Mr. Speaker, I emphasized yesterday afternoon that the extent to which the legislation under discussion would infringe on the freedom of the Press was negligible. If hon. members consider the amendments proposed by the hon. the Minister—they appear on today’s Order Paper— particularly the amendments to clause 4, they will come to realize that the extent of infringement is very small indeed.

Although it is not being done in this Bill, the time will arrive when the Government will also have to give consideration to a clean Press in this country. I think this will become imperative in future. As far as this Bill is concerned, however, the important question—a very important question—is whether the Press should undertake an investigation into alleged irregularities and then reports thereon one by one in their own good time and for their own gain. On the other hand, the question is whether we here in Parliament are still wearing the breeches in South Africa. This is a very serious question which we have to ask ourselves. Should an official of Parliament not rather inquire into alleged irregularities in the country? Surely such a person will investigate them thoroughly. If, in that case, the Press does not obtain permission to publish, it will obtain such permission as soon as that official’s report has been tabled.

The Advocate-General will still have to report to Parliament. That will be his responsibility. Now one asks oneself to whom the Press is accountable. It is accountable to no one; only to itself. It is not accountable to Parliament To operate through the Advocate-General to arrive at the truth, will be a rapid process. After all, that is what everyone in this country desires. Everyone wants to arrive at the truth. It is easy for the Press to apologize after it has published incorrect statements or after it has accused a person unnecessarily. Then it suits them to publish an apology. What they do not realize, however, is that such a person continues to carry a stigma. It is difficult for him to rid himself of that stigma. Because of that, he is a branded man for many years to come. This is something we ought to bear in mind.

My time has virtually expired. In conclusion, therefore, I just want to refer briefly to one or two statements which hon. members of the Opposition made yesterday. The hon. member for Durban Point said the Bill was “a slap in the face of the Auditor-General”. Subsequently he also said: “It is a slap in the face of the police.” Far from it. In my opinion the Bill supplements the Police and the Auditor-General very effectively, and I believe that they welcome it as the necessary investigation will be undertaken by the Advocate-General, whereupon they will be able to institute legal proceedings, if necessary.

As far as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, he said the Bill was introduced “without consultation with the Opposition”. Does he think for a single moment that we would consult with McHenry of the USA through them? After all, that is precisely what he would have done: He would have telephoned McHenry at once to ask him for his opinion of the Bill. Surely we cannot allow that.

So much drama was built up around the Bill by the newspapers over the past week, that one was surprised to see the public gallery absolutely deserted yesterday after the debate had been in progress for approximately 45 minutes or an hour. There was hardly anybody in the public gallery. All interest in this debate had disappeared by that time.

Yes, but you were the one who was speaking at the time.

In view of that, we feel that the Bill does not affect the freedom of the Press as those hon. members wanted to suggest. On the contrary. I think they will still be very glad in future for the fact that we introduced the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to participate in the debate directly after the hon. member for Potgietersrus. I should like to emphasize the fact which he mentioned, viz. that fundamental to the Bill at present under discussion is the question of whether Parliament will continue to govern this country, or whether we will in the future be governed by members of the Press, some of whom do not even know who their own owners are, and none of whom had been elected by the voters. Consequently they are not accountable to anyone. I should like to emphasize this statement of the hon. member with approval.

The hysterical outburst of the Press against the Bill—the hon. the Leader of the House referred to this yesterday during the course of his introductory speech—met with a clear response in this debate from hon. members of the official Opposition as well as hon. members of the NRP. But this response put me involuntarily in mind of the Latin saying parturiunt monies nascetur ridiculus mus which translated means—

Yes, it is a laughable little mouse which you have brought forth.

The hon. member of the Opposition vied with one another in using the strongest and most damning words of antipathy and condemnation. In this process they forfeited all claim to fairness, objectivity and realism. They stand revealed once again as a party which has such a consuming hatred for the NP and the Government, that it will stop at nothing if it thinks that it can get at the NP and the Government, even if the interests of South Africa also have to suffer in the process.

That the official Opposition is not bona fide in its criticism of and opposition to the Bill, is nowhere more apparent than in the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he opposed the introduction of the Bill. I quote (col. 6534)—

In spite of the fact that the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition, on his own admission, had not perused the Bill and was in addition unable to deduct from the short title or the long title of the Bill what the Bill entailed, he was nevertheless prepared to pronounce the most damning censure on the measure. I shall quote what he saw fit to say (col. 6536)—

It turned out to be completely true.

This is what the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition had to say about the Bill which, by his own admission, he had not yet seen and at a stage when he could not deduce from the short title or the long title of the Bill what it entailed. This is certainly the most blatant example of political cynicism and opportunism that I have ever encountered. It is hardly possible to conduct a meaningful debate with people who are blinded to such an extent by their prejudice and who are so ensnared in their liberalistic views. Add to that the instructions which they have been receiving during the past few weeks from the Press which supports them and no-one need be surprised that the official Opposition is acting as it has done. Then, too, there are the hon. members of the NRP, who in turn are vying with the official Opposition. Of course, they dare not be left behind.

The Bill under discussion is now being represented as an unpardonable onslaught on the existence of Press freedom in the Republic of South Africa. Let us consequently pause for a moment to consider the concept of “Press freedom” and establish what it entails so as to be able to judge whether the Bill indeed constitutes a threat to Press freedom in South Africa.

According to liberalistic views the freedom of the individual is a basic human right, a right which ought not in any way to be subjected to any form of restriction, and just as the individual has the right to know, and in that way to form his own opinions, the Press has the “right” to present news without any restriction. This “right” recognizes no bounds whatsoever. It embraces the whole of society and has no consideration for the privacy of the individual, the family or the group. Liberalism, which on the one hand advocates the rights, the freedom and the privacy of the individual, advocates on the other hand the right of the Press to meddle in the private affairs of the individual and the group. Consequently the exercising of the right to untrammelled presentation of the news, in fact constitutes a threat to the rights and freedom of individuals and groups.

According to the Dutch author De Volker in his book De Ethiek van de Pers, liberalism consequently concedes that the freedom of the Press may sometimes be abused, but then adds that—

But surely that is good advice.

It is liberalistic advice. If you wish to join that camp, you must say so. Then you must rise to your feet and declare that to be your intention.

That, again, is fascistic advice.

Another author, De Tocqueville, advocates complete impunity for the Press in the presentation of news for it would then prevent more harm than it would create.

Liberalism harbours an ingrowing mistrust of the authorities. This is seen as follows by De Volker—

This is the approach of the liberalist to the authorities. While the authorities, according to the liberalistic view, must guarantee the rights and the freedoms of the individual and the Press, the Press reserves to itself the right to control and even to undermine the authorities.

Where do you read that?

If the hon. member had been listening, he would have heard it when I read it out.

Let us see what another authority has to say about Press freedom. I am referring to the publication A Free and Responsible Press: A General Report on Mass Communication, by the Commission on Freedom of the Press. This is an investigation carried out by an authoritative group of experts in this sphere.

Do you believe in Press freedom?

I shall tell the hon. member now in what kind of Press freedom I believe. In fact, this is exactly what I am doing. I quote from page 6 of this work—

I take it that all of us agree with that. I shall quote further—

Do we still agree?

This is the crux of this Bill, as I shall indicate in a moment. [Interjections.] The man publishing the statement must at least be “trying for truth”. I shall quote further from this source—

The following is particularly important—

The Commission on Freedom of the Press goes on to state—

When new methods are found of invading the personal rights of people in a way which existing legislation cannot counteract and clamp down on, further legislative measures are consequently justified, according to this source. My argument is that this is in fact the situation at which the present Bill is aimed.

There is no question whatsoever of a threat to or invasion of Press freedom in the generally accepted sense of the word—in contrast to the liberalistic concept of Press freedom—in the Bill under discussion. The only effect which the Bill will have in this connection is that the person who makes allegations such as those referred to in the Bill, must indicate that he indeed intended to publish the truth—that he is actually trying for truth. That is what is required by this Bill. Is the official Opposition now saying that this is too much to ask?

The background to this measure and the object of the Government with it, viz. to establish a method and the necessary machinery to keep the promise of the hon. the Prime Minister of regular and honest national administration, has been repeatedly emphasized in this House and elsewhere. Firstly, I want to quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said here in this House on 16 March. I shall not quote it in full, since the hon. the Minister of Transport has already referred to it. The hon. the Prime Minister said, inter alia (Hansard, No. 6, col. 2695)—

Do you believe that?

Of course I believe it, unshakeably, because I am not one of those hon. members who are prepared to question the words of others, least of all of the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa, if I have no justification whatsoever for doing so. [Interjections.] During the First Reading debate on this Bill, the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications placed the Government’s object with the legislation beyond all doubt. Yesterday the hon. the Leader of the House, in his introductory speech, once again confirmed the bona fides of the Government. However, the hon. members of the Opposition pay no heed to these official statements. They are simply too obsessed with their own preconceived views. They do not believe anyone. However, I now wish to ask the hon. members of the Opposition: Where is it stated in the Bill, expressly or by implication, that the Press will in terms of this measure not be accorded the same treatment as any other person? The Bill refers to “any person”.

Consequently everyone is in trouble.

The hon. member says that consequently everyone is in trouble. In other words, the hon. member concedes that the Press is not being accorded different treatment to any other person.

Everyone is being restricted.

If hon. members then concede, as I believe they must concede, that the Bill does not seek to accord the Press different treatment to any other person, I want to ask them: On what ground do they expect the Press to be accorded different treatment to other persons and bodies? [Interjections.] If they do not expect the Press to be accorded different treatment to any other person, why are they kicking up this fuss about so-called invasion of the freedom of the Press?

A Van Rensburg can do better than that!

Has the Press become such a sacred cow to them that it should be allowed with impunity to denigrate persons and bodies by way of questioning, insinuation and word play without any supporting facts whatsoever?

This approach to the Bill is of course entirely in line with the attitude which hon. members of the official Opposition have adopted throughout in connection with the Information affair. Time and again, when they were challenged to testify before the Erasmus Commission, their defence was that they could not go and testify because they did not have the relevant facts at their disposal. The hon. member for Green Point stated this repeatedly by way of interjections. Meanwhile their lack of information did not prevent them from sowing suspicion to their heart’s content by way of questioning, insinuation and unjustified comment. On 8 December 1978 the hon. member for Pinelands admitted this unequivocally in reply to a question by the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister had referred to the reprehensible conduct of the hon. member for Pinelands by dragging the Smit murders into the Information matter. I quote (Hansard, 8 December 1978, col. 515)—

The hon. member for Pinelands then interrupted the hon. the Prime Minister by saying—

That was a blatant admission. While he had no shred of evidence whatsoever, he nevertheless asked questions and in that way created a specific impression. This is precisely what cannot be allowed to continue. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members are making too many interjections. The hon. member may proceed.

Now the hon. members of the Opposition want the Press to receive a blank cheque to speculate, wonder and question as much as they wish without a shred of evidence or proof, despite the frequently serious prejudicial consequences which that could also entail for the innocent parties concerned. Hon. members of the Opposition are now asking the absurd question why newspapers which publish untruths are not charged. [Interjections.]

Is the Bill necessary? That is what I want to know.

The hon. member’s question, i.e. whether the Bill is necessary, implies that he wants to know why newspapers which publish untruths are not charged. At least the Press is not as naïve as hon. members of the Opposition are.

What does the Afrikaans Press say?

The Press is careful enough to seldom, if ever, publish substantive allegations which can be proved to be false.

You have not replied to my question yet.

I am replying to the hon. member’s question. A far more subtle approach is adopted by making use of questions and innuendoes, and one cannot charge a newspaper for publishing questions and innuendoes. They do not make a substantive allegation which can be proved to be false.

I want to emphasize that a person who wishes to publish a report or allegation within the scope of the Bill is not expected to prove the truth or correctness of the allegation, whether beyond reasonable doubt or on a preponderance of evidence. All that is required from him is to disclose to the Advocate-General by way of an affidavit, or rather an affirmation: (a) the nature of his suspicions; (b) the grounds, in so far as they are known, on which the suspicion is based; and (c) all other relevant information known to him. He is not even expected to disclose the source of his information if the source is unknown to him.

Yesterday the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition alleged here that “this Bill is going to open the door to maladministration and to increase corruption.” I challenge the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition and all other hon. members of his party to substantiate this extreme allegation. Inherent in this allegation is the statement that corruption exists at present in the State administration. [Interjections.]

Why are you so worried then?

After all there can be no question of “increased corruption” if there is not “corruption” already.

There is.

Very well. The hon. members say there is.

There has been.

Do not run away now. The hon. member said there is. I challenge the hon. members to adduce proof of such existing corruption.

Who says there is not?

Order!

If the hon. member tells me that machinery already exists to deal with it, I challenge him to go to those organs with his allegations of corruption. If he finds that he cannot get satisfaction there, I challenge him to be the first to go to the Advocate-General with his proof of corruption in the State administration at the present moment.

If there is no corruption, why then introduce this legislation?

I conclude with the statement with which I began; The mountain will be in labour, the birth will be a mouse.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very fascinating debate, and I think the hon. member for Mossel Bay is part of the fascinating scene which has developed here, because what is quite remarkable is that the speeches of the last two speakers on the Government side, were almost entirely, with the exception of about a minute of the speech of the last speaker, not actually related to the Bill. They did not consider the Bill itself. The hon. member for Mossel Bay asked: How does this measure deal differently with newspapers and ordinary people? I do not know whether we are discussing the same Bill, but mine contains a definition of a newspaper and mine contains a clause which lays down certain prohibitions in respect of newspapers. I do not know whether the hon. member has the same Bill, but to suggest that the legislation has no bearing on the Press in South Africa is, to my mind, living in a dream world.

I never said that.

The hon. member then puts forward the argument of “trying for truth”. What is happening in South Africa is that we are getting a new definition of the truth. I was brought up—and interestingly enough, also the hon. member for Mossel Bay and the hon. member for Potgietersrus— with the truth being tested in an open court where the public could see it, where there was the right to be confronted with the charge and the evidence against one and where one had the right to cross-examine. That is how traditionally the truth is tested. But here the truth is to be tested by an Advocate-General at a hearing which is closed to the public, where one does not know the charges against one and where one is not allowed to cross-examine.

Where do you get that from?

From this Bill. Has the hon. the Prime Minister not read it either?

Read it out.

It is stated in the Bill that the Advocate-General is entitled to close the hearing to the public.

So is any court.

Furthermore, he does not allow cross-examination of witnesses on the other side.

So does any court. [Interjections.]

I am sorry, but the hon. the Prime Minister’s knowledge of defence is better than his knowledge of the law, of this Bill. I say it with great respect.

I want to say that this new definition of the truth is one of the dangers that exist for South Africa.

The other thing that is fascinating, is that the hon. member says that we use extravagant language. I want to say that what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, what the hon. member for Musgrave has said and what the hon. members on the NRP benches have said, is no more exaggerated than anything which has been said by the official organs of the NP and their Press. If anything, I think these hon. members have been modest in comparison with the language used in those newspapers concerning these measures. What I think has to be remembered is that despite the fact that we get stories such as “Party NP-LVs ook teen muilband”—and they whisper quietly in the passages of Parliament Building that they are also against this Bill, but also say: “Please do not tell the Prime Minister”—not one of them has shown courage today to stand up and tell this House how they feel. When the history of South Africa is written, it will be said that not one NP member of Parliament was prepared to stand up, not even for his own Press in South Africa. That is the truth. [Interjections.] Let me paint the scenario, a piece of Alice in Wonderland, a crazy tale, but with tragic implications. Let us take a look at the average citizen, John Citizen, of the 1980s who opens his newspaper or his Government Gazette and reads of rumours of corruption being investigated by the Advocate-General—because obviously he did not know about this rumour before and hears of it for the first time when he reads about it in the paper. The Advocate-General has to publish the fact that he has an affidavit which says that there is a rumour alleging that something or other is happening. And John Citizen is startled to hear about this and says to himself: There must be something in it; why else should I be told in the Government Gazette that there is a rumour that something or other is happening? He will ask himself: Why should the publication be prevented if there is nothing in it and why should a man with the status of the Advocate-General and the vast machinery that we are creating in this legislation, be brought into operation to investigate this matter? Little does John Citizen know that there are strange people who have suspicions of non-existent scandals. There is no shortage of people like this. Even today there are people who allege that there are rumours which exist, rumours which no politician or newspaper take up. Hon. members know that full well.

If one wants the machinery of the State to move today, one must lay a charge and allege facts. Under the provisions of this new law, however, the affirmation can be on hearsay, no facts need be within the deponents personal knowledge, and on lodging the hearsay affidavit the Advocate-General is obliged to act He is obliged to act on any affidavit, on any piece of scandal. There has to be an investigation and the report has to be tabled in Parliament. Imagine the rumour-mongers’ paradise which is being created by this piece of legislation. Let me give an example. [Interjections.] I see the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is laughing …

I am laughing at you.

If I may suggest it to the hon. the Minister; I think he should be laughing, or crying, for South Africa. In that hon. the Minister’s own constituency a man might get fed up with the Receiver of Revenue merely because he is cross with him. What does he do? He has a drink in the pub, tells everybody that the Receiver of Revenue is a So-and-so. His colleague might be able to arrange to put up an affidavit, and in terms of this Bill that poor official has to be dragged before the Advocate-General, there has to be a notice in the Government Gazette … [Interjections.] That is the truth, and I challenge hon. members to disprove it. All one needs to do, is to get a friend to make an affidavit. That official will then have to endure the whole procedure, and in the end the rumour will have to end up in Parliament, where it will have to be tabled as an official report. Then comes the new rumour: “How did it come about that there was an investigation at all? Surely the State would not spent all this money if there was smoke without fire? What is really going on?” The Government is therefore creating a new breed of informers, of scandal-mongers, and they are being given new weapons to disturb the society and to disrupt relations within the society, a society which has far more serious problems to deal with.

Let me give the hon. House an example of this: There might be hon. members in this House—it might even be the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, who is enjoying this debate so much—who might want to write their memoirs one day. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs might want to write about the Information scandal. But he would not be able to without submitting his book to the Advocate-General, and that will lead to a report being tabled in Parliament before he, as a member for Parliament, he will be able to publish his memoirs. This is so because by definition a book is a newspaper if it is published here. [Interjections.]

Let us take as an example maladministration in a State department. It is even the case if one wants to write about the collection of hospital fees and state that there is incorrect administration involved, not even dishonesty, just maladministration. One must not refer to it in a pamphlet during an election, because then one would go to gaol since one has committed an offence. That is what is happening. One cannot do it One has to submit one’s pamphlet to the Advocate-General, have it reported to Parliament or get his consent. One does not have to say that there is State money being misapplied. We are talking about maladministration, and the Oxford Dictionary says that is “faulty or improper management of affairs.” It can be inefficiency. It does not have to be misappropriation of money. The Afrikaans definition of “wanbestuur” en “wanbesteding” is similar. It is “verkeerde of slegte bestuur”. It does not involve dishonesty.

Nobody can now even report on these minor things. One cannot even deal with control board reports or any of these things. The amendments, which the hon. the Minister has given notice of, solve none of these problems. They solve nothing at all.

Let us talk about the report of the Erasmus Commission. After this Bill becomes law, nobody can even publish the contents of the report of the Erasmus Commission. One cannot even discuss it. One has to go to the Advocate-General first and get permission before doing so. That is the tragic farce being created by the creation of this super censor. [Interjections.] Why is all this happening? The hon. member for Mossel Bay talked about whether we were dishonest in South Africa and whether there were, in fact, all these scandals. I want to tell him that South Africa is not a dishonest country. The Public Service of South Africa is not dishonest. We have had an Information scandal. It has been dragged on as a result of Government paralysis and incompetence. It should have been brought to an end long ago. It could have been with our co-operation. All we asked for was the disclosure of the facts in a manner which would not damage the national security and action to recover the money and the assets. We asked for punishment of the wrongdoers and laws to prevent a recurrence of that situation. What did we get? We did not get laws to prevent a recurrence of the wrongs, but laws to prevent publication of the kind which flushed out this scandal and the creation of machinery which plays into the hands of cranks and rumour-mongers, a structure which creates the impression in the outside world that there are untold scandals, and untold rumours will circulate about such scandals. I think this is an injustice to the Public Service of South Africa.

Will the hon. the Prime Minister not understand that we believe that the Information scandal is unique and that dishonesty is the exception and not the rule in the public life of South Africa? When this is all over, is he going to get up and tell us that he expects further scandals like this in South Africa? I want to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister, in all seriousness, to lift this sledgehammer before it slams down, not on rumour-mongers and wrongdoers, but on a precious freedom and the country’s reputation. The hon. the Prime Minister has pledged himself to clean government. That should not be an issue between us in this House. However, clean government must not only exist, but it must be seen to exist. When this Bill is law, one will have a Government which will be surrounded by a swirling mist of suspicion and continual investigation. A seeming protection from publicity involving alleged wrongdoers is like the witch’s cauldron in MacBeth. It boils and bubbles and there will be toil and trouble for all of us.

The hon. the Prime Minister wants to stop rumour-mongering. That is what he said. However, does this Bill stop rumour mongering? It does not, not in any way. It creates machinery which encourages rumours, it sets up a unique machinery for giving credibility to rumours and for their processing at a high and impressive level. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question. Why not stick to the tried and trusted measures of protection against corruption? [Interjections.] There are strict rules which should be obeyed. There should be adequate orders and there should be a demonstration that firm action is being taken against wrongdoers. There should be—and let me stress this—a fear of public exposure. If the rules are not strict enough, let us tighten them up. If the Auditor-General’s staff should be enlarged, let it be enlarged, whether by way of lawyers or by way of auditors. Let us get stuck in and do it.

If the powers to question are inadequate, for example in the Select Committee, we can give additional powers to the Auditor-General and to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. If we want an ombudsman let us then have a real one within the true meaning of the word, an ombudsman whose function it will be to guarantee proper conduct of the administration and proper functioning of Government departments in order to ensure that there is no abuse of power. We should have an ombudsman who is directly responsible to Parliament. We have spoken, as have hon. members opposite, about traditional ombudsmen, about the special prosecutor in the USA after the Watergate affair. We cannot compare their offices with the office of the Advocate-General. In America the practice is quite different. It is in fact quite the opposite of what we are envisaging in terms of this legislation. There they have their inquiries in public so that the public can see that justice is done. In the USA there is also no prevention of publication at all.

There are two fundamental issues in this Bill. The first one is a mechanism for investigation. When it comes to a mechanism for investigation the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister will have our backing. The second issue, however, is the prohibition against publication. There no answer has been given at all. It is my contention that we do not need any prohibition against publication in order to give ourselves an adequate mechanism for investigation.

The hon. the Minister has accused the Press of hysterical outbursts. He was not the only one to do so. Other hon. members opposite did exactly the same. We have been told, by hon. members opposite, things like: “Wanneer doen die Regering dan iets aan die Pers? Die gewone man is in opstand teen die Pers.” That is what they say. Not one of them, as I have said, has spoken up for the Press. Mysterious noises have been made about the unknown powers behind the Press. The hon. the Minister gave the impression of being frightened and intimidated by the awesome powers wielded by these sheets of paper and by the pens of what to us seem in most cases, in fact in almost all cases, to be quite ordinary and normal people. [Interjections.] The mask has slipped repeatedly during this debate, however, and there is little doubt that the purpose of this Bill is not merely to stop rumours or to create machinery for the examination of allegations of corruption. It is also, as the hon. member for Potgietersrus said, to show the Press who is the boss. He used the words—

We have to show that we are the bosses and we are now going to show the Press that we are, in fact, the bosses. [Interjections.] That is what it is all about. We have to show them we are the bosses. [Interjections.] That is why I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that the Bill he has introduced contains elements of revenge. [Interjections.] The wrongdoers are not those who abused the public trust, who wasted the taxpayers’ moneys or acted carelessly in causing and permitting such abuse. The real culprits in the eyes of the NP are those who, slowly and relentlessly, exposed the evil and so created embarrassment for the ruling party in South Africa, the ruling party which, in one blow, lost both its crown prince and its James Bond, those who gave others sleepless nights about their political futures. [Interjections.] So they seek to exact vengeance, but in seeking to exact vengeance, one wonders whether they realize the potential harm they are doing to South Africa.

This Bill is a further dent in South Africa’s already damaged image in the Western world. There is suspicion created in the Republic about why it should be necessary to create such a vast machinery when it is said there is no corruption and when the Information affair was, in fact, an isolated incident. This is an erosion. It is an erosion of freedom, not only of the freedom of the Press, but an erosion of the freedom of the public. It is also an erosion of the freedom of the individual. Let us make no mistake about that. It is, in fact, a mortal blow to investigative journalism in South Africa, something which is a vital attribute of Western-style journalism and which is a safeguard against corruption and maladministration. With the passing of this Bill investigative journalism, as far as State matters are concerned, will be dead. The blow is not, however, only directed at the Press. It is also directed at books, political pamphlets and official reports. It is also directed at us here. I shall not be able to issue a pamphlet, during an election, alleging that there is inefficiency in government. I shall not be allowed to do so anymore. I shall have to go to the Advocate-General and get permission, or have a report tabled in Parliament, before I am able to do so. All of us, whether it be politicians, the general public or the Press, are hit by what I can only describe as a crazy measure that has been introduced here. When there is an abuse of power, when there is something wrong, it will no longer be possible to mobilize public opinion to deal with it because the ability to be informed by the printed word will have been taken away.

The role of parliamentarians, those of us sitting here, is also fundamentally affected. It will no longer be possible to have our speeches on maladministration reported. Whether what we say in Parliament can be reported is not very clear, but certainly what we say outside Parliament cannot be reported. We shall, however, be able to make speeches. I am allowed to address a meeting, whether of five people or 500 people, and I can say what I like, but it will not be possible for me to have that reported anymore. The role of the MP as the watchdog, to whom members of the public submit their complaints, will be minimized. The role of the Auditor-General and that of the Select Committee on Public Accounts will also be reduced. All this will happen as a result of this Bill.

We therefore have to ask ourselves what the real implications of this Bill are. It is clear that one of the fundamental implications is that it will never again be possible to have an exposure such as that in the case of the erstwhile Department of Information.

Complete nonsense.

That is the truth.

The opposite is true.

It is not, and the hon. the Minister knows it. He knows the position that existed before the November 1977 election when there were fears that there would be exposures before the election, exposures which would adversely affect the NP. The Government now wants to see to it that that can never happen again. What this Bill is doing is to encourage a society of rumour by word of mouth, a society of scandal-mongers who can set the machinery of State going without having any direct knowledge of any facts. At present one needs facts in order to lay a charge. In future one would only need to be aware of a rumour, a rumour one can even have started oneself. As we see it, with this Bill we are presenting South Africa with a society moving away from basic democratic rights, a society under pressure, which is yielding by surrendering one of the privileges which we are actually fighting Marxism to preserve. The very book the hon. member for Mossel Bay quoted from would have shown him, if he had read a little further, that when one surrenders one’s liberties in order to fight the enemy, one has already lost half the battle.

