In the heat of the debate on Friday I said that I did not want to reply to the tirade of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) because we were conducting a decent debate in which decent people tried to convince one another. I realize now that these words may be interpreted as a reflection on the hon. member personally, and because it is not my habit to cast such reflections I want to say that I am sorry if that is the way in which my remarks were interpreted.

May I say that knowing him as I do I unreservedly accept the hon. member’s apology. I know that in the heat of debate we all sometimes say things that we regret later on.

Order! I do want to make an appeal to hon. members. They must remember that we are in the House of Assembly, and I want to make an appeal to hon. members to conduct the debates in this House at a very high level. I make an urgent appeal to hon. members, however strong their views may be on a particular subject, to choose their language in such a way that they do not hurt others and that it does not give rise to a strong reaction.

I move—

The Electoral Laws Amendment Bill now before the House for its third reading falls into two distinct categories. On the one hand there are the items which affect matters of principle—the provision for the restoration of the vote to persons convicted of treason and the provisions which incorporate into the Electoral Laws the Population Register and the population register identity card. On those matters of principle this side of the House and the Government disagree and therefore we shall oppose the measure at this its final reading. On the other aspect of the Bill, that is to say, the administration of our elections and our Voters’ Rolls and the general machinery required for an election, I think it is fitting that at the third reading one should draw attention to the improvements which have been made in this Bill since it first appeared before this House last year. Perhaps a lesson is to be learned from the manner in which this Bill was handled in being sent to a Select Committee before the second reading and in the work which that Select Committee was able to do to make this measure one which in the administrative field is 90 per cent, if not more, acceptable to both sides of the House. I would like to pay a tribute to the chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van der Heever) for the manner in which the work was dealt with and to the Minister for the attitude which he adopted in regard to the administrative provisions of this measure. I think we have effected improvements which will make our elections take place more smoothly, with less difficulty. The two main problems which this Bill presented in the first place and on which there was full agreement, the question of postal votes and the question of compulsory notification of change of address, are both matters which are now going to be dealt with, and I trust that in the same way that this measure has been altered and amended to produce something on which we can agree, so by putting our heads together we shall be able in due course to produce amendments to the provisions with regard to postal votes and in regard to the question of bringing the Voters’ Rolls up-to-date, which will give us a model electoral system under which everyone in this House is elected to Parliament. Although we disagree with this measure on matters of basic principle in regard to other legislations, I think we have made some progress as far as the administration of this measure is concerned. On principle, however, we must oppose this third reading as we have opposed these provisions at the second reading and in the Committee Stage.

Before I move the amendment standing in my name on page 697 of the Order Paper, I wish to address you, Sir, on the point that my amendment is not affected at all by the ruling given by Mr. Speaker on Friday on the motion for an instruction. The ruling relates to the invoking of the Rule of Law into the provisions of this Bill by allowing a right of appeal to a court; that is what Mr. Speaker’s ruling dealt with. Clause 5 is strictly an amendment of the Newspaper and Imprint Act No. 14 of 1934, which relates to the registration of newspapers. The mere form of drafting therefore does not affect the issue that this clause really stands apart from the main provisions of the Bill. But in any case my amendment does not affect the principles of the clause at ali. The clause really contains two principles: The first is that there shall be a deposit of money as a condition precedent to the registration of a newspaper; and the second is that the deposit shall be subject to forfeiture to the State in certain circumstances. The circumstances and the method of forfeiture are matters of detail, and those are matters which are rightly dealt with in the Committee Stage. My amendment is concerned merely with the machinery by which this forfeiture is to be effected. It sets out in clear terms, I believe, the circumstances which will entitle forfeiture to be effected, and it sets out in clear terms the method of determining the particular circumstances. My amendment then is that there shall be a pronouncement by a Judge that circumstances do in fact exist which would warrant forfeiture to take place; and once those circumstances have been determined then forfeiture will take place automatically in terms of the clause itself and not as a part of a judicial decree. Having set it out in that way, I think I have made it perfectly clear that this amendment is not in the least affected by Mr. Speakers ruling. Here we are not concerned with an appeal to a court against a decision. We are concerned with the machinery by which a decision will be established. As I say, the actual forfeiture will not be by judicial decree; it will take place automatically, and therefore if this amendment is adopted it will not affect in any way the amendment which the Minister himself intends to move. In those circumstances I move the amendment standing in my name—

The effect of that amendment will be that subclause 4 will then read—

I think it is quite evident that unless in cases of this nature, truth is quite free to emerge justice can never be done. The machinery of the courts is invoked because the old-age procedure of courts was devised to bring out and to protect truth. I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will agree that this amendment does provide a fair and a just method to decide whether forfeiture in terms of these provisions is justified or not. As I have said, it does not affect in the slightest the amendment which the hon. the Minister himself wishes to move. Sir, I am reminded of the fact that Edmund Burke once said, “If I cannot reform with equity I will not reform at all.” I leave it to the hon. the Minister to know what the alternative to that statement is; I do not intend at this juncture to refer to it because I do hope that in the circumstances outlined by me, he will accept the amendment.

I am unable to accept this amendment as it is destruction of the principle of the Bill as read a second time.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on the subject?

No.

May I then, Sir, direct your attention to S.O. No. 62 which provides that a member may speak to a question involving a point of order. I do not, therefore, think that until you have heard …

Order! I have given my ruling and I must, therefore, ask the hon. member to resume his seat.

With respect, Sir, but does your ruling mean that I cannot …

Order! The hon. member has already made his point. I have considered the matter and have given my ruling.

But I have not yet addressed you on the point, Sir.

I am sorry, but I cannot allow the hon. member to continue.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

Hon. members will observe that as the clause now reads, the Minister, when it comes to a forfeiture of the amount which is required as security upon the registration of a newspaper, has no discretion other than to declare the whole amount to be forfeited. In this connection, as hon. members already know perhaps, I received representations from the Bar Council, amongst others. May I just point out that the first representations received from the Bar Council were in respect of this particular provision of Clause 5 of the Bill. I received no representations from the Bar Council in respect of the preceding clauses of the Bill. The Bar Council’s representations with reference to Clause 5 were to the effect that the Minister should have a discretion when it comes to a decision with regard to the forfeiture of the deposit and that he should be in a position to decide whether the whole amount or only a portion should be forfeited. By means of this amendment I am giving effect to these representations of the Bar Council.

Is it the Minister of Justice who has to make that decision or is it the Minister of the Interior?

The Minister of Justice has to advise and guide the Minister of the Interior in this connection. It must be done in consultation with the Minister of the Interior therefore. The acceptance of my amendment will have this effect that the whole amount will not necessarily have to be forfeited, but the Minister will have the power to decide whether he will refund to the publishers or owners concerned either the full amount or a portion of it or nothing at all.

I explained in my second reading speech why Clause 5 of this Bill was being inserted. In Section 6 of the principal Act the procedure that has to be followed where a newspaper is banned is prescribed. Steps have also been taken in the past against certain newspapers, amongst others against the predecessor of the newspaper which is presently published under the name New Age. Hon. members will remember that initially this newspaper was known as the Guardian and that it was the mouthpiece of the Communist Party. Hon. members will also know that it was under the management of the communists, Carneson and Bunting, and that it was then banned. Subsequently, however, this newspaper again appeared under two different names and eventually under the name Advance. It was also banned under this name in terms of Section 6 of the principal Act, but immediately afterwards it again appeared under the name New Age. Hon. members will recall that it was possible for it to do so because of the fact that this particular newspaper had been registered under various names in terms of the 1934 Act. It could therefore, the moment it was banned under one name, appear under a different name although the editorial staff, the printers, etc., were the same, and although it still propagated the same poison. Hon. members will concede at once that such a state of affairs cannot be tolerated, and that is why we are inserting this provision in the Bill in terms of which, if persons again want to publish a newspaper which has been banned, they may be required to make a deposit which they run the risk of losing if the newspaper again follows the same course as that followed by New Age and its predecessors.

Another consequence of this clause to which I want to draw the attention of hon. members is that the names which have already been registered will fall away in case a newspaper should appear under one of those names just after the passing of this Bill. This clause therefore serves a twofold purpose; in the first place it clears the list of registered names and, secondly, it makes it impossible for communistic newspapers to appear. I want to point out in passing that this clause will in no way affect any of the existing newspapers; it will only apply to newspapers that may appear in the future. I would also point out to hon. members that before a newspaper is banned, a report first has to be obtained in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the principal Act.

It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to say that hon. members should vote for the principle involved here, because there is not only one principle, but two, involved. The one was mentioned by the hon. the Minister and the other is the negation of justice which this clause entails. I am with him on the principle that newspapers which disseminate Communism should be dealt with, but I am not with him on the other principle, i.e. the negation of the basic tenets of justice which this clause involves. If a newspaper, in fact, disseminates Communism, then it must be dealt with. But that is precisely what this clause avoids, i.e. it avoids a finding of facts. On the contrary, it gives the hon. the Minister the discretion to determine whether or not a newspaper publishes propaganda which will have the effect of furthering the aims of Communism. The hon. the Minister has asked us why we show all this concern for Communism, but the Minister himself comes along now with an amendment in terms of which a newspaper which disseminates Communism could, in terms of the Minister’s discretion, be treated leniently, because he need not take away from them the full amount of their deposit. Who is now showing concern for Communism? I say to the hon. the Minister: “Why not take all their money if they are, in fact, communists?” And if they are not communists, then surely somebody else than the Minister should decide on the matter. The hon. the Minister quoted only one example of a newspaper which was communistic, and which kept on changing its name. I am quite sure that if some sort of body sat to determine whether in fact this newspaper was a communistic newspaper, it would no doubt have found it to be such. I cannot understand, however, why the hon. the Minister does not want to give some further protection, because what this provision really amounts to is the imposition of a fine in advance. The fine is fixed and collected before a person is even fined, and then the hon. the Minister has the discretion to decide whether the person concerned should be found guilty and fined a lesser or the whole amount.

I think the Minister has been less than fair with this House when he indicated that the principle involved in this clause was the fighting of Communism, because that is not the only principle. I should like the hon. the Minister, therefore, to withdraw this clause and to review it in the light of the ruling which has been given from the Chair.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) and, I expect, also the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), will continue singing the refrain that there is a denial of justice when the Minister is given a discretion. I do not want to do the hon. member an injustice, but I do think that this is an allegation they make ad nauseum—when it is unnecessary, when it is irrelevant, and even when they have nothing to say. Every time a Minister is clothed with discretionary powers, the Opposition regards it with suspicion, merely because they do not trust this side of the House with discretionary powers. And then they sing it on a very high note by saying that it is a denial of justice. Let me therefore say, and I hope I will not have to repeat it, that when a Minister is given a discretionary power, he must also obey the elementary rules of justice when exercising it, and not only the Minister, but also every official. This is a legal state which is governed in terms of the rules of the law. It so happens that it is not always possible to go to court to test whether the elementary rules of justice have been complied with. But that does not mean that it cannot be done at all.

Order! The hon. member must not digress too much.

In cases where it is not possible to have the matter decided by a court, this House is the place where the Minister can be held responsible and where he can be criticized for the things he has done.

You will vote for him in any case.

The hon. member alleged that this is a denial of justice. I, in turn, want to point out to him that he has every possible opportunity for criticizing the actions of the Minister concerned. He can, e.g., do so by means of a motion in the beginning of a session, or when the Justice Vote is discussed under the Estimates. They can talk for days about it not having been correct to take a sum of money from Mr. Bunting or Mr. Carneson for the registration of a newspaper under a certain name.

This clause gives the Minister the power to act speedily—something which is necessary if one wants to combat Communism. We had the case where Mr. Kahn, when the Guardian was banned, sold the first copy of the same newspaper, but under a different name, to the Minister of Justice, just to provoke him and to say: “Here it is now, just in a different form.” And in fact it was the same newspaper, the same press, the same premises and the same staff, etc. Now we say that people who have a standpoint which they want to propagate bona fide can have a newspaper registered even without a deposit, but that those who are suspect and in regard to whom the goodwill of the community has already shrunk, should be treated on a different basis. In my opinion, that is no more than right. Therefore, I think that the measure we are discussing here will be effective. At the same time I want to reject the hon. member’s allegation that this is a negation of justice. It is an allegation which is not worthy of him or of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South), in regard to whom I am sure that he will now get up and repeat precisely the same allegation.

I thank the hon. member for Standerton for having “seen” me. The amendment which has been moved by the hon. the Minister does modify to a degree a power which otherwise is an arbitrary and capricious one. You, Mr. Chairman, have earlier this morning ruled that my amendment to this clause was destructive of the principle of the Bill. I do not, of course, want to discuss that. But I do want to say that the clause as it now stands is destructive of justice. I wonder how long the hon. member for Standerton would have taken, if he had been on this side of the House, to show how capricious and arbitrary these powers really are, in view of the fact that it took him such a long time to try to justify this provision.

Why do you call these powers “capricious”?

Because I think they are capricious; that is why I call them so. The fact that the hon. the Minister has been influenced to a certain extent by the Bar Council, goes to show that he recognizes that this clause contains elements of injustice. As a result, he has decided to modify its provisions to a certain degree. When he starts with this measure de novo in the Other Place, he will have a further opportunity of considering this question of elementary justice. In what circumstances, I ask, is a proprietor of a newspaper going to be heard under the clause as it stands now? How is it going to be established that the truth will emerge from an inquiry which might be held? The hon. the Minister knows full well that there cannot be justice without publicity. There will, however, be no publicity here, and the danger, therefore, exists that there will be no justice, or that there will be capricious justice.

That is a point of view to which I do not subscribe.

I ask the hon. the Minister, therefore, to reconsider the matter to see whether something better cannot be done in the interests of the State, as well as in the interests of justice, by setting out the circumstances under which forfeiture can take place here. As the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has pointed out, this is really a penal provision; it provides for a predetermined penalty; and the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister is nothing more than to say to a person who has been fined, that in certain circumstances, which the Minister himself will determine, a remission of the penalty will be allowed. The hon. the Minister is, therefore, taking unto himself powers of remission more than anything else, because the penal provision is there—completely arbitrary and capricious.

I do not think that we should go out of our way to look for hidden dangers in these provisions. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has stated that this clause is “capricious”. I do not think, however, that we need look for hidden dangers in this clause, especially since the Bar Council, in making representations to the Minister with regard to this clause, asked for no other amendment than that now moved by the Minister. The Bar Council raised no objection to the rest of this clause. But ] agree with the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) that if a body or a newspaper is communistic and we are convinced that that is so, we should take the whole of the deposit, if necessary. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member has said, that if the effect of the amendment which the Minister is introducing here at the request of the Bar Council is going to be that a portion of the money will be refunded to a communistic newspaper or movement—if this attitude of the Opposition appears to be correct—then I want to ask the hon. the Minister rather to withdraw this amendment.

I cannot speak with any authority on the justice side of this question, but I think it is quite impossible to control the publication of communist newspapers in this way. How does one establish a newspaper? How does a communist in any country establish a newspaper? Not by going along and registering a newspaper. That may be, as the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) has said, an act of defiance, but that is not the usual way. The usual way of obtaining control of a newspaper is to obtain control of the shareholding and that can be done through nominees and in many other ways. The hon. the Minister must surely have read about the take-over bids in the control of newspapers which are taking place in the British Isles at the present time. Here in South Africa it would be comparatively easy for a communist, either in this country or outside of this country, to obtain control of a newspaper which is already established. I have mentioned one way, namely the take-over bid. The other is to obtain control of the shareholding. The other is what the hon. the Prime Minister has demonstrated with the two companies in Johannesburg where there has been an amalgamation. Whether it was a take-over bid or whether it was an honest fifty-fifty amalgamation it is difficult to say.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to point out that the registration has already taken place and therefore this clause will be ineffective. One does not go along to the hon. the Minister and say: “I am a communist; I want to register a newspaper.” You look for a country newspaper in South Africa and take it over for a few hundred pounds; you take over the shareholding if necessary.

Then this clause does not affect it one way or another.

Exactly; the communist can establish his newspaper in just the same way. My first case is that the registration of a newspaper is something which happens when a newspaper first comes on to the market and the usual way is to take over a newspaper already established. The second is the difficult position in which the hon. the Minister places himself. As I pointed out during the second reading debate, in South Africa we have what I regard as an undesirable feature where people in public life become directors of newspapers even when they hold office as Cabinet Ministers.

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

It looks like an unfair demand upon the hon. the Minister.

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

Very well, Sir, I will talk to the clause. It says this on the top of page 5—

That is the point “at any time. …”. And he may not be the Minister. In other words, the Minister is now saying: “I am deciding that that newspaper can be established” and the Minister succeeding him may have quite a different view. Therefore, I say, Sir, that even with these provisions …

Then you ban it.

That hon. member has banning on the brain, Sir. Even the lawyers are talking about banning instead of appearing in the courts. The Minister does not require this power. The Minister has been dealing with these newspapers up to the present and I think he can continue to deal with them if he wishes to. But to say to the man who is establishing a newspaper “You must put up R20,000” is an imposition if the Minister has the right to say to somebody else: “I think you are the type of man who need not put it up.” It may be a member of his party or of the party in the Opposition. Such a discretion is most undesirable for any Minister to have in any country.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) says that the hon. the Minister does not need this clause. But if this clause makes no difference, why does he oppose it? But I go further. If the Minister does not need it, how does the hon. member explain that the Guardian, after having been banned, appeared under a number of different names, and recently, after 25 years, boasted of the fact that it had successors which were banned in their turn and that it now appeared as New Age? But it appears to me that the hon. member has not read Section 6 of the principal Act, which expressly provides that—

That is the first. The second one is—

And then it passes on to No. 3—

These are all points I quote from Section 6. In other words, the people who apply for registration will be people who have a certain past history, and the Minister will be fully able to judge the character of those people. If they come along to register a name, we know from experience and from knowledge of their character that they want to continue with a publication which has already been banned. And if that is not the case, then why the long list of names already registered, under the names of Bunting and Carneson, as the Minister has told us? There are 30 names which will all be the successors of the Guardian. The present one is New Age. The Minister wants to cancel that list. Now the hon. member says that will be futile, because they can take over a newspaper. Very well, supposing they take over the Eastern Transvaal Advertiser by purchasing it from somebody, and they start publishing communist propaganda in it. Then I said, by way of interjection, that we can ban that newspaper. The hon. member then said that I was simply daft about the idea of banning. But, Mr. Chairman, we do not want persons who at the moment are making communist propaganda to find it easy to continue even with the next issue. As the position is to-day, they can register names and use those names at any time. Even though they do not use those names, they can apply to do so on payment of only £1. The Minister of the Interior does not even have the power to refuse to register the name, unless the name suggested is more or less the same as the name of an existing newspaper. It is as easy as that. When those communists have to take over a newspaper by buying up the shares, it is appreciably more difficult for them than merely to pay £1 for a name. But even the taking over of an existing newspaper will not be so easy. Even though they should try to do so, by buying a rural newspaper, they will find that that newspaper does not exist merely as a newspaper and the advertisements placed in it. Every one also has a “Smalls” section on which it lives. The only newspaper containing news and advertisements, and perhaps without a “Smalls” section, are the large newspapers. The Argus Company has a “Smalls” section just at one place. They exist on the earnings of newspapers as such—the sale of advertisements and news. Just try taking over one of those newspapers. The hon. member may have a few hundred thousand pounds, but he will still not be able to take over the Argus Company or the Cape Times, nor the Nasionale Pers, nor the Vaderland, with the combination he likes to discuss so much. It is not as easy as he says it is to take over a newspaper. This is just idle talk, Sir. Basically the hon. member does not want us to curb the communists. He is the person who talks most loudly about it. Again we have here nothing else but the protection of those people towards whom we have no more goodwill.

I regret that the hon. member who has just sat down has made the remarks which he has made. He knows that the charge he makes is completely unfounded and untrue.

It is true.

The hon. member says it is true but he knows that the charge he has made is completely unfounded. We have made it absolutely clear that we are not interested in the Kahns and the Carnesons, but there are principles involved in which we are interested. I say the hon. the Minister should consider the clause very carefully because it is a clause the passing of which might well give this country’s enemies an opportunity of damaging South Africa. I am glad that the hon. the Minister has introduced his amendment but I must say that I hope the Minister will reconsider the whole of this clause. There is no question about it—the Minister will agree; although I doubt whether the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) will—that this is a clause of which there could be gross abuse. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree that there could be gross abuse. I know he will say that there will not be gross abuse, but a power of a type is being put on the Statute Book which, in my view, should only be put on the Statute Book if it is very much more circumscribed and if there is some form of check on the arbitrary powers which are vested in the hands of the Minister. The hon. the Minister has given a good example of a newspaper which has appeared again and again each time under another name and that that is the type of case he wishes to deal with. But the hon. the Minister will be the first to agree that this is a clause which could be applied to any newspaper which wishes to register from this time onwards. It could be so applied and it could be applied to the maximum. It is true—as the hon. member for Standerton has said; it is the one thing in his speech with which I agree—that there is a right of registration if the person is prepared to pay the maximum which is required. I agree that that is so. But the newspapers which are affected by this are often owned not by strong financial organizations like the newspapers which have been mentioned. They are often little country newspapers. I hope the hon. the Minister will seriously consider introducing a check on the arbitrary powers which exist in this clause. I say to the hon. the Minister that unless that is done I have little doubt that he will find this clause to be just one of those things which is adding fuel to the flames which are being exploited against this country in the world outside.

Order! Before I call upon the hon. the Minister to address the Committee I wish to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that the principle involved in this clause has been adopted. Hon. members must please confine themselves to the particulars. They can try to improve it; they can vote against the clause but they cannot argue against the principle which has already been adopted.

I am very grateful for the ruling you have given. Will you permit me just to point out to hon. members that the principle that they are attacking, namely that newspapers may be banned, is one that was accepted in the old Act as long ago as 1950. The old Act not only provided that newspapers may be banned, but Section 6 of the Act of 1950 prescribed the procedure to be followed before a newspaper can be banned; that is to say, that the matter must be referred to a fact-finding committee, and that a factual report must be brought out, and the Minister may then act on the strength of that report. Under no circumstances can the Minister act unless he has received a factual report in terms of Section 6. But, Mr. Chairman, I have mentioned the example that, in spite of this factual report in the case of the Guardian, in spite of its banning, that newspaper was again published, and it had precisely the same editor. It was published by precisely the same company, and it had the very same contributors. It was identical in every respect with the newspaper which had previously been banned. Surely, Mr. Chairman, we would be making ourselves ridiculous if we referred the same newspaper with the same appearance, and under the control of the same people, to a fact-finding committee.

That is not my objection.

