Mr. Chairman, after having listened carefully to the explanations given by the hon. the Minister with regard to this clause and the principle contained therein, we still remain wholly unconvinced that this is a beneficial measure and that the advantages to be derived from it, will outnumber its disadvantages. In the first place—although not deliberately—the effect of this clause will amount to an intimidation of the Press as far as inquests are concerned. The words that are used—“prejudices, influences or anticipates”—are vague words. A newspaper will not readily proceed to publishing anything about which there are misgivings or in connection with which there is the least suspicion or expectation of its publication constituting an offence.

The hon. the Minister says this is not aimed at the newspapers. However, if we have regard to the fact that inquests in South Africa have done without this protective measure for more than 100 years, it is very difficult to accept all of a sudden, without any example or factual reason having been given, that this is a purely innocent little provision for the protection of magistrates and assessors.

The hon. the Minister said last year that he would like to close the Biko file. It seems to me, however, as though he is not holding to his own undertaking. This provision undoubtedly arises from what happened with regard to the Biko inquest Therefore, without my reiterating all the arguments, I reaffirm that the PFP is unable to associate itself with the principle contained in this clause, and that we shall consequently vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, as hon. members will no doubt recall, we actually moved an amendment at Second Reading, an amendment in which we attempted to persuade the House to decline to agree to the Second Reading of this Bill. In that we were supported by the hon. member for Houghton on behalf of the PFP. The specific portion of the Bill to which we object is, of course, clause 2. I motivated my argument during Second Reading. However, I think it is interesting to note that this is one of three Bills which currently deal with this particular aspect, the aspect which is dealt with in clause 2 of this Bill, namely an attempt to restrict the freedom of the Press. One cannot help but wonder whether the Publications Amendment Bill, which has just been given notice of, is going to follow in the same footsteps.

I believe that I must repeat our reasons for being opposed to this Bill. In the first instance, we believe it will restrict publication by the news media of matters which are of public importance. No matter how seemingly small or trivial, we believe this clause will have a restricting influence on the Press and that it can, as such, act as a muzzle. We in these benches do not believe that this is desirable in any shape or form. In our amendment we say that where an inquest might affect State security, it is a different matter altogether. There is legislation relating to State security which would be adequate to deal with occasions of that nature. However, where State security is not involved, but perhaps only criticism of the Government or of an arm of government—as has in fact come out in inquests of national importance, such as the Biko case and the Joseph Mdluli case—then, I believe, our Press needs to be completely unfettered and unrestricted in its ability to publish what is of national importance at that particular stage. I wish to repeat that in the majority of cases I can see no problem. However, in this particular type of case I can see a very large problem indeed. We must not give the enemies of South Africa a stick with which they can beat us. I believe this clause will accomplish exactly that. If, as I have said before, one matter is covered up by this particular clause, and it is a matter of public importance, I believe the damage that it can do will outweigh all the good which a clause of this nature might, in the hon. the Minister’s opinion, be able to do.

Therefore we in these benches will certainly be voting against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, it is evident from speeches made by hon. members of the Opposition during the Second Reading debate, as well as this afternoon, that they fail to appreciate the whole purpose of this legislation. Hon. members of the Opposition used the freedom of the Press as a peg on which to hang their opposition to this clause. The clause does not deal with the freedom of the Press at all. It deals purely and simply with the extension of the sub judice rule so that it may apply to inquests as well. [Interjections.]

Everyone is in agreement about the importance of the duties of a magistrate at an inquest. The hon. member for East London North even conceded “that an inquest can be a matter of grave national importance”. A magistrate has to and may make findings at such an inquest which may have extremely far-reaching effects, as the hon. member for Albany indicated most efficiently during the Second Reading debate. Even the hon. member for Johannesburg North conceded that that was the case. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that the proceedings or findings at such an inquest should not be prejudiced or influenced nor be anticipated.

This clause deals not only with Press matters, but also with the spoken word. In fact, it deals with all matters which may give rise to such an inquest being prejudiced, influenced or anticipated. Freedom of speech, of which the freedom of the Press is a subdivision, is left completely unimpaired and newspapers may, as in the past, continue to report on incidents of unnatural death. They may attend the proceedings and report on the evidence led in such a court of inquiry. They may publish it in full and may even criticize the finding. They may not, however, pass judgment on the evidence and they may not report on, comment on, or pass judgment on, for example, the credibility of witnesses at such an inquest before the magistrate has given his finding. What is wrong with that? Surely it is correct that that should be the position. Surely there is no reason for the situation at inquests to be any different from that which obtains in the case of courts of law. I have never heard the Press complaining about the sub judice rule with regard to proceedings in a court of law. Now, however, hon. members on that side of the House raise serious objections to the effect that the Press will be muzzled. This is not the case at all.

A very interesting question concerning the clause under discussion is from what stage the provision will be applicable. The Inquests Act prescribes various actions to be performed prior to a magistrate actively proceeding to the actual inquest. For instance, first a Police inquiry is conducted into the circumstances of death and an autopsy is held. Statements with regard to the evidence are also submitted to the public prosecutor, and a decision is also taken by the public prosecutor as to whether or not criminal proceedings should be instituted. Only if he were to decide not to have legal proceedings instituted, would a submission have to be made by the public prosecutor to the magistrate. He, in turn, would then have to decide whether the death was attributable to unnatural causes. Only then would the formal inquest follow.

When the situation arises, the courts will give finality concerning the question of what all is included in “proceedings” at an inquest and concerning the question of from what stage it is clear that such proceedings have commenced. My own opinion is that it will be clear that an inquest would be held once the public prosecutor or the Attorney-General were to have decided not to institute legal proceedings. From that stage the proposed section and the prohibition contained therein should become operative. Therefore, what is very important in this regard, is the fact that the provisions of the clause have a bearing on the situation even before the magistrate commences the inquest. This is also the case as regards criminal trials. The provisions of the clause obviously remain applicable until such time as the magistrate has given his final finding. Subsequent to that, everybody, the newspapers, too, may speak and write freely about the proceedings and the findings. The findings may even be criticized severely.

Because this clause is an essential and a logical extension of the sub judice rule, this side of the House has pleasure in supporting this piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the hon. member for Johannesburg North was honest enough to say that in this debate he would in fact have to use all the arguments he had used in the Second Reading debate. His objection to the legislation is based on an objection in principle, and the principle of the Bill has, of course, already been accepted.

The hon. member for East London North again advanced the stereotyped argument that by doing this, we were giving the enemies of South Africa a stick with which they could beat us. The hon. member is, in my opinion, the last person who need be concerned about that. The enemy need not get sticks from us in any event. They can pick them up in London or anywhere else and beat South Africa with them. In this they are given vigorous assistance, also by the hon. member for East London North. To contend in this House that we are restricting the Press, is an argument which borders on the ridiculous. If an unnatural death were to occur, the Press would be fully entitled to publish as much as they liked about the occurrence and even to draw conclusions if they wished. The only provision made by the Bill, is that when the inquest starts, in other words, when there are a presiding officer and perhaps assessors as well, the Press should not attempt to influence the presiding officer or anticipate his findings. The Press is not being prohibited to write. They may still report the court proceedings to their hearts’ content. So in what respect are we affecting the freedom of the Press here? This legislation does not affect the freedom of the Press at all. They may still report all there is to report. What the argument of the hon. member for East London North amounts to is that we should make the freedom of the Press so wide that the Press should have the right even to influence a presiding officer or to anticipate him in his findings. That, in fact, is what the argument of the hon. member for East London North amounts to. He wants us to refrain from restricting the Press in any way and affording the presiding officer the opportunity of forming his opinions in an unprejudiced way and of drawing conclusions on the basis of the evidence. According to the hon. member, the Press should influence the presiding officer, because the Press is wiser than he is. Surely this is a disconcerting argument advanced by the hon. member. I cannot believe he really means it. In my opinion, the hon. member is just playing along. He is opposed to the Bill and now he has to look for arguments. Consequently he advances this kind of argument without further ado. However, I cannot accept these two arguments in any way.

The hon. member for Ermelo gave a logical explanation of the Bill, and I accept his argument. He made a sound, balanced speech, one to which one was able to listen. He placed the Press, as well as the type of reporting which is involved here, in the right perspective.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister explain why, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North has said, it is necessary to suddenly introduce this type of legislation, after all these years? What is the problem? The hon. the Minister has never at any stage told us what his problem is and why he suddenly has to come with this sort of restrictive legislation while the existing situation has been valid for so many years. The situation as it existed before the passing and the putting into operation of this legislation, has been a reasonable one.

The hon. the Minister also has said that the Press will be able to publish anything they like until such time as an inquest starts. I want to know: When does an inquest start? Inquest proceedings can start within a very short period of time after the death of the deceased while the actual inquest might be held many months afterwards. This is going to allow for a time gap between the time the proceedings have been started, from which stage, according to the hon. the Minister’s own explanation, the Press is going to have to be very careful as to what is reported. This time-span during which they cannot make the sort of comment that the hon. the Minister says they can, could encompass a great period of time. I think to that extent the hon. the Minister’s argument has not been infallible.

Mr. Chairman, the arguments advanced by the hon. member for East London North amount to his asking the hon. the Minister why this measure is being brought before this House only now. Furthermore, he attacks the hon. the Minister on the grounds of the Minister not having succeeded in quoting conclusive examples of why the measure has become necessary.

Has he done so?

Mr. Chairman, there are two answers to the question put by the hon. member for East London North to the hon. the Minister. Firstly, hon. members of the PFP as well as the NRP made one attempt to quote an example and to construe why this measure would have a restrictive effect on the reporting ability of the Press. In this regard I am referring to the example quoted by the hon. member for Durban North with regard to which the hon. member for Green Point indicated that the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Durban North and the example quoted by him were not valid. Secondly, the fact of the matter is that we are living in a dynamic society, and this holds true of our administration of justice as well. The administration of justice is not something static. This is also true of the way in which the Press acts on certain issues and questions. The answer, therefore, lies in the fact that we are not living in a static society. The extent to which the news media are developing their techniques and their methods, as well as the extent to which society itself is developing, has an influence on the administration of justice, and for that reason certain dynamic adjustments have to be made in respect of the legal system.

The general argument of the Opposition is not a technical one. At this late stage for the first time the hon. member for East London North, on behalf of his party, made a technical argument of this. The main objection to this measure revolves around the imposition of restrictions on the Press. The hon. member for Johannesburg North intimated that this measure was restrictive. It is restrictive in the sense that journalism and the Press must refrain from prejudicing, influencing or anticipating proceedings. When the principle of the measure was discussed during the Second Reading of this Bill, it was pointed out that no prohibition whatsoever was being imposed on the Press with regard to reporting inquest proceedings. What is at issue here is the so-called passing of comments by opinion-forming investigative journalism. An attempt is being made to restrict this kind of action. This also applies in respect of the general courts of law.

When hon. members of the Opposition agreed to clause 1 of the Bill, they tacitly acknowledged the importance of inquests by voting for the inclusion of assessors at inquests. By tacitly acknowledging this, they cannot defend themselves now by saying that inquests are not as important as ordinary courts of law. Therefore, in my opinion, their arguments do not hold water, and I support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the situation here is one in which we are left completely in the dark. The argument on this side of the House has been that the hon. the Minister has stated clearly that the Press is free to report whatever it wishes with regard to an inquest, provided the inquest proceedings have not started.

Report the inquest proceedings, yes.

The hon. member who has just spoken said, however, that the purpose of this legislation is to stop any opinion forming about an inquest. Here we therefore have a conflict of intention. On the one hand the hon. member says that the Press cannot give any opinion about what may happen at an inquest, whilst the hon. the Minister says the Press is free to say what it likes, provided the inquest proceedings have not started. As a result one can only come to one irresistible conclusion, and that is that what the hon. the Minister is doing with this amendment is to hang the sword of Damocles over the head of the Press because the Press is being asked to be very careful indeed, and very circumspect, about what it publishes and what it does not publish. In the light of this, the Press is left completely in the dark. If I were a pressman and I were to have this drawn to my attention, I would ask myself who it is who would guide me in what I should or should not print. If the hon. the Minister, in introducing this clause, will not give the Press a guideline, telling it exactly what it can print and cannot print, how does he expect the Press to implement the clause, particularly because such a very high penalty is now being attached to a contravention in terms of this clause? We must have clarity on this.

Mr. Chairman, I am rather astounded at the argument of the hon. member for Hillbrow at this stage. He says that this provision hangs like the sword of Damocles over the head of the Press and that the Press will not know what it can and cannot report. The Bill, however, states exactly what the Press cannot report and that is anything which “prejudices, influences or anticipates the proceedings or findings at an inquest”. That is the same sort of sub judice rule that applies to the Supreme Court and the lower courts. So, if the Press knows what it cannot report, as far as the Supreme Court and the magistrates’ courts are concerned, the Press must surely know what it cannot report as far as inquests are concerned. It is the same thing.

But the matter is not sub judice, because the court proceedings have not started.

What does the hon. member mean by the court proceedings not having started? If the court proceedings have not started, the Press can report what it likes. Then newspapermen can report the facts as they see them. In fact, then they can report everything as they see it. They can even draw their own conclusions if they like. Once the inquest starts, however, the Press is not allowed to influence, prejudice or anticipate the findings. That is all the Press cannot do. This is exactly the same sort of thing as applies in the Supreme Court and the magistrates’ courts today. In that connection the Press knows exactly what it can publish and what it cannot publish; so I fail to understand the hon. member’s argument.

Mr. Chairman, may I pose an example to the hon. the Minister and, in the light of that, ask him a question? A death normally precedes an inquest. Let us say that a reporter has seen a death taking place, and the example has been given here of a person who comes flying out of a window. Can the Press then express an opinion about the cause of death prior to the inquest proceedings?

I suggest that the hon. member reads the Bill.

I have read it.

I refer the hon. member to clause 2(3)—

What does that mean in plain English?

But you anticipate the proceedings!

I repeat “at an inquest”. What does that hon. member mean by “you anticipate the proceedings”? When the proceedings start, whatever the legal commencement of such proceedings is, the Press knows very well that it then cannot report in such a way as to try to influence the chairman of the board.

What is the legal start of the proceedings?

That is a legal question. The hon. member should know that. The hon. member should know that that is a legal question that has been dealt with by our courts on many occasions. There is no uncertainty about that. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, since there is obviously a measure of uncertainty—I am uncertain, the hon. member for Durban North is uncertain and the hon. member for Ermelo was not very sure either—could the hon. the Minister… [Interjections.]… give us clarity on when the clause begins to take effect? In other words, when do the legal proceedings actually commence?

The rule becomes applicable as soon as the inquest commences, whenever that might be.

But that can be within hours of the death.

It can be within weeks of the death…

Or within minutes.

