Mr. Speaker, I move—

On 28 September 1978, immediately after his election as Prime Minister, the hon. the Prime Minister said the following—

Later in the same speech the hon. the Prime Minister said—

As I see it, the hon. the Minister gave an indication at a later stage, on 16 March this year, of one of the ways in which he would strive for honest administration. On that occasion he said the following (Hansard, 16 March 1979, col. 2694)—

The Bill which is now before the House is the one in which effect is being given to what the hon. the Prime Minister envisaged in his speech which I have just read.

Since the contents of this Bill have become known, and especially since the Bill has been tabled, there has been an hysterical outcry on the part of the Press.

And with every jutification.

Please note that I am obliged to refer to “the Press”, but in speaking of “the Press”, I do not mean that all newspapers and publications should be tarred with the same brush. There are more responsible newspapers and less responsible newspapers.

But they are all against this legislation.

The hon. member for Parktown can make a thousand interjections. However, I intend to address the House on this Bill, and I promise that I shall not reply to any interjections, nor shall I answer any questions. I say this so that it may be clear at this stage. Of course, the hon. member for Parktown is entitled to be noisy if he likes. [Interjections.] I have said that there are more responsible newspapers and less responsible newspapers. There are also some newspapers which have not yet acquired any responsibility.

In the version given by the Press of what this legislation seeks to achieve, the emphasis has fallen on the things they do not like. This has been done in order to promote their case. It has been alleged, inter alia, that the Press will now be silenced, that information will no longer reach the public, and so on. Reports have been published under headlines such as “Gagging Bill”, “The muzzle of the Press”, “Cover-up Bill” … [Interjections.]

Order! Are hon. members afraid that they will not have a chance to put their case and to prove it?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether you are in fact not going to allow any interjections?

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I have said that the Bill has been referred to as a “cover-up Bill”, “the Bill to end corruption reports”, and the “the great cover-up”. This is the way the Press describes the legislation which is now before this House.

All true.

Order!

I just want to point out a second example of misrepresentation, because the way in which the contents of this legislation have been described to the public outside is a complete misrepresentation. That is why I am saying this, so that cognizance may be taken of it. Certain aspects have been blown up out of all proportion by the Press, including the so-called permission which has to be granted by the Advocate-General. Statements such as the following have appeared in Afrikaans newspapers: “Niks mag uit sonder verlof nie” and “Geen woord vir knik van Advokaat-generaal”, as if what was written by the Press would depend on the permission of the person to be appointed in terms of this legislation, i.e. the Advocate-General, as if they would not be allowed to write anything whatsoever without his permission. However, we are not surprised by this, because what we have seen about this in the Press is in line with its conduct as we have come to know it over the years. No responsibility when it comes to reporting, absolutely no concern for the truth of what is written or the way it is interpreted by the public who have to read the reports.

Silence them.

Because they found out about the Information scandal.

This is the way we have come to know the Press over the years. Contrary to what the Press has told the public, the so-called restrictions on the Press are by no means the important aspect of this Bill.

Well, then, drop it.

Hon. members may read the Bill for themselves. [Interjections.] The right of the Advocate-General to grant permission is a limited one and will only apply during the period of the inquiry. Then the Advocate-General may only make a recommendation concerning non-publication to the Select Committee.

For how long?

The right of the Advocate-General to refuse publication is an extremely limited right.

Six months.

In those two respects, to mention only two examples, the contents of this Bill have been completely misrepresented to the public.

What is the most important provision of this Bill? I have just read what the hon. the Prime Minister envisaged. I just want to indicate in a few sentences what we have in mind with this Bill. What we have in mind with this Bill is, firstly, to create continuous, easy machinery or investigating alleged irregularities.

With just the opposite effect.

For that purpose, an Advocate-General is to be appointed.

Cover-up!

Secondly, to offer everyone an opportunity through a simple procedure to make known their suspicions, any suspicions, about irregularities. On this occasion I also want to emphasize that when the hon. the Prime Minister referred to what he had in mind, he envisaged that such matters would be laid before the Advocate-General by a member of Parliament, of the Provincial Council or of the Press. We have changed that. Any member of the public, any citizen of South Africa, can lay before the Advocate-General any suspicion of his in this simple way.

Thirdly, it is the intention that a report should be published to put the case of both sides, i.e., to reveal the truth. The important purpose of this Bill is that an inquiry should take place, that the allegations should be investigated, that the truth should be ascertained and that when the truth has been ascertained, there should be absolute freedom of publication, except if the security of the State is affected. Furthermore, it is the intention to discover offences by means of the Bill where offences have been committed and to bring the guilty persons to book. The legislation also seeks to introduce a rapid process by means of which the truth concerning a particular matter can be ascertained without delay. What is of the utmost importance, however—this pervades the entire Bill and indeed constitutes its spirit—is that absolutely nothing should remain a secret, except where it affects the security of the State. Absolutely nothing may be kept a secret, except where it concerns the security of the State.

Since the Press has created the impression that the Advocate-General has to grant his permission for the release of certain information, I want to point out that in the first place, the Advocate-General has only a limited right of refusal, as I have already said. After that everything must be released. He has no control over that; it must all be released for publication, except of course when the security of the State is affected.

What about the evidence? Will the evidence be disclosed too?

However, the Press does not have the patience for that. The Press does not want to wait for the truth. The Press just wants to speculate about possibilities and they want to base their rumours and reports on that. They want to go on preying on that and boosting their circulation. That is why there was such an outcry as we have witnessed. [Interjections.]

Order!

It seems to me that the outcry took place—I am afraid I have to say this—because they do not want to hear the truth. We want to offer them the truth.

In terms of the provisions of the Bill, the machinery is being made as thorough and as efficient as possible. I am awaiting further proposals which seek to achieve the objective of the Bill, i.e. to reveal the truth. However, they are not interested in the truth.

Does that apply to the Bar as well?

Order! Hon. members will concede that it is a parliamentary custom to allow a Minister the opportunity to deliver his Second Reading speech so that the House can learn what it has to consider. In that spirit I appeal to hon. members to listen to the hon. the Minister. Later they will have ample opportunity to reply to arguments which he may advance.

The Bill has been the subject of so much discussion that one wondered to what extent it would be necessary to deal with its contents. For the purposes of the record, however, I nevertheless want to deal with it. In addition to the customary definitions in clause 1, the Bill provides for the appointment of an Advocate-General by the State President. A person who is appointed to this office must by virtue of his qualifications have been admitted as an advocate of the Supreme Court and must have had ten years’ experience of the administration of justice. I want to say straight away that the Government intends to confer upon this official a very elevated status and position and to appoint to this office a person with the necessary qualifications, qualities and insight to be able to perform this responsible task. The conditions of service of this official are set out in full in the Bill, but I do not want to elaborate on them now. Provision is also made for the appointment of staff for the Advocate-General.

I come now to clause 4, which is probably the most important clause of the Bill. It provides, in the first place, that if any person suspects that State moneys are being misapplied or that there is maladministration of such moneys or that any person has been or is being enriched as a result of a transaction in which the State is involved, such a person may lay such information before the Advocate-General. He will then investigate it. It must be laid before the Advocate-General by way of an affidavit in which the source of the suspicion is indicated.

When he has received this, the Advocate-General will proceed with his inquiry. When he has completed his inquiry, he will hand his report to the Leader of the House of Assembly. If the House is in session, the Leader of the House will table the report. However, if the House is not in session, the Leader of the House will receive the report and hand it to the Speaker, and the report will be tabled within seven days after the House is in session again. The handing of the report to the Speaker is primarily intended to introduce a time limit, because the Bill provides that whatever the circumstances, publication may take place as soon as the report has been tabled when the House is in session, or as soon as the report has been handed to the Speaker, when the House is not in session. Furthermore, the Advocate-General may determine his own procedure in considering the work laid before him. In other words, he can determine whether the inquiry should take place in camera or in public. Special provision is made in clause 6 for funds made available for secret services.

The Advocate-General may call witnesses for the purposes of his inquiry and the witnesses may give evidence under oath or after having made an affirmation. A witness appearing before the Advocate-General may be assisted by an advocate or an attorney. It is also provided that it will constitute an offence if the witness does not give evidence properly.

In addition, it is provided that the Advocate-General and his assistants may not be insulted or disparaged and that the Advocate-General may summarily impose a penalty in such cases. It is also provided that the Advocate-General may not be influenced in his work. There is the customary provision for the making of regulations. Finally, clause 11 sets out the penalties that can be imposed.

This is the procedure with regard to the work of the Advocate-General.

The only provisions to which I have not yet referred are clause 4(3) and the subsequent subsections. The only reason why I have not yet mentioned them—and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can laugh as much as he likes—is that I first wanted to explain the functions of the Advocate-General before coming to the prohibitions referred to in clause 4(3). Clause 4(3) prohibits publication of suspicions as defined in clause 4(1), i.e. the suspicion that money is being misapplied or that there is maladministration of money, or the suspicion that there has been enrichment in connection with acts affecting the State. As is provided in other clauses, such suspicions must then be laid before the Advocate-General. Clause 4(3) also provides, with regard to the prohibition of publication, that when the matter has been laid before the Advocate-General, he may summarily grant his permission for publication to take place. If he does not grant permission for this, his report must first be handed to the Speaker or tabled in this House, after which no further prohibition can be imposed and the information can be freely published and the public media can do with the report what they like. Only in one case can the Advocate-General make a recommendation to a Select Committee. He can recommend that because the security of the State might be affected by it, the matter concerned should not be made public. Nor is such a recommendation final in itself. It is first referred to a Select Committee of the House of Assembly which may then confirm that recommendation of his. If the Select Committee decides not to confirm it, that report, too, must be released for publication. However, if the Select Committee does decide to confirm it, it is tabled in this House as a secret document in terms of the provisions of Section 206 of the Standing Rules and Orders. As with other reports, the necessary arrangements can be made to have it discussed in Committee in this House.

These, then, are the contents of this Bill as I see them.

As regards the Press, which is affected by the provisions of clause 4(3) and the subsequent provisions, I would have hesitated to give much of an explanation today, but in view of the hysterical outcry which has taken place, I can hardly be expected to be silent about this or about the attitude of the Press. There is probably just as much Press freedom in South Africa as in any other country of the world. Hon. members can draw comparisons if they wish. I think there are few countries in the world where the Press is as free as it is in South Africa, under that freedom, the Press has become a powerful instrument in South Africa. Although the Press does not always want to believe me when I say this, it is true, and I think hon. members will agree with me that the Press has become a powerful instrument. However, this power which the Press has is certainly not a power to be used without responsibility. The greater the power, the greater the responsibility. In this connection I should like to quote what I said in Johannesburg at a ceremony at which an award was presented which the Railways had offered to journalists reporting on transport matters. I said the following—

The essence of my statement lies in the remark that the diffusion of knowledge goes hand in hand with opinion-forming. It is precisely this opinion-forming through the dissemination of news that has such an enormous influence on South Africa. We have felt the full strength of it over the past few days. I want to allege here this afternoon that that power of the Press, the power of opinion-forming, is not always used in the right way in South Africa. In fact, I want to go so far as to say that it is sometimes used in an irresponsible way. In the Bill which is before the House today—and I want to speak quite frankly—we have realized to what an extent a Government is almost powerless when the Press is up in arms against it. I ask all South Africans quite frankly today whether they want the Press to obtain the power…

Never mind, we shall protect you. [Interjections.]

… where there is no longer a chance to turn back, to arrive at a turning point. If our people had not been so aware of the failings of the Press, and if the man in the street had not objected so strongly to the abuse of the Press, we would have found it much more difficult to pilot through this legislation, which we regard as essential and desirable. I want to state categorically today that I have received a great deal of comment on this matter from the outset, and with a few exceptions, the message conveyed to me has been: Please do not back down.

Did you use a photostat machine?

The exceptions are the Press and the Progs, of course. [Interjections.] These are the people who are as clay in the hands of the Press. I want to say that there is no group in this House which is more afraid of the Press than the people on the other side. They are the clay in the hands of the Press today. The Press can mould them into whatever shape they please.

Oppenheimer is master of both.

I say—and I am speaking on behalf of the Government—that in spite of all these things, in spite of this hysterical outcry which has taken place and in spite of this attempt at opinion-forming which we have seen, the Government will not hesitate to do its duty in the interests of South Africa. Where does our problem lie today? Let us examine ourselves honestly in the process, not only as a group or a party, but also as individuals. Firstly, our problem lies in the fact that we are political parties, and our partners in the Press groups, where we have such partners, are extremely valuable to us. No one will realize better than hon. members of the PFP to what extent their Press helped them to get here, with all the mischief.

They have never given us R100 000.

At least they do it openly.

I assess the value of our partners in the Press in exactly the same way as I assess their partners in the Press. We are perfectly aware of the value of our partners in the Press. We appreciate their help and cooperation during elections. [Interjections.] Those hon. members find themselves in the same position. Therefore it is no use laughing; these are facts which we must take into account in this country. The English Press has the same influence on hon. members on that side of the House.

There is a second problem which we experience with the Press, and that is that in introducing a measure such as this one, a measure which the Press does not readily accept, the Government can get hurt in the process. The possibility exists that we as a Government may get hurt in carrying through a measure which does not accord with the ideas of the Press. As far as the Press is concerned, there is a much greater and more important danger, and that is the invisible financial power which is behind them in certain cases. If hon. members on that side of the House want to talk about covering up and say that all should be revealed, why do they not ensure that their Press reveals all? Why do they not see to it that that unholy secret influence of certain financial powers which support their Press is revealed? [Interjections.] Is it in the interest of South Africa that the identity of such an influential opinion former in South Africa should be covered up? Hon. members may reply to that when they wish, when it suits them. Those powerful groups behind the Press do not represent the people whom those hon. members and I represent, however. These are people who want to serve their own interests. Let us examine ourselves more closely as individuals. Hon. members on that side of the House may ask themselves to what extent they are mindful of the fact that the Press may help or harm them. There is no one who can deny this.

We choose to go into public life.