Have you read the book?

That is the tragedy of what is taking place here. Can one make the necessary changes and yet preserve the democratic processes? These are some of the things that we know are being talked about in NP circles. We are concerned, however, about the fact that there is a belief amongst hon. members in those benches that one is entitled to encroach on democratic principles because of the need to deal with other political situations in South Africa. If democratic principles are to be surrendered in South Africa, what then?

I therefore believe that we are entitled to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister, and through him to the hon. the Prime Minister, to abandon this Bill in South Africa’s interests. If the Government does not abandon it outright—and that is what we think should be done—at least refer it to a Select Committee, at least listen to the representations made to such a Select Committee, at least hear some further evidence, the arguments of members of the Bar and the Side Bar who are people of standing and repute, people of all political persuasions. It is no use the hon. the Minister saying he did not refuse to see them. The important thing is that he should see them, that he should hear them. We should all hear them. There are others in South Africa for whom this also applies. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister in all sincerity. I am not making the appeal for political reasons. I am making it in the interests of South Africa. In the interests of the country as a whole the hon. the Minister should drop this Bill. Let us not make fools of ourselves in the eyes of our own people and in the eyes of the outside world.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday and also today we have been having an interesting debate on the Bill before the House. I want to say at once that it is a very interesting Bill. I do not intend denying that certain rights which the Press had, are being affected. It is true that there are rights of the Press that are being affected. However, I want to add that where this is the case we are dealing with events in South Africa’s history which have caused this. I do not wish to reply categorically to the hon. member for Yeoville at this point. Let me say that I have no objection whatsoever to the Press practicing so-called investigative journalism. What really brought the Information scandal, as it is called, to light and really gave the situation momentum was, as hon. members know, the fact that there was a leakage, that a certain report which was compiled by the Auditor-General came into the hands of the Press.

What would the history of South Africa have been if that had not happened?

To me it is right that the Press has an investigative function to perform. I have nothing whatsoever against that However, I do not believe that that right which it has is being affected by this Bill.

Then you do not understand it.

I shall come back to that.

I want to refer to more positive things in the Bill. I do not believe that the whole situation of the Press is the most important matter as far as this Bill is concerned. We must see this Bill against the background of certain events which took place in South Africa. Not one of us would like to see such a thing in South Africa again; that is certain. Against that background the hon. the Prime Minister declared that he advocated and was in favour of a clean administration. This Bill is part of the process which the hon. the Prime Minister set in operation to ensure a clean administration. On 16 March, when we conducted a debate on a private motion introduced by the hon. member for Parktown, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that he would welcome the appointment of such a person as an Advocate-General.

If he were an ombudsman.

Against the background of the events which have occurred, the Government has already accepted recommendations made by the Erasmus Commission. One of those recommendations was that the powers of the Auditor-General should be extended and that he should also audit secret funds. This is not depriving the Auditor-General of powers. This is adding to the powers of the Auditor-General. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the other hon. Opposition members from both parties tried today and last night to make us believe that we were undermining the position of the Auditor-General. However, there is a specific provision in the Bill, viz. clause 12, which states that the Auditor-General will continue with his activities as if this legislation did not exist. In other words, the Auditor-General can exercise all his powers without any difficulties. This includes the power to report to Parliament. If this is so there is surely no question of the powers of the Select Committee on Public Accounts being curtailed. There is no question of this whatsoever. The Auditor-General can continue with his work in the normal way. Today there is greater interest than ever before in the work of the Auditor-General.

I want to refer to one of the exciting things that is coming to the fore as a result of the legislation. I refer to the fact that the legislation provides that a Select Committee of the House can meet in the recess as well. Hon. members will understand this when I state that the Select Committee on Public Accounts decided unanimously yesterday to request the committee on Standing Rules and Orders to consider granting the Select Committee on Public Accounts the power to sit during the recess as well. That decision was taken for the simple reason that we have all become aware of the increasing volume of work that has become necessary in order to ensure sound administration.

I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that if necessary, the number of officials under the Auditor-General should be increased because we are all aware of the increasing volume of work and the concomitant increasing possibility of malpractices occurring. Surely there is no doubt about this.

I regard the appointment of the Advocate-General as an additional aid to the Auditor-General because the Advocate-General will possess certain powers which cannot in the normal course be linked with the post of the Auditor-General. The Advocate-General will, inter alia, have the power to issue subpoenas, and surely such a power could not be linked to the post of the Auditor-General.

Let us consider the true essence of the Bill, the real function of the Advocate-General. As far as I am concerned it amounts to the following: Someone suspects that there is maladministration, malpractices, corruption and so on. I want to point out at once that I personally would like us to refer only to “corruption” and be done with it.

Will the Bill be amended accordingly?

Someone has a suspicion, and now we come to the total function of the Advocate-General, because he has to determine whether the suspicion in the mind of such a person is well-founded. That is his function. What would be the best course of action after it has been determined that the suspicion is well-founded? It would be best if the machinery could then be set in motion without delay so that the matter in question could be nipped in the bud; not covered up. Later I shall indicate that things will be uncovered more than ever before by means of the Bill. The Advocate-General will determine whether there is any substance in the suspicion, and the moment it is found that there is substance in it, specific machinery is set in motion.

If this is so, we must say to each other that this is surely the best method of going about it Let us take it, for the sake of argument, that the post of Advocate-General already existed at the time of the Information debate so that the suspicions of even the hon. member for Yeoville could be tested by the Advocate-General.

Then Connie would be Prime Minister today.

If we could have had those suspicions tested by an Advocate-General, Connie Mulder would not even have been a candidate in the election of a Prime Minister at that time. What we have here is a method whereby the machinery can be set in operation more rapidly. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Mossel Bay and confirm that we are affecting rights. It is certainly the case that we are affecting existing rights.

Democratic rights.

At the same time I want to point out that everyone’s rights are being affected and not only the rights of the Press. If, then, we all have to make sacrifices for the sake of a good cause then we must all do so. That good cause is the good name of South Africa.

I should like to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Durban Point that their misgivings about the inroads this Bill makes on the rights and privileges of members of Parliament are imaginary. The hon. member for Yeoville at least did better today in this regard because he was far more careful. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and I do not want to waste my time by referring to his speech at too great length—said that an hon. member would not even be able to criticize the Government in Parliament as a result of malpractices.

Oh no!

That is what he said.

[Inaudible.]

That former member of the judiciary must go and read his leader’s speech. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, inter alia, the following (Hansard, 22/5/79)—

Therefore the hon. the Leader of the Opposition intimated that the right of hon. members in this House to test the Minister when his Vote was discussed would no longer exist. Surely that is not the case.

No.

Surely we have arrangements with regard to how these matters are handled. Indeed, the decision with regard to this whole matter rests with the Speaker.

May it be reported in the Press?

Mr. Speaker, you are in control of Parliament and you decide on everything that is said here. I do not want to waste hon. member’s time but just wish to refer to sections 29 and 30 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, Act No. 91 of 1963. The fact is that in this House …

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

Mr. Speaker, I have very little time. I shall discuss the matter privately with the hon. member at a later stage. [Interjections.] No inroads are being made on the right of an hon. member to stand up in this House and accuse the hon. the Minister of Justice, for example, of maladministration. The reporters on the Press gallery may report it.

[Inaudible.]

Of course it can be reported. The people who have access to the Press gallery have that access under supervision of Mr. Speaker. They can even report on a matter which is mentioned in this House in the first instance. The reporters in the Press gallery will be able to report on that. When hon. members hold their report-back meetings in their constituencies …

[Inaudible.]

Order! If the hon. member for Johannesburg North really feels so strongly about the matter then he can raise it later in the course of his speech.

Hon. members can go back to their constituencies and report to their voters. There is no problem in that regard. However, why did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition create the impression in the course of his speech that the nature of Parliament would be affected? He said that the rights and privileges of members of Parliament were being affected by this legislation. That is not correct.

I want to raise another matter which has caused feelings to run high. One of the most exciting aspects of this Bill is the fact that a Select Committee can be appointed to investigate certain decisions of the Advocate-General and then to report to Parliament. The opportunity which hon. members have often requested in the past is now being created for them. They can take part in a Select Committee comprising representatives of all the parties in this House in which even the country’s profoundest secrets are discussed.

Surely this is something fantastic that the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet are bringing to this House. For the first time in South Africa’s history, evidence is being furnished of the openness with which this side of the House approaches this matter. As far as I am concerned, I welcome it. I believe that if that kind of secret matter is laid on the Table in terms of section 206 of the Standing Rules and Orders, we should be able to debate it here as a committee in a meaningful way. Surely this is a way in which hon. members can obtain that information they are constantly seeking. The hon. member for Durban Point, the leader of the NRP, said yesterday that from the moment the Advocate-General began to investigate the matter, we were no longer permitted to discuss it.

I said that one could not write about it from the outset.

From the outset? The hon. member referred to section 129 of the Standing Rules and Orders.

I quoted it myself. Were you fast asleep?

The hon. member must not cause me to waste time by repeating his speech for him. He referred to section 129. It reads in Afrikaans—

The English version is perhaps a little misleading. The hon. member did not look so carefully at the Afrikaans version. In English, Standing Order No. 129 reads—

One thing we must understand very clearly and that is that the Advocate-General is not a court. The Advocate-General is not a court. There is no such thing that an hon. member in this House cannot speak about a matter which the Advocate-General is in the process of investigating.

Can the Press publish it?

But we speak about it. Surely there is no problem in that regard. I just want to say that it is a pity that hon. members have advanced and given publicity to this kind of argument.

I wish to continue with the discussion of this piece of legislation. I have said that to me there are three exciting things about this Bill. In the first place it is an additional aid enabling Parliament to supervise in cooperation with the Auditor-General in order to curb maladministration, corruption and that kind of thing. The Bill does not provide that the Advocate-General must report to the Cabinet, a Minister or the Prime Minister. The Advocate-General must report to this House in the greatest openness ever encountered in South Africa’s history.

Because we have provided that he will be able to report with the greatest degree of openness ever, it is undoubtedly just as well, since the Advocate-General has to report openly to Parliament, that those who lay matters before the Advocate-General should do so in a particular way. In this way we can prevent every Tom, Dick and Harry from submitting matters of no merit—the hon. member for Yeoville referred to the example of the Receiver of Revenue—to the Advocate-General. We must see to it that reports are submitted to the Advocate-General in a responsible way. The Advocate-General will investigate that suspicion and then the suspicion will either be confirmed or rejected. In this way we can create an orderly situation.

It is a pity that in our search for this orderliness we should have had to tread on the toes of certain people, but fortunately it is true that we as members of this Parliament reveal so many more things for those people to write about in the future. Far more is being revealed than has ever been revealed before. Since this is so, why are we not ad idem in our endeavour to combat corruption or any suggestion of corruption, and why do we not give this legislation and the Advocate-General a chance to function? Let us give this procedure a chance to function and let us see what the result is. I am convinced that what this side of the House is seeking is not the kind of thing which those hon. members are concerned about.

You do not sound very convincing.

Those hon. members will find that their concern is groundless. Let us just look at this once again, against the background of the Information situation and consider what this side of the House has done in an effort to solve the problem, after what Parliament itself has done by way of its Select Committee on Public Accounts. It is to South Africa’s credit that we did in fact do so in that way. It is also to the credit of this House that we did so. Mr. Speaker, you have always had control of the reports coming to this House. That is your prerogative. No one can take that away from you. They are the most open reports possible.

I therefore think that it is right that we should give this legislation a chance, that we should give the man appointed a chance and thereby ensure that the Advocate-General, together with the Auditor-General, as instruments of this Parliament, prevent a recurrence of the problems we had last year.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke will forgive me if I do not follow him in his rather feeble defence of that which is indefensible. His plaintive wail, his plaintive cry, was “give it a chance”. This Government has had 30 years of chances and it is failing dismally—all the more, all the way. I do not want to use any extravagant adjectives in describing the Bill. I think they have been exhausted. So what I do want to do is to transpose myself into the position of the man in the street, John Citizen. First of all the man in the street is puzzled and confused. I believe he wants answers: clear answers, honest answers and positive answers.

Do not treat the man in the street like a fool.

If that hon. idiot would only keep quiet, he would not make such a monkey of himself. I believe that the man in the street wants to know why it is necessary to introduce a Bill that will do …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to refer to another hon. member as an idiot?

I said: “An hon. idiot,” Mr. Speaker.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Idiot.

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that the man in the street wants to know why it is necessary to introduce a Bill that will do our country immeasurable harm. I believe he also wants to know the reason for bringing in a measure that will further estrange us from the rest of the world, because this measure is manna from heaven in the hands of our enemies. The man in the street feels suspicious of this measure. He also feels that this measure will sow the seeds of further suspicion amongst South Africans of all races, colours and creeds. He feels that this measure will destroy our credibility, as indeed it will, in South Africa as a country of free thought and speech. He is, and justifiably so, of the opinion that overseas investors will be affected, will pause and will think again before committing themselves either to further investment or to new investment in our country. This is going to have an adverse effect on our internal growth and on our economy.

The man in the street says that the insistence of the Government on introducing this Bill must inevitably have a detrimental effect on our future relations with all States of the Free World. He cannot understand the need for this Bill and asks himself whether our legal system is inefficient, whether our Police Force is inefficient and suggests that this Bill is a slur on the entire Public Service.

What is this Bill doing? It is appointing a full-time man to investigate our Public Service. John Citizen is bewildered by the fact that the Bill is being put through Parliament in the face of opposition from the entire Press, both those that support and oppose the Government, both the English media and the Afrikaans media. He asks finally: Why is this Government pressing the self-destruct button just when things are starting to look good for us in South Africa?

Those are comments that I personally have received from “die mense daarbuite”. Those are not comments from an hysterical Press. They are …

Unfounded and emotional. [Interjections.]

They are not unfounded. They are notes that I have carefully made of comments that have been made by people outside, people with whom I have talked since this Bill was tabled. In fact, it is a cross-section of what Mr. South Africa and Mrs. South Africa are thinking.

You are talking nonsense.

Much has been said about hysterical outbursts in the Press, and the hon. the Prime Minister is quoted in The Star of 18 May this year as saying that he would not be “pushed around by a jingo Press which tried to build up circulation through screaming headlines”. He went on to say that “hysterical screaming” about this legislation would not change his attitude one “jot or a tittle”. I suggest that that is the voice of hysteria. I further suggest that this Bill is introduced on a note of hysteria. I would go even further by saying that the hon. the Prime Minister is the last one to talk about hysteria in others. He is the last person to use that terminology, because his outbursts have not gone unnoticed. The early hours of the morning of 8 December of last year will live in my memory for ever, because if ever I heard hysteria, I heard it then. It was that note of hysteria that has led us to this unhappy situation of having to face this Bill today.

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

I abide by your ruling, Sir. This Bill provides for the appointment of a full-time person to investigate, in the first place, the misapplication of State Funds, in the second place the maladministration of such funds and in the third place whether any person is enriched directly or indirectly in an unlawful or improper manner at the expense of the State. It goes on to provide for one or more assistants. It also provides for a full-time staff. These are full-time appointments, not merely ad hoc appointments to investigate the odd complaint. They are full-time appointments. What does this mean? What does it imply? In the mind of any right-thinking person it implies that there will be sufficient work to keep this body of people employed on a full-time basis. In my view this is a self-indictment of the Government and of its actions. It is therefore not illogical to ask how much corruption there is in the administration of State funds. We should remember that in its present form the Bill deals only with State money and not with inefficiency, laziness or anything else. Whatever anyone else says, this is an indictment of the Auditor-General and of all public servants, because we can only draw the inference that the Auditor-General has not done his job properly or that State money is being misapplied and that maladministration is taking place, resulting in certain persons being improperly enriched. We can further draw the inference that the hon. the Prime Minister is aware of all this, because what other reasons are there for this Bill? Why else must we have a full-time Advocate-General or full-time assistants and a full-time staff?

Your conclusions are quite ridiculous. They do not need any comment.

If they do not need any comment, they must be hitting home. [Interjections.] Why should we then have this Bill? People are going to think that this Bill is nothing more than a continuous cover-up exercise. That is all it is. [Interjections.] I further want to say that this Bill has a terrible effect on the Press of this country. [Interjections.] Let us examine what the issue would be today had this Bill been in effect years ago. Would hon. members in this House or the country have known about the Information scandal, Agliotti’s affairs, Bell, Faros and Haak? The bit is endless. [Interjections.] Would we have known about that? [Interjections.] All those issues were exposed, not because of the actions of hon. members on that side of the House, but because of sound investigative journalism. [Interjections.] As this Bill stands, I submit further— irrespective of what the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke says—it is a gag on the Press, and it includes a prohibition on the reporting of parliamentary debates.

You are talking nonsense.

That is in the hon. member’s opinion. However, he himself has obviously not read the Bill properly. [Interjections.] It impinges on the right of voters to be informed of what happens in Parliament, and I wonder if it is therefore not an impingement on the rights of hon. members, because although they cannot be precluded from debating matters they want to debate in the House, in terms of this Bill the publication of such matters may be gagged.

What about the parliamentarian’s right to publish pamphlets, placards, posters, handbills or even newsletters? [Interjections.] Unfortunately, my time is limited in this debate. I should have liked to say a lot more. However, in conclusion I just want to add that this Bill does not further the hon. the Prime Minister’s promise of clean administration. This Bill lays that to rest for ever and a day.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

For the benefit of the hon. member for Von Brandis I want to say that the best way to treat and heal a wound is to clean it regularly and thoroughly, to dress it and bandage it carefully after one has cleaned it. [Interjections.] The quickest way to promote a festering sore that can cause one pain, misery and the loss of one’s limbs, or even the loss of one’s life, is to cover up that wound without attempting to cleanse it in any shape, fashion or form. It grieves me to say that if this Bill finds its way onto our Statute Book …

It will.

It will, yes, and if it does, this country of ours is in danger of becoming a diseased body, covered with festering and suppurating sores.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the hon. member for Umhlanga. It was an interesting speech. I should like to reply to it, but I do not find anything substantial enough to come to grips with, except that I want to congratulate him on the kind of sentences he used, the personation of his speech. It really contained a very good description of the function and aim of the Bill which is before us, i.e. to ensure that our wounds are cleansed, bandaged and healed. [Interjections.] However, I now want to take further his comparison with the wounds that have to be healed. If one wants to make sure that a would will not heal, but will turn septic, one allows people with dirty, inky fingers to poke around in open wounds before the wounds are bandaged and healed. [Interjections.]

I think everyone agrees that the debate has been very interesting up to now, not so much because of the contents of the speeches made by the hon. members of the Opposition, nor because of the quality of their contributions to this debate, but because of the method they have followed, the admissions they have made and the things they have omitted to do. They are on the wrong track with the Bill. Carried away by some newspapers, they regard the Bill only and mistakenly as an attempt to muzzle the Press. They quite fail to see that the restriction imposed by the Bill on the freedom of the Press to publish complaints and suspicions is very limited indeed. The Advocate-General will be obliged under very wide circumstances to grant permission for the publication of such suspicions. Not one of the hon. members on that side of the House has noticed this. They are obsessed with the limited restriction imposed upon the desire of the Press to publish gossip and mere suspicions as if they were facts. What is very interesting is that in this, they are less perspicacious than the public at large. They think they enjoy support for their standpoint and their interpretation of the Bill as they are conveying it to us. However, the fact is that they do not. After all, they have tested it for themselves.

Years ago, when I was still in the Opposition, we also held protest meetings. I can remember protest meetings on the steps of the Johannesburg city hall…

Yes, that is right.

Yes, the hon. member for Stilfontein will also remember that. I remember two meetings at which I spoke and at which 20 000 people turned up to listen to the protest of the Opposition. The present hon. official Opposition, however, holds a protest meeting—which receives the greatest publicity in the newspapers and is advertised for days in advance—which is addressed, not by an unknown backbencher, as we were in those days, but by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. And he does not draw 20 000 people; he does not draw 1 000 people; he does not draw 100 people; he does not even draw as many people as voted for him in Swellendam where the outcome was so disastrous for him. He draws only 70 people. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I ask what importance one should attach to people who wax so eloquent here, who are so bitterly indignant, who speak on behalf of the people, or so they say, when they cannot even get 100 people to attend a mighty protest meeting, a meeting which received great advance publicity and which was to be addressed by the best speakers they have. It is pathetic. It reveals their disregard of the facts and their lack of judgment concerning the trends in South African politics.

On top of that, nature favoured them by giving them a fine day. [Interjections.]

I think all hon. members on the Government side who have already participated in the debate have emphasized what the true aims of this Bill are. I do not wish to enlarge on these. I only want to remind the House of the fact that the real purpose of this Bill is to create easily accessible and convenient machinery for people who suspect that malpractices involving State money are taking place. For those people it is made easy to bring their suspicions to the attention of Parliament, so that Parliament may be able to handle the matter. That is all it entails. It is remarkable, in reading the Bill, to see how convenient the machinery really is. Someone can make an affidavit or an affirmed declaration to the effect that he suspects that something is wrong with the way State funds are being spent. He need not adduce any proof at that stage. Nor need he declare that he has a convincing case. He need only have a suspicion. He may have attended a meeting at which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made certain statements. Then he has merely to say that having listened to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, he now suspects that there is something wrong and that he wants the Advocate-General to investigate the matter. This is a light onus which is being placed upon these people, an onus which anyone can discharge.

This measure gives effect to the hon. the Prime Minister’s solemn undertaking that he wants clean administration in South Africa. I have known the hon. the Prime Minister as a politician since 1938. I have been sitting with him in Parliament since 1948. I think the hon. member for Durban Point has been sitting opposite the hon. the Prime Minister in Parliament for five years less than I. None of us who knows him, as Opposition member or as Government member, could point a finger at the hon. the Prime Minister for one moment as far as his personal integrity is concerned. In the light of his background and his record, no hon. member of the Opposition or of the Government can doubt for one moment that he is sincere in telling us that he wants clean administration. When he says that, he is in earnest and he will do it, to the best of his ability and to the best of the Government’s ability. [Interjections.] That is what is now being done by means of this Bill. That is the true aim, the true principle of this Bill.

If hon. members of the Opposition had also desired clean administration and if they had perceived the merit of the greater part of the Bill, they would not have moved an amendment asking for the Bill to be rejected completely. They would then have moved a reasoned amendment, an amendment proposing the removal from the Bill of things they do not care for. However, they would not have been opposed to the essence of the Bill, namely easier inquiry, by an independent expert, into alleged maladministration in South Africa. However, they are so obsessed with their own newspapers, they are so much under the control of those newspapers, that they cannot see that what they are doing is to throw out the baby with the bath water, even from their own point of view.

I just want to point out again the duties of the Advocate-General. The duty is very clearly imposed upon him to make inquiries when he is told of a suspicion that Government money is being misapplied. The result is that that allegation or suspicion may not be published then. However, the Bill sets out very clearly what the procedure is. If State security is not involved, the Advocate-General has to make a submission to Parliament and then it can be published.

In full.

In full. However, if the security of the State is involved, publication cannot take place in terms of the Bill as it reads at the moment. Then it is prohibited. That is how limited it is. I now want to ask the hon. members of the Opposition a question. Is anyone of them prepared to rise and say that he wants irresponsible reports affecting the security of the State, the security of South Africa, to be published, in these days to be discussed in the streets, causing the security of the State to be endangered? [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Transport, who is piloting this Bill through Parliament, has assured us that he will move an amendment in the Committee Stage to the effect that the Advocate-General has to give his permission for publication provided that he believes that the security of the State will not be affected and is convinced that publication will not hinder his inquiry. This is comparable with the sub judice rule in our courts, a rule which we all know and which is a part of our legal system, our administration of justice, our legal thinking. It is nothing strange. But because the official Opposition is so dependent on gossip, they raise a hue and cry here against this limited and necessary definition of the right of publication of the newspapers.

They are trying to cast suspicion on the Advocate-General in advance. Who will the Advocate-General be? He will be a qualified advocate, someone who has practised in the Supreme Court. He will have to have 10 years’ experience of the administration of justice, and once he has been appointed, he will enjoy security of tenure. It will not be possible to dismiss him without the permission of both Houses of Parliament. Therefore he will have virtually the same security as a judge of the Supreme Court. It will be an independent office. However, we have had the insinuation time and again in the speeches of the Opposition today that he will not be impartial. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition began the nonsense that “it is all part of a cover-up”. He ought to be ashamed of himself. The Advocate-General will be an official of Parliament. The Bill provides that his salary and the costs he incurs in the performance of his duties will be paid by Parliament He is an official of Parliament. We have a comparable official in the Auditor-General, an equally independent office. Which of those hon. members would rise today and say that an Auditor-General of South Africa, from 1910 up to the present day, has ever abused his office with political ulterior motives or by spreading falsehoods? In the case of the Advocate-General, who is even more carefully protected against influencing, they insinuate, however, that he will be dishonourable, that he will be false and that he will be guilty of deceit in the interests of the political standpoint of some or other party. I think they ought to be ashamed of themselves. I think people who say such things betray to the world how very bad their case it. When one has to sink so deep into the mud to find an argument, one is really desperate. We on this side of the House are confident that the man who is appointed will be selected on the basis of his good qualities. We have enough confidence in the experienced lawyers of South Africa to believe that this office will be in good hands and that we shall be able to rely on the integrity of its incumbent.

They say that the Bill and the appointment of an Advocate-General form part of a cover-up process. How can they say such a thing? None of them has hitherto been able to make out a reasoned case to prove that the Government has done anything at all to conceal or cover up the scandal, as they call it, of the former Department of Information. I have already pointed out on a previous occasion that the Government has gone out of its way to create opportunities and instruments for making the whole thing public and bringing it all into the light of day.

You were forced by the Press to do so.

I am thinking, for example, of the instruction which the Auditor-General received at the beginning, even before the Press knew anything, to do everything in his power to expose this whole matter. I am thinking of the several committees of inquiry which were appointed and which eventually culminated in the Pretorius Committee, which is still doing good work today. The reports of the Pretorius Committee are made available to hon. members of the Opposition, and they have not criticized the work of the committee in any way. I am thinking, too, of the appointment of the Erasmus Commission.

