Mr. Chairman, I could not help smiling when I heard that the hon. member for Sandton had announced last Friday that I would deal with the question of publications control here today. It is obviously not a matter which can be dealt with within the space of a few minutes. Yet there is a point or two that I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. In the meantime I noticed that the hon. the Minister replied to several questions in advance last Friday. Unfortunately I was not able to be present and consequently I have to rely on Press reports.

The hon. the Minister said he did not believe the time was ripe for a thorough re-examination of the Publications Act. He said that Prof. Kobus van Rooyen, the new Chairman of the Publications Appeal Board, should first be given a chance to see how the Act works in practice. I can appreciate that standpoint. We are not averse to Prof. Van Rooyen being given that chance. I have had the privilege of meeting Prof. Van Rooyen and discussing some of the problems surrounding publications control with him and a few other interested parties. I must say that I gained a particularly favourable impression of him.

However, that does not change the fact that the system is wrong. I must at least agree with the retired chairman of the Appeal Board on this point, namely that the system as such has failed completely. There are serious shortcomings and obstacles in the Act itself that justify attention. However, the necessary attention can only be given to them if there could be a more detailed discussion. So I think it would be a good thing if, during the next parliamentary session, we could create a special opportunity to discuss in depth the Act as it stands, as well as its workings. The greatest weakness in the system, is the popular committees or “people’s committees” that have to evaluate the more than 2 000 literary works that are submitted to them every year. As I see the matter, control over publications should not be a matter for popular decision. One of the pillars of our Western civilization is a nation’s freedom of speech and freedom of writing. All of us realize that we are living in times in which, in the interests of society as a whole, limits often have to be set to the freedom of the individual to speak and to write as he pleases. A considerable measure of consensus exists among all the parties in this House on the need to impose limits on revolutionary propaganda and on common smut. We do not differ on that, and I believe every reasonable person will also agree that it is high time stricter limits were imposed on the portrayal of violence. I have never been able to understand why our publications control people can be so oversensitive when it comes to love scenes, and how they can be so utterly insensitive when the most shocking forms of violence are also presented, as entertainment, also to young people.

Did you not read what I said in my statement?

Yes, I am in fact supporting the hon. the Minister on that point. So, there is consensus on this. The point I wish to emphasize, is that when it comes to serious works of any kind, it is very difficult to decide where the line should be drawn and at what point the freedom to write what one likes should be curtailed. It affects a basic principle of our democratic views.

The hon. the Minister is the Minister of the Interior as well as of Justice. He knows, from his experience as a Minister, how difficult it is and what a great responsibility it requires of him and the Government to decide when the freedom of a person to speak and to write or to move about, should be restricted. The hon. the Minister knows that, over and above his personal responsibility as a Minister, he is accountable to Parliament when it comes to these matters, in fact for all his decisions. Just imagine what would happen if restrictions on people were to depend on the decisions of popular committees that are not accountable to anyone beyond their own circle. That is in fact the principle which, in terms of the existing Publications Act, is applicable with regard to the restriction of the freedom of the writer to write and to give expression to his thoughts. There are approximately 260 names of ordinary members of the public on the list from which the popular committees are constituted and which have to exercise control over publications, in other words, which have to decide where the freedom of an author should stop and his product should be banned. My contention is that it is wrong—wrong in principle—that such drastic decisions should be left to popular committees of which the names of the members may not even be disclosed when they make a decision, and who are not accountable to anybody outside their own circle.

The introduction of popular committees was an experiment by Dr. Connie Mulder. Even if it had not come from him, I would nevertheless have believed that the principle was wrong. It has definitely not stood the test of time. No matter what good men we have in the Directorate, and no matter what good men we have at the head of the Appeal Board, I think it is wrong in principle to entrust one of the very most difficult tasks of government, namely to decide at what point the freedom of a person should cease—and do so, what is more, in the field of politics, statecraft, religion and literature—to popular decisions by popularly appointed committees which in fact remain faceless. Our Appellate Division, in one of the cases that came before it, gave a definition of these committees. It is a long judgment, and consequently I am only quoting part of it. This is how our own Appellate Division sees these committees—

I wish to direct the attention of the hon. the Minister to an important little work that has just been published—if he has not read it yet. It is a Taurus Publication entitled What Happened to Burger’s Daughter—Or, how South African Censorship Works. It concerns Nadine Gordimer’s book that was banned by a committee and later released by the Appeal Board. I have not read the book yet, and consequently I am not able to express a popular opinion about it.

[Inaudible.]

Here, however, we have a factual account of what happened with her book in the hands of one of the committees of the Directorate. It is a devastating indictment of the committee system, supported by facts, and it is something which, in my view, cannot be ignored. The book was referred to the Appeal Board under the chairmanship of the former judge, Mr. Justice Lammie Snyman, who simply said outright that personally he did not like the book. What did the panel of literary experts, appointed by the chairman of the Appeal Board, find in connection with the committee that had had to pass judgment on the book? Their finding was—

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from a decision by the panel of experts appointed by the Appeal Board … [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that I am sorry to have contributed to his having lost about 10 seconds. I also hope that we shall be able to have a very thorough discussion of this subject again in future. In any case, we on this side of the House were prepared for it. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout devoted the major part of his speech to a discussion of the problems that one is faced with when one governs and, as the Government, has to lay ethical and aesthetic norms down for a community or a diversity of communities. This is an immense problem which one is faced with. The hon. member will agree with me if I say that one could have a diversity of writers or poets all claiming to have Christian principles. But if one takes a look at the history of dogma, however, one realizes that there have been thousands of Christians who have adopted a wide variety of standpoints, although they have all based their views on the Bible. In that regard I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

It ought to be done by experts; not merely by means of popular opinion.

I agree that that is a problem. But merely to level criticism at these so-called popular committees, is something with which I cannot agree. The hon. member may perhaps use the term “popular”. Probably I do know many of the people to whom the hon. member was referring, but I cannot simply rattle off their names. I am convinced, however, that the committee members to whom he referred, are all good, well-balanced, sober-minded people in our society. I have no doubt about that. My problem with experts is, that very often a person who is an expert in his field, may be completely ignorant of many other aspects of his society. The hon. member is trying to find an alternative for what the NP has been doing until now, but in his alternative, I believe he shall have to adopt a much broader and fairer standpoint than simply to dismiss categorically a certain element of the control which has been introduced by us. I cannot agree with him at all that there are people in some of his so-called popular committees on whom one cannot rely.

The committees disagree with one another.

That is why we are human. It is in our nature to disagree with one another. I suppose the hon. member and his wife are happily married, but do they, therefore, never disagree on a matter? Of course they have their differences.

We are not a committee.

It is difficult to find a norm which will satisfy everyone. I want to say that the book which Prof. J. C. W. van Rooyen wrote about publications control in South Africa, is a very good book. I want to say that if there were more scientists and academics who, as ordinary citizens, would give us books of this nature in a scientific form, it could mean a great deal to us when we lay down the foundations on which to act in future.

Let me quote a few things from the first page. The professor introduced the matter very neatly by saying—

I must say I do not quite agree with the word “filistyne”. The Philistines of the Old Testament were part of a totally pagan world. Therefore he is most probably referring to other people. I read further—

In these few sentences there are an enormous number of things which are true and with which I agree. I wish to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, however, that to put all these things into practice, is no easy task. The professor goes on—

That is true. I agree with every word.

In the light of these facts, I want to quote another academic as well. I want to quote from the book Die Afrikaanse Literatuur sedert Sestig by Cloete, Grove, Smuts and Botha. I personally consider Prof. A. P. Grové to be a very level-headed, scientifically objective Christian, a family man and a great man of letters. He writes, inter alia—

Here he is referring to Prof. André Brink and a few others. At the bottom of page 4 of this book one reads—

André Brink writes the following about “The social function of the writer”—

This appears in Concept of July 1970. I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he and I agree on these matters. A responsible Government must realize, however, that government does not only mean looking after the physical realities of society, but also the spiritual. For that reason every responsible person in South Africa should take note of the trends in contemporary world literature, among our Afrikaners as well. There was a time when every good father and mother could read and act out the poems, the prose and the drama’s of our writers and poets. It was refreshing and enlightening and contributed to a sound human life. The tendency which emerged after the ’sixties confronted us with an element of Afrikaans writers and poets who do nothing else but try to cause the whole community structure, not only of Southern Africa, but of the whole world, to disintegrate. We have found that these people had journeyed forth and gone to live, inter alia, in Paris, in the most vulgar circumstances, if I may put it that way. There they became part of the very element which is terrorizing Europe to an increasing extent, in circumstances where no one is safe any more. I believe it has become essential that a Government shall no longer be solely responsible for the exercise of such control, but that our churches, parents and the cultural organizations of Afrikaans-speaking people, English-speaking people, Coloured people, Indians and the various Black population groups shall also be responsible for this, so that we shall not allow people with the so-called literary knowledge which they claim for themselves, to call themselves writers or poets and say that no one else can touch them because they have been elevated above the criticism of the man in the street. I believe the hon. member for Bezuidenhout should be careful that we do not allow people to terrorize our society in the name of concepts such as freedom. It is our duty to warn against this and the hon. member should help us to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that I am able to speak after the hon. member for Rissik and not before him, because he has the ability to deal thoroughly with people who have spoken before him.

This afternoon I wish to devote my attention mainly to a particular approach of the appeal board to scientific works dealing with communism. Making available sources for research into the communist ideology could play an important part in the effective combating of communist world domination. In fact, a strategy which is based on misconceptions or ignorance could have catastrophic consequences. I think a single example in this connection should suffice: A total misunderstanding of what the Soviet Union meant by the concept “peaceful coexistence” had as a result that the USA is now losing the arms race against Russia. In my view, the intensified communist onslaught on Southern Africa makes a thorough knowledge more essential, perhaps, than ever before. Unfortunately, however, the position is that research in South Africa on this ideology is lagging rather far behind as a result of the implementation of the Publications and Entertainment Act, 1963. In terms of this Act, universities may be in possession of all publications provided that they were not of a communistic nature. However, because it was so difficult to determine when a publication was of a communistic nature, and when not, universities preferred to steer clear of this type of publication so as to stay on the safe side. As a result, research was seriously hampered and also considerably delayed. Since then, however, a considerable improvement has set in with the granting of an open exemption in respect of publications declared to be undesirable, and special exemption in respect of the possession of prohibited publications. With the granting of this exemption, more effective control is being maintained on the one hand, but on the other hand availability for a specific purpose has also been made possible. In my view, these concessions of open and special exemptions facilitate research and should consequently be welcomed as an improvement. In this respect there is, unfortunately perhaps, still one little shortcoming to which I should like to draw attention. This shortcoming could possibly be rectified. It does appear as if certain scientific works on communism are sometimes made subject to a prohibition on possession, which to a certain extent still has a retarding effect on research.

Section 9(3) of the Publications Act provides that the possession of a publication is prohibited when it is regarded as being radically prejudicial to the safety of the State and when it constitutes a threat to the general welfare, peace, good order and sound group relations in South Africa. A work on communism that is of a propagandistic nature, is included under this provision. No one who has the security of the Republic at heart, could object to a prohibition on the possession of publications that constitute a danger to the State. The need for this is self-evident. All that is being advocated is that in practice, effect should be given to the approach by the appeal board as set out on page 10 of the annual report of the Department of the Interior—

If one reads the Gazette from time to time, one does come across various scientific works in respect of which there is a prohibition on possession, but which are very important from the point of view of research and which have a relatively low propagandistic level, particularly when one keeps the probable reader in mind. And then, it seldom happens that works of a scientific nature are utilized for propagandistic purposes. If there is a prohibition on the possession of such works, it certainly hampers effective research. Such a work dealing with communism could always still be made subject to the provisions of section 47(2) in terms of which it could be declared an undesirable publication without making possession of it unlawful.

I wish to illustrate this point as follows. The poet Leipoldt alleged that he kept his knowledge of Greek and Latin up to date so that he could read works to strengthen his arguments against religion. His list of donations to the S.A. Library in Cape Town consequently contains a large number of books of a Christian-religious nature in spite of the fact that he was a very strong adherent of Buddhism. I wish to point out as a further example that Karl Marx knew the Bible from Genesis to the Revelations, with the result that from his point of view he could effectively level criticism at the Christian religion.

All that is being advocated is that researchers and students should be placed in the same position in respect of communist ideology as that in which Leipoldt and Marx were placed in respect of Christianity. Reasonable access to a scientific work on communism should enable the researchers to unmask this ideology in a meaningful way. I think that if the approach of the appeal board which I have already referred to, should become the rule, it would no longer place unreasonable restrictions on the importation of scientific literature on communism.

I just wish to state very clearly again that nobody is in favour of the importation of propagandistic literature such as The Little Red School Book of Mao Tse-tung for example. On the other hand, it is not being denied either that some of these scientific works do indeed sometimes contain propagandistic sections, but in this regard it should also be borne in mind that here in South Africa, revolution is being fomented with the Bible in one hand, and surely nobody would ever consider making possession of the Bible unlawful.

I trust that a fresh look will be taken at the question of the prohibition of possession of scientific works on communism. In the meantime I think the Directorate of Publications, the Publications Appeal Board and the specialist committees deserve thanks and appreciation for the way in which they are to an increasing extent making works of this nature available to researchers. I wish to express the hope that such research will lead to an effective countering of this ideology.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to start by apologizing for not commencing my speech on a very pleasant note, but I shall try to make up for that by concluding on a very pleasant one. I have before me the 1979 annual report of the Department of the Interior, which is a very sound and comprehensive report, full of factual data, for which we are very grateful to the hon. the Minister and his department. For the purposes of my argument at the moment, I wish to refer to page 14 of the report, under the heading “Publications”—

In this regard it may also be mentioned that onslaughts have been made on South Africa and its people in various spheres during the past few years, and they have increased in violence and intensity during the past months and weeks. In passing I just want to say a few words about what happened at Sasolburg last night. We know and trust that our hon. Minister of Defence, the Prime Minister, is going to put between 500 and 1 000 national servicemen at such places on a fulltime basis in order to defend and protect these installations that are so vital to our country and its people, day and night, year in and year out, on a full-scale military basis.

I referred to full-scale onslaughts. Far cleverer and far, far greater people than I have said on occasion that one does not destroy a nation from without, but rather from within. Break down its morale, ethics and religion and the onslaught from without is a mere formality. With reference to the sound work which the various committees did last year for our country by rejecting various undesirable publications, I wish to refer to another disquieting matter. It is being said—I hope it is not true, but it is probably worthwhile to take cognizance of it—that underground pornographic shops are being established at various places in South Africa.

I spoke recently to a Stellenbosch student who was on holiday in the Netherlands last year. He told me that he had come across one of these shops and had been so shocked that he had entered and asked to speak to the owner. When the owner arrived, this young Afrikaner asked him: “Sir, do you take pleasure in this? Do you find it constructive to carry on this type of business?” The owner then asked him: “Young man, who are you and where do you come from?” He replied that he came from South Africa. The Hollander retorted: “Oh, I can understand that. After all, you people in South Africa are miles and years behind the times.” In reply to the student’s question he went on to say that it was the most profitable type of business in the city. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice and of the Interior to ensure that there are no loophole in our legislation in South Africa so that this type of business will not be able to take root in South Africa. We convey our sincere gratitude to the hon. the Minister in advance in this respect and also thank him for the sound work done so far.

I said that I wanted to conclude on a more pleasant note. I want to do so—even though I do so many years afterwards—by paying tribute to our authors and poets of former times, people who nurtured our love for the Afrikaans language and poetry in the formative and impressionable years of many of us. I refer to authors and poets such as Totius, A. G. Visser, and, somewhat later, Van Wyk Louw, W. E. G. Louw, Sangiro and many others. To do justice to them, I want to refer very briefly to a few of these poems, just to bring them to mind. In lighter vein Visser told us in his poem “In die Sondagskool”—

Another one, also in lighter vein, is “In die Sinagoge” which reads—

I conclude with Visser’s poem “Laetitia”, in his sorrowful and serious moments when he had to surrender his wife to death with his poem “Laetitia”—

We pay tribute and express our gratitude to that generation of authors and poets. Today there are up-and-coming young authors and poets. Some of them produce beautiful and fine works and we tell them, we want to instil this in their minds: To depict the fine things of our country, the beauty of our country in their prose, in their poetry, to sing the praises of the fine and heroic characteristics of our heroes of the past in their prose and their poetry, to do so to an even greater extent than they are doing now. If they do this, then, just like this generation of poets and writers, Visser, Van den Heever, Langenhoven, Sangiro, Van Wyk Louw and others, they will make an enormous contribution to the cultivation of today’s generation who now, and in the future, will be of inestimable value to South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I must now reply to virtually all the hon. members who have spoken since Friday and therefore you shall have to exercise a little patience with me. But I shall try not to exceed my time. Many of the questions have already been replied to by the hon. the Deputy Minister, who dealt with certain aspects.

