worked well and has not worked to the detriment of the country. In other words, what I am getting at is that where the Minister or a Commissioner of Police has felt that it would be prejudicial to the safety of the State to publish a certain police matter, the Press have co-operated it this has been drawn to their attention. The Minister has not shown this House why this situation ought not to continue and why it has now become necessary to legislate in this respect, and to cast the net so wide.

I want finally to deal with one point made by the hon. member for Prinshof. He said that because of the attitude of this side of the House in moving “that the Bill be read this day six months”, which is the strongest parliamentary objection to a Bill, this side of the House is against the whole principle of the Bill.

Of course. That is what I thought all the time.

What the hon. Minister and members on that side of the House do not say is that this is an amending Bill and when we are against the whole principle, we are against the principle which is being introduced by the amendment, not the whole clause. The section as it is now is part of the law. We are not required to comment on that. Our attitude is directed towards the amendments proposed by the hon. the Minister, in other words, the words underlined in the Bill. As I have pointed out we are against the principle embodied in the amendment because in terms of the section as it will be worded if the amendment is passed, a “police matter” will include not only those police matters which are prejudicial to the safety of the State, but also those police matters which are prejudicial to the interests of the State, and, as I have said, Mr. Speaker, there are so many matters which could be held to be prejudicial to the interests of the State without affecting the safety of the State, that we consider that some definition of the phrase “police matter” is essential. Or, alternatively if, as the hon. Minister states, his intention is only to protect police matters which are prejudicial to the safety of the State, then the hon. Minister ought to delete the words “or interests” and leave the clause reading simply “police matter prejudicial to the safety of the State”.

I hope that I have now made our attitude perfectly clear and that we will have an end of these unfair allegations that because we oppose this Bill we are against assisting the Government in dealing with the safety of the State.

I want to start with the latter portion of the speech of the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) in which he treated us to an oration on the difficulties the Press would experience if this Bill were passed. I was not here when the second reading commenced but I understand the Press Union is quite satisfied with this legislation but that there are certain newspapers which are not quite happy about it. I want to accuse the Opposition of pleading the cause of that section of the Press which does not feel happy about the Bill. It is that portion of the Press which has characterized itself in the past not by its responsible attitude regarding the safety and the interests of the State but because of its irresponsible attitude in that regard. I admit that no Government can govern a State without a Press. The Press is an essential element in government. The Press itself regards itself as a fourth member of the governmental unit. You have the State President, the Senate, the House of Assembly and the Press as the fourth member, but they are responsible to nobody except their shareholders or editor and in the case of some newspapers are controlled by a trust, which are responsible only to themselves. In this case a portion of the Press has not, in the past, displayed the sense of responsibility one would have expected from a fourth member. If the Press_ Union agreed to this it simply agreed as to how a decent Press should behave itself and if this is the way in which a decent Press behaves itself why does a certain section of the Press object to this? There is only one reason and that is that certain newspapers in this country want to do their work without taking any risks. They refuse to take the ordinary customary risks. They object to our law of libel because that does not leave them at liberty to make defamatory statements about somebody as they please. They also have a duty as far as the safety of the State is concerned but they are not prepared to accept that responsibility and that is why the Opposition, as the advocates of that irresponsible section of the Press, object today. That is all I have to say about the charge made by the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) against this side of the House, namely, that we on this side are not doing what we ought to do with the result that the Press cannot do its duty as it should.

The hon. member for Musgrave also had a great deal to say about the words “safety and interests”. He suggested that those words should not appear in legislation dealing with police matters. I do not want to follow him in his tortuous twists and arguments. The fact of the matter is that the safety of the State is a police matter. We do not call upon the military forces when treason or high treason has been committed. All crimenae majestatis imminutae, as it is known in the criminal law, are police matters and must we allow the Press or any person to make the task of the police difficult when they are dealing with such matters? Must they go unpunished? Of course not. If the case is not covered by common law or any other law the law must be changed. The easiest way of amending it is to bring it in under the Official Secrets Act and that is what we are doing here. The hon. member for Musgrave suggests that when we bring it in under that Act we will cover many more things, which should not be covered and he says that is our real intention. But that is a wrong interpretation of the clause. It is not substantiated by the wording. Clause 2 says any person who has information under his control and who publishes it in a manner or for any purpose prejudicial to the safety of the Union shall be guilty of an offence. That is where the hon. member makes a mistake. Any matter prejudicial to the interests of the Republic is a matter which will be handled by the police, in the first instance, and it is only when they are not in a position to control it that the military force comes into the picture. What objection can there be to bringing in the interests of the Republic and to protecting them in the Official Secrets Act as well? The hon. member is afraid the police will do something behind our backs and in that way prejudice the authority of the State. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) said the provisions of Section 12 would also come into action. But the hon. member has no reason to say the police will misbehave themselves.

