Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we come now to the final stage of this Bill, a Bill which has occupied a great deal of time in this House, not only this week, but in previous weeks as well. It is as well that it should occupy our time, our energy and our thoughts, because this is obviously a very important measure. During the Second Reading we gave our reasons why we supported the Bill at that stage. In the Committee Stage we gave our reasons again for supporting the majority of the clauses. However, we took strong exception to one particular clause.

At this stage we must ask what this Bill actually sets out to achieve. What is it doing? In the first instance it reduces the Minister’s powers of discretion. It actually reduces his power. It does not increase it. I think that is a fundamental point. It reduces it for example in the following way. Formerly a Xhosa, for example, could only by the Minister’s discretion be allowed to attend the university at Ngoya. This is no longer the case. The Black student now has the right to attend any Black university of his choice. Therefore the powers of the Minister have been reduced, and that is one of the major reasons why we welcome this legislation. The powers have actually also been reduced in another way, because till now no Whites at all could attend Black universities. Autonomy is in one sense actually being extended, although in a very limited fashion. That is the reason why we opposed clause 5 and the other clauses which bear on that particular clause. We have made it clear that we do not like the idea of the hon. the Minister having this discretion. We believe that the council is perfectly capable of exercising its discretion as to who should attend their universities. We believe that this is how the universities ought to operate, whether it is a White, Coloured, Indian, Black or any other university.

I am not going to rehearse all the arguments again. We have heard it at some length, both during the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage. I want to stress that we are strongly of the opinion that in the moving away from rigid ethnicity, we have seen a door opening, although it is a very small movement of the door. It is only just opening. I have always been taught that when a door opens, one leans on the door. I want to inform the hon. the Deputy Minister and hon. members on that side of the House that we will do just that. We will lean on the door in the hope that this door, which has been opened just a crack, will open further and further until we realize our own goal, an open university.

I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister has done this House and South Africa a great service. He has actually put his foot in the door. He may have put his foot in many other places as well, but he has put his foot in this door, and it has opened a little. I am not sure whether he enjoys the pain and discomfort, but the fact of the matter is that we have seen a remarkable …

[Inaudible.]

Not at all. He obviously does it with great pain, and we feel for the hon. the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.] We have made it very clear, and I have said repeatedly during this week, that the hon. the Deputy Minister knows where he wants to go. So we know that at least one hon. member on that side of the House knows where he wants to go. However, in a small sense, this legislation is a start and therefore we must give credit where credit is due. The hon. the Deputy Minister is starting to dismantle the whole structure of apartheid and I want to congratulate him on that.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, he is. The hon. member for Mooi River wants to know how I can motivate that. It is clear that the policy of the NP has been based on racial separation and strict enforcement of ethnicity. If the hon. member does not know that by now, he does not know anything at all about the policy of the NP. That has been the policy, and everybody knows that, and immediately they deviate from that, no matter in how small a measure, it is indeed a deviation. It is no use pretending that it is not so.

In 1971, with the Extension of the University Educational Bill, the United Party voted against that Bill because it increased the powers of the hon. the Minister. Their chief spokesman at that time—he is no longer a member of this House—made that point and made it very well. It increased the discretion of the hon. the Minister and therefore they voted against it, and quite rightly. We have tried to make the point in regard to this Bill that, although it is in very small measure, the powers of the hon. the Minister are actually decreased.

Nonsense.

The hon. member for Berea says this is nonsense. But we have to go by what the Bill states. I want to ask the hon. member for Berea: Is it now possible for all Blacks to enter Black universities?

You just make your speech.

In other words, the hon. member cannot answer. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Berea cannot answer the question.

He cannot see the wood for the trees.

This then is the situation. On these benches we feel that the door has now been opened and we will lean on it as hard as we can. I want to repeat it that we do not believe that it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to have the discretion as to White students entering Black universities. We believe the council is perfectly capable of doing that themselves. But as our own view is very much in line with this small movement, we will vote in favour of the Third Reading. Our position as regards university education, is in keeping with our general view on education in South Africa, and that is equal opportunities and equal scope for all. We have consistently believed—and it would be interesting to hear the views of the other parties on this—that every educational institution should be open to all and that there should be no race discrimination in education. We acknowledge that even if one adopts that position towards universities, or any other institutions, that in many, if not in most, instances this will not result in dramatic change. We acknowledge the factors of geography, economics, tradition and culture. It means, for example, that even though someone living in Pretoria may decide to attend the University of Stellenbosch, in most instances they will attend the university closest to them. That applies to every other institution as well. But we are committed to an open society, free from racial discrimination, not only in a national or regional sense, but also at local level. I think the point must be made that one cannot outlaw race discrimination merely by shifting it from the national or provincial level to the local level. We believe racial discrimination cannot be defended at any level whatsoever. So we believe that this measure is an improvement and we will therefore vote for the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands can repeat a thousand times that his party opposes clause 5, or state again and again that he does not like the discretion that the Minister has. But it stands indelibly on record that the hon. member for Pinelands and his party supported the principle of the Bill, and that includes clause 5. That decision of his party is irreversible.

I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands: If he had known that the NRP would not support the Bill, would he have supported the principle?

I have the courage to answer that question. We make our own decisions … [Interjections.]

I want further to ask the hon. member: If the NRP had not voted against the principle of the Bill, would his party have made their abortive attempt to amend clause 5, well knowing that it conflicted with the principle of the Bill? The hon. member, who is normally so very courageous, is not courageous enough to answer that question now because my next question then would be why he supported this very same principle in clauses with similar wording in legislation dealing with the University of the Western Cape and the University of Durban-Westville.

Does it diminish or increase the Minister’s discretion?

They were identical Bills with identical clauses, and yet no amendment was moved by the PFP.

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

No, Mr. Speaker, my time is limited. [Interjections.] I anticipated replying to the hon. member for Musgrave, but I should have known that the hon. member for Musgrave has fallen from grace, that he had let the party down very badly and that the hon. member for Pinelands has now had to come to the rescue. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Musgrave allowed the NRP to take the initiative out of the hands of his party.

Nonsense!

It must surely have been a very embarrassing experience for the PFP to have had to cross the floor to vote with the NP, and I think it must have been particularly embarrassing for the hon. member for Houghton … [Interjections.] … who is waxing very loquacious at this moment, to have had to squeeze into a seat with two NP Ministers. [Interjections.] To crown it all, hers was the embarrassing, unedifying experience of having had to sit next to the hon. the Minister of Justice yesterday.

[Inaudible.]

Strange bedfellows indeed! While the PFP was cavorting with the NP, it was left to the little NRP to hold the bridge like Horatio … [Interjections.] … and to stand and defend the honour of university autonomy. [Interjections.] I can only marvel at the attitude of the official Opposition!

There is one word that has been repeated in this House ad nauseam and that is the word “change”.

What is wrong with that?

Whenever we come forward with even the slightest changes, they immediately rush off to the archives to discover what this Minister or that Minister said in days of yore.

[Inaudible.]

Then they come to this House and prove conclusively, with chapter and verse, that we have changed our policy.

You have changed!

Yes, we have changed …

Thank you!

… and the hon. member for Pinelands now shouts out dramatically that there are cracks in the wall!

Quite right!

Let me tell that hon. member, however, that he is being a little premature in his feeling of triumph.

*If the members of the Opposition are now going to take pleasure in the fact that we have changed our policy I can only say to them that a great deal of pleasure awaits them in the future because I predict that in the future we are frequently going to amend laws which were adopted in, say, 1930 and 1950, and, as in this case, an Act adopted in 1959.

Hear, hear!

I want to state clearly, unambiguously and categorically that we have in fact changed our policy and that with this Bill we are now adopting a more pragmatic approach. [Interjections.] Although we have changed our 1959 policy—and I shall indicate in a moment why we said what we did in 1959—there are things which we have not changed since 1948 and it is our principles, which are timeless, that applied yesterday, apply today and will still apply tomorrow because we draw a distinction between principles and policy. One applies a policy according to circumstances.

What are the principles involved here which we have not changed? There are the principles of the recognition of diversity, the unchangeable principle of ethnicity and the principle that every group has the inalienable right to its own institutions and in this case its own university.

But here we have just such a change.

The hon. member for Berea said yesterday that this amendment was in fact entirely unnecessary. He said that what we were doing in effect was rectifying a mistake that we made in 1959. That is by no means the case. What was the situation in 1959? Let me say at once that if the situation of 1959 had still applied today it would have been a blunder to come up with this amendment. However, the present situation is totally different to the situation in 1959.

How does it differ?

In 1959 we were dealing with a mixture where there should not have been a mixture, we were dealing with the situation we had inherited that people were artificially bundled together and it was sought to eliminate differences between ethnic groups. In 1959 the word “ethnicity” was still something evil. Moreover, 1959 was the year of the birth of the Progressive Party.

Hear, hear!

I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton, who was a founder member of the Progressive Party in 1959, whether she ever foresaw in 1959 that she would state in the constitution of that party that they stood for pluralism. Did the hon. member ever anticipate that the day would come when they would recognize ethnicity as a basis of their policy?

What does that have to do with the Bill?

In 1959 the word “ethnicity” was a dirty word. I imagine that when the hon. Deputy Minister heard what happened at the PFP congress last year on the acceptance of their new constitution he told himself that ethnicity had become so universally and indisputably recognized that this was a suitable time to give attention to the practical side of the matter as well. [Interjections.]

The practical situation is simply that one cannot duplicate all departments and all facilities at universities. The practical situation is that for individuals among the Zulus, for example, it may be more convenient to attend the University of the North than their own university.

Have you only discovered that now?

The University of the North was established for various national groups. In spite of the fact that people of various national groups can be accommodated at Turfloop and in spite of the fact that the provision in question that is now being amended, makes all Black universities accessible to all Black people, Bophuthatswana, which send its students to Turfloop, announced that it wanted its own university and we have also heard that Venda and Qwaqwa have asked for their own universities. That is not strange. The Afrikaner did the same in the course of his history.

There is nothing wrong with that.

I am very pleased to hear that from the hon. member. It represents tremendous progress. However, I am not going to criticize the hon. member for Bryanston in turn for having changed his policy. There is nothing wrong with that. The Afrikaner was able to send his students overseas where there were better universities, universities with a long tradition. He was also unable, with the scanty means at his disposal, to build universities that could compare with the universities overseas. We had the University of Cape Town to which he could send his young people. However, he built his own university. It is the most natural thing on earth. Every self-respecting people wants at least one university of which it can say: “It is mine; it is imbued with the spirit of my people; it is the focus of my people, of the youth of my people; it is a beacon of my culture.” It is not racism to ask that. It is racism when one refuses it and wants to bundle other people together artificially.

I now wish to discuss clause 5, the clause which was so strenuously debated yesterday. I am amazed at the attitude of the NRP. I am amazed that the NRP opposed this clause and felt so strongly about it that they voted against the principle at the Second Reading as well. Consistency has never really been one of the NRP’s special characteristics.

Would you recognize it if you saw it?

Only two years ago we passed the University of the Western Cape Amendment Bill and the University of Durban-Westville Amendment Bill.

Was the NRP in existence already at that stage? [Interjections.]

I want to say who was in fact present. That hon. member was not present but those other hon. members were present. The hon. member for Berea would do well to take a look at what his predecessor, his father, for whom we had the highest respect said about the amendment Bill introduced at that time. It is a pity that he is not a chip off the old block. [Interjections.]

I want to express my amazement at the hon. member for Mooi River in particular who introduced this amendment and has made a number of speeches opposing this clause. I am amazed that he, of all people, could have done this. Was the hon. member not a member of the Schlebusch Commission? Did he not become acquainted with the dark and sinister motives of certain students? It is true that it is a small handful but they are people with absolutely sinister motives. Is he not aware how those very people want to infiltrate in Black universities to do their dark work and agitate there? What does clause 5 provide? It reads—

Only one condition is set that council and that is that it must obtain the written permission of the Minister. That, however, is a discretion which rests with the council. It is not the Minister who admits the students, because he does not have the power to admit students; he can only grant permission to the council with regard to the admission of students. What we are doing in practice is to cast a double net. Firstly there is the ministerial net. The Minister has to grant his permission. In the nature of the matter the Minister has access to certain sources—which the council does not have—to determine whether a student is an undesirable person or not.

What kind of sources?

Certain sinister sources.

If it were to happen that the Minister were to grant permission for a student to be admitted to a certain university, the discretion would still rest with the council to refuse or admit that person. If, for example, a person slipped through the ministerial net and, like a mudfish, swam under that net, the council could still catch that person with the second net. This is in fact a double net that is being used.

[Inaudible.]

Surely the hon. member for Mooi River knows this, and therefore I cannot understand why he opposes this Bill. The NRP’s opposition to this Bill is purely a political effort to score political points off the PFP. They want to out-Prog the Progs.

You are right at last.

The hon. member for Pinelands says I am right at last. The PFP finds it difficult in the extreme to handle its embarrassment. It performed a terrible and impossible egg-dance in the process of doing so and also put on a terribly inelegant display.

As a whole the opposition of both Opposition parties has been unconvincing in the extreme and therefore it is a privilege for me to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the Third Reading of a Bill in regard to which we of the NRP have had to face an onslaught from the two allies on this Bill, namely the PFP on the one hand and the NP on the other hand. Allow me to remind hon. members right at the start that throughout the debate we have said that we are not prepared to compromise on the issue of university autonomy. Whether one regards it as absolute autonomy or whether one regards it as relative autonomy, is beside the point. The fact remains that we are not prepared in this day and age to allow a situation where the hon. the Minister is by means of legislation placed in the position where he has full discretion, in terms of clause 5, to allow him to have discretion over the admission of students to these Black universities. I was therefore surprised to hear hon. members of the official Opposition saying that they would always vote with the Government if it meant a diminishing of ministerial discretion.

That is right.

“That is right”, says the hon. member for Pinelands. But if one reads clause 5, the proposed section 22(1) states—

the section which deals with the admission of students—

Who, in fact, has full power? There is absolutely no diminishing in power as far as this clause is concerned.

Did they have the right before?

My hon. friend asks whether they had the right before.

They do not have the right now.

The hon. member for Pinelands has had his turn to make a speech and I cannot help it if he did not motivate his case completely. However, the fact remains that before this legislation was introduced we had a situation which was a violation of university autonomy. Hon. members must now throw red herrings across the floor by saying that it is relative or absolute to this and that. After this Bill is passed we shall still have the situation where there will be a violation of university autonomy, and the NRP has had the courage to say that they will not compromise on that issue. The hon. member for Pinelands is now saying that his party fought it in the Committee Stage, but the record shows that they voted for the clauses under discussion every time. They voted with the Government on clause 5. They crossed the floor and voted for the clause. No amendment to this Bill was accepted in the Committee Stage. This Bill deals with the admission as students of persons other than Blacks and it follows the example which was set already in 1976. In 1976 an example was set, with the Medical University of South Africa legislation, of not restricting the admission of Black students on strict ethnic grounds, but to allow a multi-national university to develop. That was in 1976, and therefore this cannot be considered a recent departure. The hon. member for Pinelands has said that this is happening right now. All I can say is that it is not so since it already happened in 1976.

But then we dealt with a medical university.

Now the hon. member comes with technicalities such as this that we then dealt with a medical university. It does not matter what type of university was involved at that stage; the fact remains that it was a multi-national university. The record will once again show that at that particular stage the PIT voted against the Bill at Second Reading.

Why?

Now the hon. member for Houghton asks: “Why?” The fact still remains that her party voted against the Bill.

Let me now put our point of view. I have said in the beginning that we welcome the changes which are being introduced by means of the clauses aimed at the opening up of the University of Fort Hare, the University of the North and the University of Zululand to bring them on a par with Medunsa. We find that those amendments pave the way, albeit in a limited manner, to the restoration of university autonomy. The hon. the Deputy Minister must, however, immediately be told that the Snyman Commission found that one of the reasons which gave rise to unrest at a university such as Turfloop was the fact that although it was de facto a multiracial university, there was a narrow ethnic restriction on it which led to the rise of Black power, so much so that there were ugly manifestations thereof at the university.

I now come to the fundamental basis of our opposition. Until the time arrives that Blacks and Whites can, subject only to their academic qualifications and without Ministerial permission, move freely and normally from one university to another, we shall not have a normal university scene in South Africa. The issue of allowing people to a university subject to the permission of the Minister is one of the principles of the Bill to which we object; it is one of the factors which prevent a normal university scene in South Africa. As long as we do not have a normal university scene in South Africa, we shall run the danger of the rise of powers such as Black power and Black consciousness which have already led to unrest at the universities. We must normalize our university system as a counteraction to the destructive forces of Black power. The hon. the Deputy Minister will find that in practice this Bill is of little avail to counteract this phenomenon. We must always bear in mind that one of the motivations of this Bill is nothing else than the report of the Snyman Commission. I believe that the hon. the Minister has missed a golden opportunity to normalize the university scene.

Our point of view is clearly reflected in the amendment we moved at Second Reading. We would have been prepared to consider passing the Second Reading on condition that the hon. the Deputy Minister gave the undertaking that the provision in terms of which Ministerial permission would be necessary for the admission of students other than Blacks would be deleted. The hon. members for Mooi River and Musgrave drafted certain amendments, but since they were considered out of order, they could not be moved. It was held that those amendments were in conflict with the principle of the Bill. Nevertheless the fact that those amendments were drafted serves as proof that the NRP adopted the right attitude when it decided to oppose the Bill at Second Reading. We do not regard Ministerial permission on such a cardinal matter, as the admission of students, as merely a matter of detail. It cannot be considered merely a matter of detail; in fact, it is a matter of deep-seated fundamental importance, a matter of principle. We have no desire to prescribe to the hon. the Deputy Minister the limits of the extent of his powers in controlling universities. Of course, the State has a say in the appointment of members of university councils. However, there is no need for ministerial permission when it comes to the admission of students to universities. That is the way the NRP sees it. This is not a question on which a compromise is possible. What came as the biggest disappointment of this whole debate was the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister was clearly not able to understand that the application of this legislation would still result in an abnormal university system. The hon. the Deputy Minister repeatedly harped on the string of what happened years ago and on the attitudes of political parties of yesteryear.

The sooner the hon. the Deputy Minister and hon. members of the NP realize that we now have a completely different political dispensation, the better it will be for all of us. By referring to what was done by previous hon. Ministers and previous political parties, two years, 20 years or 30 years ago, serves no purpose at all. If they made mistakes then, must we perpetuate those same mistakes? [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned, this is a useless argument. If an injustice was committed by a previous regime, what purpose does it serve to try to justify that injustice?

The NRP accepts ethnicity. It does not run away from it. However, the NRP regards ethnicity as an important factor. We believe strongly indeed that even if all restrictions should be removed—and the hon. the Deputy Minister should also accept this—and even if the full ministerial discretion should be removed, certain universities will still continue to retain their specific character. Let me give an example of the point I am trying to make. Everybody will agree that the University of Potchefstroom, for example, is a university with an Afrikaans character, and that it will not be possible to change that character. The particular character of that university does not need any protection. Therefore, if the hon. the Deputy Minister’s argument is correct, his argument that ministerial power is necessary for the protection of the particular character of a university …

You were not paying any attention yesterday.

Well, then the hon. the Deputy Minister should have stated that more specifically. [Interjections.] All right, let us take another example. No one will dispute the fact that the University of the Witwatersrand has a specific English character, and that the council of that university is free to control fully the admission of students to that university. This is a clear example of upholding the principle of the freedom of people to associate with whomever they choose.

*The hon. the Deputy Minister made it clear that we should not ignore the various races as such. According to him, that would be a foolish thing to do.

†Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister not then display a little courage in stating his beliefs? If he believes that ethnicity is a strong factor, a factor which should under no circumstances be ignored, why then does he not display a little courage in stating that belief of his? Why should we always resort to legislation to protect this?