†In the first instance, the only unanswered matter as far as the hon. member for Sandton is concerned is his demand for more than the 15 regional offices that are envisaged. I want to tell the hon. member that, generally speaking—I am not now referring to a specific demand—no further regional offices are necessary. The 15 offices will be strategically placed over the whole country. These will be served right throughout the area by local authorities. The big task of these local authorities will be to serve these regional offices with vital information, e.g. changes of addresses. Local authorities will have another important function, i.e. the availability of all types of application forms which can be given to interested persons to be completed by them and to be returned to the regional offices via local authority offices. So as a first step we do not envisage more than the 15 regional offices.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Rissik for the friendly words he addressed to me in his first speech in this debate. I also want to thank him sincerely for what he said about Adv. Booyens and the department, and for his contribution on publications control. I want to state bluntly that it seems to me as if when I reply to the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in a moment, I shall have to choose that good old way, the golden mean, between his standpoint and that of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout when I state my standpoint in regard to this matter.

I have already replied to the speech by the hon. member for Durban Central. I want to thank the hon. member for Mossel Bay for his strong defence of population registration and the hon. member for Klip River for his appreciative comments on the smaller and more effective identity document. The hon. member wants us to reach the stage when the smaller book of life can be used as a basis for elections. In other words, he wants a voter to be able to vote simply by producing the booklet. This can be considered later. There are problems involved. However, I wish to say that for the moment we are merely striving to achieve the ideal of getting our population register as complete as possible and keeping it that way, so that voters’ rolls can be compiled from the population register by way of a computer at very short notice. The whole idea is to decentralize as regards the feeding of changes of address etc. into the computer.

I replied to his plea for more regional offices when I replied to the speech by the hon. member for Sandton. As regards his reference to the police, I want to say frankly that I myself am also very enthusiastic about the idea that the contact point in every village and hamlet should be the police because I have seen how ideally this works in Switzerland. In Switzerland the police form part of the Department of the Interior. The system works so well that their voters’ rolls are 100% up to date and correct virtually all the time. Due to our special conditions, however, it was decided that the police could not be integrated with the Department of the Interior. It was also felt that they could not be of assistance to the department with regard to changes of address and other information and therefore we decided to make use of local authorities for the most part. The local authority is the body which is always first to obtain the information as regards the connection of water and lights etc. I want to say with appreciation that the local authorities are prepared to help us.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein North addressed the Press in a very balanced, but also a very serious way. I do not think that after what happened last night it is necessary for me to spell out that we are living in troubled times. Each one of us, and certainly the mightiest media in the country, namely the Press and television, must think very carefully about the security of the country. The Press in general and the Newspaper Press Union in particular know that the office of the hon. the Prime Minister and my office in my capacity as the Minister entrusted with the Press are always open to them. It is therefore not a question of a lack of channels of communication that must be bridged. The Newspaper Press Union knows that I conducted discussions with them recently. They know that those discussions were conducted in a calm and balanced atmosphere. They know, too, that I put it to them that the Government wishes to reach consensus with them in a number of spheres. I want to say here and now that I did not say this in the kind of spirit that would mean that consensus could only be achieved if they said: “Yes, boss.” They themselves can attest to the fact that I did not put it to them in that way.

Having said this, I must immediately point out that the Press knows that there are important matters outstanding between us concerning which agreement has not yet been reached. They will have to reconsider these matters.

There is something else I want to say in my capacity as Minister of Justice, and in order to ensure that I am not misunderstood, I have written it out. Section 6 of the Internal Security Act also grants certain effective powers. In that case the first step with regard to a suspected offence by a newspaper is the appointment of a facts committee comprising three persons of whom at least one must be a senior magistrate. As I have said, we are living in troubled times, and although I shall act in a very balanced way, I shall not hesitate to use my power to appoint such a committee if there are serious offences.

I also want to refer to the hon. members for Pretoria Central and Kempton Park and thank them for their constructive speeches on immigration.

I now come to the hon. member for Jeppe. I am sorry that he is not present at the moment because I have a lot to say to him. The hon. member made a very good speech about the Portuguese, but I do not agree with everything he said, and I shall come back to that in a moment.

In the first instance, allow me to state my own attitude on Portuguese immigrants. I have been twice in Portugal and once in Angola. I was once in Portugal and in Angola as a member of a parliamentary team. After these visits I returned to South Africa with profound compassion in my heart towards these people. This was particularly the case in 1971 when I was a member of a parliamentary team, so much so that I also associated with these people in surroundings where there was no publicity to be sought. Sometimes, unannounced and uninvited, I go to their church services. It is therefore not a question of my not having the necessary compassion towards these people in my capacity as Minister of Immigration.

My attitude towards an immigrant who does not wish to become a citizen of this country does not, however, correspond 100% with that of the hon. member of Jeppe. My own attitude towards an immigrant is that he need never forfeit the sacred heritage he has brought with him from his own fatherland. That is why I have also attended Portuguese cultural meetings with enthusiasm on several occasions. However, when a person enjoys permanent residence in this country which is even longer than the required residence qualifications for citizenship, and on top of that makes a prosperous living in the Republic of South Africa, I take it amiss of him if he does not become a citizen of the Republic, unless there are valid reasons for this, for example pension payments which he will forfeit in his country of origin.

In fact I stated this clearly the other day too, during the Justice debate, in answer to the question as to why we asked in the application form whether a person applying for a liquor licence was a South African citizen and whether, if not, he intended to become one. There are certain specific norms which immigrants must comply with if they want to obtain permanent residence. All must comply with this, irrespective of the national group to which they belong. I am convinced that the department deals with the cases of immigrants to the best of its ability. However, misunderstanding can arise. Misunderstanding usually arises when a person repeatedly does not wish to accept a ruling. We must bear in mind that those who man the Department of the Interior are also people. If, then, there are people in that department who act in an impolite way towards a prospective immigrant, then I, too, shall have something to say about that. However, it happens very seldom.

The hon. member also broached the matter of a general amnesty for people who are in this country illegally. I do not wish to link this to a specific population group, but there is no doubt that there are a number of people in this country illegally. The hon. member asked that we proclaim an amnesty. To prevent misunderstanding I wish to state my policy in this regard very clearly. I should now like to reply to the hon. member with regard to the matter to which he referred, viz. the so-called amnesty; the so-called five-year delays for the most part relate to that.

After the events in Mozambique and Angola a number of years ago, thousands of inhabitants of those territories fled to the Republic. Thousands reported themselves, but many thousands omitted to do so, chiefly because they did not see their way clear to returning to Portugal and making a living there. In order to assist those people who had omitted to report themselves, it was announced that those who reported before a certain date, so that they could be considered for permanent residence, would not be prosecuted due to illegal residence and summarily removed, but that those who did not comply with the requirements would be sent to Portugal without being prosecuted for illegal residence. The so-called amnesty could only be utilized after such events as those that occurred in Angola and Mozambique. Since then nothing further has taken place to justify such an amnesty. In considering the position of people who did report themselves during the amnesty period, and in the consideration of other applications for residence permits, cases cropped up which could be regarded as border-line cases, and in order to accommodate these people, a decision was taken to allow them to remain here virtually permanently on a temporary basis. In the meantime, many achieved permanent residence by finding a place in the economy where they could be active without excluding our own people. Still others have not yet succeeded in doing so, and if it becomes necessary, they will have to make place for our own people.

Finally, I just want to draw attention to the fact that the Society for European Immigration as well as the 1820 Settlers’ Organization see to the assimilation of immigrants, among other things, and that both organizations receive substantial annual grants from Parliament for this purpose. Moreover, the hon. member for Houghton, who apologized to me in advance for not being able to be present here today, again raised the matter of Bishop Tutu’s passport. I certainly have no obligation to make any reasons known, and the hon. member for Houghton knows it. However I have a question to put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Unfortunately he is not present at the moment, but he can reply to the question later. He must really tell us at some stage what he is going to do about the problem in his own party, because it is very clear that he has a pro-Mandela and a “give-Tutu-back-his-passport” group in his party.

Do you equate the two?

I am not so sure whether the official Opposition is unanimous on this matter. [Interjections.] I can only say with regard to Bishop Tutu that there are two versions of what he supposedly said on Danish radio, and I just want to refer hon. members to the right version, the correct version, and ask that they think again about Bishop Tutu.

The hon. member for Houghton also took the ridiculous step of asking me about Gen. Van den Bergh’s passport. I should like to explain once again. As soon as a passport is withdrawn, the validity of that document lapses, and subsequently a valid document can only be issued to the holder if he applies for a passport and the application is approved. Therefore, before Gen. Van den Bergh condescends to re-apply for a passport, I shall be unable to consider it.

I now come to the hon. member for Virginia. I want to thank him for his speech on publications control. He spoke about the very undesirable imported books that have landed up on café shelves and asked for a better system of control in this connection. I want to point out to the hon. member what the basis of our system is. Objections on the part of the public form the foundation of this system. In practice it is quite impossible for my department or the Directorate of Publications to inspect regularly all the thousand and one places where this type of book is kept in order to hold an inspection. The system must be based on objections. I appreciate in particular what the hon. member said about the role that parents must play in this connection.

†He referred to the report of the Browne Committee and asked me to issue a White Paper on it as soon as possible. This, of course, falls under the hon. the Minister of Finance. It has nothing to do with me from that point of view.

As far as constitutional development is concerned, my department is aware of the fact that the proper establishment and development of a sound under-structure is a sine qua non for any constitutional development at the highest level, and one of the necessary elements of this under-structure is sound local government. My department will certainly strive to achieve that ideal.

*This brings me to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I thank him for all the points in regard to which he conceded that there was evolution and reasonableness in the system. Then he came to the question of popularity committees, as he calls them, the publications committees. I said that I wanted to adopt a standpoint between that of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and that of the hon. member for Rissik. There is a panel of approximately 250 people from which the directorate appoints committees from time to time, and I do not think the directorate appoints people from this panel in an irresponsible way. They consider the document to be assessed, the elements it contains, and appoint a committee accordingly. Personally, however, I do not know whether a panel need be so large—and in this regard I want to concede a point to the hon. member. At the moment the panel comprises approximately 250 people. On the other hand, like the hon. member for Rissik, I am not prepared to overturn the whole philosophy on which the Act is based, namely that the nation as such has a say in the first instance. It seems to me as if a middle way must be sought with regard to this matter. I do not wish to commit a possible successor as far as this is concerned, but my personal opinion is that we must appoint a smaller panel and then perhaps take a more intensive look at expertise in specific fields. In this way we shall not be undermining the philosophy of the Act, whereas on the other hand we shall cause it to work better.

I want to say to the hon. member that I have read Nadine Gordimer’s book Burger’s Daughter. That book contains sharp political criticism of the existing system, and the fact that that book was eventually passed by the appeal board attests to a balance and a maturity in our system about which hon. members opposite certainly cannot complain. Whatever one may say about the committees in the first instance—and they do very good work, for which I want to convey my sincerest appreciation—the fact of the matter remains that in the final instance we have an appeal board which is in a position to give matters further consideration on appeal. When one looks at the statistics one sees that the appeal board performs an interesting function. It is not true that it only approves on appeal documents, etc., that are rejected or declared undesirable by the committees. In many instances it is the other way round. Therefore the appeal board performs an objective and useful task in this system, a system which in my opinion is working very well at the moment.

The hon. member for Randfontein referred to the making available of scientific works on communism, even if they are subject to a ban on possession. My time is limited and therefore I merely want to refer the hon. member to page 14 of the latest annual report in which it is very clearly stated under the heading “Exemptions” that exemptions are now being issued in this connection, too, even though a ban on possession may apply. I thank the hon. member for his contribution.

The hon. member for Meyerton spoke about underground sex and pornography shops. There are already several sex shops, and I shall not provide their addresses! In co-operation with local authorities, the Departments of Health, Justice, Police and Customs and Excise this matter is being looked into. Here again we rely on the general public to come forward with objections. This matter will certainly be given the necessary attention. As far as these matters are concerned we do not wish to allow the situation which obtains in certain Western countries to arise here.

Mr. Chairman, I should be obliged if you would bear with me for a few moments longer. I think that I have now replied to all questions to the best of my ability. The hon. the Deputy Minister also replied very ably to questions relating to his section on Friday. I want to say about the hon. the Deputy Minister that if it had not been for his positive and able assistance in the department, I do not know how I would have coped this year. I want to thank him most sincerely for that.

Mr. Chairman, permit me to devote a few minutes to making a few remarks about my stewardship of this department since January 1978 when I was appointed Minister of the Interior. I mention this at this stage, because by approximately the end of September the department is going to assume an entirely different form. At present the department is an extremely important, major and indeed great department, but after the end of September, with the inclusion of the Departments of Coloured Relations and Indian Affairs, it will become a still bigger and greater department, probably one of the most important departments in the whole Public Service. Because the department is going to change so radically within a short time, I should just like to say a few words about my stewardship.

I was appointed in January 1978 as the Minister in control of the department, and was faced with a tremendous backlog as far as the population register was concerned. Thanks to my able departmental head, Advocate Booyens, and his equally able officials, this backlog was eliminated dramatically. There is no longer a backlog. We were faced with virtually unsolvable applications, especially due to the fact that unsophisticated people had sent in applications and had omitted to put their addresses on their applications. These virtually unsolvable applications have been substantially reduced. We were also faced with an unmanageable and unworkable identity document. We converted it into a smaller and more practical identity document which will not only save the department R160 000 per annum, but will also be far better and more efficient for our purposes. We were faced with the problem that a system had been designed to draw up voters’ rolls from the population register in the future, but no consideration had been given to keeping the population register and the voters’ rolls up to date. The Cabinet was friendly enough to agree with me this year that we must decentralize, and as a result we have the 15 regional offices and the cooperation we are going to have from local authorities. If everything works in practice as we have worked it out in theory, this ought to mean a great deal to us with regard to keeping our population register and our voters’ rolls up to date in future. We initiated a supplementary general registration of voters. Whether it is said that it was done badly, reasonably well or well, the fact of the matter is that on 31 March 1980 there was a total of 2 313 159 voters registered on clean rolls as against the 2 272 804 appearing on the rolls of 26 July 1979, which contained many duplications, deceased persons, etc. In my opinion it was a great success. Then, too, my department initiated the delimitation of constitutions due to the fact that major resettlements had taken place.

In the final instance—and I shall let this suffice—I want to point out that I took over the control of publications at a time when there was a major impasse and it seemed clear to me that we had to negotiate a system in which the Government was not engaged in a constant dispute with responsible Afrikaans and English authors. I think that that impasse had largely been overcome. My department, in co-operation with the former Public Service Commission, also took the first steps with regard to rationalization, with the amalgamation of the Departments of the Interior and Immigration. I think that that amalgamation has been brilliantly executed and that it has pointed the way for us to be able to implement rationalization throughout the Public Service.

Over the past year, too, my department has been hard at work and positive results have been achieved with regard to the Constitutional Commission.

Taking all these circumstances into account, I want to say that my departmental head and his staff deserve all credit and honour for the fine progress made by the department since January 1978.

Votes agreed to.

Vote No. 18.—“Commission for Administration”:

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

I should like to comment briefly on the statement just made by the hon. the Minister, which overlaps the work of the commission. We enjoyed the swan song of the hon. the Minister’s overseership of the Commission for Administration, which is now being dealt with, because, if we take recent events into account, it seems that the hon. the Minister will not be serving this commission much longer.

I did not say it.

It sounded like it.

It sure sounded like it. I want to say that 1980 is a momentous year for the Public Service. It is a year of long-awaited reorganization, of differentiation and of far-reaching rationalization of the service itself. Let me say at the outset that we on this side of the House are not in disagreement with the Government at all on the above-mentioned principles. I have for years pleaded, under this Vote, for a less bureaucratic and more efficient Public Service structure, a structure which would allow a better service to be made available to the public. We are delighted that the process has now begun. It has begun in the correct way, viz. by refashioning the structure of the Public Service from the top management downwards. Another innovation, one which I welcome, is the move to involve elements of private enterprise in this process. I am also delighted that one of the gentlemen thus called upon for advice and who, I understand, is giving very good advice, is in fact a Sandton voter. It was during 1977, during the debate on the then Public Service Commission, that I called for a differentiated salary structure to be instituted as a weapon to attract and to retain key personnel. It is very pleasing to us that this concept of differentiation has in fact been taken up and is proving successful. To take the matter just a little further, let me point out that in 1978 I asked that the plethora of statutes which had to be administered by an overworked Public Service should be investigated with a view to eliminating the obsolete. I want to say that I can only express pleasure that this task is now being undertaken. Because I regard this facet, the question of looking at the obsolete laws which the Public Service has to administer, which are conflicting and which cause a great deal of bureaucratic difficulties, as being so important to the rationalization programme, I should be very grateful if the hon. the Minister would report fully when he replies on what progress is being made in this particular instance. Therefore, for the broad aim of the programme as announced by the Commission for Administration, namely the aim of creating a smaller number of departments, the aim of creating a consolidated and simplified set of laws, the aim of becoming a more attractive employment catalyst for the market and the aim of providing a better service for the public, I believe the hon. the Minister will find support from this side of the House. That, however, does not mean that our support is blindly uncritical. On the contrary, we see it as our duty to look for and to debate weak areas and to debate the mistakes that we think are being made.