I should like to say something about the Erasmus Commission. It is a judicial commission under the chairmanship of one of the senior judges of South Africa, assisted by the extremely capable Attorney-General of the Cape Province and the chief law adviser of the State. It is hard to think of people in whom one could have more confidence than in the members of this commission. They are the kind of people whom the Opposition always wanted to do the work when there was trouble in the past. I was a member of the Schlebusch Commission and I was denigrated, along with the other commissioners, because we were a Parliamentary commission while it should have been a judicial commission. At that time, the Opposition showed that they had the deepest, the most profound faith in a judicial commission, but here we have a judicial commission assisted by two assessors of the highest quality, and what do we find? They are not trusted. They are not taken into the confidence of the people who know the rumours. They are disregarded and undervalued. What is left now of the pious talk of the Opposition in the past? After all, they said that they pinned their faith on the judges when it came to inquiries of this nature.

However, the Government went even further. In December last year it went to the trouble, in spite of great expense, of convening a special session of Parliament. For what purpose? For the purpose of giving the Opposition an opportunity at an early stage, even though it was during a holiday month, to lay their complaints and their suspicions before Parliament and before the people of South Africa.

But they call it a cover-up.

Precisely, but that was probably the best thing the Government ever did, for since 8 December, the campaign in the Press and the campaign of the Opposition have increasingly lost their effectiveness, and finally they have succeeded in only one thing: Boring the people to tears. The truth was revealed during the special session. Their campaign was placed in perspective there, in the only place where this could be done effectively: The sovereign, free Parliament of South Africa.

Now the Government proposes the appointment of an Advocate-General, another step intended, not to cover up, but to expose and to make sure that if there are suspicions which are well-founded, they will be investigated, with reverberations right into Parliament However, suspicion is cast on the appointment of an Advocate-General, and the whole campaign of the Opposition is intended to prevent the appointment of such a person; no such office is to be created. They prefer the rumours to continue.

I yield to none in respect for the freedom of the Press in South Africa. However, the Freedom of the Press is merely an aspect of the Freedom of the citizens of the State and not a freedom which exists separately from the freedom of the ordinary citizen of South Africa. Suppose an ordinary citizen of South Africa, anyone, went from house to house for six months with the offer that in return for 12 cents, he would tell such slanderous stories as had never been told before. What would we think of such a citizen? What would become of him? However, this is what certain newspapers have been doing for six months. I have here a whole series of reports of the Press Council in which newspapers have been found guilty of publishing blatant untruths.

In respect of one newspaper, the Rand Daily Mail, the Press Council said that it should not only be censured and forced to publish the truth, but should also be fined. But the Press believes that as far as the problems of the Department of Information are concerned, they are the only people who have a monopoly of the truth. See what they publish. I have long lists which I could quote, but I shall give only two examples, examples of allegations which had not been verified. On 28 February this year, it was said that Rhoodie was negotiating with the Government. The hon. the Prime Minister himself denied this. It was a lie. However, this is the kind of thing they have published time and again. They publish things which are irresponsible, against the interests of South Africa and probably untrue. On 29 February, for example, they alleged that the Department of Information had bribed major international banks with gold and had also bribed political leaders of friendly States. They published this without any confirmation, without testing it and without making any attempt, in terms of their own code, to ascertain the truth of the statement or to consult other interested parties. This is what we had to contend with. We cannot get away from that.

We have not only had irresponsible and uncontrolled publication. We have had trial by the Press. It is one of the most abominable abuses of democratic rights one could have when citizens are tried by the Press. The hon. member for Yeoville, who is not in the House at the moment, waxed eloquent about the necessity for the truth to be tested in a court so that file court may assess the behaviour of the witnesses, so that there may be cross-examination and so that publicity may be given to the proceedings. I want to ask: What statement by Rhoodie, what statement from any other sources of information of the Press, was subjected to that test of truth while citizens of South Africa were publicly tried by certain newspapers in South Africa? All the statements were ex parte. Their chief witness was Dr. Rhoodie, who is in Europe and cannot be called to account for his statements. However, statements by him were used, for example, to find the hon. the Minister of Finance of South Africa guilty of mendacity, of making untrue statements and of unprincipledness. Are these the things they are pleading for? Are these the standards they want to be upheld in South Africa? One wonders how many thousands of rands were spent by certain newspapers in running after Rhoodie in Europe and South America to get hold of his stories and to publish them ex parte without verifying them, a procedure which is essential, as the hon. member for Yeoville said, before anyone can be considered guilty. However, there was no sign of that in this case. This was a one-sided trial and a one-sided conviction.

Sir, I have here a cutting from the Cape Times. The heading of the report is “Rhoodie speaks”. One of the major issues remaining between the Opposition and the Government is whether there was a committee of the Cabinet to control Information affairs. We say there was no such committee. However, certain people maintain the contrary, going against the people who know. Under the heading “Rhoodie speaks” one reads: “Horwood was on Cabinet Committee.” It is not qualified. It is a statement of fact, a conviction by the Press based on ex parte, untested evidence.

But it was Rhoodie who said so.

That is what we object to. I am speaking now of facts, of the truth.

Who appointed Rhoodie? [Interjections.]

Furthermore, I want to refer again to the injustice done to the judicial commission, the Erasmus Commission. Time and again members of the Press were invited, requested by the hon. the Prime Minister himself, to appear before the Erasmus Commission with their evidence so that the commission could examine it to arrive at the truth, but no ways! They did not do it. They prefer to spread rumours. They prefer untested statements. They prefer to dishonour South Africa and to pollute the public life of South Africa in this way.

Let me remind hon. members again of what is going on. The Opposition is on the wrong track in this matter. They do not want to accept that we are creating machinery to ensure that investigative journalism does not endanger the security of the State or violate the truth. They do not want to accept that apart from this, they will be able to publish what they like. They do not want to accept that the Government has done everything in its power to discover and ferret out the truth. While a judicial commission was sitting, they constantly abused their freedom, thereby showing contempt of the judicial commission investigating the case. Now the Government has introduced this justified measure, which every hon. member on this side of the House firmly believes to be not only justified, but essential for the security of South Africa. It is a measure to expose malpractices with State money. It is a measure to prevent abuse—and only abuse—of the freedom of the Press. It is a measure to protect South Africa’s security in a world which has become extremely dangerous for South Africa. It is a measure intended to restore the authority of Parliament, because the Executive of a country— the Cabinet—works with State money and is responsible to this Parliament. What more could one ask than a measure in terms of which an Advocate-General is appointed as an official of Parliament to report to the Speaker or the Leader of the House, an official whose findings, as far as the restriction of publication is concerned, are subject to investigation and, if necessary, rejection by a Select Committee of Parliament, the committee on which the Opposition will also serve to perform its function as a watch-dog of public opinion? Who among those who really have file interests of South Africa at heart, who want to promote the security of the South African State, who want to put a stop to the abuse of freedom—and it is an ugly thing to abuse privileges—who want to ensure clean administration in South Africa and to uphold the authority of Parliament, will vote against it? I am proud and grateful today to have the privilege of voting in favour of this measure, which will be of such great benefit to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister told us about newspapers which published untruths and were then punished. I am sorry that he did not also tell us about the newspapers which told the truth and were then also punished. The fact is that when someone tells an untruth, we have the normal remedy in terms of the provisions of existing laws. No special legislation is necessary for this. If someone tells untruths—whether it be a newspaper, a politician or anybody else—he has to be punished, and legislation does exist for that purpose. The hon. the Minister also said that we on this side of the House had made insinuations and that we wanted to cast doubt upon the person of the Advocate-General in advance. I am not aware of a single hon. member having done that. We do not even know yet who the Advocate-General is going to be. We shall be able to judge, when the time comes, whether it is a good appointment or not. We shall insist—we can discuss that in the Committee Stage—that it has to be an independent person of a very high calibre, because we have had the experience that the Government appointed a very high official last year to conduct an inquiry into corruption in our country, but the Erasmus Commission found that that official “played a dual role”. The Government also appointed someone else to inquire into corruption, and then the Erasmus Commission found that he “had made a false report to the Prime Minister”. The Opposition should not be blamed, therefore, for feeling that where persons are appointed to investigate corruption, they should be independent persons who are unattached to the Government and who have to be of a very high calibre. We shall discuss this aspect, however, when the Bill is discussed in the Committee Stage.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke said that I had welcomed the appointment of the Advocate-General during the First Reading. Yes, I said that clearly.

I did not say that the hon. member had said it during the First Reading. The hon. member for Parktown …

It does not matter at all.

It matters a great deal.

I do not follow the hon. member. Did he say that I had welcomed the appointment of the Advocate-General?

I did not say that you had said that during the First Reading. I said that you said it when the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown was discussed.

He is only arguing about the date.

Oh, the date. It does not matter when it happened.

It does matter.

The point is that I am not opposed in principle to the appointment of a man who plays the role of an ombudsman. I said that, and I shall not deviate from it. When I spoke about it, I said, however, that there was absolutely no need to link it with restrictions on the Press. There are many countries which have similar institutions—the hon. the Prime Minister also referred to that—but they are not coupled with action against the freedom of the Press.

Yesterday, when the hon. the Minister and other speakers after him launched such bitter attacks on the Press—we heard this again today—and related these attacks to this Bill, it must have become clear to everyone what the real motive for this Bill was. Two ideas in particular occurred to me. In the first place, I thought about the way our poor representatives, our ambassadors and our information officials abroad are going to have to run around for the next few months in an attempt to erase and gloss over the bad image of South Africa which hon. speakers on that side of the House have created by their attacks on the freedom of the Press. All the good work done with regard to South Africa’s image by the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions, has been erased over the past two days by the way this Bill has been handled by hon. members on that side. We are aware that there are two matters which influence the attitude of Governments in the Free World more than anything else. The one is human rights and the other is the freedom of the Press. Those things determine the extent to which a country is regarded as being a member of the Free World or not.

The Conservative Party came into power in Canada yesterday. There is a new Government in power in Canada today. This opens up the possibility of a new approach towards South Africa and the important question of Namibia. Canada is one of the five Western powers which is involved in the initiative with regard to South West Africa. However, what is the impression of the new Government in Canada going to be with regard to these speeches hon. members have made and their attitude to the freedom of the Press? I do not believe it is difficult for us to guess. Today is a very special day for West Germany. Today is the 30th commemoration of the introduction of their Basic Law, their Fundamental Rights. Section 5 of that Basic Law reads as follows—

That is not the only provision.

I quote further as far as it is applicable—

It continues—

We also have general laws against libel.

There are other provisions as well.

I just want to say for interest’s sake that the German ambassador in South Africa has organized a big function this evening to celebrate the 30th year of these fundamental rights in Germany. Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Potgietersrus told us how the people of his party are approaching him and other members of his party and insisting that something has to be done against the Press. He left the clear impression that he thought that this Bill contained the steps which his people want and which he welcomes.

You were not listening.

The fact that he is the new chairman and spokesman of his party’s Foreign Affairs group is interesting. If I am not mistaken, he and other hon. members will be among the members of his party who are going to go and drink to the Basic Law of Germany at the Alphen Hotel tonight. All I can say is that I hope that he will not choke on the wine. Incidentally, it is also a fact that the General Assembly of the UN is to begin its session on South West Africa and South Africa today. We can expect little from them. We do not have to seek their favour, but instead of hon. members standing up here and strengthening the hand of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the battle he has to go and fight there, every speaker on that side attacked the ordinary freedom of the Press in extravagant language and, by doing so, in fact played into the hands of Mr. Don McHenry. If hon. members do not want to believe me, they should take the trouble to phone Mr. McHenry. He will tell them himself.

The second idea which occurred to me yesterday, particularly after I had listened to the hon. the Leader of the House, was that I wondered whether we had yet discovered the real motive for the Bill. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister is ashamed of what has been taking place in our country in recent years.

I am ashamed about your career, too.

I am sure that he should be ashamed about what has taken place.

I am ashamed about your career too.

The hon. the Prime Minister is in control of the country, and I have a sufficiently high regard for him to think that every man who is a patriot, will be ashamed about what has taken place in our country in recent years. I also assume, however, that as a new Prime Minister he really wants to make an attempt to ensure a clean and honest administration in South Africa, and we shall support him in that in all respects. But the hon. the Prime Minister is not ignorant. He knows that the Press has played a powerful role in the disclosure of the full implications of the Information scandal. Without that we would not have been where we are today. He knows that they will display the same vigilance in the future. In fact, if we had not had that action by the Press, that exposure, the hon. member for George would not now have been Prime Minister of South Africa. Throughout the hon. the Prime Minister’s career, including when he was the Leader of the NP in the Cape, he stressed the necessity of a strong alliance between the NP and the newspapers that support them.

Yes, but I am not their slave.

The hon. the Minister should know that in his striving to establish administration which is free of corruption, the whole Press in South Africa is prepared to be his ally. All of us noticed that when the Leader of the House introduced the Second Reading of the Bill yesterday, he said very little about the need for clean administration and the way in which the Bill aims to achieve this. He merely referred to this in passing, but the most important part of his speech was devoted to his fear of what he called the tremendous power of the Press. We have heard it again here today. It was an amazing speech, particularly when he told us about “the Government’s struggle” to prevent the Press from governing the country and how essential it was that the Government should win that struggle. That, too, he linked to the Bill. I just want to say in passing that he even dragged in Mr. Oppenheimer. And we again heard the old story from two or three speakers that there are businessmen who prefer to keep their shares in certain Press groups a secret—as if we had something to do with it.

Are you denying it?

I find it all very strange. I shall say where I stand. Most members on that side of the House are secret members of the strongest secret influence organization in the country, an organization which also supports certain publications. I have never held it against them. They do it with their own money. I have no objection to that. Furthermore, the Government itself published a newspaper and a magazine, with Government money, and kept the names of all the owners and all the share-holders a secret. This is not the place, however, to discuss this further. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister in passing that if he is really concerned about the few businessmen who want to keep their share-holdings in newspaper groups a secret for business reasons— he regards it as being sinister, and that is one of the reasons why the powers of the Press are being restricted—then I want to make him this offer: Let us make a law which will provide that all publications, those of secret organizations as well, should reveal the names of their real owners and of all their share-holders. If he does that, I shall support such legislation. I want him to stop talking about that now, to start acting and to make the legislation include everyone.

When the hon. the Minister expressed such fear of the power of the Press yesterday and linked this directly with the restrictions imposed on the right of publication under this Bill, it reminded us of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister had made it clear from the outset that the introduction of this measure should coincide with the conclusion of the work of the Erasmus Commission. After that, people must keep quiet about the Information scandal.

Where do you get that story from?

That is the impression I gained, yes.

You said so yourself.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that he wanted to put an end to it I have sympathy with the Government’s desire to put an end to the Information scandal, but it is going to depend on the Government whether they will succeed in doing so. They are not going to succeed by gagging people and newspapers. The only way they will succeed is by showing the country openly that trespassers have been brought to book and that steps have been taken and machinery created to ensure that the corruption which took place in secret, will never again take place in South Africa.

That has been done repeatedly.

However, that is not what it is all about. Why is the Press being dragged in, and why is it being muzzled, if the aim is to combat corruption? On the basis of the language used by hon. members in the debate yesterday, I gained the impression that the restrictions envisaged here, and the haste to implement them, are really aimed against what men like Dr. Connie Mulder, Gen. Hendrik van den Bergh, Dr. Eschel Rhoodie and their supporters may still say and write in order to state their side of the case. We on this side of the House have no sympathy with any of these men, in spite of being aware that they are not the only guilty parties. In my opinion, however, it is unjust to muzzle the whole Press, and with it the general public, and to restrict the rights of individuals, just because the Government is conducting a vendetta with a few of its former stalwarts.

We have to realize one thing, viz. that what we call freedom of the Press, is not something which belongs exclusively to the Press. It does not stand apart from the rights of the individual, political parties or other organizations. Within the normal laws of the country, anyone, any group of people or any political party, has the right to establish a newspaper, to publish a pamphlet or to publish his opinions in any other form. No single newspaper has more rights than the individual. The hon. member for Mossel Bay quite correctly mentioned that the Press does not have more rights than we have, and therefore I do not think we are only concerned here with the concept of freedom of the Press. The powerful Afrikaans-language Press, which today supports the NP, was built up over the years by ordinary members of the public and ordinary members of the NP, rich and poor. Without them, the NP would never have come to power.

What we call the freedom of the Press, is therefore nothing but the right which I as an individual, all of us as members of Parliament and any political party have to form an opinion about matters and then to publish such an opinion in a newspaper, a pamphlet or anything else. Every man has the right to start a newspaper, and that is why, when one lays hands on the newspaper, one lays hands on the right of the individual. That is what worries me with regard to this Bill. I am not concerned about what it does to the Press as such, because the Press does not have more rights than I have. My concern is about everyone’s freedom to publish. The Press is only a symbol of the basic freedom of the individual and of a political party to speak out and address the country and their voters if they become aware of maladministration.

†No greater task rests on the shoulders of a member of Parliament or a political party, than vigorously to expose and criticize, in every possible way, the slightest evidence of corruption and maladministration of public funds. Political parties have no more fundamental task than precisely that.

This Bill deals with the administration of State funds, State moneys. That is central to the whole Bill. Hon. members of Parliament, members of the Cabinet, the hon. the Prime Minister and anyone of us can freely spend the money that we earn on whatever we like. I do not think anybody will object to that. However, State moneys come from the pockets of the taxpayers and as such never belong to the Government, but continue to belong to the taxpayers. The Government’s only task is to administer the moneys in the best interest of the public in such a manner that the public can see what the Government does with it while it retains the right to criticize if they need to do so. In my view, no Government has the moral right to deny the public, including the Press and political parties, the right to help keep a guarding eye at all times—Advocate-General or no Advocate-General—over the moneys which belong to them and express their concern in a manner which they may choose. [Interjections.] We were actually so fair in our dealing with this Bill that we gave a more liberal interpretation to it than the hon. the Minister himself. Some legal experts advised us that the Bill would allow the Press all the freedom they now have to investigate and publish information relating to misapplication of State moneys. Only after the matter had come to the attention of the Advocate-General and he had instituted an investigation, would it become sub judice.

Yesterday the hon. the Minister told us that according to his interpretation of the Bill as it now stands, no politician or political party will be allowed to publish a pamphlet or bring out a poster. No printer will be allowed to issue a book, no newspaper will be allowed to publish a report or an analysis dealing with suspected misappropriation or maladministration of State funds unless and until the Advocate-General has given his permission, has investigated the matter and reported his findings to Parliament.

Order! I regret the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few …

Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member can speak for 30 minutes.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I am almost at the end. I just want to conclude by saying that, as things now stand, the Advocate-General will be a person appointed by the Government. He will be in the position of a super censor. One can imagine the possible misuse that could be made under the provisions of this legislation during an election if the ruling party had matters which they wished to keep under the carpet. As the Bill stands, it constitutes an intolerable inroad into the basic rights of the citizen, including political parties and the Press. It is anti-public, and we therefore have to oppose it.

Order! If I had been the referee on Saturday, the Free State would have won.

Mr. Speaker, it was my man who scored that drop-goal, and I am very grateful for that. As far as I am concerned, you might just as well have given the hon. member for Bezuidenhout more time, because the more he spoke, the more ammunition he gave to his opponents.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout touched on a whole number of matters. I naturally want to make my own speech, but I nevertheless want to refer to a few of the matters raised by the hon. member. He said the NP had launched a bitter attack on the Press. I do not think that is the case. He went on to refer to appointments which had allegedly been made wrongly in the past and where the people concerned had not done their work the way we had expected them to do it. In connection with the whole Information debacle I just want to say that it is on account of the consistent initiative of the NP that the matter has been brought so expeditiously to where it is at the moment. I have appreciation for the way in which the Government has done this. Then, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also boasted of the work of the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions. In my opinion the NP deserves recognition for the positive aspects that have emanated from the work of those two commissions. After all, the NP appointed them. The NP initiated the work and will also see to it. The good things which will result from these two reports will be the fruit of the labours of the NP. With reference to human rights, the hon. member also dealt with the freedom of the Press. The NP, too, strives after human rights. To us, however, human rights are also related to the responsibility of people. We, too, believe in the freedom of the Press. We add to that, however, that the Press, too, should act responsibly.

The hon. member referred to West Germany and to the thirtieth anniversary of the introduction of their Basic Law. He dealt, inter alia, with section 5 of that Basic Law. Of course, we share the joy of another country when peace and harmony come to that country. In making a comparative analysis between the history of South Africa and that of Europe, however, he should realize that Europe can learn a great deal from South Africa. Over the past 300 years, the nascent years of the White man in South Africa, the years in which he occupied the land and established civilization here—despite the fact that there was far more reason for war here— there was far less conflict and war here than in Europe. I believe that if the rest of the world were to draw a comparison between what happened under the NP and its predecessors on the one hand and what happened in Europe on the other hand, it would be plain to them that we in South Africa have far more reason to be grateful and proud as we have maintained peace and security and prosperity under far more difficult conditions. It is true that within a matter of a mere 40 years, Europe has experienced two ghastly world wars. This was because Europe did not have leaders, men with integrity and Christian principles, such as the leaders we have had in South Africa. I believe it is unfair at this stage to draw a comparison between us and the very country that had to rise from the ashes of war while this was not the case with us.

I want to devote my speech to a few main points. In the first place I want to deal with the reaction of the Press to the Bill under discussion. Then I want to deal with certain matters raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to look briefly at the criticism of the legislation. In conclusion I want to express a few thoughts on the legislation itself.

In the course of the discussion the hon. member for Johannesburg North crowed from time to time about Die Transvaler and other South African newspapers. Of course, I do not want to run away from the fact that Afrikaans newspapers, and newspapers which basically support the NP, were and still are critical of this Bill. For that reason I want to address myself today to that section of the Press, and I want to do so in a spirit of friendliness and brotherliness. To begin with, I first want to point out a few Press reactions before proceeding from there. I want to point out particularly that our Afrikaans newspapers, too, published their reports under critical headings. I want to refer to a few of them. In Die Transvaler, we saw the following heading: “Wending in stryd. Premier en Pers praat Muilband bekyk.” Another newspaper heading referred to the “Vasvatwet”, whereas another heading in Die Transvaler read: “Stilmaak-wet slaan hard. Pers moet swyg oor Staatsfoute.” Then follows the first paragraph of the report—

Another heading reads: “Leiers opstand oor Perswet” The report reads, inter alia—

Do you agree?

I am merely quoting it. I am going to deal with it, of course. These are the headings with which the Press came to light Now I am going to deal with them.

So you do not agree?

Also in Die Vaderland there was comment on the proposed legislation, comment which involved academics as well. However, I want to state in clear and unequivocal language that I believe that this type of heading is unfair to the NP. I believe that this type of heading in our Afrikaans newspapers is unfair to the hon. the Prime Minister. It is unfair to his leadership. It is indifferent to the world milieu within which the NP has to effect peace, security and prosperity for everyone in South Africa. I think it is indifferent to the ideals the hon. the Prime Minister cherishes. It creates a wrong impression and causes unnecessary uncertainty among our own people.

The hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly expressed himself on the matter of the freedom of the Press. The Prime Minister did not use this term as a mere cliché; he did not talk about the freedom of the Press wildly and indiscriminately. When the hon. the Prime Minister spoke of the freedom of the Press, the qualified the term. He said exactly what he meant by the term. However, the dilemma of political dialogue in South Africa today is that the Opposition uses words, terminology and clichés without giving them any substance. No one can conduct a political debate without knowing what one’s Opposition means by the words they use. Those hon. members have talked a great deal up to now, but not a single one of them has stated what exactly they mean by freedom of the Press. Not a single one of them has given a clear analysis of it.

On 20 April this year the hon. the Prime Minister gave a brilliant exposition of his vision of the respective roles of the State and the Press. I think every student of politics, and particularly of the politics of the relationship between the State and the Press, ought to include this as a sine qua non in his political knowledge.

We are living in a time of cliché fever. There is something I want to say to the Press that has pledged its support to us and that is going to co-operate with us. We are friends, and although we may differ on certain matters, we should nevertheless be fair, scientific and positive in our criticism. The Afrikaans-language Press and the NP were born from the same struggle. The NP and the Afrikaans-language Press have the same basic principles. We cherish the same ideals, and not one of us could or should selfishly see to his own interests only in realizing those ideals. To the extent that things are becoming more and more difficult on the road ahead, it is becoming more and more important that people who belong together should remain together in the sense of the greatest possible cordiality and brotherhood. The Afrikaans-language Press has the right to criticize us. That is fine. But just as the NP does not allow itself to be taken in tow by anybody, the Press that supports us may not allow itself to be taken in tow by the leftist, liberal Press. For that reason we have to be cautious.

There is also another phenomenon in the Press. Criticism is expressed in banner headlines, and people draw inferences from these. Certain academics are also involved and asked for their comment. I should like to quote just one of those academics. I am going to mention the hon. gentleman’s name. I hope to meet him one day so that I may have a calm and friendly chat with him. Academics cannot simply express themselves on laws and then expect that we, who have to defend those laws, should refrain from taking up a standpoint. I am referring to Dr. J. van Tonder, head of the Department of Political Science of the P.U. for CHE. He said the following in connection with this legislation—

I do not want to place myself in the same position as this learned gentleman by debating a matter on the basis of a newspaper report. However, if one calls oneself a scientist or an academic, surely one cannot simply say such things. He is the head of a department of political science; how can he say, “Ons is holderstebolder op pad na ’n totalitêre Staat”? It is beyond my comprehension why one should encounter a small group of academics in our country—also people with Afrikaans surnames—who simply run away from things the Government would like to do.

He just wanted to get into the news.

The hon. the Minister says he just wanted to get into the news, and I agree. Some people cannot get into the news, and then they try such reactionary things.

The hon. the Prime Minister made the very statement that the Government wanted to cooperate most closely with academics throughout the country. The hon. the Prime Minister expressed his willingness to do so, because we should very much like to draw on the wisdom, the knowledge and experience of people in the academic world. As we sit here, we also desire to work and reason in accordance with norms laid down for us. As my colleagues and I sit here, we, too, are people who want to deal with matters on a scientific basis. In view thereof I want to address a friendly request to the scientists: In their handling of this matter and as far as it concerns the Government, they should first obtain a thorough knowledge. After having acquired a thorough knowledge, they will be better able to perform their task as academics, because it is only when one has knowledge and skill that one can be useful to one’s community. I am saying this in a friendly way and in the best spirit to those concerned with the Afrikaans-language Press.

Now I come to the English-language Press. Looking at the history of the English-language Press over the past 70 or 80 years, one finds that that Press has never been enamoured of the Afrikaner. Nor is it at the moment Moreover, the English-language Press has never been enamoured of a conservative English-speaking person, and that is why the NRP are sitting where they are; the result of an English-language Press that does not care a hoot for them. The English-language Press of South Africa will extract poison from every piece of legislation of the NP and they will not rest before the day arrives when there will be a Black majority Government in South Africa.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke of the effect this legislation would have on our image abroad, but it has been my experience that when one tells the truth to people abroad, matters are brought into perspective. The problem we have in South Africa—that is the reason why some people have stumbled—is that over the past 30 years, falsehoods and untruths have been spread by the most sophisticated propaganda machinery. That is what has to be countered, and these things are the very results of an irresponsible English-language Press in South Africa.