Another point which should be borne in mind is the question of the application of this legislation. The application of this particular legislation will continue to be a source of humiliation for at least some of these university councils, because the hon. the Deputy Minister is not prepared to grant them full autonomy. It is ironic that hon. members opposite should so easily tell Black people how proud they should be of their own institutions. I know they do not like the word, but as far as I am concerned, this sort of attitude is nothing but sheer paternalism. Although Black people are continuously told they should be proud and grateful and they must thank the Government for creating universities for them, it is somehow still impressed upon them that they are regarded as either too weak or too inferior to be able to maintain, out of their own free will, the particular character of their own universities. One thing I think the hon. the Deputy Minister must be congratulated on is with regard to the aspects in respect of whom and how he will use his discretion. In that respect, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister because he was totally honest with hon. members of this House. Not one hon. member on this side of the House will one day be able to point a finger to the hon. the Deputy Minister and tell him that they had been under the impression that he was going to do this, open the doors, etc. The hon. the Deputy Minister was quite clear and gave us complete insight into how he will exercise this discretion.

He has told the House in no uncertain terms that permission is primarily for the benefit of the staff of a university. In his own words, the hon. the Deputy Minister has conceded that it is reverting back to a system and a situation which obtained from 1959 to 1969 when these universities were part of the University of South Africa. There is thus no indication of any great change here. I do not want to reiterate the arguments which I raised during the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage where I thought that even this could lead to certain forms of friction. The hon. the Deputy Minister was also honest with us—which I appreciate—when he told us that university autonomy—the total say on who should be allowed to enter as a student into these universities—will be denied as long as the Government pays a 100% subsidy on these universities. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister had been honest and I appreciate that he did it although I believe it is a most unwise thing to use that as a yardstick and measurement. In any case, in some cases the State no longer contributes a subsidy of 100%. To a certain extent, fees are being paid. Therefore it will not be correct to say that it is a 100%. If one really starts to think about it, and the point must be raised again, one will realize that very few universities in the Western World are really private universities. They can only function with tremendous State subsidies—in the region of 85% and even higher.

However, I must ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to rethink when using finance in future as a criterium when dealing with the situation of Blacks. Why should the State have a say on the grounds of finance or wealth? The hon. the Deputy Minister must rethink this.

You are saying a very dangerous thing.

The hon. the Deputy Minister knows as well as I do that there are forces in South Africa which are advocating the redistribution of wealth. The hon. the Deputy Minister now maintains that he insists on a say because they are in fact building these universities for these people. Why should the hon. the Deputy Minister labour that point? It is a general fact, and they know it. However, the moment one starts using this as an argument, one in fact gives those who advocate social and economic changes in South Africa, a platform from which to agitate. Then they can say that if that is the case, let us change the structure and let us redistribute the wealth. Therefore I want to plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister that we should not use those things as arguments.

Finally, I want to say that we will vote against the Third Reading. We regard it as our duty not to give respectability to a Bill which still violates university autonomy and academic freedom. We do this in spite of the changes in some of the clauses, which we accept.

Why did you vote for a Black medical university?

We voted for it at that particular time because it was established as a multi-national university.

But there was no autonomy.

There was no autonomy

But you voted for it.

That is quite correct. [Interjections.] I have already pointed out that we voted for the establishment of a medical university near Ga-Rankuwa. The old United Party voted for it, not the New Republic Party.

You voted for it.

But why did the hon. member’s party vote against the principles when in fact this allowed for multi-nationalism and a breakdown of ethnicity? Why, in respect…

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat this for the benefit of the hon. member for Houghton.

Careful now!

Let us for heaven’s sake come up to date. We are living in 1979. The fact that I belonged to a different party in 1976 is irrelevant. The same question can be asked of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and to certain hon. members on the other side of the House. What sort of politics is being played here? Why must the same question always be asked?

But you asked it.

The NRP is a new party, and I have stated the standpoint of this party very clearly. I think that our standpoint must be quite clear to all hon. members in this House. The PFP can cross the floor every time and vote for full control in the hands of the Minister. We are unable to do this on cardinal and fundamental issues, such as the principle of academic freedom. There are times, as I pointed out in my Second Reading speech, that one can compromise. In politics one must compromise in certain cases. But there are times when one cannot compromise, and this issue is a clear-cut example. It is a clear-cut issue and one cannot adopt a compromising attitude. It must be either yes or no.

I am therefore proud to say that we oppose the Third Reading of this Bill and given another opportunity we will do so again. We are the people who can now say that we will lean on the Minister to ultimately restore academic freedom in South Africa. Our hands are totally clean in this respect.

Mr. Speaker, the debates on this Bill have been very extensive and wide-ranging. The fact is that when we in this House discuss specific legislation affecting the relationship between specific national groups one cannot regard it as a brief and isolated discussion. Every debate of this nature takes place in the light of a variety of people that have come together and must be seen in the light of the efforts made by the Government of the day to create meaningful order. That is why it is perhaps inexplicable to many people outside South Africa that these matters are discussed at such length, but when one lives in South Africa itself and struggles with these problems one understands this kind of discussion and understands that at the Third Reading of a Bill dealing with these matters, the discussion is more wide-ranging than is normally the case. We have had a strange kind of contribution from the Opposition, a contribution in which their standpoints have varied between stubborn, sometimes impudent, often theatrical, superficial and frivolous. It is very clear that both the PFP and the NRP would like to get away from the basic standpoints they adopt with regard to these matters in South Africa. Consequently it is very easy for them to refer to this side of the House and to say that the National Party is changing or is running away from the standpoints it has adopted over the years. In my opinion the difficulty with political discussions and debates in this House and outside it as well, is that we very often take a term or a concept and then simply run away with it. In recent years whenever the NP has done anything by way of amendment or addition to legislation, arguments have been advanced to the effect that the NP is running away from the fundamental principles out of which it grew and on which its policy is based. If we want to look at matters so superficially it is easy to say that there is not a single member on the other side of the House who has not only changed his standpoint but has also changed his policy, and I am looking them all straight in the eye! There is not a single one of them who has not belonged to a different party at some stage. However I do not take that amiss of hon. members. People change and people change their standpoint too, but there is a basic difference between that side of the House and this side of the House.

When one is dealing with the amendment of an Act which is not isolated but must be seen in the broad milieu of a specific culture, hon. members of the Opposition willy-nilly have to recognize the diversity of peoples in Southern Africa, but the fact that they recognize it does not mean that they want to see that diversity perpetuated because among the PFP there is contempt for that existing diversity. Therefore, whether they agree with us or not, as far as the handling of this legislation and its consequences are concerned we shall never be able to trust them because built into the political philosophy of the hon. members of the PFP is contempt and scorn for and destruction of the diversity which does exist. From that, like Breyten Breytenbach, you want to build up a new kind of compost I think that the NRP is the only Opposition party that has been consistent From the outset they have differed with our view of the nature and character of a university.

Precisely!

Consequently I have to tell you that you were consistent when you voted against the Bill. However there is something I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Central. He is a friendly member and we are often very friendly to each other. However, what troubles me in debates of this nature, in this House and in political discussions in general is the very terminology which hon. members use and I am speaking now of members of the NRP. In your view of the solution of the problems of Southern Africa in which the problems of the universities play a cardinal role, I trust that you perceive the diversity and that you want to maintain that diversity in a specific way. Over the years you have used terms and concepts to ascribed very unfair things to this side of the House. This gives rise to very poor relations which you surely do not want particularly at the level of tertiary education. I want to mention a few which you used today. You spoke of “humiliation”.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair and not hon. members directly.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. The hon. member for Durban Central used the word “humiliation” as if in our handling of the universities for Black people we had built into the situation an element causing humiliation to these people. That is one of the words mentioned by the hon. member and I think it was a very unfortunate choice. However those hon. members have so often used words of that nature that they no longer understand the meaning of the words they use. It is of course in total conflict with the whole-existence, nature and functioning of the NP that it should act paternalistically in the solution of our relations problems, the aid we want to give Black people and the building of institutions deriving from the Western World. We do not do this paternalistically. We do not do it because we want to humiliate these people but specifically because we want to create opportunities for them in South Africa by means of these Western institutions which can represent the best of the West in such a way that they are able to make them their own and so that progress can be made in this way. Consequently I think it is very unfair of the hon. member for Durban Central who is in fact a friendly member to use words such as these and to say that the Whites of the NP want to humiliate people of the other national groups. I wish to remind the hon. member that he himself comes from a party one of the basic points of departure of which was White leadership. Throughout the course of its political debate that party spoke about White leadership. In contrast, it was the NP that said that whereas history had placed us in a position of leadership we wanted to get away from that in such a way that the Black peoples would eventually be able to take over full control of all their institutions. I want to say to the hon. member that concepts of this nature are good for no one in South Africa. The hon. member also used the word “paternalism”. It is understandable particularly in view of history that Black people resist this and that they very much want White people to assist them. We must not accuse each other of these things in Southern Africa when we are unable to substantiate those accusations.

The hon. member for Durban Central also referred to a “normal university scene”. Anyone analysing universities throughout the world and in that regard construing the history of every university that has been established will know that it is not so easy to say that there is one normal kind of university to be found throughout the world or that they are all identical. Certain characteristics, certain essential distinguishing marks, certain elements in the history of universities irrespective of whether they have a Caucasian, negroid or any other background, can be the same, but we must be careful specifically as regards the Black people in South Africa not to tell them that if their universities are not exactly like the University of Cape Town or the University of the Witwatersrand, they are being treated paternalistically or humiliated. I think that we can only conduct this discussion in a responsible way once we have carefully inspected our concepts and when the attitude in our hearts is right.

I want to come back to the role played by the hon. the Minister in this university. In that regard we must take a look at history. The majority of these Black universities came into being after the NP came to power in South Africa. We have also stated from the outset that we were establishing the universities in order to serve specific peoples and communities. That was in accordance with our view of the character and the nature of the university. We never said that there would never be growth as regards these basic principles we laid down. Therein lies the injustice the Opposition does the NP in South Africa. They have never seen that it was possible to build on the foundations we laid for national relations in South Africa and that when one builds, one can cut stones and change them. I want to say that the NP has taken that responsibility upon itself. Because we have done so and have built an institution for people from scratch which they had never had before in their history it goes without saying that the Minister must have that responsibility. If we take away the Minister’s responsibility, not only could the institution concerned suffer harm but the NP, too, would be withdrawing its own responsibility. For that reason I am pleased that the Minister has that responsibility. Another result of this is that Whites, too, will be able to attend these universities under certain circumstances as the Minister provides. This too has a specific history. I want to remind hon. members of the Opposition of the years that have passed and refer them to their view of the nature of the university. Because they do not consider ethnicity and peoples, we had to state it from the very outset as a clear but adaptable principle that one could begin to admit people of a different population group to a university as these population groups began to make the acquaintance of Western techniques and science etc., as they developed and became more autonomous and as the character of that university became more established, without changing the nature and character of that university. One could conduct long debates on what I have just said in the course of one sentence because all South African universities are faced with that problem.

My point of departure is that one may not simply give people of different population groups at that university such rights that one will eventually forfeit the nature of the university and one’s right of possession of that university. In my opinion this growth process is a normal growth process based on the foundations laid by the NP. This Bill contains no contempt or humiliation of Black people. We do not wish to deprive those Black universities of anything that will assure them of the best and finest for that university. I want to say to the Black people, whether they be students, teaching staff or whoever, that the NP wants to do only the best for them. Because in a certain sense we still hold the responsibility, we wish to carry out that responsibility in a correct, sound and meaningful way. Therefore it is a great pleasure for me to support the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik stated his case in a very calm and able way. We agree, of course, with many of the things he said, but there are also a few things with which we do not agree. Life is indeed strange. The hon. members for Rissik and Port Natal attack the hon. member for Pinelands because the official Opposition supports the Bill. They do not like the fact that the PFP agrees with the NP on this Bill. The hon. member for Port Natal really referred to the hon. member for Houghton. It actually seemed to me that he was objecting to the place where the hon. member for Houghton was sitting when there was a division on the Second Reading of this Bill. I watched the hon. member for Houghton as well as the Ministers very carefully, and I saw that she and the Ministers looked very happy.

†The hon. member for Houghton was beaming with happiness.

Yes, absolutely.

I am not going to canvass and reiterate all the matters which have been raised at Second Reading. The effect of the Bill will be to allow Blacks from different national units to attend any of the universities under discussion at the moment. The further effect of the Bill will be that the Minister may consent to people of other race groups attending the universities. The hon. the Deputy Minister has made it clear that this will be in a very restricted form. At Second Reading we in the SAP made it clear that we believe in university autonomy, a question we dealt with. However, we feel that this Bill is an improvement and we shall be prepared to support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Walmer has just had a little fun at our expense and so, too, did the hon. member for Port Natal. I can assure hon. members that I welcome anything that breaks the dreary monotony of this House, and one of the things that broke the dreary monotony was my being able to sit next to the hon. the Minister of Justice in somewhat of an amiable spirit for a change. However, I want to tell that hon. member and the hon. member for Port Natal that we shall cross the floor and support the Government on every positive forward step that it takes, because the whole objective of the official Opposition is to encourage the Government to take these tottering little steps forward and to push them along as fast as we possibly can. We have no feeling whatever about the indignity, or whatever one might like to call it, of crossing the floor in this instance and voting with the Government. We do not vote with the Government, however, when their actions conflict with the principles for which we stand. I also want to tell the hon. member for Port Natal, who has left the Chamber for some unknown reason, that he should look at the Molteno Commission report which was drafted in 1959 when the Progressive Party was originally formed and in which there is a considerable amount of discussion on the whole question of plurality, ethnicity, etc. While we certainly do not hold this out to be the ideal, we admit its existence, something the hon. member says we deny. I merely want to put that right for the record.

There are a couple of other matters I also wish to put right for the record. The hon. member for Durban Central to whom I always listen with a considerable amount of attention, because he does know something about education, is generally a fair-minded man and has a balanced approach to things. However, as far as this Bill is concerned I found his speech disappointing. I understand he is trying to explain away why it is that the NRP has voted against this particular Bill. He has introduced a number of extraneous arguments, including attitudes which were adopted in previous years. He does so when it suits him. Of course, when it does not suit him, he immediately says that it is of no importance what they did then, because they were then a different party.

That is politics.

It may be politics, but it is also very foolish to do it in the same argument, because then it can be tom to shreds in a minute, and I hope I shall be able to do just that. The hon. member said that the NRP are not the same party as the UP. I do not think that is the argument being adopted in by-elections all over the country at present.

So you are the United Party!

Oh, God forbid! We never claim to be the United Party.

No, you have never admitted that.

Anyway, as I say, when it suits them, they are the old United Party in by-elections, etc. However, when it does not suit them, e.g. in relation to an attitude they took up in this House only a short three years ago, then, of course, that is a different party altogether. I now want to remind the hon. member that he has forgotten that he should never come to this House without doing his homework because as sure as God made little apples someone will have done his homework and will catch him out if he is incorrect; and in this instance he is incorrect, because it so happens that in 1976—and he surely remembers this—he was cut out of a Second Reading debate because of a sly little trick by the U.P.’s major spokesman on health, and so were we, because we happened to be absent from the House at that moment. So the Second Reading debate was concluded without our speaking at all and without that hon. member speaking. However, we both voted against the Second Reading of the Medunsa legislation for various reasons.

Segregation was the main one, as far as we were concerned, and there was also the closing of the Natal Medical School which went pari passu with the opening of Medunsa, or so we were given to understand at that time. However, what happened at the Third Reading? Does the hon. member remember? No he does not so I am going to remind him. His party voted for the Third Reading although not a single amendment of any importance had been accepted in the Committee Stage. In the words of the then hon. member for Berea, not a single amendment of any importance had been accepted. What did they do?

So you are now going to vote against this Bill at Third Reading?

We voted against that because it enshrined the principle of a new segregated university being set up and it closed the Natal Medical School. [Interjections.] At that time the United Party voted against the Bill at Second Reading, but they voted for the Third Reading. But why did they lend respectability to the loss of autonomy then?

That is why I said that the NRP was …

The NRP did not. There was no autonomy for the university in that Bill. Why did the hon. member, whose name appears on the voting list, lend respectability to a Bill which contained and enshrined the principle of no autonomy for a new university?

I want to read section 19 of the Medical University of Southern Africa Act and I want hon. members to compare it with the provisions of clause 5 of this Bill. There is something to be compared; nothing to contrast. The section reads—

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member why she voted against clause 3 of the Medical University of Southern Africa Bill in terms of which it is provided—

In fact, why did she vote twice against it?

But that is so easy; please ask me a more difficult question. [Interjections.] I voted against the clause because it set up another segregated university, and I said so in the speech which I managed to make at the Third Reading of the Bill. [Interjections.]

Order!

I said (Hansard, 1976, col. 5900)—

The answer is as simple as that. I went on to say that that Bill also meant the closing down of the Natal Medical School.

I want to come back to the speech of the hon. member for Durban Central. Clause 5 of the Bill is, as I say, almost identical with the corresponding clause of the Medical University of Southern Africa Bill. He gave that section respectability, because he voted for the Third Reading of that Bill. When he now argues that he is not prepared to compromise or to give respectability to this principle, he forgets to tell us that in terms of clause 4, section 21 of the University of Fort Hare Act, 1969, is repealed. Section 21 reads—

I dealt with that in my Second Reading speech.

Yes, but the hon. member never said that the reason for the introduction of the new section 22 is the repeal of section 21. I should like to ask the hon. member whether that is not a little, tottering step forward.

No, it is not; the full permission of the hon. the Minister is still necessary.

But the Minister has, in terms of the standing section 21, no authority whatsoever to admit any person who is White to an ethnic university. Am I correct?

I did not quite follow you.

I ask whether it is correct or not that under the standing section 21 the Minister does not have the power to admit a single White student to an ethnic university.

That is correct.

That is correct. Therefore, what we are doing now—although it by no means goes anywhere near as far as we would want it to go, which would be the complete desegregation of all universities, so that anybody can admit whomever they wish to admit—is to take a little step forward. In spite of everything else it is nevertheless a tottering little step forward.

And that made you take your tottering little step forward across the floor of the House.

Well, I had to do that As I have said before, I have voted with the Government on several occasions; on all the 1936 Land Bills for instance. In every instance when the Government was giving the Black people land that belonged to Black people have we voted for it I voted with the Government, for example, on the 1936 Land Act provisions. When we feel that the Government is doing the right thing we will always vote for it. Every hon. member of the PFP does exactly the same. In the case of every Bill which is not opposed, every hon. member of the Opposition votes with the Government. Let us not be silly about that. Although I agree that we can argue, we should not be silly about it. [Interjections.] All right, I have made my point.

The only point I want to make is that the respectability which, the hon. member for Durban Central claims he is not prepared to give to this Bill, he certainly gave to other measures under exactly the same provisions.

Not as a member of the NRP.

All the hon. member can keep on saying now is: “Not as a member of the NRP”. It is as though a newborn baby has suddenly acquired morality which his parents did not have. [Interjections.]

He is disowning his own parents.

That is exactly what he is doing. He is disowning his own parents.

You had exactly the same parents.

Yes, but I became wise much sooner than the hon. member for Durban Central. I knew when to leave. The reason why we are supporting the Third Reading of this Bill is, as has been so ably put by the hon. member for Pinelands, that we believe that, although this does not go nearly as far as we want it to go, it is a step, albeit a small step, in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing here is an exhibition, a sleight of the hand trick by the NP which has apparently impressed hon. members of the PFP to a considerable extent. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Port Natal tried to explain to us that we were in fact dealing here with a situation of change.

*We had to listen over and over to the old story about the evolution of the policy of the NP. Ostensibly, the principles do not change but the policy evolves in accordance with the circumstances of the day. [Interjections.] It seems to me that if the policy of the NP evolves still further, the PFP will ultimately fully support them.

What is your policy?

