Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. the Minister, when he made his Second Reading speech, with some care, and I have had the benefit of a copy of the speech itself. In that speech he dealt with the problems facing Africa and the rest of the world with a wealth of detail whereas, by comparison, he elaborated upon and explained the details of this Bill with such an economy of language that one wonders whether his heart is really behind it. You see, Sir, we are dealing not merely with a Security Bill, but with what is in effect an extension of the Suppression of Communism Act of 1950. It has been transformed from an Act merely to deal with communism and things associated with communism into a piece of legislation dealing generally with security matters. Whilst I do not wish to go into detail in so far as the Suppression of Communism Act is concerned, I think it is relevant that I summarize very briefly the attitude of this party to that legislation when it came before the House in 1950. There was a reasoned amendment moved by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Strauss, in these terms—

If one studies that debate, and particularly the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on that occasion, one sees that in the alternative Bill proposed by the United Party, a number of factors received prominence. Firstly, there was the desire to have the offences, the mischief which one was trying to deal with and bring under control, clearly and specifically defined and, secondly, to try as far as possible to deal with offenders against that legislation through the process of the courts or judicial procedure as opposed to executive action by the executive. Those matters came out clearly in the debate which took place in 1950.

In his brief explanation of the present legislation, the hon. the Minister dealt briefly with matters and ended with perhaps the most difficult and objectionable part of the Bill, that part dealing with preventative detention— which in other language is internment. I was surprised, having read the Bill, not only to hear from the hon. the Minister a clear exposition that this Bill considerably widens the scope of the power of preventative detention, but also to see the Minister attempting to give it the flavour of being an improvement on the existing position. It rather suggested that these clauses were an improvement on the existing position because of the institution of a review committee proposed on clause 5. I hope to show in the course of my arguments that, far from being an improvement on the existing position, it is a retrogressive step, firstly, because it widens the scope of preventative detention; secondly, because it widens it in terms of ill-defined language; and, thirdly, because of the danger of the responsibility in that regard being displaced from the shoulders of the hon. the Minister, where it should rest, to a review committee headed by a judicial officer.

Clause one of the Bill widens the ability of the Minister to declare an organization as unlawful, not only as it exists at the present time, where it is in some way related to communism or the achievement of the aims of communism, however widely stated, but also when it engages in activities which endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. I do not think that the hon. the Minister will deny that the terminology “endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order” is very wide indeed. It goes without saying that to exercise this power and to make such a declaration requires a subjective decision by the hon. the Minister. I say “the hon. the Minister” although one knows the legislation provides for the State President’s decision, which in practical terms means a decision of the Cabinet, but in reality I have no doubt that it will be done on the advice and after study of the situation by the hon. the Minister of Justice. That is the way I think the procedure will normally work. We are handling here a subjective decision by the hon. the Minister on a report, presumably from the Security Police. A file will be placed before him, presumably by the Security Branch, and it will be a matter in respect of which the hon. the Minister has no personal knowledge. There is a narrow line and there is a difficult line—I am the first to concede it—between the maintenance of a free society and allowing freedom to those who wish to destroy a free society. I appreciate fully the difficulty of drawing a line between a free society and all that entails, e.g. a free Press, freedom from arbitrary action and process through the courts—and generally I believe that South Africa has a free society— and allowing freedom to those who wish to destroy the system we call a free society. I am the first to concede that allowing freedom to potential subversives is endangering freedom itself. A careful and exact appreciation of that difference and distinction is to be found as the hallmark of the approach of the UP throughout the history of this party as far as any matter dealing with the security of the State and of the people is concerned.

Which is a miserable history in any case.

This party could never, throughout its long history, be accused of adopting an attitude regarding security matters which has been reckless or ill-considered. [Interjections.] Indeed, this party has sometimes been criticized for adopting a somewhat cautious attitude in matters dealing with the security of the State. I believe there is merit in caution when dealing with matters of this kind, because it is so easy either to fall on the side of authoritarianism, which destroys freedom itself, or on the side of egalitarianism, which could itself destroy freedom.

There is a great difference when it comes to an objectionable organization, operating in the political field, which could be left to the good sense of the electorate or to the people generally to deal with. I believe that Nusas is an example of that. When once the facts relating to that organization were made known, the pressures within the English-speaking world took over and in almost every university in the country it is either no longer operative or there has been a disaffiliation by the universities themselves.

What does Japie say about that?

May I say at once that in my view there was no reason at all for the executive action that was taken in that regard. The trouble with the definition we have here, which I have read out to the House, is that it encompasses both aspects. There are numbers of attitudes in the political world which, if subjectively approached, could be said to be endangering the security of the State, e.g. attitudes adopted in the policy and philosophy of both the Government and the PRP. In both there are attitudes that could be said to be endangering the security of the State.

Let me deal firstly with the Government. To prevent a settled urban community from owning its own homes and having family life could be said, according to a subjective view, to be endangering the security of the State because it could build up such a tremendous pressure of resentment in due course that it becomes dangerous. I specifically use the word “could”. In the same way the attitude of majority rule could fall into the same category. I am using these examples to illustrate the point that where one uses language to define a situation as ill-defined and as wide as this, one lays oneself open to endless difficulties. Nobody suggests that either the Government or the PRP should be declared an unlawful organization in terms of this legislation. Nobody suggests that. I have merely used those examples to illustrate that such a decision could be taken in terms of this legislation. Where in the nature of things the decision is a subjective one by a Minister concerned—that is the nature of this particular piece of legislation—then you want to define the scope within which he is to operate as clearly and as concisely and as narrowly as possible. Indeed, were I the Minister, I would seek to be operating within powers as narrowly and clearly defined as possible, because then I would be immune from criticism. The wider the definition, the more the hon. the Minister subjects himself to criticism.

I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister will say that this cannot be done. However, I do not accept that. I want to use as an example the type of language which is used to define the terms of reference of the United States Committee on Internal Security in regard to what it should look into. I use this merely as an example of how, if an attempt is made, a situation can be clearly defined even if the nature of it is complex. One finds that the committee on internal security must make investigations into the extent, character, objectives and activities within the United States of organizations or groups whether of foreign or domestic origin, their members, agents and affiliates. This is the language to which I want the hon. the Minister to listen—

That is widely defined and gives one a clearer impression of what that committee is to inquire into than does the language in which the hon. the Minister has to operate within, in terms of this clause. One can also look at the second paragraph of the terms of reference of that internal security committee, and I shall read only the operative part—

I use that to show that it can be done. I am quite sure that with some attempt and some effort a more precise definition of the mischief—one accepts that there may be mischief—which is sought to be encompassed by this, could adequately be dealt with.

The carrying out of democratic government and the maintenance of a free society in the world of today, particularly in the Africa of today, is a most skilful exercise and requires the most careful use of power in terms of precisely defined authority. It is the easiest thing in the world to govern in terms of blanket authorities which are so widely cast as to enable a Government to obliterate any and all of its opponents. That is the easiest thing in the world, but it is not the skill that is required in a democratic and free society. It is not the sort of government that we are used to and it is not what one expects in South Africa.

I believe that South African democracy is unique in Africa. Virtually nowhere else on this continent is there a system of government which is deliberately designed to enable an opponent of a Government to displace it. That is the parliamentary system under which we work. It is unique on this continent, in so far as I can understand, to have a system which is deliberately designed to enable the opponents of a Government to displace it and to take the seat of power. I believe that we can be proud of the fact that we are preserving this system here on a continent to which it is largely alien. Virtually everywhere else on this continent such a system as we have—I repeat, a system where you openly allow your opponents to kick you out of government—is looked upon very often either with distaste or with ridicule.

To us it is normal and it is accepted. However, it is a game in which the opponents of government and the Government itself are expected to play according to the rules. Otherwise, both in respect of government and opposition to government, it breaks down. Where opponents of government are prepared to use means—I talk of “government”, not “the Government”—which are not legitimate and which are designed to break down the very framework within which our free society operates, this side of the House will support proper measures that are introduced to control it. Our history in the past has shown that is the case. However, any such controls, viz. controls designed to deal with those who wish to break down the free society in which we operate, require precision in their drafting, they require to be definite, because otherwise they will break down the very framework within which a free society operates. That, in short, is one of our main objections to this Bill.

It is not only the extension of the various aspects of the Act, e.g. the extention of the power to declare an organization to be unlawful, the extension of the power to restrict a person to a particular place, the extension of the power to prohibit publications and the extension of the power to detain a person as a preventive measure without resource to a trial in a court, but there are also other aspects by which this change of definition widens the scope of the principal Act. I think of the powers in terms of section 7 of the principal Act for instance, viz. the powers of search, of investigation and of the invasion of a person’s privacy and home if it is suspected that he or the organization to which he belongs is endangering the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. Therefore, the ramifications of what appeared to be simple amendments to enlarge the scope of the principal Act, is much wider if one sees the principal Act itself.

The argument I have dealt with in respect of clause 1, applies equally to clause 2, which deals with publications and the Minister’s power to prohibit them, and to clause 3 which deals with persons and the Minister’s power to prohibit their attendance at any gathering. There is a further point I wish to make in regard to clause 3. The terminology there is as follows—

do certain things in the form of prohibition or restriction. The important words are—

Does the hon. the Minister want to tell me that there is no legislation in terms of which offences are created whereby persons, who are engaged—that means, doing overt acts or being actively engaged—in activities which are a danger to the security of the State, can be charged in court? If that is the case, the hon. gentleman is not doing his job because if there is such activity taking place—there may well be in these times—the first duty of any Government is to frame offences and apply penalties to enable the police to bring these people before the courts. Clause 3 and the other clauses do not, in themselves, create any offences for which a man can be charged, tried and sent to gaol. Nowhere is there an offence created here. The extension is merely in respect of arbitrary action by the hon. the Minister. People, apart from that action, go unpunished. The offences in terms of the principal Act are to be found in section 11. That is where the offences and the penalties under the Suppression of Communism Act, which we are amending, are set out. Nowhere in the Bill is there an amendment to widen the scope of those offences or to increase the penalties applicable. Nowhere in section 11 of the principal Act has the hon. the Minister introduced offences commensurate with the executive powers he is taking for himself.

If one reads section 11, where the penalties are laid down and a court of law can send a man to gaol for a term of years for activities endangering the security of the State, one sees that the penalties are all tied to the organization of communism—all of them. The hon. the Minister told us in his opening address that one of the problems that he was having, was that so many of these people who are engaged in subversive activities, are not communists. To use his own words: They accept that they are “ondermyners”, that they are subversive. They accept that they are subversive, but they say quite blandly—and apparently this is the truth—that they are not communists, nor are they attached in any way to the Communist Party. If that is the case, one would not only expect an increase, a widening of the scope of the hon. the Minister’s executive powers of banning, restriction and so forth, but one would expect him to widen the scope of the offences, the criminal offences and the penalties, so that these people can be tried in a court of law and be properly punished for being engaged in activities which are a danger to the State. That illustrates again one of the fundamental approaches of this side of the House.

The attitude—and it is unfortunate that one has to say it—of this side of the House is not that subverters should be allowed to go free. The attitude of this side of the House is that subverters should be made subject to the criminal law of South Africa and be punished severely, if that is the appropriate punishment for what they have done. I am astonished— and I believe it is a great defect of this Bill—that not only, as I have said, is there nothing commensurate by way of amendments to the criminal sanctions of the Act, but also nothing commensurate with the civil sanctions, the executive sanctions, which the hon. the Minister is taking in terms of this Bill. That is another principal objection which we have to this Bill.

Either the hon. the Minister has not created an offence—which I believe is the case—or, if he says that they are covered by the existing penalty clauses of section 11, he does not require the executive powers which he is taking. Either way the hon. the Minister is caught. I believe he is caught, because he has not investigated the criminal aspects of these matters.

Clause 4 deals with preventive detention. Preventive detention previously existed—as the House will remember—where persons had been convicted of offences under certain legislation. The way it worked was that where a man had been convicted under the Public Safety Act of 1953, or the Riotous Assemblies Act, or the Acts relating to sabotage and terrorism—I am speaking now from memory—at the end of serving their sentences, the hon. the Minister could issue a notice which required them to continue under detention after they had served their sentences, having been convicted in a court of law. That was the way it used to work. I think it was known as the Sobukwe Clause. That has been altered and the requirements for a conviction in terms of one or other of the security legislation, as a prerequisite, falls away. It is now merely the ability to detain, or intern, persons who, in the opinion of the hon. the Minister, engage in activities which endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.

This side of the House has always been against preventative detention without trial, except in times of war or national emergency, and then only under safeguards. It is set out with absolute clarity in the minority report to the fourth interim report of the Schlebusch Commission. It is true that in terms of clause 5 of the Bill a new principle is introduced, the principle of a judicial review. In short we therefore have a situation where, in terms of clause 4, the hon. the Minister has considerably widened the field within which he can intern or place in preventative detention. I may say in passing that it is done in a most quaint way by a notice from the hon. the Minister on a person that he may not absent himself “from any place or area which is or is within a prison”. The quaintness of the language does not however detract from the severity of the reality of the clause. It constitutes a considerable widening of the ability to detain without trial.

The hon. the Minister, both in his speech and in terms of the Bill, but particularly in his speech, attempts to soften the blow and attempts to make it acceptable to the Official Opposition by the fact that a review committee has been introduced. The review committee, in so far as it goes, is an improvement. We have asked for a review committee on many occasions. However, a review committee introduced in respect of a provision which is so widely defined as to make it unacceptable, is not an adequate sugaring of the pill. The review committee itself—I will not go into it in any great detail at this stage as it will be discussed later—is to be presided over by a judge or a magistrate, or a retired judge or a retired magistrate. I may say immediately that I should like to see any review committee being presided over by a judge, simply because in the minds of the public a magistrate, rightly or wrongly, is seen as subject to the control of the Minister’s department whereas a judge is seen to be independent of that control. In my view, therefore, if one is to have such a committee, then the person presiding over it should be a judge.