I did not say that.

But his whole argument is that the interests and the safety of the State, which are police matters, are matters which are really unwisely covered by the Official Secrets Act now so that those people or the Press, whose cause he is pleading, who want to publish it may not do so. One of the reasons is that Section 12 provides that such a person may be tried in camera. The hon. member said it in so many words. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) says I am the greatest distorter of the whole lot.

Order!

On a point of explanation I said “contortionist” which is the word the hon. member himself used. I did not speak about distortion.

In that case I must be a sort of clown.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

On a point of order, the hon. member himself used the word.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

On a point of order …

Order! If the hon. member wants to raise a point of order in relation to what the hon. member for Standerton has said, he should have done so when the words in question were used.

By implication the hon. member for Musgrave created the impression that it was unwise to stretch the word “interests” to include police matters but he did not tell us why because as usual he kept his arguments suspended in mid-air. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) clearly said it, viz. that if somebody contravened the law in regard to matters the police wanted to keep secret, a person who contravened the law could be tried in camera under Section 12. [Interjections.] If they do not object to a person who has contravened the law being heard in camera I do not understand their objection at all. But just in case one of the newspapers come forward with this argument I want to say there is absolutely nothing wrong in leaving it to the court, which is an independent body, to decide whether the information published is information which should not have been made public for the sake of the safety and the interests of the State because that will be the point on which there will be argument when the question arises whether the case should be heard in camera or not. The court will have to decide. That is why Section 12 clearly states a court may—not must—order the case to be heard in camera if the court is of the opinion that that is necessary for the sake of the safety of the Union. If hon. members do not object to that they have even less ground for their objection.

That brings me to another peculiar thing the hon. member for Musgrave has said. He has no objection when it concerns military matters but when it is a police matter the safety and interests of the Republic must not be protected by secrecy. That was his whole argument. He has no objection to the Official Secrets Act being applied in the case of military matters or other matters connected with the safety of the State, except police matters. He went to great pains to try to convince us that when it came to the police more is involved than merely the interests of the State; it involved all sorts of police matters, perhaps also—he did not say it but we came to that conclusion—the protection of the person and his property in which case it was wrong. But what is the difference in principle? What have the military forces got which is so much more glamorous than the police? The police constitute the first line of defence when it comes to protecting the State and it is only when they are not able to protect the State, because the forces against them are too strong, that military assistance is called in. I ask him this: When the police are dealing with a matter why is it wrong, per se to prevent people from making their task difficult by publishing information about their activities but quite right to keep secret the activities of the military forces? This is the type of illogical argument which reminds me of a woman. You cannot argue with her because she only says “it may be”.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) argued at length as though the words “police matter” or “military matter” had no meaning. He said there was no definition. I find that a similarly strange argument. There are five definitions in the Official Secrets Act. We do not pass an Act in this House without includeing in it a whole dictionary. We attach certain meanings to words to make their meaning clearer but many words are used in this legislation in respect of which there is no definition in Section 1. Only agent of a foreign State and military equipment and model are defined. Government is also defined so as to include the Railway Administration. Sketch is defined as well as Union to include South West Africa. Prohibited place is also defined.

There is one defect in the Official Secrets Act and that is that it loses sight of the fact that the police are also protecting the safety and the interests of the State but that is being put right here. [Interjections.] There may be other defects which I do not know about. I want to ask the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South): Can he tell me what the word “publish” means with reference to the Official Secrets Act? It is not defined but that word has a particular meaning and if we do not know what it means we look it up in a dictionary. One can take every page. Take the words “safety of the State”. It is not defined but anybody who knows the language and knows something about the contents of an Act knows what it means. If you had to define every word used the definition clause of an Act would be more complicated than the Act itself. The hon. member ought to know that it is simply impossible to define everything. If the hon. member has that in mind he has said the strangest thing I have ever heard in this House, namely, that you must tie yourself down to definitions to such an extent that you cannot go on with your work.

I think that disposes of all the noise we have had from the hon. member for Musgrave and also of the peculiar idea the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has as to what the task of a legislator is.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that we immediately reject the imputation suggested by the last speaker that there is any question of a reflection on the Police Force. I think that to read that imputation into what the hon. member for Musgrave has said is a very far-fetched inference and it immediately indicates the tight-rope on which the hen. member himself walked when he tried to justify the contents of this Bill.