Well, if that is not the hon. member’s objection, what are we quarrelling about then? All that we are saying here to those people who published that newspaper in the past is this: “You may say that you are not going to make communistic propaganda again; if you are sincere, and if you are prepared to deposit the amount which is required as security, you may publish your newspaper.” In other words, we are not preventing anybody from publishing a newspaper, but the people who publish it know perfectly well now that they run the risk of losing their deposit if they make communistic propaganda. What is unreasonable about that? What is unreasonable in demanding this deposit from people whom we know are communists, and who on various occasions in the past have simply proceeded to publish the same newspaper again under different names when we have banned it under one name? Surely there is nothing unreasonable about it inherently. On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, I think we are going very far in being fair to these people by giving them an opportunity to publish a newspaper again. Is the position that hon. members want us to deprive everybody of the opportunity of publishing new newspapers?

No.

Surely it goes without saying that if a local newspaper appears in a town, we will know whether those people are connected with the Communist Party or not, and it goes without saying that no security will be demanded from people who are not connected with the Communist Party; it will only be required from those whom we know are connected with the Communist Party. If hon. members do not understand that and if they do not want to accept my assurance, then I am afraid I can take this matter no further.

Does the hon. the Minister give that assurance?

It goes without saying. I gave that assurance in my second reading speech, and I also gave it to this Committee. This is not aimed at everybody who wishes to publish a newspaper. I am only concerned with people who are connected with the Communist Party, whose history I know and whom I definitely want to prevent from publishing newspapers. If in spite of this security they want to publish a newspaper, then they run the risk that they may forfeit that money if they make communistic propaganda.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? I accept what the hon. the Minister has just said. Is he prepared to amend this clause in such a way that it will state clearly what he has just told us?

Mr. Chairman, I have devoted a great deal of time to this clause, and it provides for everything that is necessary. But I just want to repeat this: Hon. members know the communists as well as I know them. If they are given the slightest loophole they make use of it. They made fools of us in the past by finding loopholes in the previous section. This clause serves one purpose only and that is to close those loopholes. I can take this matter no further, and hon. members cannot expect me to reply again to arguments advanced from the other side, because I have stated perfectly clearly what the object of this clause is.

It is a refreshing if somewhat unusual experience to have hon. members opposite pleading the support of the Bar Council to advance their cause. It is an unsafe course to adopt if one bears in mind that the General Bar Council made it very clear when they made their statement to the Press that they were not dealing with any of the political aspects of this measure; they were only dealing with the purely legal aspects.

I thought they were dealing with the rule of law.

Of course it means this too, that where they take objection to a clause that that is not the only objection which can be taken to it. It is merely a limited objection which a non-political body of that kind can take. Hon. members opposite seem to have difficulty in appreciating our objection to the Minister being the judge as to what is or what is not Communism. Because the exercise of his powers under this Clause will be motivated by his decision in that regard. Anyone who has sat and listened to the days of debate which we have had on this clause, anyone who has sat and listened to the hon. the Minister himself who spent at least half his speech at the second reading calling this side of the House the supporters of Communism …

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

I am dealing particularly with the particulars of this clause, Sir. We are dealing here with a provision whereby the Minister, in order to know how much money to take by way of a deposit from any person starting a newspaper, must make up his mind as to whether or not there is a danger that that newspaper will promote the aims of Communism. That is one of the factors he has to take into account and that is the basis of this clause. It is in that regard, Sir, that I am at present addressing the Committee. The test then is the Minister’s appreciation of whether there is any danger of the person registering that newspaper being likely to promote the aims of Communism. That is the test. As I have said, this side of the House does not like that test. This side of the House is not happy that the hon. the Minister or any member of that party is a proper judge as to what is or what is not Communism. The hon. the Minister himself has spent a great deal of time saying that hon. members on this side supported Communism by opposing this Bill. Many of the hon. members opposite made speech after speech allying the present English-speaking Press with Communism. We are entitled to regard the speech of the hon. the Minister of Justice as a responsible utterance. We must not regard it as just a political smear. We must accept what he says as being something which he means.

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

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I am dealing directly with the provision of this clause. There is no way whereby I can criticize the Minister’s power which he is given in this clause other than by testing his standard of judgment. And I choose to do that by the only way I can and that is by demonstrating what he has said in that very regard in this House in this debate. Without doing that, Sir, I cannot discuss the demerits of this particular clause. Is it surprising that when the Minister himself and virtually every member of the party in power as much as says that the official Opposition is supporting Communism and saboteurs …

May I ask the hon. member a question. Why did his party say he was not when Kahn declared himself to be a communist?

I was not in the House at that time. Sir, I make this point that there should be no surprise in any quarter opposite about the fact that we are unhappy that the hon. the Minister or any member opposite should be the judge as to who is and who is not likely to support the aims of Communism. Because, Sir, if we judge them by their speeches in regard to this Bill we have every reason to fear that judgment as being an unreliable one to say the least of it. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché, Jnr.) says we must not look for spooks, we must not go on a witch hunt and that it is perfectly obvious what is required. We do not have to look for the spooks, Sir, they are all sitting opposite.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw the word “spooks”, Sir. We do not have to look for the magicians to produce those spooks, Sir; they are sitting opposite. The hon. member for Standerton, as well as his colleagues, cannot understand why we object to this power being given to the Minister. He says we can come to the House and expose the matter here; we can deal with it when the discretion has been exercised and we will then see justice. Once again, who are the judges as to whether the persons or newspapers which have been banned are communistically inclined? Once again, Sir, the hon. members opposite are the very same people who have smeared this party, amongst others, as being the supporters of Communism. A further point taken by hon. members opposite is this: They say that we cannot mention one case where there has been an abuse of power by the Minister concerned. What a scandal it would be if one could point to one case where there has been an abuse of power. That is not something to be proud of; that is something which is to be expected in a society such as we have, with this Government or any other in power. We must expect, Sir, that there will not be an abuse of power. That is no argument against objecting to this type of power being given to a Minister. The objection can be quite simply stated. The hon. the Minister wants to prevent a paper like the Guardian re-appearing in another form. But in order to do that one thing he takes power unto himself to control the whole of the Press, not merely one newspaper, but the entire Press. That is something which this side of the House cannot understand and which we believe to be wrong. It is not a question of how often the Minister has abused his power in the past. The whole basic philosophy of Western democracy is not to give to a Minister greater power than he needs to get at the mischief concerned. That is the whole basis of Western democracy to which hon. members opposite only pay lip service; it stops there. You do not give to a Minister more power than he needs. As I said on an earlier occasion the criticism can unfortunately still be levelled that we have not yet had from the Minister piloting this Bill a description of the mischief he wants to get at and an attempt to relate with some measure of accuracy, the clauses of this Bill as a remedy to that mischief itself. That, Sir, I submit with great respect is elementary to any Minister advancing a case before this House if he seeks support for the measure by reasoned arguments as opposed to a blind acceptance without anyone examining the cause why the Bill has been put forward.

I think this House and the public are becoming tired of the type of argument that we are continually getting from that side of the House. We have never had a Bill before this House dealing with riots or Communism where hon. members opposite have not advanced the argument that they are opposed to the principle. Every step that is taken to maintain law and order in this country is opposed by them.

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

I want to say to the Minister that the public expects this clause to be passed as it stands here.

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

If I am not allowed to say why I support this clause, then I shall sit down.

After the ruling which was given, the amendment standing in my name will be out of order and therefore I am not moving it, but I want to say one or two things about this clause, which I intend to vote against anyway. The hon. the Minister has told us that this clause was the subject of discussion with the Bar Council, and he has also told us that he is moving an amendment to the clause in terms of an argument advanced by the Bar Council, and for that small mercy no doubt everybody will be duly thankful. But I think the Minister will also admit that the terms of the discussion with the Bar Council went much further than this particular clause, and there were discussions on the rule of law and the Ministerial discretion. I am hoping that the Minister will show the same reasonableness when it comes to other clauses and that he will accept some of the suggestions made by the Bar Council.

I will tell you exactly what they suggested.

Unfortunately the amendment standing in the Minister’s name does not seem to go nearly as far as the suggestions made by the Bar Council. But I want to say one thing in regard to this clause. I want to ask the Minister to tell us how he intends to use his Ministerial discretion in deciding whether a newspaper, not yet registered, will at any time in the future profess Communism? I know the Minister has told us that he knows everybody who professes Communism and he will know whether the people in charge of that newspaper are likely to profess Communism, but what worries me is that the whole attitude of the Government, in its definitions of Communism and professing Communism and advocating Communism or futhering the aims of Communism, has changed rapidly in the last twelve years since the principal Act was passed. I wonder whether this will have a cumulative effect. It seems to me that the Minister will use his discretion extremely widely, and that he will apply it not only to Communism as it is generally understood by most citizens in this country, but that he will apply it to what the hon. the Minister considers to be Communism. I want to give an example. Mr. Patrick Duncan was banned as a communist and confined to a certain area. Now I maintain very strongly that Mr. Patrick Duncan is not a communist. I maintain that he loathes this Government, and he has made his feelings very clear, but I think he loathes Communism even more than he loathes this Government, if that is possible. Yet in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act, the Minister has used his discretion to ban Patrick Duncan. Patrick Duncan is, or was, the editor of a newspaper which is professedly anti-Government, but it is also anticommunist. I am referring to Contact. In terms of the ban which the Minister has imposed on Patrick Duncan, having deemed him to be a communist in terms of his definition of “Communism”, what is to prevent the Minister, in terms of this Act, from banning Contact, which is not only anti-communist but anti-Government?

Are you referring to this Bill or to the Act?

I am referring to the vast powers which the Minister is taking under this clause, not only to ban newspapers, because he had that under Section 6 of the principal Act, but having banned a newspaper, to see that a newspaper under another name does not open up. That is the point. The Minister knows that if he bans Contact it could, without this clause, open up again under another name. That is what he is trying to prevent.

Why should he ban a newspaper which is not propagating Communism?

Why did he ban Patrick Duncan, who was not a communist?

How do you know that?

I would be prepared to submit the case of Patrick Duncan to any court of law in any democratic country, and let the Judge decide whether, by his writings and his statements and his actions, he is a communist or not, even in terms of the principal Act, even in terms of the vastly wide definition of “Communism” in the Act. I believe that no court of law would find that Patrick Duncan had been a communist or was professing the aims of Communism. I could produce for the Minister extracts from Contact to prove that Patrick Duncan was even more violently anti-communist than possibly the Minister himself. What is to prevent the Minister in terms of this clause from operating against journals which do not even remotely profess Communism? And having gone that far, what is to prevent the Minister from going even further and banning not only communist newspapers or even liberal newspapers, but anything that is antiGovernment at all? I am not prepared, as the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) apparently was, to accept the assurances of the Minister. I want to have limiting words in the Act itself, and without that I certainly could not be satisfied, because one’s philosophy changes over the years, and we have watched that happening. I must say that my philosophy has not changed at all. I am professing exactly the same things now that I professed in 1952. I have had a few brushes with hon. members in the U.P. caucus on this philosophy, but perhaps I had better not go into that now. But I do not want to be diverted from my main argument. As the Government has moved further and further away from all tenets of democracy, so unfortunately it has dragged other people in this country with it, and I am not prepared to accept any assurances because certainly the Government’s attitude towards communism has changed and therefore, as I cannot move the amendment standing in my name, which would at least leave it to somebody else to make the final decision, I shall vote against this clause.

I rise to reply to the question put to me by the hon. member and not to her arguments because I have already replied to them. I just want to tell the hon. member in passing that as far as her reference to Patrick Duncan is concerned, I can imagine that the arguments that she advanced in his favour are precisely the same sort of arguments that were used by Barbara Castle in the British House of Commons in respect of Burgess and MacLean.

But that is not what I want to reply to. The hon. member wants to know how I am going to decide whether I should call for security from people if they want to publish a newspaper. I have replied to this question already but I shall do so again, and the reply is that I shall get that security from any person who showed in the past that he sympathized and had connection with the Communist Party in South Africa. I would definitely be failing in my duty if I did not demand security from persons who praised and supported the Communist Party in the past and who actually made communist propaganda. And do not let us argue about that; the hon. member knows as well as I do who those people are. Why ask questions now as to whether we are going to ban this, that or the other newspaper?

But you are taking such wide powers.

No, the hon. member keeps on running away from Section 6 of the principal Act, which very strictly limits the Minister’s powers. The Minister cannot go beyond those powers. If that is so, why are we arguing then? I have stated repeatedly that I am not prepared to allow people who discovered a loophole in the old Act and who proceeded to publish the same newspaper again the next day under a different name after it had been banned after a cumbersome inquiry, to make a fool of me. Further than that I do not want to take this matter and indeed I cannot take it any further. Since we all know what we want to achieve, and how we want to achieve it, I honestly believe that we are simply wasting time now.

I want to deal with only two aspects of this Clause 5. The one is the effect of this clause on the continued existence of certain newspapers, in other words, on the possible restrictions on the existing free press in South Africa, and also the possible obstruction of the establishment of new newspapers, which is possible in terms of this clause, as the Minister well knows. It seems to me that we have had this, or a similar, situation in South Africa before. I remember the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration telling us on this side of the House that we do not read enough, but he should tell that to the Minister of Justice, too, because if the Minister had read the story of Pringle and Fairbairn, and had known of the struggle there was in this country about 125 years ago to establish a free press, he might have thought twice about taking powers which might be used in exactly the same way as in that historical case.

Are you discussing the freedom of the press now?

Here is an example. It is a newspaper which has only four pages, and it advocates certain policies. Assuming such a newspaper were to be established after this Act comes into force, the Minister would then have to decide whether a deposit should be demanded from the proprietors of that newspaper, and if so, how much it should be, up to R20,000. I submit to the Minister that people who start this sort of newspaper do not dream of even a total capital of R20,000, because it is usually established to propagate in a small way a special point of view, or to support a special sector of political views. This paper, which the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration knows, the South African Patriot, has been established to support the point of view of the National Party. But when it goes, as it does, to the extreme of saying in an editorial that the “Integrationists under the leadership of the Rand Daily Mail, are not in any sense conducting a bona fide attack on the Government”, and then goes on to say that “any newspaper which adopts that attitude in regard to the Sabotage Bill forms part of the Integrationists press, … which is part of the pattern of subversion by which the communists provoke violence”… [Interjection.] I want to know what the Minis-would do in the case of a newspaper which he had reason to believe would propagate this sort of point of view if the Minister was of the opposite political persuasion? Would he allow them to start at all, or would he say to them: Unless you have R20,000 to start this two-page newspaper which circulates among a limited number of people, I will not let you start? These are relevant matters, even in the case of the South African Observer, published by S. E. D. Brown and Dr. Haldeman’s publications, and the publications of Johan Schoeman. [Interjections.] The whole purpose of my argument is to emphasize that no matter how reasonable this particular Minister is, in terms of this clause any Minister of Justice, in consultation with the Minister of the Interior, can do certain things to prevent the entry into the field of the free Press of South Africa of any such—I will not say rag—small newspaper which does not support the point of view of the Government. [Interjection.] It is no use that hon. member saying this is nonsense. If he tells me that he would support the publication of a newspaper which, instead of saying this is a good Government, says that this is the rottenest Government South Africa has ever had, and that every effort should be made to do away with it—will he also tell me that the Minister will then say: Go ahead, no deposit is required from you, my dear friend; just go ahead with your propaganda, and perhaps your newspaper will achieve a circulation of 400,000 which will help to throw us out of office one day? The hon. member for Middelland (Mr. P. S. van der Merwe) must not stretch my credulity too far. I know I look gullible, but not that gullible, I hope. That is one aspect of the existence of the free Press that the Minister must remember. He should take a leaf out of the writings of Victor Hugo, who said that “no government likes a free Press, but the wiser ones tolerate it”. This measure is not designed to express the tolerance of this or any other government towards a free Press when the Minister, despite all the arguments that have been advanced against it, insists on inserting this clause in the Bill. One point which he could possibly vary even now is in regard to the maximum deposit of R20,000. Why should anyone who does not have R20,000 but has R2,000 be prevented from starting a newspaper? It may be a university publication, or the organ of a branch of a particular political party, as this one, the South African Patriot, is that of the John X. Merriman Branch of the National Party. Why should such persons or groups be precluded from starting publication?

You are just a “Boerehater”.

As long as that hon. member does not call me “Soapy Williams”, he can call me anything he likes. I am trying to indicate that whichever way the Minister now looks at his Bill, he cannot reasonably deny that in some ways this particular clause can be used to obstruct the free development of a free Press in South Africa. Then the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) intervened in the debate and unctuously cites something from the report of the Press Commission, but he should remember that he himself was a party to the statement that there were certain monopolies existing in the Press in South Africa already.

Have you read that report?

I have. It gave me no pleasure, but I read it. The point I want to make is that the monopoly which already exists now finishes up in the hands of the Minister of Justice, who will in future be the only “Press baron” in South Africa, regardless of what the Prime Minister thinks. If he looks at it from that point of view, he may at least decide that he can afford to be generous, and so reduce that maximum amount of R20,000. Here I advocate an amelioration, and I am not now arguing against the principle of the Bill.

The other point I would like to make arises out of sub-section (5) of this clause, paragraph (b), of which says that, if the newspaper is not published and printed within a period of a month, its publication may be prohibited. This may create difficulty for a bona fide newspaper. I want to ask the Minister whether he has considered the example of a newspaper which has suffered the disaster of a fire, say the Pretoria News?

You have not read the clause.

I have read the clause very carefully. It says “unless the Minister otherwise directs I could not agree more that he should, in the case I have cited, “otherwise direct”, but he is not compelled to do so! If the Pretoria News suffers a fire and its printing works is razed to the ground, and it is unable, within a period of one month, to resume publication, possibly because a competitor demands a ridiculous price, say R6,000, to print each issue, it is for the Minister to direct whether that paper shall resume publication of not after a month has elapsed. With great respect to the Minister, he must not argue that he has the power to “direct otherwise”, and that, after consultation, he will use it. This is something which depends on the outlook of the individual who, at the time, exercises this authority. It seems going much too far to say that if, at any time, an established newspaper ceases publication, possibly through circumstances beyond its control, then that paper must apply to the Minister, who, in his generosity, may decide that it may resume publication. I think that this clause could well be amended, if the Minister means what he said by way of interjection just now, by providing that, in certain circumstances, a newspaper, even though it has not been published for a month, may resume publication without the Minister’s authority. This again is a test of the Minister’s own bona fides, because, if he rejects this suggestion, then it is a fact that he wants all the power he can get, and is not prepared to let go of one jot or tittle of that power. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) used a lot of words to make only two points. The one is that he objects to the clause, because it is open to abuse and thereby endangers a free Press. The second is that he objects to Clause 5.

I want to begin by saying that if a discretion is given to an official, that discretion will always be susceptible to abuse. It is quite possible that every discretion we grant to a Minister or an official may be abused. But this clause will probably be less open to abuse than any other. The hon. member ought to know that better than any other hon. member in the House, because he has had experience of it. When in the exercise of a discretion a person takes into consideration matters which have nothing to do with the case, the aggrieved person can obtain an order of court directing the Minister to devote his attention to the matter. There are cases on record where a Minister has been instructed by the court to direct his attention to the matter. Now he asks: What is there in this clause to prevent the Minister from banning a little newspaper of four pages after having devoted his attention to the matter? I say that is contained in Section 6. Section 6 compels the Minister to consider whether the particular applicant who applies for registration will not perhaps at some time or other try to promote Communism. I read it out here a moment ago. It clearly says that the Minister must direct his mind to one thing only: he must ask himself whether the applicant, by means of his newspaper, will promote the objects of Communism.

Now the hon. member does not want to say so, but he insinuates that, in terms of this section, the Minister will first brand as a communist anyone who opposes his party, and then compel him to deposit R20,000. That is his insinuation. There he agrees with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), who says that the Minister can do nothing else but exercise his powers capriciously. I object to the words “capriciously” and “caprice”. The definition of “caprice” in the Oxford Dictionary is “a sudden turn of mind without motive: a freak; a whim”. That is what those two hon. members accuse the Minister of, that without any reason, just because he does not like a person’s face or his politics, he will say: You are a communist, and therefore you will promote Communism, and, for that reason, I will make you deposit R20,000. I want to point out that we have a definition of “Communism”, in Section 1 of the principal Act. Therefore the Minister has not the power to adopt any other attitude and simply to say: This is Communism. It must be Communism in terms of Section 1. When one of the objects of the newspaper is prohibited by the law, in terms of the principal Act, and if the Minister considers that it will promote Communism, it is his duty to ban that newspaper or to demand that deposit. It is far-fetched to say that this is acting against the freedom of the Press, for the simple reason that the Minister tells these people: You are suspect; I have considered your case, but, as the Irishman said, “after careful and suspicious scrutiny”, I have come to the conclusion that you must deposit R20,000. Therefore that first allegation of his is really, as the hon. member for Middelland said, a stupid argument.

I want to come to the second objection, that, if an existing newspaper suffers an accident or is struck by vis major, it may perhaps be stopped from continuing to publish. He gave the example of the Pretoria News, which, perhaps, burns down and, after a month, it is not ready yet to resume publication. But has the hon. member not read Clause 5, which says—

is it not reasonable for the Pretoria News, which is an affiliated company of the Argus Company—all responsible people—to submit their case to the Minister and to say: It is impossible for us to get the press going within a month; do not prohibit us from publishing? Does the hon. member think the Minister will be so unreasonable? [Interjections.] Does the hon. member for Hospital think that if the directors of the Pretoria News and of the Argus Company make representations and say: This is our problem, we cannot continue at the moment, but do not prohibit us, the Minister will be unreasonable? If the hon. member continues along those lines, it is a stupid argument, and then he is busy acting the clown, just like Soapy Williams.

As one who also wrote newspaper articles in my days, and still does so, I feel a little perturbed.

Is your conscience troubling you?

My conscience may have troubled me about what I wrote 20 years ago, but it does not trouble me about what I write nowadays. I wonder whether a measure such as this is really necessary. I do not want to go into the other measures which are already on our Statute Book and that we can use, but I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that there is a Bill pending in connection with publications; that Bill provides for the prohibition of communistic propaganda and communistic literature. I want to ask him whether it will not be possible to achieve the same purpose that he seeks to achieve here by making the necessary provision in that Bill which will possibly be introduced next year.

Will you support it then?

That depends, of course, on how communism is defined there.

I should like to say just a word or two again in connection with the newspaper Contact which is about to be banned. I am convinced, and absolutely convinced of it, that Contact is not a communistic newspaper. Contact is a left-wing liberal newspaper. It is extremely pro-left and in many respects, as far as my ideas are concerned, I strongly dislike it. I have known the editor of Contact, Mr. Patrick Duncan, personally for many years. I am not ashamed to say that he is a personal friend of mine. We were together at university overseas, and we have also met each other since that time. I have often discussed political matters with Mr. Duncan, and if there is one thing of which I am convinced, it is that he is not a communist. It is true that he is Leftist; he does advocate “one man one vote”; he wants absolute equality in South Africa but he is not a communist.