The committee is required to report to the Minister if it disagrees with the further detention of an individual, and the hon. the Minister is not bound by the recommendation, but he is required to lay on the Table of the House a report stating the recommendation, the name of the person detained and the fact that the hon. the Minister has disagreed with the recommendation of the review committee. But this is no remedy at all while the powers of detention themselves are virtually unfettered. It indeed has the danger, which I have indicated earlier, for the hon. the Minister, taking a subjective view—as he is obliged to do in the circumstances—more easily to detain persons whom he reviews and whom he views as subversive, and to leave the final onus to the review committee to go into the matter in great detail and take the final decision with the careful weighing up of the pros and cons which are necessary in a case of this kind. As I said earlier, the responsibility in this regard should be with the hon. the Minister and not with any judicial officer, because that is not his function. Our basic objection is that the clause is far too wide and that there is no statement with any clarity at all, no definitive statement, as to the type of mischief which the hon. the Minister wishes to do away with.

Clause 6 deals with the power to arrest accused persons and with the power of the Attorney-General to prohibit the release on bail of an accused person, which is, in effect, a requirement which enables him to be detained under arrest until the conclusion of his trial. It also makes provision for the power to detain witnesses under a warrant issued by the Attorney-General. These are not new clauses although they are new as they appear in this Bill. They were introduced in substantially the present form in the legislation of 1965. At that time this side of the House supported the ability of the Attorney-General, in certain cases, to object to an accused person being released on bail. That still has our support for the reasons we gave then, namely the apparent preparedness of persons in this type of case, backed by large sums of money from unknown sources—as often is the case—to estreat their bail and not face their trial. We believe it is legitimate in the limited cases set out in the Schedule, for that power to be retained.

In so far as witnesses are concerned, we are opposed to the clause. The argument seems to be that if witnesses are not put in gaol pending a trial of an accused person in cases of this kind, the witness will be done away with. I am the first to accept that there might well be witnesses, in cases of this kind, who would wish for protection because those against whom they are required to give evidence may be ill-disposed towards them. We all know of the conditions in some of the townships in this regard at the present time. But the danger to the witness does not only exist up to the time of the trial; it also exists after the trial to the same extent. The then Minister of Defence assured the House—as I read the debates—that they were able to protect these persons after the trial. There were methods of protecting people who had given evidence in such cases. If I have to accept that, then such protection can also be given to witnesses prior to the trial and during the trial. I am referring to those witnesses who do not wish to be taken into custody for their own protection. If there are witnesses who desire protection and who ask for one or other kind of protection, the hon. the Minister will no doubt be able to give it to them. But to give a blanket power of detention to persons who are not accused of anything at all, but who are merely assisting the State by giving evidence, is an undesirable power. In the circumstances of the debate which took place in 1965, this is on the hon. the Minister’s own say so, unnecessary. Consequently we on this side of the House are opposed to that part of the clause.

The rest of the Bill deals merely with incidental matters such as the long and short title. It also deals with an amendment to the Public Safety Act whereby the ceiling of the penalties is done away with. That has our support. For the rest the Bill deals with consequential matters and with the extension of the Riotous Assemblies Act of 1956 of the Republic to South West Africa.

Sir, I have tried to summarize our appreciation of the delicate situation which any democratic Government has in trying to maintain a free society when there are subversive elements at work. I have done that, firstly, because I believe it is necessary to an appreciation of measures of this kind and because it underlines—I hope—the responsible attitude which this side of the House takes to the Bill and has also taken to measures of this kind.

The best way in which a Bill of this kind can be dealt with, in our view, is for it to be referred to a Select Committee … [Interjections.] You know, Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the arguments of blandishment which came from that side of the House in regard to the value of committees of this kind not so long ago, one wonders how they can have the temerity to adopt the attitude which they are adopting today. Nevertheless, I believe that this is a field in which a Select Committee can properly operate, and because that is so, I move as an amendment—

1. (i) clearly and properly defines the activities and organizations by which the security of the State is threatened;
2. (ii) creates such new offences and penalties as are necessary to meet that threat, so that miscreants will be dealt with through the courts and not by arbitrary executive action;
3. (iii) provides that, in so far as executive action in terms of the Bill may be necessary, it be subject to the scrutiny of a judicial review committee and exercisable, in so far as the freedom of individuals is concerned, only in time of war or national emergency; and
4. (iv) provides for the protection of witnesses without the need for their arbitrary detention,

the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers and to have leave to bring up an amended Bill.”.

Mr. Speaker, I must say I have been caught on the wrong foot a little this afternoon since I now have to reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, because I expected the hon. member and his party to support the Bill which is now before us. I admit that I have to make an impromptu speech this afternoon, because the speech which I prepared proceeded on the assumption that party would support us today in regard to this legislation. [Interjections.] Sir, I shall try to indicate, during the course of my argument, that it was not such a ridiculous idea after all to assume that side of the House would support us. In the first place I want to say that since that party, through the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, has moved an amendment of this nature, it is strange that they have found that they required the time since this legislation appeared on our tables in this House until 12h40 today to decide what their standpoint on this legislation will be. I state categorically that it is very strange that they took so long, and I should like to hear from hon. members on that side of the House why it took them so long to adopt a standpoint. The hon. member for Houghton adopted her standpoint on this Bill immediately, because she knew what she wanted to do, but those hon. members took a very long time to come to a decision. As secretary of our justice group on this side of the House, I want to say that those hon. members did not even keep their promise to me by telling us how many members on their side were going to participate in this debate or what their attitude in regard to the legislation was going to be. I am still waiting for that side of the House to give this information. I also want to say that, if it were at all within their power to adopt a standpoint, that side of the House could certainly have had the decency to furnish us with a copy of a motion such as the one which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana introduced today. [Interjections.] This is not far-fetched. When a Bill is before the House and any of the parties in this House intend referring a Bill of this kind to a Select Committee, there ought to be the rudimentary decency of at least notifying the hon. the Minister that the party intends to direct such a request. However, we did not get this from that side of the House. I should very much like to take a closer look at the amendment of the hon. member, for at first glance it seems to me as though what the amendment actually amounts to is what was debated during an earlier debate in this House.

The hon. member wants the legislation to become the subject of an inquiry by a Select Committee. I want to ask the hon. member whether, if the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister would be prepared to refer the Bill to the proposed Internal Security Commission, the hon. member would be prepared to have the commission take a closer look at the Bill. I am putting this question to the hon. member, and he can simply say whether he thinks it is possible for the Bill to be examined by a commission of this kind. It is very important that the hon. member should tell us this in any case because those hon. members said that they could not support a commission which had anything to do with the investigation of an organization. However, in the amendment moved by the hon. member today he states that the Bill should become the subject of an inquiry by a Select Committee, and that Select Committee should also, possibly by way of a definition, investigate organizations which could be acting subversively against the State. If this is the hon. member’s attitude, then surely he is admitting what we said in earlier debates and what the Opposition should spell out to us today. The Opposition must spell out what the hon. member for Mooi River has already said, namely that the Internal Security Commission may also investigate organizations. The fact of the matter is that the commission or a Select Committee may not come forward and make any recommendation in respect of any proposed legislation or in respect of any definition which might mean State security, nor may a commission or a committee of this kind say what an organization means if it is subverting the security of the State, if one does not also investigate the aims of that organization as well and consequently investigate that organization. After all, it is far-fetched to think that we should go to a Select Committee or a commission today to say that security legislation should be prepared while we are unable to indicate what problems we see and what such an organization should look like. Since I do not have the amendment before me, I have to limit myself to a spur of the moment idea or an off the cuff remark on the hon. member’s amendment. Apart from that I believe we shall be able to have a fruitful debate on the motion of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I should like to tell the hon. member that I expected far more from him today. I think the hon. member underestimated the intelligence of this hon. House by reading out the Bill clause by clause. We did our homework and it had not been necessary for us to hold a caucus meeting for five hours before we made our decision on the matter public. The hon. member also told the hon. the Minister of Justice that the only powers which the hon. the Minister wishes to have in terms of this legislation, is the extension of his administrative powers, and that he is therefore bluffing the House when he includes a provision in the legislation to establish a review committee.

These hon. members should now tell us in very clear language where we stand with them, with the official Opposition, with regard to any proposed legislation dealing with preventive action, in other words action which prevents the security of the State or law and order in the country from being endangered. How may the hon. member come and tell us that the legislation which is before us today, is not an extension of the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act and the Terrorism Act? In neither of those Acts is it stated as clearly as in this legislation that what is at issue is the endagering of the security of the State and of law and order. Here we are dealing with an endangering of the security of the State and an endangering of law and order. Surely this is the case.

Hon. members on that side themselves admitted—as the hon. the Minister also said—that not all subverters are necessarily communists, but that all communists are always subverters in any case. Surely the hon. member knows that this is the position. As early as 1971 that side of the House proposed in regard to the whole matter of preventive detention—from the former hon. member for Pinelands on 21 May—that we, under the circumstances in which we are now living, should reconsider legislation of this kind, and that it was necessary for the hon. the Minister to pay attention to the fact that where preventive detention has to take place—I stress the words “has to”—there should be a review committee. Hon. members can look this up for themselves in Hansard. The hon. the Minister of Justice referred to it. It was in 1971 that we heard that note being sounded by the former hon. member for Pinelands. However, we have since had many debates on this matter.

I am personally very grateful that I asked for the introduction of consolidating legislation with regard to our security legislation during the debate on the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Justice last year. I should like to say a few words more about it later.

What is very interesting, is that the hon. member is in fact addressing two objections to the hon. the Minister now. He maintains that only an extension of his administrative powers is taking place while, in reality, this is not the case. We are not afraid to say on our part that we are extending the powers of security legislation, for we know the circumstances and we are concerned about them. We are in no way afraid to say that we are extending powers which this Parliament is conferring upon the Government of this country. We are not afraid to say this. We shall have to extend them even further in future, for the sake of South Africa. I state categorically that we are extending the powers of the Government and we are not in the least ashamed of saying this to the world. If we say, as this official Opposition and the hon. members of the PRP do, that we are part of Africa, and we know that our position in the West may only be secured to the extent to which we are able to maintain and strengthen our position in Africa, we shall have to extend our rights and powers. To be able to maintain itself and to be able to maintain its entire machinery of Government, Africa has had to extend its powers and privileges. If Africa then has specific African problems and we have to reach the West through Africa, why are we not also entitled to deal with our specific African problems through the extension of our powers?

However, the hon. member went further. He accused the hon. the Minister of not having put enough sugar coating on the lollipop—the review committee. However, it is in fact those hon. members—and it is no longer even a debating point, because the hon. member admitted it here this afternoon—who admitted in the so-called minority report to the fourth interim report that they were interested in such a review committee consisting of judges. However, I want to go even further. In that debate which took place on this report, from my bench—the very last back bench at that time—I, personally put the standpoint that a case could be made out within Nationalist Party thinking and policy for review work in respect of administrative action of this kind. The hon. member for Green Point then rose to his feet in this House and complimented me.

[Inaudible.]

I could give the hon. member the precise references in Hansard.

The hon. member also said that he hoped the Government would pay attention to the standpoint which we adopted that day. Today we now have that position. However, it is also true that it extends much further today than the hon. members are trying to imply is the case. We should see what the hon. members are implying. They are now trying to suggest that we have done nothing about the review committee to establish what they in fact had in mind. They maintain that we simply coated the matter with a little sugar. Let us have a look at the facts of the matter. I want to go back to the minority report which was the alpha and the omega by which that party stood and fell, and fell further than they thought they would fall. In fact they fell completely past Durban North. However, they still think the reason for their fall was the fact that they adopted a constructive attitude. The whole problem is that if the UP had incorporated preventive measures in their standpoints at an earlier stage, there would not have been a party like the PRP in the House today. In the minority report the hon. commissioners on that side went far out of their way to explain certain attitudes. I am now quoting from the Fourth Interim Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations, paragraph 20.5.7.2., page 518—

Paragraph 20.5.7.3. reads—

1. (a) those acts of individuals which constitute common law and/or statutory crimes;
2. (b) those acts of groups of individuals, either internally or externally, which violate the maintenance of law and order;
3. (c) those acts of groups or individuals which subvert the authority of the State in an endeavour to achieve change through violence in complete disregard for the normal constitutional processes in a democracy.

Furthermore the commissioners stated in paragraph 20.5. 7.7.—

They then furnished a whole series of reservations to which the hon. member also referred. The paragraph continues—

1. (a) maintains an adequate Defence Force;
2. (b) maintains an intelligence service charged with the responsibility of keeping the Executive informed of individual or collective actions or preparation for overt action directed against law and order or to subvert the authority of the State;
3. (c) takes such Executive action as is authorized by Parliament.

Further on in the report the commissioners furnish an explanation and in paragraph 20.5.7.9. stated, inter alia—

Today the hon. member for Umhlatuzana maintains that he is not completely satisfied that, although they requested in the past that the executive action of the Minister should be reviewed by a review committee, we had gone far enough. In fact he went so far as to say that the Minister is now, by means of the review committee which is being created by the Minister, trying to transfer his authority to the review committee. The hon. member says that anything of this kind is unfair to the review committee.

I should like to know what the hon. members are doing; what do they really want to tell us today? We want to establish this review committee precisely because we realize how drastic a step such as preventive detention is. Because we realize this and because we know that the vast majority of people who support that party opposite, share this standpoint with us, we know that we are acting correctly when we establish a review committee by means of this Bill. We cannot understand how the hon. members opposite can adopt the standpoint they are now adopting, viz. that this Bill should be the subject of the investigation of a Select Committee. Surely those hon. members literally served for years on that commission. The commissioners on that side of the House did that work. I do not believe that the UP can walk away unscathed with this standpoint of theirs that, as they are trying to imply, they are really in earnest about co-operating with us on this side of the House in matters affecting the security of South Africa. The hon. members of the Opposition and other hon. members intimated that they were in complete agreement with us. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said it again today. However, we come to the point every time where we on this side have to say that party opposite is a real “yes, but” party. They always say “yes” when they can ride the wave with us which can give them popularity in South Africa, but as soon as we have to do things in the interests of South Africa which are really necessary and which are sometimes unpopular, then they say “but”. Then they can no longer say “yes”. What I should like to see is that we take a close look at the motion of the hon. member viz. to refer this matter to a Select Committee. Without committing the hon. the Minister, I want to say that I think it is absolute nonsense to come to this House today and ask that a Bill such as this should be referred to a Select Committee.