Incidentally, the point of view expressed was that this amendment gave far too wide a scope for a matter which is not in itself confined because police matters are matters which affect the every-day life of the community in the utmost detail. Military matters generally connote enemies and generally refer to the external enemies of the country. There is no necessity to interpret the question of military matters because it has a limited connotation. It is self-contained in the very implication of its own terms, which is not so in the case of police matters. So to query why there should be any doubt that when one refers to a police matter the question of the safety or the interests of the State is a matter of concern to us, and not so in military matters, is a very far-fetched analogy. We realize immediately what a military matter is.

The Act as it stands deals particularly with the question of munitions and military matters, and those matters which affect an enemy interest in the State itself. That is an interest which goes far beyond the normal conduct of the civilian.

With regard to the question of the Press to which the hon. member referred, I should like to say that we are not here as the defenders of the Press. We refer to the Press as one of the many matters which are affected, but when the Minister himself said that he had satisfied the National Press Union, what it really means is this. He gave certain assurances to the N.P.U. He did not necessarily satisfy them with regard to the purpose of this Bill. He gave certain assurances, as he said himself, and that was what was published to the country. He said: I want you to accept that this does not refer to the every-day activities of the police in the execution of their duties in the country. That is an assurance which the Minister gave, but it is not an assurance which necessarily becomes part of the legislation of the country and so remains something enshrined in statute law and something which must be observed by the Ministers and his successors. Giving an assurance with regard to what it means or may imply is entirely different from the actual wording of the clause. What this side of the House asks for is an interpretation and a limitation of this power. This is not unusual in legislation. For instance, there is a clause in a statute put on the Statute book in 1961, Act No. 39, a General Law Amendment Act, which in Clause 4 amends the Criminal Procedure Act of 1955 in Section 108 by providing a Section 108bis, which says that when a person has been arrested on a charge of committing an offence, the Attorney-General may, if he considers it in the interests and the safety of the public or the maintenance of public order, issue an order that such person should not be released on bail or otherwise before the expiration of a period of 12 days. The Prisons Act of 1959 contains in its consolidated and amended form a limitation on the production, without the authority in writing of the Commissioner of Prisons, of sketches or photographs of any prison or portions of it. In other words, where these matters which are part and parcel of the daily life of the people are dealt with, namely police matters, the procedure is to give a description of what you want to deal with. I think it is common cause that one of the fears which the Commissioner of Police and the Minister have is as the result of the experiences they have had in regard to the arrest and detention of certain people in regard to matters which are regarded as possibly inimical to the interests of the State, where names or information are published which may have a certain effect on the course of the investigation, to the detriment of the safety of the State, or to the detriment of the prospective trial in respect of which the investigation is being made. If the Minister has a certain defined purpose, why is that not satisfactorily worded so as to contain that defined purpose in so many words? In other words, there is a tendency in some of this type of legislation merely by the addition of one or two words to throw the thing wide open, and although its objective is to deal with a limited aspect it virtually opens such a wide aspect that the very protection which has always existed in the interests of the community is removed.

It is not only the Press, as has been pointed out, but private individuals who are also affected. For example, there may be a raid on a house adjoining an individual and that latter merely makes a remark to his neighbour that last night there was a police raid at that particular house, then that in itself can be regarded as publication in terms of this Bill, and can land that individual in serious trouble. One cannot deny that, because it is sufficiently wide to include almost everything that can happen. That is the reason why one cannot accept the principle contained in this amendment, and because of that one cannot say that one will accept this Bill as it stands and then amend the clause in the Committee Stage, because then the principle will then already be accepted. So it becomes virtually impossible to amend the clause, because in amending it one may then be conflicting with the principle which has been accepted in the second reading. Those are the reasons why this side of the House must move the amendment that this Bill be read this day six months. If the Minister were to confine his interpretation of the term “police matter” to police matters affecting the safety of the State or something to that effect, something that limits its scope where it is perfectly clear that one does not mean the every-day occurrences about which the Minister gave assurances to the N.P.U., then we would be dealing with an entirely different position. I think we are perfectly justified in delicate matters of this nature not to rely merely on assurances. One of course accepts the integrity of the assurances but legally it has no value. We have many instances of such assurances. A person gives an assurance in the utmost good faith, but a judge may rule entirely differently because he says: Here is a law and this is the interpretation of it. and he is backed up by precedent or by the common law, and one cannot rely on the fact that one has seen a statement in the Press in regard to these assurances that were given, because that is not incorporated in the statute and therefore it has no value. One believes the assurances and that the Minister will carry out his assurances but they are not part of the statute. Our view is that this clause as amended goes much further than one can safely accept in the interest of the average man in the street, because it affects the every-day life of every citizen of the Republic who comes into daily contact with the police on all sorts of matters …

Order! Those points have already been raised.

I just want to emphasize how important this matter is to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister has already realized from the speeches made from this side of the House that our difficulty …

Your difficulty is to talk yourself out of your amendment.