The Bill is not aimed at the Press in the first place—I shall come back to that later on—but the Press has become involved since it has involved itself. We are dealing with a measure to ensure sound national administration, but what do we find in our work? The Press. Naturally, one has to scrape off and remove something like this if one wants to clear up matters and put them into perspective.

The hon. members of the Opposition are so ready to make pronouncements on democracy and they are so fond to speak of the values of democracy, the freedom of the Press, and human rights, but for many years I have been asking myself how democratic is the English-language Press in South Africa. What methods do they employ so as to be able to achieve their objectives? Can their methods always stand the test of close scrutiny? To me it seems important that we should face around and look not at the NP, but at the type of democracy the English-language Press wants here.

The NP is not the slave of one Press group or another. It was said earlier on that the NP and the Afrikaans newspapers were born from a struggle, and before the hon. member for Johannesburg North lost his first love, he, too, perhaps understood this.

No, I have become mature.

That hon. member has lost and left many of his first loves. Certain of the cells in his body, those cells which create love for what is one’s own, have died.

All you can do is launch personal attacks.

This is no personal attack, but the hon. member is sitting over there, and there are so many Afrikaners over there that I think we are again having a revival of Jan Hofmeyr. Perhaps he is not altogether dead. Those hon. members on the opposite side come here in the name of the Afrikaans language and with their knowledge of the Afrikaner, but in reality they are becoming mere pawns of the English-language Press. We are not the slaves of the Afrikaans-language Press, and similarly the Afrikaans-language Press is not the slaves of the NP. We do wish to co-operate, however. Those hon. members over there are the slaves of the Press that has pledged its support to the PFP.

Within our community there are various institutions and interest groups—there are, for example, the churches and the educational institutions—which each has its own sovereignty within its own sphere and is therefore looking after its own interests. However, at times we gain the impression from the English-language Press that it wants to control education, the church, our sport and our judiciary. In other words, it wants to govern in all respects. We cannot, however, tolerate such a state of affairs.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made various attacks on us. I want to state that not a single jot or tittle of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said is true. He said, inter alia—

This Bill, inter alia, strikes at the very roots of Press freedom.

He went on to say—

In this regard I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Mossel Bay. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said here today that this Bill would make corruption increase further. He is saying, in other words, that at the present time there is corruption in the State.

The Bill says so.

If this Bill goes through, the hon. member for Mossel Bay and I will bring pressure to bear on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as we did with regard to his telephone call to McHenry, and we will force him to prove his allegations before the Advocate-General. He will simply have to do it.

Mr. Speaker, it is not very easy to govern in a difficult world such as the one we are living in at the present time. What is the Government doing by means of this Bill? It is focussing the spotlight on the NP and its administration. It is saying to everyone outside: If you have a suspicion of corruption on the part of the State or any official, we are now affording you the opportunity to state your case to the Advocate-General. Therefore, nothing is being concealed. With this Bill, we are not focussing the spotlight on the Press or on the Opposition, but on the National Party and its administration. The hon. the Prime Minister gave an undertaking, and this is his first measure he has needed up to now to carry out that undertaking. I want to say that the hon. the Prime Minister would not be redeeming his pledge to the nation if this Bill did not go through. For that reason I want to say that in spite of what the hon. members said of this side of the House, we stand firmly behind the hon. the Prime Minister as far as this legislation is concerned. In the past, too, they have opposed the Government when legislation was introduced, and subsequently they have looked back in shame. I want to say that this legislation will afford every member of the public the opportunity, when he has a suspicion that problems exist in respect of the money paid by him to the State, to submit the matter to the Advocate-General. That is the first point I want to make. The second point is that those reports will come to Parliament and that Parliament will then decide what has to be done in connection therewith.

I want to say—and I conclude with these words—that the crux of this Bill is that every citizen of the Republic of South Africa who has a suspicion that the money of the State is not being dealt with properly, will now have the opportunity to lodge a complaint in that regard to a person who is responsible to Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to apologize to the hon. member who is to speak after me for leaving as soon as I have finished my speech, because I have to fly to Durban.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the hon. member for Rissik talk about democracy and freedom. We have also heard him talk about the role of the Press and the need for responsibility on the part of the Press. After listening to this debate for nearly two days now, I have found that four themes have been repeated by hon. members on the Government side. One of them is the question of the responsibility of the Press, as we just heard from the hon. member for Rissik. What they say is that, because of the bulk of the newspapers and, as we hear, especially the English-language newspapers are only interested in sensational reporting in order to boost their circulation, the Press act in an irresponsible manner which harms our political system in South Africa. The hon. the Minister himself said this in his introductory speech. They say further that, because this is so, the Press must now be curbed in some manner or other, as is now being done by the particular Bill we have before us.

I do not doubt for a moment that one can find evidence, amongst certain sectors of the Press, to indicate that there is this irresponsibility. After all—and I think many hon. members will agree—if there are any politicians who have suffered at the hands of certain elements of the Press, it is the members who sit in these benches. It is not only the Press that is irresponsible. Has the Government itself not, in recent times, been found guilty of similar irresponsible actions? Were the actions of a Minister of State, Dr. Mulder, not a case of irresponsible actions on the part of Government? Surely one does not combat a failure or a weakness in any of the essential elements of democracy, or the legs of democracy, by hamstringing democracy in such a way that it is rendered totally ineffective, as we believe the provisions of this Bill will do in the case of the Press, but not only in the case of the Press, as I hope to show later and as other hon. members have already stated. It also imposes a restriction upon hon. members of Parliament in carrying out their duties for which they are responsible to their constituents. This is why we are opposing this Bill. The provisions of this Bill strike at the very heart of democracy and the freedom of the individual.

Nonsense.

The hon. member says “nonsense”. Maybe he does not understand how fragile personal freedom and democracy really is.

The second reason that hon. members on the other side of the House have given for the introduction of this Bill is that it is required to ensure a clean Government. They say it has to assist the hon. the Prime Minister to live up to his promise to the country to have a Government which is free from corruption and maladministration. I would, however, just like to …

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

I do not have the time to answer any questions.

This reason is just not valid. This Parliament has been in existence for nearly 70 years, and our history of parliamentary democracy goes back hundreds of years before that. Therefore, the machinery which is required to ensure clean Government is already available and exists in the form of— as so many members have said—the Auditor-General, the Attorney-General, the police and the House of Assembly, but most of all in the post of the Prime Minister of this Parliament and his Cabinet.

If the hon. the Prime Minister is correct in saying that he requires this legislation in order to ensure clean Government, surely he is acknowledging the Government’s inability to use time-tested institutions, in which our people believe, to achieve this goal of clean Government. I submit that this is a reflection on the hon. the Prime Minister himself and his Cabinet. It is an admission of failure on the part of this Nationalist Government. [Interjections.] I want to say that this is the passing of the buck by the Prime Minister to an Advocate-General who will be a civil servant. That is another reason why we reject this Bill.

The third reason put forward by hon. members on the other side of the House is that this legislation is required to eliminate rumours and untruths. They say it is required to reveal the truth. I want to ask hon. members what is truth and what is untruth? What is a rumour? Have we forgotten the recent history of this hon. House? Was it not first rumoured in the House that The Citizen was financed by the Government? Did the then Minister who replied at the time not say that it was untrue? Did history not, however, show that what the Minister said was untrue was, in fact, the truth? The hon. the Prime Minister said he wants clean Government. In this regard I want to pose a question to hon. members on the other side of the House, and I ask them to consider it in depth. Had Dr. Connie Mulder become Prime Minister …

A little quieter please.

The hon. Chief Whip may tell me to quieten down, but when I speak for the people who elected me to Parliament I will express their feelings to this hon. House and neither he nor any other hon. member will deny me that right [Interjections.] Had Dr. Connie Mulder been elected Prime Minister of South Africa instead of the present Prime Minister, and had he had at his disposal this legislation, would the whole truth of the Information scandal have come out … [Interjections.] … or would he have used this legislation to suppress the truth and withhold it from South Africa? The hon. the Prime Minister may say that he is seeking truth, but he will not last forever, and someone else may some day inherit this particular piece of legislation.

The fourth reason which has been put forward by hon. members on that side is that they require this Bill in order to ensure the security of the State. This Bill, however, goes further than that. This Bill, if it is ever promulgated, will restrict my rights as a member of Parliament. I hope the hon. Chief Whip realizes that, and then maybe he will understand, if I appear to be angry, why it is I am angry. Certainly it does not deny me the right to stand up at a public meeting and to report, to my people, evidence of maladministration and corruption in Government departments, but this Bill will prevent the Press covering my public meeting and informing my voters of the facts I have put to the people. Under the provisions of this Bill I shall not even be able to print a circular to inform my voters, the people of South Africa, of the knowledge I have gained as their representative in this House. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members should really be a little more quiet.

The hon. the Minister has come to the House with this legislation. Hon. members say it is required for the security of the State. This party’s history is written in Hansard. Hon. Ministers have come to this party with legislation for the defence of South Africa. We in the NRP have nothing whatsoever to hide. We have supported this Government on legislation which provides for law and order and on legislation providing for secrecy about our fuel and our strategic resources. We have backed this Government and South Africa when we felt this Government and South Africa required our backing. I want to put a question to hon. members. They now say that this Bill is required for the sake of the security of the State. Am I and my party a risk to the security of the State? I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House whether this Bill does not make a mockery of all the calls to patriotism on the part of those hon. members. They are trying to curb the Press and they are trying to curb me, a member of this Parliament. It makes a mockery of the trust which our people have placed in this Parliament. This Bill is not designed to enhance the security of the State. I believe rather that it threatens it. The greatest security a State can ever have is the trust of the people, all the people of all political parties. I regret to say that the tabling and debating of this particular Bill will cause many South Africans, including myself, to once again ask the question whether we can really trust this particular Government. What has this Bill really been designed for? Has it been designed for the security of South Africa or has it been designed, as I am starting to believe, for the security of the NP?

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I gladly support a person and a Government prepared to put its popularity at stake in the short-term in order to have any suspicion of any form of corruption in the State administration in South Africa investigated and eradicated, and to ensure a clean administration. For that reason it is a privilege for me to say a few words in this debate.

Before the hon. member for Amanzimtoti leaves, I just want to tell him that he really carried on like an Ayatollah this afternoon. I want to refer briefly to the hon. member’s speech, although he has already left this House, for which he has offered me his apology. He conceded that the Press in South Africa had on occasion acted irresponsibly. He also said that the Government was irresponsible. I say that is correct. Some of the members of the Government were irresponsible.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says “hear, hear”, but he must also say “hear, hear” when I tell him that the Bill is the method we want to employ to control and eliminate this type of irresponsibility in South Africa in future. Now the hon. member must also say “hear, hear”, but he does not understand the Bill at all. I doubt whether he has read it.

The hon. member for Yeoville also carried on here this afternoon about the possibility that the Advocate-General could conduct his investigation behind closed doors. Of course this could happen. Under specific circumstances this is in fact possible. However, there is no provision in the Bill which compels the Advocate-General to conduct his investigation behind closed doors. On the other hand I want to point out to hon. members that the following provisions in respect of “the parliamentary commissioner for administration” exist in Great Britain. Under the heading “Procedure in respect of investigations” we read—

In South Africa we say no, throw open this kind of investigation. Now an hon. member of the Opposition is accusing us of wanting to do these things in secret and of wanting to cover them up. One could ask him why he does not give a balanced view of what is happening in South Africa and of what we want to do. We do not want to do these things in secret; we want to expose them. Why does the hon. member not emphasize this? That section which could damage South Africa’s image, is being emphasized by hon. members of the Opposition.

The hon. member for Umhlanga also made a great outcry here this afternoon and emphasized the fact that investigations by the Press had exposed a whole series of scandals. I concede that that is true. The Press in South Africa conducted investigations and they have every right to do so, but I want to state categorically that the Bill will not prevent the Press from continuing to conduct investigations into scandals in South Africa. They will still be able to conduct thoroughgoing investigations. They will be able to ferret out everything by means of the best forms of journalism they have at their disposal.

All that we are doing now is to create a body to which these people who have ferretted out scandals can take them so that they can be properly investigated by a completely independent person who is responsible only to this Parliament Nor will that person be able to allow those things he has discovered to be quietly shelved and left to gather dust; he will have to make them public.

By means of this measure I believe that the Press will be placed in exactly the same position as the ordinary citizen. What claim can the Press make to a more privileged position than that of the man in the street? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout rightly said this afternoon that the Press had no greater rights in South Africa than those of the man in the street. The man in the street who hears a story, can investigate that story, he can go into it and then hand over his evidence or suspicions to the Advocate-General who will investigate the case further. He, the Advocate-General, must investigate it; he has no choice in this regard. Surely the man in the street, who hears such a story and investigates it, does not have the right to take that story and to charge the person involved and at the same time find him guilty. Then why does the Press, one may ask, want this right in South Africa?

Coming back to the Bill now, it has always been my standpoint that when the Government discussed matters such as these with the Press and the standpoints of the Government are stated, this should be done on the highest level, as was the case here yesterday. In that case I believe that that discussion carries the necessary weight so that the seriousness of the matter may be brought home properly. Consequently it is not my duty, as a backbencher, to state a further spate of standpoints on this matter.

In view of the seriousness of the matter, though, I should like to make a few comments on it. It is a pity that the Government and a large section of the South African Press do not see eye to eye on this very important matter. It is a pity that we differ from each other to such an extent that the following newspaper headlines appeared today: “Pers styf vasgevat,” “Protes kring al wyer, dog Premier gee nie skiet met muilbandwet” and “Persmuilband bly net so.”

I am convinced that we need one another in the times in which we are living. The Government needs a free and responsible Press, because without it our task of governing South Africa will be very difficult. But let us also say this: The Press cannot survive in South Africa without a stable, democratic Government. We must never lose sight of the fact that we are living in Africa, a continent on which, with single exceptions, little or no value is attached to a free Press. It is a fact that if a newspaper were to act and write what we are experiencing in South Africa today in any other country in Africa, it would probably not appear on the streets the next day.

You feel yourself compelled to adapt to that standard.

Surely the evidence in this respect is there for everyone to see. Everyone who wants to see it, simply has to open his eyes and not make such foolish remarks as that hon. member just made.

It is correct that the partnership between the Government and the South African Press has been and is still beneficial to the NP today. But this partnership is not only beneficial to us, it is beneficial to the Press as well. In spite of all the so-called restrictions on the South African Press, the Press is flourishing in South Africa. We need only look at the number of newspapers appearing these days and at the profit margins of the Press publishing companies. I want to state it as my conviction that if an alternative Government were to take over in South Africa, the Press in South Africa would be far worse off than it is today. No one should have any doubt about that. The alternative Government is not sitting on that side of the House, because Swellendam showed us that it is not sitting there. It will have to come from elsewhere.

Is it one of the wings of the Government?

Yesterday the hon. the Leader of the House said in his Second Reading speech, inter alia, that the ordinary person had revolted against the abuse of the Press, and I quote him—

I believe this reflects exactly the climate one encounters among the ordinary people of South Africa today. The people want the newspapers, because they really like to read them and we are very often grateful for the role the Press plays in South Africa. But to allege that the man in the street is not generally dissatisfied with the Press, is also to close one’s eyes to the truth and reality. I think that the Government as well as the Press should take careful cognizance of this reality and of this fact.

Only NP supporters are afraid of the truth.

For that reason I am convinced that it will not only be in the best interests of the Government and the Press, but also in the best interests of the whole of South Africa if this matter is approached with understanding for mutual problems, but also with understanding for the appreciation we have for one another.

I want to make one further observation with regard to this Bill. Over the past few days we have been inundated with negative criticism of this Bill.

Why?

This criticism is principally based on the supposed or alleged threats which this Bill constitutes. We have only received negative and erroneous criticism of the Bill on the part of the Opposition, and there are many examples of this.

It is bad legislation.

I want us to examine as objectively as possible the most positive aspect of this Bill. To me it lies in the fact that the greatest single advantage will be that for the first time in South Africa’s history we will, by means of this Bill, be establishing a permanent institution of high-standing calibre and of high status—which will investigate all suspicions of corruption—unless hon. members of the official Opposition are immediately going to proceed to criticize that person and that body again. Such a body will investigate all forms of misappropriation of State money and maladministration of Government property on an ongoing basis.

On occasion—fortunately it was not often—the Government was compelled to appoint commissions to investigate matters of this nature. Now a permanent commission is being established. This affords each dissatisfied citizen the opportunity of reporting the slightest suspicion. It will have to be investigated. In terms of clause 5(1) the Advocate-General has no choice and has to take up and investigate that matter. It will have a wide scope, because misappropriation and mismanagement are wide concepts. I think this is an exceptional undertaking that this Government is prepared to give its citizens. An investigation will have to be instituted into all suspicions, any vestige of corruption by the Government or its officials.

Nor will it be possible to shelve the matter, because that Advocate-General will have to make a report. It will not be possible to hide things; they will have to come out into the open. The Advocate-General is unbiased. The allegation has been made from that side of the House that he will be a Government official. But that is untrue. Which hon. member on that side of the House can stand up today after so many years and candidly state that the Government has ever attempted to influence the Auditor-General, who is an official of this Parliament? The Advocate-General will be in an even stronger position to act and perform his task independently, after he has investigated a matter, that has to be done in the interests of clean administration. Once he has investigated the matter, it will be possible for the spotlight of not only Parliament, but of the Press in South Africa as well to be focused on what he has found. But it will be focused on facts; not on gossip.

That is why I think that it is an extremely comforting assurance the Government is prepared to offer the inhabitants of South Africa. It is an assurance that any story will be investigated and that the truth will come to light very rapidly. I am absolutely convinced that this measure, irrespective of what hon. members opposite say about it, is in the best interests of South Africa. I am convinced that the vast majority of South African voters, the people we are representing here, will realize that this measure is in their interests and in the interests of South Africa. That is why we gladly support it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. member for Verwoerdburg on his positive contribution. [Interjections.] I want to associate myself with the hon. member where he said that he found it a pity that the Government and the Press could not see eye to eye on this Bill. I think that no one on this side of the House is overjoyed about the necessity of having to introduce this Bill. But I am convinced that this Bill is necessary. The Government will not back away from its responsibility of piloting this Bill through Parliament if it is necessary. [Interjections.]

The Bill before this House, carries a very positive message, viz. that all financial malpractices, corruption, improper enrichment and even any attempt made in this regard will be eradicated. This is a general principle and I think that not much fault can be found with it.

There is another general principle with which everyone agrees, viz. the freedom of the Press. However, there is a difference. The Opposition is in favour of an uncontrolled, licentious freedom of the Press.

Who has ever said that? Where did you hear that?

There may be freedom of the Press at all times, but then freedom with responsibility, because absolute freedom implies freedom to break down and destroy as well. This is in fact what a large section of the South African Press is engaged in doing. I want to say at once that all newspapers cannot be cast in the same mould in this respect However, a vast section of the Press is certainly guilty of this.

Everyone is opposed to this Bill.

There is not a single newspaper in this country, written in a language which can be understood overseas, which tries to convey a positive image, or at least a balanced image of South Africa. If such a newspaper exists, hon. members must mention its name to me.

What about The Citizen?

The hon. member for Bryanston says The Citizen. I thank him for that. That substantiates my argument exactly. Because that newspaper publishes a positive and objective image of South Africa, hon. members of the Opposition hate it [Interjections.] Hon. members of the Opposition are making certain fundamental errors in their arguments, errors of logic and errors of assumption. The first of these is the view that the principal function of the Press is to be the watchdog guarding democracy and freedom of the individual. Of course this is not true. The Press in South Africa is an organized undertaking with clearly defined economic and political objectives, an undertaking that has a profit motive far stronger than its service motive. In order to fulfil its motive the Press will also exploit the public mercilessly with the aid of sensation and half-truths.

The second misconception in their argument is that the Press is the only or the principal medium by means of which malpractices in the State can be exposed. Of course this is not true. What is being done by means of the legislation under discussion is to create an official channel by which any person may have any alleged malpractice investigated, without being an informant to a newspaper and without causing confrontation with his own colleagues.

But there is a third misconception. This is that the Press is responsible and patriotic. In this respect, too, there are exceptions. However, this is and remains the greatest misconception. The reasons are apparent from the following: The standpoint of the largest section of the Press on any matter of political interest is always the same and always predeterminable. This means only one of two things. There is either a mutual agreement not to differ from one another or the newspapers are being dictated to by secret bosses. In both cases it is extremely irresponsible to abuse instruments, that are supposed to convey the truth to the public, in this way. A large section of the Press is still burdened by the image of anti-Afrikanerism, un-South Africanism and of being pro-British …

Oh please, man! [Interjections.]

… and is almost always automatically anti-National Party.

Name just one newspaper of that kind.

Rapport.

It is not I who say so.

In that case who says so?

This is the opinion of a great friend of the PFP’s, an employee of that section of the Press to which I referred. It is Mr. Hennie Serfontein.

What does he say?

That is his opinion. [Interjections.] In the third place it is calculated that 70% of the false, distorted, vicious reporting on South Africa which appears in the foreign Press originates in our own newspapers.

Do you have evidence of that?

Yes, produce your witnesses now.

Mr. Speaker, if those hon. members want to dispute this, they should go and do their own research. But they should cry if the figure turns out to be 80% or 90%. [Interjections.] I should like to subject the Press to a test which the veteran journalist, Dr. Willem van Heerden, drafted a few days ago in the presence of the hon. the Minister dealing with this Bill. He said that he hoped that it would be possible to eliminate the tension which was building up between the Government and the Press, but then he went on to say—

I did not go and search in the newspapers; I merely paged back in a few of them and then found a few statements in The Argus of 10 days ago. This is allegedly a report on a speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove—

It deals with the removal of Blacks—

Is it untrue?

It goes on to report—

The hon. member should not deviate too far from the provisions of this Bill.

Sir, with respect, the motives of the Press are certainly most clearly relevant in this regard.

They are relevant, but they alone and all the related matters really cannot be the subject of discussion.

To complete the picture I just want to say that the same report goes on to read—

Is that not balanced?

How does a report like this look if it is subjected to this test? How does a report such as this look when it comes to good race relations? How does a report like this look when it comes to patriotism and it is written in the full knowledge that there is an hon. Minister who is tremendously sympathetic to these people?

Are the facts correct or incorrect?

Why is such a report published while it is realized that there is an hon. Minister who is sympathetic towards them?

But are the facts true or not?

I do not know. [Interjections.]

The conduct of a large section of the Press is not reconcilable with responsibility and patriotism. The question may be put: Is the State administration so subject to misappropriation of funds, irregularities and corruption that this Bill is necessary?

That is a good question.

We ask that too.

The reply to this is an unambigious “no”. I think that South African Governments over the years have always had an exceptionally good record, but a very close watch should be kept on the standards of pure administration and they should even be improved. This is exactly what is being envisaged with this Bill.

The Bill is not intended as a means to cover up irregularities, but is a sincere attempt to make information, based on facts and not gossip, sensation and covert political motives available to the public.

The Bill does not prohibit investigative journalism. The Bill does not silence anyone and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is totally incorrect when he says that hon. members cannot inform their voters.

He would be pleased if he did not have to inform them, because the more he informs them, the fewer votes he gains.

The Bill affects no one’s right to address a public meeting. What the Bill does demand, however, is that publication in a newspaper on matters to which reference is made in clause 4(1) should take place in a responsible way.

The allegation is being made that the Bill will not eliminate corruption and allegations, but will contribute to them instead. If this is the effect, why is the Opposition crying? Those who will get hurt in that case are not the Press, but the Government and surely this suits the Opposition.

The Bill before this House is, in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, an experiment He said so in public. If it does not work and has an effect other than the positive objectives intended by the legislator, there is only one logical step: The Government will amend it How will it amend it? It will amend it in such a way that it serves the very best interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Namaqualand has just quoted the hon. the Prime Minister as having said that this piece of legislation is an experiment. I want to tell him, however, that it is a dangerous experiment. It is the sort of experiment that is likely to blow up in all our faces in South Africa. That hon. member has done what practically every other hon. member on the Government benches has done during the discussion of this Bill. Although this is meant to be a measure to combat corruption and maladministration, it is significant that almost every speaker on the Government benches, from the hon. the Minister downwards, has concentrated on attacking the Press. That is, of course, exactly what the hon. member for Namaqualand has also done. The hon. the Minister himself devoted most of his time to a tirade against the Press. He borrowed a notorious phrase from the hon. the Minister of Police by saying “Dit laat my koud”. What he is telling us really is that he could not care less about the responsibility the newspapers have to the public. Those were his words. He said he could not care less, thus showing, of course, that he has not the slightest understanding of the role of the Press in a parliamentary democracy, and also showing that he knows absolutely nothing about the processes of democracy.

An insensitive person.

What no one has told us so far is why this Bill is necessary. Is it like the Immorality Act, one of those Acts one has to have to protect the weak and the corrupt in our society that is according to the Government?

I was also interested to hear the hon. the Leader of the House, when he introduced this Bill, referring to the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister on 16 March of this year, a speech in which the hon. the Prime Minister told us that other countries had created posts very similar to that of the Advocate-General. The post, he said, would be the same as the post of the British Parliamentary Commissioner, as those of the ombudsmen in New Zealand, Sweden and Finland and the post of the Special Prosecutor that was appointed in the United States after the Watergate scandal.

When hon. members in this House make that sort of spurious analogy I always wonder, because this happens very often, whether the members opposite take us on these benches, and the public outside, for complete idiots or whether they believe that by making inaccurate statements in loud, clear voices they will throw everybody off the scent Perhaps both those possibilities apply, because I believe that this Government has become so arrogant, so paranoid, that it has nothing but contempt for anyone who does not sit on those benches, and that includes members of the general public.

For the benefit of those who do, in fact, have some regard for the truth, I want to tell this House that there is a world of difference between the other officials I have mentioned and the Advocate-General whom the Government intends to appoint after this Bill has been passed. There is a world of difference between his functions and powers, and the way in which he will operate, and those of the British Parliamentary Commissioner, the ombudsmen of the three countries mentioned and also, of course, the Special Prosecutor who was appointed after the Watergate scandal. I shall not go into detail about the ombudsmen because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has already referred to them.