I will tell the hon. member for Standerton what my policy is. [Interjections.] The problem appears to be that we have here an apparent change. The hon. member for Pinelands referred to it as a crack in the wall. Now, there may well be a hairline crack in the granite wall of the NP. However, when one manages to squeeze one’s eye to the crack in order to peer through that crack, what does one see on the other side? One sees the face of the hon. the Deputy Minister. That is what one sees. [Interjections.] That is the measure of the advance we have made. We have taken a gigantic step forward. We have reached the situation in which we can peer through a crack in the wall. What do we see? We see the hon. the Deputy Minister sitting there enthroned and in full control of everything that goes on in these universities. [Interjections.]

No, I do not accept that. The hon. the Deputy Minister is undressing behind the door.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlanga makes the entirely improper suggestion that he wants to peep through the crack to see the hon. the Deputy Minister undress. [Interjections.] That is certainly not the intention I have. I see the hon. the Deputy Minister enthroned in all his magnificent regalia. When I peep through the crack …

With his whip.

With his whip, yes. Yesterday, the hon. the Deputy Minister, in speaking about the move that might come in the future, about the possibility of an offshoot of the university at Ngoya, that will possibly be situated at Umlazi, mentioned that, in a situation like that, the position might arise that all lecturers at that university will be Blacks. Can we therefore ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: What will be the situation of Whites to be admitted to that university? Will they be allowed free admission?

The provision in clause 5 of the Bill allows Whites to attend the university with the permission of the council, but subject to the permission of the hon. the Deputy Minister. It has been made quite clear by one hon. member after another that the prime intention is to benefit people who are lecturers at that university. Surely the council of the university, with the consent of the hon. the Deputy Minister, appoints people who go to those universities. If they are White lecturers, they are appointed and are active in the affairs of the university, and the hon. the Deputy Minister must not tell me that he would not take action, as has been taken in the case of White universities, to forbid certain people to teach there should he not wish them to do so.

People who have been approved by the council as lecturers at that university have then still to submit to some kind of inquisition by the hon. the Deputy Minister before they may enroll as students. What kind of magnificent step forward is this? Where is the logic in supporting this as the major step forward made in education, “die ontplooiing van die ou beleid wat nou die nuwe beleid van die Nasionale Party word”, is something which suddenly changes the whole system and principle to which we object in this Bill.

The hon. member for Rissik mentioned the question of ethnicity. We have absolutely no problems with that principle whatever. What we are saying to the hon. the Deputy Minister, the hon. member for Rissik and to other hon. members in the House, however, is that what we want to see is a situation in which, as the hon. member for Durban Central has said, a normal university system it can apply. As I put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday, why it is that in the normal course of university life White students, may not apply and are vetted by the council of that university, and I particularly mentioned the university of Ngoya because there are some of our people in Natal who are so intensely interested in the cultural life, the language and the literature of the Zulu population? Whatever the hon. the Deputy Minister may say, however he may try to explain it away and whatever reasons he may give for retaining that control, he cannot escape the fact that over the decision of the council there hangs a final decision, which is the decision of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

I do not regard that as a major step forward and I cannot see that this is something that is changing the whole relationship between the hon. the Deputy Minister and the university. If the hon. the Deputy Minister were to say that he would never exercise this power, that he would give total control to the university, one might imagine that there is some progress. However, he is going to involve himself in the admission of White students to those universities, and the reason that he gave is that there are some people who want to attend these universities “vir die snaaksigheid”, and so on, and perhaps make trouble there.

Surely the council of that university can be trusted, when it receives applications, to have a look at the applicants and make sure they are acceptable. The council is not going to permit difficulties and trouble in what I have referred to as the bastion of the cultural life of the Zulu community. It is not going to allow White people to attend the university merely for the purpose of stirring up trouble and inciting students to oppose the Government.

I do not think that I have seen anything at all that persuades me, in any way whatever, that this Bill is the major advance that we have been told it is and that the Government had suddenly had a change of heart so that suddenly there are going to be White students. Yet we have been told specifically that this is being done for the purpose of those people who are lecturers at that university. Clause 4 has been introduced to repeal the provision that White students may not attend, and clause 5 makes provision for their attendance subject to the consent of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

We shall oppose the Third Reading of this Bill on those grounds, precisely because there has been no change whatever. There is only a hairline crack visible, and beyond that crack we find the hon. the Deputy Minister enshrined with the full powers he has right throughout.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that when the Hansard of this debate is read by people outside the House they may wonder, on encountering the arguments of the PFP, whether they are not perhaps back in their childhood days of nursery rhymes, because from the way the hon. member for Pinelands put his argument, with a dramatic build-up of the scenario of a crack in the door and a foot in the door, I could not help thinking that he reminded me a little of old father Hubbard who went to the cupboard to find his poor party an argument. But when he got there the cupboard was bare so they had to vote with the Nats anyway.

You should know more about nursery rhymes than anyone in this House! [Interjections.]

Indeed! But my memory does not stop with old father Hubbard, because the reaction of the hon. member for Houghton was such that she really reminded me of little Miss Muffet sitting on her tuffet next to the hon. the Minister of Justice. [Interjections.]

One thing is clear from the arguments put forward by the hon. members of the PFP, and that is that they are split from top to bottom on this issue, along with other issues. If one looks at who has spoken in this debate, one finds that it is the old-guard, hard-line Progs. Not a single member who came into that party in later years has tried to justify the arguments that these old-guard Progs have raised in the House trying to justify a step which they realize they have taken in error.

Old “verkrampte” Progs!

I am very pleased that the NRP looked carefully at this legislation. We, in fact, picked up the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I believe that during the Committee Stage of this Bill the members of this party forced the hon. the Deputy Minister into a comer, to the extent that he finally admitted that the real intention was “we pay, so we say”. I believe that therein lies the crunch…. There is no change in basic attitude. The attitude, as expressed by the hon. the Deputy Minister, indicates very clearly to us that the legislation is aimed at perpetuating grand apartheid. The line we have taken consistently throughout this debate has been that the changes, if any, are very minor indeed, and I believe we are absolutely correct. I know that my friends in the PFP are in a very tight spot over this particular legislation, and all their shouting and screaming will not detract from the fact that they have supported the Nationalists on the basis of a faulty decision in the first place. [Interjections.] They have just confirmed this.

During the Second Reading I put a question to hon. members on the other side of the House. I have listened with interest to Nationalist members who have spoken in this debate and not one of them has referred to my question. We would like to have heard their thinking on the question of what the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs would have been. If the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had been here for this debate, would he have been prepared to say that he was prepared to die for the right of the hon. the Deputy Minister to decide whether Whites should go to Black universities? I say this because he is on record as saying that he was not prepared to die for apartheid signs in lifts. To my way of thinking, the argument is a parallel one, but we have not had any indication from those hon. members as to their attitude on that particular question. I believe, however, that they owe us an answer to that question.

The provisions of clause 20 of this Bill, relating to the establishment of an institute, were raised yesterday during the Committee Stage when I suggested to the hon. the Deputy Minister that a research body should be created to look into the problems of bilharzia and tuberculosis. I am pleased to see the hon. the Minister of Health in the House because I believe this is an issue that the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister of Health could well discuss together.

I was greatly encouraged by the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday when he said that as regards other universities that have facilities for such research institutes, many steps had already been taken. So we welcome the intimation that he is favourably disposed to suggestions along these lines and that he, in fact, accepts this principle. I should like to go further, however, and ask him to reply specifically to those points about research into bilharzia and tuberculosis, since both aspects present enormous problems to certain sectors of our Black population. I believe that it would be a gesture of good faith, a very practical gesture and a very positive decision if he would indicate that on that specific issue he is prepared to take the matter further, and it is on that note that I conclude my speech.

Mr. Speaker, we have reached the end of the debate on this Universities for Blacks Amendment Bill and I should like to thank hon. members for the contributions they have made, in particular the contributions of the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Port Natal. The hon. member for Rissik is known in this House for the fact that he is a logical and fundamental thinker. He is not only known for the fact that he is an abstract thinker, but also that he can think out and carry through the practical implications of the philosophy and the policy of the NP with regard to universities, for a university such as, for example, the University of Pretoria, with which he has close links. Those of us who participated with him and others in discussions with the hon. the Minister of National Education, are aware of the standpoint he adopted there and how consistent he is in his thinking in this regard.

Take a bow!

The hon. member for Rissik also accused the Opposition, the PFP, of in fact advocating a contempt or a destruction of the ethnic diversity in practise if the policy of those members were to be implemented. I agree with him on that score.

He is wrong and you are wrong.

I shall come to the hon. member for Pinelands just now because I shall have something more to say about him.

I think the hon. member for Port Natal replied very effectively to the standpoint of the Opposition. Listening to him, I thought that we could really appoint the hon. member for Port Natal as a type of political evangelist in Natal, for I think there is a lot of fertile ground in Natal for persuasion, conversions, as regards the standpoint of the NP.

The hon. member rightly pointed out that this side of the House advocates certain basic principles as premises. One of those principles is the diversity in the population of South Africa, and this principle is even supported by hon. members opposite. It is just that they are not prepared to carry through the implications of this principle to their logical and practical conclusions. [Interjections.] I shall point that out in a minute. Never mind, we differ fundamentally on the concept of “duty”, but I am still coming to that. Those hon. members still get stuck at Jeremy Bentham, and that is very far back in history. I just want to show where he got stuck. We advocate distinctive institutions, and we want to defend those institutions and we want them to function effectively. The institutions for Black students are Government institutions established by the NP Government in its wisdom because we saw the need for them, and we accept full responsibility for that. We also accept the responsibility of ensuring, so far as it is within our means and within the competence of the Government, that those institutions will serve the purpose for which they were established, not to the detriment of people but to the benefit of all the communities in whose interests they were introduced.

The hon. member for Port Natal rightly pointed out, too, that clause 5, about which a great fuss is now being made, and against which the hon. member for Durban Central is now digging in his heels, provides for the fact that the council may now admit certain students, but with the agreement of the Minister in the case of White students. Of course what the hon. member fails to see, is that the council has a specific function and competence in this regard. The council may decide whether a student who wishes to enroll at the university possesses the academic entrance qualifications. This is a very important function. However, the hon. member tried to create the impression in his speech that the Minister is also taking over the authority, in the place of a university council, in order to decide whether a person who wishes to enroll, has the necessary qualifications, is old enough, looks nice enough and that type of thing. He created the impression that we controlled all these things in an absolutely dictatorial way.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member is listening to me, he will find that I am speaking to the hon. member for Durban Central.

I now want to turn to hon. members of the official Opposition. The hon. member for Pinelands also discussed the say of the councils here.

†The hon. member rejoices on account of the fact that he sees in this an opening of the door. He says they are leaning on the door and want to make progress in the direction of open universities. They say I have a foot in the door and that I must feel some pain in my foot. The only place where I do experience a certain amount of pain is …

Do not tell us!

… in the neck. I experience a pain in the neck when I listen to some of them.

*I want to say in all sincerity, even though I do so in quite a friendly way, that hon. members give me the impression that they are a lot of Rip Van Winkels. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pinelands himself knows what a “Rip Van Winkel” is. I think he looked in the mirror. Those hon. members maintain that a practice has now arisen for which there is no precedent in history. In my reply to the Second Reading debate I indicated that after the passing of the Act of 1959 we found that we were not yet able to carry out the full implications of the implementation of the principle of a university for every community. Under Dr. Verwoerd’s government provision was then made that there could be a grouping of nations with a certain language in common—for example a grouping of the Sotho-speaking, the Nguni nations, etc.—and that a university be established for that group of people. Of course there were certain limitations, but at that stage we considered them necessary. Therefore even at that stage, control was exercized, while on the other hand there was already a freedom of movement to that university. I do not know why hon. members opposite raised such a hue and cry.

In my speech I also pointed out that on the basis of the report received by the Government on which it based its legislation, its express intention was that these universities would move in the direction of full autonomy in the field of financial control over themselves in the future. Why are hon. members now, after 20 years, making out that this was never in writing and that this was not the direction in which we have been moving, step by step, in practice? If the hon. member who thinks that we have opened the door a little and that he is now coming behind us with his full weight, throws his weight in behind us with each door that we open, he will not only come and sit on this side of the House with a feigned smile when it suits him to vote with us, but will land up in the midst of the NP.

Gradually!

If I could open the doors, I would come, but I know I would have great difficulty in opening them.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows in advance that he will not end up here. What amuses me in the approach of the Opposition, is that they now want to climb onto a national bandwagon and take over the reins. Surely it is the NP that has opened up all these channels. It is the NP that established all these separate universities.

Not Fort Hare.

We did so against the wishes of the Opposition, however, much the hon. members opposite may deny that they had a say in the Opposition of the time. After all those were their spiritual fathers. However, they are now being extremely presumptuous. Now they want to take over the reins and tell us: “Hurry up! We want to reach the ultimate aim”. Hon. members can take it that the Government will progress step by step in the direction of the liberation and will assist in the liberation of the various groups and nations. Hon. members can take it that we shall follow the same process in the direction of independence as indicated in the 1959 report and as we saw it in the case of the University of Transkei. Surely this is a practical demonstration. However, this does not occur in isolation, but is interwoven with the development, liberation and independence of the whole community.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member can content himself with that Surely he might as well say that we are correct in this respect. However, as long as this has not yet occurred, and as long as there are people who are not yet independent and fall within the jurisdiction of this White Government of the Republic of South Africa, this Government will effect certain measures to protect the various communities. It will protect the facilities for Whites, as well as the facilities for Black people—facilities which it has made available in the interests of those Black people—to ensure that they serve the purpose for which they were introduced, an aim which is being accepted to an increasing extent by the Black communities themselves. We are on our way. However, those hon. members should just allow this to take place in a well regulated way. I want to say now that we have not done these things in a vacuum. After all, we did not simply enforce this on the people from above. Consultation with the councils of these universities takes place constantly. We did not take a single step without consulting these councils and obtaining their permission. I do not think it is necessary to say more about this at this stage. This is not something which is imposed on these people or foisted on them; it is done in consultation with these people.

I think the major problem of the hon. member for Pinelands begins when he has to begin to motivate his support for this Bill. He states: “We are committed to an open society” and that reminds me of Jeremy Bentham, who said that “Law and government are necessary evils; the lesser there are, the better: That is really the fundamental difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. The standpoint of this side of the House is that we want to control everything in the finest detail by means of legislation and regulations, but when it is necessary and essential to protect certain interests, we do not fail to introduce the necessary measures to grant that protection.

The philosophy of hon. members opposite, as far as their background is concerned, is that there should be no protection and that there should be equal competition, irrespective of what may happen to the weak or to corporate rights. They advocate a “free for all”, equal competition among a group of individuals. I want to say to the hon. member that this is the philosophy of the 19th century. He knows that I have already said this to him across the floor of the House on a previous occasion. They want to see this philosophy applied within our universities, namely individualism, an open society, while ignoring the fact of specific communities claiming certain rights and certain protections. This is the difference. Furthermore I want to say to that hon. member that the philosophy of that side of the House with regard to this emancipation of the individual and equal competition in the economic sphere in the 19th century, gave rise to the exploitation of the poor, the trampling underfoot of the weak and ultimately to the rise of socialism and communism. If he does not want to believe me, he can consult the people who have knowledge of the political philosophy of the 19th century. I can refer him, inter alia, to my tutor at the University of Cape Town—I think the hon. member for Rondebosch knows him—Prof. A. H. Murray. I have no hesitation in referring the hon. member to him and I think he could hold a fruitful discussion with Prof. Murray. The idea the hon. member advocates, is contrary to the realities in South Africa, and even contrary to the experience and aims of various Black nations. I venture to say that it is even condemned by a community—if we could call it a community—which has tried to establish this so-called “open society”. I refer him to the so-called “open society” the “melting-pot idea” of America. That society has failed dismally, to such an extent that there are now people such as Moynihan, the predecessor of Mr. Young at the UN, and Mr. Glaser, a well-known American sociologist, people who say that this idea of the “open society”, the “great society” and the “melting pot” has simply failed. This idea has failed; it has miscarried, and the liberals who advocated this idea in America, are on their way out. They are in the minority. They realize they are fighting a losing battle. We should not now try to apply old experiments which have failed elsewhere, experiments which they wanted to force upon a community by violent means, in South Africa with its realities.

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

Just a small question!

I should like to ask a large question. Would the hon. the Deputy Minister concede that in the case of the University of Stellenbosch which has a particular Afrikaner character, because it is open to English-speaking students it has not lost that character or identity? It is an open university for Whites.

In a certain sense that is so. The acceptance of English-speaking students in a White university does not have the same implications as the acceptance of Black students in a White university and of White students in a Black university. After all, I said to the hon. member for Rondebosch yesterday that I do not run away from the facts and the facts I am concerned with, are not only language and culture. The facts of South Africa are that you also have race plurality. If the hon. member derives pleasure from this statement of mine, then I do not begrudge him all the pleasure, because it is a pleasure he has on the basis of the reality which I profess in South Africa. This I have already said to the hon. member for Rondebosch. The hon. member can read what Prof. Ben Vosloo said in Politikon a few years ago about the divisive factors in South Africa or in a plural community. The hon. member can go and read it. As a sociologist he may not agree entirely, but I have it on very good authority and can refer to Prof. Vosloo as well as to Prof. A. H. Murray. At the beginning of the year I quoted Prof. De Crespigny, Mr. Collins and Prof. Frankel of the University of the Witwatersrand during the no-confidence debate. They are all people who can verify the existence of this factual phenomenon in South Africa. However, the mistake which hon. members make is that in any situation where one refers to racial identification, it must of necessity mean discrimination or racism.

Hon. members will agree with me that in this respect people are hopelessly unrealistic and ideologically prejudiced and cannot participate in the political dialogue in South Africa. Is it necessary that I should once again refer hon. members to a remark made by Van Wyk Louw on this point? He referred specifically to people who think as the hon. member for Rondebosch and the hon. member for Pinelands do. These are people who think that the South African population is merely a population of 26 million people and that the only difference is a type of class difference and apart from that a slight difference in the nuance of pigment. He stated that people who think in this way are unable to participate in the political discussion, because if you fail to see the major racial differences—and those are his words—in South Africa, then you have a colour-blindness which confuses all political dialogue. That, I think, has always been a fact in South Africa. Hon. members can differ with me if they want to, but if they fail to see that fact, then Nelson’s other eye is also closed.

†While I am referring to other authors, may I refer to an American author by the name of Geoffrey Gayner who, in referring to the population in South Africa, said—

Even they recognize the reality in South Africa, while it seems to me that there are people in South Africa who are so blind that they need a lesson from an American from overseas.

*I do not think this is necessary, but I nevertheless want to make the statement. Take for example Prof. Kgware, who has often been quoted here. He has on occasion expressed opinions on schools for the various groups, but has widened the scope of his argument to include not only schools but also universities. He said—

Look at the whole series of factors he brings into the picture when considering the education of children. He goes on to say that he believes that undergraduate higher education, too, is right within the national context and that it is also his firm conviction that Blacks should have their own Black universities. Is Prof. Kgware a racist when he speaks of Black universities for Black people? “Black” is certainly a race identification here. In this way one can accuse those hon. members of a lack of wisdom.

I do not believe I need to dwell on what the hon. member for Walmer had to say. He mentioned the PFP’s support of the Government in particular. He apparently perceived great joy on the faces of the hon. members of the PFP when they came to sit on this side of the House. I do not think the hon. member should begrudge people who have very little reason for pleasure in politics, a little pleasure in sometimes being on the winning side!

That is right.

The hon. member for Houghton supported us because according to her this Bill represents a step in the right direction.

†We accept and welcome genuine support, but I should like to add that we do not accept every motivation that inspires our supporters. It might be necessary for us to say a little prayer! Please protect us from our supporters!

*However, I do not want to be unfriendly and I want to assure hon. members that we accept their support, without going into the motive behind it. There is a Latin adage de intimis ecclesiae non iudicat, which means: “One never judges the inner nature of man”. Therefore, we shall not judge the inner nature of the members, except when they reveal their motive. The hon. member for Houghton conducted quite a discussion with the hon. member for Durban Central, and I think that this hon. member will agree with me that the following definition of a newspaper is not correct: “A newspaper is like a woman: vocabulary limited, but the turnover tremendous.” [Interjections.] This hon. member will probably agree with him that this is not true. Someone referred to the domination in his own house, and the hon. member will probably also agree with me if for the purpose of my argument I refer to a certain part of this House, i.e. the Opposition part of this House. The man who says he is master in his own house, lies in other places too!