On this line, my first criticism relates to the methods used in making known the new salary scales pursuant to the budget announcements. We do not argue that differentiation should not be implemented, but we do argue that the measures to give effect to that philosophy should be timeously explained and understood by all who are affected. In this case, weeks after the budget was announced, teachers, policemen and nurses and many other eschelons of the Public Service staff remained in the dark as to how they personally were affected. Many of these categories of people are still in the dark—as we on this side of the House are—as to where everybody fits in in the overall Public Service salary structure pattern, and this at a time when dissatisfaction over salary structures is rife throughout the service. I believe that this state of affairs is just not good enough. Less secrecy, more openness and better preparation in the announcements to be made will do much to eliminate uncertainty and a sense of grievance. I believe the 1980 adjustments were badly handled, and I hope that this does not occur again.

Secondly, with regard to the scales themselves, I believe that not enough attention has been given to the lower eschelons, to the semi-skilled workers, to the junior employees of the Public Service. Some of these people count their new take-away increases in but a few rands. One particular group of people who came to see me, three or four people employed in the same category, told me that as a result of the new increases this year, they took home R16 a month extra in their pay packets, whereas many senior personnel find their packages increased by literally thousands of rands. I agree, and I believe we all agree, that it is the task of the Commission for Administration to retain within the service the vital skills that are necessary to make that service tick and to perform the functions that have to be performed. But every service must have both its generals and its privates. In this case I believe an over-emphasis has been placed on retaining the top people, while the lower ranks have not benefited to the extent which is desirable. The gaps are too large and must be looked into if a balanced service is to be maintained.

Thirdly, I should like to say, as I said under a previous Vote, that I am not entirely satisfied with all the groupings, as set out in the rationalization programme, of the various departments. I come back again to the question of the Department of the Interior, now known as the Department of the Interior and Constitutional Affairs and what will become known in the next few months as the Department of the Interior, Constitutional Affairs, Indian and Coloured Affairs. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, who assured us in a previous debate that advice had been taken and that the matter had been discussed, to explain to us, apart from the historical background, what the real connection is between the Departments of the Constitutional Affairs, Interior and the Departments of Coloured Relations and Indian Affairs. Where is the congruity in the linking of those departments? I particularly ask what expertise is to be found in the existing Department of the Interior and Constitutional Affairs regarding Coloured and Indian education. I further ask whether it would not have been far better to have created a single Department of Education, for instance, incorporating—if necessary separately for the moment—all the present education departments? Taken the differences in the various cultures and peoples concerned, the congruity of the departments of education of the various groups is far more logical than splitting up the departments and linking them with departments that have nothing to do with education. I believe that these illogicalities must be explained.

Another aspect of the rationalization programme I would like to query is the enlarged office of the hon. the Prime Minister. I understand that he and the Cabinet require to keep within the grip of the executive the plans and the work to be done on what is termed by the Government “the total strategy”. But we must understand that within the next few months we will have a Prime Minister’s department which will not only carry the functions it has carried in the past, but will also have the following functions under it: Physical planning, social planning, economic planning, scientific planning and constitutional planning, each with a secretariate and sub-department. In this way I believe rationalization and centralization are being taken too far, because above those planning functions, each of which is a big enough undertaking in itself, also under the Prime Minister’s department are going to be found the Departments of National Security, of Statistics, the general overlordship of the Commission of Administration and the normal interest which a Prime Ministerial department displays in all the other departments of Government.

Will the Prime Minister have too much work?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

But your Chief Whip said the other day that the Prime Minister had too little work.

I believe that this gathering of power, this gathering of functions into one channel, quite separate from other departments whose functions are, to say the least, similar, could well lead to competing elements within the Public Service to the detriment of overall efficiency. I do not believe it to be healthy that so much power is focussed on one office, and so, before we support this particular aspect of the rationalized programme, I would ask the hon. the Minister to give a full and motivated explanation of what the hon. the Prime Minister’s department is all about and why it is being grouped as it is.

Another aspect which should enjoy attention is that of the already swollen and growing work-load of the Public Service. It is my view that several functions and tasks presently being undertaken by the Public Service could fruitfully be turned over to private enterprise. In times of economic growth, the public sector in a free enterprise society is, and always will be at a grave disadvantage in attracting and holding administrative, technical and professional staff. The available statistics, as they are reflected in the annual report of the department, testify amply that this has been so over the years. I believe that that hypothesis has been proved conclusively. There will always be, in these categories—technical, administrative and professional staff— serious shortages in the Public Service. When one couples this fact with two other laudable goals of the rationalization programme ascribed to by the hon. the Prime Minister, namely the creation of a leaner, more efficient Public Service and the encouraging of private enterprise to play a bigger role in key functions, does the answer not stare us in the face, namely that the Public Service should take on less and not more functions?

If this hypothesis is accepted, several instances and practices will come up for investigation. For example, the State sawmills, the various State-run mines and the several semi-State institutions should belong better wholly in the private sector. Several departments hard-pressed by shortages and a growing pressure of work, for instance the Department of Justice and the State Attorney’s office, could profitably pass on much more work to the profession that it presently does.

Then there are departments which have set up whole infrastructures and which perform functions which ill befit Government. I want to give an example which I gave a few days ago, namely the example of the Department of Sport and Recreation. This department does fine work. It co-ordinates spending, organizes coaching courses, finances research and even stages functions, competitions and sporting events. However, these are not the tasks of government, they are the tasks of an independent sports authority. The Government’s involvement in sport should be limited to that of the giving of advice when asked for, and to the general overseeing of the spending of public funds. A full service department, however, would, as in Britain and in Western Europe, best be operated by the sports administrators themselves. I would ask the hon. the Minister to investigate this possibility rather than let the existing state of affairs continue.

As from 1 April 1978 equal remuneration for the same qualifications and work was introduced in South West Africa. This was implemented basically by introducing occupational group salary adjustment scales for the various race groups in South West Africa. Salaries were post by post brought in fine with comparable scales enjoyed by Whites. The end result, once the adjustments had been completed, was and is a single, non-racial salary and post structure which brought along with it improved general conditions for unskilled and semi-skilled work.

The new structures in South West Africa were implemented as a matter of high priority, and the whole operation, right down to the level of administrative clerical assistants, was virtually completed within a year. It was a remarkable achievement, made possible by the work of the Commission for Administration. However, it is interesting to see what did not happen as a result of this major operation. South West Africa did not go bankrupt; Whites did not resign en masse; there was no marked drop in efficiency and Blacks did not put Whites out of jobs. It is equally interesting to see what did happen at that time. There were very few hitches, productivity was maintained and in fact improved, resentment in the lower-paid ranks was largely eliminated and key men stayed in their jobs. Non-Whites in South West Africa are today trying harder to reach the top, because the road to the top is in fact open. The body which drew up these plans and oversaw their implementation, was our own Public Service Commission. I think it is to be congratulated on a noble duty well executed.

However, allow me to contrast this with what is happening in the Republic today. The authorized establishment of the Public Service, excluding the Post Office and the S.A.R., consists of something like 179 000 personnel members. The Government, after four years of espousing a policy of eliminating the wage gap, has at 1 April 1980 achieved a situation in which only 1 245 non-White officers enjoy full parity in salaries.

It is true that the pattern over the years has been to grant percentage increases which are larger for non-Whites than they are for Whites. Because of the historically wide differences, however, between the rates of pay, the closing of the actual cash gap is proving to be a painfully slow process likely to last for 20 or more years. This is surely a public disgrace. The expertise to work out the procedures is both available and ready to do the job. It is a policy decision which is required. The principle has been established, the precedent has been put into operation, and only two major factors are still hindering the process, the first one probably being the fear of the cost to the country of such execution, and, secondly, there being an ingrained political tardiness in bringing about reform.

No one expects the structure to be equalized overnight. The South West Africa structure is in size about 10% of that of the Republic structure. There is a vast difference in size and in the ramifications. This is understood. What is expected, however, is that there be a clear programme and that that programme be devised, that its goals be identified and worked towards. We all realize that financial implications might speed up or slow down the process over a year or two, depending on what the economic climate is from time to time. What is not understood however, is why a clear and definite programme cannot be agreed upon, why it cannot be announced, and why it cannot be used as a guideline for change.

The question I want to put to the hon. the Minister is the following. Why is the principle of the equalization of the pay structures executed as a high priority, accepted and efficiently executed in South West Africa, and is that principle not applicable in South Africa? I should like the hon. the Minister to give a straight and honest answer to that question. Apart from the amounts of money involved, what is it that holds the South African Government back? After all, an equalized, non-discriminatory and fair staff structure in the Public Service would surely do a great deal to create goodwill, to eliminate grievances and, if handled correctly, would not detract from the productivity level at all.

I come now to the end of the time allotted me. In conclusion, however, I should like to state that I have read carefully the reports of the commission, and I should like to congratulate the commissioners on the most lucid documents that they have put before us. I should also like to thank them for the work they have done during the year that is past.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton made what I considered to be a typical grandstand speech. It reminded me so of the old gentleman who was at Newlands on Saturday. After Divan Serfontein had scored his try, the old fellow said: “Well, it was quite good really, but he should have scored it closer to the goal posts.”

I can, of course, accept that the hon. member for Sandton, being an hon. member of the hon. Opposition, is not in a position to state only the positive aspects, as we have to do. But it is also true that one is able to tamper with many things in the machinery of the State, yet it is in fact an extremely difficult task to sit there in the heart of the administration, to set the machinery of the State in motion from there, to keep it going, and to come forward with constant innovations so that, with those innovations, there is also improvement.

In the few minutes at my disposal I briefly want to lay down a few guidelines which are essential to the Public Service Commission, of which the new designation is the Commission for Administration. Being an inhabitant of Pretoria, where I also come into contact with the younger officials quite often—and sometimes with officials who are no longer all that young—I know that some of them very often ask whether the Commission for Administration is in fact an essential institution. The question is also often asked whether this commission is not simply contributing to hindering people in their tasks and making their working conditions difficult. That is why I now want to mention the following aspects which, I think, are of importance to us in this debate.

When the Public Service Commission was approximately 60 years old in 1972, voices were raised which questioned the right of existence and the form of the commission as a central institution. During 1973, on the instructions of the former Minister of the Interior, a study group of the Public Service Commission instituted an investigation abroad into the organizational structure of central staff institutions and their place and role in the machinery of State as far as the general regulation of the Public Service staff and administration was concerned. While bearing in mind the problems being experienced by Government bodies, inter alia, by the Public Service Commission itself, in the performance of their statutory functions, the purpose of this study was to review the structure and operation of the Public Service Commission as a central staff institution here in this country by way of a comparison with those in other countries, in an effort to ascertain, in view of present-day circumstances and needs, whether the institution as such was still being systematically organized and whether the regulation of the South African Public Service’s central staff administration was still effective in all respects. After a thorough investigation and consultation with departmental heads the Government decided that the commission would be retained, that its status within the government system would be enhanced and that its authority would be extended. The increase in status was statutorily achieved by placing the commission’s liaison with the Government on the level of the Prime Minister. The commission’s authority was extended by means of a new provision in the Public Service Act to the effect that recommendations of the commission that do not apply to people, have to be implemented by departments after a specific time lapse.

1 August 1976 is general accepted as the date on which the new commission was established. From the changes that were implemented, one could reasonably conclude that the Government envisaged that this commission would in future play a greater role in the national administration.

A few important features of the public services of the countries to which the study group paid a visit, as well as reasonably generally accepted views which also apply or could apply to the South African Public Service and its officials, are the following: Firstly, the central staff institution plays an important role and that role receives recognition by, inter alia, linking the institutions closely to the seat of authority in the government structure. With one exception all the institutions which were studied link up with the highest level of the Executive, viz. the Prime Minister, the President or the Governor. Secondly, the general pattern is that the central institution is largely involved in policy-making, planning and control, whereas the implementation of staff operations are as far as possible left to departments and the central institution is involved in day- to-day staff administrative activities only where there is a good reason for doing so. Thirdly, where a responsibility has been entrusted to a central staff institution, it is vested with the necessary authority to be able to meet that responsibility. Where it does not have to determine policy, but has to act in an advisory capacity, its role is clear. Fourthly, as far as the attitude of the Public Service towards the Government of the day is concerned, it is generally considered that the Public Service is the impartial instrument through which the Government causes the country to be administered. Every official is ethically and even legally obliged to support the Government in the implementation of its mandate to the best of his ability. Fifthly, the public servant also enjoys a special status. This is recognized by way of laws and regulations which protect him from capricious and arbitrary treatment, but which also require high standards of work and conduct from him. The public servant’s special status arises out of the difference in approach between the Public Service and the private sector—a service as opposed to a profit motive. Sixthly, the maintenance of a merit system is also considered to be fundamental.

There are two fundamental principles which are of cardinal importance in the Public Service administration, i.e. the principle of merit on the one hand and efficiency on the other. It is accepted in South Africa and other Western democracies that the merit principle must apply in the choice of candidates for appointment to the Public Service and in the promotion of public servants. The best available candidate must be given the post. Favouritism and undeserved discrimination must be avoided. Furthermore the Public Service is expected to be efficient. The Public Service must give full value for the public funds which are spent on it. This requires constant attention to organizational structures, work procedures, the utilization of the officials and their development. The realization of these two principles makes heavy demands on those who are involved in the administration of the Public Service.

As the highest authority in this country Parliament has a special interest in the Public Service. Parliament is specifically geared to the realization of these two fundamental Public Service principles, i.e. merit and efficiency. In the final resort it is Parliament that has to ensure that justice is sought and done to public servants and that the general welfare of the public must always remain the goal of the Public Service. In dealing with Public Service matters, Parliament is geared to keeping the staff establishment which serves the country as a whole, out of the party-political arena. This established principle holds great benefits for this country. The non-party-political nature of the Public Service administration is indeed a cornerstone of our country’s administration. Most academics and practitioners agree—in fact, this is almost accepted as aniomatic— that a central staff institution is indispensable to a developed and a modern Public Service. There are central staff institutions for all the public services in those countries which the study group visited, and indeed for all the public services of all developed countries. The structure and powers of all the respective institutions, and their place in the government machinery, differ from one country to another, but the need for a central institution to perform certain tasks involving the staff function and the national administration, is generally recognized. Central staff institutions seem to be essential for certain reasons in particular. Firstly, the Government of the day, as the Executive, is compelled to establish and maintain a staff policy, and to control its implementation and correct application. It requires an expert body which is able to assist it in this regard and which, where necessary, can act on its behalf, and provide the necessary guidance. Secondly, the conditions of service and the privileges of the persons comprising the Public Service have to be centrally coordinated in order to ensure uniform treatment within the Public Service and in this way to prevent the obstruction of the State administration, to preserve satisfaction among officials and to avoid unrest. Thirdly, the increasing complexity of staff administration and competition with outside persons and bodies create a need for experts who can be brought together centrally to plan, formulate, advise, revise and control policy. There are some other points as well. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sure there was a reason for the hon. member having read the article on the ideal of a central personnel control system as he did, so I leave the matter there. I agree with what has been said about the objectives of the rationalization programme and with many of the more logical groupings that have developed. I am afraid that I am not yet ready, however, to join in the cheering with unqualified enthusiasm. I would rather wait to see the development achieve its final pattern. The objectives, as set out in the White Paper, are model objectives, as the hon. member for Sandton said. The only thing I disagree with him on is his use of the term “lucid”. I am getting worried that a third official language is developing in South Africa, the gobbledy-gook of “officialese”. It is based on the principle that if one can use two words one never uses one, and if one can use five words, never use two. I really do believe, therefore, that one of the objects of rationalization should include the stream-lining of “officialese”. I am not going to quote at length, but I do want to mention a few sentences as examples. I quote (paragraph 8, page 3)—

So I can go on. There are other examples where in 10 to 15 words one could say pretty well all that is said there.

Surely the report itself is short.

Yes, it is short, but I am talking about the use of unnecessary words. Seeing that we are dealing with the Public Service, I am setting as one of the objectives of rationalization the abolition of the third official language of officialese. I think that that would be welcomed tremendously throughout South Africa. People would then be able to understand the Government notices, proclamations and all the rest. [Interjections.] Yes, actually there are two such extra official languages, because one finds the same tendency in both English and Afrikaans.