I do, however, want to say a few words about the British Parliamentary Commissioner and the United States Special Prosecutor. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in Britain, to give him his full title, is responsible for investigating complaints referred to him by members of the House of Commons, complaints that have come from members of the public who claim to have sustained injustices as a consequence of maladministration or administrative action taken by, or on behalf of, Government departments. So there is no similarity whatever with the function of the Advocate-General who investigates any rumour passed on to him by any person whatever. The British Commissioner has no powers to block any Press reports about the matter he is investigating unless the MP who actually lodged the complaint requests that he does not publicize, and he maintains the anonymity of the person who laid the complaint. He also produces annual reports which are public documents.

What is perhaps of greater interest to us is the Special Prosecutor appointed in the USA after the Watergate scandal. What has, after all, fathered this nasty little brainchild if not our very own Information scandal, which shows great similarities to the Watergate scandal? What drove the hon. the Prime Minister into almost incoherent rage if not the expose of the misappropriation of money voted to his Department of Defence by a trusting Parliament believing those funds were going to be used for defence purposes? What made him so enraged if not the unremitting investigative reporting by a vigilant Press, which revealed that millions upon millions of rands of taxpayers’ money were being used for purposes which were completely different from the purposes Parliament had been told they would be used for? Just as in the USA it was the brilliant and stubborn digging and delving, chasing of rumours and following up of information given very often by anonymous, unknown informants that exposed the “dirty tricks”, the break-ins, the laundered funds, the “hit-lists” and the wiretappings that characterized Watergate and the attempted cover-up—so, too, in South Africa it was the tireless, outstanding work of sections of the Press that exposed the sinister under-cover machinations of Boss and the shameless goings-on of Drs. Rhoodie and Connie Mulder.

There are other interesting similarities between the Watergate scandal and the Information scandal. There are, for instance, some very similar characters I could mention. Evidently, the hon. the Prime Minister is ignorant of the fate of the original special prosecutor appointed by the Attorney-General of the USA on instructions of the Senate Judiciary Committee to handle the Watergate investigation. The name of that man was Archibald Cox. President Nixon instructed the Attorney-General to fire Mr. Cox when Mr. Cox demanded the tapes of the presidential conversations. When the Attorney-General refused, he was fired instead. Then the Deputy Attorney-General was requested to fire Mr. Cox for demanding the tapes. The Deputy Attorney-General refused and he, in turn, was fired. Finally the Acting Deputy was asked to fire Mr. Cox, he agreed and Cox was fired.

What was the result of all this? The result was a tremendous uproar in the USA and a number of Congressmen demanded the impeachment of the President of the USA. When the hon. the Prime Minister draws a comparison with the Special Prosecutor who was appointed in the United States, he should perhaps remember the fate of that man when he came too close to the truth. It seems to me that we too have had our Special Prosecutor in South Africa who did his job too well and was also fired.

Judge Mostert.

Yes, Sir, I am, of course, referring to Judge Mostert. I can see that the hon. members opposite know who I am referring to. He did his job too well and he came far too close to the truth, and he was fired.

The Special Prosecutor was a one-time appointment in the USA. It was not a permanent appointment, although there is legislation on the U.S. Statute Book which allows ad hoc Special Prosecutors to be appointed in the USA. The main point I was trying to make was that in no case—not in the case of the British Parliamentary Commissioner, the Finnish, Swedish or New Zealand ombudsmen or the USA Special Prosecutor—was or is there any attempt made to exclude the public from the knowledge of what is being investigated or the results of the investigations. In the case of the British Parliamentary Commissioner, as I have said, anonymity can however be preserved and the report not made public if the NP who reported the matter originally so requests. But Press freedom is inviolate. There is nothing whatever in any of these countries to stop the Press from fully investigating and reporting on everything they have discovered, irrespective of what the British Parliamentary Commissioner, the ombudsmen in Finland, Sweden or New Zealand or the Special Prosecutor in the USA are doing in the meantime. There is nothing to stop them from making public what is going on. If they find out that certain matters are being investigated they can pursue them to the full, and indeed while the Special Prosecutor was conducting his investigations in the United States, the Press was going full-blast in exposing everything it possibly could of the Watergate scandal. So, it is all very different indeed from what the hon. the Prime Minister hopes to achieve with the Advocate-General legislation.

Theodore Sorenson, who was President Kennedy’s Special Counsel in the White House, wrote about. Watergate in the following terms—

How close were we to the same dangerous position in South Africa before Judge Mostert and the investigative Press ripped the covers off the Information scandal? Had this Bill been on the Statute Book last year, the unholy trinity of Mulder, Van den Bergh and Rhoodie would have been sitting in a position of unassailable power in South Africa today, and it is my opinion that nothing short of a military coup could then have removed them.

The scope of this Bill can be summed up in a few sentences. It seeks to appoint an Advocate-General who will usurp the legitimate democratic inquiries into the misappropriation of public moneys, inquiries that should be made by the police, by Parliament and its Select Committees and by a free Press. The Advocate-General will act under his own rules. One need only look at clauses 6 and 7 to see this. He can act secretly if he so desires—this is provided for in clause 6—and he can act in his own time in terms of clause 5, because he decides when to table his report. It must be tabled seven days after which session of Parliament, may one ask? The Bill does not stipulate that it must be seven days after the ensuing session of Parliament. It can be tabled after two or three parliamentary sessions. Nor does the Bill stipulate in which recess the Report must be handed to the Speaker. If anything, I believe some of the hon. the Minister’s amendments—not all—make matters worse, because his amendment introducing the words “anything that can hinder an investigation” can mean anything at all. In the Advocate-General’s opinion “anything may hinder his investigation”.

It will be the Advocate-General who decides who shall give evidence and whether such people shall be allowed legal representation. That will be the effect even in terms of the amendments. It is in the discretion of the Advocate-General to what extent legal representation can be allowed.

The Bill provides for legal representation.

No, not necessarily. The Advocate-General can decide to what extent such legal representative can act I do not think the hon. the Minister has read the Bill properly. [Interjections.] Well, he is looking a little bit sick about it, so maybe he has now read it properly.

I know the Bill by heart.

The hon. member for Musgrave put it to the hon. the Minister across the floor of the House yesterday that he believed that nothing could be reported at any time unless it went to the Advocate-General first and the Advocate-General subsequently gave permission. The hon. the Minister said “Yes”. When it was again put to him he said: “That is how I read the Bill.”

That is true. That is the position.

What does the hon. the Minister mean by “that is how I read the Bill”? Is that what his legal advisers have told him, or is that how he reads the Bill, because some other people read it differently.

That is the meaning of the clause.

Well, it is very ambiguous, and all I can say is that I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister is wrong, but it will certainly be tested in the courts of law sooner or later. The hon. the Minister assures us—and I am glad of that because I very much hope it is so—that any matter can be raised in Parliament and that what has been said in Parliament may thereafter be reported by the Press. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Thank you very much. I just wanted to get it on record.

You are not the teacher’s pet this afternoon.

No, I am not the teacher’s pet very often.

The Advocate-General is not answerable for the procedures he adopts and the delays he may engender, delays during which no publication of any suspected misappropriations, corrupt acts, etc., may be made public on pain of vicious penalties, and the penalties are vicious.

The hon. member for Durban Point said that two main arguments can be used against those people overseas who call South Africa a police State. Those two arguments relate to our parliamentary system and the free Press in South Africa. Well, I do not think the people overseas just buy that without qualification.

I said it was a weapon.

I agree with the hon. member that it is a weapon, but people overseas do not buy that without qualification because the parliamentary system in South Africa operates minus 80% of the population. I am sure the hon. member will agree with that. The Press in South Africa, even prior to the introduction of this Bill, had many limitations placed upon its freedom, for example the security legislation, the Officials Secrets Act, the Defence Act, the Prisons Act, the Police Act and the Inquests Act, not to mention the ubiquitous Publications Board. However, I go along with the hon. member for Durban Point that the freedom of the Press has, even with its present limitations, been a very important counter to exaggerations one comes across when one is overseas. That counter this Government is today busy destroying.

I now want to say a few words about clause 5, which gives the Advocate-General the power to completely prohibit publication in the interests of national security. A great many people in South Africa, and even some of the Press media which are opposing this Bill, accept this provision unquestioningly. I do not.

Of course not!

I think South Africans have become hypnotized at the very mention of the words “national security”. They are like a lot of rabbits in front of a snake. Anything goes in the name of national security. I have had experience of this in another field, viz. the security law field, in which anything goes. The hon. the Minister has only to say it is in the interests of security and everybody shuts up like a clam.

Except you.

A mystique has developed in South Africa about the expression “national security”, a mystique that enables the Government, especially the hon. the Prime Minister, to get away with murder, if I may use this word metaphorically. Secret funds are voted, secret projects are funded, and millions of rand of taxpayers’ money disappear into unknown coffers, all in the name of national security. Nobody has to account for any of this. I think it is a gigantic confidence trick and that it is high time the South African public raised its muted voice and protested.

The problem has been defined by John Gardner, an American, of Common Cause, as follows—

And this bloated Government, instead of ensuring that every level of administration is closely watched by objective eyes, by a vigilant Press, a mindful public and a zealous Opposition, does just the opposite. It carefully insulates itself, through the Advocate-General, against shock disclosures in the future. If this Bill goes through, corruption can grow unchecked, like moss in dark comers, and maladministration can seep undetected into every comer of the Public Service.

Utter nonsense.

To say “utter nonsense” does not, in fact, answer the arguments I have advanced. I think that when this wretched Bill has been passed—unless, of course, it is radically amended in the Committee Stage—accountability will be grievously reduced in South Africa, and accountability, in the last resort, is the people’s only defence against the absolute power of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from the speech by the hon. member for Houghton that, firstly, she does not like the Bill before this House and, secondly, she does not like the office of Advocate-General that the Bill aims to introduce. However, what one must take the strongest exception to is that she began to sow suspicion and criticize the office of the Advocate-General in anticipation this afternoon, by way of her statements that he would make his own rules, act in secret and be able to delay a case. I predict at this point that this will be the attack made by the official Opposition on the official ultimately appointed to in that outstanding office. Having listened to the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members of her party yesterday and today, one can only reach one conclusion, viz. that they are total captives of their own Press. What is the attitude of that Press of theirs towards the Bill? They are solely concerned with their own interests, circulation figures and have an obsession about discrediting the National Party Government.

What about Die Transvaler and Die Burger?

Under the banner of the freedom of the Press which would ostensibly be affected, they have mustered all possible forces to achieve these two objective, their own interests and the downfall of the Government. Under this banner, and with that cry of freedom of the Press, they drew up their order of battle and have done everything in their power to achieve those two objectives in their unbridled malice. As their first allies, they used the politicians of the PFP and the NRP. Just listen for a moment to what those hon. members said in this process.

I now want to come back to a statement made by the hon. member for Yeoville earlier this afternoon when he said that the PFP speakers were very “moderate” in their approach to this whole matter. But what did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? He said the Bill was a diabolical attack on the freedom of the Press. At a protest meeting in Natal Senator Eric Winchester said that the Bill would put South Africa on the road to becoming another “banana republic” and a one-party State in Africa. And what does the hon. member for Yeoville’s own MPC say in the Transvaal Provincial Council? Mr. Alan Gadd said that the Bill was the worst since the Publication of Mein Kampf. He also said that it was the seed of Fascism. Most surprising of all, is that this Press has even taken a member like the hon. member for Durban Point in tow, and I think he has gone furthest in what he has had to say about the Bill. What did he say?

The Bill is a totalitarian measure which could only have a place in a Fascist, communist or despotic system.

This is a scandalous statement. I want to advise that hon. member not to allow himself to be taken in tow by the PFP Press so easily in future; Randfontein is awaiting him.

The English Press mustered other orders of battle and phalanxes as well. They have many foreign friends, too, and those friends have also been activated to assist in pushing the wagon. Now I want hon. members to listen to some of the noises made by newspapers, the friends of this party in the outside world: “The last light of freedom is going out” And then perhaps the worst—

But what other allies and what other actions have the Press initiated? They caused the members of the PFP to rant and rave throughout the country at protest meetings in order to incite the public against the Bill. What are their tactics? First of all they incite the public against the Bill and then tell us, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did yesterday, “the public demands that the Bill be withdrawn”. Then, to crown it all, they do it in an irresponsible way, such as when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked at a protest meeting here in Cape Town: “Wat sal gebeur as die Advokaat-generaal self korrup word?” Has this hon. member not read clause 2(6) of the Bill? Surely the legislation makes full provision for such an event.

I think I have now said enough to prove that the Opposition’s whole campaign is aimed at motives other than so-called Press freedom. They are merely using Press freedom as a peg for their pious speeches and prophecies of doom about the downfall and the disappearance of democratic institutions in this country. Of course one will now wait in vain for any positive note from opposition ranks on this Bill.

Yet this Bill is in fact in the first place a positive and not a negative measure. After all, its basic objective is to create machinery to counter corruption with Government money. This positive objective must always be accorded top priority because it creates something which did not exist before, i.e. an address to which complaints can be brought. The public is now getting a permanent watchdog to guard against corruption, self-enrichment and other irregularities. Everyone is welcome to submit complaints to this permanent address and the Press, too, can bring matters to the attention of the Advocate-General. Consequently no one is excluded.

What is more, the person reporting a matter to the Advocate-General, has three important assurances. In the first place, he has the assurance that the matter will be investigated thoroughly and in an unbiased way. Clause 5(1) of the Bill imposes a legal duty on the Advocate-General to investigate every case reported thoroughly. The second assurance every person has is that his charge will not be suppressed after he has laid it before the Advocate-General, but that a report on it will be published. This is a further legal obligation imposed on the Advocate-General. A third assurance is that that report is not secret, except in so far as it affects national security, but that it is tabled in Parliament and can subsequently be made available immediately for publication. These three assurances which everyone in this country has are, in my opinion, some of the most important positive characteristics of this Bill. These three provisions appear in the legislation and consequently it surely cannot be alleged that the Bill is aimed at a “cover-up”, as is being alleged here. It is in fact aimed at exposing such matters. The Opposition is saying: “The public is entitled to know.” I want to state that this Bill will in fact ensure that the “public” will know, because the information the public will come to know will be correct information because it will have gone through the proper channels of notification, investigation, testing and evaluation. Therefore it will be information one can rely on since it will be the truth. In my opinion this is of the highest importance in a democratic country; not wild rumours and gossip.

I said that the Bill creates an address where certain matters may be submitted. I want to refer briefly to the quality of that address. The Bill ensures that it will be a good address which will enjoy the confidence of every citizen. The Bill also provides that the office of the Advocate-General will be an excellent one with a high status. Firstly, he will be an officer of Parliament, as has already been indicated by other hon. members, and he will be responsible to Parliament Secondly, he will have to attend to his official work on a full-time basis. Thirdly, the qualifications of his office ensure that he will have to be appointed from the ranks of the most select persons in our society.

What are those requirements? He will have to be a lawyer who is entitled to practise as an advocate and who has had at least ten years of uninterrupted experience in the application of the law. Consequently such a person can be appointed not only from the ranks of advocates, but also from the ranks of judges, attorneys or persons in the legal profession in the public or private sector as well. I am convinced that it will never be possible to doubt such a person’s competence, integrity, impartiality and independence. The office, and the person occupying it, will enjoy very high status and confidence generally. In addition there are provisions in the Bill to protect that status.

I agree with hon. members on this side of the House that this is a positive measure and I gladly support it.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Houghton stands up in this House, she always has some surprise for us. This was again the case tonight. The hon. member actually had the temerity to charge this side of the House with being concerned solely with attacking the Press. Surely she cannot be so naïve. Surely she knows that it is she and her party who have for a long time now been attacking hon. members on this side of the House because we have ostensibly encroached upon the freedom of the Press. Hon. members of the PFP have stood up one after the other and continually accused speakers of the NP of attacking the Press. Now the hon. member is complaining because we are defending ourselves, because we are really coming to the crux of the matter. But this is what we have come to expect of her.

Because we are dealing with a relatively brief Bill, most speakers have of course repeatedly covered the same field. There can be no objection to that, because we have gradually ascertained that in the main, the Bill really concerns two matters. They involve the interests of South Africa and, on the other hand, the interests of the Press. As was to be expected, the Government side took the part of South Africa. On the other hand, the Opposition parties took the part of the Press. As has happened so often in the past, the two Opposition parties sided with the financially powerful. Once again they have chosen sides against the security of South Africa.

The whole purpose of the introduction of the office of Advocate-General is to counteract maladministration in South Africa and to ensure and protect the security of the State. Now we find that few hon. members from the Opposition ranks have expressed themselves in favour of steps to protect South Africa’s good name or in favour of the introduction of methods to counteract maladministration and corruption. We now find for the umpteenth time that the PFP and the NRP are not primarily interested in the protection of the good name of South Africa. [Interjections.] What prompts them is not a desire to counter-act corruption. Nor are they concerned about the truth or otherwise of reports or rumours calculated to, or aimed at, damaging the interests of South Africa. Nor are they concerned about the counteracting of malpractices. Nor are they primarily interested in clean administration. The Opposition parties are concerned with other things. They have no intention to assist in tracing and eradicating offences, as is in fact being envisaged in the Bill.

For months now we have seen what is really at issue. What is at issue is the protection of the interests of their real bosses, the interests of the Press. This does not apply to such a great extent to the NRP.

Thank you very much.

This applies mainly to the PFP, although I want to add at once that the NRP, in its conduct with regard to this Bill, is making a pathetic effort to attempt to win the favour of the Press. [Interjections.] What is also at issue is an opportunistic effort to attempt to make political capital out of this major step the Government is taking to prevent a repetition of the Information scandal. We all know of the tremendous hold the Press had on the old United Party. The hon. member for Simonstown has shown us this so often here that it is really old hat to us now. Nevertheless it is reasonably relevant to this debate.

The hon. member for Durban Point, too, has so often in the past stood in this House and moaned about the treacherous role the English Press played in throwing him and his party onto the political scrap heap. For months now South Africa has been observing the Press’ puppet show. This show has in fact been going on for years now. For many years now we have been observing this fact, viz. that the Opposition parties are marionettes that dance and jump according to the way in which the unseen hand of the Press pulls the strings. [Interjections.] This is exactly what is happening in the pathetic performance by the Opposition parties with regard to the Bill before us at present.

Consequently we look beyond this circus display on the part of the Opposition parties and, unfortunately, find ourselves standing four-square against the Press. Nor is there a single hon. member on this side of the House who is not pleased that we are settling this matter now. South Africa demands of the Government that it should not flinch from its duty now. The hon. the Minister of Transport said with great seriousness yesterday that the Press was a valuable partner, that it was strong and that the Government could get hurt. But he also said that it was in the interests of South Africa for us to proceed with this Bill. I believe that we can say quite candidly that the Government is not seeking confrontation with the Press by means of this legislation. Hon. members will agree with me when I say that it has been a long time since such strong and powerful language has been used by a leader of the NP as the language used by the hon. the Leader of the House here yesterday. This points to one thing only. There is an old Latin saying which reads: Si vis pacem, para bellum. It means: “If you wish for peace, prepare for war.” It is here where the whole of the National Party, and without doubt the greater part of the South African nation as well, stand foursquare behind the hon. the Prime Minister. It is only the Press that stands by the Opposition parties, or rather it is the other way round—it is only the Opposition parties that stand by the Press. Many of our colleagues have already testified to calls, messages and letters they have received saying: Stand foursquare behind the Prime Minister; this legislation must be passed—“the dogs may bark, but the caravan goes on”.

Let us examine for a moment the leadership given to the respective parties in this debate by the leaders of the two Opposition parties in connection with the handling of this matter. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition again began with the cover-up story, and did so ad nauseam. He repeated it thousands of times. All he forgot to say, was: “It won’t go away.” Of course he forgot that, because these days he is living in fear of “It won’t go away” because it reminds him of the telephone tied so tightly around his neck. He objects to the fact that the Opposition parties were not consulted in regard to this legislation. Of course he objects to that! Does he really think that we can trust him? He can go and complain about it to Mr. Don McHenry, but he really should not come and complain to the Government about consultation. He regards himself as the watchdog guarding the rights of the public. My question to him is whether he does not believe that the Advocate-General would be a much better watchdog than he and his party.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say: “The Bill will gag the Press.” Can one really be so naïve? South Africa’s Press does not allow itself to be gagged so easily. Surely he knows he is not speaking the truth. In future the Press will have to be a little more careful. We must all be more careful. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should also be more careful in future. I think we could tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Go and tell your bosses, go and tell your Press, “the time has come for you to take South Africa’s side for a change; do not look over your shoulder to the outside world all the time—South Africa is sick and tired of foreign intervention in its affairs”.

With regard to the conduct of the Leader of the NRP, I must frankly say that I pitied him when he stood there yesterday and cried out: “I have no partners.” He is quite right when he says so. He stands there like an orphan.

But he had a good upbringing.

How often has he not come and told us that the Press had rejected him and had turned its back on him. We want to give him good advice. We want to tell him: You know the Press; you know that you are only treated ungratefully. We know that his party and he claim to be patriots and we invite them to take the side of the National Party in dealing with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we learnt many lessons from the Information debacle, but the most important lesson we learnt was that efficient steps should be taken to prevent a repetition. There can be no doubt in anybody’s mind about this. The mere fact that the Information episode did take place, creates a suspicion that there is a deficiency in our existing system, a deficiency on which corruption may possibly begin to flourish. The office of Advocate-General is now being established to eliminate that deficiency and to ensure that corruption can be combated.

I am amazed by the reaction of the Press and the Opposition to this legislation. By their over-reaction, the Opposition proved that the Press was more important to them than the principle of eliminating corruption. The good purpose of the Government to eliminate corruption, is being totally swallowed up by the PFP’s concern about the Press. The idea has occurred to me whether the Opposition would still have opposed the measure if there had been no restriction on the Press. I do not believe that that would have been the case. They would have welcomed the legislation. I can therefore come to one conclusion only, and that is that this debate has now become primarily a Press debate. The Opposition and its Press are not concerned at all about the Government’s object to combat corruption. That has become a matter of secondary importance to them. The so-called freedom of the Press is more important to the Opposition and to the Press than combating corruption in the national administration.

The Press made an outcry over this legislation and are now asking that their side of the matter be heard. The Press is insisting on the audi alteram partem rule. They are asking that no impediment should be introduced by the legislation. They first want us to listen to their side of the matter.

Very well then, let us take a look at their side of the matter. In the first place, we have to establish what the attitude of the Press is. We do not have to search very far in this regard. Clause 4(3) of the legislation makes it perfectly clear that a restriction is only temporarily imposed on reports. As soon as the report has been tabled, the restriction lapses, except of course in the case of security matters. It is therefore a temporary restriction and not an absolute restriction.

How long is temporary?

I shall come to that aspect. How is this temporary restriction on publication being presented to the public by the Press? It is being presented as an absolute restriction on the publication of allegations of corruption. In this regard, I want to mention two examples to hon. members. On 20 May, the Sunday Times reported as follows—

Surely that is not true!

The Rand Daily Mail also reported as follows on 21 May—

The impression is being created that we are dealing here with an absolute ban on publication, while it is in fact only a temporary ban. The Press here blazoned a blatant untruth abroad, with reckless contempt for their own code. I want to quote from the Press Code for hon. members. The code provides, as far as news is concerned, that it is specifically accepted that—

What I quoted from these two newspapers, shows a blatant omission of the truth, viz. that it is only a temporary ban. Nevertheless, they blazon it abroad as though it were an absolute ban. The attitude of the English-language Press to this Government is an attitude which dates back a long way. We remember the case of Mr. Laurence Gandar, a former editor of the Rand Daily Mail. As long ago as 1964 he stated openly that he wanted to see South Africa handed over to Black domination. We do not have to go back to 1964, however; we need only read the Sunday Times of 13 May 1979—ten days ago. In that edition of Sunday Times, their correspondent, Fleur de Villiers, wrote the following—

She wrote here about the “myth” of a White South Africa. The attitude of the hostile English-language Press is aimed at the overthrow …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member what his quotations have to do with corruption?

The hon. member is far better at shooting at targets than he is at asking questions. We are now discussing a Bill which is before the House. The main objection of the Opposition was concerned with the restriction of the Press and I am discussing that. That is my answer to the hon. member’s question.

The attitude of the hostile English-language Press is aimed at the subversion of the identity of the Whites in South Africa and the establishing of an integrated society in this country.

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

The case of the Press was illustrated by Die Beeld. Actually it is not a bad newspaper. Die Beeld of 21 May 1979 admitted—

The newspaper was referring here to corruption—

The newspaper admitted that some newspapers went too far. I quote further—

With regard to corruption, the Beeld issued a further warning—

And—

As far as the Press is concerned, I want to say that if one applies the audi alteram partem rule and says that the Press is now making an outcry because we are introducing this Bill, and if we want to give the Press an opportunity to state its case, one finds that the Press itself admits that some newspapers are waging war and that they are bruiting blatant lies abroad. They are violating their own code in a blatant way. They have been hostile to the survival of the identity of the White man for years. I submit that the Press has gone much too far under the cloak of Press freedom, to such an extent that I am today certain that if I or anyone else were to propose at the Transvaal congress this year that the Rand Daily Mail should be closed down, the majority would vote in favour of it. This is the result of the attitude which is being created by some newspapers. I have listened to the Press’ side of the matter and my judgment is “Mene, mene, tekel, uphersin”. I do not know what language that is, but it means that the Press has been weighed and found wanting. I want to tell the Press that they are fortunate that the Government is dealing so gently with them. The small degree of discipline which is an integral part of this Bill, is evidence of the Government’s infinite patience. It is only extremely deplorable that innocent newspapers are perhaps going to be hurt in the process.

Which are the innocent newspapers?

I want to point out one problem as far as the Afrikaans-language Press is concerned, and that is that they are perhaps to a great extent a slave to the circulation concept. However, we should be realistic. The Afrikaans-language Press shows a greater degree of journalistic honesty than does the English-language Press. The Afrikaans-language Press believes in the survival of the White man and fights for it with the Government. The Afrikaans-language Press has a need for warm and enthusiastic co-operation with the NP, as was the case in the past. The time has come for the NP and the Afrikaans-language Press to trust each other and again get along well together, as was the case in the past. The time has come for reflection, and therefore I should like to read what Beeld reported on 21 May—

There is a particularly great benefit in what is being imposed upon publication by this temporary ban. The Advocate-General can work in peace and tranquillity. I shudder when I think of the unpleasanmess which Mr. Justice Erasmus had to experience.

What about Mostert?

Just imagine, Mr. Speaker: An honourable judge who was thrown to the circulation-hungry wolves. Many a day I felt sorry for the man because of the constant publicity to which he was subjected. I also wondered how on earth he managed to do his work in a peaceful and undisturbed way. Because of the experiences of Mr. Justice Erasmus with the Press, I do not begrudge the Advocate-General being able to do his work in peace and tranquillity under the protection of this legislation.