I want to make the hon. member a present of one thing. I have already mentioned that I personally requested a Bill of this kind. I want to make the hon. member a present of it that I should like to see the commission which the hon. the Prime Minister is to appoint, receiving terms of reference to investigate all the security legislation of South Africa. The hon. members opposite, and especially the hon. members of the PRP, should not derive so much pleasure from the matter, because I think we have not gone far enough with the Bill, which is before the House today. When we consider all the things which the Schlebusch Commission dredged up and which have proliferated, I believe it may perhaps become necessary for us, in our security legislation, to put the emphasis not so much on the political aspects of State security only but that we will probably have to give serious attention to economic aspects for example. Hon. members on this side of the House will discuss this further at a later stage in the debate. I am simply mentioning it in passing. Furthermore I want to say that it will even be necessary for us, in this country where I am standing before you today as a professing Christian—I assume the vast majority of the members in this House are professing Christians—also to consider and develop a definition of what the Christian security of South Africa consists of or, stated negatively, what the un-Christian insecurity of South Africa is.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Houghton may smile and be gleeful about this now. I can assure her that these are things which lie ahead of us in South Africa, whether we want to realize it or not. The hon. the Minister of Justice is not submitting this Bill to this House with a view to obtaining the powers which he is requesting—powers which are an extension of those which he had in the past—without our having indicated—and I am not ashamed of saying this—that we should like those powers to be given to him for the sake of South Africa. Nor shall we hesitate in future to request even greater powers for the sake of the future of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the greater part of the speech by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke was devoted to attacking the attitude taken up by the UP on this Bill. However, I shall leave him aside and treat the veiled threats with which he ended his speech with the contempt which they deserve. I have very little to say about the official Opposition, except simply to say … I am sorry the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is not here at the moment.

He is taking a telephone call. You will be able to speak to him just now.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that the hon. the Minister’s speech appeared to him to be unconvincing. I can only say that his own speech appeared to me to be apologetic, and I can only put it down to the fact that the UP has not had an easy time over its decision on this Bill. [Interjections.] Sir, whatever the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has said, there is no hall-mark to the UP’s attitude on Bills of this nature. If I have to go through its record over the years, I would say it is the nearest thing to an electro-cardiograph of a man with a serious coronary disease. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member stated that the UP had always opposed Bills which contained clauses providing for preventive detention without trial. I shall just give him four examples to show him that they did not always do this, although they sometimes did. They voted against the Sabotage Bill in 1962, a Bill which contained the house arrest clause, which is a measure of preventive detention without trial. They voted, however, for the 90-day clause, which allowed the hon. the Minister to detain people at intervals of 90 days.

That is untrue!

Sir, will the hon. member tell me …

That is untrue!

Will the hon. member tell me: Is he voting for or against this Bill today? I assume that he is voting against it

We want it to go to a Select Committee.

You see, Sir, the hon. member is not even sure.

Before Second Reading.

Now the hon. member for Green Point tells me that they are not accepting the Second Reading.

Well, obviously, because we ask for it to be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading.

The normal procedure in this House is that if one votes against the Second Reading of a Bill, one votes against the principle of the Bill. This is what I am talking about. The UP voted for the Second Reading of the Bill containing the 90-day clause. Today they are taking objection to the extention of the Sobukwe clause.

We voted against the Sobukwe clause during the Committee Stage.

I am not interested in what they did at Committee Stage. The principle of a Bill is decided on at the Second Reading, and they voted for preventive detention in 1963, when they supported 90-day detention and the Sobukwe clause, both of which were in that Bill. Two years later they voted against the 180-day Bill. Then, in 1967, they voted in principle, at Second Reading, for the Terrorism Act, which embodies detention without trial. So, as I say, now they are on and now they are off. One could have run a very successful betting shop in trying to decide what attitude the UP is going to take to Bills of this nature. I shall not go any further, save to say that they were for the Schlebusch Commission and against Piscom. But let us leave it at that.

This Bill, as far as I am concerned, is merely another Bill in the series of self-generating measures which the NP Government has introduced in this House since it came with the original Suppression of Communism Act of 1950. That Act has since been amended more than 80 times, and each time the hon. the Minister has taken unto himself—or his predecessors have—ever greater arbitrary powers. Each time, I might say, the reason given is much the same. If it is not well-poisoners, it is saboteurs. If it is not saboteurs, it is communists. If it is not communists, it is terrorists, but …

Do you believe that?

… always greater and greater powers are taken. We have had one measure after the other, e.g. the Unlawful Organizations law which banned the ANC and the PAC, the Sabotage Act and the 90-day law. We have also had the 180-day law, the Terrorism Act and so on. I might say that, together with these measures, we have also had a large number of measures over the years which have limited the right of association, curtailed the right of processions and gatherings to be held and stifled protest. We have also had BOSS, Schlebusch and Piscom. Slowly, but surely, South Africa has acquired the trappings—not all, but certainly some of the trappings—of a police state. We have not yet all the trappings, but the process goes on slowly, but surely. As the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke has told us, the process will surely continue to go on. As I have said, these measures have sometimes been supported by the Official Opposition.

Let us have a look at the Bill we are considering today. In the first place it replaces the title of the Suppression of Communism Act by a much more up-to-date and trendy sort of title. It is now called the “Promotion of State Security Bill” or the “SS Bill”, as the Press happens to have called it. It widens the class of person who can be subjected to arbitrary treatment by the hon. the Minister of Justice. And, of course, it is not only persons, but also organizations about which the hon. the Minister has taken far wider powers. He can now declare them unlawful and restrict and place under house arrest all persons who now fall within a much wider category, viz. those people whom the hon. the Minister, not the courts, is satisfied take part in activities which endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.

By the hon. the Minister’s own admission, this quite clearly means that the Suppression of Communism Act has indeed been used— this is an accusation I have frequently made in the House and for which I have always been jeered at—against people who were never communists, not even within the very broad definition of the Act. The hon. the Minister now comes along and scraps the title of the Suppression of Communism Act and inserts a far wider description of the type of person or organization he wishes to control. I maintain that this Bill is aimed not only at communists and at people plotting subversion, but can in fact be aimed also at people who are working for peaceful, non-violent change in South Africa, because the Bill contains no definition whatsoever as to what constitutes the endangering of the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. It is what the Minister is satisfied will do those things that will count. I might say that some of the examples we have heard in the House—one was given only the other day by the hon. the Minister of Information when he referred to a cartoon and others which the hon. the Minister of Justice has given—show how widely he intends interpreting the clauses of the Bill. He has mentioned students, and students are always useful scapegoats, students who are activists on campuses. He also mentioned people working in the labour field. I know that there are people working for peaceful change in the labour field and that they have already received the very intense attention of the Special Branch. I am talking of people who are, for instance, working to try to assist Black people in the formation of trade unions and to teach them what their rights are as far as the Wage Board and other such bodies are concerned. These people have already enjoyed the attention of the Security Branch. I believe that this is very ominous indeed.

The hon. the Minister not only widens the category of people against whom he can act; he very significantly broadens also the actions he can take against them. He can now not only restrict them or prohibit them from attending meetings or have them placed under house arrest; he can also have them interned without trial. The hon. the Minister said that this Bill was not intended for wide-scale internment. He said that it was not suitable for large-scale internment. Is it, however, suitable for small-scale internment? He is the person who used this kind of term. In simple terms, stripped of legal verbiage, that is exactly what clause 4 means. It means that we are going to have internment camps in South Africa. That is exactly what clause 4 enables the Minister to do, viz. to shut people up, imprison whom he likes in any area defined as a prison. This might well be an internment camp. Unlike the Sobukwe-clause, which was, in all conscience, bad enough—people then had to be in gaol before they could be kept in prison after the expiration of the sentence imposed on them by the courts of law—people now no longer even have to be found guilty of an offence under the particular schedule. One could, of course, say that this could happen in South Africa anyway under the Terrorism Act, but the hon. the Minister, or in any case the police, could keep people indefinitely in solitary confinement without a trial.

I believe that the provisions of clause 4 of this SS Bill in a subtle way go even further than section 6 of the Terrorism Act. Although under the Terrorism Act a person can be held by the police for an indefinite period in solitary confinement for purposes of interrogation if suspected of being a terrorist or of having information relating to terrorists, or of offences under the Terrorism Act, the inference is that once the interrogation is over, the person would ultimately be charged or released. That is how I have always understood the Terrorism Act was implemented. It is true that the police can, and indeed have, held people indefinitely. There are many people who are still being held under the Terrorism Act. They have been held by the police for months. But surely the inference is that since they are being held for purposes of interrogation, to see whether they are terrorists or whether they know anything about terrorist activity, that as soon as the interrogation has been concluded to the satisfaction of the police, they will either be charged or released. That is not the case under clause 4 of this Bill, because the possibility of a trial is irrelevant. The hon. the Minister does not contemplate a trial in this instance. The pressure to charge or release has been removed in this instance and I think it is an appalling prospect, because it means that there can be unending internment in either a prison or a camp until the hon. the Minister is satisfied, by some purely subjective decision or test of his own, that the person is no longer going to engage in activities endangering the State or public order.

This hon. Minister has been very modest and humble when giving interviews over the media about using the powers which he will acquire under clause 4 of this Bill. He wants them—a paraphrase of course—“just in case”. I have heard similar undertakings from other hon. Ministers acquiring unnatural powers in this House. I was not in the House when some of them were made, but I certainly know that when the then hon. Minister of Justice, Mr. Swart, introduced the Public Safety Bill, and the “Whipping Bill” of 1953, he said:

When the house arrest clause was introduced in 1962—I certainly was in the House then—the then Minister said that it would be used most carefully and only after warnings had been given to the persons concerned. Yet I know of people who have been placed under house arrest without warning. A more recent example of ministerial assurance that their powers would only be used in a limited way—many members in the House will remember this—was the assurance given not by the then Minister of Justice, but by the then Minister of Police when the Terrorism Act was introduced. He assured the House that it would only be used against terrorists in the bush. Well, I do not need to remind the House that the Terrorism Act has been most widely used by the Police and not only against terrorists in the bush. It is true that clause 4 of this Bill has to be reproclaimed each year by the State President. When translated into practical terms, this means the Cabinet, more particularly the hon. the Minister of Justice. The Sobukwe clause had to be re-enacted year after year by this Parliament—not by the State President or the Cabinet, but by this Parliament. Even that was no deterrent. It was re-enacted six times, to my knowledge, and Sobukwe was kept in gaol for six solid years after the three-year sentence, imposed on him by the courts of law for defying the pass laws, had expired. The re-enactment of the 90-day law also had to be done by this Parliament, and that was no deterrent either, because until that law was suspended—which was round about 1965—there was no difficulty in re-enacting it. Therefore there is going to be no difficulty either in reproclaiming clause 4 of this SS Bill year after year by the State President. It is also true, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana mentioned, that clause 4 …

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Why should I be ashamed of myself? I did not introduce this Bill. The hon. member should be ashamed of himself. Clause 4 of this Bill is subject to review, in terms of one of the paragraphs contained in that particular clause, if the State President thinks fit to appoint such a review committee. I do not intend to go into the question of the review committee in any detail. One of my colleagues in these benches will do so at a later stage. I shall simply confine myself to saying that it is a colossal bluff. It is bogus and it is not worth the paper it is written on. Other members on these benches will deal with further objectionable clauses, such as the no bail provision, the provision dealing with the 180-day detention of witnesses, and the provision extending the Riotous Assemblies Act to South West Africa.

I simply sum up this measure, then, as being part of the Government’s policy of taking emergency powers without declaring a state of emergency. That is what is at the back of all of this. The Minister wants to have the powers, but he does not want to have the repercussions of a state of emergency, and that can only happen in a country which has no respect for democratic principles. I want to say that I at one stage, in my innocence, actually believed that with the Terrorism Act we had reached the end of the Government’s long list of laws which destroy the accepted principles of the rule of law, and that we had satisfied the Government’s greedy lust for arbitrary powers that exclude the courts of law. Of course, I was wrong. I had forgotten that the more one eats, the more one wants to eat. I had forgotten that the more power one has, the more power one wants to have.

Sadly enough, as I have observed before in this House, the South African electorate has become punch-drunk as measure after measure of this nature has found its way on to the Statute Book and as assault after assault has been levelled on our civil liberty. I believe that the threshold of tolerance of the South African electorate has risen with each measure, and we have now reached the unhappy state where, basically, in terms of this law the freedom of every individual in South Africa is dependent on the opinion of the Minister of Justice. That is what it has come to. Habeas corpus, as far as security legislation is concerned, is as dead as the dodo in South Africa. There was a time, only 15 years ago, when our Department of Information proudly put out 10 000 copies of a pamphlet in which it proclaimed that in South Africa no person could be imprisoned or detained without trial. There was a time in South Africa, further back in our history, when members belonging to the party opposite objected to detention without trial in internment camps during a declared state of war. Many passionate speeches were made from the benches occupied by the National Party in those days by men like Dr. Malan, Mr. Blackie Swart and others, against depriving a man of his freedom without due trial. That is not the case any more, Sir, alas; not today. And yet South Africa is not only not in a declared state of war; she is not only not in a declared state of emergency. She is in a peaceful and stable position, as we have heard Ministers announce in this House. [Interjections.] Earlier this session we had members on the Government benches exhorting us as good South Africans to project a favourable image of South Africa when we go overseas. I want to know how on earth, when one goes abroad and one pronounces that South Africa is in a peaceful state and that there is no crisis in South Africa, one can justify a law of this kind being passed in South Africa today. Israel is in a state of perpetual difficulty with terrorists. She is in a state of declared war, and undeclared war, very often, but she does not have a law like this. England is menaced by IRA terrorists. Over 1 000 people have lost their lives and 10 000 people have been injured, but she does not have a law like this.