No hon. member in this House can deny it. Every hon. member in this House is aware, as a public figure, of the influence which the Press can bring to bear to help or harm him as a person.

Some people want to silence them and some do not.

Take my position today. I am glad to be handling this measure because I believe in it and because I think it is in the interests of South Africa that it should be passed.

You are doing the Prime Minister’s dirty work.

But do hon. members think the Press are going to love me for it?

It is because you are doing the Prime Minister’s dirty work.

On the contrary. For everyone of us who is an important person, the Press has a file. There is a file for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Orange Grove must withdraw the words that the hon. the Minister is doing the hon. the Prime Minister’s dirty work.

He is, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this?

No. The hon. member must withdraw those words.

On the basis that they are unparliamentary? [Interjections.]

Yes, I rule that those words are unparliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, it is

Order! Is the hon. member prepared to withdraw those words?

Very reluctantly, and only because I have respect for the Chair.

Is the hon. member prepared to withdraw those words?

Because of my respect for the Chair, Sir, I am prepared to withdraw them.

Is the hon. member not prepared to withdraw those words unconditionally—yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I have said that I withdraw them because of my respect for the Chair.

Order! I am not satisfied with such a withdrawal. I give the hon. member one more chance to withdraw those words unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. It is nevertheless true. [Interjections.]

Order! I am sorry I cannot accept that. I now give him one last chance to withdraw them unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them in terms of your ruling, even though in the past…

Order! If the hon. member refuses to withdraw those words unconditionally he leaves me no other choice but to ask him to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

Mr. Speaker, on the basis that the hon. the Minister is doing the hon. the Prime Minister’s dirty work I cannot abide by your ruling and shall therefore leave the Chamber.

The hon. member thereupon withdrew.

Well done, Rupert!

At least we are a bit cleaner now.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Prime Minister permitted to say that the Chamber is now a bit cleaner? [Interjections.]

Sir, I gladly withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Hon. members must now please comply with the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I was dealing …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I believe the hon. the Prime Minister has just repeated the remark that he was forced to withdraw just now. [Interjections.]

Anyone who says that is telling a public lie.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

About five minutes ago, I was saying that there were files for all of us at the newspapers. The hon. member for Durban Point also has a file there. In those files, everything which can be regarded or interpreted as unsavoury is collected, and one fine day that information is published to denigrate people in positions of authority.

So what!

Are you ashamed of what you have said or done?

Unfortunately, we live in a time when some people seem to take pleasure in seeing responsible people denigrated. That is why I say that I am also a victim of the Press, just as many hon. members and other people are victims of the Press. That is why I expect that they will not love me for this. More diligently than ever before will they work on my file. I want to state categorically today, and I wish this could be heard by every citizen of this country, that if we lose this battle, the country will not be governed by the Government of the day, but by the Press. This Press of ours wants to do whatever it likes, without any rules or regulations. Whether one is an advocate, an attorney, a doctor, a merchant or an industrialist, one remains subject to certain rules and regulations. However, the Press does not want to subject itself to this. It wants an absolutely free hand to do whatever it likes, irrespective of whether it engages in iniquitous activities, of whether reports are true and of whether they are only half-truths which they publish. Surely we have experience of this, and no one can deny it. The Press considers us all to be in its service. The time has come for us to discuss this matter openly and frankly so that they may know how we feel about it. The day before yesterday was not a Sunday to me, because my telephone rang incessantly and I was questioned about all kinds of trivialities, and because I did not want to be rude, I answered their questions. Even here in the lobby, everywhere we move, I and everyone of us sitting here are used to fill their newspapers for them. If hon. members think that this is right, they are free to accept it. However, I think the time has come for us to take a stand about this. This sacred duty they are supposed to have towards the public leaves me stone cold. [Interjections.] They have no sacred duty towards the public.

They are not so much interested in the truth, because that is often not sensational or dramatic enough. It is their aim to get sensational reports into the newspaper, irrespective of whether it hurts or destroys people. Why do they do this? In the process, they also want to be the investigator, the prosecutor, the witness and the judge. For what purpose? They do this for only one purpose, and that is by no means a sacred purpose. It is only to boost their circulation in order to make money. That is their only purpose. So they simply want to make money, just like any other business enterprise.

What we are asking for by means of this legislation is that when there is a suspicion of irregularities, it should be investigated so that the truth may be revealed and so that both sides may be heard. In this connection we are only asking the Press to have a little patience.

Twelve months?

We want the Press to help us by laying any suspicions before the Advocate-General themselves. When the inquiry takes place, they will have a splendid and a true story …

With all the evidence?

Yes. With all the evidence, for when it is made public everything will be revealed.

Where does it say so in the Bill? [Interjections.]

I say that reports which do not have to be kept secret in the interests of State security will be made available as they are. [Interjections.]

Certain noises have been made in this House about the Bar. There was a report in Die Burger this morning according to which the hon. the Prime Minister and I had refused to see the General Council of the Bar. [Interjections.] Die Burger received the report from Sapa. I say it is an absolute lie; it is untrue.

Are you prepared to see them now?

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville has already made too many interjections.

I shall tell the House what happened. Mrs. Hoffman of the Cape Law Society phoned my office. They first contacted the Hon. the Prime Minister and he advised them to speak to me, which in my opinion was the correct thing to do. They then phoned my office, and when I heard the request, I asked my private secretary who the responsible person was who wanted to see me. He told me that it was Mr. Symington, the president of the Association of Law Societies in Bloemfontein. I then spoke to Mr. Symington for 20 minutes on the telephone. He asked me certain questions and brought certain matters to my attention, including clause 4.

He belongs to the Side Bar.

That is correct, but the request was that he should come to see me in his capacity as president of the Side Bar, together with the chairman of General Bar Council, Mr. Shaw. I discussed the matter with Mr. Symington. After our conversation, in any event, we agreed—I suspect that he told me so himself—that under the circumstances it was no longer necessary to have such an interview. [Interjections.]

Why did you issue a statement?

Why should I issue statements? [Interjections.] This morning, however, I had to learn that I had refused. In the meantime, the Transvaal Law Society had phoned me. I told them that I was prepared to grant them an interview if they wanted an interview with me. In my personal capacity, however, I have never been approached by an advocate or the chairman of the Bar Council or by anyone else. I was approached by Mrs. Hoffman in Cape Town, on behalf of the persons who would have included the chairman of the General Bar Council. That is the truth of the matter.

In accordance with the undertaking given by the hon. the Prime Minister and myself, I am still prepared to listen to representations. Therefore I shall in any event have talks with the Transvaal Law Society if they come here.

I shall have certain amendments placed on the Order Paper in due course. I just want to explain them briefly at this stage. They deal mainly with clause 4. In clause 4, subsection (2), I also want to provide for a person who wants to lay a matter before the Advocate-General to do so not only by means of an affidavit, but also by means of an affirmed declaration. If a person objects to making an affidavit, therefore, he can do it by means of an affirmed declaration. I shall move that the following be added at the end of subsection (2)—

When a matter has been laid before the Advocate-General, therefore, he has to give notice of it without delay, so that people may know that a matter concerning this or that is being investigated by him. [Interjections.]

In subsection (3), too, I want to make an amendment, i.e. that the word “no” be omitted and replaced with “Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b), no”. I then want to add paragraph (b), as follows—

That is the written permission of the Advocate-General for publication—

The Advocate-General may refuse permission only on the basis of those two considerations, therefore, i.e. where the security of the State will be jeopardized or where he believes that it will hinder his inquiry. These amendments will be printed in my name on the Order Paper in due course.

Finally, I should like to say that we must all decide for ourselves whether we want the publication of partially true or untrue stories based only on rumours, or whether we want to inform people of the truth. I think every person must try to make up his own mind about this. We are concerned here with a simple inquiry where the truth is revealed. This is what we are advocating and trying to achieve. Because I should like these inquiries to be undertaken to combat any wrongdoing which may emerge, and because we wish to reveal the truth, I gladly move that this Bill be read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the hon. the Minister of Transport. His speech was predictable. In many ways it was fascinating. However, for us on this side of the House it was completely unconvincing. The hon. the Minister has indicated that at a later stage he will move some amendments. These amendments, to an extent, prescribe the restriction. Nevertheless, we are dealing now with the Bill as it is before us, and we shall see whether these amendments really have any major effect on the Bill. As we see it at the moment, their effect will be minimal, and in fact the gag still remains, as before. [Interjections.]

Order!

The fascinating part of the hon. the Minister’s speech was that it reflected the split personality of the Government at the present time, the split personality of a Government which states that it wants to have a clean administration. We must, of course, accept that this is the intention of the Government However, at the same time it is a Government that has a neurotic antagonism towards the Press in South Africa. That came through again this afternoon in gratuitous cracks at the Press. Why not a word of commendation for what the Press did in exposing the Information scandal? [Interjections.] Why not mention the fact that the Press operates in a minefield of legislation, to say nothing of the restrictions imposed by common law and all the administrative impediments?

Of course, no one is perfect. No Pressman is perfect. We believe, however, especially when one has had a Government in power for 30 years, that it is even more necessary to have a vigorous, probing and exposing Press. That is an essential part of our political system in South Africa. We heard from the hon. the Minister, as we did from the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications the other day, grand statements about “Persvryheid”, Press freedom. Press freedom is not a theoretical concept. It is something which has to be applied in practice in South Africa. This Bill, inter alia, strikes at the very roots of Press freedom in our country.

The predictable part of the hon. the Minister’s address was his introduction. He referred to the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister on the steps of the Senate on 28 September last year on assuming office. He referred to the hon. the Prime Minister’s commitment to clean government and honest public administration. We have no fault to find with that commitment. What we hope, however, is that the Government will carry it out. What we believe, though, is that this Bill will not help the Government to carry that out. In fact, it is going to open the door to maladministration and to increased corruption. He then referred to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister in the House on 16 March of this year, when the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the question of an ombudsman. We are going to show, during the course of this debate, that far from the Advocate-General, as referred to in this Bill, being an ombudsman, the Advocate-General’s function, in terms of this Bill, is in fact going to be that of a censor, of news and views for the people of South Africa. However, what the hon. the Minister did not refer to—and this was also predictable—was the first speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House after assuming office as Premier. The hon. the Minister did not refer to the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech in the House on 8 December 1978. In that speech the hon. the Prime Minister did not refer so much to clean government. What he said then was the following (Hansard, 8 December 1978, col. 513)—

That is what the hon. the Prime Minister said. [Interjections.] That is the essence of it. That was the first threat made by the hon. the Prime Minister, a threat to put an end to what he called gossip-mongering and rumour mongering by way of legislation in this House. That is what this Bill is all about.

You, too, will no longer be able to indulge in gossip mongering. Then your gossip-mongering will come to an end too.

We believe that over the next 12 hours of debate we are going to be able to persuade the people of South Africa—even if the other side continues to support the Bill—that this Bill is, in fact, the greatest threat to Press freedom, the greatest threat to the right of the public to know and, in the end, the greatest threat to good and clean government that we have had in 31 years of NP rule. [Interjections.] At this time, in the aftermath of the greatest corruption scandal that South Africa has ever known, at a time when the tax-paying public of South Africa was shocked by the secrecy of those events, shocked by the corruption involved, we believe that the people of South Africa want, not only clean government but also open government.

What about your telephone calls?

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe must please keep quiet.

That is what they want. Yet in this Bill the Government responds with more secrecy. This will give rise to more rumours and, in the end, there will be more corruption as the Government clamps down on the right of the Press to publish and the right of the public to know. The one redeeming feature of the last few days has been the reaction of the Press and the public. The hon. the Minister was very careful in his selection of headlines. He was very careful to quote only headlines from the English-language Press in South Africa and to say: “Daar is ’n verantwoordelike en minder verantwoordelike deel van die Pers.” What is exciting is that the opposition came from all quarters, including the Government-supporting Press. I quote from the Oggendblad: “Regering muilband Pers.” That was not quoted by the hon. the Minister. I quote also from Die Vaderland—

The storm is confined to you.

I quote further—

I also quote from Die Transvaler: “Stilmaakwet slaan hard. Pers moet swyg oor Staatsfoute.” Then I quote from Rapporf. “Persmuilband vat ook partye vas.” Yes, the exciting feature has been that right across the board the Press and the ordinary members of the public, whether Government supporters or not, are in fact opposed to this particular measure.

Die Transvaler probably lies.

As the hon. the Minister indicated, there are two essential elements to this Bill. The one is the appointment of an Advocate-General to investigate and report on suspicions of corruption and maladministration and the second is the restriction on the publication of allegations of corruption and maladministration.

Before I deal with the merits and demerits of the Bill, however, let me just add a further point because the hon. the Minister was angry at the Press reaction. He suggested that the Press had jumped the gun. Let me say, however, that the way in which the government has dealt with the Bill thus far is an absolute disgrace. It is quite disgraceful. The Government is aware of the fact that this Bill has generated tremendous public interest and that it is of tremendous public importance, and yet there was no advance information on this Bill, no information for the public or for interested parties. In the House on 23 April I asked the hon. the Prime Minister—that was only a few weeks ago—whether there was going to be any anti-rumour legislation. He replied that he was waiting for the Press Union’s reply. It appears, however, that the NPU, the body most directly affected by this Bill, only saw it after it had already been read a First Time in Parliament. So what was the reply the hon. the Prime Minister was waiting for? Did the NPU see the Bill at any time before it was tabled in this House? Yesterday the Government met the Newspaper Press Union but it is said that they only considered matters of detail and matters of wording. I presume that the amendments that will be moved are the result of those discussions. It is clear, from the way the Government has handled this Bill, from the way in which it kept the public ignorant about it, that the Government wants to steamroller this Bill through Parliament, irrespective of the strength of the opposition outside or the validity of the arguments against it.