Mr. Speaker, innocent newspapers or contributors to newspapers who may perhaps overstep the mark in a single paragraph may fall under this Act. Here I am thinking, for example, of an article that was written by the editor of a big English-language daily in South Africa, a person who is not a communist, but in that article there appeared a paragraph—I have not had time to check his precise words—which read more or less as follows—

This is a fairly drastic statement; it was written by the editor of a big English-language newspaper a few months ago. I do not think that that individual is a communist; I do not think for a moment that he need fall under this provision, but I mention this just to show how an editor together with his newspaper may get into difficulties because of a single paragraph written by him in ignorance or annoyance.

Finally, I just want to point out that the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) stated that the Ministers’ discretion might be abused. He said that that was possible in every case where discretionary powers were given. I readily admit that, but I want to put it to him whether the discretion which is being given here is not too wide perhaps and whether it is not possible that both the innocent and the guilty will fall under these wide provisions?

I should like to move—

I am unable to move the second part of my amendment because it conflicts with the ruling given by Mr. Speaker as regards the right of appeal. But I think the first part of the amendment is in order. What it suggests is that subsection (3) of Section 8 of the principal Act, which is being amended by this new Clause 6, be omitted and that this new sub-section be inserted in its place. The point I was trying to make is that under the new Clause 6, the Minister in the first portion of the clause may upon good cause being shown, direct that the name of any person appearing on any such list be removed therefrom, that is to say, the list of persons which is in the possession of the liquidator under the principal Act. This is a concession in that up to now it was impossible to remove names from the list once they were actually there. The hon. the Minister is now making it possible to remove the names of persons who have been included on any such list either wrongfully or possibly because the political philosophy of the person concerned has so changed that the Minister himself feels that the person should no longer be listed, or because people are able to show that whereas they might have joined the Communist Party way back in the thirties, over the last 20 years or so they have played no active part in politics and that they no longer adhere to the communist form of political philosophy. To some extent therefore this is an improvement on the existing Act. My amendment wants to go a little further than that and not leave it only to the Minister to initiate the removal of such names. The hon. the Minister may possibly know of some people who have been politically inactive for a long time. It may be possible, however, that there are people whose names are on the list who have not been politically active for a long time and that these names may not come to the Minister’s notice. Therefore the purpose of this amendment is simply to enable such people to appeal to the Minister to remove their names from the list and to give good reasons why they believe their names should no longer be included on such lists. It still leaves the discretionary power in the hands of the Minister to refuse their appeal and since I have now deleted the second part of my amendment, it does not carry the appeal further to the courts of law. I hope that the hon. the Minister will find it possible to accept this amendment, which is really not one of principle at all and which simply makes it possible for people whose names are on the list to apply to the hon. the Minister to remove their name from the list.

It is not necessary to accept the hon. member’s amendment because this clause, as originally printed, provides for precisely what the hon. member advocated with such verbosity. If she looks at this clause she will find that it states very clearly, “The Minister may upon good cause being shown.” Without our saying so, this presupposes that the persons who are affected have the right to show cause why their names should no longer appear on the list. It is not only limited to the person who is affected; it goes further and it also gives that opportunity to a parent or brother or anybody else concerned with the person who is affected; in other words, it gives every individual who is able to throw light on the matter the right to make representations.

Then I am satisfied.

Amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman, withdrawn with the leave of the Committee.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

A great part of the attack of this side on the Bill at the second reading was directed against the excessive powers which we felt the Minister was taking. And as we have stated earlier, instead of the hon. the Minister seeming to be astute to preserve all the rights and safeguards that do normally apply here and in all Western countries, he seems to be going out of his way to take all the powers he could need and more. So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment which stands in my name is designed to circumscribe somewhat the power which he is to have. It is designed to limit it to those cases which may be said to be legitimate. Thus where a person engages in activities which are furthering the objects of Communism, we don’t in fact seek by our amendment to reduce those powers; but where he goes further and he wants to ban attendance at meetings merely because activities may further those objects, we feel that goes distinctly too far, and the amendment is designed to limit those powers. The word which we therefore seek to alter is the word “may” in line 64 on page 5. The word “may” simply means that where there is a mere possibility of furthering Communism, the Minister has the power to ban attendance at meetings, etc. We feel that that goes too far if upon the mere possibility of the furtherance of Communism, such steps can be taken. Many people would say that the activities of the Government Party itself do advance some of the objects of Communism, and it has been said by members opposite that the activities of this side do. Consequently, both therefore, strictly speaking, could fall within this provision. I don’t think the hon. the Minister has advanced any sound reasons why he wishes to extend the powers which he already has here. I say extend, because the present wording of the Act is “whenever in the opinion of the Minister there is reason to believe that the achievement of any of the objects of Communism would be furthered”. That is the wording as it stands and I don’t think the hon. the Minister has come to the House with any difficulties which require these extended powers. So we seek to cut down the powers from a mere possibility, by inserting for the word “may” the words “are calculated to”, that is to say a likelihood. Therefore I move my amendment—

I again only move a portion of the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, in view of the ruling as regards appeals to the courts. I therefore move—

The reason for moving this amendment of course is again to try where possible to limit the definition of “gathering”, which is being amended in this Bill to include a gathering of any nature whatsoever. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson), Section 9 of the Act of 1950, as amended, lays down that the Minister must be of the opinion that there is reason to believe that the achievement of any of the objects of Communism would be furthered if an individual were to attend any gathering … As the law stands, it involves at least a decision on the Minister’s part that such an individual would use the occasion of his attendance of such gathering to further such objects, and I think this power, if it has not been abused already, certainly can be abused, especially having regard to the very wide definition of the word “Communism” in the principal Act. It seems to me that it is well nigh impossible to prove that the Minister would have abused his powers under the Act. So the position is now made even more difficult in so far as the Minister no longer has to decide whether or not the objects of Communism would be furthered by an individual attending a particular gathering. It is sufficient now for the Minister to think that the individual’s activities might further such an object. And even if he is not a communist in any way, he could be banned in terms of this wide power by the Minister if he thinks that the result of his activities may be to further the objects of Communism, quite irrespective of that person’s own intention or objects. The Minister does not have to be satisfied even that his attendance of such a gathering must have such a result. So the whole thing is a widening of the provision, and I want to restrict it as far as possible.

The second part of my amendment which omits the new sub-sections (3) and (4) inserted by paragraph (b) is moved for the same reason, as this again widens the Minister’s powers to prohibit all gatherings, public or private, although the Minister, as I see, has introduced an amendment himself which at least does not enable him, as he could do as the clause stands now to forbid all meetings provided there is a single communist in existence anywhere in the Republic. That is now curbed to some extent by the Minister’s amendment, but it still gives the Minister power to prohibit not only public meetings but all sorts of private gatherings, between any persons for any purpose whatsoever, even without any common purpose if the definition of “gathering” as defined in Clause 1, which is standing over, is going to be allowed to remain. It is impossible almost to conceive of a wider power than this power which the hon. the Minister is taking. Whether or not the Minister is going to use it to its full extent, one does not know, but this again arises out of the law case which, although the State did not lose it because it was settled out of court, and the State paid costs, a case which arose during last year when a ban was placed on all gatherings on the occasion of Republic Day, because the then Minister believed that such gatherings could lead to the furthering of Communism. Of course it was pointed out in the legal discussions that ensued that it was quite impossible for the hon. the Minister to have applied his mind to the meetings in such a way that every single meeting that was going to be held right throughout the Republic could be said to further the aim of Communism. The State paid the costs, and now we have this move to extend the Minister’s powers. My purpose is to omit the sub-sections so that the Minister will not have these wide powers, so that he will have to apply his mind to every single case of a meeting that he wishes to ban and that he may not enjoy the power of the collective banning of persons attending any meetings being held anywhere.

I move as an amendment—

Then I want to say at once, as far as the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) is concerned, that the attitude that he adopted is precisely the attitude that I myself adopted in connection with this clause, and that is why I do not have the slightest objection to accepting the hon. members’ amendment. It was our intention to cover the sort of case that he outlined here.

With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) I am sorry that I cannot accept it, because the immediate effect of it would be to emasculate this whole clause.

That is the idea.

I am glad that the hon. member admits that that is the idea which she had in mind. That idea is not in line, of course, with our view of this matter, and the hon. member will understand therefore that I cannot accept her amendment. What the hon. member said was perfectly correct. If hon. members look at the old clause, they will see that in essence the new clause is precisely the same as the old one, except that here it is being made perfectly clear that there are two types of meetings which the old clause was designed to deal with but which it did not define very clearly. It was this fact that gave rise to the action between the former member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) and the State at the time the state of emergency arose here. We want to eliminate that type of difficulty and it is for that reason that this amendment is being proposed.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

The amendment is moved for these reasons: Clause 7 (b) as it stands (that is to say before we came to the Minister’s amendment) is very wide indeed in the sense that where there may be communistic activities in some part of the country, the Minister would for that reason alone be able to ban gatherings anywhere else, even if they were totally unrelated to those particular activities. The effect of the amendment moved by myself is to relate directly the fear of the furtherance of communistic activities to the meetings which the Minister proposes to ban. I think it is reasonable and fair and that it complies with the basic idea behind the hon. Minister’s introduction of this clause. It enables him to have these banning powers but only when he fears that communistic activities will be forwarded by a particular meeting concerned.

That is exactly what my amendment says.

My quarrel with the hon. Minister’s amendment is that the wording he uses is a little ambiguous. I say this with respect, it is difficult to give those words a precise meaning. It is difficult to say that those words clearly mean what the hon. the Minister intends to convey. I do suggest Sir, that the wording of my amendment more effectively brings about what the Minister intends in his amendment. It seems that what the Minister now desires it to link directly the communistic activities and the possibility of the furtherance of communistic activities with the meetings he seeks to ban. I believe that to be the Minister’s wish. I urge upon the Minister that the best way in which he can do that is to adopt the amendment which I have moved.

The hon. the Minister has told the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) that the object of his amendment is the same as that of the hon. member for Zululand’s amendment. I may say that the amendment which the hon. the Minister has moved certainly makes the clause look a little bit better but it does not remove the basic objection which we have to Clause 7 (b) which is that the hon. the Minister can ban meetings even though those meetings have nothing to do with Communism.

No.

The hon. the Minister says “no”. I want to demonstrate to him how this must be so. His amendment is to remove all the words in line 14 after “he” and to substitute “deems it to be necessary in order to combat the achievement or any of the objects of Communism The hon. the Minister has not indicated that he does not want to use this clause to ban all meetings on the Grand Parade at Cape Town. If the Minister is going to say all public meetings of any nature whatsoever on the Grand Parade are banned in future, then the hon. the Minister is not applying his mind to whether or not the meetings to be held in future will further the aims of Communism or not. Obviously he cannot do so. As the hon. member on my right says, the Salvation Army or any other similar organization will then be deemed to be furthering the aims of Communism. That is the difficulty, Sir. As the hon. the Minister’s amendment is before us at the moment it leaves the clause with exactly the same objection, although as I have said, it is less objectionable than it was before. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Zululand is to insert the word “thereby” so that the hon. the Minister will have to apply his mind to every single meeting which is to take place. He will have to determine whether that meeting will in fact, in his opinion, further one of the aims of Communism. Unless the hon. the Minister has changed his opinion and that he does not want to impose blanket bannings on meetings at certain places—I think he mentioned the Grand Parade at Cape Town and the Johannesburg City Hall steps—there might be some substance in what the Minister says. But if he still intends to do so I urge upon the Minister to consider whether in fact this does not leave him with precisely the same powers as he had before without meeting the objection of the hon. member for Zululand.

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

and to add the following paragraph at the end of the clause:

Mr. Chairman, you will allow me to make a few remarks to elucidate the amendment. If hon. members look at the old section in the original Act they will notice that that is a section whereby persons can be confined to an area and the principle contained in this clause remains the same as that contained in the old section which is now substituted by this, except in so far as it may perhaps go somewhat further, if it could not be read into the old section, namely, that besides confining a person to an area, persons may, in certain given circumstances, be confined to house arrest. We are also adding this that persons may be deprived of the right to receive visitors. I said during my second reading speech that hon. members would remember that when we had the emergency it was necessary for my predecessor—and I wish to repeat that in the circumstances which prevailed and in view of the information at his disposal, my predecessor would definitely have failed in his duty had he not acted the way he did act—to take certain steps. If at all possible, however, I want to avoid detaining people in those circumstances, and if the Committee accepts this clause it would mean that instead of detaining those people in similar circumstances in gaol, they would be confined to their own family circles without being locked up for that period. If that happened the position would also be that those persons would not be deprived of the right to earn their living because the clause provides for it that such persons can continue with their work and the clause is sufficiently wide to apply the restriction to them to after-working hours. That will also indemnify us from any reproach that we are taking these people from their wives and children while the clause is sufficiently wide to provide for house arrest. I have also received representations from the Bar Council as far as this clause is concerned. The attitude of the Bar Council is—and I am anxious to observe it—that nobody should be deprived of the right to get in touch with his attorney or advocate. The amendment which I have moved and which I have discussed with the Bar Council provides that such a person can indeed get in touch with his attorney or advocate provided the attorney or advocate is not himself a communist or subject to any restrictions. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything further about this clause because it has been discussed in detail during the second reading debate. As far as the second part of the amendment is concerned, that, of course is a consequential amendment which will flow from the acceptance of the first part.

I would like to say at once that this clause, with or without the Minister’s amendment, is utterly objectionable so far as the official Opposition is concerned. Sir, the hon. the Minister has referred to an emergency. There may conceivably be a case in an emergency for a provision such as this to be made by way of regulation, but as a part of the ordinary law of the land this clause is utterly objectionable. Let me say at once that the Minister’s amendment improves the clause as printed slightly; it makes access to legal advisers possible. But the objection to this clause is that here, in a time of peace and even at a time when there is no emergency, we are making it possible for a Minister of the Crown to impose what is in effect house-arrest on a person. I would like to read the clause as originally printed, and I say that the principle remains unaltered—

The hon. the Minister has conceded the right of a man to see his legal advisers, but of course that will not help him because he has no right of access to the courts in terms of this provision. The Minister is being given a power which could be abused and a power which in my submission should not stand upon the Statute Book of a democratic country. The provision gives the hon. the Minister the right, as one of the newspapers put it, to impose living death on a citizen without a trial.

Civil death.

Yes, civil death.

This clause in fact does give those powers. The Minister can say that these powers will be reasonably exercised, but that is not the point. It is the duty of this Parliament to see that provisions put on the Statute Book of this country are provisions which cannot be abused. This provision in the form in which it stands gives the Minister rights which in my submission this House should not be prepared to give.

The responsibility for maintaining law and order does not rest with you.

The hon. member says that it is not my responsibility to maintain law and order, but we have a very definite responsibility and it is this: I believe we have a responsibility for law and order, and that is my objection to this clause. Here we are including a provision which is not in accordance with the tenets of law and order as known to me. To me therefore the clause is utterly objectionable and we on this side of the House will vote against it. We are not prepared to be consenting parties to any Minister of the Crown having the right to impose unlimited detention on a person even if there are to be exceptions. We believe that the clause is wrong and I hope that even at this late stage the hon. the Minister will be prepared to withdraw this clause which I believe can only harm this country.

I would like to move—

The hon. the Minister in introducing this clause has told us that the new clause goes perhaps a little further than the existing section. Sir, I consider that to be a masterly understatement of the facts. What does Section 10 of the Act do? It allows the hon. the Minister, when he is satisfied that any person is in any area advocating, advising, etc., Communism or the objects of Communism, to prevent a person from being within any area defined in his notice. That is what the existing section does. This clause goes very much further than that. First of all it not only allows the hon. the Minister to prevent anybody from being in any area so defined; it allows him to prevent anybody from being in any place; that is another extension of the clause. It is a house-arrest clause, as the Minister has pointed out, but it is much more than that. It certainly allows the hon. the Minister to confine somebody to his house, incidentally without any time limit, without the opportunity to offer any defence, without any explanation whatsoever other than the notice that the Minister has tendered to the person.

You are totally wrong.

The person on whom the notice is served has no redress whatsoever.

He is entitled to ask for a reason and the reasons must be furnished.

And once the reasons have been furnished and he objects to those reasons he has no redress whatsoever and, as has been pointed out, being allowed to consult his legal adviser does not help him at all since he can carry no further the advice that his legal adviser may give him, so it does not help at all. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell this Committee whether the Bar Council did not ask him to do anything further as regards this clause. Here he is doing one thing, he is allowing somebody to see his legal adviser, but I am perfectly certain that that was not the only thing the Minister was asked to do by the Bar Council when they saw him. He told us that he would let us know what the Bar Council had asked him to do in this case. This clause goes much further than simply allowing house arrest. It can in fact enable the hon. the Minister to confine any person to any place, be it his home, or be it a gaol, or even be it a concentration camp. By a mere process of exclusion. By not allowing a person to be in any other place, other than the one the hon. the Minister specifies in his notice, he may in fact confine any person to any place for any length of time. Not only may he do this, but the hon. the Minister forgot to tell us the further details of this Clause: He may prevent this person from communicating with any person or receiving any visitor or performing any act so specified—the widest possible wording has been inserted into this clause. For what purpose? The hon. the Minister told us that this is a concession, that during the state of emergency a couple of years ago it was necessary to confine people to gaol, but that now there is this concession, and he can confine people simply to house arrest, which will enable these people to be with their families and even to continue to earn their livelihood. But he does not allow them to communicate with anybody, to receive anybody, to perform any act at all that the hon. the Minister wishes to specify.

Is that not a concession?

What sort of sorry state has South Africa come to when it is considered to be a concession for a Minister of Justice to take unto himself the power to confine people to any place that he so defines …

Communists.

It does not say “communists”. It says “Any person that the Minister considers may …”, and that can be anybody at all. And, Sir, this is considered to be a concession in South Africa that without the declaration of a state of emergency, an hon. Minister of Justice (“of Justice”, mark you) can take unto himself powers as wide as those that were given to a Minister of Justice in a time of emergency, when a state of emergency had actually been declared. This is the saddest reflection on the erosion of democratic principles in this country that I can possibly imagine. I take the strongest possible exception to this clause. It is no concession. The hon. the Minister does not have to try anybody, he does not have to stipulate time limits. People can be restricted to any place the hon. the Minister designates be it home, gaol, concentration camp, any place he prefers to designate. The hon. the Minister has given us the assurance on clause after clause that he does not intend to use these powers widely, and I want to say to the hon. the Minister again, as I have said before, that his assurances are not enough. If he does not intend to use these powers, he should insert the limiting words, in this legislation, and without those words, his assurances are meaningless.

I think that the contents of this clause have been framed with the specific intention that the effect of the clause would be that we would be able to overcome the difficulties and problems which we come up against in dealing with communists. I think we should always bear that in mind when discussing this clause. The mere fact that the Minister has moved this amendment to this clause proves the Minister’s bona fides as far as this clause is concerned. We are dealing with unscrupulous people, Sir, and that is the reason why this clause should be as wide as possible. But the mere fact that although the clause is intended to deal with unscrupulous people and will go on to the Statute Book to deal with unscrupulous people, the door is being left open so that those people who will be affected by this clause will still have the opportunity, in the first place, of remaining at home amongst their own people and, in the second place, of going to their work and maintaining their families, proves the bona fides of the Minister as far as this specific clause is concerned. I admit that the powers which are taken in terms of a clause such as this are wide, but I repeat that seeing that we are dealing with unscrupulous people and organizations which this clause is aimed at, I think the fact that the Minister is still prepared to amend it in this way is sufficient proof of his bona fides and because it proves his bona fides, I do not think we should make it impossible for the Government to overcome the problems which this clause is aimed at overcoming.

The trouble with this clause is that even though one agrees that Communism should be combated in South Africa, one finds that it takes the question of whether a person is a communist or not out of the sphere of fact into the sphere of mere opinion on the part of the Minister. The hon. the Minister need not find that under this clause a man is in fact a communist before he can be punished.

Read the clause.

Look at sub-section (1) (ii); it refers to “any person who is likely to advocate, advise, defend or encourage the achievement of any such object …” There need be no evidence whatsoever that he is a communist, that he advocates communist activities or that he has communistic plans. The Minister must merely in his own opinion think that the man is likely to do it. It means that the facts are no longer of concern to the Minister or the people who are supposed to punish a man. It is merely a question of opinion, of likelihood, of possibilities. It is preposterous and ridiculous that we as a responsible Parliament should be asked to pass legislation which is so wide in affecting the rights and the liberties of the subjects. And again in sub-section (1) (iii), it says “if the Minister is satisfied that a person engages in activities which are furthering or may further the achievement of any such object”, “May further”, in the opinion of the Minister, completely divorced from fact, subject to a limited appeal to the courts on the question of the Minister’s good faith, or whether the hon. the Minister has applied his mind to the subject. But such a right of appeal is of no avail to a person who wrongly falls under this clause; it is impossible to prove mala fides, or that the Minister did not apply his mind to the fact. All it says is that the Minister has to believe that a person “may” do something to further the ends of Communism. I do think that this is going too far. I cannot understand that we are being asked to consider applying such a clause to the subjects of South Africa.

Sir, I believe moreover that this is the type of clause which will necessitate the Government’s coming to this House again and again with amending legislation. I do not see how it can be made effective. First of all we do not want the clause, and then secondly, I think it is our duty to point out that such a clause is useless and meaningless, unless the Minister is willing to put guards on every person to whom this clause is applied. Otherwise it will be completely useless. How is the hon. the Minister going to control from hour to hour and minute to minute with whom a man affected by this clause is communicating, with whom he is associating, what he does every minute of the day, what telephone calls he makes, to whom he speaks at work, or at any other place where he is still permitted to go? It is an impossible clause. Surely the only solution would be that if a man is guilty of a crime, he should be tried and punished according to the law. But because the hon. the Minister is trying to do things administratively which should be done through the courts, by a judicial authority, he lands himself in an impossible situation like this; he is forced to come with a clause in which he seeks to be allowed to punish a man, not on facts, but merely on opinion. I am grateful therefore that I am associated with a party which is fighting this Bill.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) in the first place used the argument that as the clause appeared at the moment it was “useless and meaningless”. If that is the position, I am surprised that the hon. member is happy to be associated with his party which is opposing this clause with all their might. I want to tell the hon. member that this clause is preeminently the clause which is feared by the communists and that may be the reason why this clause is being opposed so seduously, I won’t say by that hon. member, but by some of those hon. members, because it is preeminently the clause which will clip their wings. I can assure the hon. member of that. I now wish to assist the hon. member further out of the darkness. It will not be the first time that this clause will be applied in South Africa, if it is ever applied in South Africa. This clause has already been applied in South Africa. Let me tell the hon. member that it was applied when the war was over for all practical purposes, when fighting had ceased in Europe. It was still being applied here in South Africa at that time. I did not want to do so but because the hon. member pretends that this is something brand new and something which has never been applied in South Africa in the past, I want to tell the hon. member that I myself have had practical experience of the application of this clause.