No, that is not our difficulty. If the Minister would accept our amendment there would be no trouble at all. Our quarrel with this Bill lies in the term “interest” of the State—the safety of the State and the interest of the State. Nobody complains about the Minister taking steps to protect the safety of the State. When the principal was passed in 1956, this side of the House gave it its full support, and I spoke on the measure, too. It dealt with military matters. Why did we give it our full support then? Because military matters concern mainly the defence of the State. We do not object to giving the Ministers powers to deal with the safety of the State in that respect, but when the police are now introduced we are concerned as to what police matters may mean. In terms of the Police Act the functions of the South African Police shall be, inter alia, (a) the preservation of the internal security of the Republic, (b) the maintenance of law and order, (c) the investigation of any offence or alleged offence, and (d) the prevention of crime. Each one of those matters can be said to be a police matter. Members on this side have given instances of what may be construed as being against the interests of the State. Part of our difficulty is this, as the hon. member for Zululand has pointed out, that no one will ever know, when publishing an article about the police, whether he is committing an offence or not because you cannot go to your law advisers and ask them whether this will be an offence in terms of the Act, because no lawyer will know whether the Attorney-General is going to deem this particular article or information to be against the interests of the State. Therefore we feel that there must be more certainty as regards this expression, and that is all we are asking for. One newspaper has stated—

When a newspaper publishes news of this nature it will not know whether it is against the interests of the State; whether it is going to enable some other people to escape; they will not know whom the police are seeking, and we feel that it is much better for the police to have some agreement with the Press than to have a Bill of this nature.

Another example of what may be construed as information against the interests of the State is what happened in the Bultfontein case. Sir, the Bultfontein case was a most unsavoury case, and it could be argued that any publication of the actions of the police in that case, although they were prosecuted, is against the interests of the State, because we do not want the outside world to know that our police behave in that manner. We had another example in this House last year. When this matter was discussed in this House last year hon. members opposite accused us of acting against the interests of the State in merely discussing the matter.

They said it would harm our country overseas. I am pointing out these matters to the Minister in the hope that he will see what our difficulty is.

I know what your difficulty is.

I am talking about the problem that we have with this Bill. Sir, the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) has pointed out that once the Second Reading is passed the principle will have been accepted. This is a one-clause Bill. We do not know what amendments may be moved and accepted in the Committee Stage. We know that we can vote against the whole Clause, but once the Second Reading has been passed the principle will have been accepted and we will not be allowed to discuss the principle. We have some amendments which we hope the hon. the Minister will accept. We feel that the Minister, in referring to police matters in this Bill should have confined it to one of the police duties that is, the preservation of the internal security of the Republic.

Do you think you can cure the defect in the Bill, from your point of view, with an amendment?

I do not know whether Mr. Speaker will accept our amendment and I do not know whether the Minister will accept it, but we feel that if “police matters” can be confined to the preservation of the internal security of the Republic, if that is all that it is intended to cover, as the Minister stated an introducing the Bill, then there should be no difficulty.

Then your amendment is all wrong.

I have not moved my amendment yet; we have to wait until we come to the Committee Stage before we can move it and we do not know whether it is going to be accepted. Sir, it is for that reason that we are opposing this Bill as it stands now because we say that the principle goes far too wide and that the activities of the police should be defined more closely. We shall accordingly vote against this Bill.

We have had a lengthy argument here in connection with this Bill. After the introduction of the Bill an amendment was moved here by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker.) By the way, perhaps I should apologize to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) for the fact that I will not be observing protocol this afternoon and for dealing first with the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Germiston (District) before I come to his arguments. As I say, the hon. member for Germiston (District) moved an amendment, and hon. members on the other side have taken up the whole of this afternoon in trying to talk themselves out of the dilemma in which the amendment of the hon. member for Germiston (District) placed them. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) says that this is cheap talk on my part. Sir, the hon. member for Zululand is an authority in that sphere and his constituents in Zululand summed up the position quite correctly!

The hon. member for Germiston (District) moved an amendment here which indicates, according to well-established parliamentary practice, that in principle the Opposition is opposed to this Bill. That is the only meaning that can be attached to such an amendment. Does the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) deny that when one moves that a Bill be read this day six months, there is only one interpretation that can be attached to it according to parliamentary usage, and that is that one rejects the principle contained in the Bill? The hon. member knows that that is the position, and that is the amendment that they moved. Mr. Speaker, what is the principle of this Bill? I am not dealing at the moment with the details. The principle with which we are dealing here is simply that when it comes to the safety of the State or the interests of the State—I shall deal later on with the meaning to be attached to the term “the interests of the State”—the same protection must be given to police matters as to military matters. How that term is defined is not relevant at this Second Reading stage. The principle is simply that as far as police matters are concerned, the safety of the State must be protected and that police matters should be placed on the same footing as military matters. That is the principle which the Opposition opposed here by moving the amendment which was proposed here by the hon. member for Germiston (District). It is no use the hon. member for Durban (North) shaking his head; he must not quarrel with me; he should quarrel with the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Hourquebie) who sits just behind him, because the hon. member for Musgrave, who is now conveniently absent from the Chamber, stated their attitude perfectly clearly—and, after all, one always hears the truth out of the mouths of babes! The hon. member for Musgrave said, “We are against the principle of this Bill,” and he went further; he said, “I underline those words.” He stated perfectly clearly therefore that they were against the principle of the Bill. And what is the principle of the Bill?