There is, however, another aspect on which I must take issue with the hon. gentleman. We on this side believe that this Bill interferes with the normal parliamentary process, yet there has been no consultation with the Opposition and no discussion, in Standing Committees of Parliament, on the functioning of this Bill. It is disgraceful that the Government should come here with a measure which will affect the functioning of this House, and do so without any consultation with Opposition parties, without any reference to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, without any White Paper and without any advance publication. [Interjections.] The Opposition and the public were compelled to rely on leaks from the Government to the Government Press in order to get advance information on the Advocate-General Bill. Even the amendments the hon. the Minister is going to propose have only been revealed to us after he introduced the Second Reading. What the Government has done has been to make a party-political measure out of a measure which, to the extent that it affects Parliament, should have been an agreed parliamentary measure.

Let us just look at how this measure is going to affect Parliament and members of Parliament One of the fundamental rights of Parliament is to hold the Executive responsible for the expenditure of funds appropriated by Parliament. The decision on how this should be done, how we are going to hold them responsible, should be a decision of Parliament as a whole and not just of the majority party, because the Executive is drawn from that majority party. How we are going to control and monitor public funds is not just a matter for the majority in Parliament, but also for the minority, the Opposition, whose members are free to act as watchdogs of the public.

Secondly, the tradition has grown up in this House of there being an Auditor-General with vast powers. He is the man whom we respect as Parliament’s agent in investigating the improper expenditure of funds. He is the man who reports to Parliament and whose report is considered by a parliamentary Select Committee. Now we find that a new person, outside the accepted parliamentary system, is to take over or, at least, in part to duplicate the investigating work we have always entrusted to the Auditor-General.

Thirdly, the Bill proposes a special procedure which should be adopted by the House in matters the Advocate-General considers to be matters involving national security. I refer to the special Select Committee. Once again, a matter like this should have been dealt with through the usual channels. A situation like this should have been considered by Standing Committees of Parliament and should not just be foisted on Parliament by the majority party in this House.

This Bill goes further. In certain circumstances it will deny to members of Parliament the right to communicate with their constituents and the voting public on matters relating to allegations of corruption and maladministration.

You will no longer be able to indulge in gossip-mongering.

Sir, it is going to gag members of Parliament in so far as they wish to communicate with their voters on matters relating to maladministration and misconduct.

Who told you that?

There is a fifth point, and in respect of this matter there is divided opinion. I hope the hon. the Minister will say that his law advisers have gone into this matter. Considered legal opinion has it that if the Bill is passed in its present form, it is likely that no publication outside of Parliament will be possible in respect of reports delivered within the House. We want to know whether there is any conflict between the privilege of Parliament on the one hand and this Bill which quite explicitly provides that no reports of any kind on certain matters may appear in newspapers.

These are all matters affecting Parliament and its functioning. We say from these benches: How dare the Government, on its own and without consultation with the Opposition, come along with a measure like this and force it through Parliament, even against the wishes of many members of their own caucus?

How dare you telephone McHenry?

Order!

We say that the Government knows the practices and conventions, and we therefore ask why it did not conform to them. We want to know why it has ignored these conventions and whether it has something to hide.

I want to deal with the first aspect of the Bill referred to by the hon. the Minister, namely the creation of an office of Advocate-General as part of the Prime Minister’s commitment to “clean government” or “clean administration”. Let me say immediately that we believe that this new office, in the form provided for in the Bill, is unnecessary and superfluous unless the Government itself believes that maladministration and corruption exist on such a scale in South Africa today that a new full-time investigating department is required to probe it. If the Government is asking for this, it is an admission on the Government’s part that this sorry state of affairs exists. Extensive machinery already exists. The police and the Attorneys-General investigate any charges or suspicions of crime. The Auditor-General has the right to audit and inspect all matters relating to State funds, not only at the level of the central Government, but even at the level of private institutions if this is considered necessary in the interests of the State. There are parliamentary Select Committees, there are departmental inquiries and there are ad hoc commissions of inquiry.

If it was considered necessary to have more control over public funds, we believe this could best be achieved by extending the scope and the functions of the Auditor-General, who is already an accepted servant of Parliament, and not by introducing a rival or competing office in the form of an Advocate-General.

The machinery for control exists. Of course it can be improved. What is much more important, however, is that the machinery is no more effective than the people who are trusted to operate our financial system. I think the hon. the Prime Minister will now, to his regret, realize that the Information corruption could have been nipped in the bud if he and his colleague the hon. Minister of Finance had insisted on a full audit of all secret funds. That could have been done. I can understand all the reasons why it was not done. It was a human error which led to that corruption and not the system itself.

I have no doubt that maladministration will occur in South Africa if the hon. the Minister of Finance admits that he signs authorizations for expenditure while covering up the details so that he cannot see them. One must have maladministration if that is the practice. I hope it will never happen again in South Africa, but corruption will exist in South Africa if in the future there is a South African Prime Minister who, knowing of corruption, does not tell his Auditor-General, his Minister of Finance, his Cabinet or even his Parliament. The point is, in fact, that corruption or clean government depends on the quality of the people who stand at the head of the Government. We on this side would have hoped that it would not be necessary to have people as watchdogs seeing to it that our Ministers and Prime Ministers perform in a proper way.

The hon. the Prime Minister did refer, on 16 March, to the issue of having, in a post, a person to fulfil the function of an ombudsman. I want to deal with this very briefly because an examination of the functions of ombudsmen in other countries, e.g. New Zealand, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland—to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred— and Denmark, shows that the ombudsmen in those countries have a completely different role to that which is to be given to the Advocate-General in this Bill. In fact, the ombudsmen in other countries bear no resemblance to the creature which is going to be fashioned out of the legislation before us.

The ombudsmen in other countries are not appointed to decide whether suspicion of maladministration or corruption is well-founded. They are not appointed to regulate or control what may or may not be published. They do not determine whether suspicions referred to them were well-founded, but using their own initiative they keep a constant watch on the Government and on Government departments. They are not protected by law from public criticism. They are not protected by sub judice rules and the investigations they undertake do not put a stop to all other investigations which may be taking place at the same time. I do not think we and the public should be bluffed into believing that this is an ombudsman Bill. This is a gagging Bill.

The ombudsmen in other countries are different creatures. They fulfil the role of a watchdog of the public in relation to the executive and, because of this, are normally not appointed by the Executive, but by the legislature. They do not deal essentially with corruption. They deal with executive action, with arbitrary decision making, with administrative inefficiency and with the abuse of power. They have access to the Executive and are the agents of the individual citizen in dealing with the executive arm of government.

An ombudsman of this kind, a person who protects the individual citizen from the awesome powers in the hands of the Government, would make some sense, but this is not what is being proposed in terms of the Bill. The Advocate-General is not an ombudsman, but part of the Government’s machinery to control what the public is going to be allowed to know. That is the function, and I want to come to that function and to analyse it.

He is responsible to Parliament.

Let us make no mistake about it—even after the hon. the Minister’s explanation—this Bill will gag the Press. This Bill will prevent the public from knowing. We believe that this Bill, by restricting publication of allegations of corruption and of maladministration, is going to encourage the growth of corruption and of maladministration.

Let me deal with this point. It has been clear that ever since the Information scandal the Government, and especially the hon. the Prime Minister, has been almost neurotic about the Press. The response of the Government, and the hon. the Minister’s response this afternoon, is the response of an angry and yet strangely insecure Government to the work which the Press did in ripping open the Information scandal and then proceeding to extract from the Government admission after admission over the past six months or so.

This Bill gives legislative effect to the Prime Minister’s commitment to put an end to rumour-mongering. That is essentially what this Bill is about. The hon. the Prime Minister will agree that it is essentially to put into effect his promise to put an end to rumour-mongering in South Africa. That was not a sudden whim of the hon. the Prime Minister. As I have said, way back in December of last year he threatened to silence the Press and hon. members of Parliament by legislation, and this is what this Bill is really all about. It is therefore not surprising that this Bill seeks to create the office of Advocate-General whose function is not primarily to keep a watchful eye on the Government, because he can only act if somebody comes to him, but primarily to decide what the Press may print and what the public may know about allegations of corruption and maladministration. Looking at it even with the amendments which the hon. the Minister is going to move, this Bill is a measure to introduce Press censorship of the most blatant kind. [Interjections.]

Let us look at the provisions of the Bill, and especially clause 4(3) which provides that: “No person shall, except with the written permission of the Advocate-General—publish or cause to be published—any report—until such time as the report of the Advocate-General—has been laid upon the Table in the House of Assembly or has been handed to the Speaker of the House of Assembly …”. That is an absolute ban. It can only be broken at the discretion of one man, and that is the Advocate-General. There is no reference to an appeal against the decision of the Advocate-General. The question as to what the Press may publish during the period of investigation is entirely in the hands of one individual, and that…

The moment this …

The moment or not. This is Press censorship and the hon. the Minister cannot hide away from it. It is a wide, deliberate and …

[Inaudible.]

There will be more and more red herrings. The hon. the Prime Minister is on the hook on this issue. He knows that this is a Press-gagging Bill. He said that because he promised to do it, he is going to go ahead and do it.

It is nothing more than an opportunity to prevent you from continuing to indulge in gossip-mongering.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister will have an opportunity to defend this stupid action of his in this House. Let us, however, look at the scope of the prohibition. The hon. the Minister of Transport, who is the Leader of the House, is a “vriendelike soort man” who does not like to have a row. So he has tended to rub down the sharp edges of this piece of legislation. Let us, however, look at the sharp cutting edge of this Bill to see how wide this ban really is. The Bill provides that no person, except by written permission, shall cause any report to be published. This does not only refer to newspaper editors. It may equally be referring to a political scientist, a politician, a member of Parliament or a political party. From the time an investigation commences no person, save with the permission of the Advocate-General, may publish a report. What does this do to members of Parliament? Must we just remain silent on all these issues? Should we remain silent on the whole Information scandal? Can we not report to our constituents? The Bill refers to “no person”. It is an absolute ban. Publication cannot take place except at the discretion of the Advocate-General.

Secondly, the Bill provides that no report may be published in a newspaper. It is, in fact, not just a newspaper that is being referred to. The definition of “newspaper” is very clear. The definition reads—

So any book, any publication of any kind dealing with a particular issue is banned and may not be published during the course of the relevant investigation. We want to know to what extent it even intrudes on books and departmental reports. To what extent does it deal with matter which is produced for the use of members of Parliament? As we see it, the only thing excluded is anything which may be supplied by the Auditor-General.

Thirdly, the Bill refers to any report. A report is defined as being “any matter, in whatever form, inserted in a newspaper”. We want to know whether this includes reports of speeches made by hon. members of Parliament, whether inside this House or outside this House. Are we going to be told that from the time somebody, any person, triggers off an investigation, members of Parliament may not be reported outside of this House when they are dealing with maladministration or corruption of any kind? Is this so? Is this going to be a ban on any communication between members of Parliament, inside the House or outside the House, and the public they represent?

Next I want to discuss the scope of the Bill. One can understand the part which deals with corruption and improper or unlawful enrichment or receiving of advantage. That concept of corruption is clearly understood, but this Bill goes ever so much further. Clause 4(1)(a) reads as follows—

Fourthly, the Bill refers to State moneys. It is not just this level of government which is linked to the concept of State moneys. At almost every level of government State moneys are involved, not only in the Post Office, the Railways and the central Government but also in Iscor, Escom, the SABC, the Industrial Development Corporation, the universities and the Administration Boards. All these organizations are linked with the concept of State moneys, and any corruption or any maladministration in any of those organizations can be placed under a ban by the simple trigger mechanism of somebody calling for an inquiry. The question is who can trigger off this mechanism. The hon. the Minister has said that if a person has reason to suspect something he can lay his suspicions before the Advocate-General. That is not what the Bill says. The Bill says that if anybody has reason to suspect this, the matter in question may be laid before the Advocate-General, but it does not say that that person has to lay it before the Advocate-General.

No, not necessarily.

Correct Clause 4(2) reads—

A National Party organizer.

What we mean is that an NP organizer or the Minister’s secretaries may look at any report in a newspaper which deals with corruption or maladministration of funds in their department and then request that it be examined, from which moment a blanket ban will be imposed. We say that clause 4(2) is the one which makes our suspicions complete. It is the complete gag, because any individual can introduce the gagging and censorship, even if he has no facts at his disposal. He can do so merely because somebody else has suggested it So I could go on discussing a whole series of matters of this kind, for example the question of when one can publish. If there is no right to publish information while an investigation is taking place, if the inquiry is held in secret, if there is no release of the evidence, and if there is no requirement to release the evidence, how will the public or Parliament be able to make an evaluation of the Advocate-General’s findings.

So one can go on and on. We believe there is no case whatsoever to be made out for this blanket silence while the Advocate-General is doing his work. There is nothing like this relating to the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General can get on with his work without any special provisions whereby he can gag the Press. We have looked at this very carefully.

What about the safety of the State?

The safety of the State is another matter. What the hon. the Minister says is that one can report on matters relating to the safety of the State, but not if corruption is involved. We have looked at this measure, we have listened to the explanations and we have seen that the hon. the Prime Minister has threatened the Press and hon. members of Parliament. He threatened us with a gag. He said to members of Parliament and the Press to bring along all the rumours because after 30 May legislation would be passed in this House to prevent them coming with what he called rumours.

In conclusion let me say that the hon. the Minister and his Government appear to have lost their sense of balance as a result of the Information scandal. If this Bill becomes law, there will be five consequences. First of all, it will gag the Press. Secondly, it will deprive the public of the right to know. Thirdly, it will undermine the parliamentary system of government.

That is not true.

Fourthly, it will encourage rumours rather than prevent them and, fifthly, it will be the open door to corruption and maladministration in South Africa. Surely the Government has learned from the experiences of last year? Surely it has learnt that the more secrecy there is, the more corruption there will be? Clean government only exists when there is also open government. That is why we believe that an essential part of clean government is a free Press and the right of the public to know. It is for this reason that we in these benches have no hesitation in rejecting this Bill outright. I therefore move—

Mr. Speaker, it is my dubious privilege to attempt to reply briefly to the many questions put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but I am afraid this is virtually impossible, since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition jumped from one argument to the other to such an extent that one could not always follow him. However, I want to refer briefly to a few vague statements made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to the allegations he made about what is supposedly contained in this Bill. Among other things, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put the question: What will the position of a member of Parliament be who wants to report back to his voters? I do not believe the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is so stupid as to interpret the legislation to mean that it will prohibit him from telling his voters exactly what he likes—and he referred specifically to a “report-back meeting”. He can tell his voters what he likes. But this is not all. There is nothing in this Bill which places any obstacle—after the Bill has been passed—in the way of any member of this House who wants to broach any subject in this House. In this regard I just want to refer the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to section 2 of Act No. 91 of 1963, which deals with the powers and privileges of Parliament and which reads as follows—

May the newspapers report it?