And you approved of it?

Those are the questions we get from the other side, Sir. The hon. member asks whether I approve of it. I had no option. Let me state this clearly. The Government of the day, for reasons which they deemed to be sufficient, believed that that was a way whereby they could combat undermining activities, as they put it. Those hon. members had no objection at the time to its being put into operation. Not a single member on that side ever objected to it in principle. And if it were not wrong in principle to apply it to people at that time, whether or not you agreed with those people, it is most certainly good and well that this principle should also apply to-day in respect of Communism. If hon. members could say to me that they objected to the principle at that time, I would have appreciated their objection to the principle, but they spoke in favour of it at the time, they approved of it, and consequently with the best will in the world I cannot understand why they oppose it so vehemently to-day because it is aimed at the communists. All that this clause envisages, as is stated in this clause, is, as I have already told hon. members, that in the past there were two ways open to us to take action against these people. In the first place we could prohibit those people from attending meetings and we could confine them to areas. I have already told hon. members, and I wish to repeat it, that I envisage that there will be four stages. In the first place this clause provides that a person may be warned by a magistrate to desist from taking part in any activities which may promote Communism. If he ignores that warning I envisage that that person will be prohibited from attending any meetings so as to render him harmless. Because the whole underlying motive of this clause is to prevent a person to doing any harm, particularly from doing any harm at night, as these people want to do. If in the second place he ignores this injunction and does attend meetings and continues with his undermining activities, it is my intention—and that is the object of this Bill—to confine him to an area. If in spite of that confinement to an area he continues to associate with other communists and to conspire against the safety of the State, I will not hesitate for a moment to apply this clause to him. Because if we are serious in our endeavours to fight Communism, if we are serious when we say that we should not wait until the actions of these people get us into trouble but that we should ward off that trouble, I cannot understand how there can be any objection to these provisions. When we consider what these people say they intend doing with South Africa, what they have conspired to do in the past, and what they have already done, I think we are being very reasonable, considering the circumstances, in treating people in the way in which this clause provides for.

When Ministers take powers which w.e cannot check we, in this House, cannot ever be interested what the “intentions”, good or otherwise, of Ministers are said to be. We have got to take cognisance of what the clause placed before us actually says. We must try and make all our laws clear and unambiguous so that the public and the people outside know and understand what their rights are and can see what the laws intend. Now the hon. the Minister says that we only find this clause to be objectionable because this is the clause the communists most fear; this is the clause that will finally trap communists and therefore we want it deleted. How do we know that this clause will not be used to trap innocent people? It is because it can be so used, and only for that reason, that we oppose it strongly …

Nonsense!

Although the Minister himself may be guiltless of any malicious intention, he could, perhaps by mistake, confine a man to house arrest and impose some or all of the other penalties under this Bill—on an entirely innocent man. It is not often that a member can state his own case by way of example. The Minister made a certain untrue allegation against me. It would be within his power in terms of this clause, because he thought mistakenly and erroneously that I had subscribed to an organization which he said was communist controlled, to decide, without hearing my defence, that I am “likely to further (even although innocently) one of the objects of Communism He could then commit me to perpetual house arrest, and I would have no redress. And do not let the hon. the Minister try to persuade anyone in this House that I could demand detailed reasons for this arbitrary action. The hon. the Minister knows that under Section of the main Act, I can ask for reasons why a notice is served on me. But does he not also know that his reasons can be given in such a vague and general manner that it would be impossible even then to define the crime I am accused of or for me to know what charge I had to meet or what I had done wrong. He could simply say that I supported an organization which he regards as unlawful, and therefore, in terms of the Act am likely to further the cause of Communism. That is all he need do and no court could question it. I certainly could not prevent his sentence or avoid its severity. He could confine me to my house and subject me to all the iniquity of his will, whilst I would not even know what I was alleged to be guilty of. I could not even plead my cause to anyone, unless the Minister graciously accorded me the privilege. I need be given no opportunity to point out that he was entirely mistaken. It is fortuitous that the hon. the Minister now knows how mistaken he was just a short while ago. The hon. the Minister will admit that he thought that I had committed an act which he now finds to be quite untrue. I would never even be given a chance of proving my innocence. That is why I say that this clause is not only objectionable, it is an iniquitous clause. The Minister may have the best intentions in the world, but that does not excuse Parliament giving him the uncontrolled powers for which he asks. No one should possess such vast powers over his fellow citizens in a civilized state. This enormity of what he proposes is almost beyond belief …

Your Government must have been very uncivilized.

The essential difference, which this Minister always dodges is the fact that when our Government passed Emergency Regulations and the War Measures Act it was in a time of war …

After the war.

Some of them were extended, temporarily, after the war. In time of war any Parliament is all to anxious to clothe the Executive, temporarily, with all the power it needs to conduct that war successfully. The second thing the hon. Minister always forgets is that our Act was limited to one year after the war ended. In other words, it was not a permanent part of the legislation, as this Act will be permanent. This clause if passed can only be altered by another Act. If the hon. the Minister had limited his powers to combat Communism to one year; If he had agreed that they should be renewed by this Parliament year by year; then we might have been able to get together and discuss some fair way of achieving that end. This Minister is not entitled to the vast powers he now demands. He must admit that this clause, when it goes in to the Statute Book, is intended to stay there permanently. We find this clause not only thoroughly objectionable, we find it quite iniquitous. No one should have the powers this Minister will have over possibly innocent men who can not prove their innocence. There is nothing the Minister can point to in this Bill which ensures that a man has the opportunity of proving his innocence. If he was kind, I presume he would tell the magistrate to warn the suspected person. He need not do it. If he wanted to he could give reasons, but the Minister need not give reasons in detail. And there is no redress an innocent man can claim as of right. Unless the Minister cares to give him a chance, as an act of grace his victim is powerless. He would not care to give such a chance to certain people. It is all very well to say, as he has said, that he will not proceed against me; that he will not proceed against the Committee for the Defence of Civil Rights. But just let his intended victim be some poor Coloured man who has criticized him or his Government too strongly; let it be some dark skinned man, some African, who is the outspoken opponent and critic of the colour policy of this Government; let it be someone who has little or no influence and who cannot defend himself; in that case this Minister would have no hesitation in committing any troublesome man of that sort to the rigours of house arrest, in confining him closely to his house, cut off from all contacts with outside. The kindly hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché) said that the whole idea was that such a suspect should be able to earn a living and not creep about in the night doing unsavoury things. That of course is only if the hon. Minister graciously consents to let him continue to earn a living. He can confine him to his house; he can forbid him to see any friends; the only person he can see is a lawyer; I do not even know if he can see his doctor; I presume he might have to and face the consequences. The fact remains that he can be prohibited from dealing with anyone, from communicating with anyone; from carrying on his business. If he were an editor of a newspaper, he could not even ring up his colleagues and ask for or give them news. He could not conduct his business, unless the Minister graciously allowed him to do so. I am certain of this, that several people, many people perhaps, know that they will never be affected by the mischief of this clause. But we should not ever pass a law that might unfairly touch the humblest person in this Republic whatever his race or colour. Let us pause before we grant to this Minister these too vast powers. We on this side of the House, have no trust that he will exercise his powers with any moderation …

I wish to point out that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) has now reacted to what the hon. the Minister has said namely that a Bill similar to this one was applied by the previous Government. The hon. member for Wynberg replied to that by saying that there was a war on at the time and that it was only for a year after the war, whereas this Bill would form part of our permanent legislation. I want to point out to the hon. member for Wynberg that in those days when a Bill similar to this Bill was applied by the previous Government for a year after the war, it was applied in respect of a set of circumstances which had ceased to exist a year before. In other words, had the war not come to an end a year before, and had the dangers which accompanies the war still existed, the legislation would probably have been applied for a longer period and not only for a year. We are dealing with a set of circumstances, however, which is permanently with us. After the war the advent of Communism and its accompanying dangers assumed a permanent character and that is why it is necessary to place legislation on the Statute Book which is of a permanent character so as to be able permanently to meet the dangers inherent in communists. That is why, other than in those days, legislation of this nature should contain an element of permanency. In the second place I agree with the hon. member for Wynberg that the Minister does indeed have the power to prohibit a person from communicating with anybody if the Minister wishes to deal with him in terms of this clause but as I have already said the mere fact that we are dealing with unscrupulous people makes it basically essential in the first place, that we have legislation of this nature. The mere fact, however, that the Minister has inserted provisions in this same clause whereby such a person will be able to continue to provide for his family, in spite of the restrictions, shows what the Minister’s intentions are under this clause. It proves that the Minister’s actions are bona fide. The fact that the Minister makes the further concession that when action is taken against a person in terms of this clause, he retains the unrestricted right to get in touch with his legal advisers or legal representative (a provision which was not contained in the legislation of the previous Government), the fact that those people who can prove that the Minister’s actions have been mala fides can do so, the fact that the Minister has made this concession is further proof of the bona fides of the Minister in respect of this clause. That is why I think this clause should remain as it is. We must bear in mind that we are dealing with unscrupulous people and that we are dealing with a Minister and a Government who are doing their utmost to make this clause operate as smoothly as possible.

Do you admit that it will be possible for an innocent person to be drawn into the net of this clause?

I am pleased that the hon. member has asked that question. The hon. member said that had this clause been in operation already, the hon. member himself, for example, would have been unjustly punishable in terms of this clause because of a misunderstanding on the part of the Minister, because as the hon. member said the Minister had wrongly attributed to him the act of making a financial contribution, or something of that nature. But the mere fact that in terms of this clause any person who is charged under this clause retains the right of communicating with his legal advisers is a guarantee against the consequences of a misunderstanding as that referred to by the hon. member. Assume that because of a misunderstanding the hon. member for Wynberg is wrongly charged under this clause and the hon. member for Wynberg should exercise the rights which the Minister is giving him to consult his legal advisers, the position will immediately be put right.

But I will not know why I have been placed in that position.

The legal representatives will have the opportunity of clearing up the matter and of settling things with the Minister and bring it to his notice that he has charged the hon. member for Wynberg under this clause as a result of a misunderstanding. In that way the whole problem will be solved. That is why the dangers do not exist in this clause which hon. members opposite see in it.

The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché) has fallen into the same error as the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister justifies this clause as being an act of mercy on his part. He said that if he did not do this, these persons would be in gaol. Sir, this is a most remarkable statement for the hon. the Minister to make. Since when is the hon. the Minister going to take over the functions of the court, and the Attorney-General, and the prosecutor and the gaoler?

But they are communists.

The hon. members over there don’t seem to appreciate that under this Bill if you are a communist, if you perform acts which are calculated to further the achievement of the objects of Communism, you commit an offence. And for that offence, if it is proved in a court of law as a fact that you have done so, you go to gaol in the court’s discretion and for certain of these offences there is to be a minimum of a year’s imprisonment. What the hon. the Minister is doing here is to do what he says he is doing namely to substitute imprisonment by the court with imprisonment by the Minister; imprisonment by the Minister not on any proved facts at all, not on any basis upon which persons normally go to gaol, or upon which persons are normally penalized. The Minister himself used the term “house arrest”—a case of permanent arrest without ever going to trial. That is what this clause amounts to. When the hon. member for Smithfield tells this Committee that the Minister has shown his bona fides by reason of the fact that he has moved that amendment to the effect that persons under house arrest can see their advocate or attorney who is managing their affairs, it seems to me rather remarkable. Is it only the lawyers who are to get the benefit of this; is it only in respect of the lawyers that such a person is to have any benefit at all? And in any event, Sir, what sort of an advocate is it who “manages” the affairs of the person concerned? Is it only in those cases where the man is a prodigal, or under a court order, or where he has an executor who happens to be an attorney? What about those cases where a man is under an executor who might not be an attorney, or the case of somebody whose firm is under judicial management, or where the man is an insolvent? What about those cases; what is the hon. the Minister going to do about them? Why has the hon. the Minister only dealt with the legal profession? What about the medical profession? If the medical profession had gone to see the hon. the Minister would he have granted a concession in their case as well? In any event, the hon. the Minister’s bona fides as far as I see it here, is not what the hon. member for Smithfield says. According to the newspaper report, what the General Bar Council wanted was that “these people should have the right to make representation and that there should be provision for access to legal advice”. The amendment of the Minister does not meet that, Sir. You do not get legal advice only from those lawyers who are managing your affairs, also managing your affairs in the capacity as executor. But the difference between this and the case cited by the hon. the Minister is that I could not be put in gaol by a court. So the Minister will not be doing me a favour by saying that he is confining me to house arrest. Similarly in the case of thousands and thousands of others. The Minister is not doing them a favour by saying to them that instead of going to gaol they are to suffer house arrest, because he cannot put them in gaol; it could never be proved as a fact that they had committed an offence; it could never be proved as a fact that they had done something which was unlawful; it could never be proved as a fact that they had furthered the objects of Communism. It is only a case, as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has pointed out, of what the Minister thinks. Here is the word in (iii) “may”. As the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) pointed out earlier on this afternoon “may” can mean “if the Minister in his most fanciful moment thinks that he could do something”. Once again, Sir, the word is subject to precisely the same objection that it was subject to then, namely that the hon. the Minister is here taking the power of the prosecutor, of the Judge and of the gaoler without having any regard whatsoever to the ordinary precepts upon which the system of justice of any civilized country are based. The hon. the Minister is taking all this unto himself. He himself is punishing people, in effect, without trial, without representation being allowed and I want to point out that that is one of the matters which the Bar Council raised. Under this clause the Minister can prevent anyone from making any representations to him, he can prevent him from communicating with anybody to communicate with the hon. the Minister on his behalf. That was the attitude of the Bar Council according to what was published in the newspapers. That is all I know about it. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell this Committee exactly what each of the items of this Clause is intended to be used for. I can understand the hon. the Minister expecting those hon. gentlemen in that corner just falling into line, but how can he expect us on this side of the House to give him the power to prevent a person from performing any act? Will the hon. the Minister tell us what sort of acts he has in mind? Under this clause the hon. the Minister can prevent an attorney or an advocate from having clients who are Black. From the remarks which the Minister made which I saw reported in the Press on the occasion of the recent law conference, I wonder whether that is not what the hon. the Minister has in mind when he produces an amendment like this. I think the hon. the Minister owes this Committee at least an explanation as to why he wants these powers and exactly how he is going to put them into effect. This refers to all the clauses, Sir; it refers to Clause 7 where the Minister told us that the object of that was to place a blanket banning on all meetings on the Grand Parade and on all meetings on the steps of the Johannesburg City Hall. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some sort of an idea as to what is involved there. And if the Minister will not do that, Sir, how can he possibly expect to get any support not only from this side of the House but from the people upon whom he will ultimately have to rely to put this clause into effect. As the hon. member for Yeoville pointed out the persons upon whom the Minister is going to rely are the ordinary people. His whole Police Force will be taken up watching all those people who are confined to house arrest. The whole of the telephone department will have to be put on doing the things which they were trying to do to the telephone of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). And if the hon. the Minister cannot justify the case, if he cannot get the public to support this, this clause in any event is going to fail. I hope the hon. the Minister will do this House the courtesy of telling it why he wants these powers.

Mr. Chairman, of all the exaggerations we have had here to-day, the one which we have just had from the hon. member must certainly be the worst. The hon. member sets out from the same standpoint as he did before when he said that the Minister’s decisions border on the capricious. Just let us look at the clause again, and before we go off the rails completely, let us analyse it. The clause deals with two kinds of people: Those who are listed in terms of Section 8. I presume that even the are hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) will say: “I cannot protect those people.” Is that right, or is it wrong? Or, if the Minister puts these listed communists under house arrest, will the hon. member for Germiston (District) still be opposed to it? Will he still be opposed to this clause?

Yes.

Then I can justifiably come to the conclusion that the goodwill of the hon. members for Germiston (District) and Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) and Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) towards these people who are listed communists is just as great as it would have been if they were not listed communists. That is the first point. I should really have mentioned the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) first. Let me tell all four of them, and also the whole of the Opposition, that as far as we are concerned, if someone is a communist he is branded, as I said previously in this debate, with infamia.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Do you believe that because a person’s name appears on such a list he is not entitled to the protection of the courts?

The facts are these, that before anybody’s name is placed on the list, he has had plenty of opportunity to show why he should not be a listed communist. It is considered by an official, not a court, but one who has knowledge of the law. That has already been part of the law of this country since 1950. Surely the hon. member is not against that. Therefore when a man’s name appears on the list of communists it means that the goodwill of society towards such a person is rather moth-eaten. It has shrunk. That means that he must not expect to enjoy the goodwill which other people can enjoy. So that is quite correct, because basically the object of those people is to destroy society, and we can have no goodwill towards people who want to destroy the existing order by unconstitutional means. That is the first point I want to make.

If the hon. member asks me whether I do not think that those people are entitled to justice, I say that that is almost a stupid question, because even a convict is entitled to justice. But when the names of people appear on this list, they still have all the rights they deserve. And those rights—and that is my reply to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman)—are enjoyed by those people in terms of Section 1bis of the principal Act.

Before I come to that, I should just like to deal with the second group of people to whom reference was made, and in so doing I want to reply to the question of the hon. member for Durban (Point). They are the people who, in the opinion of the Minister, e guilty of certain activities which promote Communism. Now hon. members object to the opinion of the Minister, because the hon. member for Durban (Point) says his opinion means nothing to him. I can understand that. He is sitting on that side of the House. He has no responsibility for the maintenance of law and order. He does not believe that the Minister or any one of us on this side will do the correct thing. From his point of view, we are incapable of doing any good and are inclined to do everything that is wrong. That is why he says these things. But even if that is true, there is enough protection for those people under Section 1 his. I will read it to him—

These are now the listed people and the others who in the opinion of the Minister are suspected of certain activities—

Now it is part of our administrative law—the hon. member may shake his head; he may shake it so hard that it falls off, but that still does not change the law of the land. The law of the land is this: Whenever anybody has to exercise his discretion, he must not attain the absurd. The Minister therefore cannot come to a conclusion, as the hon. member for Wyn-berg thinks, which will be absurd.

Why not?

Don’t you want to believe it? I can just read to the hon. member what the Chief Justice said. The clause expressly says that the Minister has the power to put such people under house arrest, and it says, further, that he must provide all the information which influenced him to put that person under house arrest.

Where do you read that?

I have just read it out here. The hon. member for Wynberg should remember the English adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I must prepare the hon. member for the argument. The argument is that the Minister is compelled, in terms of the amendment, and it is the only one, to give the reasons and the facts which brought him to that particular conclusion.

All the facts?

It says here that he must give the reasons and as much information as the Minister considers to be in the interests of public safety. Of course he can refuse to reveal certain things. I do not understand the hon. member for Wynberg. He sits here like a parrot, repeating. Every time we say a thing he will repeat the same cry, as if we are two parrots. The fact simply is that in terms of the section, the Minister must give the reasons and the facts and then, if he has come to an absurd conclusion, the hon. member for Point can have it reviewed. The newspapers will get hold of it and I can assure you that there will be such a row in the country that the sanctions which can be applied to the Minister will be much more severe that if the Minister were to make a court case and lose it. The facts are that in terms of this section, with the provisions of administrative law, with the powers a person has who is affected by the exercise of a discretion, there is sufficient opportunity for him to show that in his case a mistake has been made. That is my reply to the hon. member for Germiston (District). He asked whether those people were entitled to justice. I say they are entitled to it, and they have it. Remember, however, that we are dealing with people who, according to this side of the House, have been besmirched with an infamia. That means that they have not as many elementary rights as somebody else has who has not been besmirched with infamia. Now hon. members opposite may say that as far as they are concerned somebody who is a communist and who is guilty of communist activities is not besmirched with infamia in their opinion. We will never agree on that point. We believe that when somebody has the object of undermining the foundations of the State, he is not entitled to all the elementary rights to which other people are entitled. If we do not do this, the other alternative is to wait until riots ensure. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton: How many murders, how much arson, how many rapes, how many assaults, does she want committed before the Minister can be given the powers he is asking for here? [Time limit.]

I do not want to waste the time of the Committee in replying to the abstract approach of the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) to the law. He assumes that everybody affected by the provisions of this clause can go to court, either by way of review proceedings or by way of getting a mandamus. Had he had a practical approach to the matter, Sir, he would have known that that can happen in only a very few cases because of the financial inability of the person to do so.

I am rather surprised at the approach of the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché Jnr.) in considering the proviso introduced by the hon. the Minister as being a safeguard against injustice, whilst the Minister himself goes no further than simply calling it a concession to the General Bar Council. The mere fact that the person concerned can be visited by his legal adviser is very doubtful help; it is certainly no safeguard. Because he will only hear one side of the case. Had there been provision in this clause whereby he could hear the other side of the case, and not only hear it but test it, the matter would have been vastly different. Merely to have the right of access to your legal adviser really takes the matter no further at all. It only amounts to this that he is getting a certain amount of comfort with little help.

The other strange aspect is that the Minister himself is not only prepared to support but he is also prepared to perpetuate in times of peace, a provision which he opposed in times of war. Because that is in fact how far he takes the position to-day. The Minister knows perfectly well that in times of war one acts cautiously first and with consideration only second. We are not in times of war and that is exactly why we oppose a drastic provision such as this. It is no good the hon. member for Smithfield talking about the bona fides of the Minister. It is not a question of our doubting the bona fides of the Minister or questioning his intentions. The important thing is to have certainty about the terms of the clause itself. That is the safeguard; that is the duty of Parliament to see not only that abuse does not take place, but to see to it that the terms of the clause are such that abuse cannot take place.

[Inaudible.]

You can give discretion to a court. And if the hon. member for Standerton has not dealt with this matter in this abstract way and had he dealt with it in a more practical manner, he would have supported this side of the House when the question arose of allowing the matter to be adjudicated by the Court. But he dealt with it in such an abstract way that he left out the practical side completely.

Earlier in the day I quoted the statement by Edmund Burke that “If I cannot reform with equity I will not reform at all”. I indicated what my view would be of how the change had taken place and this clause gives me the opportunity of indicating that unless the hon. the Minister does agree to the suggestion made from this side of the House to abandon this clause entirely I think we can reduce his attitude to this “If I do not reform with tyranny I cannot reform at all”.