As the Bill reads at present, with the proposed amendments, there is indeed freedom of the Press, except where State security is involved and where that is an impediment to its work. What is all the fuss about then?

You say that it is an intervention?

It is a restriction, cattle farmer! The Opposition has raised many objections. It is a pity that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not here now. He received a motion of no confidence in Randfontein the other night. That is perhaps one of the reasons why he is so seldom in the House. He said that the Advocate-General should have the Press, political parties and the public as allies in exposing malpractices. But surely that is the case. He does have them. What is the sense of his argument?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, however, said something more. His story is as follows: “It tolls the knell for investigative journalism in South Africa.” As far as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, I want to say in all earnest that I prefer that the functions of the Advocate-General should be such that I would be able to report the telephone call of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to Mr. McHenry as a deed of the utmost irresponsibility against South Africa.

It has been said that the measure will encourage corruption. That is a cheap political argument without any grounds. One does not obtain a good extra watchdog and encourage theft by doing so. The mere fact that the Advocate-General is being appointed, demonstrates the Government’s sincerity in wanting to ensure a clean national administration.

The hon. member for Yeoville kicked up a row about the period of time for which the Press would now have to remain silent. There is only one example of anything of that nature, and that is the Information scandal, as they call it. The whole great. Information debacle has only been in progress since November of last year, as far as the inquiry of Mr. Justice Erasmus is concerned. It is to be finalized this month. Its whole duration was only about seven months. Surely we can then expect the duration in other cases of corruption to continue for perhaps two or three weeks only. What is all the fuss about then? Why do they not want to wait?

The NRP also kicked up a fuss here. I want to ask them: On whose behalf are they speaking? There are only 10 of them sitting here. I canvassed in Randfontein last week and I want to tell the NRP and the PFP they are both going to lose their deposits.

Where?

In Randfontein. [Interjections.] I spoke to a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of the old United Party in Randfontein and he told me that he was now voting for the NP. I then asked him: But what happened to the NRP? Then he told me: “Their office is just next door—come and look.” When I went to have a look, I saw their office with a large notice board in front, which read “Avbob”.

The aim of the legislation is very simple, viz. to offer every responsible citizen the opportunity to assist in combating corruption.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended earlier this evening, I was saying that the intention of the legislature with this legislation was to offer every responsible citizen the opportunity to combat corruption in the State.

Is there so much corruption then?

That hon. member is the most corrupt one. The Advocate-General should be able to do his work in peace and tranquillity. What is particularly important to me, is that the Advocate-General should present his report to Parliament, which is the highest authority in the country. Therefore I support the legislation as well as the efficient way in which corruption is being eliminated by the establishment of a clean national administration.

I cannot understand the hon. Opposition’s objections in principle against this legislation. Basically there are two objections. The first one is that the Press is being restricted, and I have already dealt with that. The other is an objection in principle to the appointment of the Advocate-General. Why is there an objection to the appointment of an Advocate-General? His task is to eliminate corruption. Can there be any objection at all to such an office? The Opposition pleaded for it for months, asked for it and jumped up and down in their benches in their eagerness for action against corruption. But now that the Government is taking action against it, they object. It reminds me of the man who prays in the morning to ask for work, while he thanks the Lord in the evening after he has returned home, that he did not find any. What is significant, is that no proposal was made to put anything or anyone in the place of the Advocate-General.

A new Government. [Interjections.]

With what kind of Opposition are we dealing here? This is an Opposition which criticizes without proposing anything in its place. That is why they are in the Opposition and why they are going to remain in the Opposition.

What did the PFP do? They organized protest meetings throughout the country and incited virulent opposition to the legislation even before they had seen it Do the hon. members realize what fools they are making of themselves by doing that? They held protest meetings here in the Cape where the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked, inter alia: What would happen if the Advocate-General himself were corrupt? The hon. member for Ermelo replied to that. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not read the Bill, but even so, he went to address a meeting dealing with it. The hon. member made the same mistake in Randfontein. He arrived there and he thought he could address the people there as he had addressed the people in the Cape and at other places. A motion of no confidence in him was then moved and he had an indication at the same time that his party would lose its deposit. That is what the hon. member found there. They also held meetings in Durban.

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

I shall do so with pleasure, Sir. The NP congresses and NP members have been insisting on steps against the Press for years. The Government has threatened with legislation, but that legislation was withdrawn time and again on the strength of promises, promises which were then not kept I think the impression was created with the Press that they could do as they liked. They thought that the Government would not really take action. The impression was created that the Government was afraid of the Press, and the unavoidable moment of truth, therefore, has now come. Muscle against muscle, the Government against the Press, bull against bull. The time has now come for the Press to realize that the Government is in earnest. The hysterical outburst was of no avail …

Is it aimed at the Press or at corruption?

It is aimed at corruption. The Press will now realize that the Government governs this country, and not they. I trust that the Press, as a result of this legislation, will realize that they will have to appreciate their freedom in future and not abuse it.

Is that a threat?

The Government has now had enough and is now proving that it is not afraid of the Press. The Government will do its duty when it has to. We hope that a new relationship will be created between the Government and the Press as a result of this action, a relationship of mutual respect by which democracy will be furthered and not destroyed.

Mr. Speaker, first I should just like to deal with a few points raised by the hon. member for Jeppe. Unfortunately I do not have much time at my disposal and consequently I shall be unable to deal with all the matters he raised. The hon. member asked in the first place on whose behalf the NRP was speaking. I want to make it very clear to the hon. member and to other hon. members that as far as this legislation is concerned, we in this party are speaking on behalf of all the people who have the interests of democracy at heart. [Interjections.] Then I also think that the hon. member still owes me a reply. He promised to give us his definition of “temporary period of time”. He did not deal with it, of course, because he is most probably aware of the fact that in terms of this legislation there is no restriction on the period of time within which the Advocate-General has to table his report. I think the hon. member is aware of that; for that reason he is not prepared to give a reply in this regard.

The hon. member also made the statement that the Opposition—and I accept that this includes the official Opposition as well—had a bigger interest in the freedom of the Press than in the elimination of corruption. I just want to tell the hon. member that the freedom of the Press is a cornerstone of the democratic political system. [Interjections.] In order to eliminate corruption, one should therefore not tamper with the cornerstones of democracy. The hon. member for Jeppe made the statement that we should see to the elimination of malpractices in the system of government rather than support the cornerstone of democracy—the freedom and the responsibility of the Press. If one interferes with the framework of democracy, one destroys for the most part the process through which malpractices in government are revealed. The lack of logic in that argument renders it impossible to give an answer to it Consequently I can just tell the hon. member that there are major shortcomings in his argument as far as this aspect is concerned.

The democratic process in operation in South Africa at present, is an age-old system. The freedom of the Press is one of its cornerstones. It has been thoroughly tried and tested inside and outside South Africa. There are many examples which one can cite to prove that were it not for the freedom of the Press and freedom of speech, malpractices would in all probability not have been revealed. My party and I do not believe that this legislation in any way proposes a process which improves on the existing age-old tried and tested system of democracy, one of the cornerstones of which is the freedom and the responsibility of the Press.

†I should now like to raise an issue with the hon. the Minister who introduced this Bill. He has been quoted from Hansard. I had better read it to the hon. the Minister in case he has forgotten what he has said.

*I quote from the unrevised version of Hansard—

†I should like to differ with the hon. the Minister’s conception of the Bill, because that is not what the Bill says. Clause 4(3) says—

It is very clear to me and I believe to all hon. members on this side of the House, that once this Bill is passed it will become impossible for anything to be published in a newspaper about alleged corruption. That is it.

Only during the period of investigation.

No, that is not what the Bill says. If that is the hon. the Minister’s intention he must amend the Bill. [Interjections.] He must amend it in such a way that the sub judice rule applies only in respect of the period during which an investigation occurs. In addition to that the hon. the Minister must consider that laying the report alone on the Table will not be sufficient to protect the freedom or rights of the citizens of South Africa, their democratic rights, because, the laying upon the Table of the House the recommendations of the Advocate-General is not sufficient. I believe the evidence which was gathered during his investigation should also be made available to hon. members of this House.

Hear, hear! That is right.

I believe the hon. the Minister has not correctly interpreted the part of the clause I have just quoted. I cannot find any justification for a statement made by the hon. the Minister in the Press, a statement also recorded in Hansard. That is the crux of the problem and of the objection of the NRP to this particular legislation. [Interjections.] This is a muzzling Bill. This is a gagging Bill. [Interjections.] Let us wipe out all the superfluous arguments. We are tampering now with the democratic process of the freedom of the Press and of the freedom of speech in South Africa. Newspaper publications, broadcasting by radio and TV, are logical physical extensions of the principle of the freedom of speech and of freedom of the Press. This Bill is not only gagging the Press, it is also interfering with that fundamental democratic right of the freedom of speech.

As a public representative the Government should be able to stand the scrutiny of Press critics as well as public critics.

That is right. Tell them that.

It is the democratic process that demands that those who stand for public office, those in the executive of government, should be prepared to have their actions scrutinized. There is sufficient legislation to take action against people who perpetrate inaccuracies, lies and deceitful actions against the Government.

That is exactly what we want to investigate.

This Bill is a matter of conscience for every hon. member who supports it. [Interjections.] It is a matter of conscience, and I should appeal to all hon. members opposite who are supporting this Bill to consider the significance and the consequences for democracy in this country of the legislation before us now. We can only come to one conclusion. That is that the Government is in the process of establishing an authoritarian one-party State in South Africa. [Interjections.] I believe that this Bill is an indictment of the ability and the integrity of every hon. Cabinet Minister and of every hon. member opposite. It is an indictment against their ability to participate in the democratic process in South Africa. However, what they are telling us is that the Press critics and the public critics have greater validity in the public eye and in the public mind than the words of hon. Ministers and their supporters. [Interjections.] That is what it is all about.

Good leadership in politics is being shown in overseas countries which have a democratic process similar to our own. They are able to survive and to triumph despite their critics. Despite the institutionalized critics of South Africa, here and everywhere else, we still have a democratic process. The Government is giving notice that its leadership is failing, that its policies are failing. When one starts to fail there is only one answer. There is only one answer when people start to hit one back when they examine one’s actions. That is to get rid of the critics. [Interjections.]

I want to warn hon. members on that side that they have started with the process of dismantling democracy in South Africa. This party suffers more at the hands of the Press than the Government. Yet we are prepared to defend that democratic right of our generation and the next generation. We should like to see ourselves as the custodians of our democratic heritage. If hon. members on that side are prepared to sacrifice that heritage for a short-term political gain, I believe they must let the voters know about that. Tampering with the democratic process is going to lead to far more serious consequences for South Africa than the Information scandal did. Deplorable as it was, the Information scandal, with the millions of rand it involved, could not hurt South Africa that much. I once again appeal to every hon. member to examine his conscience, because every hon. member was elected by the democratic process and owes it to his voters and to the country to perpetuate, without fear of intimidation or favour, the legacy of democracy in this country. I believe that every hon. member who supports this Bill will be publicly admitting that for a short-term political gain he is prepared to sacrifice democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am very glad to belong to this side of the House. The speakers on this side of the House who have preceded me have objectively upheld and propagated the principles of democracy. The hon. member for Durban North spoke of the principles of democracy, but he did not say what they were. The most important principle of democracy is that the elected representatives should govern.

Democratically.

That is the most important principle of democracy. Then the hon. member for Durban North spoke about the freedom of the Press, but he did not try to explain it to us. He cannot define it. I challenge any hon. member on the other side to give me a definition of Press freedom. I challenge the newspapers to give a definition of Press freedom so that we may know what we are talking about.

You give us a definition.

Surely there is a difference between the right to publish and the freedom of the Press. What does the freedom of the Press mean? I am coming to that.

You must not keep us in suspense. Tell us.

I want to state that this party is not against the Press. [Interjections.] We are in favour of clean administration. This party is not against democracy. We are in favour of it. We are in favour of the retention of its institutions and of the organs of the State which may not be unfairly disparaged. We stand for clean democracy. It is not our intention to protect politicians with this Bill. I challenge anyone on that side of the House to indicate where this Bill protects politicians. No politician is protected by this. We stand for the protection of the organs of the State. The normal statutory provisions with regard to libel do not apply to them, therefore the Press does what it likes.

Did the Press, with regard to Eschel Rhoodie …

We are not against reporting as such. We are definitely in favour of decent responsible reporting. Nor are we opposed to the prosecution of people who are guilty of abuses. We are in favour of the rule of law. [Interjections.] We believe that the courts should act, not the Press. They are not tried by the Press. That is not the rule of law. Since when is that the rule of law? We stand for the rule of law.

I just want to give a survey of what has been said by hon. members on the other side. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: “Press freedom is not a theoretical concept.” I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to define to me what he understands by Press freedom.

I say there is a difference between the right to publish and the freedom of the Press. The hon. member for Musgrave said: “The public may not now pursue investigations.” It does not say so in the legislation. The hon. member for Musgrave is quite wrong and he misrepresents the contents of the Bill. What does the hon. member for Yeoville say? He says: “Corruption is the exception and not the rule.” I agree with him; surely that is correct. He goes on to say: “We must flush out corruption.” Once again he is right.

However, what does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say? He says we should allow total Press freedom, as in Germany, but he omits to say that there are two sets of administrative legal approaches in Germany, i.e. the one of person against person and the one of State against person. He omitted to say that. Everything in Germany is fine, but here in South Africa things are going badly. He omits to mention the basic difference. What did the hon. member for Houghton say?

†She went out of her way to say this legislation is completely different to all other instances or institutions in other countries.

*She says that it differs completely from the situation in England and New Zealand. However, is she right in saying that? In this connection, I want to read to her what was written by Professor Kachelhoffer of Unisa. He asked—

I am not for a moment saying that the Advocate-General is an ombudsman. I am only outlining the basic characteristics of an ombudsman and I want to measure them against this Bill. Prof. Kachelhoffer says, firstly—

Parliament is the legislator and the Advocate-General will be responsible to Parliament. Secondly, he says—

That is precisely what is being done here. Thirdly, he says—

That is not exactly what this legislation provides for, but it is more or less the same. Fourthly, the professor says—

That is exactly what is happening here. Fifthly, he says—

What about the prohibition against the Press?

The hon. member for Constantia apparently does not quite understand Afrikaans. I do not blame him. He has no conception of the Afrikaans mentality and that is why he and his party will stay in the political wilderness forever. The point I am trying to make is that this idea of the Advocate-General is compatible with all similar concepts in the Western world. We are not at all moving away from the Western concept of what is reasonable and just and what should be done. We are not at all in the process of becoming a police State, but that is exactly the impression of the official Opposition and the NRP are trying to create.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member to tell us clearly whether any other democracy has included the provisions of clazse 4(3)?

Mr. Speaker, I shall furnish the reply in two phrases. In the first place …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, I gave the hon. member an opportunity to ask me a question. Perhaps he could then have the decency to allow me to answer it. The first answer I want to give the hon. member is that his interpretation of clause 4(3) is totally wrong.

That was not the question.

I am answering the hon. member’s question, but surely I am entitled to do so in my own way. Firstly, the hon. member completely misunderstands what it says in clause 4(3). The hon. the Minister is right. There is absolutely nothing in the Western world which is analogous to his interpretation of clause 4(3).

What is your interpretation?

His interpretation is totally wrong. I said at the outset that this was not an ombudsman, because there are deviations from certain practices followed in other countries because South Africa is a country with problems peculiar to itself. I agree wholeheartedly with clause 4(3).

The hon. member for Durban North made a second mistake. He did not refer to the amendments to be made to the clause. If he would read today’s Order Paper, he would see that he was talking absolute nonsense. I think I have answered his question.

Now answer the question; so far you have not.

I now want to explain the position. The question is where we stand at the moment with regard to the situation in which we find ourselves. I want to examine the present situation and to deal with two aspects. I first want to say where this party stands and then where that party stands. I want to state that the NP believes in democracy, as I told hon. members at the beginning. The representatives of the people will decide what is in the national interest. We believe in clean administration.

We also believe that the Press is very necessary to us. However, there has been a change in the policy of the Press towards this country. We notice that the Press, which should serve as an instrument for the preservation of democracy, is being used as an instrument in an attempt to destroy the democratic institutions. It is a process of disparagement which is taking place. Our church leaders, our political leaders, our Police Force and our State institutions are being disparaged by them. The Press is now jeopardizing the security of our country. I am not saying that they are doing it consciously, but wittingly or unwittingly they are being used as an instrument of Marxism. This Government has a responsibility not to allow that.

Those of us who are sitting in this House should ask ourselves how this state of affairs came about. Two years ago, a Press code was drawn up and a law was almost passed. The Press was warned and told that their conduct was not in the best interests of South Africa. A Press code was drawn up on which they agreed. They went along with the idea. However, what did they do with it? Absolutely nothing. They did not observe it at all. In December 1978, they were twice told that we should co-operate in the interests of South Africa. We could not allow the Press to be used wittingly or unwittingly as an instrument for destroying democracy. In March 1979, this was repeated. On other occasions, newspaper editors were called in and talked to. The Government has never sought confrontation with any person. We should like to have consultation. However, our requests are not heeded.

Now the House of Assembly has an obligation towards the country to protect democracy in this country, no matter how unpopular it may be among the Press and among the Opposition. We have this obligation and we shall honour it. There is no doubt about that. The prerogative of this House of Assembly is to ensure that there is clean administration, that there is access for persons who want to lay complaints, and that such complaints can be investigated on an impartial basis. It is not the prerogative or the sole right of the Press to conduct inquiries when abuses occur. From the whole polemic in the Press I infer that what they are really objecting to is the fact that they will no longer have the sole right to ferret out and expose abuses, because that will mean that they will lose their scoops. That is what the Press is complaining about, and I do not blame them, but then they must not blame me either when I say that I wish to have such a clean administration that every citizen who may be worried about anything must be able to complain about it, and not to the Press. He must be able to lay his complaint before a person and that person must lay it before this House of Assembly. Then the position will be as follows: Instead of complaints being made to the Press about something, the complaint is conveyed directly to the House of Assembly, to the elected representatives who will examine the matter responsibly. Therefore I ask: How on earth can the Press object to that? I simply do not understand it.

Perhaps I should refer to the resolutions of the General Council of the Bar. According to yesterday’s Argus, the General Council of the Bar said the following—

In other words, which are lies. That is all it amounts to, although they use the find sounding word “unfounded”—

They do not say towards whom, however. If they had said “towards the State” and “towards the individual”, the statement would have been complete. That is the first leg of what they say. The second leg is—

Once again that means “suppression of public discussion of these lies”.

That is not what it says.

I say that is what it says. If one interprets it correctly, that is what it says—

It surprises me that the General Council of the Bar should say that the one injustice is preferable to the other. They weigh up two injustices against each other. That makes me ask myself: Is it not the duty of the Council of the Bar to supply a third leg or another solution through which neither will be to the detriment of anyone? The Council of the Bar has a function as advocates. If they want to give a lead, they must confine themselves to legal aspects, not to the public good. They are not elected representatives; we are. It surprises me that the advocacy, through the mouth of their spokesman, should say that the one evil, the one injustice, may take place, while the other injustice is very important, in their opinion. I completely disagree with this. If a statement such as this one by the Council of the Bar cannot be explained in logical terms, then it is not logic or the legal aspects which are the decisive factor, but ulterior motives. This is clearly the situation, and therefore we must rate these objections of the General Council of the Bar at their true value.

What we are seeking to do by means of this legislation is to take that third course which the Council of the Bar should have taken. We want to do one thing without omitting the other. As far as possible, we want to ensure that no person is prejudiced. It surprises me that the General Council of the Bar does not commend this legislation as it should have done.

Now I should like to talk about the Press. I should like to read from The Argus. I shall read only from yesterday’s Argus; one newspaper is enough to condemn them. In its editorial yesterday, The Argus said—

They say it. They say it in so many words. What an admission! However, they go further. They are so sanctimonious that they do not notice their own faults. Let us see what it says in the following sentence—

Why must society pay at all? Is it so that they may get scoops and so that they may disseminate lies, while society simply has to pay? This is a grave indictment of the newspapers, that they should dare to tell the public that they definitely publish incorrect information and that the public has to pay the price for that and to put up with it. In my opinion, it is a disgrace. What do they say next? They say—

Quite right.

It is nonsense. This legislation has nothing to do with the elected Government. It concerns the organization of the State.

Who is responsible for the organization of the State?

This newspaper is totally wrong and it is disgraceful. I should also like to refer to a third article on the front page of the same newspaper, where they say the following—

Surely that is a lie.

It is quite true.

It is a lie. I challenge the next speaker to show me where it says in this legislation that the Press may not conduct investigations. I challenge those hon. members to show me that. [Interjections.]

Why investigate if you cannot report?

It goes on to say on the same page—

But this is a lie. If that is the situation we have in this country, that all these lies are contained in one newspaper, then it is deplorable that such reporting is still condoned and protected in South Africa. I should like to read to the House what someone has to say about Press freedom. I challenge those hon. members to explain to us what Press freedom is. One Alexander Hamilton said the following—

That is the security of the Press—

The public is so strongly opposed to some sections of this Press that the Press does not have a leg to stand on. I have in my possession a letter which I received yesterday and in which it is said once again that the NP is far too lenient with the Press. I challenge those hon. members to speak openly about something which they know something about. I want them to define what they mean by Press freedom.

I also want to refer to something else by quoting from a report published in America. The hon. member for Mossel Bay also quoted from this report. It was drawn up by a responsible body which had investigated the actions of the Press in America. I quote—

Who are they?

The Committee on the Freedom of the Press. They say—

This means that the Press cannot simply rush in wherever they like, because the man in the street is also protected against interference from them. I must therefore have freedom from the Press, but there must also be freedom for the Press. I want to read one more quotation—

This is what was said by a very responsible body in America. In actual fact, this is the present situation in South Africa as well.

What is our objective with this Bill? What are we trying to achieve? Hon. members on that side of the House may grin—I expect it—but the fact of the matter is that we want clean administration in this country. [Interjections.] I ask those hon. members who are so eager to criticize to produce a better proposal than the one which is before us at the moment. We are prepared to look at it. However, what they are doing is negative.

We want the Press to publish as much as possible about State organs, as long as it is the truth. The truth must be published and we all agree with that. Furthermore, the confidence of the electorate in the State organs must not be undermined by inaccurate and malicious reporting under the cloak of democracy. The first priority is the security of the inhabitants of the State. That is the third objective of the Bill. The security of those hon. members is also guaranteed by this. In fact, the security of the Press is guaranteed by this.

We have a democratic system and we intend to preserve it. We cannot allow pressure to be brought to bear on the Government by trade unions, as is done in England. I want to tell the Press in all friendliness that they create the impression of a large and strong trade union which wants to interfere with these matters by pretending to be strong and flexing their muscles. Let them flex their muscles, however; we shall see who wins. We cannot allow them to win.

What do we want to do? We want to give the man in the street, the taxpayer, the man who pays so that this country may be governed by State organs, the right to see whether his money is being spent in the right way. What is wrong with that? The man in the street is now given a share in the administration of his money. Surely that is what we want. He need not go running to the Press. He can come directly to the House of Assembly via the Advocate-General. In a democratic system, no citizen in the country can expect more than that. What more can anyone be offered than one’s best? That is the situation. That is the idea with the appointment of the Advocate-General. He is responsible to the House of Assembly. This House will now be notified first, and it would seem to me that the Press does not like this. Now they will not be the first to know about almost every case, since this House will now be given that opportunity. This House will assess the matter and act accordingly.

I ask for the second time, in all humility, whether there is anything more one can give. The Government does not govern on behalf of itself, but in the best interests of the people. The NP does not govern on behalf of itself, but on behalf of the inhabitants of this country. Therefore I have to support this legislation for a number of reasons. There are great advantages attached to it Firstly, if this legislation had existed two years ago, any person who had noticed the slightest indication of maladministration would have been able to lay a complaint Everything would have been expose much more rapidly. The Auditor-General did all the work and he is the man who exposed the matter. However, he was not properly equipped for doing so, since it is not his function. We are now creating the opportunity for a person to act rapidly to ensure that this can never happen again.

That is the situation. I now ask the Press to look at this legislation again in the light of what has been said here. After all, it is in their interest too that there should be clean administration. They also pay tax, after all. I want to ask them to examine this Bill properly and with new eyes. I believe they will then realize that it is in their interest, too, that the legislation should be passed. I gladly support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Pretoria West with every intention of replying to his arguments. However, he produced an extraordinary circus of variety turns, of red herrings, of smoke-screens and of contradictions—an enormous variety show which would take me not less than half an hour to even begin to reply to. [Interjections.] The hon. member must therefore forgive me if I do not deal with the enormous variety of 57 arguments he put forward. I should rather like to deal with the basis of his arguments.

The hon. member says that this Bill is essentially designed to bring about clean administration in South Africa. Well, if that were the essential intention of the Bill, it would surely have been necessary to write a very different kind of Bill. The Bill would in fact have stated the intention to remove certain malpractices, to eliminate certain areas of Government where malpractices had taken place or were likely to take place. That Bill would have tried to assure that the light of day would be let into all dark comers, the light of day in the sense of public investigation, the searchlight of Press investigation, of free controversy, of free discussion—for these are the elements of democratic Government. These are the means by which a Government in the Western democracies is kept clean and honest. That would have been the contents of a Bill if it were designed for the purpose which the hon. member for Pretoria West described.

I should like to tell him what I think this Bill is about. The purpose of this Bill—and it is quite plain to anyone who reads it carefully—is to remove the investigation and the publication of State matters from the area of the private sector and to place these things entirely in the hands of the public sector itself. This is what it is about.

Clause 4 of the Bill, specifically and in detail, defines the prohibited areas, the areas prohibited to the private sector, to the Press, to the public and to the individual. It defines that area as an area of unique State interests, an area regarding State moneys, State affairs, State employees, and all things which may be done at the expense of the State. These are matters which may no longer be dealt with freely by the public or by private interests. It must henceforth be placed exclusively within the domain of the State.

This Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with the defence of private interests against encroachment by the State. If one looks at the innovation of the institution of the ombudsman in some of the Western democracies, one finds that the purpose of the ombudsman is specifically to guard the public, to guard the private interests; to protect the private interests against the ever-threatening encroachment of the power of the State or of expanding administrative authority. That is what the job of the ombudsman is. Some Western democracies have found it necessary to appoint an ombudsman to defend those very private interests against encroachment by the State. However, here we have the exact reverse. Here, where we have one of the most powerful authoritarian administrations in the world, this same powerful administration finds it necessary to appoint, not an ombudsman but an Advocate-General. To do what? To defend that powerful State against the encroachments and the threats of the private sector. [Interjections.]