Obviously. The answer is “Yes”. It is being argued—and it seems to me as if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanted to argue along these lines—that this legislation is going to curb the right of members of Parliament to discuss in public, matters of public interest, or any other matter in this House or outside, but this is not true. What this Bill envisages, is prohibiting publication—and publication is defined in the Bill—until such time as certain things have taken place. We have repeatedly heard from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—he sounded almost like a cracked record—“This Bill will gag the Press” and “The public has the right to know”. He said this a number of times. With all respect, that argument, which we also heard from the Press, that this legislation is an effort on the part of the Government to gag the Press, is not the truth; it is anything but the truth. What is envisaged by this Bill, is that if an allegation of maladministration is made, or there are cases as mentioned in clause 4, publication may take place in the first place with the permission of the Advocate-General. If the addition which is being proposed by the hon. the Leader of this House in the Committee Stage and of which he gave notice this afternoon, is taken into account, there are only two considerations which the Advocate-General can take into account when imposing a ban on publication. In the first place, he has to determine whether the safety of the State will be endangered, and in the second place he has to determine whether it will hinder him in his investigation. This is all the Advocate-General can use as motivation for preventing the publication of any article. Consequently he has to determine whether publication will endanger the security of the State and also whether publication will impede him in his investigation of the matter. Any reasonable or balanced person will agree that under the circumstances these are justifiable provisions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also tried to allege that we were dealing here with Press censorship. Surely, this is not the truth either. Surely we are not dealing here with Press censorship. All we are dealing with here, with the exception of the case where the security of the State is at stake, are matters where the rights of the Press are temporarily suspended until the Advocate-General has completed his investigation and has tabled his report in this House. I do not know whether the hon. Opposition wants to argue about the issue that matters affecting the security of the State should also be made public.

We are fully aware of the Opposition’s concern and also of the concern of a large section of the Press with regard to this Bill. If this Bill becomes law, we believe that it will put an end to the constant gossip in the public Press of South Africa. In addition it will compel the Press to exercise that responsibility which can certainly be expected of a powerful medium such as the Press. This legislation now creates the machinery and the forum which will enable anyone who feels aggrieved to lay any charge with regard to maladministration, etc. in a proper way. Consequently the legislation does not only apply to the Press in the sense that only they can try to expose possible irregularities, because each member of the public is in any case entitled to raise something irregular, but the opportunity is being created for ordinary members of the public to put forward his suspicion by way of a sworn statement or an affirmation, in order to put into operation the machinery so that a proper investigation can be instituted into any possible irregularity. However, I should have expected the Press to publicize not only the negative aspects in their treatment of the proposed legislation— seen from their point of view, and they see only negative things in it—but that they would also try to present the positive side of this legislation to the public of South Africa. I have not yet seen anything of that kind in the Press. Not one hon. member on this side of the House would even listen to the ridiculous argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that—this is what I understood him to say—this legislation is supposedly an effort to cover up corruption, etc. The contrary is true. In point of fact, this legislation is now creating proper machinery on a systematic basis so that when charges have been brought and allegations made concerning suspected malpractices, they can be properly investigated.

In another argument advanced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, he said that it was clear that this Bill was now encroaching on the field of the Auditor-General. But clause 12 emphatically states that nothing laid down by this Bill detracts in any way from the powers, the rights or whatever of the Auditor-General.

It is a duplication.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that the work of the Auditor-General is being duplicated. Surely this is untrue. After all, in practice the office of the Auditor-General is not open to an ordinary member of the public laying a charge or a suspicion before the Auditor-General for possible investigation. [Interjections.] Surely this is not the arrangement in practice.

Of course. The hon. member can go to any police station.

That hon. member need not tell me that, because I know. Special machinery is created by the post of the Advocate-General so that all forms of malpractice in the Public Service, after having been laid before him, can be properly investigated. With the best will in the world, I think that as the hon. the Minister said, the hysterical commotion which has erupted around this legislation, on the basis that it supposedly threatens the freedom of the Press, is devoid of all truth. What may well happen, and we hope it will, is that it will be possible to put an end to the abuse of the freedom of the Press.

Mention examples.

There is such a thing as freedom, but there is also such a thing as licence. The hon. member said that I should mention an example.

Mention examples of corruption.

The hon. member says that I should mention examples of the abuse of the freedom of the Press. The hon. the Minister mentioned an example this afternoon when he said that false allegations had been made in the newspapers this morning. He had ostensibly refused to give the Bar Council a hearing.

Surely that has nothing to do with corruption.

The hon. member for Durban Central is now trying to get me off the subject But he will not succeed. [Interjections.]

This measure has nothing to do with the freedom of the Press. It does not prevent the Press from being perfectly free to institute any investigation it wants to into any aspect of our national administration. The Press may do so and is free to do so.

But I just have a suspicion that the major objection of the Press is that they will now no longer have the scoop and that they will be unable to boost their circulation by means of sensational reports and in this way increase the profits of their shareholders. I think that this is the major objection at present, particularly if one also bears in mind that the Press that supports hon. members of the PFP, consists of a number of secret shareholders.

Mr. Speaker, while listening to parts of the speech delivered by the hon. member for Barberton I wondered whether he had read the same Bill that I had read. Perhaps, if he listens very carefully— and I will try to use very simple words—he will find that the Bill we are debating is quite different from the one he is trying to defend, or else he does not understand it at all. During the course of my speech I will cover most of the issues which the hon. member has raised.

The hon. Leader of the House this afternoon displayed a tremendous fear of the Press and of the power of the Press. [Interjections.] However, I want to assure him immediately that my quarrel is not with him. The hon. Leader of the House, by virtue of his office, is simply the instrument for the introduction of this measure. My quarrel is with the hon. the Prime Minister whose baby this Bill is; it is with him I intend to cross swords, and not with the hon. Leader of the House, who is simply carrying out his duty. However, if I can dare to risk a lighter moment in such a serious debate I should merely say that the hon. Leader of the House need not be so scared of the Press. It is not really all that bad. The old United Party was killed because of the Young Turks and the Reformists, not because of what the Press wrote. It was because the Press had that to write about. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister should therefore not be so scared. It is not what the Press writes that hurts one; it is giving them the things to write about that can hurt one. That is what he must watch out for. That is why this Bill is here before us. It is because the Government has given the Press something to write about. They did not suck it out of their thumbs. I will come back to that just now.

It is possible to have tremendous Press support, but to be still without the support of the electorate. One can also have tremendous antagonism from the Press, and still have the support of the electorate. Therefore he need not be so scared of the Press. Be it as it may, nobody has suffered more than I have over the years. However, it is part of the life which every politician enters. It is one of the facts of life that one has to face when one enters public life. One has to accept that one can be attacked. One has to accept that one can be denigrated. One has to accept that one can be ignored. But one cannot blame the Press for it if one has personally given them the material about which they can write.

“Fear” is not the right word. However, I am concerned.

But the hon. the Minister used these words—

Is that not fear?

There is a difference between fear and concern.

I now want to come to the Bill. The amendments of which the hon. the Minister gave notice are making very little difference to what I intended to say, because they bring about no material changes. Even if they did, I believe the damage has already been done. The damage was done by the mere publication of a measure of this nature, a publication which lifted the curtain on the philosophic approach to government itself by the present Government in power. It reveals a frightening attitude, a frightening approach to the fundamentals of democratic government. Moreover, it is the first impact of a Bill which sticks in the public mind.

At a time in which South Africa is under attack—often wildly distorted attacks—when distorted pictures of a police State, of racists, of fascists and the like are painted about South Africa, we can still say that we have always had two powerful weapons with which to defend ourselves and with which to counter attack. Those weapons are the parliamentary system, which includes the voters’ right to change their Government, and a free Press, which includes the right to criticise, the investigate and to expose malpractices and wrongs.

When the hon. the Prime Minister came to power, he set eight noble objectives, eight goals. Admittedly, they were mostly platitudes everybody agrees with, platitudes like “mother-love is good”. I have just read them through again and I have them here. I hardly disagree with anything in them and I think everybody welcomed them. In fact, they were welcomed nation-wide and hailed as the start of a new era. Then we got the plaintive cry: “Give him a chance”. I warned that the hon. the Prime Minister would be tested by his deeds and not by his promises, and here he is faced with one of his first tests on the basis of a deed as opposed to a promise. We have before us in the House a fact, an action taken by the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to submit that he has failed his first test on the basis of a deed rather than a promise. When he was elected, I warned the hon. the Prime Minister and appealed to him not to lose his cool under pressure of criticism or provocation. Sadly, that warning was necessary, because I believe that this Bill is an indication that the hon. the Prime Minister has lost his cool under pressure and provocation.

Come back to the Bill. [Interjections.]

If there was provocation, the hon. the Prime Minister has only himself to blame. He could have ended the Information affair long ago if he had had the courage to open it up to the public view. If he had had the courage to do that, the whole Information affair would have been finished. Instead he allowed it to drag on and on. I accept that there have been excesses. I accept that the matter has been overplayed by some of the media—so much so that most of South Africa got sick and tired of the rehashing and repetition of innuendos and suggestions. However, it is the hon. the Prime Minister’s own fault, because he allowed this situation to develop. He could have stopped it. The cold hard fact—and I believe that that is what gave rise to this Bill—is that all the passionate denials we heard were proved to be untrue and that the original basic allegations were proved to be the truth and facts. Even the Press Council was misled into an unwitting injustice. However irritated the Government and the Prime Minister may be, this Bill will be seen in history as a panic measure, as a monstrous overreaction to the irritation resulting from criticism and occasional excesses on the part of the Press.

*While the Information scandal was still at an early stage, Die Burger said that the NP was disembowelling itself like a wounded baboon. I do not mind if the NP disembowels itself. If it wants to practise masochism, I do not mind, as long as it only hurts itself. I do mind, however, when it hurts my country, South Africa. This is precisely what this Bill is doing: It is hurting South Africa. Whatever the honest intentions in regard to this legislation may be—I accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation that the legislation is being introduced to ensure clean and honest administration of the country—it is not the intention behind legislation that people see, but its effect Good intentions do not count; it is the wording and the effect of legislation that count. All the good intentions in the world are of no avail if the effect is one that hurts and harms South Africa.

What image of South Africa is created by this Bill? I am not going to reply to this question in my own words, but in the words of the Press that has declared its support of the Government Look at this headline in Hoofstad-. “Leiersopstand oor Perswet.” Another headline in Hoofstad-. “Persmuilband vat ook partye vas.” And then the following, under the heading “Twee Persmaatreëls”—

Beeld reports—

What does The Citizen say? I quote—

Oggendblad says: “’n Emstige inbreuk.”

What is the use of quoting an interested party?

I am quoting the supporters of the hon. the Minister: his Press, his newspapers and the people to whom he referred as “our partners”. He called them “our partners”.

*I have no partners and therefore I can talk. I and my party stand alone. [Interjections.] Let me continue. What does Die Vaderland say? Let us quote—

This is what the editor of that newspaper writes. I quote further newspaper headlines and commentary—

Furthermore—

One can proceed in this manner with newspaper clipping after newspaper clipping, not from the English Press, not from the Opposition Press; this comes from the Press that has declared its support of the hon. the Prime Minister.

†What then is the image of South Africa that this creates? It is not created by the Opposition, it is not created by what we have said; it is created by the words printed in the Bill. It is created by what stands here in black and white and it is also created by what the Government’s own newspapers say about that which stands in the Bill.

Let us test the Bill against the hon. the Prime Minister’s two first goals which the hon. the Minister of Transport has quoted. These goals are “the maintenance and development of orderly government” and “honest public administration”. In one panic action this Bill discredits both those goals. Of course orderly government is inseparable from the parliamentary system and the parliamentary system is inseparable from the electorate’s right to change the Government and equally inseparable from the electorate’s right to know the facts. One cannot have effective and orderly parliamentary government if the electorate does not have access to the facts.

Vause, you are fighting against the wrong things.

I shall take the matter further.

†Secondly, one cannot then have honest public administration, because that is inseparable from public scrutiny. If one removes public scrutiny, one cannot have or expect honest public administration, because that itself is inseparable from the right of a free Press to investigate and to expose.

Now I will answer the hon. member’s question. I emphasize the words “to investigate and to expose”. To expose a matter after it has been through the hands of a body of inquiry does not help at all. It is the investigation which reveals the facts. It is the investigation, which burrows and digs and which reveals information little bit by little bit, which attracts public attention. People then come forward and give a little bit more information. That is published and then somebody else might say that he knows more about it and thereby provide a little bit more information. If one cannot, however, investigate, then there is nothing to publish.

I want to say in all seriousness that this Parliament itself will be a toothless watchdog of the public interest.

Only the Opposition, not we. [Interjections.]

It will be a toothless watchdog without a free media to inform the people on what it finds and what it is doing. Apart from the gagging clause—and I will come back to that—this Bill slaps the Auditor-General in the face despite clause 12 and whether the hon. the Minister accepts it or not. We have an Exchequer and Audit Act which provides for an officer responsible to Parliament to deal with financial mismanagement. It is under his control and he reports to Parliament. Whether one denies it or not, the office created by this Bill cuts into and overlaps the responsibility, powers and duties of the Auditor-General.

I see the hon. the Minister of Police is in the House. This Bill is a slap in the face for the Police Force of South Africa. This Bill takes away from the police the right to investigate crimes and offences relating to Government corruption.

No.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The relevant clause provides that immediately, when the Advocate-General starts to investigate an allegation, all other investigations or actions, except those by the Auditor-General, must immediately cease. [Interjections.] It takes away from the police their investigative powers, until the Advocate-General has completed his own investigations. Then he can report his findings to the police or the public prosecutor, but the Advocate-General takes over the investigations from the moment it is reported to him.