Let us have a look at the immediate effect of rationalization. Where there were 39 Departments and Services before, there will now be 22. This appears a tremendous streamlining, but let us look at the facts before us. There are now going to be two extra Cabinet Ministers and 20 new Directors-General. In addition the services of 26 former Secretaries are to be retained. This information I have from the reply given to a question I put to the hon. the Minister. According to my arithmetic, the position is then that, where there were, before, 38 departmental Secretaries, including the General Manager of the Railways and the Postmaster General, there will now be 46 top posts, which is eight more. Therefore, in fact, there is not a reduction, but there are eight more senior posts and two additional Ministers. There will therefore not in fact be a saving at the top.

There is, however, a positive side. This is why I said I would rather wait for developments to see to what extent the building of this larger superstructure, consisting of 20 Directors-General or super Secretaries, will cause streamlining down the line. Alternatively, is it simply going to be one more source which has to give approval to decisions, so that decision-making is going to become an even slower process?

Let me, before I go on, deal with one or two positive aspects, which I welcome. I welcome the separation of Prisons from Police, because I believe that these are two separate and different functions, viz. that of crime control and that of punishment and rehabilitation. I welcome, too, the removal of liquor control from the Department of Justice, because I believe it does not belong there. I hope that this will mean a “normalization”, to use a favourite Public Service word, of the function of licensing of liquor. I disagree with the hon. member for Sandton on the Planning functions which are now being combined under the hon. the Prime Minister. I think that this can co-ordinate and bring together the overall planning. I am not talking about the detailed planning, but the overall strategic planning for the future of South Africa. Provided this itself does not become a top-heavy organization, I can see value in it. Equally, some of the other changes are more logical groupings which I welcome.

I must say again, however, that I am very sorry that this opportunity was not taken to remove from the control of the Commission for Administration, as it is now called, the two departments of Defence and Police. These are two departments whose total task, service conditions and operational demands are quite different from those of a normal Public Service department. Today is a good day to raise the demands which are made on them, because the hon. the Minister of Police is experiencing this. The demands which are being made on our police and on our Defence Force are growing day by day. The threat is growing more and more. In these past weeks we have seen what the police are called upon to do with regard to riot control, boycotts, marches and protests, and now with this unfortunate affair that occurred at Sasol last night. The Defence Force is in the same situation, and I do not believe one can equate either of these departments with any normal Government administration. They should therefore be removed so that they can deal with their own problems internally with regard to the operational demands which are made on them and the flexibility it requires, particularly the flexibility to cope with situations which arise in the security field.

There is another aspect of this where I am afraid I do not accept entirely the statement that the rationalization and the new salary adjustments and grades have been wholeheartedly and enthusiastically welcomed by the officials themselves throughout the Public Service. To some it is seen merely as the creation of 22 new bosses and has not had wholehearted support. I believe a big task lies ahead yet for the hon. the Minister and his department to ensure that morale is maintained and built up as a result of the changes which are now taking place. This applies particularly in the field of salaries, where one is given to understand that dissatisfaction is ripe—apart from police, teachers and nurses where it is critical. It is also present in other departments as well, and I am concerned about the morale and the job satisfaction in large areas of the Public Service. I am particularly concerned with regard to the three critical ones, viz. the police, teachers and nurses, but I am also concerned in other fields as well where one hears and sees that people who were keyed up, geared up, to expect changes which they were looking forward to, have gone away disappointed because of what has happened. I am worried that with this ultra-secrecy and ultra-avoidance of anyone finding out what people are now receiving, it is not helping the situation. This ultra-secrecy is not helping morale. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. leader of the NRP will pardon me if I do not follow up on his argument. I should like to elucidate further one or two points raised by the hon. member for Rissik. The Public Service Commission has now been rechristened and will in future be known as the Commission for Administration. The new designation is more descriptive and meets with my approval. To attempt to define the multifarious duties of this very important commission may only be misleading. Suffice it to say that the commission was established in law in terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the Public Service Act of 1957, with the primary purpose of ensuring that the State machinery as a whole functions effectively.

I should just like to single out a few points relating to the establishment of the Public Service during the year under review. During the year under review it became necessary to increase the establishment of the Public Service by 9 251 posts. This does not include the posts of the Defence Force or the S.A. Police. It does include 1 886 civilian posts in the Department of Defence. It also includes 224 posts in the Department of Education and Training; i.e. the education and training of Black people. Apart from that it includes 2 591 teaching posts in the Department of National Education, but they are principally teachers in Indian and Coloured education. There are an additional 245 posts in Indian education, principally as clerks for Indian schools. It will therefore be noted that a tremendous amount has been done about the education of people of colour. It is not a question of it’s still having to be done; it is already being done, and this commission is playing a major part in this.

Something happened in this House last Friday which caused me grave concern. The hon. member for Pretoria Central asked the hon. member for Houghton across the floor whether it was in the interests of South Africa that the school boycotts should stop immediately. Instead of replying to that question the hon. member for Houghton literally turned her back on the hon. member for Pretoria Central.

Do not lie to the House.

Nor was a reply forthcoming from the official Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May an hon. member say that another hon. member may not lie to this House?

No, but I did not lie.

I am referring to the hon. member for Sandton.

Did the hon. member for Sandton use those words?

Is he allowed to “jok”?

Did the hon. member for Sandton imply that the hon. member for Springs was telling a lie?

Yes.

Then the hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member for Springs may proceed.

Hon. members must not waste my time.

School boycotts entail the irresponsible wasting of brain-power and the reckless squandering of Government money. This is perhaps not only irresponsible but could also be described as criminal. Can we afford to be paying millions of rands to teachers, while the pupils or students are strolling about or playing “klip-klip”? If we want to be a happy country in future and if we have to feed and employ a further 50 million people over 20 years, then the important element in the whole set-up is the development of brain power. But I shall leave it at that.

A further 2 327 posts are being created in the Department of Health, 270 by way of substitution of posts during the takeover of a mission hospital and 585 by way of substitution of posts during the takeover of Health Laboratory Services in Natal and the Cape. They have been taken over by the State. Then 178 posts have been created to replace the National Research Institute for Occupational Diseases at the Medical Research Council and 1 294 for normal growth.

The question now arises: Where are these officials to come from and what role is the Commission for Administration playing in this regard? What role has the commission played in getting the right people posted in the right positions? I should like to emphasize that this powerful State machine requires a large number of skilled people, since the tasks that have to be performed are superior, complicated and require a high level of expertise, in contrast to what some people in the private sector think, viz. that these tasks are inferior.

Let us examine what the Commission for Administration is doing to recruit a sufficient number of top quality people. Efforts are constantly being made to cast the Public Service as an employer in a more favourable light. There is a stream of image-building publicity, such as films and slide shows. The Press is also used a great deal for the placement of articles and reports. Since an additional four films and four slide shows were obtained during the past year, the commission now has 56 films and 83 slide shows. These visual publicity aids are constantly being shown on appropriate occasions. They are also lent to educational institutions, if necessary. It is always necessary to place advertisements for vacancies in daily newspapers. During the past year five general publicity campaigns have also been launched, aimed at specific professional groups, plus a further campaign to acquaint the public with the Public Service’s bursary scheme. The publication Careers in the Public Service is at present being revised and will reappear shortly in a duly amended version. It is a very useful instrument in the hands of career guidance officers.

The commission has seven publicity officers who liaise with universities, technikons, schools and military camps. During the year under review they paid visits to no fewer than 800 high schools with a view to providing them with the necessary information service. The Public Service even has a publicity officer in London who liaises with universities there to recruit certain officials whom we cannot recruit here. These publicity officers have also played their part in carrying out information work among first-year students at universities and technikons. The students were provided with information in connection with subject choices in respect of the 900 fields of employment in the Public Service. For the most part these officials held discussions with uncommitted students and students holding Public Service bursaries. In addition, officials of the commission serve on several local adaptation committees, that furnish returning national servicemen, who did their national service directly after their schooling, with information in connection with adaptation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Springs has to be congratulated on a thoughtful and thoroughly prepared speech.

The White Paper entitled the Rationalization of the Public Service and Related Institutions which is before us at the moment, is in fact a landmark in the development of public administration in this country. The fact is that, while the growth of bureaucratic structures teeming with officials is regarded by many scholars of Government as the core of the modern State, this is also something which gives rise to considerable concern. The growth of bureaucracy is, however, limited neither to the State nor to public institutions, but it is also characteristic of public companies. In fact, the story is told—I suspect that it is apocryphal, but nevertheless it will be of interest to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs—that the chairman of Anglo American, a corporation which has the reputation of never really firing anybody, but of moving people sideways, once was on a flight across the Atlantic when the man sitting next to him asked him what he did. He explained that he was the chairman of the Anglo American Corporation of South Africa. The man next to him, an American, said to him: “My word, that is a big company. It is almost as big as the S.A. Railways.” The chairman of Anglo American, with modesty that becomes him, said: “Well, it is not quite as big as the S.A. Railways, but the fact is that we have just as many sleepers.” This is a general problem. The problem of bureaucracy is obviously of specific concern to us in so far as it affects public institutions and the State. With respect to these trends I want to say that reservations in the South African Government have long been expressed by our academics. Prof. Ben Roux of the University of South Africa, a man whom I think will be regarded by many as one of the most brilliant scholars in public administration this country has produced, before his untimely death wrote—

In this particular publication he went on to say—

By means of a table he indicated the growth of the number of South African State departments from the time of Union in 1910. In 1910 there were 12; in 1920, 21; in 1930, 22; in 1940, 24; in 1950, 30; in 1960, 33; in 1974, 42; and just before the publication and adoption of the recommendations of this White Paper, 44 departments, including the Information Service of South Africa, the four provincial administrations for the Administration for South West Africa. In this situation the response of the Commission for Administration has been this White Paper, which is a document with far-reaching recommendations, involving as it does the reduction in the number of departments. One would like to predict that it is a document which will have an important impact on the whole development of public administration in South Africa.

However, what is important are the reasons which are offered for the changes which have been recommended. I want to focus, in particular, on one of these. First of all there are external factors which are mentioned. These are factors external to the Public Service as such. These factors are, firstly, onslaughts on the Republic which call for new services and Government measures, as well as for the adjustment of priorities; secondly, changes in the needs structures of the various population groups, demanding the extension and adaptation of Government services and, thirdly, shifts in emphasis owing to factors such as the energy crisis, technological development and environmental conservation problems which necessarily call for a redetermination of priorities and for adjustments to the pattern of Government services. Several internal factors have also been mentioned. A particularly important reason given for introducing these changes is contained in the reference to changes in the needs structure of the various population groups, demanding the extension and adaptation of Government services.

The traditional role of the Public Service is seen as being a stabilizing one. Hence the very important role played by the Public Service in the Third and Fourth Republics of France. When Cabinets were being formed almost on a monthly basis, it was the superb French Civil Service which, in fact, kept the country running. That is the traditional role of the Public Service, and there is no question about it that in our circumstances that is a very important role. There is in a modernizing society, which South African unquestionably is, an immensely dynamic society, a great necessity for the Public Service to be highly responsive to the needs of the society.

It is said that there are three dimensions to any political or government system, viz. the normative or value dimension, the structural aspect, of which the Public Service forms a part, and the behavioural aspect. The first two aspects influence the third, because if one chooses a democratic system one will have structures which reflect democratic values and one will have a certain behaviour which corresponds with the behaviour one would expect to find in a democratic State. If one chooses non-democratic values then the structures and behaviour will be influenced accordingly. In our particular case our society, I believe, has chosen to move away from a fundamentally oligarchical kind of structure of government to a more democratic kind. This is reflected in a variety of ways, e.g. the wish expressed by the Government and the determination, on the part of the Government, to normalize intercommunity relations. It is also expressed in Government policy and reflected in recommendations, e.g. those in the interim report of the Constitutional Commission, to democratize our situation. It is also reflected in the determination of the Government, through Government policy, to open up opportunities of a social and economic nature to persons of colour in our society.

The implications of these changes for all population groups in our society are very considerable indeed. Expectations are created which need to be met. In this sort of situation a Public Service can either facilitate the realization of the objectives or it can obstruct it, and therefore the emphasis in the White Paper on this particular aspect of our situation, the needs of the different population groups, and the development of new needs is vital, and so one trusts the Public Service will try to meet them, because however brilliant the structures may be, however wise the breakdown of departments may be and however sound these may be from a public administration point of view, if the Public Service is not responsive to the needs of a highly dynamic society, like ours, all these proposals will amount to nothing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when my time expired I was talking about the morale of many members of the Public Service, following particularly on disappointments over the salary situation and the increases granted this year. I was about to say that it has been my privilege—as with all MPs—to have close contact with many Public Service officials and to get to know people who are dedicated to their work, who spend long hours working overtime without complaint and whose courtesy is always unfailing. It is one of our privileges as MPs to work with people who have given, and are giving, their lives to public service as such. It is therefore a pity that their attitude of courtesy, dedication and the willingness to try to solve problems is not always what is seen by the public because of certain individuals who exist in any large organization and who see in authority the opportunity to be arrogant, to misuse power and upset people.

It is these exceptions who do that. Very often, I am afraid, they get their arrogance from examples set to them by their Ministers, because hon. Ministers see themselves as the “bosses”. They themselves do not set an example of courtesy, something which often rubs off on those who serve under them. It is a pity that those attitudes often creates an adverse image which, I know, greatly concerns the Public Service as such. It affects the image of the Public Service adversely and does not reflect the total position. It is one of the things which, I believe, should be watched.

I should like to turn now to a less pleasant matter. That is a matter which was raised in debate in May 1978 by the hon. member for Durban Central, who queried the discharge of a former Deputy Secretary of the now defunct Department of Information and claimed that it appeared to be a case of victimization. The hon. the Minister denied that there had been any victimization and consequently rejected the appeal and the pleas by the hon. member for Durban Central. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for his courtesy in making available to me, last week, a reply to the query I had raised with him when following up this whole matter of the premature retirement of Mr. Waldeck. The situation was that the matter was being investigated and that the Commission for Administration was awaiting the release of the evidence given before the Erasmus Commission.

Last week the hon. the Minister advised me that the Government had decided that Mr. Waldeck’s premature retirement owing to the abolition of his post was fully justified and that no justification existed to compensate him any further financially.

The background to this whole situation, however, is that Mr. Waldeck was retired prematurely, as from 31 May 1978. This followed an inspection by an inspector of the then Public Service Commission, during February 1978, pre-empting the general investigation of that department, where an interim step was taken, a step which included the abolition of the post of that Deputy Secretary of Information. I should like to submit to the hon. the Minister that if there is an adverse report against Mr. Waldeck, that report was submitted by Dr. D. O. Rhoodie, who was also a Deputy Secretary of the old Department of Information, and against whom Mr. Waldeck had made certain allegations and complaints, that it followed clashes between Mr. Waldeck and the two Rhoodie brothers, that it followed reporting by Mr. Waldeck of certain irregularities to the Auditor-General, as well as the reporting by Mr. Waldeck of certain other matters which adversely affected the two Rhoodie brothers. Following these actions, allegedly in the interests of the State, the post of Mr. Waldeck was in effect wiped out and he was prematurely retired. Let us look, however, at what the Erasmus Commission found. I quote from the Supplementary Report by the Erasmus Commission. In paragraph 14.3, on page 54 of the report, the Erasmus Commission found—

That is to the detriment of his own duty—

Now, this is a finding of a Commission headed by a judge and two eminent legal men which made this finding. I quote further from paragraph 14.24, page 56—

Then there are almost three columns of examples. This was the finding of a commission which stated in its final recommendations, and I quote from page 58, recommendation (3)—

That was a commission which was appointed by the hon. the Prime Minister and which issued a report accepted by the Government, and when I raised this question of compensation across the floor of the House, I was given a categoric assurance that any injustice would be righted and that any person who had suffered would be compensated. Had Mr. Waldeck continued in the employment of the department to his normal retiring age he would have had a net gain of R79 000. That is what he has lost through his premature retirement. In the face of that commission’s finding, the Government and I assume the Public Service Commission, because that body handled this matter, rejected the finding which the hon. the Prime Minister has accepted. It is rejecting the finding which, in debate in this House, the Government as a whole accepted. Thus the Commission for Administration rejects findings which the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet accepted. It ignores the evidence, and I have all the evidence here, it ignores the recommendations for compensation and simply says that Mr. Waldeck was justifiably thrown out of the department and that no justification exists for further compensating him financially. I want to make the strongest plea for this matter to be reconsidered and for justice to be done, as was promised in the clean government the Prime Minister promised to South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point will pardon me if I do not react to what he said, for in the time at my disposal I wish to single out a few points concerning the Commission for Administration’s important functions in respect of staff training and development. The quality of the service rendered by the officers of any organization is closely finked to the level of training which the officers received for the task they have to perform. The developments during the past decade have made the environment in which the public servant operates more and more complicated. Scientific and technological progress has led to a new environment as well as a new social order in South Africa, which has resulted in the operations for which the authorities were previously responsible in the functional spheres having to be performed more intensively and on a larger scale. To be able to meet these new challenges the Cook Committee, which was appointed to institute an inquiry into training in the Public Service, recommended that a training division be created in the office of the Public Service Commission with a Director of Training in charge. Subsequently the name of the division has been changed to that of the Directorate Staff Training and Development. The training function of the directorate may be summarized under the following general premises. The training includes all the processes with which the appropriate knowledge, insight, skill, attitude, work methods and approach are developed in an officer. The purpose of the training is to help the officer to prepare and qualify himself for the demands made on him in the Public Service, thereby making of him a greater asset to his division, his department and his country. To the service motivated public institution, training is therefore only justified when it makes a contribution to promoting the spiritual and material welfare of the nation which is being served. Because the training of an officer consists of the sum total of all his impressions, observations and experiences, training also takes place when he receives an instruction or carries out a task. The danger then exists that the individual may be subjected to unfavourable influences. That is why it is of cardinal importance that the employer should deliberately and systematically involve himself in the officer’s training.