Or within months. The Press could by that time already have blown themselves to pieces in reporting on it. Does the hon. member have a special case in mind which he wishes to put before me?

No.

How must I know how soon the inquest will start? One thing is absolutely certain and that is that the newspapers are entitled to report whatever they wish to report until the inquest proceedings start. That is the point There is no curtailment of the freedom of the Press whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister in this regard whether the inquest commences when the evidence or the affidavits are submitted to the presiding officer, or when the court of inquiry actually goes into session, or when the police begin their investigation? These are three possibilities—perhaps there are more. I wish to have a detailed reply to this question.

Mr. Chairman, must I now give my young friend a learned legal opinion on this question? It is a matter for the legal people and for the court to determine exactly when it commences.

No, you are the legislator.

We say this provision becomes applicable when the process commences. To determine when the process commences is a matter of interpretation and we cannot and will not do that in the House. The courts must determine when the process commences. If the hon. member is an advocate in the case, he can go there and argue when exactly the process commenced.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister to just clear up one point? It is common cause that in the case of an unnatural death an inquest will be held.

Not necessarily. The hon. member should look again at the Act.

In the case of an unnatural death, is it not reasonable to anticipate that there will be an inquest?

Not necessarily.

If that is so, if at any time one forms an opinion or writes about that case, one is going to find oneself guilty of the contravention of this measure.

Sir, I think the hon. member for Hillbrow should know by now that, if the Attorney-General charges somebody with the death of another, no inquest is held at all.

Mr. Chairman, to get back to the point I was trying to convey to the hon. the Minister: Assuming a death has occurred—I am not going to quote any specific cases, because I do not think it is necessary to do so—the situation is that inquest proceedings could start fairly soon afterwards. This being the case, the provision contained in clause 2 of the Bill will begin to apply with effect from the time when the inquest proceedings start. It could be a matter of months during which the inquest proceedings will be continuing, but no actual inquest will have been held or a decision reached. Therefore, for that period of time, the provision contained in this clause will apply. In other words, it can apply for a period of months. In cases of national or public importance the position would therefore be that for a period of months the Press would have to be extremely circumspect in what they wrote in view of this provision. In fact, the extent to which they keep the public informed on a matter of national importance will then be circumscribed by this legislation. I see the hon. the Minister is nodding his head in agreement. I am delighted that at last we are beginning to get some sort of agreement from the hon. the Minister.

You are starting to agree with me now.

Therefore, in the particular circumstances I have outlined, there will be a limitation on Press freedom to report on a matter of national importance. This being the case, we believe that this clause does in effect muzzle the Press, and that is why we and, obviously also the official Opposition, are totally opposed to this clause and believe it should not be placed on the Statute Book.

Mr. Chairman, I agree that the suppositions of the hon. member are correct, and for the purposes of argument I am prepared to accept them. He is correct when he says that when the inquest starts, the Press cannot try to influence, prejudice or anticipate its findings. That is quite correct. He is also correct in saying that an inquest may last for months. But that does not mean that the Press will not be allowed to report anything about the process. The Press is entitled to attend the inquest and to report exactly what happens there. They can report on the cross-examination, the reactions of the people present and other matters, but it is not allowed to usurp the function of the judicial officer, to prejudice or to influence him or to tell him what he should do. After all, there cannot be two inquests at the same time. There cannot be an inquest by the Press and an inquest by the magistrate. There can only be one. That is all this Bill is about, namely that when the inquest starts, it is the magistrate’s job to find exactly who is responsible and to tell us all the things he must tell. It is as simple as that The Press is still entitled to give factual reports on the inquest as much as it likes, but it cannot be allowed to try to tell the court what to do. That is all that is involved here.

Clause put and the Committee divided: Ayes—104: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durr, K. D.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treunicht, N. F.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visagie, J. H.; Vlok, A. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, J. H. Hoon, H. D. K. van der Merwe, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—22: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. B. Widman.

Clause agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, just before the house adjourned on Friday afternoon, the hon. member for Johannesburg North put a question to me. In the little more than a minute I have left, I want to reply to it. The question the hon. member put to me was: Why is that section of the Press which falls under the jurisdiction of the Newspaper Press Union not excluded from this legislation as they are, in fact, excluded in the case of the Publications Act? My reply to this is briefly that we are dealing here with legislation that wants to obviate a specific problem of limited scope. Just as there is a provision in the case of the Prisons Act which makes it an offence to publish falsehoods in respect of prisons, we are making provision in this Bill for people to be prohibited from publishing untruths and lies in respect of the police and police activities. Just as no exception is made in the Prisons Act with regard to any section of the Press, or can be made on reasonable grounds, so it cannot be done in this case either.

I want to conclude by referring briefly to a further argument by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He advanced that it would be almost impossible for a defendant, in this case a member of the Press, to escape conviction. The argument used by the hon. member for Johannesburg North—if I remember correctly—was that when somebody was accused, he would be unable to reveal his source of information. However, what is the position in South Africa? According to South African law—and the hon. member for Johannesburg North knows this better than anyone else—there is a small category of people who can lay claim to privilege with regard to the source of their information. It has never been the standpoint of our law that the Press could lay claim to that privilege. Furthermore, with regard to the legislation under discussion, the story is now being spread through this country that the onus of proof, as far as this offence is concerned, rests on the defendant in terms of this legislation.

Yes.

But it is not true.

It is absolutely true.

No, it is not true. The hon. member knows that. The onus still rests on the State. The State must prove, in the first place, that publication took place. In the second place, the State has to prove that what was published is untrue. Surely these are the primary requirements of this legislation. Only after that is the defendant able to escape liability, once he has indicated to the court that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the information on which his report was based was accurate. Now the hon. member for Johannesburg North advances the argument that that man would be in an impossible position, because he could not reveal his source of information.

However, I want to argue—since we have made such a fuss in this and in the previous debate about the sanctity of the freedom of the Press—that it is the task of the Press to reveal the truth and to expose malpractices. The freedom of the Press is important. In fact, I believe that the Press would not hesitate for a moment to bring to book a liar in the ranks of the police. What right does the Press have, in the case under discussion, to claim the right to protect a liar, a person who told them a lie? What right does the Press have to claim to protect from the general public the identity of a person who told a public lie, who misled them? Is it not the task and the duty of the Press to bring to book, in the eyes of the country and in the eyes of the public, the person who misled them with false allegations, to which they gave a wider currency?

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion there is a very peculiar tendency perceptible in this debate as well as the debate we have just concluded. This is that hon. members opposite simply deny that this Bill as well as the Bill we have just disposed of have anything whatsoever to do with the freedom of the Press. They also firmly deny that this legislation is at all prejudicial to the freedom of the Press and that it is at all obstructive to the Press. If this is a true reflection of those hon. members, conception of the freedom of the Press, it would be worth their while to make a study of it.

The hon. member for Barberton stated that the onus of proving that reasonable steps have been taken is now on the defendant. The hon. member had a lot to say about the question of an informant telling an untruth to a Pressman who then proceeds to publish it. In how many cases before the Press Council and before the courts has it not been found that a report which was otherwise accurate and truthful contained small particles of untruth? In that case this clause would be applicable and that man would be penalized, in spite of the fact the information he published, was substantially correct. Anyone who maintains that this is not obstructive to the functioning of the Press, has no understanding of the issue.

In clause 9 of the Bill, a form of protection is afforded the Police which is unheard of for any body or person in a democratic country. Not even judges of the Supreme Court, members of the Cabinet, Attorneys-General, members of Parliament or heads of Government departments enjoy this protection which is envisaged for Police officials in this Bill. We know that there is a similar provision in the Prisons Act and that the Defence Act has provisions comparable with this provision, but can any member opposite state that those provisions have really been to the advantage of the prison system on the one hand and the Defence Force on the other and have really helped them to operate effectively? Why should all the categories of people that I have just mentioned be subjected to critical observation and the critical eye of the Press and the public, while the Police enjoys unnatural protection?

The hon. the Minister states that the object is to protect the Police against untruths which may be published about them. It is always a pity when an untruth is told about the Police or any other person or body. However, there are effective methods for counteracting the effect of this. Surely charges can be laid with the Press Council and in certain cases other existing legislation can be used. In cases of libellous untruths, even common law can be used.

What legislation?

In every security law in this country there are sections which can be applied in the case of the publication of…

What legislation?

The hon. the Minister asked the hon. member for Johannesburg North in this House: “What about subversive pamphlets?”

I am asking you the same question. Under what law can I deal with such a person?

If the hon. the Minister really wants to imply today…

What legislation?

If he really wants to say that there is no existing legislation to deal with persons who distribute undermining pamphlets…

Obviously you do not know of such legislation.

If he does not know of such legislation, he should go and read his statute books again. I want to add that the fact that the Minister considered it necessary to introduce this type of provision into legislation makes one think that he is under the impression that there is no other legislation in this country, that we are now for the first time making provision for an evil which could possibly rear its head. He does this while we have a plethora of security laws. If the hon. the Minister is unaware of this, I really give up hope.

They should send him to France.

The correct remedy and the most powerful weapon with which to fight a public lie, besides legislation and the Press Council, is to open the occurrences and the circumstances which gave rise to the lie to observation by the media, by people affected by the occurrences and even by the public. To reveal the other side of the matter, too, remains the most powerful weapon, in my opinion. Obviously, therefore, the answer to the problem is greater exposure and not greater secrecy. However, I fear that the provisions of clause 9 will give rise to greater secrecy, instead of greater exposure. The public are not so gullible and stupid that they do not have a feeling for the truth, too. They will discover the truth very quickly if all the facts are revealed to them. The worst step which the hon. the Minister could take when an attempt should be made to win the confidence of the public is to create the impression that certain aspects should be kept secret. Even the excuse that it is being done in the public interest is regarded with a great deal of scepticism these days.

The provisions of this clause are a motion of no confidence in the Press Council and in its methods of correcting misrepresentations. We cannot get away from that fact. The fact that the hon. the Minister finds it necessary to introduce legislation to deal with a situation which the Press Code provides for and which the Press Council has control over leaves the inevitable impression that the hon. the Minister thinks that the Press Council is not doing its work effectively. The hon. the Minister himself pointed out that the fine which is proposed as a penalty in this Bill is the same as the penalty that the Press Council can impose in such cases. How does the hon. the Minister distinguish between Press Council action and action under the provisions of this legislation without creating the impression that the one is not working successfully and that, therefore, he requires the other?

The hon. the Minister mentioned that not all publications fall under the jurisdiction of the Press Council and that he needs this legislation for that reason, because it has a wider scope. The hon. the Minister himself asked, by way of interjection: “What about subversive pamphlets?” If the hon. the Minister really means to imply in this regard that he cannot act against any form of subversion, whether by way of pamphlet or in any other way, then he does not know what is written in the statute books of this country. To tell the truth, then he has forgotten legislation which he introduced himself. I specifically want to request the hon. the Minister to furnish examples of, in the first place, untruths told about the Police by publications that do not fall under the control of the Press Council, in respect of which he could not act in terms of the provisions of existing legislation. This matter has now become an issue across the floor of this House, and I request him to furnish such examples. In the second place, he must furnish examples of where the publication of untruths was reported to the Press Council by members of the Newspaper Press Union and where, according to him, effective action was not taken. If the hon. the Minister does not succeed in furnishing such examples clearly and convincingly to this House, then I think the impression will remain that this legislation is not aimed at preventing untruthful reporting on proper police action, but at discouraging accurate reporting on improper police action.

You are talking rubbish.

There is no doubt about the fact that the provisions of this Bill make it so difficult and so dangerous for the Press to report on police action that reporting in this regard will be seriously impeded. This standpoint is so much more valid when one bears in mind that the onus is on the accused to prove that he took so-called reasonable steps to determine the accuracy of his report. Principles fundamental to South African criminal law are being somewhat violated here. The position has always been that the guilt of an individual has to be proved by the State as prosecutor. The hon. the Minister states that the onus should here be placed on the accused, since he knows what steps he took and is therefore in the best position to testify in this regard. Could it not be said of any accused that he knows best what his actions were when an alleged crime was perpetrated? Does this not apply to any criminal case?

I believe that the hon. the Minister is doing the police an injustice by introducing this Bill at this point in time and in the prevailing climate. No one wants the police to be denigrated unnecessarily.

What about Helen?

This applies as much to the hon. member for Houghton as it does to me and hon. members opposite. Unfortunately, the hon. the Minister’s whole attitude indicates that he does not want to improve the status of the Police in the long term and in a proper way. In this regard I recall something which the hon. the Minister said a little while ago when mention was made of the words Gen. Van den Bergh was supposed to have used during his evidence before the Erasmus Commission. It was said that Gen. Van den Bergh had stated that if a murder had to be committed, it would be done. The hon. the Minister’s immediate reaction to this was that it was a filthy newspaper which published this type of thing, and that it was a terrible thing that this was done. I would have thought that the first reaction of a person responsible for law and order in this country would be to take immediate steps to clear up the matter. However, the hon. the Minister preferred to pretend that it had not happened, to cover it up and to accuse the newspaper which had published it of conducting a smear campaign.

This type of attitude does the police a disfavour and benefits the undisciplined and bad policeman and the policeman who commits offences. It prevents credit from being given to the disciplined policeman, the person who really does his work properly and obeys the rules. The good policeman has to suffer under this distasteful stigma which sometimes attaches to the police as a result of this misconduct which is approved and covered up by the authorities, and more specifically the hon. the Minister of Police.

This legislation is symptomatic of the hon. the Minister’s attitude. He wants to cover up everything and prefers not to hear about the evil. In the prevailing climate, where the public are more sensitive than ever before to any impression that there may be a cover-up, the hon. the Minister makes it more difficult for the Press to act and to report on the action of the police. If the hon. the Minister believes that he wants to improve the task of the police, the climate for police action and public confidence in the police through this type of measure, he should reconsider the matter.

Finally, I specifically want to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister, because, as with previous legislation, there is a lack of examples and information here on the basis of which we can satisfy ourselves that this legislation is necessary. Firstly, the hon. the Minister can furnish examples of where the Press Council has failed to act effectively after charges had been brought before it. In the second place, he can mention examples of where the Press published untruths and no action could be taken in terms of existing legislation. In the third place, does the hon. the Minister think this legislation will be more effective than the Press Council with regard to untruths published by the Press? In the fourth place, does the hon. the Minister want to make it more difficult for the Press to write about the misdeeds which are sometimes committed by members of the Police Force? In the fifth place, does the hon. the Minister not think that he is prejudicing public confidence in the police at this stage rather than promoting it by creating the impression that the Press should be brought up short, that there is something which should be covered up and that, therefore, publication should be obstructed rather than encouraged? I should like replies to these questions from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I just briefly want to put the standpoint of the members in these benches concerning this Bill. It is a pity that when we have a Bill with positive aspects before us, a Bill such as the one before us here, there are one or two contentious clauses that make it difficult for us to agree to this Second Reading. There are positive aspects in this Bill, such as discipline in the Police Force, those relating to the reservists and the combating of terrorism, etc., and let me add here and now that there has never been any doubt where we in these benches stand in this regard.