There is preventive detention.

Yes, there is preventive detention, in terms of the British Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary) Act, but it is temporary indeed. Nobody can be held for longer than seven days, and the Act has to be re-enacted every six months by the British Parliament. There is none of the secrecy that is attached to the laws which we pass in this House. There is access to legal advice and, indeed, the court may examine the implementation of that law. It is therefore very different indeed from the Act which we already have and the law which we are discussing today. The hon. the Minister did not tell us about this, but quoted very curious examples of countries that have used preventive detention. He told us that Indonesia used these measures in 1968 and that Malaysia used it in 1960. He also told us about Pakistan, Singapore, India and Guyana. However, none of these countries happens to be a Western democracy as we purport to be. [Interjections.] Of course he did mention Canada in passing, but Canada had very temporary preventive detention laws and these were immediately removed as soon as the emergency was over, a declared emergency as it was in this case. The example that was most relevant of course, the hon. the Minister did not give us, i.e. the example of communist Russia and the countries behind the Iron Curtain. Those countries do have preventive detention as anyone who has read the brilliant books of Solzhenitsyn will know. Those countries have it—communist Russia and the countries behind the Iron Curtain. Nazi Germany had preventive detention as well. In those countries people disappeared and were not seen again.

I want to say how ironic it is that 26 years after the first far-reaching measure to stamp out communism was introduced by this Government, Parliament is still legislating to achieve that object. We have had law after law after law passed in this House for the main purpose of stamping out communism, but that course of action has failed. One would have thought that the lesson was clear for all to read.

They have too many fronts and support in the highest of places.

The hon. the Minister has so many powers that he can act against any front he likes and put it out of action. He could have done it even without this Bill: he could have banned, house-arrested and put people away. He could have done anything he liked. These measures are, however, still apparently not sufficient. And the message from that is clear, namely that harsh laws like this are not the answer. If you have communists, if you have subversives and if you have people who preach violence, the courts can deal with these persons and the courts should deal with them. We on these benches are in favour of people suspected of preaching or practising violence, revolution or subversion being brought before a court of law and if found guilty they must be punished and prevented from acting further. We do not believe, however, in giving powers to ban people and organizations to that hon. the Minister or to any hon. Minister. Such powers belong with the courts. If you want to stamp out communism the lesson is clear: It cannot be stamped out by coming back to this House year in and year out, with a dreary monotony, introducing laws that take more and more arbitrary powers. The lesson is that you have to look to the underlying grievances that promote subversion and communism and violence in this country and you have to do away with these grievances. They have to be put right. That is the only way to give lasting security to this country.

For these reasons and because we do not believe that this is the way to fight subversion and to ensure security in this country, I wish to move as a further amendment—

I think that this afternoon we have once again had one of the reasons for the need to have a Bill like this one before the House. It is people like the hon. member for Houghton who make it necessary for us in South Africa to take steps like these to promote the security of the State. The speech she made here this afternoon, is an incitement for many people in South Africa to threaten that security further. That is why this Bill is necessary today. We have often heard this speech of hers in the past. Among other things, the hon. member referred here to “internment camps”.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member say that something which hon. members do is an incitement to them to threaten the security of the State further?

Order! What did the hon. member mean when he said that?

I do not mean that they did so on purpose, but that it could perhaps incite other people who interpreted the speeches wrongly. [Interjections.] This afternoon the hon. member spoke here about “internment camps”. These are words which are regarded with horror throughout the world. This is one of the reasons why many people have seized upon these words of hers and think that South Africa has now become a police state.

It is very close.

This can also incite people to commit crimes here. The worst of all, however, is the fact that the hon. member called this Bill the “SS Bill”. This Bill is not a “State Security Bill”. The Bill’s title is clearly the “Promotion of State Security Bill”. The term “SS Bill” is an incorrect connotation which she is attaching to this legislation, a legislation which we in South Africa need in order to protect people like her, her party and her party supporters in South Africa. I do not want to dwell much longer on what the hon. member said. Of course, she came along with her usual story here, referring to “unnatural powers” vested in the hon. the Minister, as if the freedom of people is being threatened in South Africa. She spoke about the freedom of every individual in South Africa which was supposedly going to be assailed again by the hon. the Minister.

I just want to deal briefly with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. We have not yet had an opportunity to study this amendment, but I notice that the hon. member asks that a Select Committee go into new offences of and punishments for people who threaten the security of the State. However, it is very clear that the hon. member, and perhaps other hon. members on his side of the House, too, have not studied this Bill thoroughly. If they had studied it thoroughly and done a little research, they would have realized very clearly that it would not help merely to lay down further punishments. We are living in a time of change. New methods and philosophies to threaten the safety of the State are always coming to the fore, and it is pointless, therefore, merely to apply the old methods. We must provide for the new methods which increase from day to day and curtail these. He also spoke of the freedom of individuals. It seems to me that those hon. members want to return to the old point of discussion which we have had over and over in this House, namely the rule of law. It seems to me as if they feel that we are threatening the freedom of people in South Africa, the freedom to go to the courts and stand trial there. This is anything but the truth.

I see the hon. member for Umhlatuzana also mentions the fact that the Bill “provides for the protection of witnesses”. However, this Bill is not only there for the protection of witnesses who need protection. Many of those witnesses are themselves a danger to the State. This is why it will also be necessary to restrict them from time to time and while their cases are being concluded or further inquiries made. I think we can reject the amendment of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana with contempt. I agree with the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke that the hon. the Minister will not even pay attention to the amendment in terms of which it is moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

Both hon. members on that side who spoke before me, have lost sight of the fact that an Act which was necessary in 1950, the Suppression of Communism Act, perhaps no longer complies with today’s requirements. That Act was placed on the Statute Book 26 years ago. Have hon. members forgotten that we have had certain episodes on our borders? Have they forgotten about Angola and Mozambique? Are they unaware that there are problems at the moment in Rhodesia? Do they not realize that the problems which are being experienced in Rhodesia are moving closer to South Africa? Have they lost sight of the ideology of communism? Do they know nothing about the African ideology? Have they lost sight completely of terrorism and its consequences for South Africa? I think hon. members must begin to realize very quickly that every Government’s greatest responsibility is the creation and maintenance of order and security within its country. Our security is being threatened from various directions. We know that communism is threatening our security. Direct and indirect terrorism is just such a threat. It has already been mentioned that indirect terrorism is manifesting itself in the fact that our economy and religion are being threatened. Permissiveness, and everything which accompanies it, are also forms of indirect terrorism. We are also being threatened by means of sabotage and calls to violence and rebellion. There is also treason and sedition. All these factors which I have quoted have nothing to do with armed conflict from across our borders. This afternoon we are not even talking about armed conflict, because this falls within the province of another department. I say it is every government’s duty to combat the threats we are experiencing in the form of the factors I have mentioned.

We often speak of the infrastructure of a country having to be expanded. However, do we realize that the most important form of infrastructure which can be expanded in the country is specifically the security and progress of the people of that country. I think that in order to ensure State security, attention must be paid to two aspects. On the one hand there is the urge of communism to dominate the world and with that goal in mind, agents are sent even to our country in order to carry on subversive activities. State security must be protected against such actions. On the other hand, there are also internal factions which threaten State security. This fact must also be taken into account.

It is a fact that no nation wants to be dominated by another nation. In South Africa there are approximately 25 million people of different culture, language, religion, philosophy, etc. If we had to lump all these people together into one group, it would cause friction and discord which would result in the security of the State being threatened. To lump them together would therefore simply not work. We must guard against the security of the State being threatened by something like this. In is true, nevertheless, that many people want everyone to be lumped together in spite of the fact that anything of the kind would have disastrous consequences for us in South Africa.

During a debate which we conducted in this House in February this year, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that they were also in favour of the promotion of State security. However, he indicated that they wanted to utilize other methods in order to achieve this. By means of the Bill which is now before the House, we once again afforded hon. members of the UP the opportunity to prove their bona fides, I must say that they failed hopelessly to prove their bona fides towards South Africa. In the course of his speech, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana pointed out a few times that they wanted to move slowly. They always want to adopt an attitude of caution, but what has that attitude of caution done for them over the past 27 years? It has meant that only a few of them are able to sit here. It also gave them Durban North. This caution of theirs has cost them their constituencies. They continue to cling to the old policy of Gen. Smuts: “Let things develop.” Well, “things” have developed for them, and to such an extent that they are where they are today. The time has come for them, too, to look to the interests of South Africa, and not only to the interests of their own party. This Bill includes precautionary measures. The powers contained in this Bill will be exercised absolutely judiciously. The hon. the Minister himself said that he would keep these measures on ice and only use them when necessary.

One should ask the Opposition whether Angola and similar episodes have not yet convinced them that communist imperialism is gathering force throughout the world. Do they agree that apart from the threats on our borders, there are also internal threats? Do they agree with this or not? Do they agree that these threats can only be combated by ordinary measures, or are extraordinary measures perhaps also necessary to combat these threats? Are they aware of the communist methods? It does not seem to me as if they always are. They are in a centuries old sleep and the sooner they wake up, the better it will be for them. Leaders of the Communist Party, Stalin, inter alia, said that they would even call on Satan to further their goals.

This Bill also aims at helping the Government to prevent preparations for an internal attack. I am referring to the onslaught of individuals and groups who work underground, behind fronts which sometimes sound and look very innocent. These enemies of South Africa hide behind front organizations and wait for the opportunity to instigate revolution here. They work outward from within in order to realize their aims here in South Africa, bur particularly to bring about the collapse of law and order in South Africa. By their stubborn behaviour, the non-members of the UP and the PRP are strengthening those subversive front organizations in South Africa.

This Bill is a serious one. On 26 February this year the hon. the Prime Minister invited the Official Opposition for the umpteenth time to co-operate in respect of State security. To emphasize the seriousness of the matter, the hon. the Prime Minister said that the safety of South Africa was more important than his own position. This Bill once again emphasizes the seriousness of the situation. If we look at the report of the Department of Justice on internal security, we shall realize that we are faced with a serious position and steps to counteract the threats must be considered. One cannot wait until the deed has been done because then it is too late, and when it is too late, everything is irrevocably past. Then the UP and the PRP will have to bear the responsiblity for what they have done to South Africa.

I want to ask both Opposition parties whether they have forgotten about the terrorism which has been experienced in South Africa in the past. Have they forgotten about the bloodshed there has been? Have they forgotten about the ANC and the PAC with Sobukwe at the head? He seceded from the ANC precisely because, according to him, there were too many white communists in the ANC and he wanted to make it more of a Black militant movement. Have they forgotten about Poqo, the militant wing of the PAC? Have they forgotten about Umkontho We Sizwe, the militant wing of the ANC? Have they forgotten about the Paarl riots? the hon. member for Houghton need not look askance at me, because she even defended this by saying that the people were dissatisfied with the hostel facilities which were established for them there. Thirty-four people were killed in those riots. Have hon. members forgotten about all these things? The hon. member says we are living in a country of security. Where is the security and the peace of the country if this kind of thing is experienced? Have they forgotten about the horrible murders at Bashee, in the Transkei? Have they forgotten about the Rivonia episode? Mr. Speaker, it is time for these people to call these things to mind once again. Have they forgotten about John Harris, and the station bomb episode in Johannesburg. Have they forgotten about the innocent child who was so horribly mutilated there?

Get to the point!

Have they also forgotten about the student processions in Johannesburg, processions by people who tried to undermine the security of the State? Have they also forgotten about the disturbance close to here, in front of St. George’s Cathedral? Do they not think for a moment of all the non-Whites who are smuggled out of the country to undergo training in communist countries with the aim of committing terrorism in South Africa? Do people not think of these things any more? Do they approve of it? I should very much like to hear what they have to say, and that includes the hon. member for Rondebosch who is looking askance at me. [Interjections.] Let him tell us whether he approves of it. Apparently he has forgotten about these things. At that time he was not yet a member of this House. Apparently he was also too young when these things happened, but he can just as well go and do a little research to refresh his memory.

The security of the State can be threatened in various ways, as the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke said. It can take place in the economic sphere, as well as in the cultural sphere. Just consider the present-day spirit of permissiveness. The security of the State can be threatened in the political and religious spheres. Therefore preventive measures must be taken in time. I should like to repeat what I said in a previous debate. When we visited Mozambique two years ago, the leaders of that country told us that the aims of communism were to destroy the existing culture in Southern Africa. They are starting in Mozambique, Rhodesia and Angola, and when they have achieved their aims there, they will concentrate on South Africa. Acts of terrorism are committed in each of the mentioned areas.

Whenever I look at the hon. member for Houghton, the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Yeoville, I automatically think of the three famous monkeys who close their ears, their eyes and their mouths. They do not want to see these things. It simply passes them by. The hon. member for Yeoville is unfortunately not present now. In a debate in this House, on 25 February of this year, he said (Hansard, 1976, col. 1946)—

According to him people are striving to attain equal wealth, equal opportunities, equal political aspirations. This is correct. There is nothing wrong with this. The people are striving for this; we grant them that. We, too, are bringing these things about for them. There are several laws on our Statute Book by means of which the aspirations of these people are being catered for. If the hon. member would only look up the debate on the Bantu Administration Vote which was held during the Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill in this House, he would not what development has been effected there, due specifically to the stimulus which has been created to satisfy the aspirations of those people. However, the hon. member goes on to say (col. 1946)—

These are the people who try and undermine the security of the State—

This is quite correct. We grant him this. However, he goes on to say—

The hon. member said something similar this afternoon. However, they are guilty of a serious error of reasoning when they fail to say what the “something bigger” that we have to do is.

The hon. member for Yeoville said that we maintained that the threats emanated from idealistic students or inept philosophers. However, it does not emanate from them only. It does indeed emanate from them, too, but the threats also emanate from other sources. These are the threats which we must deal with. He is still philosophizing about something very much more serious and deadly. Unfortunately he still sees it at a distance. He is unable to see it next to us here. He does not see that it has already come close to us.