The progress of the State depends on all its people and that is why training does not exclude anyone in the Public Service. But no two people are exactly alike. For that reason training should always be orientated to the individual. The responsibility for training is wide-spread. Every officer is responsible for his own self-development. On the other hand it is the duty of every supervisor to develop those under him in such a way that they will achieve the objectives of the training. Owing to the nature of his position, the departmental head accepts final responsibility for the totality of training in his department. Training is an ongoing process. According to his individual ability and as the requirements of his work change, the training of an officer goes through various phases from his appointment to the end of his Public Service career. The officer can, however, only do the work which he has been taught to do, and therefore it is desirable that his training for a new task should begin before he tackles it.

Planned training can take place according to particular requirements and circumstances at the officer’s desk, in a laboratory, in a lecture room or in any other suitable place. The way in which training takes place depends on the officer’s observations and experiences in the situations in which he finds himself from time to time. In goal-directed training special situations are created for the individual in which he can learn quickly and easily.

With its training policy the Public Service declares its intentions, specifies its objectives and defines in general terms the way in which the training objectives are to be pursued and achieved. It is accepted Government policy that employers must contribute to the training of their employees. In this respect the Public Service is undoubtedly taking the lead. The formulation of the training policy of the Public Service consequently takes place within the framework of the national labour and education/training policy. In addition to this, the training policy of the Public Service comprises part of its general administrative policy and in particular its staff policy.

To promote this training function further the Steyn Committee of Inquiry into administrative training for the Public Service was appointed in 1970. In its report in November 1971 this committee focused on the administrative task of the guiding officer, and made the following recommendation—

The above recommendation was approved by the Cabinet on 29 November 1974. The training model which evolved from this recommendation found an echo in 1974 when the International Institute for Administrative Sciences launched a similar investigation and arrived at the same conclusion as that of the Steyn Committee in 1971. This confirms the high level of training which the commission offers officers of the South African Public Service, as well as various private organizations. For that I think the commission deserves the sincere gratitude and appreciation of this House. The course for trainee officers is at present being revised, and serious consideration is being given to ensuring that the trainee officers not only have an idea of what ought to be done, but also know how the task ought to be carried out.

In conclusion it can be said that the commission has made excellent progress with administrative training, and that this will make a major contribution to the actualization of the intention of the hon. the Prime Minister to create a good State administration.

The question arises whether the time is not ripe now for the establishment of a P. W. Botha Administrative Training Centre for the South African Public Service. This centre can function on the same basis as the Federal Executive Institute of the USA, the Staff Development Centre of Turin in Canada and the Civil Service College of Britain. The facilities of the centre will not only benefit South Africa, but will also benefit our neighbouring States which are at present receiving assistance from the Commission for Administration.

Mr. Chairman, I shall try to reply briefly to all the points made in the speeches by hon. members. In the first instance the hon. member for Sandton again posed the question why the Departments of the Interior, Coloured Relations and Indian Affairs are to merge into one department. I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to my previous answer in which I said that these departments were originally grouped together under the Department of the Interior. I also want to point out to him that the titles “Coloured Relations” and “Indian Affairs” will not be added on as he implied. The envisaged incorporation of these two departments in the Department of Internal and Constitutional Affairs is largely an interim arrangement. Depending on constitutional developments they will initially, to a large extent, retain their identity and functions, but this of course, may change as our constitutional arrangements develop. To me that is quite a reasonable arrangement for an interim period. I must also tell the hon. member that from the respective population groups involved, I have received no complaints whatsoever about this arrangement. Then the hon. member complained that the hon. the Prime Minister’s office has too many functions to perform. The answer to that is that the office of the hon. the Prime Minister will be responsible only for overall planning. In addition, the hon. the Prime Minister will, if the burden is too heavy for him—and probably it would be too heavy for him seeing that he also has other important tasks to fulfil, tasks which only he can fulfil—be at liberty, as he has already done in the case of the Commission for Administration, to delegate his powers to another member of the Cabinet. I am therefore not worried about that aspect. The hon. member also said that the Commission for Administration should not take on too much, particularly not those functions which rightly belong to the private sector. In that regard I can refer to the hon. member to paragraph 10 of the White Paper of the Commission for Administration, where it says that the Government’s claim on the available means of production should be limited to the minimum that would consonant with effective need satisfaction. Surely, by making use of the advice of the three co-opted members of the private sector, the commission will at all times give priority to this matter too and not take on anything that can be done by the private sector. In paragraph 2 of the White Paper it is indicated that it is part of the rationalization process to give attention to the soundness of the dividing lines between the public and private sectors. This will be done against the background of the Government’s policy regarding free enterprise as the basis of its economic and financial policy. Certainly the hon. the Prime Minister has at all times given proof of the fact that he is fully aware of the needs of the private sector.

*The hon. member also asked why certain departments, for example the Department of Sport and Recreation, were not abolished altogether. The mere fact that the Department of Sport and Recreation has, through the rationalization process, been placed under the Department of National Education as one of the subsections of that department is a demonstration of the real desire on the part of the Government to depoliticize sport as far as possible, because the Department of National Education is most certainly not a department with a marked political connotation.

Then the hon. member spoke about parity in South West Africa. Since the commission achieved parity so easily in South West Africa, why could we not do it in this country as well, he asked? In the first place circumstances there and circumstances here are not the same, and I am not prepared to spell it out more specifically than I have just done. In the second place our situation is far more complex. After all, the hon. member must bear in mind that if one speaks of parity, one is referring to a tremendously large substratum of people who belong to only one colour group, and parity is not relevant there. They have achieved parity as far as they themselves are concerned. In other words, parity is not relevant there. They have achieved parity as far as they themselves are concerned. In other words parity is not relevant there. In that sphere alone the position is quite different in South Africa. Here there is a far more complex and complicated society, with far more population groups which have achieved sophistication, and so on. It is for that reason that we are trying our best. Taking productivity and the issue of equal work into consideration, we are trying to implement this system as rapidly as possible. We are doing so on a horizontal, not a vertical level. We have already made great progress. We have already disposed of the third phase; it has just been put into operation. What is going to happen is that we shall, if possible, accelerate this process. However, we just feel that we cannot take a leap in the dark, and for that reason we have commissioned the University of Pretoria to make a complete study of the whole matter and tell us how we can achieve full parity, what it will cost us, etc. As soon as the outcome of that study has been scrutinized—I only received it about three days ago—promise the hon. member that the Government will make an in-depth study of it and will establish whether we shall be able to accelerate the rate at which parity is being introduced.

The hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Durban Point, levelled criticism at the method of disclosing salaries. Firstly I wish to say that the salaries of the various groups of offices should most certainly be kept secret during the negotiation stage. It would give rise to all kinds of complications if we did not keep them secret until they were put into effect. The hon. members also objected to the fact that it takes a long time, after the date of commencement, before individual offices get to hear about the these themselves. The Commission for Administration can institute an inquiry to that aspect. I just wish to say, however, as a person who has been actively assisting with this process during the past session, that a tremendously complex task first has to be disposed of from the stage at which I as the Minister concerned provides the Cabinet with the total inputs until it is possible to put it into operation and make it known, and the task is made even more complicated by the process of negotiation and re-assessment of particular groups. Hon. members could have established the complexity of this matter themselves on the basis of the three documents which I made available to each party. In these documents 600 professional groups, for whom salaries have to be determined, are reported. The pros and cons have to be weighed up, and the one group has to be weighed up against the other. However, I assume that the Commission for Administration will take cognizance of this objection. I think that they will try to institute an inquiry next year to establish whether the disclosure of this information to individual officers cannot be made closer to the actual date of commencement.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Rissik sincerely for having argued the justification for existence of the Commission for Administration and for having concluded that the commission has an extremely essential task to fulfil. He also focused attention on the importance of the merit system.

†The hon. member for Durban Point first of all raised the matter of creating extra senior posts. He asked in what way this would improve the Public Service. I want to tell the hon. member that, in order to amalgamate departments, it was necessary to create administrative posts for overall control. Or would the hon. member for Durban Point rather advocate the discharge of those heads of departments who would have become redundant if we had not created the higher level?

That was not my point. I asked whether it would not slow down decision-making.

No. My reply is that that would not have happened, because this is an amalgamation of bodies which are able to arrive at a quick decision on the same matter, while the same interests are at present scattered among various departments. However, I wish to concede to the hon. member for Durban-Point that there will be more senior officials on the top level, but we should not be oblivious to everything but this. A great many duplicated services among existing departments are going to be integrated and consolidated. For example the accounts sections of the departments which are now going to be merged into one composite department are now being amalgamated into one accounts section. In this way one could probably refer to many other services. At this stage I really cannot, in all honesty towards the hon. member, argue the question of savings, because it is still too complicated. As far as I am concerned, however, I think that we shall ultimately be able to succeed in demonstrating that what we are doing will help us to economize and will most certainly be conducive to effective administration.

The hon. member than asked the old evergreen question again: Why do we not remove the S.A. Police and the Defence Force from the control of the Commission for Administration. I want to tell hon. members that as a young man I advocated this myself in Parliament. That was in the days when the Public Service Commission certainly did not have nearly as many powers as the Commission for Administration and the Treasury have at the moment. Our administration has become huge, clumsy and complex, and it is therefore essential that there should be two bodies, the Commission for Administration and the Treasury which must exercise direct control over certain departments, or which must, in conjunction with the Government, definitely have coordinating powers in cases where the Commission for Administration does not exercise direct control over departments. I want to give the hon. member a practical example. The South African Railways and the Department of Post and Telecommunications do not fall under the Commission for Administration. Theoretically speaking these bodies can increase salaries and introduce salary structures at will, but in practice this does not happen. The Commission for Administration and the Treasury act as co-ordinating bodies. In reality, therefore co-ordination takes place. Precisely the same will happen if the Defence Force and the Police were removed from the control of the Commission for Administration. Consequently it will not serve all that great purpose. At the same time I do want to say that the S.A. Police and the Defence Force are being accorded tremendously high priorities under the system of vocational differentiation, as a result of the extremely essential and urgent work they have to do in these times in which we are living. This has already become apparent from this years estimates, and it will continue to be the policy of the commission in future.

It has occurred to me that there is one question asked by the hon. member for Sandton to which I have not replied. He complained—and I understand this well— that the people at the top received considerable percentage increases while groups at the lower end of the scale received very modest increases. I admit that this is the case, and it is a pity that it should be the case, but we are dealing with the age-old law of the economy, viz. that supply and demand determine the price. Although the Commission of Administration, and the Government, regard this as an institution which also has a social function to fulfil and certainly pays certain lower groups more as a result— and not just the market price—the end product is the following: The hon. the Minister of Finance and I myself are only allowed to slice up a cake of a certain size. It cannot be larger. The Commission for Administration and I have been entrusted with the task of slicing up that cake to the best of our ability. Because one has vocational differentiation, and because one has to elevate the top structure, it so happens that certain officers receive a larger slice of that cake than others. Unfortunately this is the case, and I am very sorry about it, but there is no other practical way of doing it.

I come then to the complaint by the hon. member for Durban Point about Waldeck. One can approach the Waldeck case from two angles. In the first place: Was he insulted or impugned as a result of his early retirement?

What was done was financially prejudicial to him.

I am coming to that. I think my predecessor, Dr. Connie Mulder, made it very clear that his early retirement had nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Waldeck as person. I, too, wish to state categorically here that as far as I am concerned the decision which I conveyed to the hon. member for Durban Point had had nothing to do with Mr. Waldeck as a person. To tell the truth, I have the highest regard for him as a person, for his integrity and for the independent and honest way in which he acted towards some of his superiors during the Information crisis. Consequently this had nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Waldeck’s integrity as a person.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? Is it not true that the hon. the Minister himself said (Hansard, Vol. 74, col. 7179)—

If it stands in Hansard, then it stands in Hansard, and that corresponds more or less to what I have just said here now. What is more relevant here is not the other paragraphs in the report of the Erasmus Commission—not that they are not also relevant—but the actual finding of the commission which read as follows—

The position therefore is that in the case of Mr. Waldeck Parliament instructed— pursuant to the second report, dated 28 March 1978, of the Select Committee on Public Accounts—that a thorough investigation be instituted by the Treasury and the Public Service Commission into the administration and financial control of the Department of Information to ensure that the staff were being effectively utilized and internal control improved to such an extent that financial directions would be properly carried out to prevent a repetition of the unsatisfactory conduct which had been reported. As a result of this instruction of Parliament the post of Chief Director, Administrative Services, was created, and it was not deemed necessary to retain the posts of Deputy Secretary, one of which was occupied by Mr. Waldeck, any further. This had nothing to do with him as a person.

Then the question of filling the post of Chief Director was mooted. Under the circumstances it was felt that the appropriate person was Mr. Schoeman, and consequently he was appointed. As a result Mr. Waldeck’s retirement was brought forward, with an added five years’ service, something which was a tremendously beneficial arrangement for Mr. Waldeck. In the process, however, this is not being taken into consideration, apparently not by Mr. Waldeck either. I do not wish to quote figures here. In fact, I do not wish to go into Mr. Waldeck’s private affairs. What is important, however—and he makes no mention of this himself in his documents—is the fact that Mr. Waldeck was re-appointed by the Government, viz. in the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal. This is a material fact, and we must not disregard it. Taking all these facts into consideration …

In a temporary capacity.

Taking all these facts into consideration, the Government decided that—and this is, inter alia, what I wrote in my letter to the hon. member for Durban Point—

1. (a) Mr. Waldeck’s premature retirement in terms of the provisions of section 14(6)(b) of the Public Service Act, 1957, as amended, owing to the abolition of his post, was fully justified.
2. (b) He received the maximum privileges upon retirement.
3. (c) Since he was re-employed in a temporary capacity in the Public Service his retirement benefited him financially.
4. (d) No justification exists to further compensate him financially.

However, I wish to make it clear that I am the last person who would wish to do Mr. Waldeck out of anything at all in this connection, considering, too, what I said of him as a person. The hon. member for Durban Point is entirely at liberty to discuss this matter further with the Commission of Administration and with me. I think it is in the interests of Mr. Waldeck that we refrain from discussing his private affairs here across the floor of the House, but try instead to resolve this matter in private.

That is what I am trying to do. I only …

Yes, but the hon. member can come back to us on the basis of the facts which we now have. Of course the hon. member has every right—and I do not wish to prevent him if he does not want to adopt this course—to submit the matter to the House of Assembly by way of petition. All I can say to the hon. member is that up to now I have not been able to find any reason for our paying Mr. Waldeck more, or for making this an ex gratia payment. I am very sorry. However, the hon. member may take the matter further with me. If the hon. member does not wish to take it further with me, he may address a petition to Parliament.

I want to thank the hon. member for Springs for his constructive speech on what the Commission of Administration is doing to establish an effective Public Service.

†I wish to thank the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens for a very excellent speech. I wish to thank him for having showed that bureaucracy is also found in the private sector. I thank him especially for his words: “We must always be responsive to the needs of a highly dynamic society.” That is indeed what the commission is trying to do under the new circumstances.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Prinshof very sincerely for his fine contribution on staff training.

I shall only keep the House a few minutes longer, for I just wish to make a few general observations. Firstly, for me as the Minister concerned who co-operates with the Commission for Administration, this has been an extremely exciting year. On the initiative of the Commission, in the first place, there was a rationalization of the Cabinet Committees. They were reduced from a host of committees, standing as well as ad hoc committees, to five, viz. the National Security Council, which is a statutory committee, plus four others, i.e. Internal Affairs, Economic Affairs, Social Affairs and Finances. Consequently the work of the Cabinet has been placed on a far more orderly basis than before.

I now wish to point out something dramatic. During August 1979, the Commission for Administration received instructions to effect rationalization in the Public Service. By the end of September of this year, 13 or 14 months later, the task will have been completed, for we assume that the rationalization, except for the details, will have been disposed of by the end of September of this year. For the project team, which performed a Herculean task for the commission, and for all its officers, this is a piece of work which will be considered throughout the entire world as an exceptionally good piece of work, for in fact 39 Government institutions were reduced to 23, 23 because it was decided that the Department of Education and Training should be a Government institution on its own.