You are talking absolute nonsense. You do not know what you are talking about.

If the hon. the Prime Minister would just listen to me, I would prove my statement [Interjections.] In South Africa we have the situation that it is this powerful State that now needs protection. Let the hon. the Prime Minister read the Bill himself. If he does so, he will find that protection is being given to the State, protection is being given to the Administration. It is not an ombudsman Bill. This is an anti-ombudsman Bill. That is what it is.

It is an anti-faceless shareholders Bill.

This Bill explicitly and without apology says that the State administration will not tolerate investigations by the private sector of the State itself. If an investigation is necessary, the Bill says in effect that the State will do the job and, if the State does not have the machinery to do the job, that it will appoint a man to do that job. All of this is in direct conflict with the experience of democratic government.

It is not so that efficient government depends on its being protected against the curiosity of the vulgar mob. No powerful Government needs that kind of protection. This, nevertheless, is what this Bill appears to do. It is seeking to give the State protection against interference, gossip and rumour mongering by the mob outside. The fortress is threatened by gossip. It is threatened by rumour. Therefore we have to erect new fortifications, appoint our own protectors of the sacred citadel of the Administration. What an extraordinary situation are we not in!

What any democratic Government or Administration needs is protection against the encroachment by the Administration. Administration is by its nature always seeking after greater efficiency, greater effectiveness, and it tends to spread wider and wider. It is because of the realization of this natural tendency that a number of Governments, for example, the Scandinavian Governments, the New Zealand Government, the British Government and the American Government, have seen the necessity of trying to protect the private interest against this kind of encroachment. To call this Bill an ombudsman Bill, as some people have wrongly done, is to make a mockery of it. It is the exact reverse. I believe, as we must all believe from our own experience, that good government depends on public access to information and the public’s right to use that information and to participate in government as a means towards creating better government. One cannot participate effectively in government unless one has free access to information and can use that information.

And unless one has a responsible Press.

This is the essence of democratic government.

Let us come to the question of a responsible Press. How does a responsible Press do its job? We are dealing particularly with the danger of scandal, corruption and so forth and not ordinary news reporting. What actually happens in the Press office? Ordinary members of the public become aware of things they think are improper, of things they consider to be abuses in government. What happens is that they then telephone the local newspaper, or their MP, and tell them about it An investigation is then undertaken. The newspapers do not simply publish such stories unsupported. They check them out. The MP does not simply put a question on the Question Paper, but he checks the story out. The investigation then starts. The complaint may be ill-founded, it may be unjustified. Nothing would, however, be found out unless everything untoward, everything suspicious, were investigated. This is part of the job of the Press, just as it is the job of the MP and of every right-minded responsible citizen. The present Government are not apart from us. They are not a different race. They have been put there by the people of South Africa and the people of South Africa have the right to inquire; they have the right to ask; they have the right to accuse; they have the right to demand investigations. The Government has, however, become so powerful, so complacent, so self-satisfied, that they are now saying: “We do not believe that the public have the right to inquire. The public must go and lay a complaint with our man. We will appoint a man. Lay your complaint with the head prefect and he will decide whether you have a case or not” Sir, is it any wonder that people no longer feel they have recourse to officialdom in respect of their complaints? Is it any wonder that in the case of the Information scandal people did not go to the Government to complain, that they did not tell the Government that Connie Mulder, Rhoodie or General Van den Bergh was doing wrong? That would have been to no avail. The Government would have said: You are talking nonsense. [Interjections.] There was no point in going so they went to the Press and they came to us. Who solved the problem, who exposed the issue, who resolved the corruption? Who, in fact, remedied the corruption? Without the Press, and without the public’s confidence in the Press as an investigatory organ within democracy, one would today have had Dr. Connie Mulder as Prime Minister, Dr. Eschel Rhoodie as Controller and Auditor-General and Gen. Van den Bergh as Minister of Foreign Affairs. That is what we would have had today. [Interjections.] Who would have stopped it if the Press had not investigated the matter and exposed it?

How ridiculous can you get?

I am not being funny. It was a real possibility. I invite the hon. the Leader of the House to think back a few months and to envisage what might have happened if all these matters had not been exposed; and who exposed it other than the Press?

Within the Government there has been a commendable change in the field of economic affairs. In the field of economic affairs we have seen a movement away from State control. We have seen a movement away from State monopolies. We have seen a willingness to bring the private sector in more fully, to invite the participation of the private sector in the creation of an open, free and vigorous economy. On the other hand, in our administration we are going in the reverse direction because there is an ever-increasing tendency to close down on the sources of information. The Government is becoming increasingly secretive, increasingly reluctant to reveal information and increasingly suspicious of inquiry by the private sector into the affairs of the Administration. It is very difficult to obtain information from the Government. I have some remarkable example of this.

I think the hon. the Prime Minister—and I say this in all friendliness to him—should read a book recently published in South Africa, a book called The Darker Reaches of Government, written by Prof. Mathews. I think it contains information which may surprise even him. It documents in detail the growing encroachment of Government administration on the freedom of the public to participate in Government and to share in information.

Kowie is laughing at you.

I do not hear anybody laughing.

I laughed at something else.

Kowie is laughing at himself.

This Bill is not just an anti-Press Bill, as many people aver. It is more than that. It is an anti-private sector Bill as it makes it more and more difficult for the public to participate fully in the investigation of public affairs and to have access to the sources of information which enables it to participate in public affairs.

We have developing, in this country, a kind of apartheid between the public sector and the private sector. It is a kind of race classification, because the Bill itself declares that certain people are no longer eligible to investigate matters and to publish information about them for the benefit of the public at large. We may no longer do that. We have to approach the Government-appointed person and he will then decide, after his own investigation, whether it is necessary to take the matter further, whether he should lay a report before Parliament and whether any further investigation is necessary. On this basis, if this system had operated a year or two ago, I am confident that we would never have discovered the things which were discovered by a free and full investigation into the situation as it then existed. I believe that the role of the Press as an investigatory body is absolutely cardinal to the maintenance of democracy. I believe that it is right that we should try, by all means at our disposal, to protect this role, to defend it and to recognize it as a salutary method, a remedy within the system for all the ills that may befall a Government, particularly a Government that grows too strong, too powerful and too complacent.

That could only be your party’s fault.

I believe that this remedy is needed. Both the Afrikaans-language and the English-language Press have a role to play in puncturing complacency, in keeping the Government cut down to size and in ensuring that the rights of the individual are respected, honoured and defended. I believe these things are so essential that without them democracy cannot possibly succeed. For a Government to say that we no longer need that role, that it will institute machinery and the institutional apparatus which can perform these functions, that the Press has embarrassed it, that it will exclude the Press and create its own machinery to play the role of the Press, is a contradiction in terms and cannot work. If we had an open administration in South Africa, we would not need this Bill. And in a closed administration we cannot afford this Bill. The only thing we can afford, is an open administration.

Until this Government turns back from the path it has taken and decides that, just as in the economic sector, it wishes to bring about open government and open participation, I fear we are increasingly heading to the dark age of democracy in the history of South Africa. The time has come to think again and to decide what course we are taking. The hon. the Prime Minister has embarked on a series of measures which I believe are promising to the future of this country. But, I believe this Bill is inconsistent and directly in conflict with that purpose and that it will do great harm to his Administration and to South Africa at large.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia made a few remarks here which cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. He started off with the statement that it is maintained the Bill was designed to bring about clean administration. However he omitted to point out another very important element, one which has repeatedly been spelt out by hon. members on this side of the House, and that is that it has also been designed to make orderly government possible. He made a second statement, namely that it is in fact vital that daylight should be able to reach all the dark comers. Surely that is correct. What the official Opposition and, unfortunately, the NRP too, as well as the Press they support, are doing is trying, not to throw light on dark comers but to throw darkness on the daylight which shines on people.

The hon. member made mention of the office of ombudsman. No one on this side of the House has intimated that we are attempting to introduce the office of ombudsman by way of this Bill. The function of the Advocate-General is limited by definition. Therefore no effort whatsoever is being made to have the office of ombudsman introduced here.

The hon. member made another important statement He said that people were now ’phoning the Press to complain and that the Press could take the matter further. He states that the only right a member of the public will have now is to approach the head prefect who will then decide what he is going to do. Among other things, he also said that the Advocate-General had a choice as to whether to issue a report or not. But surely that is untrue. The terms of reference in the Bill are expressly that he must investigate every matter put to him and must submit a report on it.

Except…

There is no question of “except”. Hon. members must take another look at this Bill. [Interjections.] I am sorry, but I cannot hear what hon. members are saying. At this stage I want to refer back to the speech by the hon. member for Pretoria West. He made a very good speech, a well-reasoned speech. I think the fact that the Opposition made such a fuss about it is evidence that he made an impact on them. What I really want to discuss, however, is the remark put by way of a question to the hon. member for Pretoria West by the hon. member for Durban North, viz. whether he could point to any other example of this kind of restriction being imposed on publication. They are the hon. members who, every time we draw comparisons with other Western countries here in regard to standards of living, for example, tell us that we must not draw comparisons because our country is unique. But now it suits them to ask for comparisons. We have a unique community, but unfortunately we also have members of the Press group who are unique. We have no alternative but to press on with this legislation. The hon. member for Durban North also said that they spoke on behalf of the people to whom democracy was important. I wonder what he would say if democracy were to disappear because it could not be maintained as envisaged. Democracy does not mean licence. There are certain rules within which democracy must be exercised. The hon. member specifically added that freedom of the Press was a cornerstone of democracy. That is not correct. Freedom of the Press is one of the yardsticks which can ensure that democracy is practised correctly. I concede that at once, but the freedom of the Press as those hon. members envisage it could very easily lead to democracy being destroyed due to orderly government being made impossible.

I want to come back to the provisions of the Bill, and I think it is necessary, for the sake of perspective, to take another look at the provisions of clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill. Let us go through them together logically and clearly. Clause 4(1) states—

1. (a) State moneys have been or are being misapplied or that maladministration in connection with State moneys has taken place or is taking place;
2. (b) any person either directly or indirectly has been or is being enriched, or has received or is receiving any advantage, in an unlawful or improper manner through or as a result of any act performed—
   1. (i) in connection with the affairs of the State;
   2. (ii) by any person while he is performing service as an employee of the State; or
   3. (iii) at the expense of the State;
3. (c) any attempt has been or is being made to perform an act referred to in paragraph (a) or to bring about a situation referred to in paragraph (b)

This can be done by way of an affidavit or affirmation. The legislation goes on to provide that as soon as possible after a matter has been laid before him, the Advocate-General shall give notice thereof in the prescribed way, viz. that an investigation is in fact under way into an allegation laid before him in regard to a suspicion of maladministration or misapplication of State moneys or of enrichment of an employee of the State at the expense of the State. After he has given notice, no one may publish anything about it Subsection (3) goes on to provide that no one may publish any allegation which could be covered by the provisions of clause 4(1). However it must be borne in mind very clearly that this only applies to State moneys. Then the Bill goes on to read that the Advocate-General is obliged to give permission on request to those who want to publish something unless—and there are only two restrictions on his obligation to grant permission—either he deems it in the interests of State security that publication should not occur, or he considers that it will hinder him in the execution of the investigation. Only then can he refuse.

That is not a restriction.

Of course it is a restriction.

Clause 5 provides that the Advocate-General shall inquire into any complaint laid before him in this way. In discussing this matter I am also taking the amendments as printed in the Order Paper into account as if they have been accepted. The Advocate-General must then investigate the matter without delay and issue a report with recommendations which he must hand to the Leader of the House, who in turn must table it within seven days of its receipt if Parliament is in session, or alternatively within seven days after the commencement of the next ensuing session of Parliament.

A further provision as contained in clause 5(2) is that if the Advocate-General is of the opinion that it is in the interests of the security of the State that publication should not occur, he should recommend accordingly. In such a case the document would be submitted on a confidential basis and submitted for consideration by a Select Committee.

It is also very important to take cognizance of the provisions of clause 2 of the Bill, which fully protect the office and person of the Advocate-General. There are a few aspects in this regard which we must take note of. The hon. official Opposition proclaims loudly that it believes in the rule audi alteram partem. What they are advocating, however, is that people holding public office should virtually be found guilty by way of innuendo politics, without their side of the case being heard. But this is surely a proper way to afford the other man the opportunity to put his side of the case as well. Here we have a well-ordered instrument wherewith to trace corruption and take action against it. Consequently, clear administration can be achieved by way of this legislation. At the same time, due to the restriction on publications, undermining or destruction of the system per se is not permitted, viz. giving effect to the second leg of orderly government.

Let us take a look at Press freedom. Hon. members on that side of the House have admitted that Press freedom is a right derived from the right of freedom of speech. Freedom is not licence, as hon. members will concede. Just as every right possessed by an individual has a corresponding duty, the concept “freedom”, too, entails the corresponding duty of responsibility. If we do not realize this we cannot really argue meaningfully with one another. It is a basic point of departure which all of us must accept. Therefore, freedom cannot operate in a vacuum. Freedom must always be weighed against the freedoms and interests of others. The State also has an interest, not only as a contracting party in a community, but as a representative of the community interests, the individual against the group of individuals as embodied in the State.

Members of the Press gallery and of the Press are making a mistake when they regard this legislation as applying specifically to them. One has to distinguish between a responsible Press and an irresponsible Press. The Press which acts responsibly is not affected by the provisions of this legislation and it will not cause problems. Consequently all the members of the Press groups in South Africa should not be concerned about this legislation.

Why are they all complaining, then?

I refuse to allow myself to be associated per definition with the official Opposition purely owing to the fact that I am also active in politics. Similarly, a responsible newspaper—and one which regards itself as such—must refuse to allow itself to be associated with the Press as a whole when this charge is laid against them. I think that the irresponsibility of a certain section of the Press can best be described in the words of Stanley Baldwin. He said—

I want to refer to a few remarks made in the course of this debate. In the first place, I want to refer to a remark by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and a similar remark by the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that this legislation was being introduced “even against the wishes of many members of the NP’s own caucus”. The hon. member for Durban Point said: “There are many of them who do not support or accept this Bill.” But one and all in this party accept this legislation. I am not aware of a single hon. member who is not prepared to stand foursquare behind the hon. the Prime Minister. I shall come back to this again. [Interjections.]

We should very much have preferred it to be unnecessary to pass this legislation in the way that it must be passed. The question arises as to why the Bill has to be introduced. In this regard I want to make a statement with all the responsibility at my command. [Interjections.] I have no doubt whatsoever that there is a section of the Press in South Africa which seeks not only to bring this Government to a fall, but also to destroy the system. They want to see a new system established on a non-evolutionary basis. I say this with all the responsibility at my command. How do they do it? They do it by breaking down authority and the dignity of the offices of this country. They attack the office. The man in the office is discredited by them and with him the whole power structure.

Give us examples.

I shall give examples in a moment. It is not pleasant for anyone in this House to have to pass this legislation with its restrictions on publications. We should have preferred it to be otherwise. However, it is also necessary for me to say right at the outset that this Government also has a great appreciation for the Press. They have appreciation for many aspects falling under the Press and matters it deals with daily. I think the Press fulfils a good role as regards provision of information to the public in general.

This is also the case With many disciplines in our society. I think that they do this well. In this regard all the newspapers perform the greater part of their task and here I include Afrikaans as well as English-language newspapers. However, one does not tell one’s child that he can throw a brick at one because he has done well at school. One tells him that he should not throw a brick at his father however well he does. If one’s child does not listen to one, one gives him a hiding. One must keep one’s house in order.

The Government has repeatedly requested the Press to display responsibility particularly in regard to State administration. If a hiding is necessary, they must endure it.

Are you now giving the Press a hiding?

In a certain sense that is quite correct. We would prefer not to give them this hiding. There is a distinction to be drawn between criticism of poor administration and criticism of alleged maladministration and corruption when the facts do not cover the evidence. This does not apply to the entire Press. If one wants to feel hurt when one is prohibited from throwing bricks because the prohibition affects all the children, then so be it However, I think it is unnecessary. The man with a clear conscience will not be concerned about it. I think the Press must learn to distinguish and not to be needlessly concerned about this admonition if it does not apply to them. Nevertheless, politics of innuendo have become the fashion among the majority of them. Facts are presented in such a way that one can only read between the lines. There is no point in reading what is written. One becomes none the wiser for doing so. All one can read is what is said between the lines.

The function of the Government is to govern. The Press is the watchdog of the public. However, a watchdog is not a wolf which is only on the lookout for what it can tear apart and devour. I think that what has in fact happened with regard to many of our newspapers in South Africa is that they are acting more like the hyena which only preys on what is dead. If they had only kept to that, it would still have been all right. However, they go further than that. They not only follow the scent they leave one. [Interjections.] I think the reaction of the Press to this legislation was disturbing to see; disturbing in that few of the newspapers did any soul-searching. All of them regarded this merely as an infringement of their rights, without asking themselves where they themselves stood in this situation. Now the official Opposition and the NRP must tell us to what extent they are co-operating in this major onslaught by a section of the Press on the institutions of government and of democracy, with the aim of destroying them.

The NP cannot be brought to a fall at the polls by those Opposition parties within the foreseeable future. When this Government falls democracy is also going to fall, at any rate as far as we can assess the future. They know that, and they also know what they are doing. They are undermining authority. They are breaking down the dignity of our institutions. They are engaged in the counterrevolution of Marcuse, a counter-revolution which they are in fact taking further. They no longer question; they reject in advance. In this regard I want to refer again to a few statements made in this debate.

The hon. member for Umhlanga said in the course of his speech that the inference he made from this was that there was a great deal of corruption going on. He also said that he drew the inference that the hon. the Prime Minister was aware of that corruption. The hon. member referred to a “continuing covering-up exercise”.

Yes, but he is a washed up jingo. [Interjections.]

Now I ask what message these words of the hon. member conveyed to us. What message is the Press conveying in this regard?

Do not misquote me, my friend.

No, I quoted the hon. member verbatim. He can go and read his speech in Hansard himself if he has any doubt about it. [Interjections.]

I now wish to refer to a remark made by the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition. He began by referring to what the hon. the Leader of the House said about clean administration when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He said—

He says that they do not accept that that is the intention. He states that they “must of course” accept that that is the intention. What does he mean by saying it in this way? What message is he conveying? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition goes on to say that any member of the public can now silence the Press even if he has no facts in his submission of the charge before the Advocate-General. What are hon. members opposite doing? What is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition doing? He is standing up here and questions the integrity of the hon. the Prime Minister and of 16 members of the Cabinet He is asked: “What are your facts?” He is told: “Go and give evidence.” He replies: “I do not have the facts. These people have the facts.”

We got some very funny facts from Senator Horwood. He writes his initials with dark glasses on.

That is what they want to go on doing. The hon. member for Durban Point laid great stress on “the right of the free Press to investigate and to expose”. Must people have the free right to investigate and expose, right or wrong? Is he really in favour of the policy of direct slander and slander by innuendo followed by the Press groups from day to day? The hon. the Minister of Community Development referred very clearly to several examples of this.

Ask Agliotti if he agrees.

I have said that the right of free speech is limited by the rights of others. The State, too, has rights. The State, too, has a right to continued existence. The system has a right to continued existence.

A moment ago hon. members asked me to give examples of the discrediting of the office and persons holding the office. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Houghton have already, at great length, cast suspicion at the office of Advocate-General. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout did take some trouble to seek a back door by saying that the acceptability of the office in fact depended on the person who occupied it. In other words, the person occupying the office could make the office acceptable.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member now says “no”. Let me read what he said. The hon. member for Musgrave said that if no report was submitted by the Advocate-General, it would not be possible to write about it. The hon. member for Houghton complained about possible delays in the submission of the report. The hon. member for Durban North asked how long an investigation could continue. There is no specific period provided for.

That is the problem.

There is no problem. If the Advocate-General does not issue a report it is surely for them to refer to it in the House. It is for any individual, including any newspaper, to ask when the report on the investigation of its notice has been given on a certain date, is to be submitted. It is theoretically possible that a report will never appear …

We have been asking for 14 years when the report of the Press Board is going to appear.

The hon. member is trying to lead me away from my argument but I want to come back to this because I think it is important. We can ask the Advocate-General every day when he is going to submit his report. When we do so, he shall have to give an answer. If they hear nothing about it, the public will not accept it and the newspapers, including the Afrikaans-language newspapers, will write about it.

The hon. member for Simonstown said that the Government had a duty to put the Press’ house in order. I want to state it more widely: The Government has a duty to put the State’s house in order, but if it is unable to do so without at the same time putting the Press’ house in order, then it must do so.

The hon. member for Durban Point made a big fuss about the hon. the Prime Minister having supposedly “lost his cool” in regard to this legislation. I want to say that by means of this very legislation, the hon. the Prime Minister has shown that he does keep his cool. If one wants to make oneself acceptable to everyone, what is easier than to say: “Let it go; I believe in a free Press”, or, by implication; “I believe in an unrestrained Press”? Surely the hon. the Prime Minister knows that this legislation is not popular with everyone. However, he is taking steps which he deems really necessary in the interests of the protection of the whole system.

Do you think it is necessary?

The hon. member asks me whether I think it is necessary. Can you imagine me defending it here if I did not believe that it was necessary?

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to say “yes”, he believes that I would advocate something in which I did not believe?

Order! The hon. member may not ascribe improper motives to another hon. member. He may not suggest that an hon. member is not honest in regard to the standpoint he adopts in this House.

The hon. member for Durban Point also referred to the “fundamentals of democratic government”. He spoke about Parliament and a free Press. However, what is the basis of democracy as we know it? The basis of this Governmental system is the House of Assembly, the Senate plus the State President, who is appointed by Parliament. It also has a free Press which must be the watchdog for the public, but as those hon. members said, there are not only three components of this democracy; there is a fourth component as well. What is worse, however, is that this fourth component, the free Press, has for them become more fundamental than the three basic components which must form the basis of democratic government. Those hon. members and certain Opposition newspapers believe that the reporting of facts is only really the refuge of those with no imagination.

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the House whether this proposed amendment to clause 4, which leaves the matter open to general publication immediately the Advocate-General has given notice that he is investigating the matter, will have the desired effect. I am concerned that this amendment may perhaps be a little too wide. I predict that there are sections of the Press that will do everything in their power to oblige the Government to impose a further limitation on publication. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, to listen to the hon. member for Randburg one would think we were discussing an extension of the Freedom of the Press Bill, whereas in fact we are doing the exact opposite. I must again take exception to Government members comparing the provisions of this Bill with those generally relating to the position of an ombudsman in other countries around the world. I believe that to try in any way to compare the provisions of this Bill with those of an ombudsman Bill is an absolute travesty of terminology, because the two are as different as chalk from cheese.

I see this as a Bill of revenge, a personal revenge of petty politicians who have done their best to cover up an incident in South African politics, have done their best to see that it did not come out into the light. Having failed to do that, however, they are now turning in their anger and attempting to take revenge on the Press for the part it played in opening up that scandal and reporting on it to the people of this country. The Government is now using State machinery to punish the Press for the part it played in that scandal.

When one looks at the provisions of this Bill and listens to the tone of the speeches made by Government members, one is reminded of a person who, in the not too far distant past, said that the lights in Europe are going out one by one. I do not think the lights are going out one by one. I think we are facing a total black-out of investigative journalism in South Africa. [Interjections.] Over a period of years, and especially in the past few months, we have heard many references by Government members to the total onslaught on South Africa, but I believe the Bill before the House is the beginning of the total onslaught against democracy in South Africa, and it is starting with the Press. I do not believe that this Bill is really aimed at seeking the truth or clean administration, because if it were, the very savage penalties provided for in this Bill would have been kept for those found guilty of corruption, and not for the Press which highlights and reveals such corruption. I say in all earnestness that I do not believe that the real intention here is clean administration. I believe that what we are seeing is part of a move to crush opposition, in whatever fragile form it might be found in this country, and as such this Bill is the start of the movement down that slippery slope to a one-party State in South Africa. [Interjections.] I believe, and it will take a great deal to convince me otherwise, that what this Government wants and is, in fact, embarking on is the one-way road to a one-party State in South Africa. This Bill does not create an opportunity to investigate.

Why do you not emigrate?

I am asked why I do not emigrate. That is one of the most incredibly stupid questions I have heard from that hon. member.

We are listening to complete stupidity from you.

I have chosen to stay in this country to try to do something to ensure that it is a country fit for our children and our grandchildren to live in. I believe it is the duty of us, as an Opposition, to point out to the Government where it goes wrong and where it starts on the road that will make it difficult for our children and our grandchildren to stay in this country. I believe that with this legislation we are actually creating a situation which gives an opportunity to people in the outside world to compare our excesses with the excesses of some of the socialist Governments of pre-war Europe. I do not think I need take it any further than that I think we are all aware of how the expressions of opposition and of criticism were stifled in pre-war Europe, and we all saw the holocaust that developed as a result of those excesses.

An hon. member who spoke previously indicated—and he was the first speaker I have heard who did so—that perhaps this Bill does not go far enough. That in itself is a fairly chilling admission, but we need not be surprised, because if we read clause 10 of the Bill, we see that it is made perfectly clear that we are in fact, voting for a provision in terms of which the State President can proclaim and make regulations to give additional powers to the Advocate-General.

It is a blank cheque.

Not only are we giving a blank cheque; we are also being asked to guarantee an overdraft facility as well.

Have you not seen the amendment on the Order Paper?

Why was it not included in the Bill in the first place?

It is a poor Bill to start with.

Yes, it is a very poor Bill to start with. It is an admission of failure on the part of the Government that it has had to introduce amendments at this early stage. We have indeed seen the amendments, but they are not enough, and we therefore hope the hon. the Minister is going to accept more amendments. In fact, we would plead with him to accept more, but we realize, as past history has shown, that pleading with the Government seems to have very little impact. To me it is interesting to notice who has not spoken in this debate. We should like to have heard the opinions of the hon. member for Pinetown, who stood for the governing party in 1977 with the avowed intention of making changes from within. We have seen him sitting in that back bench, and to me he looks very unhappy. I do not believe he is happy with the provisions of this Bill. I also believe that some of the hon. members who sit near him are also very unhappy about these provisions. I want to refer, for example, to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, the hon. member for Krugersdorp and the hon. member for Florida.

You are completely out of your tiny little mind.

I think one could go on to name quite a few others. I believe their silence on this issue is an indication of the fact that they are unhappy with some of the provisions of this Bill. I should be interested to hear the hon. member for Pinetown justifying this proposed legislation at a public meeting in his constituency, because it was his avowed intention to get this Government to change and move away from some of its more radical approaches.

One would have hoped that the Government would at least have waited until the Information scandal had been completely dealt with in a debate on the final report of the Erasmus Commission before it introduced legislation like this.