Of the amending Bill.

Hon. members opposite can say whatever they like but they cannot deny that they are opposed to the principle of the Bill. I want hon. members on the other side to understand perfectly clearly that we are going to make the accusation against them, in season and out of season, that the safety of the State is a matter of indifference to them. But not only have hon. members opposite shown here to-day that the safety of the State is a matter of indifference to them, their whole conduct in the past shows that the safety of the State is a matter of indifference to them. This Bill presented them with an excellent opportunity to get out of the mess which they made of things in the past, but it seems to me that even when one gives them such an opportunity on a platter they still refuse to take it.

What was the dilemma of the Opposition in this connection? They had prepared their amendment and the first members who took part in the debate on the other side had prepared their speeches on the basis that the N.P.U. would reject this Bill. I can therefore sympathise with hon. members on the other side, because they now find themselves in the position of the Australian aborigine who was given a new boomerang and who could not get rid of the old one! They have my wholehearted sympathy therefore. Sir, if that was not their dilemma, can hon. members opposite tell me why they moved an amendment that the Bill be read this day six months? The hon. member for Transkeian Territories who has been sitting in this House for many years and who knows the rules of the House, foreshadowed that they were going to move that amendment. I asked him by way of interjection whether he believed that their amendment would cure what they regarded as the defects in the Bill, and he told me that he believed that their amendment would do so, subject, of course, to its acceptance by Mr. Speaker and subject to my accepting the amendment. If that is what they believed then surely they would not have moved an amendment that the Bill be read this day six months; then they would have moved, as has been done in this House before, that the Opposition declines to approve of this Bill unless the Minister undertakes to define “police matters” specifically; we could then have argued the matter. If hon. members on the other side honestly believe that the words “police matters” cover too wide a field, that they may give rise to misunderstanding, if they were not opposed in principle to the protection of the safety of the State along these lines, why do they not move such an amendment? That is the usual amendment which is moved on such an occasion and which has been moved in this House on previous occasions.

Why are you so upset?

No, I am not upset at all; as a matter of fact I am highly delighted because the attitude of the Opposition demonstrates their indifference to the safety of the State much better than I could describe it in words. Sir, that is a fact, and if hon. members on that side want to hang themselves it is no concern of mine, but then they must not come along afterwards and protest that their attitude must not be construed as meaning that they are opposed to steps which are designed to guarantee and to protect the safety of the State.

I have advanced the argument that hon. members of the Opposition assumed that the N.P.U. would reject this Bill, and it is quite clear from the speech of the (hon. member for Musgrave that the Opposition is disappointed that the N.P.U. did not reject the Bill.

But you mentioned that fact when you introduced the Bill, even before we spoke.

I said that the N.P.U. had accepted it; and what is the reaction of hon. members on the other side? Their reaction is one of disappointment that the interview with the N.P.U. went off as I explained to the House. Why are they disappointed? The Opposition are disappointed that an agitation has not been launched in South Africa once again to jeopardize the safety of the State.

Will the hon. the Minister please explain the attitude of the delegation from the N.P.U.? He referred by way of interjection to a delegation from the Press Union. Did the delegation accept the Bill as it stands on behalf of the entire Press Union?

I told the House that one N.P.U. delegate came to see me initially; this was a Johannesburg delegate. Subsequently they asked me whether other delegates who could speak on behalf of the N.P.U. could come and see me, and I was then interviewed by the representatives of the Burger, the Argus and the Cape Times. They informed me that they had authority to speak on behalf of the N.P.U. The entire conversation. which lasted scarcely ten minutes, was conducted with the official representatives of the N.P.U.

I come now to the hon. member for Germiston (District). I notice that the hon. member is not in his seat, although I have received no apology from him in this connection. Sir, it is an old parliamentary custom, when one moves an amendment to a Bill, at least to apologize if one cannot be present in the House when the Minister deals in his reply with that amendment. I received no such apology. I did receive such an apology from the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), who also took part in the debate and who is not here at the moment. What arguments have we had from the other side? Sir, in the past when we have discussed measures of this nature, which are of a non-political nature, when we have debated legal matters here, it has always been our practice in this House to put questions to one another across the floor of the House, as we again did here to-day. You will recall, Mr. Sneaker, that after the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) had put a question to me, I courteously gave him the information for which he had asked.