However, it is not only the PRP that sometimes acts in an un-South African way. We often see this in our daily papers, too. In the Sunday Times of last Sunday I read that they called the Bill “a Draconian Bill”. They say the following about the Bill—

They use the word “chillingly”, in other words, they consider it to be a deterrent. The report goes on—

They call it the “ugly sister”. They continue—

This is really a disgrace. Before my time has expired, I should like to say a few words about the rule of law. The rule of law about which people make such a fuss and about which more will be said later in the debate, is actually a doctrine which dates from the previous century. It was the British philosophers and lawyers—Prof. Dicey had a great deal to do with it—who formulated the rule of law. When it was formulated during the previous century, however, the world was a completely different place. The position at that time was completely different to what it is now. The British Empire was a mighty world power. The British form of government was practically unassailable. Their system was one of the best one could find at that time. At that time there was no terrorism or communism as we know it today. There were no hijacks, no double standards, boycotts or permissive societies. The world was a completely different place and the rule of law worked 100% at that time. This was very fine and it was essential at that time. With the coming of the 20th century, however, the position changed. Times changed. New requirements arose, and we had to adapt ourselves to them. Doctrines like communism, humanism and liberalism began to take over the world and threaten democracy. The continued existence of nations and peoples, of communal interests, had to take precedence over individual interests. This started to become urgently necessary. The communist ideology and the rule of law do not go hand in hand. On the contrary. They are sworn enemies. Drastic action had to be taken against communism’s new methods, as well as against their agents and organizations. No love was lost between communism and democracy. Then the time came for us to choose our weapons and take steps in order to combat these things.

However, a Government has a responsibility and a duty towards its citizens. The PRP must give us one case where the Government abused the powers it has taken upon itself. The hon. member for Houghton referred scornfully to other places in the world which had the same type of legislation, but which do not take such stringent action. I want to refer her to a book South Africa and the Rule of Law. On page 39 she will find that the USA—she asked that we mention a Western country—has had an Internal Security Act since 1950 which is specifically aimed at combating these things and which, according to her, would violate the rule of law. Apart from that, India also has legislation, the Preventive Detention Bill of 1950, in terms of which they adopt the strong standpoint that we sometimes shall have to deviate from the rule of law. They maintain that it cannot be applied in all cases, especially not in these times. Another Western country, namely Northern Ireland, also has its own form of security legislation which is at present being piloted through.

It is recognized policy that, in times when it is necessary, extraordinary measures are not only justified, but essential. The continued existence of any nation demands this. South Africa’s security measures are insignificant compared with what exists in other countries at the moment. We must ask ourselves what the PRP envisages by giving up with all resistance to this subversion. In this way they are indeed engaged in the eradication of the White man here at the southern tip of Africa. We must ask them what they prefer: murder of innocent civilians, or effective steps to prevent the loss of human life? What is really happening is that the rule of law is not being violated, it is being strengthened by this legislation in order to protect the individual in this country and to ensure his continued existence here. I want to tell the PRP that the time for picknicking in this country is past and that serious steps will have to be taken to combat the undermining of State security with all the ways and means at our disposal.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Potgietersrus unfortunately devoted most of his speech to making party political propaganda in relation to a matter which I believe is far too serious to be approached in that manner. I do not think there is one of us in this House who is not conscious of the growth of lawlessness, violence and the contempt for law and order generally throughout the world at the present time. We read about it in the Press and we see it on TV night after night. The motivation for this violence and lawlessness differs from centre to centre. It may on occasions be merely personal motivation and due to the blatant lawlessness of an individual. On occasions it may be motivated by religious or political ideologies. I want to say quite clearly from this side of the House that there is not one member here who is not prepared and willing to subscribe to necessary and adequate action and legislation to contain and prevent activities which endanger—I use the wide phrase which is used in the Bill—the security of the State or which threatens to disrupt public order. I am using that in the wide sense, i.e. the necessary action and legislation to contain such lawlessness and disorder. The argument I want to put to the hon. the Minister, is to what extent this Bill is necessary and to what extent it in fact, in its definition and in its content, will help towards the maintenance of law and order. I want to remind the hon. the Minister and the House that we on this side of the House have consistently over the years been prepared to put country interests before party interests in matters which are of common concern. I need only remind hon. members that we as a party—back in the days of Dr. Malan— offered to try to deal with the Native question by taking it out of party politics and to find a solution. Since then, we have consistently made similar offers, but they have all been rejected. From this side of the House, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and others, have consistently suggested to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs that there should be a committee, as there is in the Parliaments of other countries, to deal with foreign affairs on a non-party basis. That has been rejected as well. The hon. member for Durban Point has consistently and persistently suggested that the time has arrived for a defence council or Standing Select Committee on defence matters. That has been rejected. We have consistently made these suggestions, and I have personally explained to this House why we on this side of the House were prepared to take part in the investigation of certain organizations.

But, Sir, the Government always wants to go it alone, without an opportunity for proper and careful consideration of views which possibly do not conform directly and in all circumstances to their own views. We have in South Africa a country which is substantially peaceful. During this session the hon. the Prime Minister and others have said how fortunate we are in South Africa to have a country which is substantially peaceful. Visitors from overseas, both official and private, remark on the absence of police in Adderley Street and other streets. That is because we are basically a law-abiding nation. Sir, there is also at this stage a consensus between the PRP, the Government and ourselves that discrimination on the basis of colour must be removed. The question of how, where and in what manner and at what time may be debated, but the principle is accepted. But, Sir, we also have amongst us—and we realize this—those who would destroy the very circumstances of peace and order which we enjoy at the present time. There are those people in this country who would like to destroy these circumstances, and those people are both White and non-White. We are involved at the present moment in a conflict on our borders to repel terrorists attempting to enter into South West Africa, and we in this country find ourselves in the situation where we have to keep a balance between personal liberty and the restriction of that liberty in the interests of State security. That is the problem with which we are faced. Mr. Speaker, I make no excuse for quoting again something which has been quoted often in this House. In 1973 I quoted these words of Pres. Truman in dealing with communism, and I wish to repeat them. Pres. Truman said this—

That is what we have to guard against. I am not going to use extravagant words to suggest that this Bill in its entirety is turning South Africa into a totalitarian State by nature of its contents, but that is what we have to guard against. We must see to it that we do not go too far in our enthusiasm to contain what we believe is a danger, and create something which is worse and more harmful to the interests of our country.

The hon. member for Houghton said that the Suppression of Communism Act has been used to contain people who do not fall strictly within the purview of the Act in that they were not in fact communists or furthering the interests of communism. I agree with her that has been done. I want to quote what the hon. the Minister of Community Development said when he spoke in this House on 27 February 1973 in connection with the actions that were taken against the students as a result of the findings of the Schlebusch Commission. This is what the hon. the Minister of Community Development said (Hansard, Vol. 42, col. 1509)—

Nevertheless, this Government, in the opinion of the hon. the Minister of Justice, used the Suppression of Communism Act in order to ban the students. Those of us on this side who sat on the Schlebusch Commission have made our attitude perfectly clear and it is there in print for all to see. I wonder how many of those hon. members have read the minority report. That is my problem, sometimes, when I address the members opposite; I do not know whether they have understood what is contained in that minority report. The hon. member for Brits smiles, but I wonder when he last read the minority report or studied it. There, as far as we are concerned, we explicitly stated the views which we have in regard to the problems which arise in dealing with subversion. In the first instance we recommended that there should be a redefinition of actions which are regarded as threatening the security of the State. These actions must be specifically defined. There again I wish to call to mind what was said by the hon. the Minister of Community Development when he spoke on this subject as well. He and I spoke at the tabling of the first and second reports of the Schlebusch Commission. On that occasion the hon. the Minister said (Hansard, Vol. 42, col. 1566)—

That is our attitude today but, what do we have in this Bill? We have a wide net in which we can catch anything from a sardine to a whale, if I can use a fishing metaphor in this matter. It is a net that is so wide that one does not know for what one is setting out to fish. That is the problem that we have with this whole Bill and this problem can be traced right through the Bill. One of the problems that we have is this definition which cannot be interpreted objectively by any person who merely reads the Act.

Why do you not endeavour to correct it during the Committee Stage?

The hon. member asks why we do not correct it during the Committee Stage. We want this Bill to go to a Select Committee before Second Reading so that we are not committed. We cannot argue against any principle of the Bill when we reach the Committee Stage because it will then be said that we are restricting the terms of a Bill which we supported during the Second Reading.

Are you for or against the principle?

The hon. member for Yeoville asks me a question which shows that he does not understand the situation. He should realize that this Bill does not have one principle only, but that it involves five or six principles. Secondly, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that the Bill should go to a Select Committee before Second Reading is not an acceptance of the principles of the Bill. That is obvious, and I wish the hon. member would try to understand this. It is a Bill that should go to a Select Committee in order that a problem which we accept does exist in South Africa may be dealt with. We accept that we need to deal with subversion, but we need to deal with it in a way which has been outlined, as I have said, by the hon. the Minister of Community Development. We believe that this problem does exist and I call to witness members of the Government who sat on the Schlebusch Commission. We called the Government’s attention in our report three years ago to the fact that there were things happening in South Africa which apparently could not be dealt with under the laws of the land. We also believed there were activities such as the rejection of the ballot-box and that kind of thing, the overthrowing of the democratic form of government we have here, or at least incitement towards those ends or an advocating of those ends, these not being defined as crimes which could be punished in South Africa. The Government has done nothing to deal with those aspects. Has any hon. member on the opposite side of the House, in the Government benches, applied his mind to the point endorsed by all the members of the Le Grange Commission, i.e. that attention should be given to the seriousness of citizens of this country advocating economic and arms boycotts against this country? Has that been given any attention whatsoever? Has it even been thought about, rejected or accepted, or brought before this House so that we could debate the matter? No, the Government has gone on to utilize a situation, which affects every citizen in South Africa, for purely party political propaganda purposes so that they can say that no one else in South Africa is a patriot except those sitting in the NP.

Now I want to deal with the question of executive action. I hope I do not have to remind the hon. the Minister of Justice of what is contained in the minority report. The principle that executive action may be taken by a government in times of war or emergency is an accepted principle because in the final analysis the security of the State in times of war or emergency is the responsibility of the government. What we have said is that if one wants to take executive action or have the power to take executive action, there must be a clear definition of the circumstances in which that executive action can be taken and for what reason it can be taken.

There was no definition like that during the war.

I am now coming to my next point. The hon. the Minister will also appreciate, as I do, that there can well be circumstances of armed conflict without a declaration of war, because in the future there will probably never be a declaration of war. We have dealt with this matter in relation to the Defence Act. Well, then, let us state this in the Bill. Let us state in the Bill that if we are involved in armed conflict, which is the term for modern war coined by Anthony Eden, under such specified circumstances executive action can be taken.

I now want to come to another point. I am grateful for the fact that the Government has introduced into this Bill a judicial committee of review, but it has been restricted to only one form of executive action, to what I might term the internment clause of this Bill. Why has the hon. the Minister not extended this to all the executive action he can take under the Suppression of Communism Act? I believe a Select Committee should look at situations where the hon. the Minister uses the powers he now has to act in terms of restricting persons, banning unlawful organizations and prohibiting publications. Why is he so shy about letting those also come under review by a review tribunal? This is a point I believe the hon. the Minister should concede. I only regret that there has been so much of a delay. The Government commissioners said there had been a lot of talk about the need for a tribunal, but they did not think they should make any decision. I am very glad the hon. the Minister has virtually done word for word what we in the minority told him to do. The only difficulty is that he has not extended this far enough. For example, he has not quite extended it to cover the composition of that judicial tribunal. I believe that a definition of what we consider to be actions threatening security should be given in this Bill.

I want to refer again to what was said when the first and second reports were tabled, because we have shown a consistent attitude. I myself said on 28 February 1973 that if the findings of fact which we had in the reports before us did not justify a criminal prosecution for an offence under the laws of South Africa, I believed, with the hon. the Minister of Community Development, the then hon. member for Yeoville, that there was something very wrong with the laws of our country. I did not suggest that we should prosecute those persons ex post facto. If what they were doing was not punishable, there was something wrong with the laws of our country. I also want to add a further reminder of what we said at that time. The hon. the Minister of Community Development dealt with the question of the defining of crimes and said that the UP had always resisted executive action which deprived people of their liberty. He added—

The hon. the Minister said in any case the internment clause of this Bill would be put on ice. The point is, however, that in a Select Committee we shall have the time to go through all the measures which deal with security matters. I am now not referring to the other commission which the Government has seen fit to establish. A Select Committee of this House appointed to deal with security legislation will be able to find definitions which will describe these circumstances clearly, so that the whole country and every individual will know exactly what the position is. In connection with the powers of internment I believe that a Select Committee will be able to investigate and define the circumstances in which the State President could declare the provisions of the Bill applicable in some area or another.

It was made quite clear by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that we cannot accept the Bill in its present form and with the principles it contains. However, we do realize that we as responsible citizens must see to it that machinery is available to deal with subversion and threats to the security of the State. We want to believe that such machinery does exist. It can be argued and it is argued that we have such a string of security laws that we do not need any more.

We have Boss, for instance.

The hon. member says we have Boss. Well, there are also others and it may well be that the time has come—I think the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke mentioned it—for us to have a consolidated law in regard to security matters. I think it is a very good suggestion which the hon. member has made. In fact, I think it is an ideal matter for such a Select Committee to look into. There must be a code of conduct by which those who transgress will be judged. They should not be judged in the office of the hon. the Minister, but before a court of law. I do appreciate that there are certain exceptions when they cannot be brought before a court. Such an exception will be when circumstances are such that security interests make it necessary that certain matters be investigated in camera. That is where the hon. the Minister’s tribunal will come into the picture.