However, clause 9 makes it very difficult for us to accept this legislation, because we feel that this one clause obstructs the aim of this legislation. My leader, the hon. member for Simonstown, put the standpoint of this side of the House very clearly on Friday, when we discussed the Inquest Amendment Bill in the Second Reading debate. He used the term “piecemeal”. We feel that if there is a loophole in this legislation, and if there is a need for further legislation to be introduced, proper legislation should be introduced which would cover the whole spectrum—this is not something that should be done piecemeal.

Previously we felt that we should have liked to support the Second Reading, but we feel very strongly about this clause and, unfortunately, will not therefore be able to do so. We are in favour of Press freedom—there is no doubt about that—but at the same time we are opposed to the abuse of Press freedom. We have also been completely outspoken about this in the past. There is also no doubt about that.

In that case you are speaking in favour of this!

No, I am not speaking in favour of this clause. We are in favour of Press freedom, but we are opposed to the abuse of Press freedom.

There are two principal reasons for our voting against the Second Reading. In the first instance we regard this as a deviation from the principle that guilt has to be proved and that in this case the new principle is adopted that innocence has to be proved. This may unwittingly and unfortunately create the impression among certain people that police action may not be criticized by the public. This is perhaps not the intention, but it creates the impression that the public may not criticize police action and, in the second place, that the police may have something to hide. I reiterate that I accept that this is not so, but this impression is willy-nilly created.

The second reason is perhaps the most important. This clause comes at the most inappropriate time in the history of South Africa, a time when suspicion is being sown left and right in our country. Whether we want to know it or not, a great deal of suspicion prevails in our country, even though it be unfair, and in some cases I think it is. This clause will contribute towards sowing further suspicion.

We can understand that the hon. the Minister wants to prevent a distorted image of the South African Police being formed and projected. We can acknowledge and understand this, and we have full sympathy with him in this effort. We can see that he wants to prevent the police, or rather the image of the police, from being undermined. We do not find fault with that and we shall support him. But what if clause 9 is passed? It will undermine not only the image of the police, but also the image of South Africa and its administration. We must consider what is most important. This would give the world a totally distorted image and I do not believe that it is or ever will be the intention of the police to gloss over any crimes which may be committed by members of the force. I am convinced that this is not the intention. However, it is unfortunately true that this clause may be interpreted in this way.

We can deny, as hon. members in this House have done, that this measure entails a restriction of the freedom of the Press, but I fear that this is not enough, because the Press itself and the outside world will not see it in this light. I think there are sufficient laws which we can apply in this regard. Recently there was an altercation between the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. the Minister about the question whether there are sufficient laws in this regard. I am not a lawyer, but I know that there is a Press Council and I am sure that this Press Council would be able to act in such cases.

There is also the Publications Board.

If there are publications and documents which are not under the control of the Press Council, we should ensure that something is done about that without using this legislation for that purpose. I am sure that the Publications Act can be used in this regard as well. If the existing powers are insufficient, they should be extended. But in heavens name, why should we involve the police in this matter at this point in time? We should not cast suspicion on the police. I do not think they deserve this. This clause will be a stick in the hands of our enemies. The hon. the Minister rightly said in a previous debate that there were many sticks lying around with which to beat the police and the Government. Even though there are many sticks available for this purpose, we want to ask the hon. the Minister not to give the enemy another stick which they could use against us.

Hypersensitivity will not help. We should prevent rash action. We should rather strive for better co-operation between the police and the Press. I think that there has been excellent co-operation between the police and the Press in the past. This is the direction in which we should move. We in these benches are satisfied that the action of the police in general is irreproachable and that they do not wish to hide anything. If the hon. the Minister sees his way clear to withdrawing this clause, we should have no hesitation in supporting this Bill; if not, I am afraid that we cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, I have very great appreciation for the contributions made by hon. members of the party of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. However, I must say to him that frankly I cannot understand his argument against the clause concerned. What it boiled down to was that he expressed himself in favour of it, yet he is going to vote against it. His whole performance here this afternoon, and his party’s standpoint on this clause is in conflict with the charges which his leader has already made here against the Press and the charges he has made here against the inaccurate reporting of the Press. For that reason I simply cannot understand the hon. member’s standpoint, unless he adopted that standpoint for the simple reason that now and again he and his party do, after all, want to side with their friends on their right.

No, now you are dreaming.

If one wants to do that kind of thing here, one must accept what is dished out to one.

The hon. member spoke of the onus of proof which was allegedly being shifted. There is no talk here of shifting the onus of proof. The State has to prove that the defendant is guilty of an offence and that that offence is indeed the dissemination of an untruth. Until such time as the State has proved that an untruth about the Police Force or a member of the force has been published he has not discharged his onus of proof and no guilt has been proven. What is more, after the State has proved that it was an untruth, the defendant can still prove that he suspected that the statement was true, and in that case he is not guilty. In other words, it is not an offence per se, because one can prove that one did not have that intention. This is not as in another case where you commit an offence and get off with a warning and discharge after having been found guilty. In this case your innocence is, in fact, confirmed by your evidence that you did not suspect that the statement was not true. However, I cannot agree with the hon. member when he says that this measure is going to prejudice the image of South Africa and the South African Police. I shall come back to that in a moment. What I cannot understand is how that member and his party can flinch from the truth. It is more often his friends, the Progs, who adopt that type of standpoint in respect of the interests of justice and equity in South Africa. However, I cannot believe this of his party.

The hon. member wants to know why the Publications Board is not sufficient to deal with this matter. The task of the Publications Board is to assess a more permanent type of publication such as a weekly, a book or something of that nature, but publications which are distributed over a period are not its responsibility. In this specific case there is the lie which is being spread throughout the country every day. The Publications Board is not equipped with machinery to ensure that the dissemination of the lie in such a case is stopped, because the lie will already have been disseminated by the time it is brought to the attention of the Publications Board. For that reason it is essential that one creates a proper deterrent in this regard in order to nip the dissemination of the lie in the bud. There is one thing which certain people flinch from when it comes to the dissemination of an untruth against South Africa. That is when you hurt their pocket-book; then the lie frightens them.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for Waterkloof, since he has just stated that certain people only take fright when you hurt their pocket-book, whether he is not of the opinion that when a publication, even if it is only one edition of any publication, is banned and its circulation stopped, this is not already sufficient financial punishment and that the amount that is lost as a result is more than the fine laid down by legislation?

In my opinion this punitive measure is necessary to curb the dissemination of the lie, because the dissemination of a lie is an offence.

You are not replying to my question.

I shall come to the hon. member.

Would you support such a measure if I were to introduce it?

[Inaudible.]

Oh, is he not going to support it? The hon. member has replied to the hon. the Minister’s question by way of an interjection and has said that if such a measure, which he has himself proposed, were adopted, he would not vote for it in any case. [Interjections.] This is the type of political opportunism and double standards which one can generally expect from that party.

Why did he put that question?

The hon. member for Green Point discussed the obstruction of Press. I want to ask him, his party and the Press that supports them how one can obstruct freedom, including the freedom of the Press if one punishes the dissemination of an untruth with a large fine and a prison sentence? This is the question. How does prohibiting the dissemination of an untruth or a lie obstruct any freedom on earth? This is my question to that party and even to the hon. member for Johannesburg North who spent many years of his life in the courts of South Africa in search of the truth. What is wrong with prohibiting the dissemination or the publication of a lie? This is all they have to tell us; nothing more. No journalist who is worth his salt, who verifies his facts and ensures that he publishes the truth, need for one moment fear anything which could arise from the provision which we are now including in this legislation.

What does Die Transvaler say?

You should not read Die Transvaler.

However, I am pleased about one remark which the hon. member for Green Point made. The hon. member stated that the public are not stupid. There is no greater demonstration of the sagacity of the public than the 17 little Progs sitting in this House. The hon. member for Green Point has asked why we cannot let the Press Council suffice in respect of this matter. The hon. member for Barberton has already replied to that and I just want to add that the Press Council, as a normal organ for discipline in the Press, is only there for normal times. We in South Africa are not living in normal times. We are experiencing an onslaught in South Africa which we cannot avert by normal means. The police in South Africa are such an important element for ensuring stability, order and safety that they are so entitled to this measure that this Parliament will give it to them. They are entitled to the protection of this Parliament so that they will not be denigrated by a certain type of journalist who makes use of untruths. This is what is at issue.

If the hon. member for Green Point together with his Press flinch from the truth he has reason to be afraid of this Bill. If he wants to practice ingenuous journalism, where the lie is dragged in when it suits him, for whatever purpose, he should be afraid of this measure. But no one has to flinch from pure journalism, from the truth.

I find it striking how the official Opposition—only “official” because there are not more than 16 members in the other Opposition parties—will exploit every conceivable situation, also those which apply to the police, in order to get at the Government. The police are their very favourite subject. When it comes to police salaries, they suddenly pose as the great divulgers of the salary problems of the police. If they can suck venom from that they do so to the last drop, but if they can suck venom from and alarm the public about the police with a measure such as this, they have no hesitation in doing so. Unfortunately I was not present here on Friday to hear the hon. member for Houghton discussing this subject, but I can believe that she went to town again, as usual. For the past two weekends the Sunday Times has been writing about this proposed legislation on the police. A certain Ken Owen wrote about “Mr. Jimmy Kruger’s new law to compel newspapers to publish the official truth”. Surely this is scandalous. Surely this is an untruth.

That is another lie which…

It is a lie. Surely what is written here is not the truth. This is the kind of reporting for which the legislation under discussion is meant. In the Bill there is no reference to “the official truth” or “untruth”. The proposed legislation simply deals with the publishing of untrue statements. The writer referred to this legislation as “the latest gag law”. Surely this is a lie too. He goes on to say—

This is not the truth. This is an untruth—

This is another lie.

I refer to the leading article in the Sunday Times of the Sunday before last. It read as follows—

Then they come with the smear—

This is the type of thing against which they do not want special legislation. The hon. member for Green Point should know that the public of South Africa are sagacious enough to know that when the Press and an Opposition object to legislation of this nature, they no longer have a following among the voters of South Africa.

South Africa is experiencing a total onslaught. One of the primary targets in this onslaught, one of the primary targets of the leftists, of the communists, is the judicial organs, often with the inclusion of the person of the Minister of Justice, often also the judges as such, and in all cases the police. If they are able to undermine these organs, the organs which ensure law and order, proper adjudication, the safety of the public, the safety of almost every terrain which we are concerned with in public, they would not wait. Once the prestige of these organs has been undermined, the onslaught on the State itself has come a long way.

The measure under discussion will assist in ensuring that the onslaught on our police is stopped. Throughout the past the NP has proved to be a friend of the police in all spheres. The police are our friends. Indeed they are our people. Just as we make it our task to care for their physical welfare, so it is also our task to ensure that they are not undermined in the eyes of the public through the dissemination of untruths. This, then, is also why this legislation is before this House at present.

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that there are clauses in the Bill which are acceptable to us and which we shall support during the Committee Stage.

However, the Bill is dominated by clause 9, which casts an unnecessary reflection on the Police Force. I do not wish to deny that a problem exists, but the problem of giving false evidence against one’s neighbour is as old as mankind itself. Like the poor in spirit, unfortunately, the lie will always be with us.

Do you approve?

No, I do not approve. The point I am trying to make is that it is a general and very old problem which not only affects the police. At present it probably affects no Government department to a greater extent than South Africa’s Information Service. In general no one is confronted with the problem of untruths to a greater extent than politicians and political parties. Where are more haphazard, unverified, disparaging and frequently untrue allegations made than on the political platform and in political pamphlets? [Interjections.] I am asking the hon. the Minister, as an hon. member of the Government, whether he would be prepared to introduce similar legislation to this in respect of a person who publishes an untrue statement pertaining to any actions by a politician and a political party.

Are you asking for that?

Sir, if the hon. the Minister had come forward with such a proposal it would have been understandable since he would then in general to have been able to take steps against any person who proclaimed untruths. If the hon. the Minister wants to introduce legislation, why does he not do so to put a stop to untruths in that sphere where it is far more prevalent than in any sphere which could affect the police?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to raise this argument. Is it not a reflection on this House? Surely it is a very serious reflection which is being cast on hon. members of this House in their normal daily task if it is said that hon. members of this House as politicians tell lies in their public lives on platforms outside.

Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to hon. members of the House. I was referring to politicians and political parties. In any case it is true; I can prove what I am saying.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: I do not think the hon. member should answer my question. I raised the point of order with you.

Order! I find it difficult to decide, for I am not quite certain of what the hon. member said. Would the hon. member repeat what he said?

Mr. Speaker, I said that no one is confronted with the problem of untruths to a greater extent than politicians and political parties. [Interjections.]

And what else?

Where are more haphazard, unverified, disparaging and frequently untrue allegations made than on the political platform or in political pamphlets? [Interjections.]

That is what I thought I heard the hon. member say. The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I must also tell the hon. the Minister that if hon. members on that side of the House are so anxious to combat untruths in public life, this is the place where they should begin. But the hon. the Minister has already said that he would not think about that.

[Inaudible.]

I come now to the police. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is in favour of a similar provision being introduced in respect of every service organization and every Government department. I could mention as examples here the Railways, the Railway Police, the Airways, the Department of Plural Relations and Development, whose actions are constantly in the news and are more talked about perhaps than any other Government department. Take for example the Department of the Interior, which exercises control over passports and censorship and which is therefore under the constant and closest scrutiny of the Press. Would the hon. the Minister recommend that a similar measure should apply for each of those departments? I wonder what the situation would have been today if this measure had also applied to the Information Service of South Africa? I shall furnish the reply to this question myself, and of course it will be “no”, simply because people in the employment of service organizations are not defenceless against untruths and libel. There is machinery by means of which all of them, the police as well, can protect themselves against untruths. The question of untruths is a general problem and not one which is typical only of the Police Force. Our standpoint is therefore that legislation of this nature should not be applied selectively to a specific service organization or department and not to others. In my opinion the principle of going to work selectively here in regard to certain service organizations is quite wrong. I honestly believe that this legislation is not in the best interests of the Police Force itself. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Did the Police Force itself request these provisions in the Bill? Did the request come from the police themselves? Or does the hon. the Minister prefer not to answer the question? Did the Police Force ask him to insert this provision?

I shall reply when I make my speech.

I am quite satisfied with that, and I just want to repeat the question: Did the Police Force ask for this Bill to be introduced? My suspicion is that it was a political decision taken by a political Minister.

You have too many suspicions by far.