I then put a similar question to the hon. member for Germiston (District), and you will recall how he snubbed me when I did so, and not only did he snub me, but you will recall how he snapped at the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) when the hon. member put a simple question to him in that connection. I come back again now to the amendment and to the speech of the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave). The hon. member for Germiston (District) said in the course of his speech: “We have no difficulty whatever in respect of matters affecting the military. So far as the military are concerned, we believe that these powers are necessary.” This forms part of the amendments; it is one of the new matters which have been introduced in this connection. May I just say this while I am on that point: The hon. member for Durban (North) said in the course of his speech, in reply to the hon. member for Ceres, that I had brought the House under the impression and that my attitude was that the only thing that was new in connection with this Bill was this reference to “police matters”. Sir, I stated the position perfectly clearly, in the following words: “A new principle is being introduced here, namely the insertion of the words ‘or military or police matters’.” In spite of this, the hon. member for Durban (North) went out of his way— I have checked his Hansard to see whether my impression is correct—to create the impression that I tried to bring the House under the false impression that we were only dealing here with police matters. Hon. members of the Opposition are now pretending that they do not know what is meant by “police matters”. Let me put this question to them: What is the difference between military matters and police matters? If you know the meaning of “military matters”, if that presents no problem to you—and the hon. member for Germiston (District) says that it presents no problem whatsoever to him—why then should the meaning of “police matters” create any problem?

There is a great difference.

What does this Bill say? Let us forget about “military matters” and “munitions of war” for a moment and assume that this Bill deals only with police matters. It will then read; “Any person who has in his possession or under his control any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information which relates to any police matter. …” Does that present any problem to hon. members on that side? Do the words “any person who has in his possession a sketch of any police matter” present any problem to them? I do not think so. I cannot see how the insertion of the words “a plan relating to any police matter” can present any problem to them. What does any individual or what does any newspaper want to do with such a plan unless it has sinister motives? Do hon. members want to defend that? They are now suddenly very concerned about the rights of the individual in this connection. What does any individual want to do with any model or any document belonging to the police? When we come to “information”, the information which relates to any police matter is precisely the same as the information Which relates to military matters. Surely that is obvious, and if hon. members have any doubt about it, they may read the reports of the cases decided in Britain and here in that regard. This information is not in the first place information which is made available to the general public every day. It is utter nonsense to talk about propaganda and to suggest that, because propaganda is made overseas, persons may be charged under this Bill. Where does it say in this Bill that one may not make propaganda about the police? You can make as much propaganda as you like; it is not an offence under this Bill, nor is it an offence under any other Act. One may complain about propaganda being made in regard to the police, and Gen. Keevy in fact did so. He said that it was not in the interest of the State that it should be done. Of course it is not, but the “interest” of the State in that sense has nothing to do with “the interest of the State” in the sense in which the term is used in this Bill. Surely hon. members know that, if they have read this Bill or if they have read the decisions of the courts both here and in Britain in that regard. No, this story of those hon. members that they have adopted that standpoint just because the wording is too vague is just a smokescreen; they do it merely to hide their nakedness, their indifference in regard to the safety of the State. I again put it to the Opposition that if they were honest in regard to their standpoint, why did they not tell us, in a reasonable and decent manner, and not as the hon. member for Germiston (District) did: “We quite agree with you that the safety of the State should be protected and that police matters should also be brought within the purview of this Act, but we think you are going too far; are you prepared to accept amendments in the Committee Stage to water it down so that it does not go too far?”

That is precisely what he said in his speech.

Yes, I am coming to that; that is what the hon. member said in his speech, and what happened then? Then suddenly, to my surprise, and I take it to the surprise of the whole House, the hon. member moved the amendment that the Bill be read this day six months. If the House had accepted that amendment, what protection would there then have been for the safety of the State? Then nobody would have worried about the safety of the State because that Would have been the end of the Bill. Hon. members know that in practice one cannot come with a Bill like this again during this Session. What game is the Opposition now busy playing? The game they are playing is this. They talk one way but do precisely the opposite, which is what they do in regard to practically every Bill in this House, so that they can piously go and say outside: “We are just as concerned as any other person about the safety of the State and in protecting police matters affecting the safety of the State; just see what we said in the House”, and when it suits them to seek support from the leftists they again boast that they are the people who. as the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) said, are so opposed to the principle of the Bill that they invoke the most serious step in parliamentary procedure, viz. their moving that the Bill be read in six months’ time.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) complained and said that one of the reasons why he could not support this Bill was because police matters were not defined. I explained to hon. members when introducing the Bill, and I also explained to the Press Union, that it was found impossible to arrive at a satisfactory definition. But if hon. members opposite believe that they are clever enough to evolve a definition, and if they really wanted a definition of this term, they would have adopted a different standpoint in this regard. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has problems in regard to police matters, but he has no problems as the result of the fact that there is no definition of military matters.