I think that this clause more than anything else has clearly brought to light the real difference which exists between this side of the House and the Opposition on the other side. I think it is a difference which has been evidenced throughout the second reading debate and the discussions on the clauses with which we have dealt so far. As I see the position, this side of the House is prepared to allow this Parliament to vest the executive authority with certain powers; this side of the House adopt the attitude that the Minister is there because he has been nominated to that position by the Prime Minister and that the whole Cabinet is co-responsible with him for his actions. Furthermore, that the Prime Minister is there because he is the leader of the majority party and that he has been chosen by the majority party to govern the country. The Opposition, on the contrary, is not prepared to vest the executive authority with the powers provided for in terms of Clause 8 or with any other powers. I wonder whether the Opposition would have been equally strenuous in their opposition to this clause had they had higher hopes at the polling booths. The Opposition is continuing with their opposition to Clause 8, to vesting the Minister with power, which is nothing more than delegating Parliament’s power to the executive authority, in spite of what they did in 1960 when they were prepared to support the Riotous Assemblies Act. They are also doing this in spite of what they did in 1956 with the Unlawful Organizations Act. I am sorry that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) has walked out. He served on that Select Committee in 1956 and he voted for it that special powers should be given to the Minister in 1956, powers which were not subject to recourse to the courts of law. I admit that that was a consolidating measure. But if you feel so strongly about a principle as the hon. member for Wynberg says he feels about this principle, I want to ask him this specific question: Why did you not protest in 1956 as you are to-day?

Don’t you know the Rules of the House?

There is one member in this House who protested against it in 1956 and that is the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton). He also voted against it. But the hon. member for Wynberg, together with the Opposition, did not do so. I do not want to act in an un-parliamentary manner. As I have said it was a consolidating measure; but I still say that if you feel so strongly on a principle, I think it was the duty of the hon. member for Wynberg also to have voiced the protestations on that occasion which he has voiced to-day.

If you will allow, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about the clause. I wish to say to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) that where he says that this clause will greatly damage South Africa outside I want to differ from him. I want to say this to him that there is nothing which will do more harm to the good name of this country in the world outside—and I expect him to disassociate himself from those things—-than, for example, this protest of Friday …

The hon. member is covering too wide a field; he must confine himself to the clause.

I am referring to the protest at the top of Adderley Street, with the gallows. Mr. Chairman, Clause 8 refers to a provision in the old Act under which the Minister has the power to prohibit a person from being in a certain area. Say, for the sake of argument, that a person has been living in the Cape Peninsula and he is prohibited from being in that area, surely that hits him very hard. I would think so. That is a power which the Minister already has. Clause 8 now confers upon the Minister the further power also to prohibit a person from leaving an area.

Without hanging him from the gallows.

Yes, without hanging him from the gallows. So it is much better for anyone who works in the Cape Peninsula, instead of the Minister ordering him to leave this area where he has his home and his work—in other words that he may not be here—to prohibit him from leaving this area and to confine him to this area. The best place to which you can ban any person, even any member of the Opposition, is to his own home, if it is necessary to ban him. Mr. Chairman, if I contravene the laws of the land, if I commit acts which constitute a danger to this country or to any country in the world, and they place these restrictions upon me and limit me to my home, but they allow me to do my work, to do everything which it is necessary for me to do to maintain myself and my family, I will have no ground for objection. In that case, I as a member of this side of the House, am prepared to vote in favour of it that this supreme body should give to the Minister the powers set out in Clause 8, because I believe that in that case these powers will continue to have a legal basis and that legal basis will be a decision of this Parliament. In spite of what any hon. members may have to say about the rule of law this Parliament is and continues to remain sovereign. That is why I support this clause.

I cannot argue with the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots), because our concepts of democratic parliaments differ, but I want to come back to something which was said by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) since this was a more legalistic argument rather than a philosophical one. He said that the fact that a person who had been confined to his house by the Minister did not have any legal redress did not really matter very much, because this would become public, the Press would get hold of it and public disapproval could do far more than any redress to the courts could do. But the hon. member has forgotten that there are other clauses in this Bill which may make it impossible for any statement to be published. If the statement emanates from the person, I doubt whether any newspaper would dare to publish it, and the hon. member knows perfectly well that the whole object of the later clause which prevents the publication of anything at all to do with actions under this Bill is to achieve this. The Minister himself told us that the house arrest clause would only be the fourth of the four remedies he could apply, the first step being to stop anyone from attending meetings, and the second step he could take was to prevent anybody from being in a certain area, and the third step was …

The first one was a warning by the magistrate.

Yes, and the fourth was house arrest, and that would presumably apply to people who are listed and to people who are restricted in terms of the Act from attending any meetings, and those are the people whose statements or objections are now prevented in terms of Clause 19, So there is no protection at all of public outcry or public disapproval of ministerial action, which I admit in a democratic country is a very strong deterrent to arbitrary action by ministers or government. But in this case I am afraid it would not apply, because the Minister has seen to it that this normal course of the disapproval of the public has been blocked. So the hon. member for Standerton must read his laws a little more carefully before he comes along with arguments like that.

The other thing is that the hon. member for Standerton seems to think there is something specially holy about the list which is compiled. Once a man’s name is on this holy list, no one can object to any steps taken against such people. But the Minister himself has admitted that he now needs to alter the law to enable him to take people’s names off the list.

People can make representations.

But they could do that all along.

No, they could not.

Well, they could ask for the reasons for their names being put on the list and they were given a reasonable opportunity, and if they had not objected by that time their rights to object fell away and thereafter the list was frozen. If that was not so the Minister would not need to come to the House with amending legislation to make it possible for him to remove those names from the list, which he now believes should not be included in the list. So therefore, the list can often have mistakes on it and it is because the Minister realizes it that he does this.

There are no mistakes on it.

The Minister says he wants to take the names off because people have repented. So the existing list is not a holy thing which cannot be touched, because the Minister himself realizes that it should be touched.

Now, I want to come to the core of this matter. On whose representations are people’s names put on the list in the first place? The Minister does not just dream up these names in his bath. He acts on information. Where does it come from? Presumably from the Special Branch.

And from the records of the communist party.

That must be a very old list indeed. The Minister knows that the records of the communist party must be out of date, otherwise he would not want to remove names from the list, because people whose names were put on the list many years ago are no longer communists. But let us bring it up to modern times. The Minister acts on information given to him by the Special Branch. That is his main source of information, and the point I am trying to make is that this information is not reliable by any means. The reason why I say that is that in many cases where the Minister has taken arbitrary powers and detained people, and banned people and listed people, acting on the information of the Special Branch, this information has been found to be completely groundless. Let me give a few examples. How many people were charged after the emergency ended? Not a single person was charged with anything, although hundreds were detained. Those people could have been charged with activities calculated to advance Communism, but no charges were laid against them in all this time. Then there is the treason trial, where again charges were laid, acting on the information of the Special Branch detectives, who took down verbatim reports at meetings, rather inaccurately. The verbatim reports they took of what I said at meetings must have been very garbled indeed. It is not only communist meetings that are being attended these days by the very energetic members of the Special Branch. But the point is that it is on the information given by the Special Branch that the Minister acts, and I say this information is often completely unreliable. It is no good saying that the Minister gives reasons for listing or banning people.

Order! The question of listing people is not under discussion now. This clause refers to people who are already on the list.

They are on the list, but they should not be there, because the information which led to their being put on the list was inaccurate.

Order! The hon. member must assume that the names of people on the list were put there correctly.

On a point of order, this clause affects people who are on the list and surely the hon. member is entitled to point out that there may be innocent people on the list.

No. Hon. members must assume that people whose names appear on the list are there legitimately. The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Then I will not continue along those lines, although I must point out that it does not only apply to people who are on the list, but to anyone the Minister wishes to act against, and again he has to act against people about whom he has information. Presumably the Minister has to act on somebody’s information, so I come back to the same point, that it is on information supplied by the Special Branch which is by no means reliable. The Minister made the point that these steps were introduced during the war, and that he was reluctant even to mention it. Sir, I dislike any sort of arbitrary action where people do not have recourse to the courts, just as I dislike racialism of any kind. Therefore I cannot say that one approves of everything that was done during the war, but I say that there was far more justification for taking those arbitrary steps then than there is now. [Interjections.] There were thousands of young South Africans dying up north, and on the information that was being given to the enemy by the subversive actions of persons in this country thousands more South Africans lost their lives. [Interjections.] Ships were sunk at sea, and therefore there was far greater justification for such action during the war than action taken now against a handful of communists when the country is at peace, as the Minister has himself admitted. I want to tell the hon. member for Standerton that I do not want murders, or arson, or explosions. He asked how many I wanted to take place. [Time limit.]

When my time expired just now, I was dealing with the point the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), who has just resumed her seat, was dealing with. She herself mentioned the four possibilities there are, or the four steps of dealing with communists. That is the one alternative. The other alternative is to put them in gaol or to intern them after the acts of violence, after the things have happened which the Minister wishes to prevent. Why then are we making this law?

That is what I wish to know.

It is to prevent sabotage, violence, arson, because those people want to shake the State to its foundations and to change the political order by acts of violence. We do not want to give those people the opportunity to do so, and that is why the Minister is taking these powers. The other alternative is to do what the United Party has always done. That is just to let matters develop until the worst happens one day, and then you take measures to imprison people. Subsequently you come to Parliament and pass an Indemnity Act. That side of the House passed Indemnity Acts. [Interjections.] In 1914 the old S.A. Party, the predecessor of the present United Party and the old Unionist Party that amalgamated with the S.A. Party, had an Indemnity Act after the strike in 1922. Had they had a Sabotage Act things probably would not have developed that far. They had indemnity Acts after the wars of 1914-18 and 1939-45. Do hon. members want us to do that? If that is so, why don’t they say so. If they think they are giving South Africa a good testimonial overseas by doing so, why do they not say so? When we had the riots we had here in 1953, 1960 and 1961, when hon. members helped to pass the General Law Amendment Act, and the special Act Criminal Procedure Act—if we had to wait for that, it simply means waiting for the trouble we would rather not have. Do not think that Sharpeville and Langa and the riots at East London broke out sporadically merely. It was engineered and we do not want that kind of thing to happen again, for what happens? When such riots occur, there is servile reporting that advertises us overseas in a greatly exaggerated manner. And why? The Minister of Information will still discover it, if he has not done so already. The whole thing is calculated to achieve only this: Because we are the country in the whole of Africa where the greatest peace prevails, where we do not have murder and arson every day, and because there have always been a number of prophets who have been predicting that in South Africa there would be an eruption, that we are sowing dragon’s teeth here that will result in us reaping a harvest of violence; and to realize those prophecies a revolution is stirred up. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that the propaganda made against us must be realized if they cannot achieve anything else. That is the aim, and the people who caused Sharpeville and Langa said: Thank the Lord for all the riots and now our prophecies have been realized. This clause giving the Minister power to detain people in their homes with their wives and children—is it such a crime to place a man under home arrest so that he can always be with his wife and children?

It depends.

The object of this clause is to prevent that which the hon. member for Houghton mentions as the only other alternative. It brings me to a further argument of hers.

The hon. member for Houghton definitely has not studied the gravamen of Section 1 bis of

Section 10 of the principal Act. It provides that the Minister must furnish reasons as to why he deals with somebody under Section 10; it has nothing to do with the question of why he is included in the list. The Minister also has to furnish so much of the facts as he deems politically expedient, having regard to the security of the country. The hon. member says it will mean nothing, for there are other clauses in this Bill that prohibits the newspapers from issuing that very statement. May I draw attention to the fact that it is a statement of the Minister that is given to such a person—I am referring to Clause 10 of the Bill, sub-section (g). She said that the statement of the Minister mentioning the reasons why he is placing a person under domestic detention, means nothing, for it will not have the required influence upon the public. Now that clause refers to a statement or any extract from or recording or reproduction of a statement or a speech made anywhere at any time by a person who has been prohibited under Sections 5 and 9 from attending any gathering. It is not that person who is making the statement, it is the Minister. All that happens is that a newspaper who feels like publishing this statement, will say that the Minister has furnished these reasons why he has restricted Mr. X to his home. Then the ordinary review of public opinion will come into operation, which is much more effective and a much greater brake upon a person with a discretion than a court case. If the Minister gives reason from which one cannot infer that the person—I am now referring to the second category—makes himself guilty of communistic activities, then we have a position under which—according to the positive law of this country, the administrative law—the Minister has arrived at a conclusion which on the facts is absurd. Then the Opposition would have an argument that is absolutely conclusive. [Interjection.] I should prefer not to be a complainant in any court proceedings in which I complain that my house has been broken into. I should much prefer to live in a world where there is no crime. But I shall never be a party to an action, as the hon. member for Houghton is, to give people the opportunity to upset the whole country. [Interjections.] The Minister has already said that he will permit the legal representatives to have access to that person. If those legal representatives are worth their salt, they will say: These are the reasons the Minister has given. The hon. member for Houghton need not be afraid that those things will not appear in the newspapers.

That brings me to my last point, namely that reference is made here to only the legal advisers of such an innocent victim who will have access to him. That is in terms of the Minister’s amendment. In the Section as originally conceived, it is expressly stated that the Minister in his notice may say who shall be allowed and who not; and I think it is quite unreasonable to expect that the Minister will not permit the parson and the doctor. [Interjections.] There is a restriction on which parsons and which doctors. They must not be communists. The Minister may make exceptions. But does the hon. member want the Minister to give a long list of persons who will be permitted, in the Act? [Time limit.]

It seems quite clear that we are not going to convince the Minister or his supporters. The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze), in debating this clause, rather appeared to be under a misapprehension. He seemed to think that the clause applied only to persons who had been listed.

No, I made the point that there are two categories.

Then I will not press it further, except to say that the hon. member will agree with me that on the correct interpretation of this clause it is still a matter in which the Minister must be satisfied that the person concerned engages in activities which are furthering or may further the achievement of any such object; and of course the persons concerned have no legal right to be legally represented. There is no court before which there is the right of cross-examination. As a lawyer the hon. member will agree that laws of that sort are laws under which grave injustices can be done, even by persons who believe that they are acting on correct information. The history of legal cases shows how often the prosecutors may be utterly wrong in the views they hold. We have the classical case of the treason trial, where the Crown indicted a very large number of persons but they were found not to have committed the offences with which they were charged. The case which we have put up against this clause is perfectly simple and clear. It is that we believe that in fighting Communism, you must to the greatest possible extent leave decisions which affect the rights and the freedoms of people in the hands of the court and not the Executive.

Order! That point cannot be discussed. The principle has already been accepted.

Then I will not carry it further, but I would like to quote how different the approach is in the case of the greatest democracy in the world, the U.S.A. I quote what Pres. Truman said on 24 April 1950 when he said this—

Do you suggest that we are trying to do that?

I do not suggest it; I say it is common cause that the Minister is taking powers in this clause which, not being subject to the rule of law, are unquestionably of totalitarian character.

Order! The hon. member is circumventing my ruling.

I was not attempting to circumvent your ruling, but I apologize. I was making the point that the very thing which the U.S.A. was not prepared to do was to take powers of this character, which their own President described as powers of a totalitarian character.

Mr. Chairman. I find myself in some difficulty in trying to fathom such a complicated Bill as this, and being a simple-minded fellow …

We know that. [Interjections.]

… I want to invite the assistance of the hon. member for Standerton, who no doubt will be able to help me out of my difficulty. We are dealing with the amendment of Section 10 of the principal Act, which gives the Minister the power to ban to certain areas anybody who advocates, advises, defends or encourages Communism, or anyone who does things which are calculated to further the achievement or are likely to further the achievement of Communism—who actively does it, or a person who does things which are calculated to do it, or a person who does things which are likely to do it. Now a simple-minded person approaching this would think that those categories would cover all categories of people who are in any way likely to advance the cause of Communism. That is how it stands in the Act. We find in this amendment an additional category, those who may further the achievement of Communism. A child of 15 would know that the addition of that category widens the scope of the people who can be banned very considerably, to an almost unlimited extent. That is common cause. I will issue a friendly invitation to the hon. member for Standerton to give us a simple example of why the existing powers have proved to be inadequate in combating Communism, why the powers to ban those who actively defended or encouraged it, those who do things which are calculated to encourage it, and those who do things which are merely likely to encourage it—I should like to be told why those powers have been proved to be inadequate and why this additional power is taken. This is a simple question and the hon. member, being in the Minister’s confidence, will no doubt be able to give us a clear and simple reply.

My second difficulty is that in this clause two categories of persons are dealt with. The one is persons who advocate Communism, persons who are likely to advocate it, or persons who may advocate Communism. Those persons the Minister can ban or put under house arrest. Now, one would think that that list at least includes every conceivable person remotely connected with Communism. It is difficult to think of anyone who cannot fall under that blanket—actively does it, is likely to do it, or may do it. But the prohibition does not end there. Having covered every conceivable category of communists, that is not enough. The Minister requires also to be able to ban those who are “listed”, but if those who are listed are only the communists or the fellow travellers, the Minister already has power to ban them under the category I have just mentioned. Why has it been found that those powers are inadequate, and why is it necessary in addition to be able to ban people who are merely on the list? Or are we to understand that this is mere superfluity of language, that the Minister is saying the same thing twice? He is getting at the listed persons, the communists and the fellowtravellers who are on the lists and he provides a second category in the same clause, designed to get at exactly the same group of people. Sir, to do that would be to advocate an absurdity, and the hon. member for Standerton says that that is not done. I agree with him that it is not done. We have these two categories obviously for a reason. If the second category is wide enough to cover everybody remotely connected with Communism, only one inference can be drawn and that is that in putting in listed persons in addition, it is desired to use these powers against persons other than communists. Those are the two difficulties which stem from the very wording of this amendment clause. Hon. members opposite have overlooked giving this Committee the benefit of an explanation. It can, of course, defeat my argument entirely if the hon. member for Standerton, for example, were to rise when I sit down and give us two simple examples, (1) proving why the existing powers under the Act were not wide enough and why it was necessary to bring in the words “those who may further the objects of Communism,” and secondly to explain by reference to a specific example why it is necessary to deal with both categories of persons in this legislation—those who are listed and those who are in any way remotely connected with Communism.

Then one comes to the other new factor introduced in this particular clause which does not appear in the existing Section 10, and that is the question of preventing a person from absenting himself from a certain place. At an earlier stage in these proceedings I venture to pose the question to the hon. the Minister how this was to be implemented and he said that one would find out in the course of this debate. Perhaps he might consider it an appropriate time, seeing that we are dealing with Clause 8, to give this Committee some indication as to how this is going to be put into effect. Is there to be a policeman outside the house of every person who is prohibited from having visitors?

Order! The hon. member is repeating the same argument.

Sir, I will merely put the bald question without elaborating it at all. Will the hon. the Minister be so good as to indicate to this Committee how it is proposed practically to put into effect the last four lines of sub-section (1) of Clause 8, that is to say, how is the house arrest to be implemented? No doubt as soon as I have sat down the hon. member for Standerton will leap to his feet to answer the earlier two questions which I have directed to him in a friendly spirit.

So many questions have been put to me, firstly by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) who asked where I would get my information from. It is obvious that I shall get my information from the police and other judicial officers. If the hon. member’s party, in the days when they were in power, had obtained their information from the police only, I would have been very thankful, but in those days the information came from the Knights of the Truth Legion and not from the police.

Eavesdroppers.

Judging from what hon. members have said, the communists are the most harmless lot of people there have ever been in South Africa. That is the only conclusion one can come to while listening to this debate. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) asked me how I am going to give effect to these provisions. Surely it is very clear that if the conditions set forth in that notice are contravened, a punishment will follow, and it will be a question of evidence in the courts whether or not those conditions have been complied with. If that evidence is lacking, the person cannot be convicted: and if the evidence is there that he failed to observe the conditions, from the very nature of things he will be punished for such contravention. I do not know what value the hon. member now really attaches to the question. It is obvious that those will be the consequences that will flow from a contravention of the conditions. If for instance a person has been prohibited in terms of this section from being at a certain place, and there is evidence before the Court that in spite of that prohibition he was at that place, the Court will convict him, and if the person has been ordered to remain in his home for instance from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m., and there is evidence that at 12 o’clock midnight he was in El off Street when he was not permitted to be there, surely it is obvious that a punishment will be imposed by the courts, provided the requisite evidence is brought. If in the case of such a person I were to say that such a person may not receive at his home any listed person, and I produce evidence that Mr. Sam Kahn or whosoever it may be visited him that night, it is obvious that a punishment will follow.

Where do you get the evidence?

Where does one normally get the evidence you bring before a court? You get it from witnesses. How will you be able to bring it before the court otherwise if you do not possess it? If only hon. members will bear in mind that this section does not stand by itself alone, but that legal proceedings will flow from it subsequently if the conditions are not observed, they will appreciate the position.

This clause enables the Minister to publish any prohibition placed upon anyone in the Gazette instead of serving it upon him personally. I must say that this is the first time I have ever seen a provision, a permanent part of our law, whereby a man can be prohibited from doing something, where disobedience will result in his being imprisoned for one year without the option of a fine, by notice of such prohibition being given in the Gazette. I think when one has regard to this clause, one must also have regard to the provisions of paragraph (a) of Clause 10 (1) because the proposed (d)quat says that anyone who fails to comply with a notice addressed and delivered or tendered to him in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 10 quat, will be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a minimum sentence of a year’s imprisonment. I think it is in this clause, read together with Section 10, that one sees the enormity of the powers which are granted in Section 10bis in Clause 9, because were it not for the fact that disobedience of a prohibition published in the Gazette, which a person might not see, was visited with a compulsory sentence of one year, then this might not look quite so bad. But the fact of the matter is that although (d)quat says that if he fails to comply with a notice tendered and delivered to him personally he commits an offence, for which he must go to gaol for one year, it is quite clear that any notice which has been published in the Gazette is deemed to be a notice served on the person. The amendment which is in my name on the Order Paper is to try to some extent to ameliorate the effect of this clause, and it is to ensure that the Minister cannot put a notice in the Gazette unless not only unsuccessful attempts have been made but also that reasonable attempts have been made to serve personally on the person concerned. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that in all cases where substituted service is allowed by publication—not only in our law but in many other countries of the world—provision is first made for the proper exhaustion of the normal methods of service; in other words, in matters relating to personal status, for instance, no court will order the publication of an Order of Court or an order for the restitution of conjugal right in a newspaper or in the Gazette until the court itself is satisfied that reasonable attempts have been made to serve the papers on the person concerned. I therefore move the amendment which stands in my name—

The effect of this will be that the Minister would then be able to serve in the Gazette provided he was satisfied that the attempts that were made were not just unsuccessful but that they were also reasonable. I think this is a very reasonable request and I hope the hon. the Minister will accede to it. I would like to point out that this does not go as far as the Bar Council apparently wants the hon. the Minister to go. The Bar Council wants the Minister to say (so it would seem from what they have published in the newspapers) that this service in the Gazette should not be made unless the person was wilfully evading service.