Unfortunately we are living in a time in which too many of one’s suspicions turn out to be true. I am convinced that we are dealing here with a political decision taken by a political Minister. It is important that we receive a reply in this connection, for I believe that we are dealing here with a political decision which is doing the police a disservice. Its effect is merely going to be to place the police under greater suspicion.

It goes without saying that a criminal does not like to have a policeman on his trail. No one is alleging that the police have ever been popular among criminals. However, every reasonable person is well-disposed towards the police. Who can say that he never needed the police and was not extremely relieved when the police finally turned up? Just look for example at the quality of the people whom we as members of Parliament get to deal with here every day, in and around Parliament. They are men drawn from the best of our people. Who of us do not realize that the police are the first line of security for every citizen? The man in the street admits that the police are indispensable, and he has appreciation for them. Of course it is true that cases of untruths which are published in connection with the police and in connection with the conduct of members of the Force occur. But such reports are seldom wilful and are based mostly on incomplete information or incorrect observation. It is always reprehensible to publish untruths about any person. If there had been no remedy against that, there may perhaps have been a reason to have a clause of this nature. Most active public figures and organizations are affected by problems of this nature at one juncture or another. All of us sitting here have had to contend with this kind of problem at one time or another. But we have always been satisfied to have recourse to our existing legislation and procedures. Consequently we on this side of the House see no good reason why a selective exception should be made in the case of the police. I concede that the image of the police has been dealt a few hard blows in recent years and in my opinion it is good that the police are sensitive about this matter. A clause such as this is not the instrument for trying to rectify misconceptions about the Police Force. On the contrary, I believe that it is going to do more harm than good. It is going to have the effect of placing the police under a cloud, which they do not deserve. I am certain that the police themselves do not want it. If harm has been done to the image of the police in recent years, then the fault does not lie so much with the police themselves as with the politicians in control of the police. [Interjections.] We must be fair. Misdemeanours occur among all kinds of people and organizations.

You must just remember that.

In fact, we are now dealing with a comprehensive investigation into misdemeanours in the former Department of Information. Surely not everyone who worked for the former Department of Information can now be smeared simply because certain people in the former department committed misdemeanours. There have been clergymen in the world who murdered, committed adultery and embezzled money, not only the occasional policeman.

There have also been people who committed political assassination.

No reasonable person will ever generalize on matters of this nature. If the hon. the Minister of Police, as political head of the Police Force, carries out his duties as he should, there need be no fear that the Police Force will be singled out for special generalization. Unfortunately we have a Minister of Police who does not act with an iron hand against the misdemeanours which occur in the Police Force. I am referring in particular to misdemeanours which cost the lives of people who were in detention. If the hon. the Minister was a man who took immediate steps, so that the whole world could see that he took action against chance misdemeanours in the Police Force, there would at present have been far greater confidence in the Police Force than is in fact the case. The misgivings which exist, exist because of the political control over the Police Force and not because of the Police Force as such. If there are people who believe that the police adopt a cold and indifferent attitude to the lives of prisoners and that the action taken against members of the Police Force who are guilty of offences is not stringent enough, the blame does not lie with the police as such, but with their political heads, i.e. the hon. the Minister. I do not think that anyone will be able to deny this.

Unfortunately the hon. the Minister, as political head, now wants to try to rectify his mistakes and shortcomings by means of this measure. Clause 9 of this Bill is going to become as notorious as certain other sections in existing legislation. I say again that this is not in the interests of the Police Force. It is clear that what the hon. the Minister has in mind here is not the interests of the police but the political interests of the moment. I wish the police chiefs would tell the hon. the Minister that they do not need this kind of molly-coddling, this kind of special treatment They do not need it. What they do need is better pay and better conditions of service, as well as better ministerial leadership perhaps, but they do not need clause 9 in their legislation. This clause merely places the police under a cloud again, something which is absolutely unnecessary.

Of all the public services the police ought to be the one service, owing to the special place which it occupies in society, which ought to welcome public scrutiny because it will also help them to achieve stricter discipline where it may be needed. If the police abide by their strict rules and act as mercilessly against misdemeanours in their own ranks as they do against misdemeanours committed by the public, they will have very little trouble from wilful and hostile people who are guilty of proclaiming untruths about the Police Force. It is interesting to note that here we have a case where not a single newspaper in South Africa—at least not one I am aware of—supports the hon. the Minister on this clause. There is not one! What is even more interesting, however, is the fact that this time it is not only the so-called “liberal English-language Press” which is declaiming against the hon. the Minister here. The most vehement criticism is being levelled at him by the Press which supports his own party.

Yes.

The hon. member for Houghton has already quoted The Citizen in this connection, a newspaper which was established with State funds, and for that reason I do not want to quote that example again.

One newspaper!

No. Where can one hope to find a newspaper more intimately associated with hon. members on the opposite side?

We are not talking about a Government Gazette now.

However, The Citizen is not the only pro-Government mouthpiece which is opposed to this measure. Did the hon. the Minister read the article written by Dr. Willem de Klerk, the chief editor of Die Transvaler, under his own name? He raised the strongest of objections. In that article, to which he gave unusual publicity, the editor put certain questions to the hon. the Minister openly and under his own name. He put seven questions, and yesterday Rapport also supported Die Transvaler in an article which concluded with the words “Ons wag op die antwoorde”. We, too, are waiting for quite a number of replies to questions which we put to the hon. the Minister. However, I consider the questions put by Die Transvaler to be so important that I want to repeat them here, and I hope the hon. the Minister will reply to these questions. I shall send him a copy of this article afterwards so that we can receive the answers. The article was written under the heading “Vrae, vrae, vrae”. It was mentioned in the article that the Press Union was apparently going to talk to the hon. the Minister soon, if it has not done so already. I had hoped that the hon. the Minister would have afforded the Press Union an opportunity to do so before proceeding with the legislation.

Yes.

I also observe that there were protests against this clause from the Association of Law Societies and from the S.A. Association of Journalists—in truth, from all quarters—and one may well ask who the hon. the Minister has on his side in this case besides those people who have to vote as he tells them to vote or end up where Louis Nel ended up.

Yes.

Caucus decision!

The National Front supports him.

Let us just examine the questions which are being asked. In the first place the following question was asked—

That is precisely the problem.

Is that the problem? Very well, let him then tell us what the problem is because everyone concludes—and we as politicians as well—that there are sufficient restrictive laws and court procedures to deal with untruths. Why did he, as the responsible Minister, not rather make a contribution to strengthen the hand of the Press Council? That would have been a good step, and I think that is what the public would have liked to have seen, and not legislation of this nature. The second question which was asked was the following—

Why could the hon. the Minister, in this case as well, not have strengthened the position of the Press Council and have made a truly effective institution of it? The third question asked by Dr. De Klerk was the following—

This does in fact constitute a violation of our legal system, and for this reason alone this clause is unacceptable to us. I know that the hon. the Minister can point to certain precedents where our existing legal system has already been deviated from, but it serves no good purpose for us to deviate further. The fourth question is—

That is what the acceptance of this clause is going to lead to. It is going to lead to court cases for which the poor taxpayer will again have to pay. This clause will give rise to the exertion of improper pressure on an essential institution such as the Press to disclose its sources. The fifth question is—

It is not an Opposition member who is posing these questions, but his own supporters who suggest that we are dealing here with a deliberate inhibition of the Press, a deliberate instilling of fear. It is the chief mouthpiece of the NP in the Transvaal which is asking the hon. the Minister—

I believe it is, and I am not the only person to do so. The sixth question that was asked was—

This is the Police Bureau which is to be established—

Can the hon. the Minister give us those assurances, and on what grounds will he be able to give it? Every true friend of the police believes that it is in their own interests that they should be an open police service that welcomes public scrutiny and says that they welcome it and even encourage it and that does not try to stand in the way of investigations. We have seen what happens to a department that wanted to have its activities covered up. When an affair is covered up, it always leads to abuses, and the same will happen here.

That is an ugly insinuation.

Even their good activities have suffered as a result. The last question posed by the writer read as follows—

In other words, he says they are playing into the hands of our enemies. We have always said that it was the Government itself that was playing into the hands of our enemies. They do it time and again with legislation and with the statements members of the Government make. I quote further—

These are the misgivings which are going to arise as a result of this measure which the Government has introduced, not only in the minds of Opposition members, but among the supporters of the Government as well.

I say let the police establish their bureau. I think it is a good thing. No one can object to it. Let them help the Press to clear up inquiries. This clause, however, is merely going to create the impression that the police wish to approve or veto everything that is written about them so that in practice only favourable reports about them will appear. The human tendency will be either to water down or camouflage unfavourable reports and reports on chance misdemeanours. In that respect the clause is indeed dangerous because I think it is in conflict with the public interest, apart from being in conflict with the interests of the police.

In spite of all the overwhelming considerations there are two further aspects which I still want to point out. The one is, as I have already said, the violation of our legal system which this constitutes. We have discussed that. I think it is the wrong step to take.

The second is the terrible penalties which are being imposed in this connection. Just imagine: A fine of R10 000 or imprisonment for five years or both may be imposed! An untruth is at all times an ugly thing. We know it in politics. However, to subject an untruth in the very worst of circumstances to a penalty of a fine not exceeding R10 000 plus five years’ imprisonment, is to lose one’s head completely. People have been sentenced to a lighter sentence than that for murder, if there were mitigating circumstances. I understand that these are maximum penalties, but surely we know the position that when one lays down maximum penalties in terms of the law, the court accepts them as the norm against which the seriousness of the offence has to be measured. The hon. the Minister advances as excuse that the Press Council’s own rules also make provision for a fine of R10 000, but in my opinion this is hopelessly out of context. The Press Council does not have the power to oppose a five-year term of imprisonment as well, and consequently no comparison may be drawn. If the penalty for the proclamation of an untruth is at this early stage being raised to a fine of R10 000 plus imprisonment for five years, we find ourselves on precisely the same level as some African States who are reintroducing the rule that if a person steals, his hand should be chopped off, and we are back in the middle ages. For that reason this clause is absolutely diabolic and we are therefore in favour of this Bill being read this day six months.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches associate ourselves with the statement made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that the problem of the telling of lies is a general one and is not limited only to matters concerning the police. In this regard one thinks, for instance, of what prominent people have said to the Press about the Information debacle during the past few days. Surely not everything that has been said can be correct. The problem of the telling of an untruth is therefore a general problem that we have to deal with. I believe that everyone who believes in the principles of Press freedom, cannot but have serious misgivings about this specific measure, for this legislation will turn every police officer into a potential Press censor.

Oh, no!

The hon. member says “Oh, no!” We cannot give those hon. members the common sense or the eyes to become aware of what is happening around them. Nothing which has been said so far has in any way proved to me or to any other hon. member on this side of the House that the insertion of clause 9 was in fact necessary, unless the intention was to restrict the Press in this manner even further and in an unfair way. We all know that in a global context South Africa is regarded as a young country, but seen against the background of Africa, South Africa is surely the most mature country on this continent, particularly when it comes to upholding the basic principles which underly a democracy. One of those basic principles by which democracy is upheld is of course the freedom of the Press.

Plus the truth!

Yes, but one will only hear the truth if there is Press freedom. If for instance we had a system whereby nothing could be published about the activities of the former Department of Information unless an official had given his approval, would we ever have heard the truth about the Information affair? Of course not! The fact that there is Press freedom, enabled us to hear the truth.

The question which has to be answered by those seeking such a change is a simple one. Why was it possible for the country, in all the years of the existence of South Africa, to cause democracy to function here without having provisions such as these on the Statute Book? Why the sudden panic? That is the question. It is the duty of hon. members on the opposite side to give us a reply to that question. Why is the Government finding it more and more difficult to govern the country in a normal manner?

So much is said about matters which are in the public interest. In reality many political stories, which abound in the newspapers, do not in fact concern the public interest. However, when we are dealing with offences and criminal activities, it is not only extremely important news; it is also in the interest of the public that these should be publicized. The man in the street should know how to safeguard himself, and therefore such reports are of great interest to every individual. The man in the street should also be aware of the dangers which exist. He becomes aware of these things by reading about them, or do hon. members want him only to experience them?

Personally I do not have first-hand knowledge of how a newspaper functions, but any person of normal intelligence will know that at the rate and at the speed which is necessary to publish a newspaper, it would be impossible to place a newspaper on such a basis as is in fact being expected in terms of the provisions of this clause. In this respect I am prepared to accept the word of those people who are involved with newspapers throughout the country and who tell one that something like this will make their task impossible. They are authorities and I do not believe there is any hon. member on the other side who can say that he really is an authority in that field.

Earlier attempts we have had to compare this legislation to the Defence Act are not, to my mind, fair attempts at all. I believe that one can never allow the onus, as is envisaged in this legislation, to be placed on a newspaper reporter and at the same time expect him to publish everything which is in the public interest. That would be impossible. Hon. members on that side of the House have already mentioned this and I do not wish to repeat it, except as a reminder that we have not yet received any real replies from the opposite side. For that reason certain hon. members on this side of the House said that in certain cases it would be virtually impossible for a newspaper reporter to prove his innocence and to prove that he had reasonable grounds for believing that what he wrote could indeed be published, without mentioning the names of the people who furnished him with that information. A mass of legislation already exists to prevent the telling of lies which may harm people. We all agree that self-censorship is probably one of the best forms of censorship there is, but this unreasonable legislation will make the position completely untenable.

Do not be naïve.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay says I must not be naïve. Every newspaper reporter who endeavours to publish the truth, will, as a result of this legislation, be forced to apply excessive self-censorship. He will be placed under such pressure that we will in fact not be getting the full story. Because certain elements are being omitted, the situation will arise that the truth is not being published.

In practice decisions which in the past were in the hands of the newspapers themselves will in future be taken by an official. In principle and in practice the answer will never be “yes”. The result will be that the State will make its activities more and more inaccessible to the public. What will a policeman tend to do when someone approaches him for information? He may either refuse to comment or disclose as little information as possible for publication. By allowing a little as possible to be published, we are starting to allow the activities of the State to become more and more inaccessible. In this regard it is important to note that even newspapers which support the Government—and various hon. members have already pointed this out—have condemned the legislation under discussion. A typical example is that of Beeld of 22 March this year. That newspaper referred to this legislation as a “versmorende kombers”.

Furthermore there is the question of the onus of proof. It is being shifted entirely onto the individual. Surely this is not something which could be in the public interest. The fact remains that the more the State makes its activities inaccessible to the public, the more the democratic order is affected. I do not believe the Government realizes the dangerous road which it is travelling here. A fact which cannot be over-emphasized is that the large measure of Press freedom we have enjoyed up to now in South Africa, was in fact one of our greatest international assets. If we compare this to the rest of Africa, as well as to the rest of the world, it makes South Africa seem lily-white in comparison.