†A most important development was the fact that three outstanding gentlemen from the private sector were invited to serve on the commission on a consultative basis. They are Dr. Wim de Villiers of General Mining, Mr. Dick Goss of S.A. Breweries and Dr. Van der Horst of Old Mutual. This arrangement has been a resounding success. To date four meetings of the plenary commission have been held. Not only have these three gentlemen made a major contribution, but these meetings also served to give the private sector a very good insight into the workings and problems of the Public Service. I think this arrangement will serve a good purpose in future for both sides. I wish to extend a sincere word of thanks to these three gentlemen for their substantial contribution.

I wish next to say a few words about the growth of the Public Service. The opportunities for work in the Public Service have increased since 1966 till the end of last year by approximately 58% in comparison with a population growth of 33%. At face value this looks abnormal, but actually this is attributable to the preference given to the extension of services to non-Whites. Opportunities for work for Whites have increased during this period by approximately 37% as against a population growth amongst Whites of approximately 29%. The relevant figures for Coloureds are a growth in opportunities of 124% as against a population growth of 38% and for Indians a growth in opportunities of 89% against a population growth of 40%.

*Mr. Chairman, I also wish to extend my sincere appreciation to the Administrators, their MPCs and senior staff. Under my administration it has become an institution that the Commission for Administration, I personally, the Administrators, the MPCs and top officials hold a conference once a year. Last year we held a very successful conference. As hon. members know the provincial administrations have certain legislative powers in connection with the conditions of service for certain officers. It is because they have original powers in this regard that it is vitally important that there should also be thorough co-ordination in that respect as well. The conference to which I referred was in this respect very successful.

Another outstanding achievement for the Commission for Administration was the organization and establishment of the central Government service and a service commission for South West Africa. That task has virtually been disposed of, in an excellent fashion.

Finally I wish to praise and pay tribute to all public servants for their faithful and loyal co-operation and service. To the Association of Public Servants, I wish to extend my special thanks. They are performing an exceptional task of negotiation for their members and on achieving great success, but they are also big enough to say thank you where such thanks have been deserved. The following impressive reaction was received from them by the commission—

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 31.—“Improvement of conditions of service” agreed to.

Schedule negatived.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

SCHEDULE

The amendments contained in the new schedule are of a two-fold nature: Firstly, amendments arising from the addition of the supplementary amounts which were set out in my budget speech and which, as is customary, are contained in greater detail in R.P. 4—1980, which has been tabled; and, secondly, amendments arising from the transfer of functions between departments as a result of the organizational rationalization of the Public Service as explained in greater detail in the memorandum which has also been tabled. The services and amounts, as already discussed and agreed to by the House, are merely being transferred from one Vote to another in accordance with the transfer of functions which has taken place in the meanwhile. I therefore propose that we now consider the revised schedules.

Order! I am now going to put the Votes in respect of which supplementary amounts have to be voted.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Surely the motion by the hon. the Minister should be debated first before we deal with the individual Votes. The hon. the Minister has moved an amendment and we must debate this amendment or else it falls away.

The amendment is now before the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on that before you put the individual Votes.

I put Vote No. 6.

No, Mr. Chairman. I do not think you can put Vote No. 6. In my point of order I made the submission that the hon. the Minister has moved an amendment to amend the schedule to the Appropriation Bill. I do not want to debate Vote No. 6 yet. I want to debate the hon. the Minister’s amendment. If I cannot do that, the hon. the Minister’s amendment must fall away, which I am sure he does not want.

Mr. Chairman, I have proposed that the amended schedule be now considered by the House. It contains amendments to the original schedule which I introduced during my budget speech. If approval is granted for the consideration of the amended schedule, we shall be able to consider the amounts it now contains. That is my view of the matter.

What does the hon. member for Yeoville wish to debate?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The issue is that I want to debate this amendment. We only have 10 minutes in which to discuss all this. I cannot discuss all the individual Votes. I want to debate the amendment so that I can cover all the items contained in the amendment before the House. I ask you to allow me to do that.

The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the first point I want to make to the hon. the Minister is that I have grave difficulty in reconciling his figures. We were informed by the hon. the Minister during his budget speech that the additional expenditure which was involved this year and which was not in the printed estimates, that is [R.P. 2(80)], amounted to R96 million, which was going to be funded from 1979-’80 surplus, and R164 million, which was now going to be in the 1980-’81 estimates. The additional amount which he is asking for is much more than those two figures. The supplementary amount to be voted is R318 400 400. I should like the hon. the Minister to explain why there is this discrepancy, how has it arisen and why was it not dealt with in the budget. That is the first point I want to put to the hon. the Minister.

The second point I want to put to the hon. the Minister is that in respect of the items which now appear in column 2 as a result of the third phase of the organizational rationalization, there is one flaw in this concept, and that is that it was the intention that there would be a degree of saving in so far as the administration of those sections is concerned which would now be under the same Minister and the same Director-General. What is actually happening is that he is taking, holus bolus, the whole of a particular section, putting it under another Vote and making it a column 2 item so that it cannot be dealt with in order to take it away from that. For example, let us take the position of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. He has had certain functions transferred to him, and if one looks at the schedule one will see that under the title “Agriculture and Fisheries” the amount appearing in column 2 for Sea Fisheries is now R20 562 000. What has happened is that where there was a potential for saving in respect of matters which could be administered jointly, it does not appear to have been given effect to by taking the items holus bolus and making them column 2 items. The concept of making them column 2 items is to ensure that matters which are in a particular category are not used for another category. In other words, the House would vote for one particular thing and would be prepared to have that money available, say for food subsidies, but would not be prepared to have that money spent on something unrelated to food subsidies. So the real essence of saving money, in regard to the rationalization scheme, does not appear to have been given effect to by the manner in which the amendment to the Appropriation Bill is now being put before the House.

The third point I want to make is that the hon. the Minister went to great lengths to demonstrate that he was keeping Government expenditure within certain parameters in order to help combat inflation. The hon. the Minister nods his head. That was the concept. But if that is so, why has Government expenditure already increased beyond what he stated in his budget speech? I think he therefore needs to give us that explanation, because it appears to be contrary to what he told us in regard to the combating of inflation and keeping a check on Government expenditure.

The fourth point which I want to make is that there is now an additional amount in his own Vote of R12 million which is for “Further transfers to finance local authorities”. That is an additional amount about which we have not yet heard very much and about which we certainly would like to hear something. The reason why I specifically raise this matter is because unfortunately one does not have the time to debate, in full, the Browne Committee’s report. The tragedy of the Browne Committee’s report is that local authorities throughout South Africa have been waiting, expecting something dramatic to come about in order to alleviate the burden on the ratepayers of South Africa.

After all this investigation, the Browne Committee’s report is the greatest disappointment imaginable to the local authorities and the ratepayers of South Africa, because it has not got to grips with the reality of the problem, the reality of the problem being what alternative sources of revenue there are for the local authorities, what in fact the Browne Committee is going to do about it and what the Government is going to do about it.

Cut the costs.

The tragedy is that we should be encouraging home ownership in South Africa, because home ownership is in accordance with the hon. the Minister’s whole concept of private enterprise taking part, that whole concept that he stands for and that we should be encouraging in South Africa. What we are doing, however, is driving people away from home ownership with ever-increasing rates in South Africa and with ever-increasing costs of services, because those are the only two remedies which are really available. If one looks at the Browne Committee’s report one asks oneself: Why did we wait so long for something we thought was a solution, when in fact there is virtually no solution in it? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member says that we have already increased the amount proposed as expenditure in the budget. I think the hon. member must listen carefully to my exposition here, and perhaps he will see that we have not so easily increased expenditure. The amounts which I set out in the budget speech amount to R259 million as such, and they are clearly set out in the budget speech. I then proposed an amount of R55 million, being the adjustment on the tax for Blacks. It was the improvement effected there in order to bring them closer to the same tax basis as for Whites, Coloureds and Indians. The hon. member will remember that that was to be done over a period of three years, and this is the second year’s amount. That was actually shown as a reduction of revenue, but strictly speaking it is a compensation payable to the Black States, because those are the people who actually forgo revenue. Therefore that amount of R55 million must be added to the R259 million, which will give R314 million. It is simply the way in which one handles it. [Interjections.] In my opinion that would be a better way of explaining and, in fact, handling it, because it is the Black States which forego that revenue and we are making it good to them. In fact, we are making it good to them. I said so. Therefore that is an amount which must be added to the R259 million.

Mr. Chairman, would the hon. the Minister show me where the amount of R55 million in Vote 6 is specified? No amount of R55 million for that is shown in Vote 6 at all.

The answer to that is in two parts. The amount of R55 million first comes under Vote 6 where an amount of R35 750 000 is shown, and again under “Foreign Affairs”, where the balance of R19 250 000 is shown. The latter amount is the compensation in respect of Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. These two amounts constitute the full amount of R55 million. In addition to that, there is the small amount of approximately R4,3 million, which in fact arises from the revised estimates in respect of improved social and civil pensions, something which has arisen in the past two months. Therefore the only difference in total expenditure is R4,3 million. That is all. Coming to rationalization, he wants to know where the savings are. First of all, I should like to say that I understand that this matter has been cleared in the Select Committee on Public Accounts and that it is the Select Committee which decided that these items should be shown as column 2 items, so that there could be proper control, because a column 2 item obviously is an item which one cannot tamper with, except with the express permission of Parliament.

I should just like to give the hon. member an example. Let us take Health, Welfare and Pensions. An amount of R198 517 000 is estimated for Health and an amount of R574 653 000 is estimated for Welfare and Pensions. If the hon. member would look on page 246 of the blueprint which is before the House now, he would see that under Vote 30, “Health, Welfare and Pensions” we are giving effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. We have kept “Health” and “Welfare and Pensions” separate, and show them both as column 2 items, so that they are inviolable. If one puts the two together under column 1, the hon. member knows that it would be possible to transfer funds from one to the other.

I have no objection to that. I am just talking about the savings.

The hon. member must give us a chance. This rationalization process is only starting, and any savings which eventuate must obviously eventuate in the course of the year. Any savings of that kind will obviously have to revert to revenue. We shall see later on what we can achieve in that regard. It is quite impossible at this stage, where one has these amounts which have been put into column 2, to say that there must now already be savings; these will have to be brought about in the course of the year. We are obviously placing great store by that. We hope that this will show itself to be a more efficient system overall and that there will be savings, which will have to be surrendered to revenue in the usual way. I cannot possibly identify such savings now. The hon. member will agree with me if he looks at the position as it is.

Then the hon. member for Yeoville also referred to Finance. The amount of R16 million to which he referred consists of the amount of R4 million, money which is being made available quickly to convert a particular facility into an additional hospital for Blacks in the Johannesburg area. The other is an amount of R12 million, which I said was purely a provisional amount and is proof of the Government’s intention to do something about the financial problems of local authorities. We did not then have the report of the Browne Committee. We have now received the first part, which is the main part and which has just recently been laid on the Table. In order to show the earnest of the Government, we provided R12 million in the first instance. That, of course, is not a final figure. We shall have to see what we can do in relation to the problems of the various local authorities as we identify them.

I want to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that I completely disagree with him about this report. I want to say to him that it is probably the most thorough and most scholarly report on local authorities we have ever seen in this country. I do not have the slightest doubt about it. If the hon. member will wait until we complete the printing of parts 2 and 3—which is being done at speed, and in the process we are also translating them into English—and make them available, which we shall do as soon as we can, I think he will see the tremendous amount of research which has been done, what analyses have been made of the facts concerning local authorities right through South Africa and what comparisons have been made with other countries. [Interjections.] Let me just complete this. I hope the hon. member is not trying to make political capital out of this. I think it would be most unfortunate if he did.

He would never do a thing like that!

Why is the hon. member then condemning this report? Has the hon. member for Pinelands studied it?

No.

No, of course not, and nor has the hon. Chief Whip on that side.

I have read the recommendations.

Sir, he says he has read it.

We are not talking about it.

I do not want to get into an argument on this report now, but I want to be fair and I hope hon. members opposite will also be fair. I want to say that this report requires some study. I want to say—and hon. members will have other opportunities to say whether they agree with me—that this is probably the most thorough examination of local government in South Africa in all its financial aspects.

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

Just a moment. This report does not contain a lot of revolutionary proposals, but it does contain some fundamental proposals. The hon. member has misread it; otherwise he would not have said that it was a very disappointing report. There is far more in this report than meets the eye. The hon. member must have a good look at it.

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

Sir, that hon. member jumps up like a chatterbox. [Interjections.]

Jack in the box.

Yes, like a Jack in the box. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister, firstly, whether provision has been made for this amount of R12 million, to which reference has been made, purely as a result of recommendations of the Browne Committee and, secondly, whether he is going to issue a White Paper on this report?

Mr. Chairman, the position is as I have explained it. The amount of R12 million was included in the estimates at the end of March, two months before we received this report. It was done simply to show that we were going to provide at least something, approved of by Parliament, to have in hand instead of having nothing at all on the estimates. It does not mean to say that we are simply going to say that R12 million is sufficient. I am not tying myself to that at all. But at least we have R12 million, already approved, for the responsible implementation of parts of the report. If more is needed, obviously we will have to find it. As to the possibility of a White Paper, I want to say that the Director-General and his staff are studying the report at the moment and as soon as we have made an analysis we will decide in what form the Government will make its position clear. It could well be in the form of a White Paper, or in some other form, but we shall certainly make our position clear.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will, before issuing a White Paper, consider receiving representations from the United Municipal Executive?

On that point all interested parties have, of course, had excellent opportunities to make their position clear. They have all given evidence and have been consulted in all sorts of ways. At this moment anybody, including the United Municipal Executive, is obviously free to give us their views on the whole report, or on any section of it, and I would welcome it if they did not delay too long. We are studying it and they are studying it and I should like to hear their views fairly soon. However, there is nothing to preclude them from giving us their views again.

That is all I can say. I want to defend this report as strongly as I can. This small committee, which consisted of no more than five of our most senior and competent officials, to wit Dr. Browne, who was Secretary for Finance for 17 years; Mr. Schickerling, who is now Auditor-General and who was the Secretary for Inland Revenue when he was appointed to the committee; Mr. Odendal, the Commissioner for Customs and Excise; Mr. Van der Walt, the Commissioner for Inland Revenue; Mr. Dednam, the secretary and a senior official in the Department of Finance; and Dr. Du Plessis, one of the deputy governors of the Reserve Bank. These people worked extremely hard over quite a long period to produce this document, and I think it would be less than just for anyone to try to judge the report before a proper study has been made and the true implications have been seen. There are far more implications affecting the proper administration of local government than can be covered by such a cursory statement as that made by the hon. member for Yeoville. I have, I hope, dealt with the main issues.

New Schedule agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, before I move the Second Reading of the Bill, there are a few aspects that I wish to mention for the purposes of the debate.

As hon. members know, a Commission of Inquiry into Reporting of Security Matters regarding the South African Defence Force was appointed on 14 December 1979. On 13 February the commission’s terms of reference were extended to include reporting on security matters regarding the S.A. Police.

The commission’s report was tabled in April this year and contained certain recommendations which the Government accepted. Hon. members also know which recommendations the commission made with regard to the Police and that this Bill flows from those recommendations.

It is true that the original objective of this Bill was to have the problems with which the police are faced in combating and fighting against terrorism investigated on a broader front, but that after reconsidering it, I decided to abandon certain measures I had originally had in mind and to refer them to the Rabie Commission for consideration. I have already put the amendments during the Committee Stage in the Other Place, and they were accepted there. I am satisfied that with these amendments, I have acted in the best interests of good legislation and sound administration.

Then I want to refer briefly to a few of the provisions. The crux of the Bill is to exercise control over the publication in a newspaper, periodical, book or pamphlet, or over the radio (which includes television) of any information relating to any action taken in connection with the combating or prevention of terrorist activities, as specified in the clauses in question. That proposed control relates to three specific matters, and does not mean that a total prohibition is being imposed on the publication and/or distribution of information. It is only information relating to these specific matters which may not be published, unless it is released for publication by the Minister or Commissioner, or on their authority.

The three matters over which control will be exercised, can be summarized as follows—

1. (i) particulars relating to the police themselves;
2. (ii) particulars relating to the people or group against whom the action is directed, i.e. the enemy; and
3. (iii) particulars relating to joint action by the police and the Defence Force and/or the Railways police.

At this point I should like to emphasize that this does not refer to a single incident, like the one at Silverton earlier this year when the operation was concluded within a few hours, but that there may be cases where the action takes place over a long period of time. Action may also be taken over a wide front, and in such a case it is essential for control to be exercised over the publication of certain information relating to the action taken, whether it concerns the police or the police in co-operation with the Defence Force and/or the Railway police, or the person or group of people against whom the action is directed.