That could never be proved.

Yes, we appreciate that that difficulty would arise, and therefore we have moved the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

It is quite correct, as the hon. member has said, that the Bar Council wanted me to say that I should be satisfied that there has been a deliberate evasion of service of the notice. Of course, it is impossible for any person or any Minister to be satisfied of the deliberateness of the acts of somebody else; accordingly I cannot insert it in that manner. But I have said in my second reading speech and subsequently also, that as far as I am concerned, I do not want to catch people unawares, and because the hon. member’s amendment is quite reasonable, I have not the slightest hesitation in accepting it. On the contrary I am going still further, and in spite of the fact that the hon. member’s amendment is being accepted by me, I am also moving the amendment appearing in my name and of which I have given notice. The position now is that before this section can come into operation, the Minister has to be certain that reasonable but fruitless attempts have been made to find the person, and in spite of that a notice should also be sent to his last address. The case I have in mind here is that of Mandela. I need not go into that matter; hon. members all know that it was simply impossible to have any order served upon him. Then there are other persons too whose names are not in question now because there are court proceedings pending. For those reasons I move this amendment and I am prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment. I move therefore—

In view of what the hon. the Minister has just said, and the amendment he has accepted and the amendment he himself has proposed, I shall not press my amendment.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

This Clause 10 now brings into being contraventions of the law which are only committed by certain special people and not by the community at large. Anybody for instance can commit the offence of theft, but this crime under this Bill can only be committed by two groups of people, the people who appear on the list, people who are on the list of organizations which have been declared unlawful by the State President, or people whom the Minister may notify in terms of Clause 8 that he is of the opinion that they advocate Communism or that they are likely to advocate it or that they may engage in activities supporting the objects of Communism. Now the objection we have to this clause as it stands, is that people may innocently be committing offences. You may have people whose names appear on lists, and the Minister may have prohibited certain people from doing certain acts, and may in terms of Clause 8 prohibit further persons from doing certain acts, and at the moment these people may not know that it is an offence for them not to notify a change of address. At the moment although they are prohibited from going to certain areas, although they may be prohibited from doing certain things, they are at liberty to change their address provided they don’t go to areas prohibited by the Minister, and they will not commit an offence in that case. But now the law is being changed and if the Minister’s amendment is accepted, they will commit an offence, I say unwittingly. A lot of these people will not know of the change in the law, and if the Minister accepts our amendment it will simply mean this that he will have to serve a notice of the requirement of the law in writing on these people. I therefore move the following amendment—

I would like to point out to the hon. the Minister that if any person unwittingly commits this statutory offence, he lays himself open to very serious punishment. He can be sent to gaol for up to ten years. It is a very serious punishment. When an earlier clause, I think it was Clause 4 was discussed, we also asked the hon. the Minister to serve notice on persons personally. He stated that he did not know all the addresses. Now I submit that if the hon. the Minister or his Department are not aware of the addresses of some of the people who have been named already, it surely is an indication that they are not giving him any trouble at the moment. Their names may be on the list, they may have abandoned the idea of taking an active part in communistic activities, they may have repented, and on the other hand some of them may have been placed on the list innocently, but I submit that if they were causing any trouble to the State, the Minister’s police would certainly know where they are and they would be able to serve this notice on them personally, and if the hon. the Minister in future has occasion to prohibit any person in terms of Clause 8 from doing anything, he will at that time be able to serve a notice on them in terms of my amendment. I ask the hon. the Minister therefore to accept it.

Would you regard the promulgation of this Act in the Gazette as notification to these people?

Sir, I know that promulgation of a law in the Gazette is notice to the whole world of the law, but I submit that in this case these people have already been dealt with; they have already been named communists: their names already appear on lists; a lot of them may not even know that their names are still on the list, and I submit that it will be no inconvenience to the hon. the Minister to serve notice as proposed here, on them. If the hon. the Minister does not know where they are now, then surely they are not causing any trouble. If he knows that they are troublesome and he cannot find them, he could possibly proceed under Clause 9, but I ask him to tell me now if it is not possible for him to accept my amendment.

I move the amendments standing in my name—

The first amendment that I move here is in order to try also to reduce the penalties under this clause as far as people having to give their names and addresses every time they change their address, are concerned, and also to furnish names and addresses to any officer forthwith. I think that this clause is far too wide, and at the very most it should be limited to those persons, not who are on the list, but against whom steps are actually taken under Clause 10, that is persons who are confined to a certain area. I don’t think the hon. the Minister should try and extend this provision to everybody who has been on the list, compelling him to furnish any change of address every time he moves, or changes his employment, and what is more to furnish his name and address to any officer forthwith. I think this amounts to unnecessary persecution. The purpose of my first amendment therefore is to try and limit the application of the new Clause 10.

I am also moving to omit the whole of paragraph (e), and this of course is the subsection dealing with the question of recording, reproducing, etc., by mechanical or other means, or to disseminate any speech or statement or any extract from or recording or reproduction of statement of anybody who is prohibited under either Section 5 or Section 9 from attending any gathering. I think this is an absurdly wide provision. The hon. the Minister is prepared to amend this to some extent, but by no means has he reduced the damage done by the inclusion of this new sub-section in the Act. It places people under the most onerous difficulties. People will have all the time to check up in order to make sure that they are not reproducing any speech of anybody who has been banned from attending gatherings, or who has been listed under the principal Act. It can really come to the most absurd situation, where for instance if it happens, that a listed person who holds a position at the university as lecturer is delivering a lecture to his students; those students run the risk under the law as it stands of being prosecuted for taking down a statement by a person who is listed (as actually happens to be the case) and thereafter reproducing in any form whatever, be it in the form of lecture notes or examination replies, the statements made by such a lecturer. They run the risk of being penalized under this clause. And what is more there is a minimum penalty of imprisonment of one year.

Do you now really think that would happen?

I don’t know whether it is going to happen or not. We have had this over and over again in the course of this debate. The point is that there are no limiting words in this legislation. I think this is far too wide. It means that anybody who is on the list, anybody who is under ministerial disapproval in terms of the Anti-Communist Act, which is a very far-reaching Act, and whose definitions are very wide indeed, can be prevented from having any statement or speech recorded or reproduced at any time. The hon. member for Mossel Bay may not know it, but I know for a fact that there is at least one person who holds a lecturership at one of our universities and who is a listed person. Any of his students attending those lectures, run the risk if he takes down his lectures and if they are reproduced at any time, or if he quotes the lecturer at any time, of being subject to punishment under this clause. Now the hon. the Minister has, I think, been told by the Bar Council that this would apply for instance to any member of the Bar, and there is at least one person that I know of who is a member of the Johannesburg Bar and who is listed. This would equally apply to such a person if the Minister had not decided on representations from the Bar Council to introduce an amendment which will exclude such persons from the purview of this clause. Therefore I think he ought to go further and exclude these other persons. But of course as far as I am concerned, the whole clause is too wide and that is why I ask that this entire sub-section should be deleted.

I now come to the other part of the clause which I want to be omitted and that is all the words after “(d)quat” in line 72 to the end of paragraph (g). This is the minimum penalty part of the clause. I don’t think there should be a minimum penalty at all. It should be left to the discretion of the courts to impose what sentence they think fit on anybody who is found guilty of breaking the law in this regard.

Finally, I want to omit “thirty days” and to substitute “six months” in line 5 on page 11, in order at least to give people time to clear the decks, so to speak. I don’t believe 30 days is long enough for anybody to get rid of any of the documents which the hon. the Minister does not wish them to have in their possession.

Before I reply to the two hon. members who have just spoken, I should like to move the following amendment—

The first amendment of course is clear. It relates not only to persons who become members of an organization, but also to persons who are members of an organization, as it is amended now. I need say nothing further about the fact that “utterance” or “writing” are also inserted now, and the other amendments are consequential. Then we come to the amendment that provides that this clause shall not apply for the purposes of any proceedings in a court of law. Unfortunately a difference of opinion has arisen about the matter. There are people who adopt the attitude that you may not mention the court here because it is obvious that it is not applicable to a court of law. There are others again who think you should say it is not applicable to a court of law, for otherwise it may be construed in that way; that is why we are providing in this clause that it is not applicable to a court of law, without me thinking that it is necessary, but in order to put it absolutely clearly.

As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) I do not think it is unreasonable to require all these people whose names appear on the list, to furnish us with their addresses. Nor do I think it is unreasonable to require people who have been served with notices already, to furnish their addresses. In fact, we require all aliens to furnish us with their changes of addresses, and if I or the hon. member were to go to a foreign country, the people there will expect exactly the same thing from us, even if we were to live there for 20 years or longer. Now I put it to the hon. member whether it is unreasonable now to require a person who has committed acts of Communism to such an extent that his name has been listed as an active member of the communist party and who has had every opportunity to say why his name should not be listed, to furnish us with his change of address? Either he has not availed himself of the opportunity to say why his name should not be on the list, or he has not succeeded timeously in providing that his name should not be there. Is that unreasonable?

I am merely asking that he should receive notice.

I am coming to the point. Is it unreasonable to as some that they will know of the amendment of the law? No law has ever received so much publicity as this very one has, every clause of it. If the hon. member could tell me now that these people will not know that this prohibition will be effective, then I shall admit that there may be something in his argument, but after all the dust that has been raised about this Bill, there is nobody who can say that he is not aware of these provisions. Nevertheless, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that it is not our intention, and I have said so repeatedly, to in just or to prejudice those people who have become harmless. Our attitude has been throughout that we wish to get at these people who are still active and who from day to day, while you and I are sitting here, are engaged in activities to undermine the State, and to render them harmless. But I cannot concede that the onus should now be placed upon the Minister that he should first notify these people. They will be the very persons who are fleeing all over, who have departed from the country, who may at the moment be in Basutoland or Swaziland, and whom I shall not be able to reach.

As regards those, you can notify them under Clause 9.

Yes, but then I have to serve a second notice in respect of each one of these persons, and my contention is that the communists are the very ones who know exactly what is going on, and which we shall have difficulty in reaching, and I honestly do not think that we should go so far out of our way to show so much consideration for those people under those circumstances. If we do not do so in respect of aliens we bring here to become citizens of South Africa, and do not show the consideration to them, and if we impose a duty upon them to make known to us their changes of address, the question arises why should we do it in respect of the communists? If it were a small group, I would have agreed readily, as I have done in other cases, but here we are dealing with the people who were placed on the list in 1950. Every one of them knows that he has been listed, for after they were listed they were notified by registered post, each one individually, that they had been listed. I regret that in the circumstances I am unable to accept the amendment.

As regards the amendments of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) I agree with her that her amendments are not aimed at helping us to make the Act clear, but to weaken it, and unfortunately I cannot cooperate with the hon. member to make this Act weaker.

Will you not consider making it applicable only to people who fall under Section 10 of the principal Act? In other words, people who are confined to a particular area?

It has been explained to the hon. member that the time has arrived for us to be fully informed as to where the communists are in South Africa, and that is why I have to have the addresses of those people.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

This clause, Sir, amends Section 11 of the principal Act 44 of 1950 and also Section 8 of Act 15 of 1954. It amends the offences and penalties sections of those Acts, provides new, and cruelly increased penalties and creates new crimes. When one realizes that it sets these vastly increased penalties for crimes which may have been unknowingly or inadvertently committed, one realizes why we are against this whole clause itself. We intend to move amendments to certain parts of the clause which to our mind go altogether too far. But we want it understood that we are opposed to the whole clause even if amended. We will vote against it, in vain I know, because we are oppressed by the dictatorship of a minority party which uses the trappings of Parliament as a cloak to carry out their despotic intentions …

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to say that.

May I say that they are dictators?

The hon. member should withdraw those words.

Then say that I think they are arbitrary rulers. I have said that quite frequently in this Parliament. If my amendment is accepted, it means at least this that it will limit the wide powers of the Minister to some extent. It will not curb them as firmly as I would like to see them curbed, but my amendment will limit the Minister’s arbitrary discretion as far as we on this side of the House are able to do. It will slightly decrease his otherwise intolerably arbitrary powers. At least, Sir, he will have to relate the new crime he is creating in this sub-clause to a person who is in fact setting out to further the aims and objects of Communism, as the clause now will read:

And there the Minister has added his amendment “utterance or writing”—

It seems to me that it is necessary to try and restrict the Minister’s powers in this regard. A person who has been prohibited from attending a gathering or who has been banished, cannot be quoted by way of speech read out, or recording played. He cannot be quoted anywhere at any time without the consent of the Minister. I am not sure whether it would not be true to say that I could not quote extracts from the sayings or speeches of banned or prohibited person in Parliament, without asking the Minister’s permission. As the clause stands, without any amendment, an offence can be innocently or ignorantly committed. It could be committed even by a person who sets out to combat Communism. If such a person quotes the words of, or an extract from the statement or writings or made a recording of a statement by a person she is listed or who has fallen into the disgrace of the Minister, with the express intention of proving that the communistically inclined author was a danger to the State, technically he would find himself guilty of an offence. Mr. Chairman, the Minister knows that he can ban a gathering even if it has nothing to do with Communism. He can ban it if he deems it to do expedient for the maintenance of public peace. He can deem me to be “likely to further the various objects of Communism”. Now he can put a notice to this effect in the Gazette which I do not read (because I don’t expect to be thought guilty of those offences) and then I might well find myself liable to grievous penalties. Punishments could be visited upon me for a crime which I might inadvertently or unknowingly have committed. Indeed, as the Minister knows, it very nearly happened in my case. And if then, not knowing of this notice, I refuse to give my name to a police officer, or change my address without notification, I would come within the maw of the Minister. This whole clause imposes penalties which have been made very savage indeed. Remember that these over-severe sentences could be imposed upon somebody who had committed a minor crime, a very unimportant misdemeanour. I submit it is always dangerous to take away discretion from the Judiciary. The imposition of compulsory sentence, I think, is a very wrong principle. It should never be lightly done. The sentences here vary from one to ten years, and they should apply only to the most serious crimes, the crime of treason, wholesale murder, diabolical damage, or real sabotage caused by the use of explosives. In these cases where we take discretion away from the courts of law, this Parliament should always be as nearly as possible unanimous in its opinion. Even then it should be done only on a temporary basis. I believe that wherever we grant these vast ministerial powers, and wherever we take the discretion away from the Judiciary to temper justice with mercy, we should force the Government to come periodically to this Parliament for renewal of the laws. We should be able to reconsider whether changed circumstances have not altered the need to continue such severe sentences. We should force the Government to come back and renew the powers, which this side anyway, all too unwillingly gives it, to carry out their intentions. I feel that we should not leave savage and sadistic sentences on our Statute Book in perpetuity, and that is one of my main objections against this Bill. I am sure the hon. the Minister will admit that many of the old laws of England under which a man could be hanged for killing a sheep or firing a rick, would not have remained on the Statute Book if there had been some means whereby those sentences could be aligned with the new circumstances; in other words, if Parliament had been forced to renew them periodically. Parliament should be compelled to reconsider its verdict in the calmer light of later circumstances.

I want to ask this of the hon. the Minister: Did he consult the Judiciary at all before deciding on these compulsory sentences? Did he have any discussions say with the Chief Justice or with the Appellate Division in relation to the necessity of these serious penalties?

No.

I regret very much that he did not. I believe he would have been given good and sound advice from those gentlemen in their superior positions of trust, responsibility and knowledge. It is a reflection on the judiciary that the Minister does not now trust them with the discretion of limiting the severity of sentences according to special circumstances. We must remember, Sir, that teenagers, children, can be found guilty of these offences. We must remember, also, that the changed onus of proof often makes it difficult to prove innocence. I believe that the hon. the Minister should have considered this matter more seriously and I think he should have consulted with not only the Bar Council but with the Judges of our country whose names stand very high … [Time limit.]

Having expressed my regret for not being able to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), I do not wish to express my regret to the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell), for I believe that, judging from the language he used, he did not propose the amendment in an attempt to improve the Bill or to show his co-operation, but he merely moved the amendment to deliver himself of the words he in fact used. Therefore he will forgive me if I do not even give further consideration to the amendment he has proposed here. As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, having already said that I cannot now accept his amendment, I shall however consider later on, in view of the number of people covered, whether anything can be done in that connection—as I have said, having regard to the volume of work that will be involved. If I can do so, I shall consider such amendment in the Other Place. I cannot make a firm promise, but I am prepared to consider that aspect of the matter having regard to the considerations I have mentioned.

As regards the amendments of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) there is one at least I can accept, and that is the one to the effect that people may be found in possession of the articles within six months instead of 30 days.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether old copies of e.g. the New Age will also fall under this prohibition?

The hon. member is quite right; the prohibition will apply to all such articles. Special provision will be made for places such as libraries and other bodies that may be in possession of such articles and writings. The exceptions that are made under other existing laws, will be capable of being made in this case also.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether his amendment is an agreed measure with the Bar Council. Because the Minister has indicated that as a result of the interviews which he has had he would introduce certain amendments to Clause 10. If this is an agreed amendment then I will not have so much objection to it. However, I wish to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to this that the amendment which he has moved presupposes that the hon. the Minister will not debar an attorney or a barrister who is on the list from practising his profession. Because that is what the amendment indicates. It indicates that they shall not report or print anything except for the purposes of any proceedings in any court of law. So they can report that?

It does not affect their practices at all.

That is the point. The Minister permits these people to practise and that anything which they say in a court of law can be reported. I presume that that is the purport of his amendment. Now I want the hon. the Minister to go a little bit further. These people can also appear before a Liquor Licensing Court; they can also appear before the Group Areas Board. In other words, the Minister is agreeable to everything they say in a court of law being reported. I am not trying to be destructive, as the Minister will see. I think the Minister should say anything they say in their professional capacity can be reported, because they do not only appear in courts of law, they appear elsewhere as well. I think the hon. the Minister should consider that point and not only allow the Press to report what is said by them in a court of law but what they say elsewhere in their professional capacity. There are reporters who feel that because Mr. A is listed and they are entitled to report what he says in a court of law they are also entitled to report what he says in any other legal proceedings such as the Liquor Licensing Board and the Group Areas Board to which I have already referred. That was the only point in this regard which I wanted to make. I think the Minister should say anything which he says in his professional capacity, can be reported.

The Minister also knows that there are certain banned persons who are permitted by the Government nevertheless to serve on certain public bodies such as City Councils and Town Councils or Divisional Councils and other councils. It is intended that any speech made by that person in the City Council on which he is permitted to serve notwithstanding his banning, cannot be reported. I will tell the Minister why I am asking this because I have reason to believe that there are one or two people in that position who are anxious to know whether their speeches can be reported. Because it amounts to this that a man is allowed to serve on a public body but his constituents are not able to read what he says on their behalf in any debate. I do believe that the Minister will be the first to admit that members of Parliament, City Councillors and everybody else in a similar position, when they make a speech regarding matters affecting their constituency which they would like their constituents to know through the Press, should not be debarred from having their speeches reported in the Press thus keeping away from their constituents anything which they may in the interests of their constituents. I should like the Minister to let me know whether he will consider making an exception also in the case of those people I have mentioned.

Sir, I think the hon. the Minister has indicated to the Committee that he has not really given serious consideration to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). I hope the Minister will desist from this attitude of his of personal animosity towards the hon. member for Wynberg and consider the amendment which he has moved. Because the amendment which the hon. member for Wynberg has moved to this clause will in effect give effect to what the hon. the Minister says is the intention of this clause. Surely the intention of paragraph (e) is to prevent persons from reproducing the speeches of communists for the purpose of disseminating or furthering the objects of Communism. I hope the Minister can unequivocally says “Yes, of course that is the object of it”. It must be; that is the only objective it can have. Therefore. Sir, if the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg is accepted the position will be that this clause will then be directly related to what the Minister says it is intended to be related to, namely to prevent anyone from disseminating or reproducing the speech of any banned person for the purpose of, or in circumstances calculated to further the aims and objects of Communism or of an unlawful organization. If the hon. the Minister does not accept this amendment then the Minister is putting the lie to what he said at the beginning. In other words, he is contradicting himself. Because this clause by itself, with the amendment which the hon. member for Wynberg has moved, will then be quite unobjectionable, because it will then prevent people from quoting from communists to further the aims of Communism. If the hon. the Minister would accept that amendment that part of the clause would become unobjectionable. As it stands now it means that no one will ever be able to fight Communism by quoting the communists. We in the United Party will not be able to fight the Progressive Party by quoting Luthuli.

SUZMAN: Too bad!

It looks as though the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) supports this aspect of the clause because one can do the greatest amount of damage to the Progressive Party by quoting Luthuli. Surely the hon. the Minister appreciates this fact that you can fight the communists best by quoting them, especially in South Africa. I am reminded that one can fight the Nationalists best by quoting from them. I want to inform the hon. the Minister that although we are going to support one part of his amendment, namely that the minimum of three years becomes one year, that does not mean that we support a minimum sentence of one year. We would rather have a minimum of one year than a minimum of three years, quite true.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) moved an amendment and I am glad that the hon. the Minister is going to give that some thought. It is not a question of the Act being Gazetted. Sir, it is a question of a particular prohibition. The prohibition does not necessarily apply to everybody who is listed. It may apply only to a few as the hon. the Minister has said, only to those whom he thinks are active participants not to those who are no more active participants. There is no way for those people to know whether or not they are regarded by the hon. the Minister as being active participants. There is no way at all for them to know. That is why we believe that this amendment is necessary. Because disobedience of the clause carries with it a minimum penalty. One of the circumstances to which a court must have regard is the circumstances in which the crime was committed, i.e. the moral guilt of the accused. And one of those circumstances is whether or not he has, or ought to have had, knowledge of the offence which was committed. One must remember that every one of the offences which are listed here can be committed unknowingly. All the offences in sub-paragraph (a) can be committed unknowingly. And for a breach of one of the conditions contained in the prohibition there is to be a minimum penalty of one year. That is the enormity of it, Sir.