Why then must one of our best assets be demolished? This is what the hon. the Minister is doing. The hon. the Minister and the Government is, through this legislation, demolishing one of the best assets which South Africa possesses. It will not be difficult to prove that a curtailment and an erosion of Press freedom has indeed taken place. Hon. members may well argue that, as far as the police is concerned, numerous lies are blazoned abroad. Some hon. members gave us examples of this. We certainly do not deny that lies can harm the cause of an individual or a country. However, it is strange that some hon. members, while they quoted examples of such lies, did so on the basis of verdicts given by the S.A. Press Union. Surely this proves that action has already been taken in this regard. Why then is this additional legislation necessary?

The hon. member for Brakpan—and I am not going to refer to the examples which he quoted—asked this question: “What do lies cost the country?” The tragedy, however, is that as a result of certain types of action and certain types of restrictive legislation, the truth sometimes does South Africa incalculable harm. The truth about the Biko case, for instance, did South Africa more harm than the lies about the same case which did the rounds. The truth about the Information debacle did South Africa more harm than the lies did. The same applies to the case of The Citizen. Do hon. members realize what will happen as soon as the legislation under discussion is passed? The truth about this type of legislation is going to harm South Africa. It is not the lies in this regard, but the truth about it which will harm South Africa. The truth about this legislation is that, should it be accepted, it can only exert an even greater restraining influence on the Press. Is there an hon. member who can deny this? Can anyone deny that this legislation does in fact impose additional restraints on the Press? I believe we will all agree that this is so.

You are talking absolute nonsense!

I am not talking nonsense. Nor is this only an incidental restraint It is deliberate restraint. We are of the opinion that this is unreasonable restraint. No matter how hon. members may argue about this, through this restraint another piece of Press freedom is being taken away. I quote from an editorial which appeared in Die Vaderland and which was written by Dirk Richard. He attested to the fact that another piece of Press freedom was being lopped off.

The truth in this regard will harm South Africa. Some hon. members said that this was so, but nevertheless asked why complaints were being made. They said the Press Union has similar rules. Why does the hon. the Minister not exclude those newspapers which already fall under the Press Union? If those rules are similar to this provision, why cannot they not be excluded? An amendment could then be moved which would provide that all newspapers belonging to the Press Union be excluded. If it is true that what the hon. the Minister is doing here is perfectly innocent, he could move such an amendment as far as the Press Union was concerned. The Press Union newspapers are, as we know, excluded as far as the censorship provisions of the publication legislation are concerned. This is also a possibility which could in fact be considered. When one speaks of the publications on which the Publications Board has a bearing, it would make sense if the hon. the Minister quoted the example of the Press Union here and said that what is happening now is perfectly innocent because it is only something which has in fact already been done in respect of the Press Union.

I should like to raise a few points with regard to clause 12. I realize that as far as clause 12 is concerned we are actually dealing with an ad hoc situation. As such it has nothing to do with the ordinary salaries or the ordinary post structure of the Police Force, but concerns ad hoc increases which could perhaps be granted, as is provided for in this specific clause. I should like to draw attention to that fact and say at once that the NRP will not accept that while the Commissioner of Police may have the power to make these ad hoc concessions, it is all subject to the Public Service Commission, after consultation and recommendation. We believe one of the great obstacles which has always been present in respect of realistic salary scales for the police has in fact been the limitation that they fall within the framework and under auspices of the Public Service Commission. This is, in fact, only a continuation of the situation. This provision is clear to us and the NRP is not prepared to accept such a position. We believe that all that should be necessary in this case is that there should be agreement between the Treasury and the Commissioner. However, to continue with a system whereby an attempt is made to compare the S.A. Police to another State department, and the policeman with clerks, so that a line may be drawn and salaries may be equalized, is unacceptable to us.

We shall vote against this Bill and support our amendment. We are particularly perturbed about the curtailment of Press freedom and about the harm which the curtailment of Press freedom in South Africa will do to South Africa in future. We are also experiencing problems with clause 12 and we shall move an amendment to that clause.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to react immediately to the speech of the hon. member for Durban Central. The argument has repeatedly been advanced by hon. members on that side of the House—and has he again confirmed this—that they associate freedom of the Press with Press lies. That is the whole argument and that is what the whole case amounts to.

This immediately brings me to clause 9, which they complained about. At a later stage I should also like to refer to another clause. The hon. member asks how one makes a Press censor out of a police officer. In what respect can a police officer be turned into a Press censor by simply adding a provision to an Act that there may be no publications with regard to untruths as far as a member of the Police Force is concerned? There is no censorship whatsoever in that On the contrary. If one looks at the introductory statement the hon. the Minister made during his Second Reading speech, one notices that he stated very categorically that the legislation is aimed at making the administration of the Force more effective and at further improving their activities. That is what this legislation amounts to. It is a good piece of legislation. The fact remains that it is very clear from the speeches of hon. members on that side of the House, for instance the hon. members for Johannesburg North and East London North, that they read something into the legislation which it does not contain, viz. that the freedom of the Press is being restricted. Not a word is said about that. On the contrary, the hon. the Minister stated very categorically in his Second Reading speech that this legislation was aimed at preventing lies.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Johannesburg North is not in the House at present, but the fact remains that he is a member who sat on the Transvaal Bench and dealt with legal administration in the country. No case ever came before him in which evidence was led without the witness first taking the oath, viz.: “I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this case.” Having been promoted to serve in this the highest legislative body of our country, this hon. member sees an infringement of the freedom of the Press in the words “publish any untrue matter”, as contained in the Bill. The Bill is very clearly aimed at persons who publish untruths with regard to any action by the Police Force. If there is one member in the House who should have risen to say that he was in favour of this, it is the hon. member for Johannesburg North who dealt with the administration of justice of our country in the Transvaal Supreme Court for many years. I told him by way of an interjection that the issue here is not freedom of the Press, but untruths. By referring to two examples, that hon. member attempted to prove that it was indeed an issue of freedom of the Press. We remember well, however, what impression those two examples made on the House and it seemed later as if that hon. member had strengthened the case of this side of the House by the examples he quoted one after the other.

I should like to go further by pointing out that the maintenance of law and order is vital in the times we are living in. It is, in my opinion, the duty of the legislative body to see to it that we facilitate the task of the Police Force in the performance of their duties. That is why this particular clause has been inserted in the legislation.

It is pointless the hon. member for Bezuidenhout arguing that one newspaper after the other condemns the legislation. This condemnation by newspapers occurs precisely because we are here dealing with a strict test to which the publisher is subjected. What this test amounts to is that he has to see to it before publishing information, that such information is correct and that he has made sure that such information does not contain an element of untruth. What is wrong with that? Surely we are not in favour of the Press publishing untruths.

Our history shows that statements are sometimes made by way of newspaper sensation which cause a great many people—John Citizen, as the hon. member for Durban Central referred to them—to be really alarmed. That is the result of the publication of particular reports. Because such reports often have not been subjected to the test of truth, it is essential that we should not restrict the members of our Police Force, who carry out the important task of maintaining law and order in our country, by allowing reporting about them which could damage them in the performance of their duties. That is why this legislation was introduced. There are no ulterior motives and no question of the freedom of the Press being restricted.

If that side of the House is of the opinion that they will find favour with the Press by constantly maintaining in this House that the freedom of the Press is being restricted, and seek to make out that this side of the House is against the Press and wishes to restrict that freedom, they will never get very far. It is very clear that they will at least have to be able to prove that the freedom of the Press is being restricted in this case, and they are unable to prove it. I want to repeat that it is purely the element of untruth which is affected by the provisions of the particular clause.

What is the point of talking, as the hon. member for Green Point does, about a Press Council or Publications Board to deal with the matter? By the time the matter gets to the Press Council or the Publications Board, the damage has already been done. The report containing an element of untruth has already been distributed, and the public believes that that report is true. Experience has shown that however many apologies are afterwards placed in a newspaper and however many times it is stated the report was incorrect, there is no smoke without fire and there will be people who will still believe that there was an element of truth in that report. That has to be prevented. Weeds should not be allowed to be sown; once weeds have been sown, they start growing. That is why this legislation is before the House, to prevent that from happening.

In what way does it prevent it from happening? It is prevented by means of the penalty imposed. I submit that any journalist worthy of the name will first check whether he has ascertained the truth, as far as the performance of their duties by the police is concerned, before he publishes the report. That is why this legislation is necessary. That is why I disagree with the argument that hon. members on that side of the House advanced, viz. that there is a Press Council and a Publications Board to which the hon. the Minister can appeal. By that time the die is cast and it is too late to rectify the lie.

I should like to refer briefly to clause 2 of the Bill, which extends the distance from the borders of the Republic within which a person may be searched, from one mile to 10 km. I want to ask hon. members whether we should not consider in future whether circumstances are not going to compel us to provide that searching may even take place at any place within the borders of the Republic. When we think of the effects of the bomb explosion on the Johannesburg railway station where Harris put down the seemingly innocent little suitcase, and of the explosion in the Carlton Centre which was also caused by a bomb in a seemingly innocent suitcase, I feel that the time has come for us seriously to consider the possibility of searching a person at any place in South Africa and of asking such a person what he is carrying with him. That would help us to keep our country peaceful and not to succumb to anarchy and chaos.

In general, we are dealing here with a very good piece of legislation. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that notwithstanding all the criticism, it was time for this provision to be placed on the Statute Book. Therefore, it gives me pleasure to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Aliwal has been consistent with other hon. members on the other side of the House during the debate on this measure in protesting, almost too strongly, that the Bill does not threaten Press freedom in South Africa and that it does not restrict the activities of the Press. He has also been consistent in suggesting that the effect of this Bill is merely to make administration of the Police Force more efficient and more effective. I wish that was so. He has also been consistent with other speakers, including the hon. the Minister, in that not one single speaker on the Government beneches during this debate has produced any acceptable justification for the necessity of clause 9 of this measure being introduced. We have had arguments and protestations but I have not heard one single reasonable justifiable argument as to why it is necessary at this stage to introduce a provision such as clause 9 in this Bill.

You can never be convinced.

It is a pity that this clause is contained in the Bill because in most other respects the remaining clauses of the Bill appear to be an improvement and do appear to effect an improvement in the administration of the Police Force. Certainly, clause 9 makes it very difficult for anybody to support to this measure because it does contain, whatever hon. members on the Government benches might say, a basic attack on the rights of the Press in reporting on police matters. The hon. the Minister, in his introductory speech, did not really attempt to motivate the clause either. He merely stated, giving a bland assurance as other speakers have done, that the clause was, in fact, not intended as an attack on, or an impediment to, Press freedom. Why is the clause then necessary? An answer to that question is what we still have to receive from the Government benches. What is the clause for? Why is it necessary? Why must this clause now suddenly be introduced to impose inhibitions on the Press in its reporting of police activities?

I think there has been a good deal of talk about whether or not the onus of proof is shifted in terms of the provisions of clause 9, but I do not want to get involved in that debate at this stage. I think, however, that the question that must be answered, when we examine and try to understand or establish the reason for the clause, is: Why are the normal processes of law, which appear adequate to protect private citizens from untruthful Press reporting, inadequate to protect the Police Force? I think that is the simple question that must be answered. The hon. the Minister, Sir, you and I know what recourse we have when there are untruths told about us in the Press. We know what action we can take because there is a certain course to be followed, either through the courts of law or through the Press Commission. Why, however, are these same processes inadequate for the South African Police Force?

I just want to look for a moment at the effect that this measure, particularly this particular provision, can have and will have on the Police Force and its public image in South Africa. I think it is very important to do so. I agree with the hon. member for Aliwal who said it is essential, particularly at the present time, to have law and order maintained and that it is essential to make the task of the Police Force easier. I think that any law-abiding citizen in South Africa would adopt that same point of view. What I want to do, however, is subject this Bill to that kind of test. What effect will this have on the Police Force and its public image in South Africa? It is important that we should do so because I believe that there are few countries in the world where the police have a more difficult and important role to play than in South Africa at the present time.

They operate in a society which is so often riddled with severe tensions, a society constantly subjected to racial stresses and strains, a society in which, more often than not, it is their unfortunate duty to administer and enforce the myriad unjust laws affecting the lives of the majority of the people of South Africa, laws arising out of the race policies of this Government. It is an immense task. [Interjections.] Hon. members may well object, but they should, in fact, sit back and realize that while it may be easy for them to dream up political measures in their party caucus meetings, or in their Cabinet chamber, it is the men of the Police Force who are in the front line trying to defend and enforce the unjust laws which the politicians pass. [Interjections.] They must realize that Bearing in mind this tremendous responsibility borne by the police in the South African situation, I think it is difficult enough for them to project an image such that they can be identified as the friends and protectors of the ordinary citizens of South Africa. That is obviously the ideal to which a Police Force should aspire. I am not saying this as a criticism of the police. I am saying it in sympathy with the police because very often, in view of the laws they are compelled to enforce, they are seen by a large section of the South African population as the symbols of oppression rather than the protectors and friends of the public. This is the difficulty in which they find themselves, not because of their own endeavours but because it is their function, duty and responsibility to enforce laws that are repugnant to the vast majority of the people in South Africa. It is for this reason that in many parts of South Africa we have to face the sad but significant fact that our police cannot always rely on the sympathy and help of the local population in the exercising of their duties. This, of course, makes their task more difficult. I am sure that the Commissioner and senior members of the Police Force, if not the hon. the Minister, will realize that there is always a major need for a massive public relations operation in order to attain the greatest possible understanding between the public and the police in South Africa. I think this is a major aspect which always deserves attention. I believe that putting the police in a position different from that of the public in regard to Press reports on their activities—that is what this clause does—is, apart from anything else, simply not good public relations.

I believe that, firstly, we have to be extremely careful to ensure that the impression is not created in the minds of the public that the police are beyond the law as it affects the ordinary citizen and, secondly and equally important, we must in the interests of good discipline within the Police Force itself be careful to avoid the impression gaining ground that the police enjoy any special protection in the law which puts them above the ordinary citizen. An effective Police Force must not be beyond criticism. Again in the interests of discipline, the police must know that, in exercising their duties which they do in the public interest, their methods and conduct must stand up to open, public scrutiny. That means, certainly, that there should be no special inhibitions placed in the path of a free Press in reflecting and carrying out that scrutiny in the public interest. As in the Prisons Act to which reference was made, there can be no doubt that the effect of clause 9 of this Bill will be to inhibit the Press in this regard should this Bill become law. There is the whole question of the difficulty of where the onus is placed and also the question of the extremely severe, draconian penalties for which provision is made. Therefore, both the principle behind and the effect of this clause are extremely bad and for that reason we on this side of the House have moved that the Bill be read this day six months. So much for the principle and the effect.