Where do you see that?

Clause 4(5) of the Bill reads, inter alia—

[Inaudible.]

Of course that is a suspension of the activities. [Interjections.]

This Bill also slaps the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, who is making so much noise, in the face. He is the chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. He is the watchdog over finance. He is defending the Bill while it slaps him right across the face, because the Bill says that he is not fit to protect the moneys of the people of South Africa. It says that the chairman and the members of the Select Committee on Public Accounts are not sufficient to protect the public interest. It says that the hon. member is no good, that he is not trusted and that another official has to be brought in because the hon. member is not doing his job properly. [Interjections.] Yet that is the hon. member who is now making so much noise.

It is not only those people who are affected. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised this issue, but I want to take it a step further in very clear and specific terms.

I want to ask for a clear and unequivocal undertaking. Will any matter which falls under this Bill be sub judice or not in terms of Standing Order No. 129 relating to debates in this House? The rules of this House forbid debate on any matter that is sub judice. I ask for a clear and unequivocal statement and, if necessary, an undertaking that, if it is not clear, we will amend the Bill to make it clear that a matter being investigated by the Advocate-General is not sub judice in terms of the rules of this House and may therefore be debated.

That is in the hands of Mr. Speaker.

Sir, he is passing the buck to you. [Interjections.] I ask for an assurance that, if this is not clear, we will make it clear in this Bill. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, is the custodian of the powers of this House, but he is bound by the law. I am asking for an assurance from the hon. the Minister that, if there is any question at all of the sub judice rule applying to such investigations, he will accept an amendment introduced to put it beyond the sub judice- rule. Will he accept such an amendment?

I shall reply to you on that.

As far as the Auditor-General’s report is concerned, will the Press be able to report malpractices?

I am not sure whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is correct. There is doubt about this, a grey area, but I believe the prohibition is absolute and that it is not only when a matter is reported to the Advocate-General that it may not be reported on. As I read this Bill, it is clear that no report of any sort which relates to any of the malpractices listed in clauses 4(1)(a), (b) and (c) may appear at any time. Am I correct?

You are quite correct.

I am correct. It is even worse than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition supposed. The hon. the Minister has said that I am quite correct that this is an absolute prohibition at all times whether or not the Advocate-General is seized of the matter and that a report may not be published except with his permission or after it has been reported on. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether debates in this House on unauthorized expenditure and wrongly appropriated money may be published by the Press. That falls squarely within the terms of this Bill. I want an assurance from the hon. the Minister that there will be no interference with the right of the Press to publish anything that happens in Parliament, unqualified and without restriction. May the reports of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, of which the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke is chairman, be published, even though in many cases they fall squarely within the definition of matters which may be investigated by the new Advocate-General?

We must remember that it is not just this Parliament or this Government which is involved. One will not be allowed to say that provincial administrations or statutory bodies are guilty of maladministration or wastage of money. [Interjections.] Read the Bill. If that statutory body receives State money, it is protected by this Bill from any report or allegation of corruption. Rapport made the point that if the NP wants to attack the Natal Provincial Administration, it will not be able to accuse them of wrongly spending money on a road when it should have been spent on a hospital. That is, strictly speaking, an allegation of a misuse of public money.

Ask your law advisers.

Fight with Rapport, not with me. That is out of Rapport. Will we be allowed to debate and will the Press be allowed to report the report of the Erasmus Commission? Whatever the intention and the “goeie bedoelinge” it is the old, old story: When the Government is under attack, it over-reacts. It is the old practice: If one does not like something one makes a law to silence it or kill it. The hon. the Prime Minister must not complain if the public conclusion is drawn, what with the history of the Information question since the Mostert sacking, that the hon. the Prime Minister was afraid of, or did not want, a full exposure of the Information affair and was happy with departmental secret investigations. However thorough these investigations may have been—and I do not question that—the public was only to be told what was good for them in the eyes of the Government He failed to prevent it, he failed to keep it away from the public, and this Bill is intended to make sure that it does not happen again.

The same procedure will be adopted by the Advocate-General as a commission. There will be a secret affidavit or allegation, a secret inquiry, no time limit and, at the end, a report. There will be no reference to evidence, no reference to anything else except what the Advocate-General wishes to report, and in this connection I am not talking about security. Security matters I accept. However, we demand all the evidence if this Bill should go through.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition dealt with ombudsmen and I do not want to take that matter any further.

However, does the Government realize the consequences of what it is doing? It says it is going to stop rumour-mongering. Instead it is going to create a “skinderparadys”, a land of rumour and a nation of rumour-mongers. The trouble is the Government does not have the experience that many of us have had, the experience involving the long pole which led to the term “latrinogram”. People sat on long poles—the hon. the Minister of Health would condemn it now—and a story started by one was passed on and grew and grew and as such became known as a “latrinogram”. It is like the old party game of whispering something, passing it on and seeing how it comes out at the other end. This Government, however, should know the power of the bush telegraph and the effect of this “promotion of rumours” Bill is that in every hairdresser’s shop, every barber shop, over every shop counter, in every pub, at every cocktail party and over the back fence we shall be churning out the fastest growing and the fastest moving invention of mankind—and womankind— rumours, rumours and more rumours, because when one suppresses facts, rumours take their place. South Africa will then become the country of whispered “have-you-heards?” That is what is going to happen. The people will not know because the law will forbid publication. There is only one antidote to rumour and that is to expose it to the light of day. One must expose it to public debate and establish the truth openly, not by secret investigations, with the public wondering what has been withheld from them.

The final implications are serious for South Africa, the implication that corruption is so bad that it needs a full-time official, that public administration must be placed behind an iron curtain, that there is some unspeakable something hidden somewhere which must be kept hidden and that the Government is in a cosy nest safe from public scrutiny. Internationally and internally the credibility of Government assurances, will be in doubt. South Africa deserves better of its Government. At least the NRP can say that it stood up to be counted in our opposition to this Bill. I challenge hon. members on that side of the House who I know are unhappy about this measure, to stand up with us and be counted. There are many of them there who do not support or accept this Bill and who think like their newspapers think. I challenge them to show the courage to stand up to be counted with us so that South Africa can see that democracy is still alive and that democracy is still operating—before this Bill kills the basics on which it rests.

We are therefore totally and unequivocally opposed to this measure in every respect, and we shall vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point did not add much to what we have been reading in the Press during the past four days. All that he did was to use it, to inflate it; to seize upon it and make use of it Unfortunately I am not even able to tell him that he did so in a well-ordered fashion. Consequently there is really nothing specific on which to reply to him, except to promise him that when I come to the Press headlines in due course, I shall, in passing, reply to him and his colleagues of the official Opposition.

The primary object of the Advocate-General Bill is to establish the office of Advocate-General in the Republic of South Africa. To me the most important point in respect of this office is that the holder will be an officer of Parliament and will be responsible to Parliament. Judging by the legal definition, I foresee that his position will be just about as unassailable as that of a judge. For example, he may not be suspended or removed from office, except if certain prescribed events occur. It is foreseen, as in the case of a judge, that he will hold this office until he attains the age of 70 years, and his service may even be extended until his 72nd year. This is a new office in the South African parliamentary system. This officer is going to be accountable to Parliament.

In a democracy, it is the task of Parliament to keep a watchful eye on the national administration. As the hon. the Prime Minister indicated in the debate on 16 March, the Parliaments of other countries have established similar offices. The British have a “parliamentary commission”. Since Watergate, the Americans have had a “special prosecutor”. New Zealand, Sweden and Finland have similar offices, but in their case the function is closer to that of an ombudsman. Regardless of what the hon. Leader of the NRP, the hon. Leader of the official Opposition and the newspapers may read into this, this office is being established with the sole motive which is that the holder should play a part, should perform a function in promoting clean administration in South Africa. All of us who have been in this House for a shorter or longer period, have on one or more than one occasion had a story told to us. Either it was a whisper of corruption and bribery or something similar in some State department or another or in a provincial administration, or it concerned the involvement of a highly placed official and even Ministers in the same type of conduct. Each one of us reacts to such stories in his own way, but it is not always easy to decide how to react. One does not want to lose one’s head at every story told to one about a Minister, a departmental Secretary, an administrator or a high-ranking official. One does not know whether it is simply malicious gossip. In every community there are people with grudges, people who are frustrated, people with warped ideas, people who are suspicious of every action taken by another person and who consequently thrive on irregularities. Up to now it has been an absolute problem to a person who has been so informed, to decide how to react One possibility was that one could go to the hon. the Prime Minister. However, one does not want to run to the hon. the Prime Minister with every rumour one hears about an hon. Minister or a Secretary. One does not want to be known as a tattletale or a scandalmonger. One cannot go to the Minister himself, for one does not know how he would react. One does not know whether there was perhaps some truth in the report and whether one is going to put him on his guard. The same applies to the Secretary of a department. We all react differently to stories told to us. Some of us, spread such stories even further, and I think the Opposition excel in this. Some people go and report, and others keep quiet.

The fact remains that a person about whom there is gossip and about whom stories are told, could be hurt, his career could be destroyed. Ex-Minister Ben Schoeman recounted in his book how a very capable and efficient young Minister had been gossipped right out of his office. That Minister even went to his Prime Minister and requested that the Detective Branch should investigate the scandalmongering that was being directed at him. Nevertheless that man was ultimately compelled to leave the Cabinet.

Now, in 1979, having had all the lessons and experiences of the past year, the Government is introducing a Bill. This implies that if a person has reason to suspect that there is maladministration, misapplication of funds, corruption and favouritism at the expense of the State, he can lay the matter before the Advocate-General.

We on this side of the House will accordingly tell the informant that he must go to the Advocate-General and tell his story to him if we are confronted with such a story. Such people usually object to disclosing their identity. However, if such a person were to tell one a story in fairly considerable detail, one could oneself go to the Advocate-General in a representative capacity, and then report that story to him.

This Bill prescribes the procedure, which I shall come to in a moment.

[Inaudible.]

No. I do not think so—not according to the Bill. In the process an embargo, a restraint, is placed on publication. According to what the hon. the Minister of Transport has just announced, there is a limitation to those restrictions, in that the Advocate-General may not refuse to grant permission for publication unless this would jeopardize the safety of the State or the conduct of the investigations. These are the only tests to be applied and which determine whether or not he may withhold his permission.

What have we been experiencing in recent times, however? We have had the most unbridled outbursts against this Bill. We have had, as other speakers have stated, hysteria in its worst form, and I think the two hon. leaders of the two great Opposition parties have excelled in their participation in the hysteria. We have had the most far-fetched, unprofessional and unscientific interpretations imaginable of this Act. It was as though people had sat down and sucked their thumbs and had bruited everything they arrived at in that way abroad as facts. This is being called the “Rumour Bill”, the “Press law”, the “gagging law”, the “Corruption Act”. It is being said that it entrenches corruption. This is also being called the “Press Gag Bill”. I think that of Ken Owen, of The Cape Times is the most scandalous. He refers to it as “Crooks charter”.

The Sunday Times states in a leading article that this Act would indeed promote “rumour” and “corruption”. They have bruited this news abroad. On Sunday the Sunday Times was able to report gleefully that the American and British editors “slam Press Gag Bill”, and their subtitle to that specific report was “End of an era”. But then the official Opposition jumped onto the bandwagon, and what did they do? They organized country-wide protest meetings. Their Chief Whip flew up country to take charge in organizing country-wide protest meetings. Their leader arranged a mammoth lunch hour protest meeting in Cape Town yesterday, and this was attended by 70 people. [Interjections.]

†That was the public reaction which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke and bragged about to all the hysteria they have been building up for the past 10 days. [Interjections.]

*We can understand the dilemma of the official Opposition. For months, they gnawed at and battened on the Information predicament of the Government. At the recent by-elections and the coming by-elections they received and are going to receive confirmation that they did not accomplish anything with their actions. Their leader plunged himself into a McHenry scandal and now they have to try to restore their image, for there is a specific reason why they have to do so. The man who controls the purse-strings has told them: “If you cannot do better I shall have to withdraw my financial support from you.” This is one of the reasons why they seize frantically upon every imaginable method to try to restore their own position in the country.

And then, as always, ever since the first year I came to Parliament, whenever they get the chance, they try to attach the label of Nazism, of Fascism to the Government and this afternoon the hon. member for Durban Point referred again to the “Iron Curtain”. I am very sorry that this whole Bill has been wrested from its context I am sorry that this has become a Press law and a Press debate, because I do not think that that was what it was meant to be. I am sorry that the Press in general, the Newspaper Press Union—and I am even sorry that the English Press, from which we on this side can never expect anything good—has seized on this Bill to seek a confrontation with the Government. Was this a deliberate attempt on the part of the Press to try, to test, the P. W. Botha Government? Did they want to see how far they could push him with these tactics? Did they want to see whether he would react if they twisted his arm, so that they would know how to act in future? I can tell them that we who know the hon. the Prime Minister, know that they will not accomplish anything with him in this way, but that precisely because they are acting in this way, they will not make any progress.

The versions we have heard of this Bill, the interpretations that have been given to it, the descriptions that have been given of it, are so distorted, so twisted and so far from correct that one cannot really recognize the Bill. Words such as “gag”, “muzzle”, “coverup” and “promoting corruption” have been the order of the day during the past week, as the hon. member has conceded.

If one looks at the Bill one sees, with the proposed amendments the hon. Leader of the House has announced, that if it is a matter of the security of the State or of obstructing the investigation, there may not be any publication of this suspicion until such time as the report of the Advocate-General on that matter has been tabled in Parliament or, during recesses, Sir, handed to you.

The Advocate-General has to institute an investigation in the prescribed matter and submit his report. In the first place he has to institute an investigation—and I assume that he will undertake that investigation as soon as possible—and then he has to hand his report to the Leader of the House who has to table it within seven days during sessions or hand it to you within seven days during recesses, except when the Advocate-General is of the opinion that publication of the report would not be in the interests of the security of the State, for in that case he can recommend in the report that its publication should be prohibited.