The hon. member for Mooi River also conjured up certain subjects before us. He wanted to know from me whether Whites would still be admitted to Black universities if all lecturers at those universities were Black. My reply, as I stated in the Second Reading debate, is that this measure is primarily for the White lecturers who lecture there and want to carry out their research work there. For the edification of the hon. member for Durban Central, I want to say that the normal situation we would want to see at Black universities, is that everyone attached to that university should be Black. If this could take place, the Black man himself would have attained a very important ideal, because they would then have succeeded in pushing their people to the highest posts. When this happens, the policy of the NP will have taken concrete shape. This is what we strive for. Our policy is one of freedom and emancipation, but not of irresponsibility, not a decolonization policy where the reins are thrown away prematurely, irrespective of who grabs those reins. Hon. members can really allow us to keep the reins in this case, because we have already announced our intentions. This is the direction we have followed to give these people full say. However, we shall do so in a responsible way and in consultation with the responsible leaders from those communities themselves. This is what we are constantly doing.

I think I have already replied to the question whether other Whites will also be admitted there by saying that every case will be judged on merit, as the admission of Black students to White universities is judged on merit. This takes place in co-operation and in consultation with the council of the university concerned. This we are already doing.

The hon. member for Berea had something to say about the “old guard Progs” and other hon. members referred again to the “oldverkrampte Progs”. I think the latter term is correct, because when the term “verkrampt” is used, I see it exhibited on that side of the House. The hon. member’s reference to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs was unnecessary. As far as research is concerned, I believe that any meritorious case, any research project which has merit, will be considered. I believe I can say that without hesitation.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have more or less replied to all the matters raised. I shall let that suffice.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. D. J. N. Malcomess, R. B. Miller, G. N. Oldfield, B. W. B. Page, P. A. Pyper, W. M. Sutton and N. B. Wood) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday I was trying to work out the motivation behind clause 2 of the Inquests Amendment Bill. This clause, of course, forms the main principle of the Bill which we are opposed to.

I again read the hon. the Minister’s speech, which was very brief, in an attempt to get some assistance in this regard. However, I am afraid that none was forthcoming. Therefore, I come back to my original impression that the motivation is merely a matter of conscience as far as the hon. the Minister is concerned. This Bill will make it an offence for any person to prejudice, influence or anticipate the proceedings or findings at an inquest, and such a person will be subject to penalty.

Nobody is more guilty of such an offence than the hon. the Minister himself. I believe that he is today involved in a process of self-immolation because let me remind the House that when Biko died it was obvious from the beginning …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I am afraid that I have to come back to that because it is a very good example of the hon. the Minister’s anticipation of the findings of an inquest. [Interjections.] When Biko died, it was very obvious from the start that an inquest would have to be held because if one thing was certain, it was that he had not died from natural causes. The first person, however, to anticipate the proceedings and/or findings of that inquest was none other than the hon. the Minister of Justice himself with his indiscreet and need I say callous remarks.

Hon. members will remember that the first thing the hon. the Minister did in anticipation of the findings of an inquest was to issue an official statement through Sapa on 12 September 1977, which was the day after Biko died, declaring categorically—

Two days later, at a NP congress, the hon. the Minister cracked his little joke about it being a man’s democratic right to starve himself to death.

Order! Had the inquest then already been instituted?

No, Sir, but it was obvious that one was going to be held because a post mortem was already being held. It was clear that this man had not died a natural death. The hon. the Minister then denied that he had made such a statement as to the cause of death. He simply said that he had made a statement about the man having been on a hunger strike.

I did not give the cause of death.

Ah, yes, but every single newspaper in the country …

I cannot help that.

But the hon. the Minister could have helped it.

I did not give the cause of death.

The hon. the Minister said that Biko had been on a hunger strike. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is a lawyer, and I am sure that even he can put two and two together. [Interjections.] If he makes a statement after a man has died, saying that the man has been on a hunger strike, one puts two and two together and comes to the clear conclusion that the implication is …

The hon. member must read my statement. At the bottom of my statement I said that an inquest was to be held to establish the cause of death.

Yes, the hon. the Minister did say there was going to be an inquest.

Read the statement! Be fair and read the whole thing!

What was then the purpose of making a statement about the hunger strike?

Be fair and read the whole statement. Then you will find out what I said about the cause of death.

If I drew the wrong conclusion, every single newspaper in the country—both those supporting the Government and those supporting the Opposition— drew the conclusion that the hon. the Minister had meant that Biko had died as a result of the hunger strike. Indeed I think it was Die Burger that said—

It was a clear conclusion that they had drawn from the hon. the Minister’s statement.

Now I have to be blamed if they cannot read a statement?

I am making the point that the hon. the Minister—perhaps unwittingly, but nevertheless undoubtedly—led people to believe that this man had died of a hunger strike.

Absolute nonsense!

Well, all I can say is that every newspaper in this country also drew the same conclusion.

Absolute nonsense!

Order! I am not going to allow a discussion of the Biko affair under this Bill. Every argument will have to pertain to the inquest that was held in that particular case, as in all cases.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on the ruling you gave immediately before the luncheon adjournment?

Yes, the hon. member may.

The only reason why I do so now is because the luncheon adjournment came immediately after your ruling. As we believe that the Biko inquest is pertinent to our arguments, we would be very grateful if you could tell us why it is not permissible to refer to the Biko inquest in our arguments? I am simply asking for clarification.

I did not rule that reference may not be made to the Biko inquest. If that is the impression, then I was misunderstood. My ruling was that the Biko affair as such may not be discussed, in the same way as other affairs or deaths may not be discussed. As far as the Biko affair relates to the question of inquests, that and other inquests may be discussed under the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you. In fact I had just about concluded my reference to the Biko inquest. I was simply trying to indicate that the hon. the Minister himself has been the best possible example of someone anticipating the proceedings and/or findings of an inquest, and the House would be entitled to draw the conclusion that I was therefore advancing a case in favour of this Bill. Since the hon. the Minister made the statement he did make, and since it may very well have influenced the proceedings and/or findings of the Biko inquest, perhaps it is just as well that we do not allow any future occurrences of this nature. But then I suppose I should make it clear that the analogy of “hard cases make bad law” should be used here and that the fact that the hon. the Minister was so indiscreet should not, I think, in any way blunt our own assessment of the Bill we are discussing this afternoon.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North has given the legal arguments against this Bill. He has stated quite categorically that it is not our intention to support this Bill. In point of fact, we are going to oppose the Second Reading. The hon. member for East London North, however, has moved an amendment which we shall support.

Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of clause 2 of the Bill is to strengthen the high standard of our administration of justice in this country. Therefore I am surprised that the Opposition wishes to drag a matter such as the freedom of the Press into a purely judicial matter. In this debate we have had to listen to hon. members on the other side of the House trying to make out that they are actually the guardians of the freedom of the Press, and that hon. members on this side of the House do not care two hoots for that freedom. Hon. members of the Opposition further alleged that the Bill before the House is proof of the apathy on this side of the House.

We on this side of the House are now becoming tired of the Opposition carrying on all the time with one-sided emphasis on the rights of the Press. The Press has not only rights, but also responsibilities. I want to ask when hon. members on the other side of the House are going to start talking about the responsibilities of the Press. Let us look at the responsibilities of the Press. Former Judge Galgut, the present chairman of the Press Council, said the following about this matter—

I wish to emphasize the words “exercised responsibly”. He went on to say—

Therefore a newspaper cannot carry on recklessly. The freedom of the Press is also restricted by its own responsibilities, and particularly when it comes to the administration of justice, the Press has a special responsibility. I quote the words of a very famous English lawyer, Lord Denning, in his book Road to Justice—

Then he continues and immediately qualifies this—

This is precisely what is envisaged with the Bill now before the House. What is being envisaged, is to ensure that judicial inquests, like all other trials in our courts, take place in a fair and just manner and to prevent the Press, the watchdogs, from breaking loose and trying to harm, influence or anticipate the proceedings as they have done—and it is a pity to have to say this—in the past. It is also aimed at stopping people like the hon. member for Houghton doing the same things from public platforms as she, too—and again it is a pity to have to say this—has done in the past.

One would have expected the hon. member for Johannesburg North, a former judge, to express himself immediately in favour of this clause. Is he not concerned about the esteem of our courts and does he have no objection to action which could prejudice, influence or anticipate judicial proceedings? Apparently not, for in his speech yesterday he said very reassuringly that the danger of influence is really minimal. Then he also asked, quite innocently, how a magistrate could be influenced by something which happened outside the court or by something written or said by people. Honestly, that hon. member is either talking contrary to his better judgment, or we must deduce that he has a total lack of insight into this matter. [Interjections.] The hon. member then concluded his speech with the statement that a general public fear of this measure exists. One could, however, ask since when has that hon. member been the interpreter of public opinion in this country. The only public fear of which I am aware, is in the form of reservations about the role played by the official Opposition in our politics these days.

The hon. member for East London North also said various things here, but my colleague, the hon. member for Albany, has already dealt with him. I should, however, just like to tell him that he still owes the House a reply to the three very pertinent questions put by the hon. member for Albany.

Silly questions!

My colleague will reply to that.

I am sorry to see that the hon. member for Houghton is not in the House at the moment.

She will be back presently.

I should like to draw attention to a statement she made at the beginning of her speech last night She said that this Bill, and clause 2 of the Bill in particular, casts a reflection on the independent thinking of magistrates. Now the hon. member for Houghton comes along and takes the part of the magistrates. She has revealed herself as a champion of the magistrates and our courts. She is actually launching a crusade here to make herself out to be their guardian angel. I think that if the Association of Magistrates in our country looks at only that single sentence in the hon. member’s Hansard, they could perhaps consider asking her to become honorary president of their association. Unfortunately the hon. member has made probably one of the most amazing about-faces with regard to her view of magistrates in this House, that we have yet seen. What was the opinion which that hon. member expressed last year in the House during the censure debate about the independent thinking of magistrates and specifically the independent thinking of the magistrate presiding at the Biko inquest, a matter which she dragged in again here? I want to quote what she said last year during the censure debate (Hansard, 31 January 1978, col. 116)—

Certain questions were then put to her. I quote further—

Have you read it all?

Yes, I have read the entire court report from page 1 to the end.

Do you accept the findings as correct?

Where is Mr. Nel?

The following words are important—

No, I do not accept those findings.

This is the hon. member who, in her speech in this debate, told us that the clause in question casts a reflection on the integrity of magistrates. Last year in the censure debate, however, she indicated that she was not prepared to accept the findings of the magistrate who presided during the Biko investigation. What is more, she is probably still not prepared to accept those findings today.

What is the contradiction?

Sir, surely she then stands condemned by her own words.

Why?

I leave the hon. member for Houghton in the very capable hands of the hon. the Minister of Justice.

I wish to come back to the provisions contained in clause 2 of the Bill before the House. This clause seeks to apply existing sound legal rules which have been applicable to civil and criminal trials for years, to inquests as well. Basically, it concerns the common law offence of contempt of court. In his book Contempt of Court the author Oswald defined the offence as—

Therefore, the offence contains two elements, i.e. firstly, undermining or holding in contempt the authority of the court as such and, in the second place, interference with the parties litigant or their witnesses—and this is very important—or the prejudicing of such rights. How does one interfere with or prejudice the rights of the interested parties in a trial? In his book, The Newspaperman’s Guide to the Law, the well-known author, Kelsey Stuart, made the following very significant statement—

It is to combat the offence of contempt of court that the so-called sub judice rule exists. This rule provides that from a certain point in time nothing may be said or published to influence, prejudice or anticipate the proceedings or findings in a court case. This is precisely the wording of the proposed section in clause 2. In a criminal trial that point of time is the point of time when a reasonable person can foresee the possibility of a criminal prosecution, for instance when he has been summoned. What is important, is that this rule comes into effect at a point in time before the start of the real trial and it naturally remains in force until a final finding has been issued by the court Because it is possible to distinguish between an inquest, which we are dealing with here, and a criminal or civil trial before a court, which is something completely different, this sub judice rule does not apply in respect of inquests at the moment. It is in order to fill this gap that it is proposed that section 20(3) be inserted in the Act. Nothing sinister is to be read into this. Surely it is logical and obvious that the position with regard to inquests should be placed on a par with the position with regard to civil and criminal trials. This is particularly obvious in the light of the events over the past few years, when, in a few cases, great prominence was given to inquests, inter alia, to the case to which the hon. member for Houghton referred. The proposed section 20(3) is merely a statutory definition of a common law offence and it specifically applies to the holding of inquests. This is no new principle. It is an old and well-known principle and legal rule which is now being applied to a distinctive forum. Surely it is very clear now that the freedom of the Press will not be affected by the proposed section. What will be affected, is the abuse of that freedom. Nobody can make any valid objection to a measure aimed at combating such an offence. Therefore, clause 2 is a desirable and necessary amendment supported wholeheartedly by this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we have no difficulty in supporting clause 1 of the Bill, and in supporting this provision relating to assessors, I think it is appropriate to say that we have a system of justice in South Africa which makes provision for assessors, that on the whole this system works very well in the Supreme Court and that judges have indeed been assisted very admirably by the assessors, many of whom have specialized knowledge and are of great assistance to the judge in his deliberations.

I must be frank and say that we are not happy with clause 2. We do not think that the magistrate or the assessors are likely to be unduly influenced by what is said or written about inquests. We do not think that men of that stature—magistrates and their assessors—are likely to be unduly prejudiced and influenced. We do have some sympathy, however, with the terminology used in the clause whereby the Government is patently unhappy about the anticipating of findings of inquests. We feel that there has undoubtedly been an effect on public opinion by the findings of inquests being anticipated in the Press. But surely this Bill deals with the question of the inquest officials being influenced. I therefore make the distinction between the magistrate and his assessors being influenced—which I say is not likely to happen—and the public being influenced.

What about the witnesses?

We do not think that the inquest officers will be prevented from doing their work properly as a result of reports in newspapers, and we feel that there are other avenues of complaint open to the hon. the Minister in the event of the Press abusing its position.

You are missing the whole point.

For example, we believe that the avenue which should be used very much more effectively is the avenue allowing complaints to the Press Council. Under the present circumstances I do not think that the Press Council is performing an adequate function and I think the Government can well give consideration to improving the teeth and the machinery of the Press Council. Listening to the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, we do not think that he has made out a good enough case to justify this particular clause. We would like to have supported it if it had been more strongly motivated, but it has not been strongly enough motivated to our satisfaction, and we feel that this clause will in general only give offence and cause suspicion and, worse still, will only afford opportunities to people of ill-will to say that the Government is interfering with Press freedom, without achieving of itself anything very substantial. For that reason we propose opposing the Bill.

It is unnecessary for us in this Party to reiterate our stand for a responsible Press, not a Press that abuses its freedom. My own belief is that a case can well be made out for saying that many South African newspapers abuse the privilege of Press freedom. Indeed, I go so far as to say that their attitude towards the South African public themselves show either a reckless disregard for the safety of the State or else pursue a deliberate policy of undermining the stature and the authority of the State, its institutions and its leaders. If this is so, then it is our contention that the Government must face up to the necessity of tackling that problem as a whole and not piecemeal. Therefore one of our main objections to this Bill is that it is giving to the enemies of South Africa an opportunity to criticize us without achieving anything substantial. Furthermore, it is piecemeal legislation, and we object to it I think that if the Government gives its attention to the clear abuse of Press freedom, then it will serve a better purpose than this Bill. We therefore oppose the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, following briefly on what the hon. member for Simonstown has said, it is quite strange to find him supporting this side of the House when we deal with such matters as Press freedom and the implications of this amending Bill which we have before us. As usual, however, the hon. member for Simonstown brings too much to bear too late. Although we do agree and sympathize with certain of the statements he made, hon. members must forgive me if I do not follow on the overkill remedy which he has proposed.

Turning to the amending Bill itself, I should primarily like to deal with the question raised by so many other hon. members here today and yesterday, viz. the seriousness of clause 2. The hon. member for East London North has motivated our case extremely well. He also moved an amendment and I shall not cover the same ground.

We in these benches consider the implications and consequences of clause 2 to be extremely serious, and as such we would have expected the hon. the Minister of Justice to have at least taken greater care in the preparation of his motivation for this clause.

That underlying attitude, of not presenting the House with a single case to motivate the clause, is indicative of his attitude towards these types of Bills.

Intolerable!

There is in this country the democratic process, and the right of the Press to serve the public in terms of that process, but anything that may have happened in the past, and which the hon. the Minister may have found a little embarrassing, might well have motivated clause 2. I say it might well have, because I cannot accuse the hon. the Minister of that. Judging, however, by the paucity of motivation in his Second Reading speech, we can come to no other conclusion but that the hon. the Minister is perhaps more concerned with his own image and his relationship with the Press than with actually motivating clause 2 by bringing forward supportive and substantial evidence in regard to cases that he might be able to refer us to.

That is unworthy.

The hon. member for Marico says: “That is unworthy.” I agree with him. It is an unworthy motivation, and in all probability an incorrect deduction.

Your conduct is unworthy.

The hon. the Minister, however, leaves us no alternative but to consider that as one possibility for the introduction of this clause. Because we consider the implications of having or not having the clause as being extremely serious, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice to substantiate, with actual evidence, his claim that it is absolutely imperative to have this clause in the interests of the proper conduct of an inquest to avoid prejudicing, influencing and anticipating its findings and proceedings. I ask this of the hon. the Minister, because not one hon. member on that side of the House, in all the arguments they used, were able to substantiate the motivation for that clause by quoting one single case of an inquest that was prejudiced by the publication of information. I want the hon. the Minister to kindly motivate to this House, with the substantiation of evidence, a single case in which he considers an inquest to have been prejudiced by the activities of the Press or other people concerned. It would help us considerably if we knew what has led the hon. the Minister to believe that we require this clause. If the hon. the Minister of Justice cannot, will not or feels that he should not, motivate his case by quoting specific examples, we can only come to the conclusion that the hon. the Minister merely anticipates that this might well happen. If he, in fact, does anticipate that it is going to happen, I think he owes it not only to the people of South Africa and the Press— because it is its democratic right to enlighten the general public—but also to hon. members in this House, to tell us what it is that is going to happen in the future that he is so concerned about that he feels that it is necessary to introduce this amendment Bill.

Having dealt with motivation, and having repeated my appeal to the hon. the Minister to give us cases that he considers have historically made it necessary to bring this Bill to the House, I should like to turn to the consequences of this particular clause. Let me just reiterate that if the hon. the Minister anticipates any such cases in the future, he or an hon. member on that side of the House should also motivate that.

The hon. member for Albany asked us to consider the wording of clause 2. He asked the hon. member for East London North whether we, in this party, believed that the findings of an inquest court should be prejudiced, influenced or anticipated.

A very pertinent question!

No, we do not. It is a rhetorical question. We do not believe that an inquest court’s activities should be interfered with. What we are saying is that the measures the hon. the Minister of Justice is proposing are, for the reasons we have given, totally inappropriate. I just want to mention a few. It is highly unlikely that the activities of an inquest court will be interfered with by reports made by any member of the public or by a newspaper publication. Why do we say this? We say it is highly unlikely because the assessors and the magistrate are people who have received professional training in their skills. If one has a professionally trained man, a man who is able to resist the temptation of listening to or being influenced by other people who have nothing to do with the court at all …

[Inaudible.]

That is what professional training is about. The hon. member for Houghton suggested that those members of the judiciary may perhaps take it amiss that we want to introduce a clause like this, because it contains an indirect reflection on their reputation and on their professional skills. Unless the hon. the Minister or his colleagues could motivate their case by referring to specific instances of a miscarriage of justice, I believe the judiciary cannot be blamed if they take offence at the fact that we are casting a slur on their professional ability and on their training.