Not only the principle and the effect are bad, but the timing, too, is appalling. It could not be worse. The hon. the Minister could not have chosen a worse time, from the point of view of South Africa, to come with a provision of this kind. In fact, as far as that goes, the hon. the Minister seems to be almost infallible in choosing the wrong time to do or say the wrong tilings. He seems never to make the right decision at any time. As I have indicated, this sort of provision could have come at no worse time for South Africa. It places unique restrictions on the Press in reporting on police activities and it does so at a time when the Government and the country are reeling from the consequences of secret and clandestine Government operations. It is the height of irresponsibility for a measure of this kind to be introduced at this time, a measure which, as I have said, places undue and unique restrictions on the Press in its surveillance and scrutiny of police actions and activities. I believe it will do a great deal of harm to South Africa beyond our borders and that it will do no good to the stature of the police and their relationship with the general public within our borders. For that reason I believe that we on this side of the House are absolutely correct in indicating to the hon. Minister that, because of the provision contained in clause 9 of the Bill, this is a bad Bill which must be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to all the speakers who have participated in this debate. It appears that most of the speakers on the Opposition side really object to clause 9 of the Bill. That is the clause—I do not apologize for repeating this—which provides that anyone who publishes a report relating to any police action without having reasonable grounds for believing that what he is publishing is the truth is guilty of an offence. I want to say at the outset that the S.A. Police, the Commissioner and I as Minister certainly do not want policemen to do their work in the dark. We are quite prepared to accept that everything a policeman does—literally everything he does, 100% of what he does—should be subject to the searchlight of public scrutiny. We are willing to accept that not only 99% of what he does, but 100% of what he does, should be subject to it. If he has to be criticized, so be it As far as criticism is concerned, he does not ask for mercy. If he has to be taken to task, so be it. There are a multitude of regulations, standing orders and circulars, etc., in the Police Force dictating to policemen how they are to behave towards the public, how they are to do their work and what they are to regard as an offence and what not. Therefore they are bound by a great many instructions. In the years I have dealt with these people, I have felt nothing but amazement upon attending a medal parade and seeing medal presented to a member of the Force who had never even been found guilty of a departmental offence. A departmental offence is terribly easy to commit. They go through their entire career without even committing such an offence. Therefore I want to repeat that this Bill is not concerned with the conduct of the police. The policemen and his conduct can be criticized and analysed if necessary and the searchlight can be turned upon him.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked me why we did not introduce similar legislation with regard to other departments, etc. In these days, however, this would be quite superfluous, because South Africa depends for its security on the S.A. Defence Force and the S.A. Police. Whether or not hon. members on that side of the House like the Police Force, it remains a fact that their safety, their peaceful night’s sleep, then-future and the future of their children depend upon the effectiveness of the security forces in South Africa. There are measures protecting the S.A. Defence Force against false reporting about them. Hon. members on that side of the House, the Press and the Press Council are always telling us that the legislation with regard to the Defence Force works well. Therefore I want to ask why the policemen, who have to perform just as an important a task every day and who move among the people every day in an attempt to maintain law and order as best they can, should not be afforded the same measure of protection. What kind of protection am I asking for? Am I asking for a policeman who has committed an offence to be protected? No, I am not asking for that. His behaviour must be exposed. If he has been guilty of misconduct, he may have to appear in a court or before a board of the police itself. What I am asking for is protection against the publication of untruths about the police. I am not asking for any lies to be told about them. Now the hon. members on that side of the House do not want to help me to have this Bill passed. In the circumstances in which we find ourselves today, the police are entitled to protection against the publication of untruths about them. A newspaperman may report everything which was done by the police, but then it must be the truth. Surely that is all I am asking for.

That is already the case.

No, it is not. [Interjections.] I now come to that hon. member. He tells me: “I will agree with the hon. the Minister if he makes it applicable to the gutter Press.” I then asked him across the floor of the House to give me a definition of “gutter Press”. He could not. I want to tell him that the gutter Press are those people who deliberately tell untruths about policemen. What is their object in doing so? Their object of denigrating the police is not unknown. The police are like the Defence Force. They are a pillar of the security of the State, not of the NP, but of the State, and that includes all of us. That is why, when your enemies want to get at you, they try to get at your lines, your first lines of protection, and if they can demoralize those men by telling untruths about them, this is a method for forcing the State to its knees. The police are also human beings, although those hon. members do not always believe it. They are also human beings without feelings. I personally saw how a lie told about the Security Police affected a certain Security Police commanding officer so strongly that he stood trembling with tears in his eyes because they had told such a lie about him.

Are you talking about Gen. Van den Bergh?

We must not demoralize those people; we need them. We must strengthen them so that they may help us. We must give them an opportunity to do their work properly. I am not making any allegations against the Press. I know that hon. members will laugh when I say this, but I believe in Press freedom. I believe that the public has the right to know. But what is it that the public wants to know? I am a member of the public, and when I open a newspaper, I want to read a balanced and truthful report. I want to know that the article I am reading is not a load of rubbish, because then I have wasted my money. Newspapers are becoming more and more expensive, and having paid for it, I want to open the newspaper and read all the news, about everything, knowing that I am reading the truth. I want to see that the Press is giving me the news. I want that kind of newspaper to have total freedom.

Let us just take note of a few other things. I saw to it that the provision was inserted into the legislation that he should have reasonable grounds for believing that the statement is true. My colleagues on this side of the House gave a lot of examples of untruths told about the police. I shall deal with the Press Council shortly, because this is a very important council. But I want to tell hon. members where our problems lie. I should like to quote from a case which came before the Press Council, as follows—

How important it is that checks should be made! There is a responsibility resting upon the Press. Then the judge went on to say—

That is what this legislation is aimed against.

Was that brought to the attention of the Press Council?

This is a Press Council report. I shall deal with the Press Council shortly. The hon. member must first give me time to develop my argument. The hon. judge went on to say—

*Now the problem with the Press Council is—and I say this with great respect, because I hold the Press Council in great esteem—that a complaint is lodged with the Press Council when the harm has already been done. It takes quite a few days, if not weeks. Only then does the defendant argue his case, which is followed by a hearing. All this is reported, of course. Therefore the harmful statements are repeated once again. They are published again. Then a fine of, say, R500 is imposed upon the medium concerned—which one can regard as practically innocent. However, the man who did not do his job, who was responsible for the report, who had the intention of getting at the police, goes free. The medium concerned is censured, not those who wrote for that medium. Therefore I believe that the police is entitled to protection in this regard as well.

I want to mention just one more example to hon. members. I regret having to furnish examples at this stage. Hon. members on this side of the House did so, but then hon. members opposite alleged that the examples were inadequate. In The Star of 5 January 1978 we find the following. It is not even a report; it is an opinion. It appears in the editorial, of all places—

This is a so-called statement of fact—

That is what this newspaper had to say. [Interjections.] The finding of the Press Council was the following—

The hon. member for Green Point ought to be ashamed of himself; he sits there laughing.

Yes, these are the things which the hon. member is now advocating. That is what he wants to vote for. In the finding of the Press Council, the honourable judge said the following, among other things—

Then he repeated the report I have just read—

That is the kind of thing we are trying to stop. That is the right I am asking for in a democracy, where decent people dare not overstep the bounds.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether any fine was imposed in respect of the incident to which he has just referred?

No fine whatsoever. The Press Council simply reported that the newspaper had acted wrongly.

By that time the harm had already been done.

By that time the harm had certainly been done.

I want to tell the Press what my attitude to them is. As far as I am concerned, the Press has just as great a responsibility as the hon. members sitting in this House. Newspapermen are people with enormous power. The man who holds the pen in his hand may shoot poisonous ink over you so that it can take you weeks and months in a court and cost you thousands of rands to get that ink off your face. He shoots that poison into one’s face. He is in possession of the poison pen, an unequalled weapon. However, these are people who must know and accept their responsibility. All I am asking them now is that they must have reasonable grounds for believing. This is a subjective test. He must have reasonable grounds for believing that a report is true. That is all he needs to have. Even if the report then proves to be untrue, he has not committed any offence.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Press will most probably misreport me today, but I want to tell you categorically that I am not smearing the entire Press and all newspapermen. At every newspaper there are journalists who can phone me even during the night, no matter how irritating that may be to a Minister, and I may say that it is irritating. However, there are some of them who can phone me and I will listen to them and speak to them. However, there are also Pressmen one would not want within a distance of five miles, because they could not write in a straight line if they tried. They find it impossible.

We may examine the requirements these people set for themselves. One would expect, because the Press is so very important in every nation and because its freedom is important not only to us, but also to them, that the greatest measure of responsibility would be shown in these circles when reports are written. I have an article with me which also appeared in the Sunday Express. Actually, I am sorry about it, because I once called them an ugly name in the past. However, I am not withdrawing it. This is not a newspaper I admire. I shall just read to hon. members briefly the various points I want to highlight here—

This is an interesting situation, and hon. members must bear with me for a while, if they can—

These are the factual things that are written here.

What has that got to do with lies about the police?

I will come to that. Just give me a little bit of time.

*There were two reports about this case. One report appeared in The Star and the other in the Sunday Express. That is the report I have just read, written by Mr. Kitt Katzin. We then sued these people, because the police had to try to solve the Smit murders. The man who wrote these reports was then summoned to appear in court. I should now like to quote what happened in court. Hon. members may well say that this matter was heard in camera, but I went to the trouble of first taking legal advice on the question of whether the case was in fact heard in camera or not. The legal opinion reads—

I am therefore quite entitled to furnish this evidence. The first piece of evidence I want to quote is the statement made by a certain newspaper editor. I should like to read this statement, for in it he says where he got his information, and hon. members on that side of the House should now tell me whether they believe it to have been sufficient reason for spreading this type of story. I quote—

Now the hon. members must listen carefully—

Can hon. members believe that a totally unknown person phoned the editor and gave him particulars over the telephone, and that the editor then went to the police with it—the police have much more important work, incidentally, than listening to telephone stories—and that just because they did not say that he should not publish the information, he went and published it? This story was published, on the basis of a telephone call. Let me illustrate this further. If anyone wants to slander and besmirch the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, some unknown person has only to phone a newspaper editor, to slander and to besmirch the hon. member, and if that particular newspaper editor furnishes his information to the police and they say nothing about publication, he can slander the hon. member further in the newspaper.

There are measures which can be applied.

It will take months to put those measures into operation to avert the consequences of such a report. What happened to Mr. Katzin? He appeared before the court and he was asked about the words: “Working day and night at top-level secret investigations for the Government.” Furthermore, he was asked the following—

Listen to the reply to this—

That is where he got his information. He writes it from the mouth of Mrs. X. A further question to him was—

In the light of this, after all, it could happen to any one of us in this House. Anyone could phone a newspaper editor and say that a certain Minister, for example, is working until 3 o’clock in the morning. That is what this report is based on. The report says—

The magistrate reacted to this and said—

The reply reads—

Katzin himself knows nothing about it, however.

That is what the report says.

No. These things are stated as facts here.

The report says: “He spoke of corruption…”

Do go and read the report. I quote further—

What do they say about that? What does he say about the Union Buildings?—

Who told you that he had seen the senior members of the Cabinet?—That information came from, I cannot remember the person’s name. I don’t think he gave me a name. I think he described himself as a member of the National Party in the Transvaal. He telephoned me about six months ago. I have extreme difficulty in remembering dates and times, incidentally, in talking to all these people.

Would you believe it! Miss X was then approached. She made a statement. I want to read this statement to hon. members—

I could go on like this ad nauseam. This is the kind of thing one wants to put a stop to when it comes to an organization as important as the S.A. Police.

I could go on to give more examples, but I now want to come to the so-called seven questions of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He asked, firstly, why clause 9 had been inserted into the Bill. I have already replied to this question by saying that the Defence Force has such a protective measure, and why should the police not also be granted such a measure?

Secondly, he asked whether I had no confidence in the Press Council. This legislation has a very wide ambit. The hon. members on the other side of the House are the ones who dragged in the Press. I myself did not drag in the Press as such. I am talking about the Press now because it was specifically put to me. But it goes much further than just the Press. I have a pamphlet here, for example, which was published by the “Ministers fraternal of Langa” under the heading: “The role of the riot police in the burnings and killings at Nyanga, Cape Town.” This pamphlet was banned by the Publications Board. If I were to read to the House what is said about the police in this pamphlet, most members on this side of the House would probably fall out of their benches and even the Opposition would most probably take offence. We know, after all, who published the pamphlet. As I have said, the Publications Board banned this pamphlet.

You may not have it in your possession either.

The hon. member is talking nonsense. What does he know about this? Has possession of it also been prohibited? Has the hon. member tried to get hold of the pamphlet?

Its possession has also been prohibited.

I got it from my files. I am entitled to have in my files…

You should not have it in your possession.

Nonsense. It comes from my department, after all. [Interjections.]

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

I am sorry, but I do not have time now. Of what use is it to the S.A. Police if they can only go to the Publications Board? What deterrent value does it have for those people who engage in such deliberate subversion of the S.A. Police, who deliberately broadcast untruths in order to bring the S.A. Police to its knees, to demoralize it and to bring it into disrepute in the eyes of the people? I shall point out presently how lenient this legislation really is, because we are not trying to get at the Press.

Question 3 was why I was deviating from our accepted judicial system. It almost makes me laugh to hear that. If a man commits theft, what does one have to prove? One has to prove that goods belonging to another person have disappeared and that they have been found in the possession of this man under certain circumstances. What happens then? Then the onus is transferred. When one has proved one’s prima facie case, the onus is transferred and the accused has to say in court where he got the articles from. Therefore it is absurd to talk about a fixed onus of proof. An onus is always transferred at a certain stage. And what do we have to prove here? We have to prove, firstly, that the article has been published, and we must prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. Secondly, we must prove that it is an untruth. We must prove beyond any doubt that it is a lie. We must be able to say that it is an untruth. A newspaperman may still publish the untruth if he wishes, provided that he has reasonable grounds for believing it to be true. Then he can say in court that he can see that it was an untruth, but he can then furnish the reasons which led him to believe that it was true. Then he has not committed any offence. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask him about the reasonable grounds for his belief that it was true. Surely he is the only person who knows what steps he took to establish that reasonable belief. How can we know or prove that? The hon. ex-judge should have a look at all our legislation. Let him examine all the legislation relating to particulars which are known to a person himself. If he is the only one who knows, the onus is transferred to him to prove that that was his belief. If the State cannot do it, the onus is on him. That is all that is being asked for here. That is why I say that our law is not being violated in any way.

Then there is the next question which I have been asked—

This is a trick question by the editor of Die Transvaler and it is not for me to reply to it. All I can tell him is that the Press must prove that it has reasonable grounds for believing that the report is true, and those grounds are legion. [Interjections.]