You will never be the man your father was.

You will clearly never be a man.

Order! The hon. member may continue with his speech.

One would have hoped that that would have been the case and that we could have cleared up that incident in our history before legislation like this came before this House. However, that is not to be. We know that the hon. the Prime Minister has made this threat, I think in the heat of the moment However, having made this threat that this legislation would be passed by 1 June 1979, he now, of course, in terms of his image as a “kragdadige” leader, has to carry out that threat. We have seen that the Government has every intention of going ahead, despite reasoned protests by its own Press that has supported it loyally over many years. There is absolutely no doubt that they are not going to introduce any meaningful or major amendments to this legislation. If I had had a little more time, I would perhaps have stood in silence for a minute to commemorate the passing of Press freedom in this country, because what we are seeing tonight is only the beginning of the passing of Press freedom in South Africa.

I want to close by saying that the ultimate irony of this Bill is in clause 2, in the sense that the Advocate-General will be appointed by a former Prime Minister who was responsible for the mess which created the necessity for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, for the past two days we have been conducting a debate on a very important matter. In the first place, as stated by the hon. the Prime Minister, we want clean administration in this country.

Is there enough water in your dams to wash the Government clean?

My dams will never overflow with folly. The hon. the Prime Minister stated that we wanted clean administration. If one observes the administration of one’s country and seeks means of ensuring that one can achieve the ideal one has set for oneself, certain things have to be done. The first consequence of that standpoint adopted by the hon. the Prime Minister is this legislation. But ever since the publication of the legislation, we have had strong emotion and drama in the Press and in the ranks of the Opposition, instead of a sober analysis of the legislation and of what it envisages.

I should now like to refer to the last speaker on that side of the House, namely the hon. member for Berea. He concluded by saying that he was sorry he did not have more time. I do not know whether any restriction was imposed on him.

Yes, there was.

I do not think he had anything more to say. I gained the impression that he did not have any more arguments to advance. To occupy himself, he repeated all the arguments advanced by previous speakers on that side of the House. He started off with the story that the hon. the Prime Minister had allegedly intimated that the Advocate-General would be an ombudsman. The hon. the Prime Minister did mention an ombudsman as an example of what was being done in another country, but he never said specifically that that type of office was necessary here as well. He never said that, but many speakers on that side of the House tried to imply that this was being envisaged, that there had been a promise to this effect on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Berea went on to say, “It looks like the revenge of petty politicians”, that this side of the House, the Government, wanted to take revenge. “They want to punish the Press.” Surely these are ridiculous arguments. According to him the Press, and nobody else, exposed the Information debacle.

They did.

Surely that is not true.

It is absolutely true.

The Press did have a share in it, but they dished up a lot of stories that they had checked on all the activities of the former Department of Information from beginning to end. But we know that a great deal of that was mere conjecture and stories.

May I ask the hon. the Minister to give one specific instance of an important rumour that was published in the Press on the Information scandal which has been proved to be wrong?

The hon. member is now trying to steal a march on us. Now he wants me to quote one important … [Interjections.]

You made the statement.

How many stories are being dished up about the hon. the Prime Minister in the newspapers today?

All of them are true.

The story was told time and again—if I had a newspaper in front of me at the moment I should have been able to show hon. members—that the hon. the Prime Minister had deliberately and knowingly voted an amount of money in the defence budget and then had it transferred to the former Department of Information.

The story was also spread that we had discussed that in the Cabinet.

Surely that was mentioned in the Press many, many times. The hon. member requested me to cite one example, but now I want to cite another one. It was expressly stated in the Press that members of the Cabinet had known about the events with regard to the Information affair prior to 26 September. That was repeatedly alleged, and in this regard they repeatedly singled out, inter alia, the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance. If that hon. member is interested, he can personally go and check, when the final report of the Erasmus Commission is made available, how many stories were dished up by him and by the Press, stories which ultimately proved untrue.

For example?

The hon. member wanted me to cite only one example, but I have now cited quite a few. That side of the House argues that we want to take revenge on the Press. What we do wish to do, however, is to ensure that our officialdom in this country—and we are proud of them—and other public figures who are making sacrifices in the interests of the country, regardless of the level of management, will be protected to some extent in an honest and fair manner. Everyone is now given an avenue to come and lay a charge, whereupon the procedure laid down by the legislation will be followed until a report is ultimately submitted to this House. What more do those hon. members want? I shall come back to this. The hon. member for Berea said, “It is a black-out of journalism”.

Of investigative journalism.

He said; “It is an onslaught on democracy. We are on the slippery slope to a one-party State. ” He went on to say, “It reminds me of socialist Governments of pre-war years.”

European Governments.

We have heard these stories before. The hon. member really wanted to say “like Nazi Germany”, but he was too frightened to say it. However, that is what he insinuates.

I never said it.

This is the sort of thing we come up against in this House. All we expect of those hon. members, is to go and tell the voters in Randfontein: “Vote for the right to vote again.”

That is what they want to say. After all, they are back where they started 30 to 40 years ago. That is what this hysteria is all about. At that time they dished up the farfetched story that they were at the mercy of a ruthless group of Afrikaners. That day after day feelings are aroused in the Press against a cultural organization of the Afrikaner, viz. the Broederbond. It is made suspect. Where is the hon. member for Yeoville? When a small group of people show a mere vestige of anti-Semitism, he runs to the hon. the Minister of Justice straightaway. But did he run to the hon. the Minister of Justice to tell him that the Sunday Times was conducting a merciless campaign against Afrikaners and against an Afrikaans cultural organization?

Cultural organization?

That hon. member should stop whinnying. [Interjections.]

This merely goes to show how much influence the Press with its insinuations and distortions has on those hon. members. Why do they not ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who is sitting smiling over there? After all, he, too, was a member of the Broederbond. [Interjections.] I think there was an article in The Argus during the weekend which said that when the Broederbonders are inducted …

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I must tell you this. According to arguments from that side of the House, the point at issue is the Press and the restriction being imposed on the Press. I wish to quote examples. With regard to the flag question, the article said that when the Broederbonders were sworn in, the Union Jack had to be covered up. Surely the hon. member for Johannesburg North can tell us whether that is true. After all, he, too, was sworn in: Can he now tell the Press whether or not this is true?

No, it is not true. [Interjections.]

It is not true. [Interjections.] It is fine that I obtain such excellent evidence.

Order! The Bill deals with corruption in the application of State funds. The hon. the Minister cannot raise arguments outside this field to expose the motives of the Press.

Mr. Speaker, I quoted examples. The first example is the former Department of Information. I mentioned other examples as well. But I abide by your ruling.

The next matter I wish to deal with is the question of democracy as such and the share the Press has in that. The weakness of democracy is to be found in the fact that we, in contradistinction to the dictatorial State, have the position that the Governments in power are influenced by Press groups and are afraid to take up strong standpoints. At present, it is a struggle against Marxism and communism.

And the nationalisms.

The hon. member over there says the nationalisms as well. [Interjections.] A person who has no measure of nationalism in him, is really worth nothing. He has absolutely no integrity as a citizen of his country. In the democracies, there is the problem that in the first place the Press, and, as is the case in England, workers’ groups, revolt and the Government is afraid to take up a strong standpoint, because once the Press starts making a fuss and feelings are aroused against certain actions, there is reluctance on the part of Governments. There is none of that resolute action that is required of a democracy in the modem world, for the simple reason that the Press is allowed to play a particular role.

The role of the Press ought to be objective reporting. After all, hon. members know that every newspaper supports its own party. One paper supports this party and the other another party, a party with another policy. After all, there are different approaches …

Both of them lie.

The hon. member says both of them lie. He is voting against this legislation. I want to say here in all honesty that we cannot claim to be above making mistakes. The Press cannot say this about itself, either. I think we have reached the point in time when all hon. members of this House should reflect calmly on the honesty of our intentions with ourselves and with this country. This is what the Government did, and then it came to a decision that certain legislation had to be introduced. But now there is a reaction as though the Press should be so free in all respects that it may become absolutely reckless. The Information scandal is an example thereof.

One of the most important reasons why the Department of Information was necessary, was to frustrate untrue and distorted reports from this country abroad. For that reason there had to be a Department of Information. It had to try to counter that type of thing. Unfortunately abuses occurred. We said, however, that we were not hiding anything and that we were awaiting the next report of the Erasmus Commission. We want to face up squarely to the consequences of that report. However, we cannot allow a large number of good, efficient public servants to be disparaged and made suspect. If hon. members on the opposite side are of the opinion that our Public Service is not efficient, they had ample opportunity to express their criticism. However, I did not hear any criticism from them. How many irregularities have occurred in the 31 years of NP rule? There was the Agliotti case, a case to which some hon. members referred—and thereafter there was the Information case. However, hon. members on the opposite side now want to suggest that the Government, by means of legislation, wants to make it impossible for the Press to inform the public. However, a great deal of what is published in the Press is not objective information. It is mere suppositions which are being created. A great deal of what has actually happened, is left out in order to create certain impressions. I do not think one single Pressman can say in all honesty that there is truly objective reporting. That is precisely why there is this furore about this Bill.

But permit me to go further. What newspaper can claim that it is absolutely free to write what it likes? What reporter or subeditor of a newspaper is free to write what he wants? After all, when an editor of a newspaper tells a reporter or his editorial staff the policy of his paper and that they have to write accordingly, they have no option but to write accordingly. Moreover, the owners of a newspapers can exercise an influence by dictating to an editor and his editorial staff what policy is to be followed. Is that in essence freedom of the Press? Has every person serving on the editorial staff of a newspaper, the right to reflect his own opinion? Has any reporter the right to write honestly as he sees things? Surely we are bluffing ourselves when we … [Interjections.]

On what newspaper does that happen?

It does not happen on a single newspaper in this country. I am saying this in all sincerity.

But that is not right.

Well, it is not right. So why do we want to suggest here that we are dealing with sacrosanct people, that they are the people who have to inform the public? The official Opposition concedes that they do not practise honest reporting, that they do not even give honest renderings of what takes place in this House, that by keeping silent about part of what takes place here or about some of the most important things that take place here, they create a false impression outside. In many cases this can be even worse than a flagrant untruth. A half-truth can in many respects be far worse than a flagrant untruth. After all, this amounts to the public being misled. But now it is suggested that this legislation imposes restrictions on the rights of members of the Press. However, they are restricting themselves. They are subject to regulations and directives laid down by the owners of their newspapers, by their editors and possibly by other people as well. I have experience of that. After all, I personally asked reporters of newspapers why they had not published certain things. The reply always was that their editors did not want to publish it, that their editors did not want it that way.

What newspaper was that?

Order!

I am not going to mention newspapers by name now. However, on occasion a reporter of the Sunday Times telephoned me. After he had told me what it was all about, I told him that I had already reacted to that old story of his. His reply was: “I am very sorry to bother you, Sir, but my editor wants a story.”

But surely that is quite in order. [Interjections.]

Yes, he now wants to tell a story.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must please make fewer interjections.

He cannot help himself. His tongue wags incessantly.

Mr. Speaker, examples have been given of what happens in other countries in which opportunities have been created for the public to lodge their complaints whenever there is injustice or whenever abuses occur. The example of England has been quoted, and also of New Zealand and the USA. However, we have special circumstances in South Africa, circumstances that are not altogether comparable to those in other countries. Cannot we, after a proper study of our problems and of the circumstances in which we find ourselves, come forward and concede that we have here an honest and genuine method in terms of which we think the problems of the Republic can be handled? Is this not so, particularly in view of the events in the former Department of Information? Let us concede, the events in connection with the former Department of Information were a shock to us. It hurt the Government. Things happened that made us as unhappy as they did hon. members on the opposite side. However, with this legislation we are trying to rectify matters. Now we must create the opportunity for appointing a man who can conduct an investigation the moment suspicions arise or stories start circulating; stories in connection with possible irregularities somewhere. Instead of dishing up stories in the newspapers, a person must now lodge a complaint with this man. The procedure is clearly prescribed in the Bill.

Now, the allegation is made that the Press may not publish anything. After all, in our legal system it is known that when a case is being heard, it is sub judice and that it may not be commented upon. In such a case we may not even discuss it in this House, because the case is still being heard in court. The principle that applies there is also largely applicable in the present case. In this case a person of high repute is appointed to investigate allegations concerning possible irregularities. It has already been stated clearly that the Government intends appointing an official who would virtually be on the same level as the Auditor-General, somebody who has to conduct an investigation on behalf of Parliament and who has to report to Parliament itself. Is this not an honest attempt to rectify matters and to try and afford the public an opportunity of handling matters in such a way that it would instill confidence in everybody?

No, it is not.

Is it really correct that the Press—and hon. members of the Opposition have conceded that the Press is not always honest in their reporting—should be in the special position of not being restricted in their reporting of a matter at a time when that matter is being investigated by an official of high standing?

[Inaudible.]

Well, I am no lawyer. The hon. member for Johannesburg North occupied a high position in our judiciary. He must tell me whether the two cases are not analogous.

No, they are not.

Now why not? My contention is that they are indeed analogous. [Interjections.] I say it is so.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Then why do those hon. members not shout when the newspapers are prohibited from reporting on court cases which are sub judice? Then why do they not allege that the Press is being restricted by the sub judice rule as well? After all, it is the very same thing that is involved.

A court case is a public trial. [Interjections.]

Whether or not it is a public trial, the fact remains that the Press, as well as all of us here, is restricted with regard to cases of that nature under certain circumstances. Now, in terms of the legislation under discussion, it is laid down that while an investigation is in progress, it may not be written about unless the approval of the Advocate-General is specifically obtained to do so.

Now we sit here with emotions which have been aroused, emotions overflowing with prejudice, the prejudice of people who are not prepared to consider the problems of the country objectively, who are not prepared to seek solutions to the problems. They want to link democracy not only to a free Press, but to a licentious Press. They want to assign tasks to the Press which are basically not within its province. It is the task of the Government to ensure a clean national administration. [Interjections.] If the Opposition does not agree with the way in which the affairs of the country is being administered, it is the Opposition’s task to raise the matter and to express criticism. Surely they are free to do so. Here an extra channel is being created which can be used by everybody who has a complaint. The only reaction we receive to that, however, is allegations that the freedom of the Press is being curtailed and that South Africa is becoming a one-party State.

Seeing that by-elections are in progress— and there are some more in the offing—surely those hon. members can use those by-elections to test their arguments against this legislation. Let them test their arguments there and tell the people: “The Government, under the present Prime Minister, is creating an autocracy, a one-party State; they have no sympathy with the opinion of the public as reflected in the newspapers.” Let them tell the people that. Let them test their ideas and opinions there and see how far they get. I want to say without any fear of contradiction that our people are sick and tired of the stories in the Press, of the continual gossip mongering, of the way public figures are being made suspect and disparaged. Everyone of us here has certain responsibilities and if we make a mistake, we are prepared to stand the consequences. We know that that is the price one has to pay if one enters public life. Since I have been here, various members of the Cabinet have been requested—not as a result of irregularities they themselves committed, but as a result of poor administration, possibly due to oversights or owing to the fact that, as in the Agliotti case, an official of the department had erred—to resign, or they have come forward of their own accord and said that as things had gone wrong under their administration, they offered to leave the Cabinet. In the case of Dr. Connie Mulder, the Prime Minister had to request him to leave the Cabinet.

But what happens in the case of newspaper editors? They can bruit abroad the most arrant nonsense and untruths about the country and about individuals, and what happens? They do not lose their positions. They have no responsibility. I think we should display some fairness when analysing these things.

Do you not trust your courts?

Surely the Press cannot arrogate to itself the right merely to criticize and to claim that a member of Parliament or of the Cabinet should resign. See how they shouted about the hon. the Minister of Finance for weeks on end. I have quoted examples of members of the Cabinet who have resigned. But when newspapers dish up blatant untruths, the editors of those newspapers do not resign. They go scot-free.

One can take them to court.

One can only take them to court if there has been libel. Hon. members will say that the Press Council can go into the matter. I am able to say that I have referred a case to the Press Council. I do not want to elaborate on that now. I do not want to criticize them. However, I can tell hon. members that it is an endless trial. I want to say that quite frankly.

Then you did not have a case.

Well, let me tell what happened. In one case the chairman sent me a message that if I instituted a libel action and made a court case, he would not hear the case. He said I should first tell him what I was going to do. I told him that I differed with him on that. Why should he lay down conditions for me? Is that truly honest and genuine and in the best interests of any individual? If I tell them: “I have a newspaper report here that is untrue and I wish to lodge a complaint about it,” they send me a message: “but we have learnt that you are going to institute a libel action, and if you do that, it would not be proper”.

You people want somebody who is like clay in your hands.

Sir, why should those conditions be laid down? I have quoted a specific example of conditions having been laid down for me. Then the Press wants to tell me that its hands are clean and that it is the Government that is intent on suppressing them and creating problems. I do not want to elaborate on that any further. I am busy and I do my work. It is not such an easy task. It is easy for the hon. member to sit in the back benches kicking up a fuss, because he has no responsibility. One can see that on his face. What is more, he will never accept responsibility, but now he sits kicking up a fuss. It is that type of person we are saddled with. As a Minister, I do not have the time to go to court. I do not have the time …

[Inaudible.]

I am telling hon. members …

Jimmy Kruger has time. Why do you not have time?

There are circumstances in which one finds that one has to go to court. In my case I decided that I did not feel like going to court. The newspaper apologized half-heartedly. Consequently I left the matter at that and carried on with my work. However, there are cases that make one’s blood boil and seriously try one’s self-restraint. We have now reached the stage in politics where these steps have to be taken. We have approximately 280 000 officials in this country. How many of them have transgressed in recent years? Only the few I have mentioned to hon. members, but yet the Opposition and the Press create the impression that if it had not been for the Press, everything would have been rotten to the core and that not a single one of these officials could have been trusted. That is the impression which is being created. Therefore, this legislation also seeks to protect those officials who, day in and day out, ensure clean administration in this country. All we get from the Opposition is a negative approach and a lot of shouting without any properly founded arguments.

I think I should conclude. But if we look at the legislation, we see that an opportunity is being afforded to all and sundry to state their case. I repeat that by means of this legislation we want to appoint a person of high standing to conduct investigations. Perhaps I should, before I conclude, take another look at further occurrences in respect of the former Department of Information. On the average, over a period of four years, we … [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs I think we had an example of what I want to call the “sick mentality” of certain Opposition members. When the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs rose to make his speech, one of the hon. members of the Opposition asked him: “Are your dams full of water yet?” I think that testifies to a weak character trait All of us know that our country is in the midst of a drought and to make use of this opportunity to ask the hon. the Minister whether his dams are full of water yet is sick behaviour on the part of the hon. member who put the question.

Irresponsible.

Yes, irresponsible. I think we can also say this evening that the behaviour of hon. members on the opposite side of the House during the past two days has been an epitome of what I should like to term “frustration” and “embitteredness”. When a person is frustrated and embittered, he is no longer able to think objectively and present a balanced argument. Listening to the last group of speakers on the Opposition side, and reading the newspaper reports on the debate, and observing what misrepresentations of this legislation and of the speeches of Government members are being made, one is astounded and cannot help wondering—if I may talk politics for just a moment—whether the outcome of the by-election in Swellendam has not perhaps made these people go politically berserk. They received a terrible shock there, because they now realize that they will never be able to oust this Government at the polls. That is why they are using such erroneous, unbalanced and unwise parliamentary methods.

Did you read today’s Citizen?

The hon. member for Berea is a fine-looking young man. [Interjections.] I mean that literally. Politically, however, he is twisted. Just to prove how mixed up his facts are, I want to refer to a letter which that hon. young member wrote. On 22 May 1979 he addressed a letter to a Natal newspaper in which he wrote about himself. He told of how often he had made representations in Parliament…

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must keep quiet now. He told of how many representations he had made to Parliament this session on behalf of the voters. He then said—

Mr. M. C. Botha has not been a member of this Parliament for the past three years at least [Interjections.] That just shows how the man is erring. I have another bone to pick with him.

It is completely untrue.

Oh, come now, Oom Kowie. It is bedtime. The hon. member must give me a chance because I am replying to the speech made by the hon. member for Berea. The hon. member for Johannesburg North must keep quiet for just a moment. I am dealing with the hon. member for Berea. I want to ask the hon. member for Berea whether he meant it when he said: This Government, this Prime Minister, is taking a personal revenge against what happened in the past.

As he put it, it sounded as though the hon. the Prime Minister is waging a personal vendetta against the Press. I want to ask him whether he really meant it Secondly I want to ask the member whether he really thinks that the hon. the Prime Minister had this Bill introduced in order to enlist the aid of the State machine against the Press.

Yes.

The hon. member says “yes”. I shall come back to that. Thirdly I want to ask whether the hon. member for Berea meant it when he said that the hon. the Prime Minister “is not seeking clean administration”.

Not quite in that context. [Interjections.]

Did the hon. member say the hon. the Prime Minister was not seeking clean administration—yes or no?

I said that…

I want to put a fourth question, for accusations were frequently made here. The fourth accusation which was made was that the Government’s appointment of an Advocate-General was a slap in the face for the Auditor-General. That was said this afternoon. The hon. member for Berea’s father was a highly respected member of this House. That young man, the hon. member for Berea, who is still wet behind the ears, must behave for a while as befits a person of his tender years and acquire a little experience before he asks his questions. If the hon. member says that with this Bill we are waging a personal vendetta against the Press, he is wrong. If he says that we wish to enlist the aid of the State machine against the Press in terms of this legislation, he is wrong. If he says that the hon. the Prime Minister is not seeking clean national administration, he is wrong. The hon. the Prime Minister will pardon me if I repeat something which he once told me. Three days before the election of the Prime Minister last year he told me that he was not seeking the position of Prime Minister, but that if it were entrusted to him, he would do one thing from the outset and that was to make the national administration as clean as humanly possible. He said this in my presence on 24 September 1978.

That is a cute “canvass line”.

It does not matter. If those hon. members say that the hon. the Prime Minister is not seeking clean national administration, I want to tell them that they are spreading an infamous lie about him. Finally he said that if we wanted to appoint the Advocate-General in terms of this legislation we would be giving the Auditor-General a slap in the face. If he says that, he does not know what he is talking about, for what are the actual functions of the Auditor-General? The Auditor-General is charged with ensuring that the money voted each year by Parliament is correctly spent and that every cent is spent on what it was appropriated for. He has to report on that to the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and the report of that committee is then submitted to Parliament Today we received another report from the Select Committee on Public Accounts in which the committee has ascertained whether certain amounts had been spent correctly. But what is the task of the Advocate-General? His primary task is to afford all of us, as citizens of the country the right, if we suspect that State money is being spent in an unlawful or improper way or that any person is enriching or benefiting himself at the expense of the State, to lay those suspicions before the Advocate-General.

What about the police?

One would think that the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who was a member of the judiciary—I am choosing my words carefully—would have a greater sense of responsibility than I have now heard from him. Mr. Speaker, I think you and I who have been listening for two days now to the arguments of the Opposition against the Bill, as well as the people outside this House who read the newspapers, are dumbfounded at the way in which the hon. members of the Opposition are deliberately— I am using this word on purpose so that you can call me to order—misrepresenting what the Bill means. I am pleased, Sir, that you are not calling me to order.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member permitted to say that we “deliberately”, with malice aforethought, misrepresented what the Bill means?

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I said that the people outside this House and I were astonished at the way in which the Opposition were misrepresenting what was meant by the legislation.

Deliberately!

Order! Order! If the hon. members of the Opposition want me to give a ruling, then they must listen to me when I call for order. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I ask whether you are prepared to ask the hon. member for Worcester whether he used the word “deliberately”?

The hon. member did not accuse any single hon. member. He accused the whole Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, would you ask the hon. member for Worcester whether he used the word “deliberately”?

Yes, I used it and I withdraw it. In the second place I am astonished that hon. members of the official Opposition—I am still coming to hon. members of the NRP; to a certain extent I have more respect for them … [Interjections.]

And you are dishonest as well. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “dishonest”.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Worcester …

The hon. member must withdraw the word “dishonest”.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Worcester repeated what he had said to you, he deliberately left out the word “deliberately”. [Interjections.]

The hon. member must withdraw that word.

Mr. Speaker, I refuse to withdraw.

In that case, the hon. member will have to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

The hon. member thereupon withdrew.

The question which occurs to me is why the official Opposition is doing what they have been doing these past two days? What are their reasons? What are their motives? What do they mean when they tell the outside world that we are muzzling the Press? [Interjections.] Why do they not accept the word of the hon. the Prime Minister that he is merely striving for clean national administration? What do they mean when they do not want to accept the word of the hon. the Prime Minister when he says that he is a protector of the idea of Press freedom? [Interjections.] I should like to know why they doubt the word of the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

May I dwell for a moment on the second charge which he mentioned, viz. that the Opposition is insinuating that we do not trust the Public Service officials. They are insinuating that we wish to pass an Act that will enable us to keep a watchful eye on Public Service officials, as though we do not trust them. [Interjections.] If there is a more loyal and competent Public Service staff to be found anywhere in the world than those in South Africa, I should still like to see them. I think we can tell one another that South Africa can congratulate itself on the fact that it has public servants of this calibre—let us say 99,9% of them—who are not on the lookout for a larger pay cheque and who do not take a bite at the carrot being dangled in front of their noses in order to benefit themselves, but ask what they can do to serve the country they love. I think anyone would be arrogant if they were to say anything against the integrity of our Public Service officials, they who support our Government in governing our country. May I ask the hon. member for Berea whether he agrees with me? Does the Opposition agree that we can trust the Public Service officials and can regard them as being loyal and honest people? I hear no reply to my question. [Interjections.] I shall put this question to the hon. member for Berea. He is shaking his head. Must I accept that the Opposition does not agree that our public servants are people of strong character and integrity and that we can face the world with them because they are the best in the world? This side of the House agrees with that I think there might be a few hon. members on that side of the House who also feel the same way, but perhaps do not have the courage to say so. [Interjections.]

Earlier this afternoon an hon. members said it depended on from which political angle one views this matter and evaluates the Bill. One could approach the Bill from the viewpoint of the liberal Press. The PFP has no alternative but to say what the Press dictates to them. The hon. members of the Opposition can say whether I am wrong. I say that hon. members of the official Opposition do not have the courage to express their own convictions. They are speaking under instructions from the Press and the hidden, the secret owners of the Press. [Interjections.] Because this is the case, they do not have the courage to rise to their feet here and say that in their opinion there are certain positive points in this Bill. If one approaches this matter from a leftist point of view, and sympathizes with or is under the heel of the liberal Press, one has no alternative but to condemn this Bill. On the other hand we on this side of the House say that we stand by the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister and support them in this matter.