Basically we want the hon. the Minister to spell it out whenever he wants to stop an action which he believes is against the interests of the State or which may subvert law and order in South Africa or may affect the security of the State. He should spell it out so that everybody will know it is there and so that, if a man is taken into custody to be charged, he will know for what offence he will be charged. The hon. the Minister has referred the House to the definition which applies to the American security committee. There were recent amendments to the terms of reference of the committee and its modus operandi. The American security committee provides us with guide-lines; the Americans have a definition of the type of action which is believed to threaten the security of the State.

We cannot accept the Bill as it is at the moment, but if the hon. the Minister accepts the amendment in which the appointment of a Select Committee is asked for, we shall obviously be prepared to play our part in such a Select Committee appointed to deal with legislation which will eventually be laid before this House. We have made that attitude clear over and over again. We also made it clear when the question of the Security Commission came before us. We are prepared to play our part as Parliamentarians to deal with legislation in this House.

May I say to the hon. the Minister that this is surely not the time for the Government to adopt an obstinate attitude. This Bill has taken some 2½ to 3 years to germinate and to see the light of day in this House. I do not believe the hon. the Minister is justified in blindly rejecting the amendment that was moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in which he suggested that this Bill should be looked at in more detail by a Select Committee. This could ensure an acceptable basis for the maintenance of law and order. I believe that the Government could go to such a Select Committee to show its sincerity. In this way it could show that it is sincerely seeking an acceptable basis for combating subversion. When I say “acceptable basis”, I mean a basis which is understood and respected by every person in every walk of life in our country. When all the people in the country realize the necessity of such a law, that law will be successful. I may add that such a Select Committee would also be a test of the sincerity of the Official Opposition and of the PRP as to the extent to which they are prepared to contribute to finding an acceptable solution with regard to security matters. If that were done, we would be able to determine a basis on which we could go ahead in South Africa with the maintenance of law and order within the limits and practices of law and the enjoyment of personal liberties to the maximum extent permissible without affecting the security of the State. I hope the hon. the Minister will accept the suggestion which has come from this side of the House.

I will consider it if you will accept the principle of the Bill.

The hon. the Minister is now being unreasonable. It is like saying: “Come along, we would like you to work with us, but sign the blue card first.” That is to say, the NP card. [Interjections.] We are not interested in doing that sort of thing. The hon. the Minister knows perfectly well that we accept …

No, I am quite serious. If you accept the principle I will consider going into the details as suggested in your amendment.

No, that is not the position.

You do not really want that, do you?

No, we do. One has to leave the door open when dealing with this matter. If the Select Committee comes along with proposals which he does not like, the Government has the power to say “We are not going on with this” and to bring the Bill back to Parliament again.

I think your party decided that it would not accept the principle before it came to the debate.

Is the hon. the Minister afraid that even a Select Committee will not accept the Bill in this form?

Are you afraid to accept the principles contained in your minority report?

This Bill contains a number of principles.

The principles involved are principles you accepted by way of your minority report.

No, that is not so. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to argue further across the floor with the hon. the Minister, but I want to say to him that the very purpose of going to a Select Committee before Second Reading is to ensure that Select Committee will be unfettered as to the form of its investigation into the introduction of a Bill which deals with a situation which both the hon. the Minister and we on this side of the House would like to deal with effectively.

If there is to be concensus between your party and my party, there should first be concensus on the principle of this legislation. [Interjections.]

Let me say that if the hon. the Minister asks whether we on this side of the House are prepared to make our contribution to combating subversion and threats to the security of the State, our reply is that we accept that principle here and now. Let us then put that principle to the Select Committee and let them decide on the measures to be taken.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point went to a great deal of trouble to try to indicate that a Select Committee was the real solution, and to try to paint a picture of a United Party which feels as strongly about internal security as the National Party. Neither the NP nor the PRP nor the Press nor the voters of South Africa will accept that the UP’s efforts to refer this Bill to a Select Committee at this stage are anything other than a political fig leaf behind which the UP is trying to conceal the problems it is up against, as well as its problems surrounding this Bill. [Interjections.] They are trying to argue that there are many principles in this Bill and that there can be no question—as the hon. the Minister asked by way of an interjection—of accepting the principle of the Bill. I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point what new principle there is in this Bill which has not already been debated time and again. The hon. member himself quoted comprehensively from previous debates, debates which were conducted on legislation to which this Bill was a supplementary measure. I maintain that there are only two fundamental principles in this Bill. In view of its earlier statements, I fail to see why the United Party has any difficulty in accepting them. The first principle is that it is being conceded in this Bill that there are also other dangers threatening the security of the State than merely the dangers which stem from a purely communist source. What it boils down to in other words is that there are other people as well, not necessarily communists, who are able to or want to take subversive action against the security of the State and against public order. I fail to see how the United Party can experience any problem with regard to the acceptance of that principle. I also fail to see how it can be difficult for them to accept that there will be legislation by means of which it will also be possible to clamp down on non-communist actions which are a threat to public order or the security of the State. I cannot understand how this can give them any problems.

The second principle which I distinguish in this Bill simply boils down to the possibility of a situation arising in which powers are required for the detention of people—without any crime actually having been committed— for the prevention of some or other crime, and that such situations can arise without a general state of emergency necessarily having been proclaimed. These are the two new principles which I perceive in this Bill. I fail to see why the United Party should experience any problem in accepting them. I should like to ask the next United Party member who rises to explain to this House what other principles they perceive in this Bill, principles which differ fundamentally from those contained in existing legislation or from those which I have just stated.

The hon. member for Green Point even hurled several unrelated accusations at the Government. In the first place he said: “The Government wants to go it alone”. That hon. member, after the debate on the Bill which was aimed at the establishment of a permanent internal security commission, can make that statement, that he can allege that the Government wants to act on its own— specifically with regard to the maintenance of internal security—while the United Party refused an offer to serve on a body which has in fact been established to deal with these matters, I find completely unacceptable and incomprehensible. The hon. member went on to say that the Government should not deprive people of too many rights, because the balance between the freedom of the individual and the security of the State was disturbed in that way. Of what rights are people being deprived by this legislation? Is it the right of the individual to threaten the security of the State and to disturb public order? Is it the right for the preservation of which demonstrations ought to be held? I do not believe that was the hon. member’s intention. I also believe that he was trying to conceal the embarrassment of his party behind that statement.

The hon. member submitted that his party had argued long ago for the establishment of certain measures, but that the Government had done nothing about it. What about the legislation on the Parliamentary Internal Security Commission, something to which I have just referred? What about the Affected Organizations Act? What about the present Bill? These are all, directly or indirectly, results of debates and of investigations which took place in the past. However, everything which has emerged after the Schlebusch Commission presented its report is being opposed by the United Party. Now they are reproaching the Government with not having done enough. To hurl such reproaches at us borders on the absurd, particularly since this comes from a party which is not prepared to give its co-operation.

Before I comment in general on the attitude of the two Opposition parties and the attitude of this side of the House to the Bill, I want to refer to a few aspects raised by the hon. member for Houghton. In the first place she drew an absurd comparison between this legislation and the legislation and actions of the old United Party Government with regard to the internment of South African citizens for refusing to support the war effort and actively speaking out against it. That is an absurd comparison. In the present legislation we are referring to the security of South Africa. We are referring to the preservation of the democracy of the Republic of South Africa. We are referring to subversive elements that want to stir up unrest within the borders of South Africa and to change the existing order outside the existing democratic channels. What was at issue at the time, however, was a war in Europe, not a war in the then Union of South Africa. We were not being attacked. Therefore there was no war in South Africa in the true sense of the word. A party split on that issue. To compare the present situation to that situation is unworthy of the debating ability of the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member took her argument further and said that Ireland, England and Israel also have problems, but that they did not have the same powers as we had. I can begin by telling the hon. member that she differs with the opinion of a person for whose opinion she probably has more respect than for mine, i.e. Prof. John Dugard. He once said, during a debate on the “rule of law”—

I do not know whether the hon. member agrees with him or not. She will simply have to thrash out the matter with him personally. However, I want to ask the hon. member whether she does not think that Ireland and Israel should have had some of our powers which we have in this country, or, if they did have them, should have applied them. I want to ask her whether she does not think that it is better to have legislation such as this legislation of ours, instead of having to cover the windows of all the restaurants in the country with wire mesh because one can no longer enjoy a meal in peace because of the bombs which are being thrown? The hon. member could tell one of her junior members to furnish replies to my questions. I want to ask the hon. member: Would she prefer to have a situation such as the one which is prevailing at present in Ireland and Israel without our legislation or prefer to have us apply legislation with the resultant peace, order and safe democracy which it entails for us?

The hon. member also drew an indirect comparison between the National Party Government and the communist powers of the East by implying that the legislation should rather be compared with that which is being applied in totalitarian countries such as the communist countries. Is it the intention of the hon. member to present South Africa to the outside world, through the newspapers that are going to report her, as a country in which there is no respect for the freedom of the individual, in which democracy does not exist, in which unfair action is taken, in which imperialism is an integral part of the ideology of the Government, in which the freedom of the individual who wishes to do well and live an orderly life, is being threatened? What individual is the hon. member able to show us, who lives a decent, normal life, does his work from day to day, is active in any political party—except a communist party—and exercises his political rights to the full, who is affected or threatened by this legislation, or upon whose freedom this legislation has made inroads in the past? I maintain that in this country every individual who believes personally in the maintenance of public order and who accepts that if one wants to bring about changes in South Africa, it should be done in an orderly, lawful manner and through the many existing channels, is safer in South Africa than in most other countries of the world. The hon. member need not hold up legislation to the outside world to the detriment of South Africa and as an oppressive measure. This legislation is a liberating measure. Liberating to whom? It is liberating to 99,99% of all inhabitants, White, Brown, Black and Indian of South Africa who want to solve their problems in a peaceful manner here, by any methods except revolutionary, violent and disorderly methods.

This is what this Bill and all our other legislation is aimed at, and this is how it is being applied in practice. The fundamental differences between the NP, the UP and the PRP are best illustrated by the tenor of this debate up to now. The NP emerges from this debate as a party which is prepared to face up to the challenge of our times, to take unpopular action, and to do something which it does not itself like doing, which is to maintain discipline for the sake of peaceful solutions in South Africa. We do not like, as little as the hon. member for Houghton does, introducing legislation which, as she puts it, restricts the freedom of the individual so extensively. We also believe in the “rule of law”. The hon. member does not have the sole right to say that she believes in it, but that we are violating it. We also regard our legal system—of which the rule of law, as an ideal, forms a part—with the same great respect as she does, but we are prepared to face up to the challenge of the times and to say that we are living in times, and in a situation, in which firm action has to be taken, that this is being done and that we shall bear our responsibility in this regard.

Against this the UP has a concept of the difficult balance between the security of the State and the freedom of the individual. However, they are not prepared to do something in respect of the problems of our time. Their solution is that we should investigate them again. [Interjections.] I shall return to the United Party again in a moment.

The PRP are guilty of absolutizing the right of the individual to do and say anything at the expense of the security of the State.

That is a flagrant untruth, and you know it.

Order! What did the hon. member for Bryanston say?

Mr. Speaker, I said that it was a flagrant untruth to allege … [Interjections.]

He said that the hon. member for Vereeniging knew it!

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

I got the feeling that the debate up to now has been enveloped in a haze of unreality. The UP, which is fighting for its life, spoke with one purpose only through the competent hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the hon. member for Green Point, and that purpose was to keep their party together. Of convinced, direct adopting of a standpoint there was little or nothing. There was something of a conservative statement of standpoint when they said that they were in favour of preventive detention, but then, for the sake of their left wing, they hastened to add, “only if there is war or a national state of emergency is prevailing and has been proclaimed”. On the positive side there was, from a few hon. members whom we could mention by name, a definite statement that subverters should not get off, but then they again hastened to add for the sake of the left wing, “but there are reservations; they must go to court before any steps can be taken against them”. This is an old standpoint of theirs. It is no new standpoint.

Sir, let us come to the crux of the matter which is at issue in this Bill. This standpoint offers no answers to the particular situations which the Bill foresees and seeks to prevent. The Bill makes provision for situations which are not a national state of emergency; let us accept that, for there is existing machinery to deal with a national state of emergency. This Bill makes provision for the situation which nevertheless makes action necessary because it constitutes a threat to the security of the State. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask hon. members to admit that such a situation is by no means improbable in the world of today. Surely they will admit that problems may arise in a specific sphere which are not the equivalent of a national state of emergency, but which may nevertheless constitute a serious threat to State security and to public order. In such a situation the UP’s answer of a state of emergency is not good enough, for it is not a general state of emergency. Now we ask the UP what we should do in such situations. Why cannot we do what this Bill is proposing? The question before us is that simple. Surely it cannot be asked that we should, in such a situation, declare a general state of emergency in conflict with the national interests, for it would do the country no end of harm if we proclaimed a general state of emergency unnecessarily. We are therefore asking them: What do they propose we should do in a situation which is not a national state of emergency, but which nevertheless constitutes serious threats?

That is what we want to consider in the Select Committee which we have proposed.

Sir, their answer is a Select Committee. Our answer is a Bill and they have not yet told us what is in fact wrong with this Bill. They have only told us that they should like to talk about it at a later stage, and they repeated their old standpoint on security legislation. However, the hon. the Minister tells us that a situation could arise in which he would require these powers. Hon. members opposite are not denying that such a situation could arise. They are saying that it is a good thing that there are powers to forestall situations, but they are not saying why these powers are too wide or in what respect they fall short, except to attack the definition. Sir, if they had wanted to attack the definition, they could rather have devoted the weeks they have now been holding caucus meetings to the formulation of a proper definition.

The PRP proposes an absolute rejection of the powers contained in the Bill. I want to say that we are entitled to infer from that they are opposed to the executive being vested with powers to take preventive action. That is their standpoint. Their standpoint is that the executive should not be allowed to take preventive action, and that the courts should adjudicate upon the matter when that case is brought before the court Now I want to ask them this question: Are they then prepared to make it a crime for any person to have a plan to overthrow the existing order and then to set to work on that plan? Such a person might not yet have done enough to enable a person to charge him with, let us say, attempted high treason, but he has the plan and you have sufficient proof that he is already beginning to convert that plan into action. The question to which they have to reply is the following: Should we then wait until such a person has gone a little further with his plan? Should we then wait until he has made the bomb before we are able to catch him, or should we lock him up, in terms of these powers which the Minister wants to obtain, before he makes the bomb? [Interjections.]