Now I come to question No. 5—

That question of the esteemed editor I regard as so insulting that it does not even merit a reply from us. I have personally never found the Press to be suffering from any inhibitions. One need only look at the gaffe which was made by The Argus a few days ago about Mr. Sid Excell. That was the biggest gaffe that newspaper has ever made. That example alone shows that they do not suffer from any inhibitions. Of that I can assure hon. members.

The sixth question was the following—

The assurance that the public has is that the reports which are accurate may be published, as well as criticism based on a truthful report. If it is untrue and the person concerned had reasonable grounds for believing that it was true, it is not even regarded as an offence. Therefore he can publish the truth in two ways and can even publish untruths without having to pay for it.

Then the following question was asked—

What distrust? There is no distrust against the S.A. Police. There is distrust against Dr. Rhoodie, to be sure, but he has nothing to do with the S.A. Police. The people do not distrust the police. The time has come—I predicted it as far back as 1975—for this legislation to be placed on our Statute Book, to counter the full onslaught on the reputation and authority of the S.A. Police. The legislation does not seek to inhibit anyone, but to remind someone who has a great responsibility of the fact that he has that responsibility. The members of the Press who are responsible for the country’s reputation must be made to realize that one cannot undermine one of the pillars of the State without having reasonable grounds for doing so. That is all this is concerned with.

I think I have now replied to all the questions that were put to me. If there are any further questions, I shall gladly reply to them.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question relating to the case the hon. the Minister related in regard to the Smit murder and Kitt Katzin’s report on it? How can it be said that the legislation before us would affect that?

Mr. Speaker, when a member has to sit through a dreary speech, I realize he will probably fall asleep. But the hon. member asks me what the relevance of it is at this stage and how it is affected by this legislation while I only referred to that case to give an indication of how little newspapermen really take precautions to ensure they publish the truth. I wanted to indicate how little they take precautionary measures. They base their reports on telephone calls and stories told them by, say, a Miss X. That is what I was trying to convey. The relevance of that case to this particular piece of legislation is that that is a serious offence. I want the newspapermen to adopt the attitude that, when they are dealing with the police, they must do everything possible to satisfy themselves that a story is true. If they should then publish something that is untrue, they will be exonerated. If they have tried with the necessary diligence to establish the truth of a story, they will be exonerated.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not believe that the most effective way of repairing the harm done by the publication of an untruth is for the Press Council to order a correction to be printed in the same publication? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I have said that this is such a serious matter that it should also be possible to impose a fine or, if necessary, imprisonment—that I leave to the courts. Any person who writes reports must realize his responsibility in this connection. It does not only concern the Press and therefore cannot be left only to the Press Council.

My question is about repairing the damage that has been done.

Order! The hon. member may raise further points during the following stages of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have now replied to all the questions. I want to thank the hon. members of the Opposition for their participation in the debate. It is right that they should state their points of view so that we may try to reply to them adequately. On this side of the House I want to thank the hon. members for Waterkloof, Potgietersrus, Brakpan, Barberton and Aliwal—I hope I have not forgotten anyone—for their well-considered arguments. That is all I wish to say.

Question put: That the words “the Bill be” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—105: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Blanché, J. P. I.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durr, K. D.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treumicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Roset-tenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visagie, J. H.; Vlok, A. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, J. H. Hoon, H. D. K. van der Merwe, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—23: Aronson, T.; Bamford, B. R.; Basson, J. D. du P.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. W. B. Page and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment moved by Mr. D. J. N. Malcomess dropped.

Question then put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—105: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durr, K. D.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treumicht, A. P.; Treumicht, N. F.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visagie, J. H.; Vlok, A. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, J. H. Hoon, H. D. K. van der Merwe, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—21: Basson, J. D. du P.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. B. Widman.

Question affirmed and amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Hotel Board was established with a view to promoting the development and improvement of accommodation establishments in order to achieve and maintain the highest possible standards in the quality of accommodation, meals and services provided by such institutions. However, the Hotel Board is encountering problems in the reregistration of accommodation establishments holding a hotel liquor licence of which the registration has been withdrawn due to their not complying with the minimum prescribed requirements, and also in regard to people who impersonate inspectors of the Hotel Board. This Bill seeks to eliminate these undesirable practices and to effect certain consequential amendments to the Hotels Act, 1965 (Act No. 70 of 1965). In terms of its statutory powers the Hotel Board may withdraw the registration of any hotel which does not comply with the statutory requirements. However, it has occurred in the past that the Hotel Board has withdrawn the registration of a hotel only to receive immediately afterwards an application for reregistration of the same hotel. Where such a hotel possesses a hotel liquor licence—and, previously, a certificate of classification in terms of the old Liquor Act as well—the Hotel Board is obliged to re-register the hotel immediately on receipt of the new application. The power of the Hotel Board to withdraw the registration of a hotel with a liquor licence on the grounds of non-compliance with the minimum requirements, is therefore restricted by the right of the hotel in question to compel re-registration without first complying with the minimum requirements.

In terms of the exclusion in section 17 of the Hotels Act of 1965, an accommodation establishment with a liquor licence is not subject to inspection by the Hotel Board for the purposes of registration as a hotel by the Hotel Board. In contrast, a hotel without a liquor licence is obliged first to comply with the minimum requirements before it may be registered. Therefore on the one hand there is discrimination between hotels with and hotels without liquor licences, and on the other hand, a hotel with a liquor licence is given a legally valid claim for compulsory registration by the Hotel Board, which is in conflict with the spirit of the Act and with the concomitant power of the board.

In order to eliminate these anomalies, what is envisaged by way of the proposed amendments of the Act is to provide that accommodation establishments with liquor licences, like accommodation establishments without liquor licences, should first be inspected by the inspectors of the Hotel Board and should comply with the minimum prescribed requirements before a registration certificate may be issued by the Hotel Board.

In terms of section 25 of the Act the Hotel Board is authorized to designate a number of its suitably qualified employees as inspectors for the proper enforcement of the Act. It has however occurred from time to time that members of the public have impersonated inspectors of the Hotel Board at hotels to the extreme displeasure of the industry and the embarrassment of the board. Without a general clause relating to offences prohibiting such action, the Hotel Board is seldom if ever able to succeed with a prosecution. Without this the image of the Hotel Board and its inspectors will be steadily undermined. In certain circumstances such action can amount to fraud. By inserting a protecting section in the Act it is sought to counter this type of action which is now being described as an offence in terms of the legislation under discussion.

In conclusion I want to mention the consequential amendments proposed in the Bill. Due to the replacement of the old Liquor Act, 1928, (Act No. 30 of 1928) by the new Liquor Act, 1977 (Act No. 87 of 1977) the issue of classification certificates by the Liquor Board is no longer a requirement. Consequently it is necessary that every reference to such certificates in the Hotels Act, 1965 (Act No. 70 of 1965) be deleted. Similarly it is essential that references to sections of the old Liquor Act, 1928, in the Hotels Act, 1965, be replaced by references to the appropriate sections in the new Liquor Act, 1977.

The Federated Hotel Associations of Southern Africa have been consulted and they support these proposed amendments.

Mr. Speaker, in the nature of the matter we on this side of the House wish to support the measures under discussion. As the hon. the Minister has already indicated this legislation clearly envisages bringing the existing legislation on hotels into line with the changes effected by the Liquor Act, 1977.

Since the power of classification vested in the Liquor Board was abolished in 1977, a certain group of hotels which the hon. the Minister himself has named, found themselves in a contradictory position owing to a legal loophole. As has already been indicated they were in a position in which they insisted on re-registration after the registration has been suspended for other reasons. This is clearly an undesirable situation. In the interim, therefore, it made a farce of the registration system existing under the Hotels Act. It is right therefore that this situation be cleared up and that licenced hotels should also be brought within the ambit of the existing Hotels Act.

The other amendments as I understand them are largely of a consequential nature. They merely effect a new numerical sequence in the new legislation, a numerical sequence which replaces that in the old Act.

One novelty in the Bill, however, deserves mention. This is the prohibition as regards impersonation of an inspector of the Hotel Board. In the nature of the matter this is an understandable prohibition. It is only fair and just that such a measure should exist. This is clearly in order and we can find no fault with it. It is interesting to mention that a fine of R200 or imprisonment not exceeding six months is laid down for a person impersonating an inspector of the Hotel Board. It is reassuring to note that when one lies about the Hotel Board one does not come off quite so badly as when one lies about the police.

As the hon. the Minister has already indicated, the representative bodies of hotels and other accommodation establishments have no objection to the legislation under discussion; indeed they support it. Consequently we on this side of the House shall give our support to the measure.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hon. members on this side of the House I too should like to support the legislation under discussion. I also wish to refer to the remark by the hon. member for Green Point to the effect that one apparently comes off better when one lies in this case than is the case when one tells lies in regard to the police. The penal provision in this Bill makes provision for a fine of only R200 or imprisonment not exceeding six months. It is clear therefore that the PFP is showing more common sense with regard to this legislation than in regard to the previous Bill.

In the first place I should like to make use of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his first speech in this House as Minister of Tourism. Even when he was appointed to his present post he showed immediately that he was not going to let the grass grow under his feet but would immediately begin to acquaint himself with the activities of his new department. His purposeful action by immediately eliminating the existing shortcomings in the hotel legislation is to us a good indication of what we can expect of him in the future. We note that since the existing legislation was passed in 1965 all parties in this House have been unanimous in their support of the measure. This is as it should be. Indeed, this legislation contributes towards the improvement and furtherance of accommodation establishments in South Africa. At present, tourism in South Africa is in a very favourable situation. For the first time this year we had a plus product in regard to tourism in South Africa and it is as well, therefore, that these deficiencies in the existing Act are now being rectified. The hon. the Minister spelt out very clearly the motivation for the need for these amendments. It is particularly gratifying to see that there is now a protective clause as well in clause 4 which refers to section 25 of the principal Act. The clause provides that people who impersonate inspectors—and this is something which has not been at all good for the public or the hotel industry—will now be fined. Therefore there will now be protection as a result of the fine that is to be introduced.

On behalf of hon. members on this side of the House I want to lend my wholehearted support to this Bill and wish the hon. the Minister every success for the future in his new portfolio.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to join the hon. member for Vasco in wishing the hon. the Minister well in his new portfolio of Tourism. I also wish to associate myself, on behalf of the NRP, with previously expressed sentiments about this Bill.

I should like to tell hon. members of the House of my own personal history in regard to Act No. 30 of 1928. My late father, who was in the hotel trade in South Africa virtually from the day he arrived here in 1920 until 1968, held a liquor licence for 48 years. He always used to say to me, when I was a small boy looking underneath the hotel counter for a lemonade and finding a copy of Act No. 30 of 1928 lying on top of the mineral water bottles, that he did not know whether the worse thing that had happened to him in 1928 was Act No. 30 or me, because we were both born in that year. [Interjections.] On a more serious note, however, let me say that I particularly welcome the amendment that now permits the old private hotel, which did not have a liquor licence, to be classified in terms of the gradings set down by the Hotel Board. When this Hotel Board came into being, it was in some respect a great pity that it became mandatory for it to register any accommodation establishment that had a liquor licence. An accommodation establishment which did not hold a liquor licence, however, could no longer call itself an hotel. In fact, it had to find another name. Unfortunately, some private hotels used that old expression “boarding-house” which is a dreadful expression. “Losieshuis” is another one we remember from the past. Whatever the expression, some of those places were very fine establishments that were known as hotels or private hotels. I think they were left out. Today, however, in terms of the amending Bill before us, the private hotel or private accommodation establishment is now able to seek a grading. It is therefore able to seek a standing as a tourist attraction. It is usually an establishment that offers cheaper accommodation by virtue of the fact that because it does not have a liquor licence, it does not have to contend with the staff needed to serve liquor, etc. It can therefore keep its tariffs down. It is the sort of establishment that the tourist looks for.

We welcome this Bill because we believe that it is going to do quite a bit for tourism in South Africa. In fact it is going to assist in no small measure.

Finally, I should like to say that clause 4 is a tremendous step in the right direction, a tremendous improvement in that a person who presents himself as an inspector is now liable to a fine not exceeding R200 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. I not only know of one, but of half a dozen incidents of people having purported to be members or inspectors of the Hotel Board and thus having run hotel-keepers ragged in the process. They have gone into hotels, and notwithstanding their little knowledge of the Act, they have said that they are inspectors. They have caused havoc in some country hotels, they have made all sorts of threats to the little pubkeeper in the backwoods, and they have really got these people on the run. This provision is going to put a stop to this sort of nonsense. I am sad to say that this has been done by a number of people—they are what we call gentlemen of the road, the minority of travellers—who should know better. This legislation is certainly going to put a stop to that sort of practice. With these few words, we support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey my thanks to hon. members for their friendly support of the legislation. I wish to thank the hon. member for Vasco in particular for the friendly words he addressed to me. The hon. Opposition also supports the legislation and I am grateful to them for that Although the hon. member for Umhlanga is a valued friend of mine in this House, I just want to say that I understand very well why his father sometimes felt about him as he did. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned on 19 March I was replying to the arguments and standpoints advanced by hon. members. Right at the outset I want to rectify a certain matter relating to reports which appeared as a result of the debate which took place on 19 March. These reports appeared largely as a result of the standpoints of the hon. members for East London North and Mooi River. The incorrect statements related to the licensing of fishing boats. I should very much like to make use of this opportunity to set the facts straight, but in the nature of the matter this casts no reflection on the hon. members whose names I have mentioned. In terms of the provisions of the existing Sea Fisheries Act, 1973, anyone who wishes to use a boat for the catching of fish for commercial purposes must register such a boat as a fishing boat, whatever type of boat it may be. In the implementation of the provisions of the Act as it reads at present, the Sea Fisheries Division of the Department of Industries requires that such boats be registered irrespective of whether they are used for this purpose on a part time or a fulltime basis. In terms of the amendments we are discussing at present, this requirement remains unchanged. However the proposed amendments replace the expression “for purposes of trading” which appears in the existing Act with the expression “for sale” where it appears in the definitions of “fishermen” and “fishing boat”. Some people now interpret this to mean that anglers catching fish from the coast or from a boat who want to sell their catches are now being included for the first time in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, this is a mistake.

During the debate I indicated however that I would give consideration to an amendment to the Bill to put it beyond all doubt that anglers fishing with rod and line or even just with a line should be excluded from the provisions or the definition of “fisherman”, but that in the nature of the matter I could not do this with regard to ski boats catching fish for sale whether partly or entirely. I hope that the lack of clarity which existed has now been removed. I want to say at once that the hon. members for East London North and Mooi River will understand that I do not deem it necessary to provide further explanations concerning this subject because hon. members understand what the position is in this particular regard.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay made a very interesting contribution in regard to the local interests in Mossel Bay. I have a great deal of sympathy in that regard but he will also understand that we are concerned with an industry which, besides the local interests, has to serve the national interest as well. I think the hon. member stressed one of the fundamental facets of our problem relating to the rights of various people concerned with the harvest of the sea. The Department of Sea Fisheries is constantly engaged in reconciling various interests. The conservationist’s interest in the conservation of sea life has to be reconciled with the interests of the various sectors in the economy concerned with the exploitation of the resources of the sea, namely the people who, for commercial reasons use specific equipment to utilize the resource, such as the people who exploit resources with ships and trawlers, and other people who exploit the resources in other ways, even with ski-boats. We are therefore constantly engaged in the process of reconciling these interests.