It was precisely because of the Silverton incident that the S.A. Police schooled its public relations division to establish better liaison with the media, and I have every reason to believe that should there be a recurrence of such an incident, there will be a better flow of publishable information, without jeopardizing the task of the Police. There is not the slightest intention of imposing a prohibition on the publication of newsworthy matters, but when it is a matter of national security, a measure of control is essential.

I am fully aware of the duty of the Press to the public to convey information by means of honest and objective reporting, and I support that duty. I am in favour of sound co-operation between the news media and Government bodies, and am a champion of efficient liaison between the two.

The Steyn Commission points out that the hyper-sensitivity with regard to the publication of information that in actual fact does not endanger the security interests of the State and the nation, must be avoided, likewise disloyal and/or irresponsible reporting by the media. Furthermore the commission points out that there ought to be sound liaison through voluntary participation, backed by strict legal provisions. It is in this spirit that I call for the support of hon. members.

As far as the penalties is concerned, I concede that they are heavy, but they must be seen against the background of the onslaughts on the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister’s arguments in support of this Bill were as predictable as they are unacceptable. With this measure the Government is seeking far-reaching legislative powers which cut right across the right of individual people in South Africa to know what is happening and which cut right across the right of the media to report on what is happening. Moreover, the Government is seeking these powers when it is totally unnecessary for it to do so and when the situation, which the hon. the Minister seeks to cure, can easily be regulated by better communication and co-operation between the Police and the media. This is really the crux of the matter. In his introductory remarks the hon. the Minister told us again, as he told us in the debate on the Police Vote, of the steps taken to improve the communications between the police and the Press. Certainly when he dealt with the issue during the Police Vote it was encouraging, and one felt that a constructive viewpoint was being adopted. The crux of the matter, however, is really that there should be this understanding between the police and the Press, and we believe that there is no need whatsoever for legislation of this nature in order to cure the malady which the hon. the Minister is seeking to cure.

If the Bill is what we are told it is, i.e. legislation to ensure that the police are not unduly hampered, by the irresponsible publication of information about their actions and their activities when they are engaged in anti-terrorist activities, the same ends can certainly be achieved by setting up reasonable channels of communication between the police and the media and by negotiation and co-operation between the two. Instead of that simple course however, true to the fashion it established over 32 years of power, the Government resorts to legislation. It is the old story. It is a basic formula that they follow. If there is a weakness or an evil, the cure for that is legislation. One passes a Bill and then all will be put right. This is, in fact, what is happening here today. As ever the Government is going for an over-kill, with dangerous consequences for the country and considerable damage to the image of the country and the Government, both at home and abroad.

Before I deal with the Bill specifically, I want to deal with the background to it. It is quite clear—and the hon. the Minister confirmed this this afternoon to some extent— that the hon. the Minister and his advisers reacted to the appalling breakdown of communication between the police and the media during and after the Silverton siege. That is really where this Bill has its origins, because soon after that the terms of reference of the Steyn Commission, which had originally been appointed to deal with the relationship between the defence forces and the media, were enlarged in order to include the Police and the S.A. Railway Police. It is interesting to note that the Steyn Commission reported at some length on the whole Silverton incident. The extracts from the commission’s report are interesting in this regard. The report certainly indicates that there was a serious breakdown of communication, both on the part of the police and the media, in dealing with the situation that had arisen, and the report urged that there should be better cooperation between the police and the media. I should like to quote from page 191 of the Steyn Commission report, specifically paragraph 420(e) which specifically deals with the Silverton incident. The report states—

The commission then went on to cite (subparagraph f)—

So it goes on. The whole import of the Steyn Commission’s report with regard to the Silverton incident was that there had been a breakdown between the police and the media and that there was the need for a greater liaison.

That is not so. There was no breakdown.

The hon. the Minister does not accept the report, but these were certainly the findings of the report and they should have been taken note of.

All I say is that there was no breakdown.

The hon. the Minister says there was no breakdown, but the commission is very emphatic that there was a breakdown and the commission blames both the police and the media for the breakdown.

How many journalists serve on the NPU?

That hon. member can make his speech later on. In fact, there has been a liaison committee set up with the NPU. The hon. the Minister will accept that.

That was done long before the Silverton incident.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that liaison committee has failed?

No, it has not.

If it has not failed, what is the need for this legislation? One wonders why the hon. the Minister does not give this committee a chance to operate and show its effectiveness before coming with legislation as he is now doing.

Again, as always, the Government shows its impatience and again in this instance they have gone overboard by asking for an almost all-embracing power to gag and exclude the Press. In addition, they are showing ignorance of the power the State already has in the emergency situations which they are trying to deal with. The police representatives, when they gave evidence before the Steyn Commission, showed a lack of knowledge of some of the powers the State already has. For example, they were apparently unaware that the Official Secrets Act already provides the police with considerable powers in regard to the dissemination of information when there is a state of emergency. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister himself has given consideration to this. The Official Secrets Act deals with this situation in specific terms. Section 3(2) provides that—

If one looks at the definition given in that Act of a “police matter”, one sees that it means (section 3(2)(b))—

According to the definition of “security matter”, it means—

So, there is this power which in a state of emergency can be used in terms of the Official Secrets Act.

The Steyn Commission in its report produced a number of enlightened recommendations. The hon. the Minister obviously has not accepted all the Steyn Commission’s recommendations and certainly he appears to have rejected most of its enlightened recommendations. He has ignored those recommendations and he has chosen once again the path of “kragdadigheid”. He has chosen unbelievably tough draft legislation in order to deal with the situation that has developed. This Bill, in its first form, was frightening. What was just as frightening, if not more frightening, was the careless and cavalier manner of its publication and its introduction at the time. There was apparently no appreciation of the effect the Bill was likely to have.

It was irresponsible. [Interjections.]

Of course it was irresponsible. It was done without any appreciation of the effect the publication of the Bill in that form was going to have and, seemingly, also without understanding of exactly what the meaning of that Bill was and what the effect of that would be. I want to say it was either extreme carelessness in draftsmanship, or otherwise it was another example of the age-old Nationalist tactic of producing a Bill in such contorted and horrific terms that any amendments would provide relief and perhaps conjure up an image of reasonableness or the will to listen on the part of the Government. In other words, what the hon. the Minister has done is to produce a Frankenstein monster, and then to lessen the shock he does a little plastic surgery in the hope that the improvement will be such that the people will forget that the monster still exists. That is the only effect of the amendments which he proposed in the Other Place and which he is now proposing to do here. The hon. the Minister sits there smiling benignly. He is an urbane Minister who has produced a Bill which is a Frankenstein monster, despite the plastic surgery which he seeks to apply. Whatever the motives of the Bill, as first published, it was a major disaster as were, let me say, the hon. the Minister’s initial comments in the Press in respect of the Bill. I want to quote the hon. the Minister from a report in the Natal Mercury of Saturday, 17 May 1980. I think the report also appeared in another morning newspaper. The report quotes the hon. the Minister as saying—

The hon. the Minister further said that—

He went on to say—

That was a remarkable statement for the hon. the Minister to make immediately after the Bill was published in its first form. What was the hon. the Minister talking about? At the time the Bill was published …

Order! The Bill in its original form is not before the House. It is part of the history of the Bill before the House, but the hon. member cannot go into detail on it.

Mr. Speaker, with respect I am dealing with the background of the Bill. I am dealing with the Bill and the hon. the Minister has proposed certain amendments to the Bill.

The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the time the hon. the Minister made that statement the effect of the Bill was not confined to publication, either in the broad or the narrow sense. It referred to disclosure of information when the hon. the Minister made that statement. I wonder what he was talking about at the time. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister had seen the draft Bill. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister had applied his mind to the contents of the draft Bill, because that statement cannot be held to refer to the Bill which was published at the time. How can the hon. the Minister talk about publication when the Bill referred to disclosure? The hon. the Minister gives an assurance that he will not use the Bill in a particular way. That is another strange situation. Are we now coming to the stage that not only do we have government by permit, which is so much the case in regard to so many areas in South Africa, but we are now also going to have legislation by ministerial intention, because the hon. the Minister publishes a Bill in certain terms and then says: “Never mind the terms, it is not my intention to apply the Bill in this way.” Having said that, the cherry comes on top by his saying that he is not even going to give an assurance as far as that is concerned. It was a remarkable statement for the hon. the Minister to make. I wonder what impact the hon. the Minister expected from that sort of situation.

It is not what you said for publication abroad.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The hon. the Minister introduces legislation of this nature, the Opposition reacts to it and the hon. the Minister says it is what we said for publication abroad which will harm South Africa. I want to tell the hon. the Minister and the Government that it is this type of legislation which does more damage to South Africa than anything else. [Interjections.] It is the legislation that comes before Parliament which is used by South Africa’s enemies in order to show the situation in South Africa in the worst possible light.

Are the terrorists not enemies of South Africa?

Here we have a situation where a Bill, which is published ostensibly as a result of the recommendations of the Steyn Commission, goes far beyond even the toughest recommendations of that commission. It placed a blanket ban, except with the permission of the Minister or the Commissioner of Police, on the disclosure of any information by one person to the next, in relation, firstly, to the “constitution, movements, deployment or methods of any member or part of the Force engaged in any action for the prevention or combating of terroristic activities”. Secondly, “any person … against whom any action referred to … is taken” and, thirdly, “any action referred to in sub-paragraph (i) by any member or part of the Force together with any member or part of the S.A. Defence Force or the S.A. Railway Police Force”.

It also said that “no person shall disclose to any person … the fact that any person has been arrested or is being detained” in terms of the 14-day or indefinite detention laws. It then prescribes the penalties, which are still in the Bill before us, the penalty of a maximum fine of R15 000 or imprisonment not exceeding eight years, or both, for persons who contravene these provisions. The effect of these provisions on the disclosure of news relating to police activities, and those affected by them, could not have been more far-reaching. This was a total and blanket black-out. And the hon. the Minister is surprised that there was reaction overseas in the overseas Press over what was taking place. The situation was that a mother could not disclose to her children the fact that the father had been detained by the police, because that would be disclosure, and this is the sort of Bill which was published.

Order!

All right, I shall move from that point, Mr. Speaker.

Order! I take the view that the discussion must be on this Bill.

It also relates to this Bill, Sir, because much of what I have said …

No, the hon. member may not discuss the Bill which was never before the House in detail. He may only discuss it as part of the background to this Bill.

I abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker. There is then little wonder that there was an outcry at the publication of that Bill. Then, because of that outcry, we had the great plastic surgery operation performed by the hon. the Minister. He came along with his amendments. His first amendment was to withdraw the proposed new section 27C(1)(b), relating to the detention of people under the two detention Acts, and he also said that this legislation was being referred to the Rabie Commission. He has confirmed that in his introductory remarks this afternoon. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why this was not done in the first instance. The hon. the Minister must have been aware that the Rabie Commission had been appointed to look into the security legislation of South Africa, to look into the effectiveness and fairness of the security legislation in South Africa. He must have been aware of that. Why did he not, in the first instance, refer this particular aspect to the Rabie Commission? Why wait until there is a public outcry before saying that he would withdraw this provision and now refer the matter to the Rabie Commission?

The second piece of plastic surgery performed by the hon. the Minister was to delete the words “disclose to any person— (a)” and to substitute “publish in any newspaper, magazine, book or pamphlet or by radio”. So now we have before us a Bill which, if passed with the hon. the Minister’s amendments, will prevent the media from publishing these matters unless with the permission of the Minister or the Commissioner. That is the position that we are going to end up with.

That is quite right.

The hon. the Minister is pleased with that and says that is quite right. What is happening is that the hon. the Minister is setting himself up, with the Commissioner, as the super-censors or publishers to be the sole arbiters of what the public may or may not be told about police activities. That is what he is doing. He is saying that the Press can have it, the media can have it, but only if he or the Commissioner says they can have it. Therefore he is the censor, he is going to be the sole arbiter, he is going to decide what the public should or should not know in regard to police activities in these instances. On behalf of members in these benches I want to say that I regard this as a colossal impertinence on the part of the hon. the Minister. I regard it as a dangerous assault on the public’s right to know in a democratic society.

To know what?

To know what is going on.

To know security secrets?

That is absolutely basic.

We are not talking only about security secrets. The hon. the Minister must not hide behind security secrets. It is police activity and I say that these matters could be better controlled if there were proper and decent communication and liaison between the police and the Press of South Africa. What is happening now instead is that we have a situation which I believe signals an alarming move into the twilight for a free and democratic South Africa and a further move towards a blackout of news in this country. In the circumstances I believe that we in these benches can only deal with this legislation by rejecting it in the strongest terms possible to us in this Parliament. For that reason, I move as an amendment—

That is the amendment I move to the Second Reading. We reject this Bill for a number of reasons. Firstly, we reject it because, as I have said, it is a dangerous incursion into the right of the public to know, and of the media to report. Secondly, we reject it because it will give rise to rumour-mongering amongst the public which will be denied the right to its news through the media. Thirdly, we reject it because it is unnecessary since, apart from the powers which the State already has, the co-operation of the media can be obtained, in regard to matters affecting our internal security, without resort to such far-reaching legislation. Fourthly, we reject it because it gives powers to the police to operate in secrecy in matters far beyond those directly affecting internal security in South Africa.

Are you serious on that point?

I am absolutely serious and I shall amplify it. This point can be amply made by a comparison between the wording of the suggested amendment contained in the Steyn Commission’s report and the Bill which is before the House. In the Steyn Commission report certain restrictions were suggested on the publication of matters relating to the Police Force and members of the Police Force “involved in operations for the prevention of terrorism”. In its report, the Steyn Commission talked about such police operations. The Bill which is before us, however, mentions “any member or part of the Force engaged in any action for the prevention or combating of terroristic activities”, or “any person against whom any action … is directed”, as opposed to operations against terrorism. A single action of a member of the Police Force will receive protection in terms of the Bill which is before the House at the present time.

In reply to a question as to whether actions would include arrest or detention, the hon. the Minister said, with admirable candour in the Other Place, that he had applied his mind to the matter. He said that the term “any actions” would apply to questions of arrest or detention. The hon. the Minister is nodding his head, so that is the correct interpretation. That is how I interpret it. Despite the withdrawal of the proposed new section 27C(1)(b) of the Bill, in terms of which a specific ban was placed on disclosure of the fact that people had been detained, the ban still remains. It has exactly the same effect. The hon. the Minister agrees with that.

No, I do not agree with the “same effect” story. The hon. member must not misinterpret me.

The hon. the Minister agrees, however, that the term “any action” can include the act of arrest or detention of any individual by an individual policeman.

In terms of the Terrorism Act.

Yes, in terms of the Terrorism Act. Therefore we go right back to square one. Mr. Speaker, you said that I was not to discuss the Bill in its original form too freely, but whether we are discussing the Bill in that form or in this form, we are back to the situation where, in fact, the hon. the Minister is taking unto himself powers which, inter alia, will entitle the police to detain or arrest a person and prohibit the Press from reporting the fact that that person has been detained or arrested, unless with the kind permission of the hon. the Minister or the Commissioner of Police. We find this Bill in its present form totally objectionable, and we have no hesitation in rejecting it outright.

Mr. Speaker, we are still living within the milieu of what happened at Silverton and at Booysens a few months ago. This morning we awoke to reports of what had happened in Sasolburg over the past weekend. That is why the reaction of the hon. member for Musgrave, and the official Opposition’s attitude to this Bill, is to be censured. It leaves a bitter taste in one’s mouth and fills one with resentment. The hon. member once again used the language that was used in 1950 and 1953, viz. “Vote for the right to vote again” and “This is the end of democracy” and this is in spite of a scientific report by a judicial commission. On page 192 of the report the judge says very clearly that there should be liaison between the Press and the police and that such liaison should be supported by sound, strict legislation. Why did the hon. member not say that? He simply said that the Steyn report recommended that there should be liaison, and he stopped at that. The absolute scientific conclusion that the judge reached, was that it should be supported by strict legislation, but the hon. member ignored that. He did not simply leave it at that either. He used language which will cause an electric shock throughout the entire world. He said that it was the Government that was doing this type of thing. He knows that the words “Nazism” and “Russian Communism” are the worst words in the world that people could have used after 1945, but he did not bother about that and said: “It savours of the totalitarian measures of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.” [Interjections.] This is the type of language that he used. In his explanation of the legislation the hon. the Minister said that its only objective was to prevent the publication of the fact that someone has been arrested when it is not desirable for that information to be made public. He referred to the events at Silverton. He said that if three people, for instance had escaped the net of the police and one of them had been caught after being pursued, it was not always desirable for the fact that he had been caught to be announced. This is the Government’s reasoning in this regard. Nevertheless the hon. member for Musgrave spoke about “Nazi action”, because he knows that this is the language that the wolves abroad like to hear. I can prove it to him. [Interjections.] He must look at The Argus of 16 May 1980. The following day the hon. member for Musgrave’s exact words appeared in the Financial Times of London. In The Guardian of the same day, Mr. John Cane Berman referred to what the hon. member for Musgrave, Prof. Van der Vyver and Prof. Matthews had said.