I said that it would be advisable to define “military matters”, because otherwise there was the possibility that “naval matters” might be excluded.

No, it is too foolish for words to say that if one talks about “military matters” one thereby excludes “naval matters”. The hon. member should have a look at the decisions given in the courts in this regard. He must read the Bill in its context. No, the hon. member is just again making another excuse. His attack on this Bill is that he does not know what “police matters” are.

I complained about the lack of definition.

Does it worry the hon. member that no definition of “military matters” is given in the Bill? He certainly has not told me so. The hon. member should not try to escape after having made this attack. You see, Sir, the hon. member’s trouble is that he dare not say that it worries him.

That is tautology.

The hon. member says that it is redundant; it should never have been put in the Bill, but the hon. member for Germiston (District) who in any case, apart from the Sunday Times, is still the leader of the legal group of the United Party, said that it did not worry the Opposition at all; that they wholeheartedly accepted and supported it. You see, Sir, that is the sort of argument we have had from the Opposition in this regard.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) opposed the Bill, and that of course does not surprise me, because whereas I have accused the Opposition of being indifferent towards the safety of the State, it is quite clear to anybody who knows politics that the Progressive Party is even more indifferent towards the safety of the State.

What nonsense!

The record of the hon. member’s party in this regard speaks for itself; I need not even mention it. The hon. member’s association and the associations of her party speak for themselves. The hon. member asked a fair question as to whether these matters could not rather be remedied by way of co-operation between the various newspapers and the S.A. Police. I said in my second reading speech that the agreement between the Press Union on the one hand and the S.A. Police on the other is now being reviewed, and that this matter will probably also be discussed there. That is one method of doing it and we are adopting that method, out it is not a conclusive one. I now ask the hon. member—I want to test her views in this regard; she took exception to it when I said that her party adopted an even more indifferent attitude towards the safety of the State than the United Party did—if it is right and fair to lay down these things in the agreement with the Press Union, which will only be a gentleman’s agreement, which will not be binding and to which no penalties will be attached, what is wrong with prescribing penalties in regard to these matters by means of an Act of Parliament?

Because you always abuse every power you take.

Mention one case.

I have mentioned dozens in this House.

Things are getting interesting now. The hon. member is accusing me—and she is showing her true colours in this regard now—of having abused my powers. What is more, she added “in every case” …

In every case in which you have taken wide powers.

The words used by the hon. member were “every case.”

In every case in which you have taken wide powers.

We know what happened last year. In the no-confidence motion and in every debate in which they could be discussed police matters and so-called ill-treatment and things of that kind were raised. And this year? We have had many debates, but neither from the Leader of the Opposition, apart from a very minor oblique reference in his no-confidence motion, nor from hon. members on the opposite side have we had a single attack. We have not had a single attack, although there have been many opportunities to make attacks.

You are quite wrong. I did raise it in the debate on the no-confidence motion.

No, Sir.

Yes, Sir; I have my Hansard.

All that the hon. member referred to was the question of the two university professors. That was the only matter referred to by the hon. member.

And I said that the 90-day clause should never have been there.

But before the provincial election the hon. member did not see her way clear to raise the question of my abusing every power for which I ask, just as the hon. members on the opposite side did not see their way clear to raise it before the provincial election.

You are quite wrong. I raised it at every public meeting.

It is futile on the part of the hon. member to make that type of accusation against me now. It simply leaves me cold. I challenge the hon. member to take the next opportunity she gets—and she will get many opportunities—to prove where I have abused my powers.

I will.

Does the hon. member remember that she tried to do so last year? Does the hon. member remember that she tried to do so with Hamilton Russell’s untruthful pamphlet and what the final outcome of it was?

What was it?

The final outcome was that I proved to the satisfaction of the whole House that that pamphlet was a lie from beginning to end.