Then there is also the question of the witnesses being influenced. I do not believe that is possible either in these cases. A witness is going to be cross-examined by skilled persons. If a witness is so unreliable that he cannot come along with a consistent story, his evidence is going to be thrown out of court in any case. How on earth—I ask the hon. the Minister of Justice this with due respect—does he think that the newspapers are going to be able to influence a witness to such an extent that those people with the professional skills, with the knowledge of the application of the law, are going to have their activities undermined? I do not believe it is possible for that to happen. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Justice knows of such cases. I should be glad if he would quote them to us. Furthermore, let us consider the further implications other than the eroding of the democratic process and of freedom of the Press.

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

No, I will answer questions and educate the hon. member for Brakpan at a later stage. However, we also have to consider now the invidious position in which the Press and any other news media, including radio and television, are going to find themselves. Let me give two examples of the kind of consequences which may flow from the adoption of clause 2 of the Bill. Let us say that a reporter happens to walk past John Vorster Square in Johannesburg and he sees a body being hurled out of a fifth floor window. He sees how this person falls from the fifth floor window. The person hits the pavement right in front of the reporter and is dead, of course. It is the duty and the responsibility of that reporter, whether he is from radio, television or the Press, to report to the public the fact that a body was seen falling from a fifth floor window of John Vorster Square. He has to report to the public that that person fell on the pavement, that he was dead and that he, the reporter, observed that with his own eyes. [Interjections.]

Where do you see that being stopped by any provision of this Bill?

I will come to the hon. the Minister in a moment. That pressman has a responsibility to report what he saw. He happens to look up at the window just as the body comes flying out, and he sees two figures standing next to the window, clothed in what appears to be police uniforms. The pressman sees this taking place. Because this is a newsworthy item he goes to his office immediately to report this. In his report he writes that he saw a man falling from a fifth floor window onto the pavement and that the man was dead. He then comes to the conclusion that this man jumped out of the window and committed suicide. He reports that in his story. In essence, I believe, that is anticipating the finding of the inquest court.

[Inaudible.]

It is an anticipation of the finding of the inquest court. Where now must the Press obtain a definition of what is anticipation and what not? It could even be found that the deceased did not commit suicide, that he was dead before he fell out of the window, and that a third party may have been involved in his death. It may be found that he did not die of the injuries he sustained when hitting the pavement He may even have died of natural causes. [Interjections.]

He may have been on a starvation diet!

The problem …

The problem is that you have been watching Superman!

The problem we have, the problem the hon. the Minister is going to have and which the public is also going to have in accepting this clause, is the problem of how to define “anticipate”. Because of their reluctance to expose themselves to prosecution, it is very likely that the Press will not report factors which may well be in the public interest.

In saying this I am merely replying to the hon. member for Albany who asked us whether we wanted prejudice, influence and anticipation to affect the findings of an inquest court. The answer is “no”. However, we are examining the remedy suggested, if it is really required at all. The NRP believes that the hon. the Minister has come to the House with an amending clause which we contend is, firstly, not required. There is no motivation for it, not unless the hon. the Minister can convince us differently. Secondly, we believe that if there is a need to introduce this kind of pre-emptive legislation, for the reasons given we feel that this particular clause is totally inappropriate to serve that particular purpose.

I should therefore like to suggest that the hon. the Minister of Justice gives very serious consideration to remotivating to this House and to the public his feeling that this particular clause should be incorporated in the Bill, because let me tell the hon. the Minister that the hon. member for East London North has very ably motivated his very excellent amendment. In the light of that motivation I trust that the hon. member for Albany will understand why the question he posed us is not really a question at all.

In conclusion, I should like to suggest that hon. members on that side of the House, who make light of the fact that hon. members on this side of the House are concerned about the Press freedom, re-examine the stance they have taken because I think they are inadvertently or consciously confusing two issues in supporting this specific clause and the Bill as a whole. The administration of justice and the democratic right of the mass media to see that justice is done, as the hon. member for Ermelo mentioned, and the democratic right of the public not to have that process interfered with, is being totally confused, by hon. members on that side of the House, with the functioning of an inquest court. Because of the serious light in which we regard this type of interference with the democratic process, I would certainly like to ask the hon. the Minister to remotivate his case, because if he does not do that I regret that we shall have no alternative but to reject that clause.

Mr. Speaker, as I read the Bill before the House, my interpretation of the clause perhaps differs slightly from that of the hon. member for Durban North because I certainly think that a Press reporter may be able to report what he has seen at a particular moment and may continue with such reports until a decision has, in fact, been taken to institute an inquest [Interjections.] That is my reading of the clause. However, I must add that I would not be at all surprised if, in the next Bill on the Order Paper, the hon. the Minister plugs any such loophole as may still exist for the Press.

*Now I just have to react to a few points raised by the hon. member for Ermelo. That hon. member put inquests absolutely on a par with our courts. In the arguments he advanced he made it an integral part of the administration of justice in our country. I think he is totally wrong when he speaks of the status of our courts, etc. Therefore I do not believe that the argument that the bodies which conduct inquests are entitled to the same protection is in any way a valid argument. The hon. member quoted what the former Mr. Justice Galgut had said about the Press, viz. that the members of the Press should be very careful when they report or anticipate court cases. He particularly stressed the following—

This is precisely the point. There is no way in which an inquest could affect “the rights of people”, since the findings of such an inquest are not binding.

†The very fact that the hon. the Minister has found it necessary to introduce this Bill to make applicable to an inquest provisions which traditionally and in common law only apply to courts of law, shows very clearly that traditionally an inquest is not a court of law. Historically the distinction has been very clearly drawn that an inquest does not have the same protection enjoyed by a court of law.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North has said that the finding at an inquest has no binding power on anybody or anything. This is indeed so. Reacting to what the hon. member for Johannesburg North said, the hon. member for Albany cited the example of an insurance company that paid out a claim after the findings of an inquest had indicated that the particular person had not committed suicide. This is indeed so. This happens very often, but only in cases where the insurance company concerned knows that, in any event, it has no case whatsoever. This point can be summed up by saying that in theory the findings of an inquest are never final and that in practice they are only final when the outcome of the inquest proceedings is so obvious, or so unimportant, that nobody afterwards bothers to institute or defend any court action which may have followed on the event.

That is the decision of the Master of the Supreme Court.

To determine the possible effect of this offensive clause, it must be investigated against the background of how an inquest really operates. If any unnatural death occurs, and the event is newsworthy, the Press will certainly report it extensively, and if it remains newsworthy they will continue to report on the situation until the inquest is held. If this does not affect the inquest, how can hon. members on the other side of the House argue that it will effect the proceedings when the inquest is actually held?

Here I may pause to deal with the question of witnesses. The point has been raised that even if the magistrate and the assessors sitting at an inquest are not influenced by Press reports, witnesses may well be influenced. If witnesses are not influenced by Press reports of an incident, from the moment that the death occurs until the inquest is actually held, how can hon. members argue that the same Press reports will suddenly influence the witnesses in the course of the inquest? The vast majority of the findings of inquests are made on evidence of affidavits. In those cases, obviously, the proposed restriction hardly applies. In cases where verbal evidence is led the restriction presumably applies only while the inquest is in session or after the decision has been taken that an inquest should be held. It is indeed difficult to see how this proposed restriction will serve the interests of justice.

*If an inquest serves any purpose in our community, that purpose is to help inform public opinion from official quarters on matters in which the public takes an interest, matters concerning the circumstances and causes of unnatural deaths. The biggest factor with respect to the information of the public, however, remains the Press. Why should the Press be restricted in this way if the point of view of the Press has just as much or just as little effect in the final analysis as the findings in the inquest itself?

The hon. member for Albany asked three questions and the hon. member for Durban North has already reacted to them. The hon. member for Albany asked whether we wanted an inquest to be prejudiced, influenced or anticipated. He says that if the answer to these three questions is “no”, we are obliged to support this legislation. An inquest is in a position to influence, prejudice or anticipate the proceedings in a subsequent court case. I should like to know whether hon. members on the other side agree with me that an inquest is in a position, by leading evidence and making a finding, to anticipate the court proceedings which may follow. Furthermore, I should like to ask hon. members—I hope I shall receive an answer to this—whether such influencing, prejudicing or anticipation indeed has an effect on subsequent court proceedings. If it does, this is an unholy state of affairs and something will have to be done about it. If they reply that it is in fact not the case and that such influencing does not take place, we can say safely accept, on the analogy of their answer, that inquests do not need this type of protection at all.

Do you wish to abolish the sub judice rule altogether?

That is not what I have in mind. Surely we can hardly accept that the point of view of the Press would carry more weight with either the officials of a court or the public opinion than the finding of an inquest. The hon. members will have to reply to these questions if they wish to maintain their point of view with regard to the legislation.

As has already been pointed out, the hon. the Minister still owes us an example, even a few examples, of why he wants this exceptional protection for inquests. We should like a few examples to show why protection which is applicable to a court of law should be granted to an institution which will never and should never be a court. Until he can effectively quote such examples, we have to accept that the Bill is only the first step in a whole vendetta, in a whole series of repressive measures which the hon. the Minister wishes to apply to the Press as a result of his anger against the media, an anger which simply arises from the fact that the Press quotes the strange statements of the hon. the Minister word for word.

Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to have replied to the last statement of the hon. young gentleman if it had not been so nonsensical. However, one cannot take too much heed of highly learned young men who derive their learning solely from the fact that they obtained their degrees at the University of Stellenbosch.

That really is no answer.

All the hon. members implied that they accept the first part of the Bill. That in itself is an important concession, for in that way one is in fact conceding that an inquest is a very important inquiry. The fact that one needs full-fledged assessors for such an inquest, is surely an indication of its importance. In fact, we have had the interesting phenomenon from the Opposition parties that the hon. member for Johannesburg North explained to us in a theatrical way how little influence such an administrative body would have and how little work there is for such an administrative body. I concede that there are hundreds of inquests which are rapidly disposed of. The case which has to be investigated is hardly before the courts when it is disposed of again.

The hon. member for East London North, however, also stated a profound truth. It is an indication of the two poles between which the Opposition moves. He stated a profound truth when he said—

That is quite correct. One therefore has those two separate poles. We are not restricting the Press here. The hon. member for Durban North came up with the example of a person who had allegedly jumped or fallen from a window and said that the Press would not be able to report on it any longer. Surely that is nonsense. The Press may certainly report on it. They can do with it what they like.

That aspect will be dealt with in the next Bill.

What is the whole crux of the sub judice rule? The Press has been living with the sub judice rule for hundreds of years, and not only in respect of the Supreme Court, but also in respect of all magistrates’ courts, administration courts for Blacks and all other types of courts. The Press has been living with it for hundreds of years under the common law. They are not allowed to prejudice those courts or attempt to influence them. That is the whole crux of the sub judice rule. That rule does not mean that we think that magistrates, judges, or whoever can be influenced by the Press or by anyone else, because it not only deals with the Press, but also with other people who make statements. The point is not that we think that those presiding officers could be influenced by this kind of outcry around them.

I should first like to give the motivation for the sub judice rule as such, and I shall come to inquests in a moment. The whole motivation is that when a court goes into session to hear evidence and to return a verdict, no one else is allowed to start a second hearing on his own. The Press, for instance, often want to organize their own little hearing. They obtain a lot of evidence with their investigative journalism, arrive at certain conclusions and then write editorials about them and kick up a fuss. The whole idea of a Supreme Court or an ordinary court of law is that the people who are appointed to arrive at certain conclusions and findings, have to do it on their own. The freedom of the Press remains unaffected. They can report on the matter as much as they like until the proceedings start As soon as the proceedings start, the rule which applies in any democratic country—I shall come to the administration of justice aspect in a moment—is that no one is allowed to conduct a second hearing, but must allow the democratic process of the institutions of the people to take its course without let or hindrance.

The question is—and in this regard the hon. member for Green Point is quite correct—whether an inquest, which is an administrative action, is important enough for the sub judice rule to be applied to it Our point of view is that this is indeed the case. I should like to refer the hon. members to the case of Claassens versus the magistrate of Bloemfontein, 1964. It is therefore not a recent case. It does not deal with one of the inquests to which the hon. member for Houghton referred. This case came before the court in 1964. Mr. Justice De Villiers expressed the following opinion on that case—

I am amazed that the two jurists in the PFP can adopt the attitude that we did not motivate the fact that inquests have to make important findings. An inquest has to make an extremely important finding on the status of a person, and the biggest and most important aspect of one’s life, is one’s status. Parliament recently passed a Bill in terms of which the finding of a magistrate may also result in a marriage being deemed to have been dissolved if the Supreme Court has upheld the finding that the person involved is presumed dead.

Only if the Supreme Court confirms it.

Of course. Surely it does not detract from the importance of the first hearing. During the first hearing all the evidence is heard. That is what will be reviewed. Surely that hearing is just as important as the hearing in the court of review.

It is practically the same as a subsequent hearing.

Surely the hon. member was talking nonsense. But what is even worse is that the inquest has the result that the death of a person who died of unnatural causes, is registered. A person is registered as being deceased as a result of the evidence which is given at an inquest.

I should like to come back to what the hon. member for East London North said. There are certain inquests which are of such an important nature that advocates acting on behalf of the family of the deceased person, cross-examine people for weeks on end and the magistrate then has to make a finding. I cannot imagine anything more important than that. Why should they not have the right to have recourse to the sub judice rule? I think the hon. member for Albany raised an extremely good point with regard to giving evidence. If the process has started and witnesses are told by other people what the finding should be or what those people in their wisdom think the finding should be, those witnesses will of course be influenced because they are only human. Those are the things which must be prevented. There is no other reason for it.

Let us take a look at how the Press reports court cases. I have nothing against the Press. It is, however, a principle of our administration of justice with which we are dealing here. [Interjections.] An hon. member on that side of the House is laughing. Let me tell him that I probably have more respect for the Press than he has. I adhere to my standpoint When I speak of a free Press, I am speaking of a Press which uses its freedom in a responsible way. Just as one may not be dissolute in a State, the Press may not be dissolute either. The Press should be responsible. Then it would be as free as it could possibly be. In the case of the State v. Tromp Mr. Justice Kennedy said—

That is the motivation. He continued—

That is what the hon. member for Houghton did. Who influenced her to do it? That court case extraneously influenced her. She is still prejudiced; that is the extent to which she was influenced. I quote further—

The learned author of this book states further—

And this is very important—

That is the motivation for our asking that the necessary dignitas should also be granted in these courts so that the people—who, as hon. members will agree with me, are so important that they can be appointed as assessors—can continue to perpetuate the glory of our legal system and do their work quietly without being influenced by loud trumpetings, whether from the Press or from the vociferous public. That is the whole story.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister why this need has only been discovered now after all these years of managing without it?

I trust that the hon. member for Houghton does not trust me at all and I do not expect it of her either.

Just answer the question.

And I also do not expect it from that hon. Purdey. But the administration of the country has to continue. Certain Bills have been placed on the Order Paper. We introduced a Bill in this House and afterwards the whole thing was worked out by my department Bills were introduced which affect the status of the individual, which deals with the registration of his death or the dissolution of his marriage, and now my department is being blamed because we say that inquests, just like the courts, should also be made subject to the sub judice rule. I do not apologize for referring back to the major inquests which have taken place. Steve Biko was not the only one. There was also the Timol case. Surely it should be the case that the Press should be allowed to report what it likes until the process starts. Once the process has started, the Press surely will not die if it is then restricted to the facts which are brought to light in a court or at the inquest Surely it will not be the end of them. Afterwards, after a finding has been made, they may continue.

There is nothing in the legislation which affects the Press. The hon. members on the other side are so sensitive, however, so politically bankrupt and need the support of the Press to such an extent that they are attracting unfavourable attention to this legislation without reason. Hon. members on the other side say that if I am unable to motivate my case, they will not support it. We are not asking for their support in having this Bill accepted. I wish to assure them that when I resume my seat, this Bill will be voted through by this side of the House. But it remains the democratic right of hon. members on the opposite side to oppose us on every Bill and make fools of themselves. I cannot help that.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The affairs of the attorneys profession are governed by the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Admission Act, 1934, the Attorneys’ Admission Amendment and Legal Practitioners’ Fidelity Fund Act, 1941, the Law Societies’ Act, 1975, and a further 26 Acts and amending Acts. The Bill now before the House is a consolidation thereof. The necessary certificate has been submitted in terms of section 83(1) of the Standing Orders.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the PFP I want to say that we welcome this Bill because it will now be somewhat easier for legal practitioners and for all concerned with this particular aspect of the legislation to have direct access to the statutory provisions. When one looks at the long list of repealed Acts which appears in the schedule, we can only say thank you very much to the law advisers and to the other legal practitioners who performed this enormous task. We also thank the hon. the Minister’s department for the great work they did in submitting this piece of legislation to this House. We thank the hon. the Minister and his department for this splendid piece of work. It really is excellent [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr.

Speaker, I move—

The proposed amendments are chiefly intended to make the administration of the Police Force more efficient and to regulate the activities further. As hon. members have noticed for themselves, some of the proposed amendments are of an obvious nature and it is not necessary to go into them in detail. However, there are other provisions which need to be more closely elucidated, and I should like to furnish further particulars in connection with them.

The minor amendment which is being proposed in clause 1 is intended to make it clearer that a member of the Police Reserve and a member of the Reserve Police Force is only a member of the Police Force while he is actually in service or actually serving. When he is not actually serving, he is only an ordinary citizen.

Clause 2 seeks to extend the distance of one mile from the border between the public and any foreign State to 10 kilometres. Hon. members will agree with me that with the return and expected return of trained and fully armed terrorists across our borders, the police have a very important task in trying to stop those people. For more effective control and action it is essential for the distance to be extended to 10 km.

In clause 3, the words “but in South Africa” are being deleted in order to eliminate confusion. “South Africa” is an undefined geographical concept and is regarded as superfluous. The crux of the matter is that the State President may use the Police Force inside or outside the Republic.

The nature of clause 4(a) and (b) is obvious and does not need any explanation. Clause 4(c) introduces a new provision, which will authorize the Commissioner, when he has set aside a departmental conviction and sentence on the basis of a technical irregularity, or because of a defect in the procedure, to order a retrial, provided that such a trial shall not be conducted by the same officer. This provision essentially corresponds with section 324 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977.

The adjustment contained in clause 5(a) is necessitated by the provisions of the new Criminal Procedure Act, 1977.

In clause 5(b), the Commissioner is authorized to decide in which cases no evidence need be adduced, where officers charged with misconduct admit guilt. The reason for this is that depending on the seriousness of a charge, it is advisable, with a view to imposing a penalty, that detailed evidence be recorded in some cases. Clause 5(c) is clear and does not need any further elucidation.

In clause 6, a new section 11(2) is being inserted into the principal Act in order to make witnesses who are guilty of contempt before a board of inquiry or during a departmental trial liable to the same penalties as a witness who is guilty of contempt of court before a magistrate’s court.

Clause 7 repeals section 13 of the principal Act, since its provisions have become obsolete. The Criminal Procedure Act contains sufficient directives as to how a person who has been arrested should be dealt with.

Clause 8(a) provides for the insertion of a new section 17(1 A) into the principal Act. This is intended to empower the Commissioner to discharge from the Police Force, without having to appoint a formal board of inquiry—

1. (1) a member who undergoes imprisonment; or
2. (2) a member who shows within his first 12 months of service in the Police Force that he is unfit or incapable of carrying out his duties in the Force.

Clause 8(b), however, still ensures such a member’s right of appeal to the Minister.

Clause 9 is probably the most controversial clause in the Bill, because it provides for a prohibition of the publication of untrue information in connection with the Police Force or a part or a member of the Police Force in the performance of his duties.

I want to make it quite clear at the outset that this proposed provision is in no way intended to curb the so-called freedom of the Press. It is merely intended to prevent the publication of untrue statements relating to police action.