The NP does not shrink from this, as I have already said. Hon. members opposite are concerned about the definitions of the existing order and of what constitutes a threat to State security. Sir, surely all of us know the pillars on which our existing order rest, and however strenuously we debate across the floor of this House, surely we all agree on these matters. Surely we agree that the preservation of democracy is important for us. Surely we agree that we are proud of our legal system and that we want to preserve our legal system with its reputation for independence and its reputation for fairness, and that we want to place our courts of law on a lofty pedestal. Surely we all agree that we want to preserve sound inter-group relations. We differ on the recipe but we agree that we want to maintain sound inter-group relations. We also agree that the recognition of human dignity is important, of which the maintenance and preservation of individual liberty is an important subdivision. We agree that law and order is important and that a well-ordered and disciplined community which is able to settle its differences in a peaceful way among its own numbers is our common aim. This is what all of us are striving to achieve, and we believe that we are preserving it. This is all we want to protect. We do not want to protect the NP’s majority with this legislation or with other security legislation. Hon. members in fact have a full and free opportunity to wage election campaigns with or without the Press—for some parties still have a Press and some do not—as they also did recently in Durban North. We are not bringing this Bill to Parliament to benefit the NP. All that is being contemplated in this Bill and in all the other security legislation is merely the protection of the right of all peoples in South Africa to find solutions to our problems in a peaceful manner. The forces which are mustering against South Africa do not want a peaceful solution. They are seeking a violent solution; they are seeking a disruption of public order. The right which we are depriving people of in legislation such as this is the right of any person to seek and to further violent solutions in South Africa, and the party which cannot agree with that, will to an increasing extent be called to account to the electorate. Such a party will not be able to get away by dismissing the questions which are being put to them as suspicion-mongering on the part of the NP. Sir, when I put these questions to them and when I ask them whether they are opposed to it, I am not trying to cast suspicion on them. If they are opposed to it, they should tell us what effective measures they want to recommend in its place. The only reply we receive is: “All your laws are wrong; take them to court”. [Interjections.] Sir, they have further opportunities to speak; we are waiting for the replies to the questions we have put to them. We believe that this Bill is a positive measure which is aimed at the interests and the protection of the security of the whole of South Africa, with all its people, White, Black, Brown and Indian.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy for once to follow the hon. member for Vereeniging and not to have him follow me. In the past I have found him to be a very able debater, but I am somewhat surprised that he is able to support this Bill. He has clothed his message to this House in words of reason and in words of moderation, and yet his message is one of support for a measure which is one of the most draconian which South Africa has yet had to endure. His very first point is that in this Bill is to be found a major advantage in that it covers aspects not only related to communism, but also related to activities which in the opinion of certain people might endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. I want to say that in making that statement he misunderstands the very point that we are trying to make. The point that we want to make is that by broadening the scope of the Bill, the Bill itself is more dangerous, more pernicious than ever it was before. He asks this party for answers that will satisfy his concept of law and order in South Africa. He will, however, wait for many years before he gets the sort of answers that he wants to hear from us. The reason is that in terms of philosophy, of policy and the concept of the rights of man, we are poles apart, so far apart that our very ideas relating to the security of the State are different in themselves. In a reasonable voice the hon. member pleads for more powers in the hands of the executive, power of detention in the hands of an individual, in respect of unspecified deeds, committed or alleged to have been committed, deeds which will be an offence in the opinion of an individual, a member of the Government. Let us, for instance, say that there is a law in South Africa making it illegal to be un-South African and that it is in the power of the hon. the Minister to decide who is un-South African and who is not.

There are many of us who say that the activities of the Government are not only un-South African, but also anti-South African in many of the things that they do. We say that it ought not to be in the power of an individual to decide who is un-South African and who is not, but that it should be in the power of the judiciary, through the courts, to find a person guilty of an offence, and if a person is found guilty of an offence, the courts should be empowered to take the necessary action. The hon. member asked who has been wrongly affected by these laws that have been passed in this country over the years. Over the years hundreds of people have been restricted, detained and banned without trial, and very few of those people have been brought to the courts of South Africa and convicted of any offence whatsoever. Many of the people who have in fact been brought to the courts have been found not guilty. I allege that there are hundreds of South Africans who have been wrongly treated in terms of the security laws of South Africa.

Name one.

It is correct that it is our view that individuals should not have the power to take executive action relating to any particular person or organization. The hon. member asks how we can deal in the normal course of events with such offences as are contemplated by this legislation. An attempt to commit an act of sedition, an act of treason, an act of violence or revolution, is in fact an offence in itself, and incitement to commit such an offence is an offence in itself. A conspiracy to commit such an offence is an offence in itself. That offence will remain an offence and will remain a crime, but it should be proved before an independent judicial body before people are arbitrarily dealt with in any way.

Why do you want to free Mandela?

The hon. member, and I am sure many hon. members on that side of the House, will say that my party is to the left of the road. I believe that the party of the Government is on the right of the road. I believe also that it is far more comfortable being either on the left or on the right of the road than all over the road, as is the case with the UP. When you are riding all over the road, you are in danger of being involved in accidents, collisions and you may suffer casualties. While opposing this Bill … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton says that party was indeed run over in Durban North last week. While opposing this Bill, and opposing it in the manner that it has done, the Opposition has satisfied, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Vereeniging, its left wing. It is not a total opposition, not an absolute opposition. They deny the principle of the Bill at this stage, but open the door to a discussion at a Select Committee and in doing that there is sufficient of a carrot being held out to the right to keep them in line.

I hope, and I think South Africa deserves this from the United Party, that we will hear in this debate from the hon. member for King William’s Town and from the hon. member for Albany and from the hon. member for Simonstown. I want to ask those hon. members, who are still in the United Party, whether they are against the principle of this Bill. Are they against the principle as enunciated in this Bill, or will they remain again silent? Will they remain silent again on this important issue, fearful to express publicly what they say and believe privately?

The hon. member for Potgietersrus spoke a little earlier and said, as I understood him, that the rule of law, in his view, was obsolete. He said that times had changed, that a modern society had meanwhile developed and that the rule of law had no application in the modern society of today. That is perhaps correct in so far as this Government in this country is concerned. Certainly the 20th century has brought new exigencies, new dangers and new problems which have to be coped with by a Government of today. Certainly adaptations are necessary and acceptable to the old principle of the rule of law. When powers are placed in the hands of subjective individuals over other individuals, however, denying those individuals redress to the independent courts, then the rule of law has not been adapted; it has been raped. That is what has happened to the rule of law in South Africa. The hon. member quoted many countries where there was this sort of law as we are debating today. I venture to suggest he will find that these laws are not prevalent in Great Britain and certainly not in the United States, where habeas corpus is a very integral part of the law. Neither will they be found in any democratic European countries as I know them. But those very countries upon which we try to model ourselves, those countries which we say we back, they have their bills of rights enshrined in their constitutions. In Britain, in France, in the United States and Canada are bills of rights which protect individuals and which protect groups against the breaking of the rule of law which we have been talking about.

Where is the Bill of Rights of Britain?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. ignorant member for Pinetown asks where the Bill of Rights is of Britain. The Bill of Rights in Britian …

Order! The hon. member cannot address another hon. member like that. He must withdraw the word “ignorant.”

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. The Bill of Rights in Britain arose as a result of the battle of the Stuarts with Parliament, and Parliament negotiated the Bill of Rights with the then king, incorporating the rights of Parliament and its sovereignty. That Bill of Rights is part of the British legislation today.

I wish to put a question to the Government, a question which has not as yet been answered at all. The question is: Is there a crisis in South Africa at the present time, or is there not? In this particular matter the Government itself is all over the road. We have heard the hon. member for Potgietersms telling us that we had the Poqo dangers, that we had all sorts of dangers over the years. He was in fact sketching a picture of crisis. Yet when the PRP talks of a crisis in race relations, what is the result? We are vilified by members on that side of the House, we are abused for saying that South Africa is in a crisis situation, we are threatened by members on that side of the House and we are subjected to accusations that we are blackening South Africa’s name abroad. In this atmosphere the Government does all it can to dispel what it calls an atmosphere of doom. Everything, we are told, is under control. Are we then the alarmists? Yet this Government comes to this House in a mild, polite, reasonable and disarming manner and asks for new, extra horrific powers for the executive. The Government cannot, however, have it both ways. Either there is an urgent need for these powers or there is not.

Let us look at both possibilities. If South Africa is in grave danger, the Government should spell it out and tell us of the dangers, why these powers are required and against whom they are to be used. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister mentioned various countries that have these powers, for example Malaysia, Guiana, Indonesia and India. He significantly omitted to mention Paraguay which is one of the countries well-disposed towards us.

These countries—certainly Indonesia— adopted executive powers at times of open insurrection and in times of war. Is that now the case in the Republic? The only war I know of in the Republic was the recent war when the hon. the Minister of Defence sent our forces into Angola to fight certain battles and then withdrew and subsequently left the field open for the communists, the Cubans and the Russians, to take over the whole of Angola. [Interjections.]

You have the wrong end of the stick, and it is a very short stick.

That is the only war I know of. If we are in a state of war in the heart of South Africa—in the Transvaal and in the Western Province—it is the Government’s duty to inform us of the fact and it is also the Government’s duty to tell us how and why they seek the powers which they do.

Israel and Northern Ireland have been mentioned in the debate by one of the hon. members who spoke a short while ago. Is there any actual comparison between the trouble in Northern Ireland and the situation in Cape Town, Bloemfontein or Johannesburg? Is there any comparison between the embattled Israel and the situation in which we find ourselves in this country today? If there is, we want to know about it. In any event, is this Government proud to compare our system of government with the system of government of Guiana, for instance? The hon. member for Johannesburg North spoke about some South American countries a few weeks ago and was crucified by hon. members on the other side of the House for comparing South Africa with countries overseas. Is it therefore fair for South Africa to be compared with some of the countries the hon. the Minister has mentioned? Yet the hon. the Minister uses those examples with impunity.

Passing mention has been made of the subversion of students and organized agitation of labour. Let me quote from the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech on 7 May—

It is stated further that much groundwork has already been done to fight this. These are very serious allegations, and if they are true, why has the Government not already acted to curb these activities relating to a central organization to subvert the labour movements of South Africa? The Government has vast powers at its disposal. If infiltration is taking place, and if the Government has not already acted to bring such persons or organizations to justice, this is a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Government. No, Mr. Speaker, this is not good enough. It claims enormous and frightening powers over individuals and groups, but fails to motivate properly or or at all why it needs these powers. South Africa is being told that all is peaceful and rosy in the garden and yet this Government is arming itself with the weapons of despair. That is what they are: They are weapons of despair. They are part of the armoury of despair. I believe that in asking for these extraordinary powers to be found in very few Western democratic States, the Government has despaired of its will to govern by consent. That is what has happened: The Government has despaired of holding its power, in terms of normal democracy after 28 years of rule to govern effectively and peaceably. It has despaired of the goodwill of all the peoples of the Republic. Finally I believe it has lost faith and confidence in the strength of South Africans to protect for themselves that which is near and dear to themselves. It has despaired of democracy and it has despaired of the fact that a just society is the ultimate weapon and protection for civilized administration.

To say that these powers might not be used is, I believe, to ask this House to be even more gullible than the hon. the Minister believes it to be. Such powers are not taken in jest. Surely their utilization is contemplated. It is calculated, and I believe that its targets are probably even defined.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. What in fact can we not deal with specifically without this legislation? Whom can we not deal with without this legislation? We already have powers to restrict, to ban, to detain, to silence by decree and even to hold witnesses for long periods. These powers have been used. By way of an interjection the hon. the Minister said that the communists and other types of persons who wish to subvert the State are being protected. When he said that, he looked across at the Opposition benches in general and he added that they are protected in the highest of places. I want to say that, too, appears to me to be a very serious allegation. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister …

Are you challenging me to point to certain things?

No, I am not challenging the hon. the Minister; I am asking him, because I believe that sort of interjection can only sow dissension, suspicion and trepidation amongst all sorts of people.

If we are confronted by a crisis of subversion and violence, then we want to know about it. If we are not confronted by a crisis of subversion and violence, then I believe the Government has no right at all to ask for these powers which in peace time appear to me to be the final declaration of war on democratic standards of government. It seems to me that they are the final obituary to the already embattled principle of the rule in South Africa. The rule of law is not an obsolete principle. It is a principle which states that no person should be convicted except for a specific offence. It states that no person should be imprisoned until found guilty. It also states that no person should be found guilty until tried in a proper court of law. That being the case, this Bill heralds in a new era of authoritarianism, of control by executive decree, aimed—I believe in all sincerity—at preserving a society which, the NP seems to be convinced, has little or no appeal for the masses of the South African public. It is an admission of defeat of the message, the philosophy and of the very way of life of separate development.

What amazes me is that the hon. the Minister seems to feel that the inclusion of clause 5, which provides for a review committee, gives sufficient protection to ensure Opposition support. How naïve! The review committee as envisaged by the Government is of limited worth, in fact almost of no worth at all. Let me stop for a short while at the provisions of clause 5 to look at this new creation. The proposed new section 10sex(l) provides that the State President shall appoint a review committee which shall consist of a judge and certain other persons. The other persons need not necessarily be qualified persons; they could be any persons. Knowing the propensity of the Government to appoint politicians to positions which should be judicial positions, we may find that the two other persons may be the hon. members for Waterkloof and Parys. If those two members are appointed to that committee, there will be absolutely no confidence at all in it. Such a committee should in fact consist of judges, and judges alone.