I want to revert to the merits of the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). I am glad the Minister has told him what he did tell him. I do not think he deserves to be dealt with on merit. But because the hon. member for Durban North (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has urged that we should give the matter some thought, I should like to reply to him. The reason why these provisions are made under sub-section (g) bis of Clause 10—that is the one to which the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg relates—is very simple. When a communist is listed, or when he is prohibited from attending a gathering, it is intended that he should not make propaganda for the cause he himself as a communist wishes to further. When we place him under restraint, as in the case of Luthuli, that he should remain at a certain place and not hold meetings, he immediately gets a great forum thereby. When he opens his mouth there is an obliging Press to disseminate it inside and outside South Africa. It might have been a mistake to restrict him not to hold meetings and to be at only one place. Had we not done so, nobody would have known about Luthuli. But because we restricted Luthuli to a certain place he obtained a forum. But it was a good thing to confine him to one place, for he could not go from place to place to continue his work to the prejudice of the State. If now we were to amend this clause as the hon. member for Wynberg proposes, that you only prohibit the publication when it furthers Communism, if I understood him correctly, for he says that is all that can be prohibited—then you will e.g. have an article such as that which Walter Sisulu had in the New Age. As we know, he was the Secretary of the A.N.C. He also is one of those who may not make these speeches. He is one of the people who describe the aims of the African National Congress as “a liberation movement”—something we do not subscribe to, and which I am sure the hon. member for Durban (North) does not subscribe to, namely that the A.N.C. aims at being “a liberation movement”, as if those people are being oppressed. Now an interview is published which Mr. Carneson or Mr. Bunting probably had with him. The first question was this—

The object of this man is to abuse the trade unions to further the communistic tendencies and the unlawful objects of the A.N.C. So I could go through the whole interview. Under not one of the provisos of the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg will we be able to compel Walter Sisulu, or the New Age or any other newspaper for that matter, not to publish this.

But now take Luthuli. Even the hon. member for Houghton does not endorse the slogan of “one man, one vote”. The hon. member for Durban (North) does not either, nor the

United Party. They propose a qualified franchise for their new race federation.

The hon. member is now going too far away from the clause.

Must I not go too far? Mr. Chairman, I put it this way, that when Luthuli makes propaganda for the A.N.C., he has a slogan that is not endorsed by a single person in this Parliament, and when we give him an opportunity to make a Press statement in the New Age or any other paper, we provide him with a forum which is much bigger than he would otherwise have had. When the Transkei undergoes a new reform, he is one of the great saboteurs of that plan, and he as against that, proposes a system that is not endorsed by anybody in this country who takes the development of the Bantu seriously. That you find in the New Age of 1 February. He has a lengthy statement in that regard. It is such a stinking statement that I do not even want to quote it; but he concludes by saying this—

And what does he want? He says—

I do not mind any person propagating any system, but then it must not be of such a nature that he wants to achieve his reforms outside Parliament, as Walter Sisulu as well as Luthuli wish to do, in spite of the so-called peacefulness he claims, and in spite of the fact that he is considered to be a person who is very peace-loving and who does not want violence. If we were to accept that draft of the hon. member for Wynberg, it will mean that this prohibition we now wish to introduce, will be absolutely useless. For every time you will have to prove that it furthers Communism. But that is not the only manner in which a person propagates his point of view. You can add all kinds of things to it that promote the principal object without mentioning the principal object. It causes an impossible burden of proof. That is why I am grateful the hon. the Minister rejects it. I am surprised that it has been seriously proposed—that it has been proposed by that hon. member does not surprise me—but it does surprise me that it is being supported by the hon. member for Durban (North).

I have difficulty in following the argument of the hon. member who has just sat down in relation to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). I hope the hon. the Minister will reconsider his attitude to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg because it seems to me to be complying entirely with his own views and also with the views expressed by the hon. member for Stan-derton (Dr. Coertze). The clause as it stands is so wide virtually as to bring that provision into disrepute because it amounts to an absurdity. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg proposes to limit the amplitude of that clause but to make it sufficiently wide to catch people who publish the speeches for the purpose of furthering the aims of Communism or that of an unlawful organization. If the Minister is afraid that it may not be possible in a given set of circumstances to prove that particular object it goes further and brings within its ambit also in circumstances calculated to further the aims and objects of Communism or those of an unlawful organization. So even if the act is done in circumstances where the State cannot prove that particular purpose if, objectively regarded, it is likely to further the aims of Communism or the aims of an unlawful organization, it is still sufficiently wide for that publication to be caught within its net. The very examples which the hon. member for Standerton has quoted will be caught by the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg. They are good examples of how this amendment, which we seek to have adopted, could be put into effect and would be practically effective. It would be practically effective, Sir, to use this clause as amended to deal with the very examples which the hon. member for Standerton has quoted to us. Not only has it got that advantage but it has this additional advantage that it will get rid of the absurdity which exists at the present time whereby a perfectly innocent bookseller or publisher having in his possession and selling, quite unwittingly, speeches furthering the aims of Communism, can be caught in the net. And one must bear in mind that these are speeches made at any time and anywhere.

Even with his amendment that would not be covered.

Yes, it would.

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with speeches made by these people anywhere and at any time. So a speech made 20 years ago could be the foundation of an offence under this clause as it stands. A bookseller, for example, could be put in an impossible situation if this clause were to be implemented literally. The hon. the Minister will no doubt get up and is any it is not his intention to embarrass people who sell books. I accept that, Sir, but then why have a piece of legislation which, at first sight, looks absurdly wide, although the Minister has no intention of implementing it in that manner, when by means of a very short amendment that absurdity can be done away with? The decision in this regard does not rest solely in the hands of the hon. the Minister. If any misguided or malicious person were to bring to the notice of the Public Prosecutor an offence perpetrated in terms of this clause he would be obliged to prosecute unless the Attorney General or the Minister himself stepped in. Now that Sir, is undesirable; it creates work, apart from anything else, if every one of these cases has to be scrutinized by a high official in his Department or by the Minister himself. These difficulties can be done away with if the Minister brings in an amendment such as moved by the hon. member for Wynberg. I would ask the hon. the Minister to consider this amendment on its merits and to exclude other consideration which may have influenced his attitude at an earlier stage.

In reply to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) and the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) I should like to say why I am unable to accept this amendment. I am unable to accept the amendment because the hon. member for Wynberg wishes to destroy the very thing I want to provide here, and that is that I wish to deprive the communists of a forum for making propaganda and the hon. member of Wynberg wishes to keep open that very forum for them with his amendment. I want to deprive the communists of a means of propaganda, and the hon. member for Wynberg wants to present them with the very thing. That is the difference.

No.

I shall tell the hon. members for Zululand and Durban (North) why I think that is what the hon. member for Wynberg intends. If I were to permit this amendment, it means that, whereas it is the object of this clause in so far as it wishes to sever the contact of these people with their erstwhile supporters, with other communists, now I have to leave the door wide open if I were to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg. Instead of a total prohibition upon the propaganda of these persons, as the clause seeks to do, I have to judge in every case, from day to day, whether those persons are observing the prohibition or not; and in that way a forum will be created for those people every day, because I have to cross swords with them every day to see whether they are contravening this clause or not. That is exactly what those people want. It is the very thing they want for then they continually remain under the limelight and they receive publicity; they are constantly involved in a dispute with the authorities as a result of the amendment of the member for Wynberg; which I would then have accepted. No, I am very determined that as a result of these reasons, and for the reasons presented by the hon. member for Standerton, I do not intend accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg.

It is quite clear from what he has said that personal antagonism and animosity has ruled the hon. the Minister to a great extent in rejecting my amendment. He has said so quite plainly. No matter how strongly he feels against me as a person, he, as a Minister who has been entrusted with vast powers by this Parliament, (against my will, I admit) should restrain himself from exercising personal judgment as capriciously as he has done. For the Minister to isay that an amendment, which has been put forward by an opposition member, will not be accepted because he does not like the face of the person who has introduced it, or because that member has said certain harsh things while introducing it (things that have wounded his vanity), prove to me, and to the House, and to the country that this Minister should not be trusted with these vast delegated powers. I ask the Minister not to think of personalities. However strongly he may feel about me, he should examine this amendment on its merits. The case of a bookseller selling novels has been mentioned. There are various booksellers in this ceountry who do not only deal in novels but sell all kinds of overseas periodicals which stream into this country every week. Must these booksellers and agents peruse them to see whether in some obscure corner of a periodical or a newspaper there is not some statement from someone who has fallen foul of this Minister’s opinions? Must they scrutinize all publications to find if any quotation in any article comes from a source that is doubtful, from a person who has been named or banned or who belongs to a subversive organization in South Africa? How will they set about doing it unless the Minister agrees to insert some amendment like this into the clause to guard them? I object to the use of the term “in the Minister’s opinion”, but the Minister knows that he could, if necessary insert “which in the Minister’s opinion would have the purpose of furthering the aims and objects of Communism or of an unlawful organization”. The Minister may complain about his administrative difficulties, but he has to think of the administrative difficulties of thousands of firms in this country, who have to try to keep within the law, but who may innocently fall foul of it because they have no opportunity for checking up what appears in the publications they sell. I say he has every right to reject my amendment on merit, but if he rejects it for personal reasons, he lays himself open to the charge made by the hon. member for Zululand, namely, is he really setting out in this Bill only to combat Communism? Or is he trying to throttle everyone who opposes this Government? His powers are vast, and he indicates that he is not fit to use those powers in an unbiassed way. Here he rejects an amendment just because the hon. member for Wynberg, with whom he quarrels privately and publicly, introduces it. [Interjection.] I hear the Minister of Information interjecting once again. He claims to be an English-speaking representative in the Cabinet. He does not represent us. He represents Nationalists. May I say that he is quite improperly dressed for his political role. He should have his

coat turned round the other way while he sits in this House representing English-speaking people … [Interjection.] I am seldom more personal than I am justified in being …

On a point of order, may an hon. member say that a Minister is a turncoat?

Did the hon. member use those words?

Yes, I say he is a “turncoat” by which I mean that he has turned his coat round. He has changed his party twice, he has changed his policy and his ideals and his principles and everything …

Will the hon. member withdraw the word “turncoat

Yes, and I will substitute the other, longer phrase I used. He has changed his party and his political principles and does not speak here as the representative of English-speaking voters …

I do not think the Committee should take that hon. member seriously. We realize that the hon. member, when he talks like this, does not talk with the object of convincing anyone, but because he wants to get the ear of the Press. That is all that interests him.

On what clause are you now?

I am speaking to this clause. I know hon. members opposite are very sensitive. I want to point out that this hon. member has always made a fetish of the powers and discretions of Ministers. It has been a bee in his bonnet. I want to point out that the hon. member in 1945 took a similar line with regard to legislation, when General Smuts was Prime Minister. On 20 March 1945, the hon. member referred to the judicial and quasi-judicial powers of Ministers and said—

What I am trying to point out is that although the hon. member is trying to make out that this terrible Minister is now taking powers unto himself, and that this Nazi Government has these powers, he said the same to General Smuts. The hon. member even seconded an amendment moved by Mr. Molteno in regard to judicial powers, and what did General Smuts say about these terrible powers? He said—

Which incidentally was seconded by that hon. member for Wynberg—

Come back to the clause.

I am trying to point out that these are powers which Ministers have taken all these years since the beginning of Union, and may I point out that General Smuts refused to accept the inclusion of judicial powers for the Select Committee.

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

The clause means that the Minister’s consent must be obtained for the reproduction of these records, and the hon. member in his amendment wants to circumscribe the Minister in certain directions. He wants to limit the powers of the Minister to make it impossible for the Minister to act under this clause. We know the game, and we know that hon. member.

I do not intend following the Minister of Information. We are really talking about a penal provision here and he is arguing the interesting question of delegated powers. I do not think that is before the House at the moment. I would like the Minister to think carefully of the implications of this clause if he does not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg. I think the Minister is making a fundamental mistake in think that all communists are just political creatures, and that all they do is to propagate Communism and the overthrow of the Government. The Minister knows very well that there are many highly intelligent people amongst the communists. That always amazes me, just as it amazes me to see intelligent people amongst the members of the Government. But the fact is that man is not only a political creature. Many of these communists are also outstanding scientists and lecturers at universities. The Minister is not distinguishing between the political utterances of these people which have the object of propagating Communism, and those utterances of theirs in their other capacities, as scientists, etc. People will be guilty if they quote eminent scientists who happen to be listed communists. Just think of the tremendous burden which will be placed on newspaper editors, whenever they get any article, even if it has nothing to do with politics, because they will have to check and make sure that even if it was a scientific article it was not written by a communist. I do not know whether that is the Minister’s intention, but if it is, he is coming very near to saying that there is apartheid between mathematics and communist mathematics. Surely the whole purpose of this amendment is to prohibit only those utterances of a communist that he makes in his political capacity. In any event, the Minister will apparently not accept even this moderate amendment. I understand from the Minister and the hon. member for Standerton that they say it is so difficult to decide whether a particular writing is for the purposes of advancing Communism. That surprises me, because the Minister has again and again assured us that the whole purpose of this Bill is to deal with Communism and sabotage. Surely if that is so, it is easy for him to decide whether a particular writing furthers Communism. In any event, what is the point of putting a complete blanket on utterances and writings of all listed communists, even outside the sphere of politics, unless the Minister comes later with further amending legislation. The writings of a man like Mr. Khrushchev would be able to be quoted freely here because he is not listed, yet Luthuli is prohibited. Even non-political writings of Luthuli will not be able to be published. The result is that the non-political writings of communists here cannot be published, but the political writings of overseas communists could be freely published here. I think the Minister should reconsider the matter, when he will realize the absurdities this will lead to. He will have to come back sooner or later with amending legislation. In view of the fact that the Minister has said repeatedly that there is no need to fear that this Bill will injure anyone except a communist, I cannot understand why he and the hon. member for Standerton are now so afraid to decide when a person is aiming at furthering Communism, because surely if the Minister has no fear that this legislation will touch the innocent, he should not find it so difficult to identify the guilty. His argument is that a heavy administrative burden will be thrown on his shoulders every time to decide whether a writing is reproduced for the purpose of furthering Communism, but as against that he must realize that if this amendment is not accepted, a far greater burden will be thrown on the shoulders of every editor and publisher and distributor of publications. The Minister must surely weigh up the convenience of the public against his own private convenience.

The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) probably fits in very well with the scheme of the Opposition, so that they may now contend that they proposed that only publications that aim at promoting Communism should be prohibited, and that the Government was not prepared to accept such an amendment. The suggestion has been made several times that the Minister will abuse his powers and that he will also curb the activities of people who are not communists. That is why this amendment suits the book of the Opposition. But what they conveniently lose sight of is that we are not dealing only with Communism as a doctrine, as the doctrine of Marx, but also as a method, and then that is something for which many other organizations and individuals can be used to further Communism. In addition to the examples that have been quoted here to illustrate how absurd—to use that word also—the provisions of that clause would be, I should like to mention to the hon. member who has just spoken another example, that of Mandela, who is a listed communist and who was charged in the high treason trial, and who was one of the people who last year organized the All-in African Conference in Maritzburg, which was praised by the hon. member for Wynberg in such glowing terms, Mandela, who then issued a statement through the medium of the Press to call a strike for 31 May and thereafter, while the police were looking for him, and who almost daily had a statement in the Daily Mail which he is alleged to have given to the newspaper from a public telephone. I just want to read it, from the statement Mandela originally issued on 13 May 1961 and which appeared in the Caps Times—

Now I ask the hon. member, if he were to construe this statement, would he say it is a statement intended to further Communism?

This invitation by Mandela was published in the Cape Times and what is more, it was issued under the name of Sapa. Sapa spread Mandela’s invitation to a strike, and this newspaper published it and I challenge the hon. member for Jeppes to tell me whether he would regard the publishing of that invitation as a promotion of Communism in terms of the amendment that has been proposed by the hon. member for Wynberg? We all know that the conference convened at Maritzburg by Mandela …

Is the implication that one can never say when a statement is communistic and when not?

The hon. member cannot get out of it so easily. It was he who said it was easy to determine that. Now I am asking him, as a lawyer, whether he will say that it is a communistic statement? That is the point. Everybody knows that that All-in African Conference that was convened was inspired and organized by the communists. Their plan was to ask the Government to convene a national multi-racial convention, which the Government would refuse, and then they would organize a strike to compel the Government to convene a convention. The plan was devised in the classic communist pattern. The hon. member for Wynberg lauded it. He said it was a peaceful request, and why did the Government not consent? Now I say that when something is so closely related to a communistic agitation, it is not necessary to go and determine from the person who published it, whether he had communistic intentions. It is senseless to go and look for it there. You have to look for it in the person who wants to further Communism by making use of the means of publication. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Wynberg proposed his amendment for the very reason that has just been mentioned by the hon. member for Innesdale, namely that the Minister in this clause is tying the hands of persons who are opposed to Communism. I want to appeal to the Minister earnestly because I am convinced that if the clause as it stands goes on the Statute Book, it will not serve the purpose the Minister has in mind, but the exact opposite purpose. I am sure the Minister will agree that the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg certainly does not have the meaning given to it by the hon. member for Innesdale. The statement of Mandela, which the hon. member quoted, quite clearly could be used by me, not to further the aims of Communism, but for the opposite purpose of opposing it. The hon. member said that Mandela had said that now is the time to strike. Obviously if one criticizes that, one does not do it for the purpose set out in this amendment. I am sure the Minister realizes this after this discussion, and I appeal to him to consider carefully during the recess the meaning of this clause, because it is clear that as it stands, this provision is unsound, because it provides that without the consent of the Minister such statements cannot be reproduced or recorded.

Those statements of those persons can be used in two ways. They can be used for the purpose of furthering their aims. On many occasions they are the most effective quotations you can make in order to contest the very things those people stand for. The statements of Luthuli were mentioned, which were used in the election against the Progressive Party. I am sure the Minister realizes that if this clause goes through it will have a tremendous effect in preventing the use of material which can be used for the purpose of combating Communism, in the sense that that term is used in this country.

If the Minister does not feel that the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg is a suitable one, I ask him to consider amending this clause in some form, so that he does not prohibit persons from having the right to make use of statements of communists for the purpose of combating Communism. The effect of the Minister’s amendment is quite clear. It is to prevent the spread of communist propaganda. In most circumstances I would not object to that, but I do object when in effect it limits freedom of speech in respect of using these statements to preserve the democratic system. I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to this clause, because I am sure that on further consideration he must come to the conclusion that the clause needs amendment. I am not interested in the form of the amendment. I personally believe that the form of the hon. member for Wynberg’s amendment is suitable, but if the Minister objects to the form of that amendment, I hope he can find some other way of amending it to deal with the objections we have raised.

For the second time now the United Party has used as an example the use of Luthuli’s speech against the Progressive Party. I must say I had hoped when I heard the hon. member for Wynberg moving his amendment, that he and the party he represents were concerned with preserving the freedom of speech. It now appears from the speech just made by the hon. member for Germiston (District), and the one made earlier by the hon. member for Durban (North), that the main concern of the United Party in trying to get this clause amended is to enable them to go around the country attacking the Progressive Party, and I must say I am thoroughly shocked at this. If the hon. members are fighting for freedom of speech, I think they should stick to general principles and not make laughing stocks of themselves in the eyes of the public by giving such absurd examples.

I want to make one other point, and that is that in this clause the penalty is provided for people guilty of an offence under Sec. 11, which has to be read with Sec. 3 (1) (a) of the Suppression of Communism Act. I want to ask the Minister whether this is another reason for introducing this change, because the minute he loses a case in court he comes to this House to amend the law. Last year a person called Calata was found quilty of an offence under that section because he had a photograph of himself amongst A.N.C. officials hanging on the wall of his house, and under Section 3 no person is allowed to carry or display anything whatsoever indicating that he is or was at any time an office-bearer of any unlawful organization. When that case came to court he was found guilty and given a suspended sentence, but it was an absurd case, anyway, because it was years since this man had anything to do with the A.N.C., judging by the reports of the case. The evidence was that he had had nothing to do with the A.N.C. since the time it was initially established, when it was not a banned organization and when many persons belonged to it without any political slur being cast on them. But after the passing of this Bill there will be a compulsory sentence of one year’s imprisonment for this offence, and I bring this to the Minister’s notice to show to what absurd lengths he is going.

Then there is another question I want to ask the Minister. Has this amendment he is introducing now anything to do with the recent judgment of Mr. Justice Trollip in the Supreme Court in Pretoria in the case of the 12 persons who were charged under the Suppression of Communism Act?

Nothing whatever.

I am very glad to hear that. The point is, of course, that now that the law is being changed, such people will not have a chance in the courts.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister has offered to reconsider my amendment and that he will possibly amend the Bill in the Other Place. In reply the Minister stated that he would go into the question and see how many people were involved. I submit that the mere fact that the Minister is going to consider how many people are involved, is proof of the justification of my amendment that people who are involved should be warned of the consequences of this Bill. The Minister also said that he did not intend to get at all the people on the list but that he wanted to get at the active communists and the people who are really constituting a threat to the security of the State. I am convinced that the Minister must have the names and the addresses of all the people who are a threat to the security of the State. He himself has said that he only wanted to get at those persons.

I cannot insofar as they have changed their addresses.

If he does not know the addresses of the active people he wants to get at, I submit he can act in terms of Clause 9 which was passed earlier in the afternoon. If he does not know their addresses and if he is satisfied that reasonable attempts have been made to serve notices on them, he can advertise in the Gazette warning those persons. I submit that this is one of the notices which he can publish in the Gazette. So if he wants to get at an active communist and he knows the address then he can serve the notice in terms of my amendment. If he does not know the address of that person, he can publish the notice in the Gazette in terms of Clause 9.

The Bill will be advertised in the Gazette …

Sir, with due respect I am not talking to the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze); I am addressing my remarks to the hon. the Minister. The remarks which I am making are in consequence of the speech made by the Minister this afternoon. I am asking the Minister now to consider that point. I should like the Minister to accept this amendment because an offence is only committed by a person who has received notice from the Minister that this clause will apply to him. I repeat that the Minister knows who the active communists are; he knows who the people are he wants to get at and if he does not know their addresses, then he can proceed in terms of Clause 9, which has already been accepted. I ask the Minister, therefore, to-night in this Committee to accept that amendment which I have moved. I very much regret that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell).

I am not prepared to accept it.

Not even if I ask somebody else to move it? [Interjections.]

I do not know why the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has come into the debate now. He has not taken part in this debate, and I think it is quite out of order for him to tell an hon. member to “shut up”.

It is typical of him.

Had he taken part in the debate we could expect interjections from him.

Order! Did the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs say “shut up”?

No, Sir.

I am sorry you did. Sir, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not say “shut up” to me, he said “shut up” to the hon. member for Wynberg.

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister said “you shut up” to the hon. member for Wynberg who was interjecting, and I challenge him to deny that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg got up while the other hon. member was speaking and I said “shut up”,

Then you should have said “sit down not “shut up”.

Order! I must ask the hon. the Minister to withdraw the words “shut up”,

If it is not parliamentary. I withdraw them. Sir.

I am sorry that my appeal to the hon. the Minister of Justice should have been interrupted by this interlude with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I come back to my plea, Sir. I submit that the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg is a very just one. The Minister has indicated in previous clauses that he is prepared to accept—and he has in fact done so—amendments which have more or less the same effect. We rather got the impression that the Minister rejected the amendment because it was moved by the hon. member for Wynberg. I am asking the Minister to consider the matter even though he will not accept it tonight. All I am asking him is to give us some assurance that he will give it further consideration and possibly move an amendment in the Other Place.