The idea is not to prevent police action from being reported upon in the media, but merely to put a stop to untruths. No one would allege that the police is not also guilty sometimes of misconduct or mistakes, and I have no objection to these mistakes being exposed, as long as the facts are correct. The onus of proving that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the statement he has published is true is placed upon the person who publishes it. This is actually a very light onus, which will rest upon a balance of probability. The reason why it is placed on him is that he himself will know what steps he has taken to ascertain the correctness of his statement. Every case will depend on its own circumstances, of course.

The penalty which is being provided for must be an indication of the serious light in which this provision is viewed. We cannot allow the police, who have to serve all sectors of our community equally, so often to be presented, on the basis of blatant untruths, as the oppressors rather than the protectors. It is a fact that the enemies of South Africa will naturally try to denigrate the police in the eyes of the public by means of untruths. This cannot be tolerated.

The proposed amendment in clause 10 does not require any further explanation, except for saying that in view of the almost general availability of officers, the appointment of special constables can be left to them and to the other person mentioned in the section.

I should like to say more about clause 11 for the information of hon. members. The proposed amendments are an attempt to bring about a better utilization of the service of the Police Reserve.

In broad outline, the effect of the proposed amendments is that a member of the Police Force with at least 24 months’ uninterrupted service who leaves the Force after 1 July 1979 will still be able to become a member of the Police Reserve, but he may henceforth be called up to serve for periods of 90 days a year, provided that this service may not exceed 180 days in all. The 90 days a year also applies to the member who joined the reserve before 1 July 1979, but he cannot be called up for more than 150 days in all. The distinction is being made because some of the latter members have already rendered their 30 days a year service and it would therefore be unfair to call them up for a longer total period.

A provision which already exists in the Act, but which will now form a substantive provision, is the dismissal or discharge of a member from the Police Reserve. Hon. members know that young men are recruited to join the Police Force and to make it their career. It then happens that a young man undertakes, when he applies, to make the Police Force his career. After two years’ service, however, he takes his discharge, and then it appears that he never seriously intended to stay in the Force, and that he sees in the Police Reserve an opportunity to evade national service. Men who want to join the Police Force must reflect seriously before proceeding to this step. Provision already exists in the Police Act for the training of national servicemen allotted to the Force. As regards a person who is allotted to the Force for training and service in terms of the Defence Act, 1957, i.e. a proper serviceman, a change is also being envisaged to the effect that such a person will henceforth have to serve 24 months to become a member of the Police Reserve. Thereafter he can be called up for four further periods of service. One such period may not exceed 90 days, and in total they may not exceed 180 days. The date of 1 July 1977 is being used as the dividing line between the old and the new dispensation, because no serviceman has been allotted to the Police Force since that date.

The deletion of section 12 is merely a consequential amendment because all allotted persons will henceforth have to serve 24 months. Subparagraph (i) provides that the Moratorium Act, 1963, shall mutatis mutandis apply to members of the Police Reserve as well.

In clause 12, a new subsection (1A) is being inserted after section 34D(1) of the principal Act, which will authorize the Commissioner, on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, and with the approval of the Treasury, to pay to any member of the Police Force a higher salary, wage, or allowance than is so payable to him. A need has always been felt for paying a higher salary to a member who has special qualifications, or to a member whose services the Force would like to retain, but who does not qualify for promotion, or where it is not deemed advisable to promote such a member. Provision is now being made for this.

This is a measure which contains a number of clauses. We on these benches are concerned entirely with clause 9 of the Bill, the other clauses being largely administrative clauses affecting the Police Force. I must say at once that we do not find this as innocuous a measure as the hon. the Minister would have us believe. He told us that the reason for the introduction of clause 9 is that he does not want untruths to be told about the police. I put it to him that the police have a remedy anyway for untruths which are told about them. It does not take the hon. the Minister two minutes to rush off to the Press Council and lay charges against newspapers if they publish untruths against the police or anybody else. The Press Council has the power to impose a very heavy fine of up to R10 000. There are other measures the hon. the Minister can take as well.

What about pamphlets?

Pamphlets? The hon. the Minister has other means at his disposal if they are in any way subversive. He has a vast battery of laws he can use against the Press. If names are at any stage used, then it is the ordinary civil right of the individual to sue for defamation.

As I said during the debate on a previous measure, we have managed to get along all these years without this sort of measure, so why does the hon. the Minister now come along with it? He has never given us an answer. He says he does not care whether he convinces the Opposition of the justification for introducing a measure because he knows that he has the weight of numbers on his side and he knows that when the vote comes he is going to win anyway. That is not the attitude …

You cannot be convinced.

That is not so. It is not that we cannot be convinced, the hon. the Minister never bothers to advance logical arguments. He goes into a tirade of abuse and if he cannot beat one down then he says he does not care whether he has convinced the Opposition or not. That is not the way for the hon. the Minister to behave.

I know the hon. the Minister is very sensitive about the police and about articles which are published to show the police in a bad light I can understand his sensitivity because hardly a day goes by without one reading something or other which does reflect badly on the police, and in turn reflects badly upon the entire department and upon the hon. the Minister himself.

But the Bill deals only with untrue articles.

Yes, I know the hon. the Minister says it deals with untruths, and I shall deal with the truth or untruth of articles.

Then you should get on with that argument Tell us why you want them to be able to publish untrue articles.

The hon. the Minister must not twist my words around because I could just as well ask the hon. the Minister why, for all these years, he has wanted them to publish untruths. It is as silly an argument as that Since we are opposing the method which he is using now to stop the so-called untruths, he therefore says we want untruths. It is the same old argument: Because one is against capital punishment, one is in favour of murder. That is the sort of silly sophistry which the hon. the Minister uses in his argument.

The hon. the Minister obviously wants to cut down such reports, and I can understand that I want the hon. the Minister to know, however, that as usual he has got hold of the wrong end of the stick since, more often than not, the police have to implement unpopular laws. That is really one of the main troubles. As a result of the implementation of such unpopular laws, trouble ensues and there is an ugly incident which is reported in the Press. Most of the incidents reported in the Press are true, otherwise the hon. the Minister would be rushing off to the Press Council daily. The fact that most of them are true is what worries the hon. the Minister.

They are not true.

They are true, otherwise the hon. the Minister would be rashing off to the Press Council everyday.

I have nothing against true reports. This Bill has nothing to do with that.

But the hon. the Minister does have a remedy. He is not aiming this at pamphlets. He must not try to pull the wool over our eyes. He is not aiming at pamphlets and not at newspapers that fall outside the jurisdiction of the Press code.

You just do not have a case.

This is aimed at the Press. It is aimed at curbing Press publicity directed against the police, and there is no doubt about that.

Is this aimed at curbing the Press in its reporting of the truth?

Well, the hon. the Minister already has a remedy if the Press publishes untruths.

No, I do not.

The Press Council is that remedy. [Interjections.] I should like to finish my argument, if the hon. the Minister would just allow me to. Since it is the police who have to implement the pass laws, carry out evictions in terms of the group areas laws and, in terms of the immorality legislation, see whether offences involving immorality are being committed, the hon. the Minister should be busy persuading his colleagues to amend or repeal the laws which are always so unpopular but have to be implemented by the police. These are political laws, and because the police have to implement them the police are always in hot water. He should also, I might say, until he can persuade his colleagues to take the line I am suggesting, perhaps encourage the police to act a little more circumspectly. That would also help matters a good deal.

It is interesting to note that the hon. the Minister, instead of trying to take that course of action, is trying to douse the spotlight of public scrutiny, because that is exactly what this Bill is going to do. He is trying to remove public scrutiny, which I believe is perhaps one of the main forces restraining the police in some of their actions. The hon. the Minister is trying to give the police the same all-encompassing protection which the Department of Prisons now enjoys as a result of the amendments brought about in section 44 of the Prisons Act, 1959. That is what the hon. the Minister is doing. The analogy is almost complete. The wording is not entirely the same but it is very close to it I think that in practice we are going to find that the interpretation and implementation of clause 9 will be very similar to the way in which section 44 has been interpreted and implemented by the courts.

I want to remind the hon. the Minister— and I am sure he had this in mind when he drafted this Bill—that 10 years ago, when the present section 44 was introduced into the Prisons Act, it was in fact accepted by the then official Opposition, albeit with strong reservations. The Minister who introduced that measure at the time, offered a number of apologies while doing so, and I might say watered down very considerably the original provision he had intended introducing, a provision which would have put the prisons under a complete blanket of silence. In the end the official Opposition accepted the amended clause 44, albeit with strong reservations. It was really 10 years later before the full implications of that law were realized. That came about after the famous Gandar case which was brought by the State in terms of section 44 against SAAN and specifically against the editor and a reporter of the Rand Daily Mail. Those two men were found guilty on two counts of publishing untrue material about the prisons without having taken sufficient steps to verify that the information they were publishing was true. I might say that some of the more serious charges they had published, charges such as the one relating to the use of electric shock machines, were in fact found to be true. On the other hand, some of the lesser charges such as those relating to the dirty dixies, the washing of teeth in lavatory pans, etc., were found to be untrue. One of these two men was fined—it was not a very large amount— and I think one was given a suspended sentence. The implications of this, however, went far further than the case itself. The case took six months, from the time of the first hearing until the verdict was given, and it took two or three years of preparatory work before that. What is more, it cost the newspaper well over a quarter of a million rand. That is the import of the case. Since then, hardly any reports on prison conditions have appeared in newspapers unless they concerned events emanating from court cases or matters raised under the protection of Parliament since such matters could, of course, be reported. In other circumstances, no newspaper dares run the risk, because it is a very expensive business to be dragged into court by the State on a charge under the Prisons Act. I predict that if this clause is passed, we would have exactly the same situation in this field. The newspapers would feel inhibited, to the greatest possible extent, in reporting cases concerning police action. You see, Sir, it is very difficult to prove in court, in terms of the law, that the newspaper has taken all the necessary steps to verify all the details.

The hon. the Minister has said all one has to do is to prove that one has reasonable grounds for believing that what has been printed is true. That is the statement he gave to the newspapers in reply to a very strong leading article which was printed in The Citizen against this Bill. I might add that practically every other newspaper has also come out against this Bill. The newspapers point out that it is not always possible to establish the facts in a form that will satisfy the courts, although the prima facie case for printing the report might be strong enough, and it is certainly in the public interest to do so. It is very difficult to prove the true facts of these cases. The newspapers often have to rely on eyewitnesses or on hearsay evidence. It is often the word of the reporter against the word of the policeman. It is therefore very difficult to establish in court the exact truth pertaining to such incidents. As I have said, because of the enormous expense involved, and because of the risk they run, the newspapers are now going to be very wary indeed of printing any news about police incidents. I must say that I believe it is in the public interest that such incidents be reported because in this way the police are perhaps restrained from more extreme action.

It seems to me that what the hon. the Minister should surely aim for—something which I understand operates most of the time anyway—is co-operation between the Department of Police and the Press. In other words, when a story comes in, the editor, wanting to check it, telephones the Department of Police. There should be some rapport between them and if the editor gets no satisfaction from a particular district commandant who does not bother to come back to him after investigating the case, he can go ahead and print the story if the prima facie case is good enough. He would not, however, do that after today because it would be far too expensive. The penalties that are introduced by this Bill are enormous. A fine of up to R10 000 or up to five years’ imprisonment is imposed, or both fine and imprisonment.

The same fine, of R10 000, can be imposed by the Press Council.

One does not have to prove a case before the Press Council in the same way one has to prove it before a court in terms of this clause. A fine of R10 000 or imprisonment of up to five years ranks, as one newspaper has pointed out, with the punishment for the disclosure of atomic secrets. They are on the same level.

That is the same fine the Press Council itself can impose. What is that newspaper talking about?

As I have said, it is far more difficult to prove a thing in court than before the Press Council.

I did not prescribe the fine to the Press Council. They themselves did that.

Yes, but the hon. the Minister is laying down this fine in this Bill.

Sure.

So that responsibility certainly rests with the hon. the Minister. I noticed that the Commissioner of Police denies, like the hon. the Minister, that there is any intention on the part of the hon. the Minister in this Bill to muzzle the Press. They say that there is no intention whatsoever to do that.

None whatsoever.

Not half! That is all I can say. He has said that they want to create a special 24-hour service for the Press to ensure that at all times the Press publishes the facts about police activities. I can just imagine the sort of 24-hour service they are going to get. It is similar to the SABC and the SATV presenting everything in exactly the light the Government wants them to present it. That is not a substitute for free and open Press reporting of police activities.

I should like to say that the hon. the Minister should think well on what he is doing, because if there is one saving grace in this country, one shining example one can use when one goes overseas and is confronted with the accusation that South Africa is a police State, it is the example of the existing freedom of the Press, circumscribed though it may be—and circumscribed it is by the Defence Act, the Prisons Act an innumerable security laws. Now it is going to be still further circumscribed. However, in the circumstances as they exist at present, one thing one can say is that our Press is free to criticize and comment. It even criticizes and comments on that arm of the might of the State which is the police.

They are still free to do so.

We shall see how free they are going to be and what is going to happen in the next year or two, how many cases of police activities will be reported. We shall also see what is going to happen after the first big case the Press loses against the State for reporting of police matters. I believe it is absolutely essential that nothing should hinder the Press in its duty to report things that go on behind the scenes.

I am in agreement with you.

Well, that is amazing. If the hon. the Minister will then kindly just strike clause 9 from the Bill, we shall approve of the Bill.

I do not want the Press to publish deliberate lies. That is all.

First of all, I just want to point out that the hon. the Minister is insulting the Press. Earlier on he said that he was just as fond of the Press as one other hon. member—it does not matter who it was. But here he is insulting the Press.

In what way am I insulting the Press?

I shall tell the hon. the Minister how he is insulting the Press.

I should like to hear it.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister why. The hon. the Minister has said that he needs this provision in order to stop the Press from printing untrue facts and lies. [Interjections.] Can the hon. the Minister reel off a string of examples of deliberate lies which have been published? The answer is: No, he cannot.

Is that a challenge?

I challenge the hon. the Minister in his reply, or if there is no time now to collate his material, then during the Committee Stage of the Bill, to read the evidence he has of deliberate untruths and lies the Press has published in this country. I believe we have a very responsible Press in South Africa. People do not publish deliberate lies in our Press in South Africa. They take every possible opportunity of checking the facts before they publish them. There is, after all, the Press code and it carries, as the hon. the Minister himself has pointed out, a very heavy fine, up to the amount of R10 000, if the Press Council finds against the newspaper. Newspaper reporters and newspaper editors are not irresponsible members of society. They know that they carry a very heavy responsibility to tell the truth to the public of South Africa. The public will not put up with lies. If they find a newspaper is unreliable, they will no longer buy that newspaper. That is the truth of the matter. It is one reason, I might say, why a certain newspaper has been run at a considerable loss, even to this day, although it happened to agree with the viewpoint I am advancing today. We in these benches therefore believe that it is essential that the Press be no further restricted than it is already restricted in terms of the Defence Act, the Official Secrets Act…

Will the hon. member please tell me how we are restricting them?

I can see that I shall have to read it out again.

Just tell us how it is restricting them.

I am informed by responsible newspaper editors, by lawyers and by others, that it is very difficult when the onus of proof has been shifted to the so-called accused …

On a balance of probability.

… that any person who publishes any untrue matter …

Publishes any “untrue” matter. The Press according to you, themselves do not want to publish any untrue matter.

It might only be a slight exaggeration. Yet in the strictest sense of the word in court it might well be deemed to be untrue.

If they reasonably believe it to be true, it is enough.

For example, where a report says that a policeman was seen striking a man repeatedly and it can be proved that he only struck him twice … We are having a duet here, the hon. the Minister and I. I hope we are making pleasant sounds.

It is in the Press code.

Well then, leave it in the Press code. Why does the hon. the Minister need this? He does not tell us. I want him to come with corroborating evidence of the untruths that have been told and which have been printed by the Press in South Africa. This is a deliberate slur on the Press.

You will take full responsibility for that.

I am sorry, but we cannot accept that explanation. We feel very strongly that the Press has already got more than enough curbs on it. We are not prepared to encourage the hon. the Minister to go ahead and therefore, on behalf of my party, I move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton began by saying that she did not find the clause so bad, but then made a number of statements in which she nevertheless condemned this clause, to such an extent that she has now moved that amendment.

Before I come to my speech, I immediately wish to deal with the challenge which the hon. member for Houghton made here this afternoon, i.e. that the hon. the Minister must produce examples. I think that if one were to spend only half an hour in the reading-room, one would be able to make numerous newspaper clippings of examples where the police were prejudiced by Press reports. I wish to quote one of them immediately. It appears in the Rand Daily Mail Extra of 2 September 1978. The report is headed “Security Police swoop on banned man”. When one reads the report, one is immediately struck by the bitterness, the bile which is poured out upon and the suspicion which is sowed in this report against the police. In the summary by the Press Council, the following is state, inter alia—

The report continues in this vein to mention numerous things. This long report puts the police in a very bad light Apart from the Press, we still find members of the public who confirm this report and elaborate upon it A certain individual—I am not going to say who it is—had the following to say in this regard—

This is also stated here in the report, and these words were spoken by none other than Mrs. Helen Suzman, PFP spokesman on Justice. This report appeared before the Press Council. The Commissioner of Police, quite rightly, complained about it and therefore appeared before the Press Council. The Press Council, inter alia, had the following to say about this—

The hon. member for Houghton must listen now—

No effort was made at all.

That hon. member challenged the hon. the Minister to give examples. The comment by the Press Council goes on to state—

This is a very serious charge. The hon. member for Houghton now alleges that the punishment inflicted in this regard, is enormous. This is exactly the same punishment which the Press Council prescribed for themselves to inflict. It is not, however, a compulsory punishment; it is a fine not exceeding R10 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years. The whole hon. House and the general public agree that it is the duty of the Press to report on matters of importance. No one withhold this from the Press. We even expect the Press to inform the public with regard to wrongful action by the police. The provisions of clause 9 are primarily aimed at preventing the publication of untrue statements. What the amendment moved by the hon. Opposition amounts to is that they want untrue statements to be published in the Press and bruited abroad. [Interjections.] This is all it means.

The hon. member for Houghton issued challenges to the hon. the Minister. On 25 October 1977 a report appeared in the Evening Post, in which reference was made to a number of pupils who gathered in front of a court in Algoa Park and that two police helicopters broke up the gathering. When the matter had been discussed with the Evening Post, they apologized, for it appeared that the police had been dealing with quite a different matter. The police were engaged in a training flight and they had absolutely nothing to do with the students. In fact, they did not even know about the students. The newspaper then apologized for the mistake they had made. There are numerous other examples such as this one, and I hope my colleagues also have a few examples which they can mention. I am thinking for example, of a report which appeared in The World, under the heading “Terror Trial: Woman speaks”. The report appeared on 31 May 1977. In this report it is alleged that a certain Lawrence Nzanga was detained under the provisions of section 6, and that he died in detention. This person had in actual fact been charged under the provisions of section 2(1)(a) and (b) and was awaiting trial when he died. After negotiations between the police and the editor, the editor concerned apologized in writing. The editor of that newspaper was none other than Percy Qoboza. Here I have a copy of a letter which he wrote to say how sorry he was. This is not, however, what we are concerned with here. The fact of the matter is that these incorrect reports are bruited abroad. When one asks people abroad, as some of my colleagues and I again did recently, where they find the distortions and incorrect reports, their reply is that they get them from our own Press and from our own newspapers. The hon. member for Houghton alleged that this is an absolute insult to the Press. I do not believe that is an insult to the Press; on the contrary, I think that here we are helping the Press to discipline themselves.

These days the police are being accused of terrible atrocities. Reflections are being cast on them. Throughout the world it is being said that we are living in a police state. All the gossip concerning our police in the newspapers should now come to an end. If there is no discipline we know that things will go wrong, because our enemies can then thrive on this type of reporting and can make things very difficult for us.