Subsection (2) stipulates that certain matters shall be investigated at intervals of not more than six months. A lot can happen in six months. What is more, an investigation should be in advance of action and not after the action has been taken. Again, this very provision loses sight of the plight of people who may be decimated by being put in prison against their will and without being confronted with any offence they have supposedly committed.

Subsection (6) states that—

This makes a laughing-stock of the whole review committee. The Government appoints a judge and two other persons who then go to great trouble to investigate a matter. They see people and take evidence—it is all set out here. Let us say that they then lay before the Minister a motivated report in which they make certain recommendations. If that does not suit the Minister, he simply discards the recommendation. That is all. What is the purpose of this charade? That is all it is, a charade. The Minister has made provision for this committee in this Bill in order to get the support of the Official Opposition. That is the only reason. However, the hon. the Minister failed even in that attempt. This amounts to granting the trappings of justice, but without teeth, without real meaning. It is a futile gesture.

Subsection (7) relates to a recommendation not being accepted. It states that fact shall be reported to Parliament.

You are performing very poorly today!

Order! Let us listen to the hon. member in silence.

It is not the reasons that have to be reported to Parliament, but simply the fact. Consequently, Parliament and South Africa will be none the wiser on the question whether the Minister was justified or not justified in not accepting the recommendation of the review committee. This is no way in which to instill confidence in a review committee or even in a system of security legislation.

Subsection (9) states that—

Neither the report, nor the recommendations, let alone the deliberations, are to be disclosed. Therefore no meaningful debate is possible. No meaningful weighing up of an issue by Parliament is possible. What is more, in terms of the subsequent subsection, no person is to be allowed access to the records. Neither Parliament, nor even the legal representatives of people who may be incarcerated in terms of this Bill will be allowed access to the records. The only exception is an official serving the executive. This makes informed criticism and a redressing of wrongs absolutely impossible.

Finally, the proposed new section 10 sex provides, predictably if one bears in mind the rest of the section, that the courts are excluded from redressing any wrongs at all. In fact, the courts are even excluded from adjudicating in any way on issues involving the interests of individuals. What is the result of this? The result is a toothless, emasculated committee which will submit a secret report, a report which can be discarded at the whim of the Minister. This provides no protection and is certainly no justification for supporting this measure. In any event, the committee’s scope is far too limited. What is needed today if the hon. the Minister wants to appoint a review committee, is a judicial review committee with teeth, a committee that will review all ban-nings and all restrictions that have taken place as well as all executive action over the years, and not just the limited action taken in terms of this Bill.

There are two further points I should like to make briefly. The first is the reaction overseas to a Bill of this sort and the second is the reaction of the people in South Africa.

We do not take any notice of overseas reactions. We go our own way.

We are often accused by the Government of bedevilling South Africa’s international relations. We reject that accusation with absolute contempt. I want to say that the Government’s discriminatory race policies, coupled with authoritarian measures such as this Bill, do more to alienate Western countries and Western Governments from this country than any pronouncement any member of the Opposition has ever made. These laws, these policies, are the true enemies of South Africa. Concerning the reaction of the South African people, I want to say that we all value our homes and our families; we all refuse to exchange peace for anarchy; we all refuse to exchange security for revolution. However, we maintain that, if a law is to be honoured, it should be a law which is deserving of respect. On promulgation this Bill will be an Act forming part of our Statute Book and law-abiding citizens will be bound by it, but it will cause more shame than attract respect. Security for all of us—Black, White, Coloured and Indian—is to be fostered by a sympathetic, by a democratic Government offering equal opportunity to all its citizens, offering all citizens a stake in society. Where, even in these circumstances, there is subversion, practised by the few, security measures will be backed, provided they are administered through the judiciary and with real protection for individuals.

Confidence in, and loyalty to the system of government and the administration of justice are the prerequisites of a peaceful and happy society. I honestly believe that this Government fails in regard to both those points.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the speech made by the hon. member for Sandton. It was particularly striking how almost passionately he spoke of the so-called rule of law. Now, I find it strange to hear that particular hon. member speak in this way, for if I remember correctly, the voters of Sandton acted as judges on 24 April 1974 in order to elect a representative for them in this hon. House. On that occasion, the voters of Sandton decided to elect a member of the UP as their representative in this House. [Interjections.] In that case, too, the voters of Sandton acted as judges in deciding between the various parties. However, when it suits the hon. member, he is prepared to disregard that elementary rule. [Interjections.] I shall refer to the hon. member’s speech again later on. I just want to refer briefly to the allegation he made towards the end of his speech, when he maintained that legislation of this kind made it difficult or impossible for the Western world to support us. When we look at the behaviour of the Western world in relation to our neighbouring state of Mozambique, it is strange how some Western countries vied with each other in supporting that particular State. Would the hon. member conclude from this that the Western world, or those particular Western countries, are prepared to support Mozambique because the rule of law is upheld there?

As far as this particular legislation is concerned, there are three groups in the country who have expressed their opposition to it. In the first place there is the English Press. I should prefer to refer to it as the “Progressive” Press, because I believe that I would be doing the English-speaking electorate of South Africa an injustice by describing the English Press in South Africa merely as an English Press. The English Press definitely does not represent the broad opinion of English-speaking people in South Africa any more. It is a “Progressive” Press to the core today.

It is a bunch of radicals!

As far as that Press is concerned, I am not prepared to waste my time here today in commenting on the abuse which has been heaped on this legislation in advance by that Press.

This is a bad speech!

Listen to it. You may learn something!

In the second place I want to refer to the attitude of the UP. If two of the UP’s frontbenchers will forgive me for saying so, I want to allege that they were almost apologetic and excessively modest this afternoon in expressing their opposition to this Bill. We know that the distress in the UP is great indeed.

How do you know it?

We know it, and we can only infer that the UP is asking for this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee because they see in such a step an opportunity whereby they may be afforded temporary relief in their distress. Although I do not consider it necessary to do so, I should like to say to the UP that we have problems in the field of security in our country. They themselves have conceded that this is so. If we have to weigh the distress of the country against the distress of the UP, then I am afraid that we are unable to give attention to the distress of the UP this afternoon. At this stage we must do what is in the best interests of the country. I want to concede to them that the legislation which is before the House is probably not infallible. The Act can be reviewed at a later stage. The Government has provided for this by appointing a permanent commission on which the UP can serve and contribute its share when the legislation is reviewed.

However, the UP has gone further than this in the debate this afternoon. Both speakers on the UP side who have spoken this afternoon have argued about it and conceded that generally speaking legislation in this connection needs to be updated. To tell the truth, the UP speakers went so far as to accuse the Government of having neglected its duty in not having updated legislation in this connection. I want to state that the Official Opposition also has an obligation to South Africa. If it was the opinion of the UP in the past that legislation in this connection should be updated, surely they had more than enough time and opportunity to submit proposals in this connection to the House.

The Government has not submitted this legislation to the House without careful consideration. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of circumstances in Africa and in South Africa in particular must be aware of the fact that the assault on our country and on the existing dispensation in our country will increase in intensity day by day. Therefore it is necessary and we dare not hesitate a day longer in placing this legislation on the Statute Book, and in giving the Minister the powers, if necessary, to enable him to put a stop to the iniquitous activities of subversive elements and prospective subversive elements. In this connection I want to tell the UP that it is no use paying lip service. It is no use saying, “We also want to safeguard our country, but …” To the Official Opposition I can only say in the words of an Afrikaans poet: “Die man wat sy deelname weier, is die man wat sy nasie vermoor.” I want to make a serious appeal to the UP. Because we believe that they have South Africa’s interests at heart, the UP must settle the differences in its own ranks and join forces with us in caring for the interests and the security of South Africa.

I now want to come to the PRP and to refer to their attitude. They are the ones who waxed particularly eloquent in the debate in referring to the rule of law. I do not like the expression “the rule of law”. English law is not the only one which believes in the sovereignty of the law. Our law too, an ancient law, knows the concept of “regsoewereiniteit”. We expected to hear that slogan from their side. We have also heard the slogan being advanced in opposition to the legislation by prospective revolutionaries, by the communists and by all like-minded people. It is a slogan which is heard time and again against any legislation of this nature, because every time the allegation is made that the Government in particular is violating the rule of law time and time again in its desire to take more and more powers upon itself. Are the members of the PRP unaware—I do not think they are—of what is happening on our borders? Are they unaware of the fact that people are preparing in an illegal manner to cause a revolution and anarchy in South Africa? I think they must be aware of this. Is the PRP prepared to extend the protection of the law to the people who are working for the violent overthrow of the existing dispensation in South Africa?

Yes, until they are found guilty.

Is the PRP prepared to coddle the prospective saboteurs and their instigators? Are we to put off taking action in South Africa until the day when such people have completed their evil work and their revolution has actually started? Is it not in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of orderly development in South Africa for preventive measures to be taken in advance to check these people before they can complete their evil work?

During the Defence debate, the hon. member for Yeoville made an unusual proposal. He said, amongst other things, that in the times in which we live—this is how threatened the hon. member feels—South Africa should organize a big armaments exhibition to show the people who want to attack us that we have the military strength required for resisting attacks. This is not what South Africa needs at the moment. What South Africa needs is to build up an image in the outside world of people who have the will to check subversive elements and communists in South Africa in their attacks on this country. This is not the message we got from the PRP this afternoon. On the contrary, the PRP’s message to subversive elements in South Africa and to people who threaten the security of the State was that they could continue without feeling alarmed because the protection of the law is guaranteed them so that they can abuse it for achieving their evil objectives. [Interjections.]

What is the view of the NP? I readily concede that anyone on this side of the House, and especially any hon. member with a legal background, does not like to have restrictions placed on the freedom of an individual. This is contrary to the nature of the training received by lawyers. At this stage I want to come back to what the hon. member for Sandton said. He tried to give a definition of the so-called rule of law. He is not the first person in the world who has tried to do so. I must honestly admit that I have heard many better definitions of the rule of law than the one which the hon. member attempted to give this afternoon.

I want to allege that there has not been a single lawyer in the history of law who has been able to give a proper definition of this concept. I want to go so far as to say that as far as I am concerned, the supreme law is what is in the interests of the people of South Africa. This is the supreme law and this is the criterion which the NP uses in deciding which measures to take in order to protect that supreme law. If it should become necessary, as it has become necessary today, to take measures to restrict the freedom of movement of individuals and to remove their access to the courts under certain circumstances, then it is in the interests of South Africa for this to be done. We make no apology for it. This party and Government would be neglecting their duty to South Africa if they were not to give these powers to the hon. the Minister of Justice. I think that we in this House and the country outside would wait in vain to hear a single word of condemnation from the PRP concerning the people who subvert and sabotage South Africa. It has not happened in the past and it will not happen in the future. I once asked hon. members on the other side to tell us what they say to some people, of whom they are so fond, when they have discussions with them. We have not yet received a reply to that question. However, the PRP has told us this afternoon what they say to those who propose to subvert South Africa, i.e. that they will afford them all legal protection to which they are entitled. South Africa will eventually discover what to do with such a party.

I want to conclude by saying that as far as the UP is concerned, we shall just have to accept now that they will have to endure their sufferings to the bitter end. I think we may take it that this party has chosen the way of surrender and that the feeling within its ranks is probably much worse than this. The NP and the Government are not prepared to repudiate our past and we are not prepared to betray our future. If it has become necessary for South Africa to pass legislation such as this—and it has become necessary today—the NP and the Government will do so time and time again.

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the hon. member for Barberton, who has just sat down, spoke with great sincerity, but whether a lot of what he had to say had any specific reference to the Bill, I have some doubt about. In a sense I am a little disappointed with the course of this debate because I think the hon. members sitting on our left tended to play party politics to some extent. In respect of this Bill which, I would imagine, the hon. the Minister has brought to the House with some earnestness, it would have been much more appreciated had they directed their attention to the contents of the Bill, its effects, its purposes and the reasons why they are opposing it, rather than being simply critical of the attitude of the UP in this matter. Our attitude has been made very clear in the course of the addresses by the two hon. members on this side of the House who have already spoken. There is no necessity for the hon. member for Barberton to make an appeal to the UP with regard to its interest in the security of our country. I think it was made clear from what we have said that our objective here is to appreciate what the hon. the Minister has said, namely that he finds that in certain respects there are some gaps in his legislation, which he wishes to rectify. Therefore, we have directed our attention to the reasonableness of that demand.

It is because of that point of view that we too approach this Bill with earnestness, but we make it particularly clear that we are doing so because we are very concerned indeed about the security and safety of our country. However, we do not believe there is any sense of urgency at this particular stage. The hon. the Minister has many powers which he can use if any emergency exists of which he alone might know and of which he might perhaps think it inadvisable to apprise this House. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of the Public Safety Act, for instance, and other statutes of a similar nature such as the Civil Defence Act, the Riotous Assemblies Act, the Act that deals with sabotage and the General Law Amendment Act of 1970. In these Acts there are many provisions which enable the hon. the Minister to take immediate action should that be necessary. What this side of the House is concerned about are the principles which are embodied in this Bill. We do not believe they should become law in this country at this stage. We believe emphatically that we must preserve the right of the individual consistent with the conditions existing in the country and in a manner that will not only retain our traditional sense of justice and our traditional sense of democracy, but preserve in a way which is consistent with what is required from this House. The hon. member for Vereeniging explained this to some extent. This side of the House made its position abundantly clear in the minority report attached to the fourth report of the Schlebusch Commission. This side of the House made its position abundantly clear when we dealt with the Bill which the hon. the Prime Minister brought before the House earlier this session. We made our position abundantly clear in regard to executive action and the granting of absolute power to the executive without any opportunity for any person whose freedom is affected by such executive action to be brought before the courts on any specific crime, because the action which is contemplated in this Bill bears no relationship to any contravention of the Act. If the hon. the Minister will have a look at the Suppression of Communism Act, he will find that any contravention of section 11(c) relates specifically to section 3(1)(a). The amendment in this Bill relates to subsection 2(2). The amendment that is sought in this Bill to extend the application of the Suppression of Communism Act to contraventions other than those which exist at present, is not related to contraventions in respect whereof a person can be charged before the courts.