To your satisfaction; not to mine.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) tried to ridicule this Bill. He tried to show that they could not accept this Bill because everything from bingo to every other game would be a police matter. Did the hon. member advance these arguments merely for the sake of being funny? Or did he advance them because he believes that those things will be “police matters” in the context of this Bill? Surely the hon. member knows that the words “the safety of the State” and “the interests of the State” go hand in hand, not only in this particular clause of the Bill, but in all the other clauses as well? These two concepts go hand in hand not only in our security legislation, but in the security legislation of any other country in the world, because the one is the counterpart of the other. Let me mention an example to hon. members. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) also referred to this. There is a court case in progress in Britain at the moment because certain secrets were sold to the Russian Government by an official. It may very well be that those secrets cannot prejudice the safety of the State. That may very well be so, but it may also be that viewed from the other angle, the interests of Great Britain may be very seriously prejudiced if the Russians also have that information at their disposal. Does the hon. member see that the one does not exclude the other, that they are not opposed to one another? It all depends upon the angle from which one looks at it. The information may be of such a nature that it may prejudice the safety of the State, but on the other hand, whilst not endangering the immediate safety of the State, with which the court is concerned, it may not be in the interests of the State. For that reason the words “safety and interest of” have always been included in legislation of this kind and they must therefore remain in this Bill.

Not a single member on the other side—and to me that has been the test of the standpoint of the Opposition—has said anything against my argument that the basic reason for the introduction of this Bill is the way in which cold wars are being waged to-day. We virtually no longer have a formal declaration of war today. We have many examples of that. It is not necessary for us to go and look for examples. None of us doubts for one moment that a war is in progress in South Vietnam. Although, there has not been a formal declaration of war by either side, we know that a state of war does in fact exist there. According to international law. however, one will not be able to decide whether or not a state of war does exist, because a formal state of war has never been declared. Hon. members know that. And I have dealt with the fact that, as a result of these new developments, it is becoming more and more difficult to draw a clear distincion between the work of the police and the work of the military as far as the safety of the State is concerned; one can hardly distinguish between the two. That is the basis on which I have introduced this Bill. If that had not been the case, it would not have been introduced. If those had not been the circumstances, it would not have been necessary for me at all to include “police matters” here. Now I ask the hon. Member for Durban (North): If they were honest in the attitude they adopted, why did they not deal with that argument? Why did they not discuss that? Why did they not either admit that that was the position or deny it if they were of the opinion that that was not the position, because that was the whole basis of the argument which I advanced for introducing the Bill? The fact that none of them even touched upon it or considered it worthwhile to refer to it. only shows once again that the motive with which the Bill was introduced did not matter to them at all, that the safety of he State, with which the Bill deals, was of very little, if any importance to them, and that their only concern once again was to proclaim themselves the protectors of individual liberty in South Africa which was supposed to be threatened by this Government. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Hourquebie) intimated very clearly in his speech that this was simply another way in which this Government was undermining and interfering with the liberties of the individual.

Did I say that?

Perhaps the hon. member no longer knows exactly what he did say, and I do not blame him, but if he looks up his speech he will see that that was the basis of his whole argument in this connection.

I challenge you to show where I said that in my speech.

If hon. members on the other side now come along and tell me that their actions in this regard are attributable purely and solely to the fact “that they want certainty”, as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) said, then I say that I simply do not accept that that was their motive.

We do not mind the fact that you do not accept it.

My attitude is that I do not accept it. Hon. members know that I am always prepared to discuss with hon. members opposite any amendments that may be moved by them. Because of the nature of my portfolio I have probably accepted more amendments moved by hon. members on the other side than any of my colleagues. But I now tell hon. members opposite that because they adopt the attitude which was adopted here by the hon. member for Germiston (District) which is that they reject the principle of this Bill, I cannot even consider accepting any amendment that may be moved by them. I am telling hon. members that so that they will know where they stand, and let me tell them why I cannot consider accepting any amendments: It is because I do not trust their motives. If they wanted to kill the Bill by means of the amendment they moved in the first instance, then surely I cannot trust their motives; surely then, I cannot but accept that any amendment moved by them will be designed to nullify the Bill and, if possible, to render it meaningless.

Why not wait until we move the amendment?

I am not interested in any amendment at this stage, because it is not the intention of the hon. members to improve the Bill but to destroy it. That is what they have in mind. And those being their motives, I am not at all interested in any amendment they may move to this particular Bill.

I believe that in the times in which we are living, in view of the things still being prepared against us, in view of the action still being planned against us, it is good and necessary that this Bill should be passed. I have admitted all along that it is framed in wide terms. All Bills dealing with security are always framed in wide terms, not only in South Africa but also in the rest of the world. I have said that it is impossible to find a definition to water it down without interfering with the principles and without prejudicing the safety of the State. Therefore I want to state my attitude very clearly, and that is that after mature consideration I adopt the attitude that the Bill now before the House is the best, and I must ask the House to accept it as it stands without omitting a single jot or title from it. I believe that we must do that for the sake of the safety of the State, and every member who claims that he is also interested in the safety of the State will be tested on the basis of whether he supports or opposes this Bill.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of t)he motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G, Eaton.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.