The hon. member for Houghton is now asking why we are only now, after all these years, coming forward with this legislation. I think it is very clear how greatly we value our Press freedom. It is clear that, throughout the years, we have given the Press and the Press Council—hon. members will remember all the discussions that took place—the opportunity, or wanted to give them the opportunity to discipline themselves. However, they did not do so. This is why these steps have to be taken now. I believe that the steps which are being taken by means of the legislation under discussion are actually in the interests of the Press itself. However, it is not aimed at the Press only. It applies to every individual and to the hon. member for Houghton as well. Every member of the public who publishes false information, untrue and malicious information about the police, may be dealt with under the clause concerned. It is not only the Press or the newspapers which are affected. It could be a pamphlet or anything else. From experience we know only too well that the foreign Press seizes on lies and malicious stories of this type to get at us. The same applies to the UN. We only have to read the reports of the UN to see how they thrive on lies of this type. Even Amnesty International and the World Council of Churches make use of these untrue reports to get at South Africa.

I think we have now had plenty of experience of these things, particularly because a provision to this effect also exists in the Prisons Act. Therefore we know that it could only benefit us. In recent times only positive reports have been published. All those untruths belong to the past. In fact, no one prohibits the Press from publishing anything about the prison service, as long as it is the truth.

The hon. member for Houghton forgot, of course, to refer to the Defence Act. In, I think, section 118 of the Defence Act, there is a similar provision. I believe of course that this is very necessary. The hon. member for Houghton maintains that there are other ways of prosecuting supposed offenders. According to her the legislation with regard to libel could be used, and therefore this legislation is unnecessary. As far as I am concerned, the legislation under discussion is definitely necessary. The clause is definitely necessary because the libel laws, although they do exist, cannot cover all the instances where incorrect reports are published about the police. There are not always sufficient penal measures in the libel laws to get at this type of libel and untrue reports. Then there is also the question of the onus of proof, which, in the case of the libel laws, is probably far more difficult. We are being prejudiced to such an extent that we must set this matter right now, once and for all.

I wish to conclude by saying that I think it is necessary that the public should read reports in the newspapers. They should be informed of the good things; but also of the bad things done by the police. Misdeeds should not be hidden. If something is wrong, I think this Government has already proved that it is the first to want to rectify what is wrong. Therefore we welcome good and positive reports, also reports aimed at the police. It should, however, be the truth. The fact that the Opposition is opposed to this clause, once again proves the malice on their part in counteracting the good intentions of the Government For that we have hauled them over the coals so many times from this side of the House.

There are many other clauses in this Bill on which I should like to speak. However, I think that we will probably have an opportunity to discuss these more fully in the Committee Stage. I should like to mention one other matter. Here I am thinking of clause 2, under which the police may search any person, premises, other place, vehicle, vessel or aircraft, or any receptacle of whatever nature, at any place in the Republic within a distance of 10 km of any border between the Republic and any foreign State or territory. I think this is a very good provision. Our farmers on the borders, particularly in the part of the country where I come from, will welcome this clause. They are constantly asking for more protection for themselves and their property, and I think the fact that these extended powers are being granted to the police and the fact that they will use these powers, is a great encouragement to all our farmers on the border.

Clause 12 provides that the Commissioner may, after consultation with and with the approval of the Treasury, pay to any member of the Force “a higher salary, wage or allowance than the salary, wage or allowance so payable to him”. This is a step in the right direction, a very positive step. This will serve as encouragement and inspiration to these people. This is the type of thing we welcome.

In general this Bill is a very positive one. It may perhaps be a forerunner to a Police (Consolidation) Act, which will also be welcomed. I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Potgietersrus mentioned a few instances in reply to the hon. member for Houghton. He mentioned a matter which is very interesting. To quite a large degree it helps to prove the case of hon. members on this side of the House, and I can assure the hon. member for Houghton that we also intend opposing this Bill. He mentioned a case where the matter had been taken to the Press Council. By that he proved that the machinery exists for the normal news media to be taken to task, admittedly not through the laws of the country as such. But the machinery exists to take a case to the Press Council where they can be fined a very large sum of money. I submit that the hon. member for Potgietersrus has helped us to prove our point in this particular regard.

Secondly, he mentioned the case regarding helicopters which were used in the region of Algoa Bay. Once again, the hon. member says the newspapers have published a full apology regarding this matter. That is fair enough. Perhaps the damage has already been done, but “to err is human; to forgive, divine.” However, I am afraid that it is obviously expecting too much of the hon. the Minister of Justice. The hon. member for Potgietersrus also talked about “al hierdie skinderstories oor die polisie”. This reminds me that in The Cape Times there have recently been a series of articles, extremely good articles, complaining about the poor situation of the police in terms of their salaries. It seems somewhat odd to me that the hon. the Minister is now posing as the big hero to protect the police, while I believe he is responsible in large measure for the fact that the police enrolment has fallen off so tremendously.

You always talk a lot of nonsense.

The hon. the Minister says I always talk a lot of nonsense, but it is fairly obvious from what he said during the debate on the previous Bill that he is not interested in what we say or think anyway. He has got the voting power behind him and he is going to push this Bill through the House whether it is good legislation or bad legislation, or whatever anybody might think.

Now, before I get back to the Press situation I want to react to some of the clauses contained in the Bill. We on these benches agree with all the other clauses in the Bill with the exception of clause 9. I want to react to clause 2, which extends the area of operations in terms of not needing a search warrant for searches, etc., from one mile to 10 km from the border. One must look at this clause in another regard. It is not only in respect of searches that the traditional borders of South Africa is being increased from one mile to 10 km. One must not forget that the Government, through their policy of separate development or apartheid, are extending the borders of our country virtually every day. The borders have been extended tremendously with the independence of the Transkei. They have been further extended tremendously with the independence of Bophuthatswana, and so it is progressing. This clause is in fact going to mean that we are going to have this type of police control increasingly more throughout South Africa and there are going to be thousands of square kilometres involved in this legislation. In terms of the onslaught against South Africa we believe this is necessary, but I do believe it is necessary to point out that the hon. the Minister’s party is complicating the problem by means of their policy and creating all these independent homelands. We saw in the Press only this week that the Transkeian authorities have apprehended a so-called terrorist gang in the Transkei itself. I think South Africa should bear this in mind seeing the sort of powers we have to give. As I have said, I am not against the clause. We need to protect ourselves against terrorism, but I do not think we need to complicate the problem by extending our borders. This is what is happening.

Are you opposed to the homelands becoming independent?

This party does not want totally independent States. We believe in a federal type confederal system, so that we do not break up the traditional South Africa in which we were all born and which we consider to be our country. Whether they are homelands or not, it is part of our country. I think I have said enough for the time being on that particular clause. I have obviously caused a little bit of reaction on the other side of the House.

Clause 12 of the Bill deals with the pay of the Police Force. I am very glad to see that this clause has been included in the Bill, and we approve of it entirely. I do hope, however, that when the hon. the Minister in future announces in the House that there are going to be some pay benefits, he is a little bit more speedy in carrying out these promises than he was last time. In the Police Vote of last year’s budget he announced that police uniforms would be subsidized. But what has happened? We had to wait almost a full year before it came out in the Press—only today or yesterday—that this is being carried out from, I think, 1 April and that it would amount to R214 per year.

Which clause of the Bill are you referring to?

I am referring to clause 12, which deals with police pay.

I now want to turn to the really controversial clause in the Bill, and this is obviously clause 9. I want to remind the House of what I said yesterday in regard to this being one of a trilogy of Bills. First we had the Inquest Amendment Bill, now we have the Police Amendment Bill and later on we will have the Divorce Bill, all of which deal to an extent with the Press. This is the second Bill of the three, and in talking about it, I must perhaps mention the remarks made by the hon. member for Durban North on the last Bill regarding the man who jumped out of a fifth storey window and, as the hon. member very eloquently put it, landed dead at the feet of a reporter while perhaps people were seen upstairs wearing police uniforms. I must admit that the thought struck me that the hon. the Minister of Justice is making absolutely sure that if he does not get at them through the inquests, he will get at them through the police.

When one considers the freedom of the Press, one must look at what has been written over a number of years in connection with the Press. The first occasion on which the freedom of the Press was recognized in actual legislation was in 1976 in the State of Virginia. The Virginia Bill of Rights drawn up by George Mason stated—

Tell me where I am attacking the freedom of the Press in this Bill.

The hon. the Minister is attacking the freedom of the Press in clause 9. With respect, I should like the hon. the Minister to give me an opportunity to make out my case.

Do you want them to publish untruths?

I shall come to that and the hon. the Minister will get his answer if he just exercises a little restraint and patience.

I also want to quote what Mr. Justice Best said in 1820—

Both these statements in regard to the Press have, in my view, to do with the freedom of the Press in relationship to government Here, in this particular instance and in this Bill, one has to regard the police as an arm of government. As such we are dealing, in this clause particularly, with the freedom of the Press in relation to government. This is the first point I want to come to.

The police is not an arm of government. It is an arm of the State.

One must not forget that the freedom of the Press is a basic, democratic right and that if we destroy that democratic right, we are seeking to destroy the very structure that we are trying to protect.

I agree with that, but tell us about the untruths.

I shall come to that aspect. As I have said before, I just wish the hon. the Minister would exercise a little patience and restraint.

You will never come to it. That is the trouble.

Keep your cool.

We have seen, in the Press in this country over the last year, the sort of role that the Press can play in its criticism of government or arms of government, and the Information scandal, I submit, is a complete and utter justification of the point of view I am now putting.

You can lay that upon the Table and I shall reply …

Sir, at this stage I am not sure who is making the speech, the hon. the Minister or myself. One had exactly the same situation with Watergate because if it had not been for a vigilant Press, very possibly many of the items that were exposed would not have been exposed. This is where the Press has its role to play in a free and democratic society.

Hear, hear!

It is absolutely essential that the Press should not be muzzled in any shape or form …

Hear, hear!

… particularly when it comes to matters of public importance. We are aware of the fact that there is a Press Union. We are also aware of the fact that the Press Union is entitled to charge its members a fine of up to R10 000 if they publish untruthful matters in just the way the hon. the Minister has set out in this Bill.

This is entrenching in statute what the Press Union has in its Press code.

Correct. The point is that by entrenching it in statute, by making it a form of governmental restriction rather than leaving it as an internal matter under the control of the Press, the hon. the Minister is seeking to destroy that very democratic right we are trying to protect. At this stage the machinery exists in the Press Union for fining its members for exactly this type of offence. Now the hon. the Minister has, of course, extended that by coming with a penalty of five years’ imprisonment in addition to a fine of R10 000. He must therefore not try to tell us that he is only putting into the Statute what the Press Union already applies, because he is in fact extending it. I am quite certain that if the Press Union were to be asked for their opinion on this, they would say that the punishment that can possibly be imposed has virtually been increased threefold, because five years’ imprisonment in addition to a fine of R10 000—and in terms of this legislation both the fine and the imprisonment can be imposed—takes the situation an awful lot further.

I want to point to a statement the hon. the Minister is reported to have made.

What do you have to say about subversive pamphlets?

I am coming to that right now. I want to point to a statement the hon. the Minister himself is reported to have made, and I quote from Die Burger of 19 March—

Such as The Citizen.

I quote further—

Is the hon. the Minister actually telling us that what he is really aiming at is the gutter Press? If that is the case, I suggest that he should frame his legislation differently. If the gutter Press is what he is actually aiming at, I might in fact be prepared to reconsider our position should he introduce an amendment to make this legislation apply only to the gutter Press, because I have as much contempt for the gutter Press as he has.

Give me a definition of “gutter Press” and I might consider your proposal.

Sir, I shake my head in despair.

They are your words, not mine.

We talk about the gutter Press, but this particular clause is going to affect the whole body of the Press, the news media in their entirety, i.e. the responsible Press and perhaps to a certain extent the irresponsible Press as well as the SABC and SATV. All the news media are affected by this clause. If the hon. the Minister is seeking to control only the gutter Press, he must make that clear in this legislation and he must say so in his speech. If that is the case, he must introduce an amendment to release the other news media. What I am concerned about is the freedom of the Press. Frankly, I believe the freedom of the Press basically relates to the normal news media. I do not really consider the gutter Press to be a normal news medium. It is an abnormal news medium, and much of it is aimed at the very structure of the democratic society that we, in fact, hold very dear. So if the Minister wants to introduce legislation to control the gutter Press, I for my part— obviously this was not discussed in our caucus—would support him in trying to control it.

What is the “gutter Press”?

It is the non-NPU in case the hon. member does not know that. [Interjections.]

The next point I want to deal with relates to the fact that, obviously, not only the English-language Press but also the Afrikaans-language Press and even, much to my amazement, The Citizen i.e. the Government Gazette are against this Bill. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he has introduced this Bill in the House at this stage. Apparently, he has not discussed it beforehand with the Newspaper Press Union. I want to ask him whether that is, in fact, the case. Has he discussed it with them?

No, I have not.

He has not. In The Citizen of Wednesday, 21 March, there is a report to the effect that the NPU is to ask for a meeting with the hon. the Minister early next week to discuss the controversial Police Amendment Bill.

When, next week?

Yes, next week.

They will have the benefit of your learning by then.

Yes, I hope they will take advantage of it. Why is the hon. the Minister therefore not prepared to wait a while before putting this, as the hon. member for Orange Grove would say, draconian legislation before the House? There are already many laws which cover publication. There are already many laws in terms of which the Press can be controlled, quite apart from the Press Union itself. However, I think the hon. the Minister is seeking to introduce an abnormal law into what in effect that Government is fast turning into an abnormal society. The police and reporting on police activities are highly controversial matters. There can be no question about it. Everything done by the police is of public importance. They are, after all, the servants of the State and are responsible for the protection of the State, while the State to an extent is also responsible for their protection. Because of this importance, it is in my view essential that one should not interfere with Press reporting in this way. As it is important to the police, it is equally important that the Press should be unfettered in its writings, discussions and, if necessary, its criticism in regard to the police. At this stage I want to quote from The Citizen of 21 March 1979.

Must you?

I am afraid that for the first time in my knowledge I find I agree with something The Citizen has said. However, it is good reading, and I think that perhaps it must even have shaken the hon. the Minister of Police, because it seems to appear that not even the newspaper which that Government has founded, is prepared to agree with the hon. the Minister.

Did you read my answer to that?

I quote—

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to quote that comment now.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling. I must admit that it somewhat disappoints me, but I shall not quote it exactly. What The Citizen basically does, is to say that it does not agree with the hon. the Minister in his statement that this Bill cannot be regarded as an infringement or invasion of Press freedom. It also states what I have already stated, namely that there are many laws under which newspapers can be punished. Then, of course, there is also the Press Council. All these aspects are brought out in this article in The Citizen, the Government’s own newspaper. It is an extraordinary thing.

Why do you say that?

Does the hon. member really have to ask that? Has he read any newspaper in the last 18 months?

Why do you say that?

I say it because this newspaper was founded by the Government.

At this stage I should like to move the amendment which we in these benches believe is the correct one in the circumstances. We have a certain sympathy with the official Opposition in their amendment, but we think that perhaps that type of amendment—and I agree that this is a highly important matter—should be reserved for more important things. Accordingly, I move as a further amendment—

1. (a) restricting or delaying publication of matters of public importance which are truthful; and
2. (b) restricting the freedom of the Press”.

I believe that in this clause a half-truth is used to hide a far more sinister motive. We believe, as we have said in this amendment, that this clause restricts or delays publication. I believe that this clause—as I have said in the debate on the last Bill—will also have the effect that it will enable the outside world to point a finger of scorn at us and to publish reports in their newspapers about the restrictions on the Press by that hon. Minister. That hon. Minister has already caused us enough problems with the outside world to cause us more. This type of thing does South Africa a disservice by giving ammunition to our enemies. We are placing the very ammunition they want in their hands. I believe this measure is out of step in a democratic society, but not out of step in a communist world.

I should now like to deal with the question of truths and untruths. I would be the first person to agree that untruths should not be published. [Interjections.] I agree totally that untruths should not be published. I am sure there is total agreement right around the House regarding this. However, the hon. the Minister, firstly, has a remedy and, secondly, the point is not the truthfulness of the matter or the untruthfulness of the matter.

Why not?

The point is that the very restriction placed upon the Press places it in the same difficulty as did the clause relating to prisons, clause 44 of the Bill of 1959, and as the hon. member for Houghton has correctly pointed out, this type of measure has a restricting effect on the publication of truthful matter. This is the whole problem. If one looks at this from the point of view simply of the publication of truthful matter, then one can agree with the hon. the Minister, but that is not the point. The point is that it will cause a restriction and also cause, as we have said, the Press not to publish matters which are in effect true.

Why not?

I want to end by repeating what I said during the discussion of the Inquests Amendment Bill, namely that if only one matter of national importance is suppressed by means of this legislation, albeit only temporarily, it will outweigh any possible advantage the clause might have. I therefore, with respect, ask hon. members on the opposite side to think very seriously about this matter and to reconsider this clause in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London North gave us a long dissertation on the freedom of the Press. As far as that long dissertation is concerned, we agree with 90% of it. He began with the year 1776 and told how important the freedom of the Press was. We are in full agreement with him on all those matters. Only in the last two minutes of his speech did he really come to the crux of the matter, viz. the question of whether it was permissible to publish untruths. That is what the Bill is all about. It was stated here yesterday, and repeated today, that this side of the House is as concerned about the freedom of the Press as the Opposition is.

Oh, come off it!

In circumstances of this nature, however, we must bear in mind that we are dealing with the police in the first place. In the times in which we live, the police is the organization which symbolizes the authority of the State, and each one of us should treasure the police. The police are the people who ensure that we—including the Opposition—can do our work calmly and peacefully for 24 hours of the day, 365 days of the year. Therefore we must do everything in our power to ensure that the police can carry out their task efficiently. The hon. member for Ermelo also referred to Press freedom this afternoon. It is a right which the Press has, but that right carries with it a very important obligation. There is no right in respect of which there is no obligation. The most important obligation of the Press in this regard is to publish the truth. This is what it is all about. This is not the first time, as the hon. member for Houghton indicated, that the House has dealt with a provision of this nature. As long ago as 1958, when the Prisons Act was passed, the then Minister of Prisons, advocate Swart …

It was in 1959.

In 1959. I stand corrected. In 1959 advocate Swart brought the Prisons Act to this House. Originally this Act contained a provision in which the word “false” did not appear at all.

I said so.

Yes, I know. But this hon. member did not refer to the word “false”. She simply said that that Act had been slightly watered down in the Committee Stage. The real watering down of that Act was that the word “false” was incorporated into the legislation. It repeats in so many words what is now being embodied in this legislation. The then hon. Opposition, which included people like Mr. Harry Lawrence, accepted these provisions. They did not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. Afterwards, in the Committee Stage, advocate Swart moved an amendment to the effect that any person who publishes false information in respect of something which takes place in a prison was guilty of an offence. At the time the Opposition, as the hon. member put it, accepted it reluctantly, but the fact remains that they did in fact accept it. Today, 20 years later, they object to a provision which they accepted at that time.

Because we have seen what has happened.

I want to go further and point out what happened on 30 May 1977, when the Police Act also came up for discussion. There is a provision in the Police Act that under certain circumstances, no photographs may be taken of people who are being arrested. Mr. Cadman held talks with the hon. member for Sandton at the time and then the hon. official Opposition, in collaboration with the NRP, moved an amendment. It was a very interesting amendment…

In 1977?

Yes. It was very recently, but that party did not yet have access to the learning of the hon. member for Johannesburg North at that time. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton must listen carefully now. In 1977, Mr. Cadman moved an amendment to the effect that such a photograph or sketch may not be published, and I quote (Hansard, Vol. 69, col. 8829)—

Everybody agreed with it at the time. Even the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for East London North agreed. So everybody agreed to an amendment which contained exactly the same wording as the one which we are proposing here now. Isn’t that funny? The hon. member for Houghton is welcome to go and look up the 1977 debates to see what the hon. member for Sandton had to say in this regard (Hansard, Vol. 69, col. 8830)—

He was not very happy about it, but accepted the amendment, an amendment with exactly the same wording as the present clause. Nevertheless, those hon. members object to this. That is what I find so incomprehensible. That is not all, however, for they proceed to publicize these objections. I want to refer, for example, to what Fleur de Villiers said in the Sunday Times—

Here reference is made to “censorship”, Press censorship, in the light of a provision which prohibits the publication of an untruth about the police. This is now regarded as Press censorship. Reports such as these are published. This offence was never rectified.