I do not want the hon. member for Transkeian Territories to be under any illusions. I am very definitely unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg. I am definitely unable to accept it for the simple reason that I have already mentioned repeatedly to the Committee, namely that the whole object of this clause is that if a gathering restriction is imposed on a person, whether by my predecessors or myself, then the whole object of that gathering restriction is that the utterances of that person are regarded as dangerous to the State. For that reason, and that reason alone, a gathering restriction is imposed upon a person. While that is so, if we are sincere in our attitude that the person’s utterances are dangerous to the State, surely it will be foolish of us to create other forums for him where those same utterances that he may not make in person, may be made via a third person. That is the whole effect of this clause. If I were to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg, it means that every time that person makes an utterance, I have to join issue with him as to whether it complies with the requirements set by the hon. member for Wynberg or not. That will be exactly what those persons want, for then they would have a better forum than they have ever had before. That is and that remains my point of view. I have considered it very carefully; during the dinner adjournment again, but if I wish to give effect to the object of this clause, I cannot accept that amendment under any circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, I have given notice of an amendment to this clause as follows—

I do not think it necessary for me at this stage of the proceedings to explain in any great detail what the meaning is of this amendment because we have had a similar argument on other clauses of the Bill already, namely about the publication in theGazette only of Ministerial edicts to persons who have been convicted of certain offences, and of the inadequacy of that procedure.

If the hon. member refers to the original section, she will see why it was necessary to include these words, the deletion of which she proposes, in the Bill. Originally no such publication took place, and in sub-section (3) of Section 12 it was provided—

The onus was on him, therefore, to prove that he was not aware of it. Now, however, he cannot raise that defence because it will now be published in the Gazette. The hon. member is aware that all publications in the Gazette are deemed to be the requisite notice to the public and all interested parties. However, if it is not published, there can be no contravention now, whereas formerly there was a contravention unless he could prove that he was not aware of the prohibition.

There is a great difference between publication of an Act in the Gazette and the publication of a notice to which the hon. the Minister is referring.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—68: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C.A.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N.C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt. B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—40: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S.F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 13,

As I read this clause as it is printed, it means that whereas the Minister may not now restrict a person’s movements under the Act until he has considered a factual report upon such person by a committee headed by a senior magistrate, he will in future be exempted from this requirement. This safeguard is therefore now withdrawn and that despite the greatly increased powers which the Minister is taking unto himself under this Bill. I do not believe that that is right. The least the Minister could do is to consider a factual report before he restricts the movements of anybody under this Bill, particularly so because he has greatly increased powers now. I therefore want this clause to be negatived.

As I read this clause, it appears to me that the exemption only applies in respect of the category under paragraph (e) of sub-section (2), i.e. in respect of an organization which carries on, or has been established for the purpose of carrying on, directly or indirectly, any of the activities of the organization referred to. It is in respect of organizations of this type that the Minister need not in terms of this amendment have an inquiry.

If it is the same organization.

Yes. I understand the hon. Minister to mean that as the organization—of which the organization in question is only a pale copy—has already been investigated by an impartial tribunal, a further investigation need not be held. But, Sir, that is no answer, because although prima facie and on the facts available to the Minister, it may appear that the organization which it is sought to ban in terms of sub-section (2), is carrying on the activities formerly carried on by an unlawful organization, upon proper investigation by the magistrate and his two independent assistants, it might well be found that the organization which at first sight might appear objectionable, is not in fact so. There might only be an apparent similarity. In view of this danger, there ought to be a full investigation of the nature which there was before. I fail to see that the arguments which will be advanced by the Minister will have any validity. As one who has practised in the courts, he will know that often after hearing the one side of a case, one has the impression that it is a pretty good and cast-iron case, but when one has heard the other side, one sees a completely different picture and the situation gets quite a different complexion. The hon. the Minister will know that that is particularly so in the case of criminal trials. The Attorney-General is indicting a person because the Attorney-General has, prima facie, come to a certain point of view but after there has been an impartial investigation by the court, an entirely different picture emerges, and the accused is discharged in many cases. This analogy can also be used here. It seems to me that an impartial investigation, such as that referred to in Section 17 of the principal Act, can only have advantages in such a case as I am referring to. And I do not think such an investigation need delay a decision for a couple of months. If properly conducted, it will not go on and on for a lengthy period of time. On the contrary, it will entail only a very slight delay and the effects of such a delay will be outweighed by the advantages to be obtained therefrom in that the Minister can then make sure of the facts upon which he bases his decision in respect of the organization in question. He will, in any event, not do the banning merely on the strength of a prima facie view, but on the strength of the facts found to exist by an impartial body.

I have devoted a lot of attention to this particular clause. I have also given much attention to a proposal that emanated from the Bar Council, namely that a factual report should be obtained after the act—in other words, that an organization should first be banned, and that after wards a factual report should be called for. The principle underlying this clause has already been argued before, and so it is not necessary for me to do so again. However, I should like to point out to hon. members that if you want to ban the second organization by way of a factual report while you are satisfied that this organization is exactly the same one, namely with the same officials, office, membership etc., you must first permit the new organization to function for a few months. If not, what is the good of asking for a factual report? That is point number one, namely that such an organization has to be permitted to function for a few months. If you have to call for a factual report thereafter, it means four, five or six months more before you can take a decision on this organization, and that while it is a harmful organization that should have been banned in the first place. How much harm could such an organization not do in the meantime, and that without you being able to move a finger to prevent it.

However, there is a second reason why it is not practicable to call for a factual report. Let us for the sake of argument assume that the A.N.C. is banned. Now this organization pops up again tomorrow with the same officials, the same leaders and the same membership, but under the name of another organization. If action were not taken against it now …

It is not so easy as you are representing it.

Yet it happened in Rhodesia where the Rhodesian People’s Party was banned on one day and the next day it popped up again with the same leaders but as the Zimbabwe People’s Party. So we have an example of what may happen. The same thing could happen here. But now you will find that the new organization, in spite of it’s being the same organization with the same leaders, at first behaves itself very well because it is biding its time to act against you. And when it acts, you are in graver trouble than you were in before. We do have knowledge of the acts of these people, and so it will not only be foolish to permit a banned organization to continue under a different name, but it will be criminal negligence as against the country to whom you owe a duty. The moment you accept that it is a dangerous organization, at that moment you have to act, irrespective of the name under which such an organization appears.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Does he not agree that this type of organization will require an investigation that will take up only half a morning, but that much more difficult cases may appear in respect of which it will be extremely difficult for the Minister to decide whether there is a similarity unless a factual investigation takes place?

Is it conceivable at all that if for instance you were to ban the organization of Mandela to-day, it will emerge as an animal welfare society tomorrow?

That is not the kind of organization I have in mind.

Action will be taken only against those organizations of which the office, personnel, organizers etc., are the same as those of the organization that has already been banned.

It is quite obvious, Sir, that there might be cases such as those to which the hon. the Minister referred, but I find it very difficult to accept that, under all this mass of legislation, no provision exists which will enable such a situation to be dealt with. It is, furthermore, obvious from the Minister’s own explanation, that there might also be cases where damage might be done to perfectly innocent persons if a thorough investigation is not conducted before action is taken. In the circumstances, we will vote against this clause.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—69: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots. J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Malan, A. I.; Malan. W. C.; Marais. J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree. G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebush, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A.H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys. D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter. W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Vorster. B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—40: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 15,

The kindest comment I can make about this clause, is that it is an innovation in legal drafting. This presents a new method of legislating with retrospective effect, because in terms of this clause any proclamation notice, prohibition or list which has been compiled or issued since 1950, is now deemed to have been compiled or issued under the 1950 Act, as amended by this Bill. The effect of this is that Parliament is being asked not only to legislate backwards, but also to legislate blindly. I say this because no one in this House has any information or is aware of any proclamation, notice, prohibition or list of the type we are dealing with here. In legislation of this kind, one could have expected that there would have been some sort of schedule attached in which the proclamations, notices, etc., which we are now validating with retrospective effect, are set out. There should, at least, be some indication from the hon. the Minister, but preferably in the form of a schedule to the Bill, of the type of notice, the type of prohibition, etc., which Parliament is being asked to validate by a process of retrospective legislation. But no such indication is given. Therefore the House is being asked to legislate blindly, and the only realistic way in which we can deal with this matter, is to vote against the clause.

I am afraid I cannot follow the hon. member at all. All this clause contemplates is to provide that all the restrictions that have been imposed upon persons in terms of the Act of 1950, shall remain in force to-day—in other words, the restrictions concerned will not lapse when this Bill is passed. That is all this clause is dealing with, and if the hon. member contends that he does not know what it deals with, I should like to remind him that all the steps taken against persons under the Act of 1950, have been Tabled in the House in terms of that Act. That has been done over the past 12 years. If the hon. member now comes along and contends that we are now drafting legislation blindly and backwards, I do not know what he is talking about.

Can you mention one proclamation or one notice to the House to which this clause relates? Why, if it is only intended that such proclamations, etc., shall continue in force, is it not said so here expressly?

There is the proclamation that declared the Communist Party unlawful, for instance. Then also there is the list that has been issued under the 1950 Act, as well as the notices that have been served upon persons from time to time.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

This is the clause which, as it stands, gives the hon. the Minister the most extraordinary powers ever possessed by any Minister in any Western democratic country. The effect of this clause is that if an emergency is declared in one magisterial district, say of Pondoland, the Minister can apply those emergency regulations to every magisterial district throughout the Republic and that without there being any foundation for the existence of such regulations. He could, therefore, by extending the emergency regulations to the whole Republic, regulate that no one shall have access to the courts, that the Police can arrest anyone they like at whatever time they like, etc. I agree that the Government should have powers at a time or emergency. That is obvious. As a matter of fact, it is for this reason that we, on this side of the House, supported the Public Safety Act of 1953 because we considered that if a state of emergency arises, the situation had to be put right and put right quickly. But the position under this clause is that emergency regulations issued in respect of one magisterial district can be made to apply all over the Republic without there being any justification for it.

That is the old, old story!

No, it is not. The Government has never asked for powers of this nature. Consequently, I move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper—

I move this for two reasons: In the first place, we appreciate that there are circumstances outside the area in which there is a state of emergency which have to dealt with with a view to the emergency where it exists being properly controlled. The Minister, when introducing this Bill at the second reading, indicated that he did not want to declare a state of emergency in all the adjacent areas if it could at all be avoided and we appreciate the difficulties which he might have to face up to in this connection, and to meet such difficulties this amendment is proposed. It will enable him to extend the relevant emergency regulations only so far as it may be necessary to cope with the state of emergency where it has been declared. These powers are not to be exercised except in such circumstances. If it is the intention of the hon. the Minister to exercise these powers only under the circumstances which I have outlined, then he ought to accept this amendment and if he does accept it, our objections to the clause will fall away.

Of course it is obvious that nobody is keen to have a state of emergency. Nor is it a matter the Government can just proclaim. It arises as a result of the activities of certain persons or organizations. Now I have told hon. members at the second reading, that instead of this being an aggravation of the position, it is an improvement having regard to what we learned during the last emergency. I put it very clearly that last time we had the position that there was a state of emergency here in the Cape Town and Wynberg magisterial districts. It proved to be necessary as a result of the actions of the agitators, that one had to go to the extent of proclaiming Somerset West, Stellenbosch, Malmesbury and even Worcester, emergency areas, where all the emergency regulations applied. You had to do it willy nilly, in spite of the fact that in those areas there actually was no emergency, and only some regulations were required there. All this amendment to the principal Act provides in this Bill is that when you have a state of emergency you may make some of the regulations that are applicable in that area, applicable to another area. If the hon. member now had proposed an amendment reading “in so far as he deems it necessary to act in respect of the state of emergency” or “in so far as he may deem it to be necessary in order to deal with the state of emergency”, it would have been quite different, and I could have accepted it. But that is not the effect of the hon. member’s amendment. It now introduces an objective test, and an objective test is the last thing you want in a state of emergency, for then the Minister has to act from hour to hour and from day to day and the moment I accept the hon. member’s amendment, any person—and those persons will be numerous—could go and have decisions taken in a state of emergency tested in lengthy court proceedings. That is what the effect of the hon. member’s amendment would be. Under normal circumstances one would have no objection to it, but if you want to handle a state of emergency, in view of the repercussions it will have not only internally but also externally, you are obliged to end the state of emergency as soon as possible, and then you cannot set in motion the impeding processes contemplated by the hon. member’s amendment. For that reason I regret I cannot accept it.

The Minister’s reply is most revealing. He stated that the last thing he wants in an emergency is to have applied to his actions an objective test. That amounts to this, that if during an emergency he were to invoke certain extraordinary provisions because of a given factual situation and he were to be basing his actions on a correct analysis and on facts which really existed, he would be perfectly safe in any court of law. No court of law would criticize what he did if he invokes those extraordinary powers by virtue of facts which warrant them. But if he were to assess the situation incorrectly, or if he were to invoke these extraordinary powers which were far in excess of what was required to meet the situation, only then would a court of law be able to intervene and set aside what he has done. Now, for a Minister to object to that situation arising presents a very odd picture indeed. The Minister can only object to that situation if he believes a situation will arise where he will have to evoke extraordinary powers which he does not need to meet the situation. The Minister knows as well as I do that in circumstances such as that a court of law would look at his actions in a benevolent light because he is the Minister charged with the preservation of public safety and he has to take action, and the courts would not be astute to set aside any action or the invoking of any powers unless quite clearly on the facts before the court the Minister had used powers which he did not require. In those circumstances, what possible objection can the Minister have to there being an objective test such as the one formulated in this amendment? I wish to emphasize that a court of law in those circumstances would not be astute to set aside anything that the Minister may have done. It would only be where there was a gross abuse of power that the court would intervene. Furthermore, contrary to what the Minister said, any such court proceedings would not take place there and then. It requires time for these facts to be investigated and for affidavits to be filed, and no doubt the court hearing would take place after the emergency is past. Faced with those facts, I cannot understand the Minister’s attitude and I hope he will reconsider the position and will give better reasons for rejecting this amendment.

The argument of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) boils down to this, that if the Minister has a good case, he need not be afraid to go to court. The hon. member and other hon. members opposite just cannot understand that it is a difficult task to govern a state, and that it sometimes is necessary that some bones have to be broken, or at least some window panes. When there is a state of emergency, the first task of the Government is to see to it that peace and order is restored. Nobody objects to that. Now what is the position? Supposing the Minister were to proclaim a state of emergency in the Cape, and issue certain regulations that are made applicable to Stellenbosch and Paarl where there is no state of emergency, and supposing he were to apply those regulations to people who flee from Cape Town to those places, and supposing he were to arrest them there under the regulations, what is the position? Firstly, the Minister will contend that he is detaining these people in the interests of security. The person detained will say that these regulations (if we were to accept the hon. member’s amendment) are not necessary, for it is not necessary in so far as it has to combat a state of emergency. Then they obtain an interdict against the Minister. The matter cannot be heard forthwith. The interdict will be in terms that the Minister should not carry on with the measures he has taken in Stellenbosch, or otherwise it will contain a habeas corpus order to liberate such a person, pending the decision in legal proceedings that still have to be instituted. In the meantime the saboteur carries on and may do so much evil in the place where he is that the Minister is obliged to proclaim a state of emergency in that place also. The evil spirit the hon. member for Durban (North) wishes to exercise cannot be exercised in the manner he proposed, for it does not cover both of the two cases where a person is wilful. It may be that the Minister is quite within his powers, but because it has not yet been decided that the Minister is intra vires, the Minister has to discontinue his measures at Stellenbosch. But subsequently it is held that what the Minister has done has been quite in order, and in the meantime that person has still had the opportunity to stir up evil. So the hon. member for Zululand is viewing the matter from one angle only and not from the other angle. What is more, the Minister has already considered the difficulties hon. members have, and they must not think the Minister has not considered them. It is provided in the clause that the Minister, subject to amendments made in the proclamation or in a subsequent proclamation by the State President in the Government Gazette, may do only certain things. In other words, it is not the whole emergency regulation that is applied there, but only so much as the Minister deems necessary. What objection can hon. members have that the Minister should decide how much is required? It is the Minister’s duty to preserve the peace, and he is the first to be blamed if he does not carry out his duty. The hon. member for Durban (North) will sing the highest note in that complaint that the Minister has failed in his duty. [Interjections.] The hon. member foresees a possibility, namely that the Minister will abuse his powers. He will just have to accept that; he must take the risk. The Minister will act according to his sense of responsibility. When somebody is obliged to combat a state of emergency, he has to take steps, even if he were to take illegal steps, as has already happened under General Smuts. He introduced the most Indemnity Acts in this Parliament, and why? Because he accepted his responsibilities and did his duty as he saw it. Now we say that if there is a state of emergency, we also wish to apply the regulations to a contiguous district, to prevent a state of emergency from arising there also. We are taking only such powers as we require. But do you know what is going on here, Sir? They over there have an idea that when the Minister is given a discretion, he acts “capriciously”.

What is the Afrikaans word for it?

I do not know the Afrikaans word for it, for we Afrikaners never act capriciously. [Interjections.] But it is the duty of the Government to maintain order. The hon. members opposite have to accept that. The Minister has the power to proclaim a state of emergency in an area contiguous to an area where there is a state of emergency, but he does not go that far. He is doing something less. What is wrong with that? Or do the hon. members indeed want him to proclaim a state of emergency there, so that it may be advertised in the country and overseas, so that another shock can arise and people will lose their faith in the economy of the country, and capital will flow out of the country again? [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Standerton has tried to support the Minister, but I do not think he has strengthened the Minister’s case. I propose dealing with this matter on the rather simple basis which was put by the Minister himself. If one wants to get down to the merits, one can deal with the matter on the basis of what the Minister himself said. It is quite clear that under Section 3 of the Public Safety Act it is possible for the Governor-General to declare a state of emergency and publish emergency regulations affecting the area in which there is an emergency. The Minister now seeks to extend that also to areas outside of such an area. The Minister will be the first to agree that that will permit him to apply the regulations in the area in which the emergency is or throughout the Union. But the Minister quite rightly wishes to limit the emergency and therefore he takes a second power to apply any of these regulations partly outside the said area. The amendment seeks to add to that, that that will apply only in so far as may be necessary to deal with the emergency so proclaimed, and I submit that that is a reasonable limitation.

It negatives the whole thing.

No, it has the effect that in so far as it is desired to apply certain of the regulations, in so far as may be necessary to deal with the emergency, any extension would clearly be upheld by the courts. If on the other hand similar powers were extended to an extent which was unreasonable, that would be held not to be valid.

Yes, but while the grass grows, the silly horse starves.

No, it is our duty to limit these powers to the minimum. The powers the Minister proposes to take in fact put him in the position that he could apply the consequences of the declaration of an emergency throughout the district in which the emergency is, or the province or beyond without declaring an emergency in any other district. If that is necessary because there is an emergency everywhere it should be declared throughout. If this is not necessary, the courts would not uphold the extension of the powers beyond the area of emergency. I hope the Minister will accept that that is the furthest that any Opposition should be prepared to go in extending extraordinary powers of this sort.

We have at least reached the stage now that the hon. member has conceded that what we propose to do with this clause is less than would have been done originally in a state of emergency, if this clause were not accepted. If that is so, I shall be grateful if the hon. member will explain to me why they are not prepared to accept the wording I suggested, namely “in so far as he may deem it necessary in order to deal with the state of emergency” for I put it to them as a test. I wonder why hon. members insist upon the words of their amendment, while they are conceding that they indeed want court cases to be evoked by their amendment, and hon. members will concede that it is the last thing you want. All of us have knowledge of states of emergency, and it is the last thing you want, to be saddled with prolonged court proceedings; while it is your duty to terminate the state of emergency as soon as possible. But just to show hon. members to what extent they are mistaken, I refer to the case of Krone v. Minister of Defence in 1915 and the case of Du Toit and Trumpel man v. Minister of Justice in 1940. In both cases the court said that there are times when the court simply has to take a back-seat, and the applications of Krone and Du Toit and Trumpel man were dismissed by the court, not on the ground of any regulations, but on grounds of the inherent duty of the court to dismiss such applications, for it was said that the security of the State is worth far more than the right of the individual under those circumstances. And the court adopted the correct attitude; and if the court did so of its own motion, without being required by regulation to adopt that attitude, I cannot appreciate why hon. members now wish to go further than those court decisions to bind the Minister for the very purpose of involving him in court proceedings while a state of emergency exists.

I think it would be quite simple if the Minister is acting reasonably and in accordance with the facts. Then the regulations would be upheld. If, on the other hand, the Minister’s suggested wording is adopted, then whatever unreasonable action may be taken by any Minister, the extension of the regulations would stand valid even if in fact they were not necessary.

The hon. the Minister wants to know why we do not accept the alternative he suggests. In fact, it does not limit the Minister’s powers, even though it looks as if it does, because if the Minister decided that he would promulgate for the rest of the Republic a state of emergency, outside that one small district in which there was a state of emergency, all the emergency regulations which were used on the last occasion, would apply; there would be no limitation on the Minister’s powers to do so. The reason for that is that if the Minister does proclaim these regulations elsewhere, he has deemed it to be necessary, or else he would not do it. So all he has to do when he does proclaim it is to say that he considers it necessary, and if it is not necessary in fact there is nothing anyone can do about it. That is the point. [Interjections.] Sir, I do not think hon. members opposite appreciate what this clause means. It means that the Minister can, if he wishes, rule South Africa absolutely and completely by decree. Do hon. members opposite not appreciate that? I think that even if they appreciated it they would not really care.

We are not the protectors of saboteurs.

On a point of order, that is a reflection on this side of the House.

The hon. member may continue.

All we are trying to do is to get some limitation of that power. We are trying to put in language in this Bill what really is the intention of the Minister, and that is that the Minister does not want to apply the regulations in any area where there is no state of emergency, except for the purpose of dealing with the state of emergency which does not apply somewhere. That is what we are trying to do. All that the hon. member for Standerton can say is that the Minister must be entrusted with these powers. That is no way in which to legislate. How can any Parliament be expected to give to the Executive the power to do anything that Parliament can do, in fact, to give to the Minister more than Parliament would dare to do? That is what this clause does, and hon. members opposite are quite happy about it.

Of course. We are not communists.

When this happens, the first rot in any democracy has set in, when you have Members of Parliament having so little regard for the rights of the individual that they can support a clause like this.

Order! The hon. member should return to the clause.

If the Minister wishes to have this clause so phrased that it reflects what he means, he should let it stand over until to-morrow, so that we can get language which coincides with his intentions. If he does not want to do that, I think we are entitled to believe that he wants all the powers that this Parliament has, just in case he needs them.