The hon. member also referred to the total admissible catch of 170 000 tons in regard to stockfish in the waters of the Republic. Of that amount, the boats of the Republic can exploit 100 000 tons themselves. In this specific regard I want to remark that those figures quoted by the hon. member appear to refer to quotas valid for 1977, viz. before the extension of the sea fishing zone of the Republic. The quotas determined by the International Commission for the South-East Atlantic Ocean Region were based on the real catches of the boats of the various countries within the area concerned. At that time the determining of the quota was the only way in which fishing by foreign boats could be limited. Since the expansion of the Republic’s sea fishing zone we have full control over catches within the zone and only specific countries are permitted to catch limited quantities of fish here under very strict conditions.

The hon. member also made reference to foreign boats stealing fish in the night within the sea fishing zone of the Republic and leaving under cover of night so that the boats themselves are outside the zone when daylight returns. Although this allegation is made from time to time we can state with reasonable certainty that this is not the case, for the following sound reasons: Firstly, since the extension of the sea fishery zone of the Republic, no offences by unauthorized foreign boats have been reported. Apart from the patrolling of the zone it must be borne in mind that there are specific trawling grounds and that boats from the Republic would report foreign boats that were trespassing, to the authorities. To date this has not happened. Secondly, I want to explain that only at one place along the coast of the Republic do recognized trawling grounds extend to within reasonable striking distance from the furthest boundary of the fishing zone, so there is a very wide buffer zone. Even in the case of the Agulhas grounds it would be totally impractical and uneconomic only to travel to the trawling grounds in the night. Thirdly there is no indication of the presence of trawlers just outside the fishing zone of the Republic in the daytime.

Moreover, the hon. member referred to the problems experienced by line fishermen at Still Bay, namely that the trawlers catch kabeljou in the area and therefore chase the kabeljou away. They also catch small stockfish, which the kabeljou feed on. The hon. member asks that the area be declared prohibited to trawlers. Here again we have a very clear instance of conflicting interests within the industry—this is the case even within the hon. member’s own constituency—between the various sections of the industry. In the first half of 1978 the coastal trawlers of Mossel Bay caught approximately 10% of their catches within an radius of approximately 15 miles from Still Bay. If the trawlers are not allowed to fish there it would hit the fishing industry of Mossel Bay, on behalf of which the hon. member made a very strong plea, very hard. A closed area would not necessarily solve the problem because (a) few kabeljou are caught by the trawlers themselves, (b) due to the cost of trawling nets, trawlers cannot afford to trawl on rocky sea bottoms, (c) their trawling nets let through a number of small stockfish and (c) the majority of line fish species are migratory and sensitive to water conditions. The trawlers cannot necessarily therefore be held responsible for a reduction.

A second aspect which hon. members mentioned and to which I want to refer briefly is the question of catches by foreign boats. It is being and has been maintained in newspaper reports that foreign boats catch a million tons of stockfish in our fishing waters annually and that Russia alone catches more than a million tons of various species of fish in our waters. I think it is important that these statements be analysed. It is also said that foreign boats fish in the Republic’s fishing zone at night and then depart. I have already dealt with the latter statement. Let us now, therefore, look at the former statement. During 1977, the latest year for which information is available, the total catch of stockfish in the entire South-East Atlantic Ocean amounted to 576 000 tons. In other words, there can never be a possibility of the Russians alone having caught a million tons of fish. However this is true in regard to the catches in the waters of the Republic as well as the waters of South West Africa and Angola. The Russian catches, which amounted to more than a million tons of fish in that year—and this is important—included a mere 200 000 tons of stockfish. For the rest that country’s catches comprised for the most part various species of maasbankers of which the majority were caught along the northern coast of South West Africa. These resources have thus far not been utilized on a significant scale by local boats. I mention this because we so often hear that there is a factual basis for the statements that are made.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove is not present at the moment, but he referred to small undersized hake being marketed as “Yankee Clippers” in supermarkets. In an effort to curtail the catching of small hake we have decided, and the deep-sea trawling industry has been informed, that as from 1 January 1980 it will be compulsory to use nets with a minimum mesh size of 120 mm instead of the present 110 mm for the catching of hake. This will mean an increase of about 20% in the mesh opening. The local manufacturers of this type of net have been informed accordingly and requested to stop manufacturing nets with a 120 mm mesh size. The result is that a 120 mm mesh size net will be phased in as from 1 July 1979 when the unused stocks of 110 mm mesh size nets have been depleted.

Will that affect the haddock?

We are referring to the catching of hake.

The hon. member for Simonstown apologized for being unable to be present. He has raised various matters. I have already replied to many of them but now want to refer to the issue he has raised in relation to rock lobsters. The measures proposed by the hon. member in regard to the protection of the rock lobster resources in certain areas have received and will again receive consideration, and efforts will be made to ensure the proper protection of these resources. Secondly, the hon. member referred to the refusal by the department to furnish information regarding catches by certain rock lobster quota-holders to the private boat owners. The private boat owners can only fish for two to three weeks whilst quota-holders can fish until the last day of the season, according to the hon. member. I want to say that for very obvious reasons it is not the policy of the department to furnish information regarding individual quota-holders to other persons or bodies. I submit that that is a sound business practice. The department itself will monitor catches to see that quotas are not exceeded. In order to promote the continuity of supply, the distributors of live rock lobster usually try to stretch catches over as long a period as possible. They do this also to keep their workers employed. Part of the quota is reserved by them for this purpose and a limited number of vessels, usually one or two, continue fishing in an effort to enable the firms concerned to supply this commodity over the full eight months’ catching season. I believe that it is a legitimate operation. Certain other matters were touched upon by the hon. member, e.g. the balance between the exports and the local distribution, which fall within the terms of reference of the commission’s inquiry.

*In this regard I now wish to say that much of the discussion in the Second Reading debate concerned aspects which also form the subject of the terms of reference of the commission of inquiry. I should like to ask that for the purposes of our discussion we bear in mind that these matters will be investigated by the commission. The hon. member for Worcester asked me, inter alia, to ensure that this commission would complete its work promptly and linked this matter with a specific product of his particular region. I have no objection to these two things being brought together. However, I want to say that it seems to me essential that if we are to solve the problems experienced in the sea fishing industry and pour oil on the troubled waters of this situation, it is the responsibility of the commission to complete its task with the least possible delay. This is the very reason we chose to appoint a commission comprising members of Parliament and not a Select Committee—viz. that we want to expedite the investigation. I have asked the chairman to do everything in his power to complete his task in this regard without delay.

The hon. member for Kimberley South spoke very feelingly and knowledgeable about the shellfish resources in our sea. It is true that these sources are unfortunately being overexploited to a large extent. We must understand that we have to try to ensure that the ordinary man also has access to the products of the sea. We must never forget that even a limited crayfish and abalone quota to individuals can have a major impact if they utilize them to the full. For that reason we try to conserve these resources on an on-going basis so that the resource will be a permanent one. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we shall attend to those aspects to which he referred with great circumspection.

The hon. member for Maitland made a fine contribution, a contribution to which I have already replied. I wish to tell him that I have very great appreciation not only for his knowledge of the subject he spoke about but also for the fact that he is one of the hon. members in this House who quite probably makes one of the most important contributions with regard to the conservation of our natural resources, contributions for which I should very much like to thank him. He asked me that we should give consideration to the licensing of fishermen on the same basis on which licences are issued to big-game hunters. He also asked that we consider the possibility of sending a scientist to Thailand to study the aquaculture and fish-farming there and to make provision for an aquaculturist to serve as a member of the Fisheries Advisory Council. At this point I am not going to reply to him in full on that score. I just want to tell him that his representations have a great deal of merit; I think this is important and I am giving attention to them.

I also just want to say to the hon. member for Moorreesburg that Viskor is the body we established to assist us in the specific area to which he referred. I want to give him the assurance that officials of Viskor go to the East from time to time to obtain information and derive benefit from the development taking place in that area.

In conclusion I just want to thank hon. members again for their contributions. In particular I wish to make an appeal to hon. members when we discuss this matter to try to resist the temptation to make a political argument of it, as people seem always to be fond of doing.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for doing what he undertook in this House to do, namely to introduce two amendments to the Bill in the Other Place. I rise only because we have a little difficulty with the wording. We have looked at this very carefully and wonder whether the wording proposed by the hon. the Minister in the Other Place is in fact entirely clear. If it is not clear to us who have discussed this at some length, I am not sure that it will be clear to others. When the hon. the Minister undertook to take this Bill to the Other Place to be amended, he said—about the first amendment which is being proposed—that he wanted to make it clear that it was the product which would be taxed or not taxed and not the particular consumer. It was in that sense he took the amendment to the Other Place.

There are three concepts contained in the proposed section 1A(3). I quote the first one—

I leave out the second one, which deals with secrecy and non-disclosure. I quote the third concept—

In the Other Place the following words were added to that—

My difficulty arises from the apparent conflict between the first concept, namely “the notice may exempt, in part or in full, any person from any provision thereof”, and the third concept, namely “or the notice may contain any appropriate condition: Provided that any such notice shall not contain any exemption from the payment of a levy”. The whole proposed section 1A(3) deals with the payment of a levy. It starts off by saying—

And then later on—

We first say we may exempt, in part or in full, any person and then we go on to say that we may not exempt any person. On the face of it, it appears to be an outright contradiction. I should like the hon. the Minister to explain this matter. The words in subsection (3) that “the notice may exempt, in part or in full, any person from any provision thereof” could refer to a provision other than a provision relating particularly to the payment of a levy. However, the provisions outlined in subsection (2) all deal, more or less, with the payment of a levy. It is therefore difficult to envisage in what respect it may be said that the notice may exempt people from the payment of the levy and then to say further in the amendment that “such notice shall not contain any exemption from the payment of a levy”. This looks like an outright contradiction. If there is an explanation for this, we would be glad to hear it. However, since it does look so much like a contradiction in terms, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not have another look at this clause. It is going to be extremely difficult to interpret if we have this kind of wording in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, let us first of all look at subsection 1 because that is the subsection in terms of which a notice in the Gazette or in some other form is served on any person regarding the question of the imposition of a levy. Let us first see what clause 3 stipulates. It provides that—

Note that because that is important.

The hon. member must now read clause 2. During the discussion of this clause in both the Second and the Third Reading stages of the Bill the point was made that we should not exempt certain users and certain categories of users. I conceded at the time that I thought that that was a fair argument and I undertook to ensure that exemption would not be granted to any user as such, but that, if there were to be exemptions, those exemptions would be applicable to the product in respect of all the users. I concede this is a technical matter, but if the hon. member would read this again, he would see that the exemptions that can be granted are now restricted in their application to those issues that have been raised, and that as the amendment now reads an exemption cannot be granted in relation to the payment of the duty itself. In other words, exemption may be given in relation to anything else, but not in relation to the payment of the duty. That, according to the legal advisers whom I consulted, achieves the objective which I had undertaken I would try to attain.

I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister and I are at one on this, that we are trying to achieve the same objective. It seems to me that the wording contains a contradiction in terms. However, I concede that it is possible to construe this clause in such a way that, while exempting persons from any provision thereof, the notice may contain the appropriate condition “that any such notice shall not contain any exemption from the payment of a levy”. This means one can exempt and one cannot exempt. Obviously we are dealing here with two different things. One can exempt from certain things, but one cannot exempt from other things. I think that is the true meaning, but I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree that that will be very difficult to construe for those people who are not familiar with the concept we have been debating in this House. However, I shall not proceed with this matter and we shall raise no further questions.

Amendments agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In terms of the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1963, the Registrar of Trade Marks has certain powers to hear cases with regard to the ownership of trade marks, especially where objections are lodged against the registration of new trade marks. In these trials the rules of the Supreme Court are applied, and in terms of section 55(1) of the Act the Registrar has the power and jurisdiction of a judge of a provincial division of the Supreme Court acting in civil cases.

Some of the cases before the Registrar take up a lot of time and he is only assisted by an assistant Registrar. If it is borne in mind that between 6 OCX) and 7 000 applications for registration of trade marks are received annually and that approximately 5% of these applications are subject to objections, it is clear that these two officials cannot always conduct these trials, together with all their other duties, without delay.

†The matter would be further complicated by the absence through illness or absence on official duties of one or both of these officials. The previous Registrar of Trade Marks retired with effect from 1 February 1979 and, although his successor has been appointed, some time will elapse before the vacancy created by the latter appointment, i.e. that of Deputy Registrar, can be filled. It would also take some considerable time for such appointee to be trained in the law relating to trade marks which is a very specialized field, as hon. members well know. Virtually no tuition in trade mark law and practice is offered at the various universities or institutions. In order to alleviate the position, the Bill now before the House provides for the appointment by the Minister of a judge or retired judge, an advocate or a patent attorney of the Supreme Court of South Africa on an ad hoc basis to exercise and perform certain powers and duties of the Registrar.

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the concept advanced by the hon. the Minister as we believe this is a necessary provision. However, we have received representations which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister, namely that where provision is made for an advocate to act as a substitute, it might be well to qualify the word “advocate”, as has been done in other legislation, by saying “an advocate with experience of at least 10 years”. The hon. the Minister of Justice has done this in other Bills. It appears, for example, in the Publications Act where provision is made for the appointment of certain people with a legal background, such as a judge or retired judge, and in the case of an advocate it is qualified by the phrase “of not less than 10 years’ experience”. The reason for this is, quite simply, that advocates straight from law school have no experience whatsoever and are therefore not really in a position to take over that kind of responsibility from a highly qualified officer. I think it is a reasonable concept which has been introduced in other legislation in this House that advocates appointed to this kind of position should have at least 10 years’ experience and the necessary maturity to be able to fulfil these functions. I think it would be not only appropriate but consistent with other legislation if the same qualification of 10 years’ experience were introduced in relation to advocates. In respect of the patent attorney, I think it speaks for itself that he will be a man of some legal experience because he would presumably have served his articles in a patent attorney’s office. However, in the case of an advocate, I think this qualification is perhaps a desirable one and, as I say, it is consistent with existing practice in other statutes. I put this as a suggestion to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches will support this Bill, but we also have a smaller problem on which I should like some clarification from the hon. the Minister. In the past the position was that the Registrar, or perhaps his deputy, acted in these particular matters.