For how long can publication be restricted on these grounds? That is all that is involved as far as they are concerned. The two great Opposition parties are now professing that we are going to cover up corruption here. For how long could one conceivably cover up? In the first place, immediately after one has made the report one can obtain the permission of the Advocate-General to publish it. In that case, there is no time lag. That is the shortest time possible. In the second case it depends upon the duration of the Advocate-General’s investigation. I say again that he will dispose of it as soon as possible. As soon as the investigation has been completed, he has to submit his report to the Leader of the House and the Leader of the House has to hand it to you or table it within seven days. In other words, it is the unspecified period of the investigation plus a maximum period of seven days, except where the security of the State is involved, for then it is submitted to you as a confidential document and a Select Committee, which may also function during the recess, is appointed to investigate the matter further. Members of all parties will serve on that Select Committee. Now I want to ask the official Opposition: Are they or are they not going to participate in that Select Committee? I wish to ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether his party is going to participate in that Select Committee, or not?

I want to see the final Act first [Interjections.] It can be amended.

The hon. member now wants to see the Act first. Then why did he speak for an hour just now? Now I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville and his party and the hon. member for Durban Point whether they want stories or facts or whatever they may be which may be prejudicial to State security, to be bruited abroad.

Of course not.

Of course not! But then why are the hon. members opposing this legislation then? This is the only case where the legislation provides that there cannot be eventual publication.

Will the evidence be made available to the Select Committee?

The report of the Advocate-General will be submitted to hon. members and the hon. the Minister who introduced the legislation stated that the evidence would also be submitted. However, let us forget about State security. Does the Opposition want “rumours”, gossip about State administration, to be bruited abroad, or do they wish to fight the Government on facts?

What are the facts about Rhoodie? [Interjections.]

Even the publicizing of a rumour or of gossip is not prohibited by the legislation after the report of the Advocate-General has been tabled. That is what this storm in a teacup is all about. That is what the furore is about. In all honesty, I am asking the speakers on the Opposition side who still have to speak, in what way the Press is being muzzled. I wish to ask them how it is handicapping so-called “investigative journalism”.

You have only to read the Bill and it will tell you.

In conclusion, I wish to address a few quiet words to the Press. Since the days of Fairbairn and Pringle we have had a fine history of Press freedom in South Africa. The struggle of Fairbairn and Pringle was concerned with justice, to expose the autocratic action of Lord Charles Somerset against a certain Buissine. I wish to ask the Press whether this is what is involved here as far as they are concerned. Or are they merely concerned with “scoops”, circulation figures, and monetary gain? I ask the English Press in particular: As far as they are concerned, is it a matter of being opposed to the Government, or is it in the interests of the country? How long did the English Press— and they and also the Opposition must now tell us—have the Information about The Citizen and other Information matters in their possession? They withheld that news for a very long time. I am asking whether it was in the interests of the country to withhold that news. Even when an election had been proclaimed, they kept quiet about it Did they keep that information because they believed that they would make use of it, not in the interests of the country, but in order to break a Government, and in that way destroy an existing dispensation in South Africa? Today I want to tell the Press that had that information: “You kept quiet contrary to the national interest when you knew you should have spoken out.” I am telling the PFP they kept quiet contrary to the interests of the country when they knew they should have spoken out. I am telling the Press that with their unbridled outbursts and distortions, they did the country untold harm in the outside world, where every bit of positive reporting is of the utmost importance. But I am asking the Press in general whether they have ever asked themselves how matters stand with their own credibility with the reading public in South Africa. Their circulation is growing and their readers are increasing, but are they being believed? I shall leave it at that.

We shall meet here again in a year’s time. The NP will still be sitting on this side and the little Opposition on that side. The Press will still write as they have done up to now, and the foreign commentators will still say that they are surprised at the freedom of the Press in South Africa, as William Deedes stated in addressing the South African Society in London. At the time he was editor of the London Daily Telegraph—

I cannot think off-hand of any country in Africa so indulgent with newspapers so stunningly offensive to the regime.

He further stated—

It has been like that in the past and it will be like that in future, but this Government will not be daunted from doing what it thinks is essential and in the interests of this country.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

We in these benches supported the First Reading of the Bill, on which occasion only the long and the short titles were available to us for inspection. At that time we asked and today we ask again: How could anyone possibly oppose a Bill he has not even seen? What could anybody in this House hope to achieve by such blind opposition?

Now we have now seen the Bill and we have studied it to the best of our ability. When we studied the Bill we decided that there were certain clauses in the Bill of which we could not approve. Thereupon we made representations to the hon. the Minister expressing misgivings about some of those provisions. The hon. the Minister undertook to investigate our objections, and to an extent our objections have been met by one of the amendments he has moved today, an amendment which we would like to investigate a bit further before we finally decide how we shall react to it.

We shall certainly also move some amendments in the Committee Stage. After we had made our representations—and we believe this to be the responsible attitude to adopt in this House towards a Bill of this kind—we gave notice of our amendment asking that the Bill should be discharged and be referred to a Select Committee. Both of these actions we regard as being constructive and the responsible course to have followed.

To us the principle of the Bill is the establishment of the office of Advocate-General. We can see that a case can definitely be made out for the creation of such a post. We have no objection to the proposals to establish the post of Advocate-General. Indeed we feel that instead of having limited and circumscribed powers of investigation, powers such as those described in the Bill, much can be said for an Advocate-General having far wider powers so as to function as the watchdog and the protector of the public’s interests against all potential Government abuse. We have said on occasion in this House that at a time like the present the Opposition should go out of its way to try to find common ground with the Government in such matters as defence and the maintenance of internal law and order. But the exposure of maladministration and corruption is as important a duty of the Opposition as the duty to put alternative policies before the electorate. In this respect we maintain that the Press has a very important and complementary, if subsidiary, role to play in this particular field. We see merit in the proposal to have an Advocate-General, but what is to us of the utmost importance is to find a satisfactory framework within which the Advocate-General can perform his functions as the investigator of corrupt practices without having to take away the rights of the Press to investigate corruption, a right which we believe the Press exercises on behalf of the public and which is the inalienable right of the public, the right to be properly informed. The mere fact that some newspapers in South Africa have failed to conduct themselves properly does not in our opinion mean that all newspapers have to be emasculated and the public deprived of information on which to form a balanced judgment.

Leave The Citizen out!

It is the Government’s case that certain newspapers have abused their position of trust If that is its case, then it is the duty of the Government to set the Press house in order, and in my opinion it should have done so a long time ago. For example, in the case of the English Press, by insisting on the disclosure of shareholders and the controllers of their newspapers, and in the case of the Press in general, by the laying down of certain standards, by creating a register of journalists and by seeing to the establishment of an effective code of conduct for the Press and an effective council. However, Mr. Speaker, that is another matter which I am sure you will not allow me to canvass any further in this House.

Our amendment asks for the appointment of a Select Committee, and this request for the appointment of a Select Committee has been supported with enthusiasm and with emphasis by most of the Afrikaans newspapers in the Republic. The hon. the Prime Minister himself has said that he is prepared to listen to proposals aimed at improving the Bill. He has had discussions with the NPU, he has met businessmen and he has asked the businessmen with whom he has had discussions to assist him in trying to improve the proposals that are embodied in this Bill. There are many things that a Select Committee can do to improve the present Bill. I have had experience of investigating corruption. I have probably had more experience—and I think the hon. member for Durban Point will agree with me—than any other hon. member on this side of the House in this particular field.

Do you want the job of Advocate-General?

Nice friends you have.

Perhaps more than anybody else I have been involved, at a time that I thought it was necessary to be involved, in the investigation of what seemed to me to be corruption in the fishing industry, and I believe that as a result of those investigations and as a result of those activities of mine I have made a contribution towards saving some of the Republic’s fishing resources which were in danger of extinction.

I was also involved in investigating the Agliotti scandal. At considerable time and expense I did my best to try to get to the bottom, as the hon. Minister of Community Development will testify, in trying to find out what lay behind the Agliotti land deal. I was involved in an investigation into the land deals at Saldanha Bay and in connection with the second Iscor I was also involved in investigations. There was another field also in which I was involved in an investigation, but I do not believe it is in the interests of the country that I should disclose the nature of that investigation and the Ministers who have the responsibility for the departments concerned know to which matter I am referring.

Therefore you say that you are the man for the job.

The gentlemen on my right who have been making so many interruptions and interjections during the course of my speech, were the people responsible for my not being able to continue with those investigations, because they were the people who came into the party to which the hon. member for Durban North and I belonged and so undermined that party from within that instead of devoting our attention to this form of investigation, which we believed was in the interests of the country, it was necessary for us to try to protect our leader, Sir De Villiers Graaff, from their undermining activities.

Allow me, Sir, to refer to the sort of investigations and the sort of procedure that are required to try to emphasize the case that I am trying to make. First of all, people hear rumours and stories, and I think one’s first duty, if one is trying to investigate such a matter, is to try and test those stories and rumours for their accuracy. In the second place, members of Parliament asked questions in this House, they receive answers and very often they speak to the Press and comment on the answers that they have received. They make speeches in this House trying to expose the maladministration or the corruption, and publicize the subject-matter of their investigation through the newspapers that are willing to publicize it. As a result of this publicity, the person who is investigating receives telephone calls and letters, and in regard to many letters and telephone calls, the caller or the writer asks for his anonymity to be respected. One searches company records, one searches for example deeds office records and one sees people in different places in the country if one is doing a proper job of an investigation of the type that I have tried to describe to the House. At any rate, the purpose of one’s investigations as a member of Parliament is to bring to the public, through one’s presence in this House and the speeches one makes here, a state of affairs that one believes constitutes maladministration or corruption. In this House one then asks the Government to take action to end that maladministration, to end the corruption and, if necessary, to take the necessary police action. But now, in terms of this Bill, many of the steps that I have tried to outline do not seem to us to be possible, especially those involving Press participation.

I now want to refer to what I regard as being probably the most balanced, enlighted and practical criticism of the provisions of this Bill. It has come from a man who has spent a lifetime in journalism and who is the editor of The Citizen today. The editor of The Citizen made these points, which I would like to record in the records of this House because I think they are valid in commentary on this particular Bill. He says first of all—

He writes further—.

He goes on to say—

That seems to me to be a valid criticism from a man who, as I have said, has had a lifetime in journalism. Let us look at the last point he makes. After having referred to some of the difficulties about getting the permission of the Advocate-General, he says—

He says further—

The last point he makes is valid to anyone who knows anything about journalism at all. He says—

I should say that that comment by a man of the standing of Mr. Johnny Johnson is worthy of consideration. It bears out much of our feelings about this Bill. I want to make several things absolutely clear. I am not in the slightest bit concerned about the fuss that is kicked up about this Bill being an instrument for the destruction of Press freedom in South Africa. Every single measure that remotely affects the Press in South Africa, and can be said to involve newspapers or newspapermen, is said to endanger Press freedom. The Press and newsmen in general arrogate to themselves the right to criticize all and sundry, but claim exemption from all forms of criticism.

I am not so concerned either about the inevitable international reaction which results from Press hysteria in the Republic because overseas criticism is the criticism of those who see nothing good in any field of endeavour in South Africa. Their standards are double standards. However, an opportunity for the enemies of South Africa to criticize us is unfortunately being given them in terms of the provisions of this Bill. The reason why I say that is because of the exclusion—as we understand it—of the Press from the investigative process. That is why we say that a Select Committee would undoubtedly find some form of modus vivendi whereby the Advocate-General and the Press can work together to complement each other. The Bill before us does not achieve this objective and excludes the Press from the performance of what we regard as an essential function.

To me the only thing that counts is whether the Bill will achieve its stated purpose, namely to expose—through the machinery and the channels provided—and stamp out corrupt practices. I do not believe that this Bill, as it stands, would achieve this objective. As we see it, there is no need for this legislation to be rushed through within the next few days or weeks. I ask the hon. the Minister whether there is all this urgency for this Bill to be pushed through in the Second Reading tomorrow, thereafter in the Committee Stage and in the Third Reading by next Wednesday. I ask him whether it is not possible to establish a Select Committee to go into the points that disturb us and other hon. members, I may say, in his own party, and see if it is not possible to bring forward a better Bill before the end of the session.

Why can a Select Committee not sit to consider the only really contentious provisions, and there are only a few of them, in clause 4 in particular. The most contentious of these provisions involve the curtailing of the rights of Press investigation, which I have said is really the extension of the right of the public to be informed. This should not take long. In case the hon. the Minister thinks that a Select Committee will be a long and cumbersome procedure, let me point out to him that I very much doubt that the official Opposition would take their place in a Select Committee appointed in terms of the discussion under this Bill, unless we are going to have a repetition of the farce that we saw with the Van der Walt Commission. First they refused to have anything to do with the Bill, they completely washed their hands of it and wanted nothing to do with it. Then, because the hon. member for Yeoville cannot bear to be excluded from anything from which he might achieve a little bit of publicity, they eventually took their place in the committee.

It was turned into a parliamentary commission, and you know it very well.

I also think that we would probably have a repetition of the same circus that took place at the time of the appointment of the Van der Walt Commission. The NRP would probably once again follow their leaders.

You might even find a circus like the Schlebusch Commission.

Even if these two parties do not sit, I nevertheless believe that there are sufficient sensible and balanced hon. members in this House who would sit on such a Select Committee and try to improve this Bill to make it achieve its desired purpose. Therefore with those remarks, having tried to illustrate my point from some personal experience that I have had, I ask the hon. the Minister and the Government, to which he is responsible, to consider very earnestly our plea that the contentious provisions of this Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Simonstown for his support of this Bill, as well as for the positive ideas he expressed. It is probably unnecessary for me to cross swords with the hon. member. With regard to his request that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, the hon. the Minister will reply to that himself in due course.

The Opposition has made a real Press debate of this debate, instead of examining in depth the objectives of the Bill under discussion. Permit me, therefore, to deal with this matter in depth. The hon. the Leader of the official Opposition spoke of the Government’s “neurotic antagonism against the Press of South Africa”. I want to put it to the hon. Leader that that statement is devoid of all truth. I shall substantiate my statement during the course of my speech.