The damage is done.

The damage is done, and it cannot be measured in terms of money. The hon. member for Houghton referred to the Rand Daily Mail and to the SAAN newspaper group, which had to pay R250 000 for the expenses incurred in that case. But I want to know what the damage amounted to which SAAN did South Africa by publishing those untrue stories about the prison service. What is the cost to the country if stories of this kind are spread throughout the world by the Opposition? Can we ever measure it in terms of money?

Here is an opportunity for the Opposition to approve of legislation which is going to render the work of the police more efficient, which will make their working conditions more pleasant, and which also contains provisions for the improvement of their financial position. They can take this opportunity to show the public that they are the friends of the police. They do not avail themselves of the opportunity, however, but prefer to allege that the problem of the police is their commitment to the implementation of unpopular laws. I hope the hon. member for Houghton is listening. She must tell me whether anyone who is committing a crime or an offence, regards the police as his friend. It does not matter what kind of a crime the person is committing. It can be theft, murder or any other crime, and I want to know whether such a person would regard the police as his friend when they catch him. Surely it is an absurd argument to allege that the police are unpopular because they have to administer unpopular laws. It is utterly absurd. The hon. member for Houghton has also requested evidence in this regard. I can furnish that evidence. The hon. member for East London North said in this regard that one could take it to the Press Council. In spite of that the situation continues. Surely one must take action to stop such activity if it continues. I should like to quote an example of this type of reporting. On 28 November 1978, the Post published a correction of a false report which had appeared on 27 November 1978. In this false report it was alleged that one Fanyana Mazibuke had been questioned for nine hours by the Security Police. The real period of questioning was only one hour, but the report stated that it had lasted nine hours. This report was also sent out into the world.

On 11 August 1978, the Post published a report entitled “Hope as two women go free” which stated that. Thenjwie Mtintso and Joyce Mokhezi had been detained for 282 days, whereas the real period was only 76 days. Once again there were complaints and once again the matter had to be corrected. But the situation continues and we are helpless to do anything to check it. This is not an assault on Press freedom, but an assault on Press licence. This is all that the legislation entails. I want to emphasize again that the hon. member for Houghton did not make any mention of the aspects of the legislation which will improve the conditions under which the police work. I will say that much for the hon. member for East London North, however, that he at least mentioned it.

We could go a little further into that aspect. We could refer to clauses 4, 5 and 6. The hon. member for Potgietersrus referred to clause 2, the question of the distance of 10 kilometres. Clauses 4, 5 and 6 deal with offences committed by members of the Police Force, with misconduct of officers and their subsequent trial. Not only have these clauses now to a large extent been brought in line with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, but more authority and greater dignity is lent to the proceedings. The existing section 9(6), for example, only authorizes the Commissioner at an appeal to confirm the sentence or make such finding or impose such sentence as, in his opinion, should have been made or imposed at the trial of that member of the Police Force. This matter has now been systematically set out, and the same applies to the appeal of officers in terms of clause 5.

When a police officer is involved in an inquiry, an admission of guilt is not accepted. It is not permissible in a large, disciplined Force like the Police. A plea of guilty can only be accepted when the Commission of Police gives his permission. These are all improvements in the circumstances of the South African Police, for which we are grateful and which we welcome. The provisions of clause 4(c) also bring police inquiries into line with the findings in appeal court verdicts. Even a technical irregularity in a trial for a capital crime cannot prevent the accused from being retried.

There are two more examples of positive improvements. The fact that the provisions of the Moratorium Act are now being made applicable to members of the Police Reserve under certain circumstances is not mentioned at all by the hon. member for Houghton. It is not important to her.

Clause 12, which deals with salary benefits and merit conditions—it was dealt with by the hon. member for East London North—is in my opinion comparable to the achievement awards in the Public Service. I also want to express the wish that it will be a forerunner of larger salary benefits, which every friend of the police wants them to have.

Finally, I just want to refer to clause 1 of the Bill. I shall move an amendment in connection with clause 1 at the Committee Stage. From the wording of the Bill, it seems as if temporary members are also regarded as members of the Police Force only when they are in service. I am sure the intention is that when someone is temporarily engaged by the Police Force, he will enjoy the protection of the Police Act during his period of service. I shall move an amendment to this effect in the Committee Stage.

With these words, I should like to support a further, positive strengthening of the structure of the Police Force.

Mr. Speaker, the complaint of the hon. member for Brakpan that we did not discuss the other provisions of the Bill, apart from clause 9, is clearly unfounded in the sense that we have made it abundantly clear that we welcome the other clauses of the Bill and have no quarrel with them. But the hon. the Minister himself stated during the Second Reading debate that clause 9 was the contentious clause in the Bill. Without detracting from the other clauses of this Bill, we are criticizing and confining ourselves to clause 9 only.

We must see clause 9 against the background of a long process of evolution. There have been objections and complaints, whether founded or unfounded, not only by this Government but also by other Governments under Gen. Smuts and others against the Press. On the part of the Government there have been moves from time to time to determine whether the Press could not, from their point of view, be disciplined and forced to set their house in order etc. The hon. member for Brakpan and other hon. members are now saying that there are other departments to which the rule applies that criticism cannot be expressed unless the author or the publisher can prove it to be correct. Defence matters are quoted as an example. Defence matters and the necessity of safeguarding the country’s borders, the whole defence structure of the country, is not in any way comparable to the Police Force. I am saying this with all due respect for the Police Force, because its most important functions which concern the Press are not performed on the border but here in our midst Although it is equally important, national security is not involved to such an extent as in the case of defence. [Interjections.]

The same criticism is being levelled in respect of the Prisons Act. If it is alleged that the maltreatment of a prisoner, or an irregularity which occurs in a prison or in the prison service is not something which should readily be brought to light, in view of the terrible penal provisions, I submit that too many protective measures apply have been granted, at the expense of the Press. The Police Act, incorporating this provision, takes the matter even further. I want to ask the hon. member for Brakpan now whether he would support such a statutory provision in respect of the Department of Plural Relations and Development. What is the hon. member’s reply? Would the hon. member support the same provision if we were not dealing with the police, but with the Department of Plural Relations and Development? [Interjections.] If the hon. member replies in the affirmative to that question, I can also ask: What about the Department of Transport? If he can give a positive reply to that question, the same question could be put in respect of all the other Government departments.

Mr. Speaker, I must tell you very courteously that I fear the NP is curtailing Press freedom in South Africa step by step. However, that desire on the part of the Government is not strong enough to give hon. members on that side of the House the courage to advocate blanket Press censorship. [Interjections.] They are doing it step by step and ultimately that is what it amounts to. The hon. the Prime Minister is smiling at this allegation. But let us see what the hon. the Prime Minister himself has done in this regard. In December 1978 he issued a warning that as from 1 June 1979 rumour-mongering would be dealt with by means of legislation. A direct realization of that warning is now being proposed by the appointment of an advocate-general, as from 1 June 1979. This is of course respect of certain matters.

Consequently there has been a consistent move on the part of the Government to curtail and restrict Press freedom until there is ultimately very little or no Press freedom left. The Government does not have the moral courage, however, to tell the world that it is going to apply Press censorship in South Africa. [Interjections.] That is why the official Opposition took this unusual step of indicating our objection to this Bill by saying that the Bill should be read this day six months.

It deals with untruths.

We can now deal with untruths. The hon. the Minister and various other hon. members repeatedly asked the official Opposition whether we favour the publication of untruths. The answer is an equivocal “no”. [Interjections.] We object to them, because in some cases, of which I will furnish examples to hon. members on that side of the House, it is impossible for a Pressman to prove that he had reasonable grounds for his presumption.

Why?

It is because he cannot reveal his sources. The sources do exist, but he cannot reveal them. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister seems to be questioning my statement, but he is simply displaying his ignorance of what goes in the Press and on how journalists operate. Suppose a journalist is visited by a police officer or a policeman. If the hon. the Minister listens carefully now, he can perhaps help us solve this. The Pressman is informed by that police officer or policeman that something irregular is occurring in the Police Department, irregularities such as those which occurred in the former Department of Information, or have hon. members not heard about that yet? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member for Johannesburg North a chance.

Mr. Speaker, convincing evidence is given to a journalist which proves that irregularities are taking place. What is the journalist to do? He goes to his editor and tells him that he has certain information which a Mr. X gave him. Do hon. members know what the editor’s first question is going to be? He will ask whether Mr. X will be prepared to state it in public. The journalist’s reply to this is that Mr. X is under no circumstances prepared to do so because it could have a very adverse effect on his position and his future in the Police Force. [Interjections.]

If it is the truth, they may publish it.

I must honestly say that if the hon. the Minister is of the opinion that a junior in any department or organization in South Africa will easily be believed when he declares that one of his superiors is committing irregularities, he does not know how things work. [Interjections.] What can and will happen—we have seen it time and again—is that people are prepared to say that things are wrong, but they are not prepared to disclose their names known or to give evidence in a court of law.

Why not?

Because they do not want to get involved. To this day we still do not know who the person was that brought the irregularities in the defunct Department of Information to the attention of the Press.

In the Watergate scandal, in which President Nixon was involved, there was a person who was known as “Deep Throat”. That was the name given to him. That person brought all the information to journalists at various meeting places, but his true name was never divulged. It was subsequently divulged, but while the Watergate affair was in progress, this informant—“Deep Throat”—insisted that his name should not be mentioned.

How do you know it was a woman? [Interjections.]

That kind of flippancy is of course typical of the attitude of hon. members on the opposite side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member whether he knows what the criterion is which the courts apply when an accused enters the dock in order to testify about the circumstances in which an untruth has been published and he testifies that he had sound reasons for believing that what had been published was the truth?

Mr. Speaker, I considered very carefully whether it is possible that if an accused in such a case appeared before the court and said: “Your Honour, I honestly believed the information was true”, his evidence would be accepted.

What would your verdict be?

I shall not accept his word. I shall ask him where he got the information. The accused will reply that he is sorry but he is unable to reveal that. A deadlock is reached, therefore.

Pressmen have been sent to jail in South Africa because they refused to reveal their sources. It is not because they adopt a high moral attitude in regard to the matter, but they know that once they reveal the name of their informant against his wish, they will never receive confidential information again. It is part of their profession. It is not a question of deliberate lies. We are dealing here with the gradual undermining of an absolutely essential element of our existence, viz. Press freedom. The hon. the Minister himself might one day regret the possibility that the Press had information on something that could be wrong in his department, and it could not come to his attention simply because this channel, via the Press, has been closed to him too.

If it is the truth, they can publish it [Interjections.]

Can the hon. the Minister not understand my argument that it may not be proved in all cases? If the source cannot be revealed, the truth cannot be proved.

Is it fair to publish untruths, therefore?

I shall repeat the argument. Apparently I cannot make myself clearly understood. [Interjections.] Hon. members must now give the hon. the Minister a chance to hear and understand clearly what I am saying. If a Pressman, for whatever reason, cannot reveal his source and he is brought to trial to prove the truth of what he published, he will not be able to prove the truth.

He need not if it is really the truth.

I mean truth in the sense that he had reasonable grounds to believe that it was in fact true. That he cannot do if …

[Inaudible.]

Would the hon. member for Brakpan please keep quiet? [Interjections.] I am trying to bring this argument home to the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Brakpan keeps on interjecting so that no one can understand what I am saying. I shall repeat this argument for the fifth time now: No one can prove a reasonable presumption if he cannot reveal the grounds for and the sources of his knowledge.

I shall reply to that.

If the hon. the Minister understands what I want to say, I shall leave it at that. At last he has now understood the argument. I repeat… [Interjections.] … that the hon. the Minister himself will be sorry that information which he could otherwise have obtained … I believe hon. members, including the hon. the Prime Minister, started laughing before they heard what the joke was. It is like the “Bols” joke. [Interjections.]

By its ability to publish the Press can act as a watchdog over the actions of the police, and to prohibit that is not only detrimental to the Press, but also the hon. the Minister. Why is the Government passing this kind of measure step by step and in one sphere after another? Why is the hon. the Prime Minister threatening to gag the Press? Why did the former Prime Minister repeatedly say he was going to take action against the Press unless they set their house in order? The Press Code was then revised, with the approval of the former Prime Minister. Nevertheless it is considered necessary to come up with measures such as these. In the debate on a previous Bill, I asked the hon. the Minister why these restrictions with regard to inquests were being imposed. He gave us no answer to that question. He has still not told us why it was necessary to effect these changes after 100 years. In this case, too, I want to know why it was necessary. But I am sure there will be no answers to these questions either.

Mr. Speaker, the path of the hon. member for Johannesburg North and my path have crossed quite often in the past. As a young student I got to know him as my Ossewabrandwag General, after that as advocate, then as judge and now as MP for Johannesburg North.

You have said that before.

All of us know, too, that the hon. member takes a great interest in drama and the theatre. Today he gave us an excellent display of comic acting. Actually I do not want to say very much more about the speech of that hon. member.

Reply to the arguments if you can.

On the part of those two Opposition parties we have repeatedly heard in this debate the already hackneyed argument that this Bill is allegedly an onslaught on the freedom of the Press.

Correct.

Hon. members of the Opposition, in particular the hon. member for East London North, spelled out in their arguments that there was, after all, a Press Council and asked why we were introducing this measure as well. I want to leave it at that. The principal argument of every Opposition member who spoke in this debate was that the provision in clause 9—that if any person publishes an untrue statement without having reasonable grounds for suspecting that it is indeed true, he is committing an offence—is an encroachment on Press freedom. The hon. member for Johannesburg North said that there was a homonymous provision in the Press Code. If the provision in this clause is an encroachment on Press freedom and is at the same time homonymous with the provision in the Press Code which the Press itself established, do those hon. members then wish to argue that the provision in the Press Code also constitutes an encroachment on the freedom of the Press?

Of course not! In the case of the code the Press sits in judgment on themselves. That is a different story.

I do not blame the hon. member for East London North, for I think it has been a long time since he last renewed his acquaintanceship with the law—at least I hope so. His argument that an homonymous provision in this clause in terms of which a judge or a magistrate shall pass judgment on the question of whether a person has contravened that provision could have a different effect on the freedom of the Press to the provision in the Press Code in terms of which the Press Council passes judgment in an identical case, is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard in my life. [Interjections.] I hope the hon. member for East London North is not trying to imply to us that the Press Council, in adjudicating on complaints brought before it, is not objective in its judgment or acts in favour of its own members.

The hon. member for Houghton challenged us to point out examples of gross untruths about the behaviour of the police that were published in the Press in South Africa. I can point out many cases to her, but I do not want to bore hon. members by referring to all of them. However, I think the hon. member for Houghton is only too well aware of the case of the report published in The Star in August 1977. My constituency of Barberton was referred to in that report, and that was why I was interested in it. The leading article read as follows—

This blatant untruth was blazoned abroad by The Star.

What happened to that man?

He was acquitted in court. However, what happened to the image of our country? The hon. member should discuss the libel against our country.

*This article in The Star was blazoned abroad to malign our police.

Wherein did the untruth lie?

It was a blatant lie.

What was the reaction to it?

In reply to the question of the hon. member for Durban North I want to quote from a report which The Star was compelled to publish pursuant to that article. It read—

Imagine that!—

So, everything was put right.

That is the argument. The Star should not only have tried to establish whether that story was true afterwards. They should have tried to establish before the time whether that story was reasonably true before they maligned their own country in the eyes of the world. That is what we expect of our Press. No one on this side of the House, no democrat, wishes to curtail the freedom of any person to proclaim the truth.

Democrats can face the world with no fears.

I am not aware of any country in the world in which any person, including the Press, has the right to lie. I know of no country in the world in which the right to lie is recognized as a sacred right Nor do I know of any country in the world where it is a right of the Press as well, to malign one’s own country and the State organs of one’s country. [Interjections.]

What is wrong with the law as it stands?

That hon. member knows nothing whatsoever about the law.

Answer my question.

I am not prepared to conduct a dialogue with that hon. member across the floor of the House.

I want to refer again to the speech made by the hon. member for Houghton. If I heard her correctly, she alleged, inter alia, that the purpose of this clause in the Bill was “to remove the police from public scrutiny”.

That is right, yes.

The hon. member says “yes”. Consequently I heard her correctly. Where in this Bill is there any provision which could have the effect of removing the actions of the S.A. Police from public scrutiny or of subjecting them to the scrutiny of the Press, or of anyone else for that matter? All that is being required by this particular clause is that the Press should believe on reasonable grounds that what it publishes is in fact the truth. That, in brief, is my reply to what the speakers on the opposite side of the House said. I do not think there is very much more to say about what they said.

I just want to refer briefly to clause 2. It is of particular importance in that part of the world in which I live, adjoining to international borders, and I want to convey my special thanks to the hon. the Minister for the fact that these additional powers are being granted to our police, in particular for combating the infiltration of terrorists across our international borders. I think it is imperative that these additional powers be granted to our police. Personally I would have liked, if I could, to have made it more than 10 kilometres in this particular case.

It is interesting to note that the Opposition, apart from the one clause, had almost nothing to say about the entire Bill, except the hon. member for East London North, who could not allow the opportunity to pass of seizing upon clause 12 to make an attack on the hon. the Minister. He seized upon clause 12 as a stick with which to beat the hon. the Minister. Obviously he did not understand the intention of clause 12 at all. Clause 12 does not seek to effect a general increase in the salaries of all policemen. It simply makes provision for special circumstances in which an increase in salary may be granted to a member of the Force, without an equivalent promotion in rank, for particular services which he rendered in this particular case.

I want to conclude by saying that I think South Africa is sick and tired of the unjustified attacks of the Opposition members and their allegations that we want to encroach on the freedom of the Press. I think the country is tired of such allegations, and in any event no one believes them any more. There is, in spite of 30 years of National Party government, no Press in the world which is freer than the Press in South Africa is. If it was the intention of the Government to restrain the Press and to suppress Press freedom, then the Government has had the power to do so, but this was never its intention, nor will it ever be.

Mr. Speaker, as I did not want to interrupt the hon. member and as I see that he wants to sit down, did I understand him to say that the remedial action which the Press Council can take is identical with that which is promulgated in a particular clause in this Bill? If the hon. member did say so, why then is it necessary to include this clause in the amending Bill?

The hon. member did not quite follow what I said. I did not say they were identical. They are almost similar. They are homonymous.

The Press Code requires news to be presented if, taking into consideration the news source, it could be reasonably true. In clause 9 it is being provided that no person may publish an untrue statement unless he can prove that he believed on reasonable grounds that the reports in question was true. This is homonymous and has the same effect. It cannot be understood in any other way. The hon. member asked why it was necessary then to introduce this legislation. It has been explained ad nauseum to the hon. members on that side of the House that the Bill also refers to that section of the Press which is not subject to the Press Code, and also refers to the dissemination of pamphlets and other written communications with which the Press Code has nothing to do.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether, if that is so, he agrees that it would not be impossible or incorrect to exclude members of the Press Union?

I can see no reason whatsoever why a specific group—I do not know whether the hon. member is a jurist— should be excluded from legislation of this nature. In other words, the hon. member wants us to introduce a penal measure in which we state that a certain section of the Press may publish an untrue statement, but another section of the Press may not publish an untrue statement. That is after all what the hon. member asked. He said that we should exclude members of the Press Union from this legislation. By implication we should then provide in this legislation that, as far as those people are concerned, they need not stock by the truth as far as this legislation is concerned. Only the other people have to stick by the truth.

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. the member tell us why, if the members of the Press Union who are subject to the Press Council, are excluded from the Publications Act, they may not also be excluded from this Bill?

The hon. member for Johannesburg North wants me to explain why the members of the Press Union are excluded in that case and not in this case.

Reply.

I beg your pardon? [Interjections.] I wish hon. members would give a person a chance to speak.