The Bill before us is in no way aimed at restraining criticism of the Government. The Government attaches great value to a free Press because it realizes that it is a major asset, an asset to good foreign relations, an asset which must consequently be retained. The proposed legislation should rather be seen against the background of the exceptional circumstances in which South Africa finds itself, as well as against the background of the necessity in these circumstances of ensuring a clean, pure and strong government, a Government which can deal with emergency conditions, and can repulse aggression from within and without.

No one will dispute the standpoint that it is the right of the nation to be informed, and that this right is of the utmost importance. The Government has always protected the nation’s right to be properly informed at all times. The importance of this right has not been disputed. However, it may be asked whether this right is of overriding importance in the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself. The newspapers of South Africa are aware of these exceptional circumstances. The Newspaper Press Union—which represents our newspapers—admits that the Press must take into account the general welfare and security of this country. These principles are accepted by the Press Union in its Press code, too. At the same time, however, the Press Union states that only a Press totally free of control can perform its task properly, and that the Press should not only be free, but that it should also be evident to the public at large that the Press is, in fact, free.

However, a Press code can only be effective if it is enforceable. Unfortunately I must say that up to now the Press has not yet shown that its code can be enforced effectively. The other side of the matter is that Press freedom entails Press responsibility as well. Not only must the Press be responsible—it should also be clear to the public that it is responsible. I do not have evidence of this, either. In recent times there have been many examples of irresponsibility on the part of a section of the Press in South Africa. Ten years ago, in 1969, when security legislation was under discussion, the chairman of the Association of Journalists stated—

He said this 10 years ago, but before that time and since then there has been no country in the world in which such a large section of the Press has attacked the Government and its policy so strongly and consistently or done so freely as in South Africa.

The hon. member for Waterkloof quoted here what was said by the former editor of the Daily Telegraph, one of the world’s major newspapers. I should just like to repeat one section. That editor expressed his admiration for the tolerance of the South African Government towards the Press, despite the incredibly objectionable attitude of the anti-Government Press in South Africa. This is how a Pressman from the outside world saw it.

The Opposition must not profess to be the only people in favour of Press freedom. The Government has repeatedly stated its standpoint that Press freedom is one of the most important cornerstones of our democratic system in South Africa. What is more, this Government has protected the freedom of the Press in this country for more than 30 years. At times the provocation and defiance of the Government by the hostile Press have been so great that we have had to grit our teeth, but in spite of that the Government has always protected their right to write what they liked. When, on a previous occasion, legislation was ready to be introduced in this House in order to discipline the Press, the present hon. Prime Minister himself intervened and prevented that legislation from being proceeded with. The Press was again given a period of grace. The Press of South Africa has repeatedly been afforded grace although they have never stopped making things impossible for the Government. The Government has been exceptionally patient towards the destructive section of our Press—because we have to say here and now that a large section of our Press is made up of responsible people who act responsibly. In spite of the malice displayed by a large section of the Press towards the Government of South Africa, a malice which at times has known no limits, the Government still protected them. I hope that the newspapers and journalists who are again making such a fuss in this regard, will one day thank the Government, since for 30 years now, the Government has given them a free rein to do as they wish and allowed them even to indulge in malpractices to the detriment of the Government and the interests of South Africa.

It is not the Government’s objective to gag the Press so that it is unable to exercise freely its basic function of spreading news and acting as a watchdog. The Press’s right to expose and uncover the truth is not disputed. That is a very important function. We must allow the Press to continue with that function. The Government realizes that the Press can be a powerful ally in exposing corruption and malpractices in the state administration, because investigative journalism can expose things very thoroughly. The Press can play a very important role in this regard. In any democratic system this function of the Press is indispensable and the Government will ensure that the Press is able to fulfil that function. The Press has the indisputable role of informing the public in a responsible and balanced way, and in the same way the public has the indisputable right to know what is going on. However, when newspapers begin to see themselves as prosecutor, judge and executioner combined, then they have become too big for their boots and are overstepping the mark.

There is a section of our Press that wants no rules because it wants to continue with its destructive game. The responsible Press of South Africa also realizes these things and shares the Government’s dismay. In this regard I want to quote what the editor of Hoofstad wrote in a leader article on 15 May. He said—

I can quote many more examples of where the responsible Press of South Africa agrees with us when we say these things.

The primary aim, the most important objective of the legislation is pursuance of clean national administration. The aim is to create a watchdog to guard against maladministration, against corruption and malpractices. Nor is this disguised Press legislation, as the Opposition seeks to maintain. The machinery being created here does not seek to gag the Press, nor does it seek to cover up, as the Opposition says. The aim of the Bill is to ensure proper investigation of alleged maladministration and, ultimately, to arrange the balanced publication of facts.

We cannot deny that the Press has made its contribution to exposing the malpractices in the former Department of Information. However, in the process some newspapers went too far. They overstepped all limits of balance, objective reporting by making wild accusations without affording the people they sought to criticize in this way, the opportunity of refuting what the Press had said about them. The destructive Press of our country took great pleasure in exposing certain secret projects of the former Department of Information, projects which should have remained secret in the interests of the country. They were projects involving no corruption or misappropriation of funds. The projects had to be kept secret in the interests of South Africa. But the Press recklessly disregarded this and simply went on exposing everything. This section of the Press went even further and did not even hesitate to harm South Africa’s interests in the outside world, too, by publishing the names of people and organizations who had done important work for South Africa in secret. These people’s names are made public and their hands as well as ours are tied.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that this Bill was devilish and diabolical because it would prevent the Press from playing an investigative role. I want to tell him that it is not the Bill, but what certain Opposition newspapers have done over recent months that has been diabolical. The Opposition’s role in this regard was just as diabolical. As the hon. the Prime Minister said, an evil spirit has possessed them.

The accusation has been made that this Bill is simply another cover-up by the Government, and this is going to be the end of investigative journalism. I want to tell hon. members that this allegation has no foundation in fact. The hon. the Prime Minister has already stated lucidly and clearly on many occasions that he will tolerate no cover-up of any nature whatsoever. Since then he has initiated one exposure after another, and this proves in what a serious light he views this matter. He has initiated step after step to uncover things and to eradicate existing anomalies root and branch. We know by this time that where the man P. W. Botha is, there is no place for corruption and maladministration. [Interjections.] For that reason it is ridiculous for the Opposition to allege that this Bill is another effort to cover up.

The allegation that investigative journalism will suffer as a result of this Bill, is also untrue. When newspapers discover malpractices, they are afforded every opportunity to investigate them in depth. What is added now is that they will now have to be much more certain of their facts because these facts will be subjected to the severe test of the Advocate-General. Mere gossip and hearsay not based on facts, will boomerang. That is why a section of the Press is kicking up such a tremendous fuss and digging in its heels against this Bill. The newspaper of integrity which respects the tried and tested code of “when in doubt, leave out”, will have no problem with this, but the newspaper that adopts the reckless attitude of “publish and be damned”, is going to come up against this legislation, and it is in the interests of South Africa that it should come up against it.

The Opposition is now building up the smokescreen of the Press. It will not help them to try and hide behind that smokescreen. What they must tell us is whether they want a clean Government in this country or not. Does the Opposition want to assist us in laying the foundations of clean government at all times, or do they hope that a situation will remain in which they and their Press can constantly prey on innocent people?

The unprecedented process of suspicions owing which we have had in this country in recent times, simply cannot continue. This is a process of undermining orderly government and the authority of the State. The impression has repeatedly been created by the Opposition and its Press that this Government is corrupt from top to bottom. Surely we know what they have said inside and outside this House and what their Press have said. Up to now they have been doing these things without evidence and without going to the Erasmus Commission where they could submit this evidence. This new legislation now creates a forum in which charges of alleged maladministration can be submitted and can be investigated. The hon. the Prime Minister said in an interview with Die Burger that the Bill is intended to afford everyone who has information with regard to corruption or incorrect expenditure, the opportunity of allowing it to be properly investigated, after which it can be reported to Parliament Surely this is no attempt at a cover-up. Surely this is a step calculated to bring about exposure. Sir, the public of South Africa will trust the Government in regard to this step as well.

Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a good deal of confusion in the minds of Government members both as to the cause and the effect of the legislation which we are discussing this afternoon. The hon. member for Barberton, the hon. member for Waterkloof and the hon. member for Bloemfontein North have all protested, and protested very strongly, that it is not the intention of the Government to attack the freedom of the Press in South Africa. They appeared here this afternoon as the protectors of a free Press. It is true, that the hon. member for Bloemfontein North in the first place protested that it should be suggested that they were attacking the freedom of the Press in South Africa, but he then proceeded to embark on his own private attack on the Press in the latter part of his speech. It is interesting to compare the defence by these three hon. members in regard to their attitude towards the Press with the attitude adopted by the hon. the Minister here this afternoon when he introduced the Bill. I found the introductory speech of the hon. the Minister to be very revealing and very interesting. He started on a very low key, almost as though he were introducing, perhaps not the Railway budget, but a Bill to build a new railway line, or something of that kind. He was apologetic and started on the note that this was really a simple Bill, a Bill designed to curb rumour mongering in South Africa and to channel rumours through an officer to be appointed by Parliament. He then adopted a tone of injured innocence when he tried to answer the attacks which had come from the Press of South Africa, both the Government-supporting Press and the Opposition-supporting Press. The hon. the Minister then worked himself up, worked himself up full steam, and then embarked on a pretty unbridled attack on the Press generally. This is, I believe, where he gave the game away. He mouthed all the old critical clichés used by opponents of a free Press. He talked of sensationalism; he talked of Press power; he talked of the Press ruling the country and not the Government ruling the country; he talked about “die stryd met die Pers”, and he whipped up a situation I believe to mould the critical section of public opinion in order to prepare them for what is in fact being done by this Bill, which in fact is an attack on the Press, amongst other freedoms, in South Africa. In other words, he was building up to the right public climate in order to enable the Government to justify what it was doing in this legislation.

We believe that this Bill is an attack on the Press, but we also believe that it is a dangerous over-simplification simply to say that it is an attack on the Press, serious though that concept may be. It goes far beyond that. I believe it is also a direct assault on the right of every private citizen in South Africa to question, to probe, to investigate and to ensure full public disclosure in regard to matters affecting maladministration and misapplication of State funds. As I have said, the Bill is presented to us as a simple measure, ostensibly to curb rumour-mongering and to channel objective inquiry through an officer to be appointed by Parliament. But it is, of course, nothing of the sort. In its present form, and despite the amendments of which the hon. the Minister has given notice, the proposed mechanism in the Bill must be seen to be designed to restrain, to confine, to delay and to discourage ordinary people in South Africa from any meaningful inquiries into Government maladministration.

That is an affect of the Bill. It is, of course, correct that one should read the Bill against the background of the whole sordid Information scandal, because this Bill is a direct, ill-conceived and sadly misdirected result of the Information scandal. It is therefore of no use for the hon. the Minister to give the appearance of being totally innocent with respect to the intentions or the affects of this Bill. It is necessary for us to remind ourselves again of the chapter of the whole Information scandal. We remember the flamboyant spending which attracted public attention. We remember the rumours of purchases of luxury homes and apartments and all the trappings of the Information scandal. We also remember the rumours in regard to the funding of The Citizen newspaper. Let me remind this House that one year ago all these matters were mere rumours in South Africa …

And were being denied.

Yes, and they were being denied—that is very important. We must ask ourselves: What is it that transformed these rumours into facts? How was it possible that these rumours were then subsequently found to be facts? Certainly, there was the Auditor-General who had indicated that he had found irregularities in the department concerned, but even his suspicions—and he admitted it—were aroused by rumours of overspending and spending totally out of proportion with the money allocated to that particular department.

That is why we are creating this post.

No, the hon. the Minister must be patient. We then had the situation that the Government said that they had received the report of the Auditor-General, after which, as the first part of the cover-up, we had the then Prime Minister announcing that he was disbanding the department and appointing a departmental committee to inquire into the activities of the department. Then we had the situation that the then hon. the Prime Minister announced that, of all people, Gen. Van den Bergh was to be in charge of this inquiry. On this sort of basis, Parliament was left with the impression that all was well and that the Government was investigating the situation, but I want to know to what it was to be ascribed that at that stage the matter was prevented from being covered up as a result of those assurances. Without a free Press, without probing and without inquiry the country would have had to be satisfied with the assurances given by the hon. the Prime Minister’s predecessor during the last session of Parliament that all was well, that there was to be an investigation and that an official, appointed by him, was going to continue the investigation, were it not for the Press, the matter would then have been at an end.

With this sort of machinery it would have been revealed very much quicker.

I am not so sure about that, because with this machinery the cover-up might have been even more effective … [Interjections.]

That is where we differ.

Yes, that is where we must differ. In the meantime, as has been interjected here, there were flat denials as to the validity of the rumours and there were denials on the question of The Citizen, denials which were condoned by the Prime Minister of the day. Thank goodness for South Africa, the free Press was prepared to continue to probe, to investigate and to bring out the facts of the situation.

That was the one element in the disclosure in regard to the Department of Information. The second element was the courage of Judge Mostert who then revealed what his investigations had discovered on the whole issue. Then it was possible also, both as a result of the activities of the Press and of the disclosures by Judge Mostert, for the Opposition to continue to probe and to ask questions in order to extract the information that was required. As a result of all of that, this hon. Prime Minister saw fit to appoint the Erasmus Commission, and we know the results from that time onwards. The point I want to make is that it was possible in those circumstances for investigations to proceed and for probing to take place. One has got to look at the situation in regard to this Bill against the background of the whole sordid episode of the Information Department scandal.

It is also quite correct that one has to look at this Bill against the background of and in relation to the hon. the Prime Minister’s assurances of a clean administration. When the hon. the Minister introduced the Bill this afternoon, he correctly made reference to those remarks by the hon. the Prime Minister, and so have other members. We know that, in trying to make good that promise, the hon. the Prime Minister repeatedly boasted and told the country about the steps that he had taken. He told us of the extension of the activities of the Pretorius Committee; he told us about the Erasmus Commission; he told us about the short session of Parliament to debate this issue, and I want to say that, in the light of these assurances, I find it ironical and paradoxical that so far the only person charged in regard to this whole scandal has been the editor of the Rand Daily Mail, a newspaper that was prominent in bringing about the disclosures that we know about already.

Even more paradoxical and ironical is the fact that it would now appear from this Bill that the only lesson which the Government has learnt from this whole sordid episode in South Africa’s history, is to make it more difficult next time for revelations of this kind to be made public. [Interjections.] That is the object of this Bill. The only lesson that the Government appears to have learnt is that in future it will be more difficult for a complete probe or inquiry to take place. If the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Transport proceed with this Bill in its present form, the hon. the Prime Minister’s assurances of clean administration will lack any semblance of credibility in South Africa, and I believe that the confidence in the credibility of the Government, in matters of administration of this kind, will permanently be shaken.

I just want to deal briefly with some of the provisions of the Bill, and in particular with clause 4. Clause 4 provides that: “If any person has reason to suspect that State moneys have been or are being misapplied or that maladministration in connection with State moneys has taken place or is taking place” or if “any person either directly or indirectly has been or is being enriched”, such a person may make a report to the Advocate-General. Clause 4(3) then goes on to state that when such a report—and there has got to be absolute clarity about this—has been made, there is a prohibition on any publicity by any newspaper, journal, etc. I want the hon. the Minister to listen very carefully now because there does appear to be an ambiguity with regard to this particular issue. Either way, we do not like the clause, whichever of the two meanings may apply. However, the one meaning is far worse than the other.

Does this prohibition relate to a report which has already been handed to the Advocate-General or does it relate to any report on corruption or maladministration?

Any report.

Any report at any stage?

The worse of the two.

So it is the worse of the two. [Interjections.]

That is how I read the clause. [Interjections.]

That may be revealing, but there has to be absolute clarity on this point. [Interjections.]

I read it differently.

The hon. member for Houghton will have her opportunity later. [Interjections.] Clause 4(3) refers to the fact that—

Then it goes on to say—

Which report? If no report has been made to the Advocate-General, what does this second reference to a report, which I have referred to, mean? If there has been no report made to the Advocate-General, is a newspaper or a journal entitled to publish articles alleging corruption, maladministration and misapplication of funds?

The answer is “No”.

The hon. the Minister is quite emphatic that no such report can be made in any circumstances without the permission of the Advocate-General. [Interjections.] It is a blanket provision which confirms our worst fears. It would make it virtually impossible for any sort of investigative journalism in South Africa, for a newspaper to probe a situation without first having to get the permission of the Advocate-General and then having to be subject to such conditions as the Advocate-General may lay down.

It is a cover-up.

The hon. member for Hillbrow says that it is a cover-up. Of course it is a cover-up. It is a complete coverup, because the responsibility is now being placed solely and entirely in the hands of the Advocate-General in matters of this kind. Only the Advocate-General may determine what reports can be issued in matters of this kind.

I want to question the hon. the Minister further. We know that, in terms of the provisions of this Bill, the Advocate-General, after he has completed his investigations, has to hand his report to the Leader of the House. Within seven days the Leader of the House has either to table that report in the House or, if the House is not sitting, he has to hand it to the Speaker. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how this particular provision is going to operate. If the House is not sitting, he will hand it to the Speaker, but at what stage will that report then become public? Must the country then wait for six or seven months …

The moment it is handed to the Speaker. That is stated specifically in the Bill.

Where does it say so? [Interjections.]

What clause?

The moment the matter is handed to Mr. Speaker, that report is public knowledge. Is that the impression one should get when one reads the Bill? [Interjections.] That is not how I read the Bill. Does Mr. Speaker sit on it—I do not mean literally—or does he wait for six months until Parliament reconvenes? Does the public have any means of finding out exactly what is contained in that report? How is that accomplished during the parliamentary recess? I believe it is very important that this matter should be cleared up. Otherwise there will be a considerable delay. The matter can be held in abeyance because it can happen that a report is made to the Advocate-General, a report which will stop any publicity in regard to that particular rumour. This might happen at the beginning of a parliamentary session. At the end of that same parliamentary session the Advocate-General may yet not have completed his report, which means the country would have to wait at least 12 months before the answer becomes known.

For that instance provision is made in terms of clause 4(3).

The hon. the Minister is evidently referring to the words—

That is correct.

But when it is handed to Mr. Speaker, what does he do with it? Does he give it to the newspapers?

It is then available to the newspapers.

How can it be? Who says so? It has been handed to Mr. Speaker, but we must remember that the House is not sitting. Mr. Speaker does not make it available to hon. members of the House. He cannot lay it upon the Table of the House. Does he call a Press conference at which to reveal the contents of the report? I think this is a very important matter and the hon. the Minister must clear it up when he replies to the debate.

An explanation is unfortunately too lengthy to be given now. I will return to it in my reply to the debate.

Well, then I will leave the matter there and hope the hon. the Minister will give a full explanation in regard to this matter when he replies to the debate.

Then there is also the question of the prohibition. That is dealt with in clause 6(3) of the Bill. There is still considerable doubt in connection with this prohibition. It is not clear what will be allowed to be published in terms of this measure when it becomes law. The clause refers to what is apparently an absolute prohibition on the publication of what is termed in the Bill—

If one reads this provision it would certainly seem that no newspaper or person could disclose the contents of any affidavit submitted to the Advocate-General. This prohibition might also apply even if such an affidavit is contained in the report of the Advocate-General. I think clause 6(3) gives us a very exhaustive and far-reaching prohibition in connection with any document which may be placed before the Advocate-General. Again, in the interests of public information, one wants to know how much of this sort of information, how much of the actual evidence upon which the Advocate-General is to base his report, is going to be made available to the general public.

One could also refer to a whole series of other matters. There is, for instance, the question relating to matters affecting State security. However, the whole range of this Bill is indicative of a matter which is not going to satisfy public disquiet, which is not going to allay public feelings of alarm. In fact this is an attempt to discourage ordinary members of the public, let alone newspapers, from pursuing rumours of which they may have knowledge. The whole effect of this will, I believe, be to discourage them, to delay them. The hon. the Minister will say that the purpose of the Bill is to give them a channel through which they can direct their inquiries to establish the validity of a particular rumour. However, the real effect of this legislation will be to stop any sort of public inquiry into matters of this kind. If one does that one is going to stultify the whole question of investigation into matters of this kind. As other hon. members have also observed, I believe that by following any line of secrecy or by restricting the right of people to investigate, one will in fact not cure rumours. On the contrary, one will increase rumours in South Africa.

I believe this is a thoroughly bad Bill, a Bill which has to be opposed. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon hon. members of the Opposition almost uninterruptedly kept up the refrain that this Bill was supposedly a so-called “coverup”. However, what they did not explain to us is the nature of this “cover-up”. In his speech this afternoon the hon. the Minister gave notice of an amendment to clause 4(3). He said, inter alia, that the permission that the Advocate-General would have to give, would only be applicable to matters involving the security of the State and cases in which the investigation could possibly be impeded. These are the two cases …

What of the case where an investigation is not being conducted?

I shall dwell on that point in a moment. When this report is tabled the Press will, after all, have the full details and can write about the whole matter to their heart’s content. Nor is there an impediment in the sense that if an hon. member discusses a matter in this House it cannot be published. Specific provision is also made to ensure that the publication of court proceedings will not be prohibited.

When we examine this Bill, it is very true that the Government is intent upon the establishment of a clean government for this country, but in this process we should not forget that a clean Press is just as important to this country. Two years ago, the Government introduced the legislation relating to newspapers. Negotiations were conducted with the Press Union and at the time it was decided not to proceed with the legislation. This is a very good demonstration of how well-disposed the Government is towards the Press and that they have no desire to gag the Press.

But we should always bear in mind that we are dealing with people. The Government, hon. members and Press reporters are only people. On the one hand the Advocate-General will be a person who can act in a responsible and controlled manner in the interests of the country in order to justify clean and pure government, but on the other hand we have an irresponsible Press which at times publishes reckless things it ought not to publish, and these, too, are but people who do this. Whether anyone is going to be hurt in this process, whether the State or other people are going to be hurt, does not seem to interest them. We should remember that we are living in very difficult times in which we are often engaged in very delicate negotiations and for that reason each of us has to count his words very carefully before publishing things in the Press in an irresponsible way. Newspapers have destroyed many people and bodies in the past. We all know this. We have so often experienced this here. It is significant that the only people defending the newspapers with regard to this Bill—and I shall quote a number of newspaper clippings in this regard in a moment—are the newspapers themselves, except for the official Opposition and the NRP that are, of course, lackeys of the newspapers in this case. Apart from that no one is defending the newspapers. [Interjections.]

Hon. members spoke of the public. The hon. member for Musgrave said that it was the public that was against this Bill. Surely this is untrue. Probably most of us received telegrams or letters or telephone calls from our voters in which they asked us please to proceed with this legislation and not to abandon it as we did two years ago. We have so often found in our constituencies that during meetings we are asked when we are going to do something about the Press. We have often had this request from our voters.

[Inaudible.]

I think hon. members opposite have just as often received requests from their voters for something to be done about the Press. This demonstrates once again that it is not the public who are opposed to this Bill, but, in fact, the newspapers. The newspapers are trying to defend themselves in this case. I think we should take care to guard against the newspapers trying to create an impregnable position for themselves in this country, because this would be a Frankenstein situation. We shall be sorry later if we do not look at this in good time. I think that the hon. the Minister elucidated this matter very well in his speech.

Our leaders must be defended and not subjected to merciless character assassination and sophisticated defamation by newspapers. [Interjections.] Unfortunately I cannot hear what the hon. member opposite is saying.

If we look at the Bill and at clause 4 in particular, we see that reference is made to a suspicion. I think that the word “suspicion” is a very important word in the Bill. Action by the Advocate-General rests solely on a person’s suspicion that an offence has been committed; consequently there is no certainty about this offence at this stage. I think that this is important per se and indicates why publication of this type of suspicion should not take place. This makes a case against publication, because irreparable damage can be done by overhasty publication. This is what clause 4(3) seeks to avoid. It merely wants to prevent overhasty publication, because publication will eventually take place. We are only opposed to overhasty publication.

One has to ask oneself how such a suspicion can arise. I think there are quite a few ways in which such a suspicion could arise. It could perhaps arise as a result of insufficient information, improper explanation of certain facts, an oversight, bona fide mistakes, wilful deception, the incorrect interpretation of rules and regulations or unreasonable delays. These can all give rise to suspicion. One now asks oneself: Must the newspapers be given a free rein to publish their suspicions, based on one or more of the factors to which I have just referred, and to spread about misrepresentations which will perhaps be much more difficult to rectify at a later stage? Consequently I think it is reasonable that the facts of the matter should first be ascertained before these matters can be written about. It is probably sometimes possible to obtain the permission of the Advocate-General at once, but I think that in other cases, this permission will be deferred until a later occasion.

I just want to refer to a few newspapers before time catches up with me. In last Sunday’s Sunday Times there was an extensive report on this subject. Most of the people quoted in it by the Sunday Times are overseas reporters. Surely this is a very clear demonstration as to who is defending the newspapers here. It is only they themselves who are defending them. They even called in the assistance of their overseas colleagues to support them in this matter. Virtually every overseas newspaper editor is quoted in this paper. Now they are speaking of “gagging”. However, as we have spelled it out so often here, surely there is no “gagging”. In most cases the Advocate-General’s permission will be granted. In many cases it will not even be necessary for him to have to grant his permission. When a report is tabled in Parliament, surely they can write the whole story without prejudicing or harming anybody.

We can go on to look at Rapport, which says that political parties are going to be clamped down on. I think that one of my hon. colleagues has already replied to this adequately by saying that there is no possibility that political parties will be clamped down on, because any of the hon. members opposite may speak on this matter during meetings without being subject to penalties laid down in the Bill.

If one looks at The Argus of 17 May, one sees that it mentions what the leaders of the Opposition said about the legislation and gives us a demonstration of the most extreme exaggeration by both the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the NRP. It is surprising that the hon. member for Durban Point could make a statement that the Bill could, be regarded “as a totalitarian measure which could only have a place in a fascist, communist or despotic system.” I think it is scandalous that the hon. member could make such a statement. He is in fact slighting our whole parliamentary system with that reckless statement Die Transvaler also condemns the Bill, but at least it admits that the Bill is not the same as the Bill of two years ago and that it is a much less strict measure. That is why I think that the irresponsible statement made by the hon. member for Durban Point is inappropriate, too.

The hon. members of the Opposition have said that all the newspapers condemn the Bill. That is true. I agree with that: All the newspapers do condemn the Bill. But there are two newspapers to which I want to refer. In the first place I should like to quote what The Citizen has to say about this matter, and this is very important, because what The Citizen writes in this article does in fact soften the Opposition’s remarks on the Bill. I quote—

That is a selective quotation. You are only quoting a certain section.

Order!

This is said in The Citizen, but what is said here is true. This newspaper actually condemned the Bill with its tongue in its cheek. What it says is very true, but The Citizen also goes further in this regard and says—

Then The Citizen continues with several other things in which it even condones the Bill. But it is not only The Citizen, because yesterday’s Oggendblad also says—

It is true that the newspapers are condemning the Bill, but there will also be other newspapers which also think, as The Citizen and Oggendblad wrote, that there could nevertheless be good points in such a Bill, or that the newspapers had overstepped the mark in the past with the powers they had.

The ability to score political points by injudicious and pell-mell publication of matters which could prejudice the Government or cast it in an unfavourable light throughout the world, must definitely be stopped. That is why it is a good thing that the Bill is being introduced and also why it is as well that the hon. the Minister said that as far as publication is concerned, the security of the State will be the primary motivation when the Advocate-General bans a certain publication. Where cases are investigated, too, the security of the State will be the primary consideration. We fully realize that some cases will not take on such serious proportions that they will be harmful to publish, and in that case permission will probably be granted.