Who sent that report abroad?

His words that were reported in The Argus were therefore broadcast to the world. Not the hon. the Minister’s explanation of the wording of the Bill, but his words “Nazi Germany” and “Soviet Communism” were broadcast to the world. The Guardian then referred to Soweto and Steve Biko. The hon. member set off the spark. A friend of mine ’phoned me from Los Angeles because reports had already appeared in Los Angeles that afternoon, not on what the hon. the Minister had said or on the content of the Bill, but what the hon. member for Musgrave had said. However, one can understand the bitterness and venom that that hon. member feels. I can understand this, because he cannot bear the fact that South Africa is governed by a National Government. He cannot accept it. During the election campaign in 1977, that hon. member said that he would rather see a Black Government governing South Africa than that this country should continue to be governed by this “incompetent” National Government. [Interjections.]

What a disgrace!

That is what he said. He is like that mother of the child who, rather than giving the living child to the rightful mother, rather wanted Solomon to cut it in two. That is how he behaves.

You have it all wrong.

The hon. member gave evidence before this commission, and I accept that he has made a very careful study of the findings of the commission. That is why I want to ask him whether he agrees with those findings. Does he agree that Russian expansionism is a threat to South Africa? [Interjections.] Does he agree that it was one of the most important crucial aspects that the commission dealt with, viz. the threat of communist Russia to South Africa?

It is not as dangerous as this Government.

I am pleased that the hon. member has made that interjection, because it is typical of his approach, viz. that South Africa must be cast to the wolves rather than be governed by the National Government. This is their approach. Right or wrong?

The second point that was made, is that every State has the inherent right to utilize all the means at its disposal to defend itself when its survival is at stake. Does the hon. member agree with that? [Interjections.]

Who caused the school children’s boycott: The Communists or the Government?

A third finding of the commission, is that the West and the East, represented by the leaders of the USA and Russia respectively, with their hangers-on and satellites, each want to cause the entire South African set up as we know it to collapse for their own objectives and to promote their own interests.

Together with the PFP.

Does the hon. member agree with this finding? [Interjections.] That threat has become somewhat more serious than it was five years ago.

There is another question that I want to ask the hon. member or the next speaker of the official Opposition. In today’s world there is no longer any such thing as a declared war. I am sure that the hon. member is at least aware of the fact that terrorism is occurring in South Africa, urban terrorism too—or does he know nothing about it? [Interjections.] Would he welcome it if it happened?

He incites it. He knows that terrorism develops into revolution.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Pretoria East permitted to say that the hon. member for Pinelands is inciting revolution?

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria East may not say that the hon. member is inciting terrorism.

Not even if it is true?

The hon. member must refrain from commentary. I said that the hon. member may not say it, and he must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: Whilst terrorists are being referred to, may the hon. member for Jeppe say that the hon. member for Musgrave is a terrorist?

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe may not say that. He must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I want to make the point that there are no longer any declared wars in the times in which we are living. We have acts of terrorism and they develop into revolution which in turn is an invitation to Soviet Russia in particular to intervene in a state of affairs where dissatisfaction and terrorism prevail.

Another aspect that the Steyn Commission mentions—I wonder whether the hon. member for Musgrave, the hon. official Opposition, agree with this—is that those who are responsible for national security in South Africa should be the only ones to decide which measures should be adopted in this regard.

[Inaudible.]

It does not suit the official Opposition to admit this. In this respect the report is based on statements in the British and South African courts, and it is a finding that cannot be called into question. The State must judge it. It is obvious that in this entire exercise, the balance can shift from greater emphasis on the interests of the State to greater emphasis on the interests of the individual, from stricter security legislation in certain circumstances to less strict legislation, and from time to time there will also be circumstances in which a wise Government will look at its security legislation, as is happening in South Africa at the moment.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended, I was raising the argument that the Steyn report, which is a scientific document—a very scientific document—which reflects an in-depth investigation into the conditions in South Africa, the threats to South Africa and which reaches certain conclusions, conclusions which have been accepted by the Government in the main and which have been given expression in the Bill that we are now discussing here …

Yes, tell us more about that.

Tell us what you have accepted and what you have not.

I have already referred to that. I have already referred to the conclusions, and I shall come to them again in a moment. They are scientific conclusions on which this Bill is based. The Bill is based on certain conclusions which the Steyn Commission reached. In any event, they are conclusions that are not accepted by the official Opposition. They say it is “over kill”, “kragdadig”, “a Frankenstein’s monster”, “the twilight of the democratic system”. This is what they say about the scientific findings that were reached. However, what they are saying are old, worn out, hackneyed slogans—definitely not for use inside the country, because the voters’ corps of South Africa is already sick and tired of those hollow cries of theirs. It is for foreign use; for foreign use alone. [Interjections.]

After the Steyn Commission had taken the whole background of the matter into account, it came to the conclusion that apart from its traditional task of maintaining law and order, the S.A. Police also have a para-military role to play, often in one and the same area. Has the hon. member for Musgrave read this? Furthermore the Steyn Commission discovered, and I quote from paragraph 90.b.iii—

That is why the commission also reaches the important decision that we find on page 202 of the report, in paragraph 452. The hon. member asks me where the commission says this. I quote—

After that the commission goes on to make certain proposals. Furthermore, the commission finds that there are three crucial ideas in the set-up in which we find ourselves today. These are arms, laws and bona volentia. I think that the official Opposition ought to take note of the role they should be playing in the process of assisting in bringing about that goodwill between the State and the Press and the people. As I said, the findings of the commission are supported by excellent logic, which one cannot question.

If we make the same demands of the police, in their struggle against terrorism, as we make of the S.A. Defence Force in a low-intensity war, why then cannot the police be given the same powers as the Defence Force? This is precisely what is being done in the legislation under discussion. In the main, this Bill contains the same wording as section 118 of the Defence Act, a section which was added to the Defence Act (Act No. 44 of 1957) in 1967, in terms of section 57B of Act No. 85 of 1967. As is customary in the case of defence legislation, the Defence Amending Bill was referred to a Select Committee at the time.

At that stage the hon. member for Houghton was a member of this House. After a considerable time, that Select Committee reported back to Parliament and the Second Reading of the Bill proceeded. At the time there was no bruiting abroad of a measure “that savours of Nazism”. When the Bill was discussed in this House again, unanimity had not yet been reached on that specific measure. However, once again the hon. the Minister of Defence motivated the reason in the House why section 118 reads as it does today. It is interesting to read the speech that he delivered during that debate. You may find it in Hansard, 1967, col. 7460. The arguments used in the Steyn report, are also to be found in the hon. the Minister’s speech. The fact that communism leads to revolution and that revolution leads to intervention by a communist power, is something which the hon. the Minister also mentioned in his speech. The hon. the Minister’s explanation was accepted and the measure was accepted by the House without a division. According to the minutes, the hon. member for Houghton did not lodge an objection to the measure. At the time she was the only hon. member that represented the PFP in the House, but there is no indication that she lodged an objection to the measure.

We now find ourselves in 1980 and on this occasion a similar measure that we are aiming at including in our Police legislation, is being viewed as a totalitarian one. This is the quality of the official Opposition, its newspapers and its hangers-on in South Africa. I think it is deplorable that the official Opposition is now opposing this Bill as it is doing through the hon. member for Musgrave. I think it is a disgrace that it is doing so despite the findings of the Steyn report, the events at Silverton, the events at the Booysens police station …

It is convenient …

The hon. member for Orange Grove says that it is convenient, but I wonder whether he does not perhaps consider terrorist activities as convenient for his political motives. [Interjections.] I really think this is their approach.

I say they are doing this in spite of the events at the Booysens police station and they are adopting this attitude despite the events in Sasolburg this morning. I think the behaviour of the official Opposition will be rejected by all right-thinking South Africans. I am pleased to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, again we have tonight a situation where, I believe, the official Opposition is correct when they say that the Government is going for the overkill. I should like to add, however, that I believe at the same time that the official Opposition is more guilty because of the overreaction of hon. members in those benches. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the House at the outset that we support this measure, but before dealing with my reasons for that, I want to deal with something which caused me, and I believe all my colleagues who were in their benches just before the suspension of proceedings tonight, a certain amount of distress. I want to make sure I did not hear something incorrectly. Did I hear correctly during the course of the speech of the hon. member for Brakpan that the hon. member for Groote Schuur interjected that communist Russia is not as dangerous to South Africa as the NP Government?

Yes. [Interjections.]

He is rejoicing tonight.

It is only a communist that can say a thing like that.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Can the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs say that only a communist would make such a statement?

Order! The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs may not describe the hon. member for Groote Schuur as a communist.

Sir, I did not think that the hon. member for Groote Schuur said that. But if he did, I apologize and withdraw my remark.

The hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition in a second interjection went on to say that they are not nearly as dangerous …

I did not say that.

He denies it.

The point of the exercise is that the NP made the ground fertile …

The point of the exercise is …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is an hon. member of Parliament entitled to make a remark such as the one which the hon. member for Groote Schuur has just made, viz. that this Government is more dangerous than a communist Government?

You are preparing the way for the communists.

You keep quiet. You are not the Speaker. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon. member for Groote Schuur by that sentence is implying that the Government is guilty of furthering communism. My problem is that it has often been said that the deeds of the Opposition lead to unrest and that that has been allowed. It has also been said that the deeds and laws of the Government can lead to communism. However, whenever that is said, it is not said that that is intentional. The hon. member for Groote Schuur has, however, made a bald statement whereby he has implied that the Government is guilty of furthering communism and even more.

Sir, I certainly did not mean that. [Interjections.]

Order!

You see, Sir, it must be taken in the context of the next interjection I made. [Interjections.] I interjected immediately thereafter: “Who caused the Coloured schoolchildren’s boycott: The communists or the present Government?” The point I make is that obviously I did not mean that the Government is guilty of communist action. I meant that by its actions it is more of a danger to the country than communism itself.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Allow me to address you on the statement made by the hon. member. This country is by law an anti-communist country. The Communist Party has been banned. This country has no diplomatic ties with Russia. Therefore, any communist viewpoint has been banned by this Parliament. The question is now: Is an hon. member of this House, without his declaring himself a communist, entitled to say that communism is a better system than that of this Government? [Interjections.]

I never said that. [Interjections.]

Order! I think that the first statement made by the hon. member for Groote Schuur is a statement he should withdraw.

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

They are the umbilical cord of communism.

They are camp-followers … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member who said “They are camp-followers of communism” must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I said they were the umbilical cord of communism, but I did not say that they were camp-followers. If I have to withdraw “umbilical cord”, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Umhlanga may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, first impressions are lasting impressions, and I trust that the first impressions of this rather unfortunate incident this evening will be lasting impressions on every hon. member in the House. [Interjections.]

Order! I must ask the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark to withdraw the expression he used in its entirety.

To withdraw what, Sir?

The hon. member knows what he said. He said the hon. members were the umbilical cord of communism. In other words, they are an inseparable part thereof. The hon. member must withdraw it.

All right then, I shall withdraw it.

Order! Here we are dealing with an emotion-charged subject, one which can be inflated to the extreme. Consequently, I want to request hon. members to discuss it in a way which will allow the country to take cognizance of their points of view. The hon. member for Umhlanga may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that first impressions are lasting impressions.

Correct.

I asked myself why it is that the Government so often insists on swatting a fly with a 16 lb. hammer. This is exactly what happened when the Bill was first placed on the Order Paper, prior to its introduction in the Other Place. I concur with what was said by previous speakers. I know that it was reported in overseas newspapers. I know too that a comment I made was reported in the overseas Press. I think that the comment was reasonable when the measure was originally introduced. I also think that we must accept that this sort of thing is going to be reported by the overseas media. The tragedy of the South Africa we five in today is that all too often we have this sort of thing which is given extensive coverage to the unnecessary detriment of South Africa. It is quite unnecessary because we have gone for the overkill, and by doing so we evoke an over-reaction. Looking at the measure before the House, I can sincerely say that I cannot in my heart find the fault with it that the official Opposition finds. In these serious days in which we live today I cannot find fault with this legislation. We are engaged in combating terrorism every minute of the day, somewhere within South Africa or on the northern border of South West Africa.

You prefer not to know about it.

Mr. Speaker, I find that interjection to be facetious in the extreme. The hon. member says that I prefer not to know about it. It is a ridiculous interjection.

What was the interjection?

The hon. member for Green Point said that I prefer not to know about it.

So you do not want to read about what happened at Sasol?

I cannot see anything in the legislation which says that I cannot read about Sasol. [Interjections.]

I understand that in the days of the late Dr. Verwoerd this was a ploy that was frequently used, and I think there are hon. gentlemen opposite who will agree and accept that Dr. Verwoerd did this. He would introduce what the hon. member for Musgrave called a Frankenstein-type piece of legislation, which would go to extremes, and then by proposing amendments he would have it accepted with a sigh of relief by the Opposition. We are not accepting this legislation with a sigh of relief. We are accepting this legislation in the true and sincere belief that it is a measure that is necessary in this day and age.

This legislation is necessary to combat the very thing we are faced with at the moment. It is necessary to combat the situation that occurred last night right in the heart of the Vaal triangle in Sasolburg and in Secunda. There we have a situation which makes it impossible for me to concur with what hon. members of the official Opposition say. Why must details be splashed about in the Press? I cannot see that it is necessary. Surely to heaven, where in the waging of warfare has it ever been the case that some or other country advertises in its daily Press what is going on at the front and what its intentions are as regards its troop movements? I cannot go along with this at all. We all know what is happening in northern South West Africa, on the border of Owambo and Angola. We know that it is happening there, but do we have a daily bulletin in the Press? We do not have anything appearing daily. We are not told every day the names of the terrorists or who is involved or who is doing what, where, why and how. This is not necessary. All of a sudden, however, it has become vital. We must learn that we are suffering under the fact that urban terrorism is taking a hold right here within South Africa. As long as urban terrorism threatens or moves to take hold within the confines of our country, it is up to each and every one of us to do everything possible to stamp it out. In order to do so we have to have strict security legislation. With all due respect, I grant the Press its rights and its freedom, and I shall defend the freedom of the Press at all times.

But not tonight.

However, I do not see that this legislation impinges upon the freedom of the Press.

Then you have not read the Bill.

Equally, I do not see that it impinges upon the freedom of the individual, because we must remember that the individual who is taken into custody, in terms of this legislation, has access to his family, to his friends and to his legal representative, unless I understand the hon. the Minister incorrectly.

How do you work that out?

Go read the Bill.

I cannot see—and I have read the Bill—where he is to be held without access to his legal representative or to his family. Am I correct? Will the hon. the Minister give me that assurance across the floor of the House?

Yes.

Thank you. I want to tell the hon. gentlemen who have been so vociferous on my right, or on my left, whichever way you want to look at it.

They are well to your left.

A short while ago I appended my signature to a minority report. Members of that party agreed with it, and represented by the hon. member for Yeoville and Dr. Z. de Beer, who was then the hon. member for Parktown, appended their signature to it (S.C. 9—’80, page 27)—

(b) I shall not deal with, and—

The PFP agreed to the non-publication of portions of evidence from the Erasmus Commission that would prejudice the security of the State and would adversely affect the interests of the State.

Who made that decision? The hon. the Minister or a Select Committee of Parliament?

I am referring to a draft report submitted by Mr. H. H. Schwarz, the hon. member for Yeoville.

Does he not represent you?

Having read all the evidence?

Did the hon. gentleman who sat on that Select Committee not represent the PFP? Am I now to understand that he, like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, does not really represent the PFP? The hon. member for Yeoville is not here tonight, but perhaps he, like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, is going to give us his own view which, of course, will not conflict with the principles of his party, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will hasten to tell us!

You are whistling in the dark, Brian.

I think members of the PFP must be consistent in their attitude towards their respect for the security of the State.

In conclusion I want to say that we in this party …

You have not read the Bill.

I have read and studied the Bill.

Tell us about it then.

What does it say?

Would you like me to go through it clause by clause and explain it to you?

Yes.

I am quite happy to do so if you would like it done, but I do not think it would help that hon. member. However, let us do so. Let us take the first clause of the Bill, and let me also hasten to add that there was a lot of confusion in these benches earlier this afternoon when they said: “Oh, but the Bill we have before us is the Bill as it was before it was amended. It has not been amended yet.” They do not even understand that the Senate amendments must be read with the Bill and that the Bill must be read as having been amended. That they do not understand. [Interjections.] Let us look at clause 1 which states quite clearly that—

1. (i) constitution, movements, deployment or methods of any member or part of the Force concerned in any action for the prevention of combating of terroristic activities as referred to in section 2 of the Terrorism Act, 1967.

Do the hon. members agree with that?

What does section 2 say?

I continue. No person shall further—

It goes on to refer to—

What do these hon. gentlemen expect? Do they want us now to publish details of anti-terrorist police and troop movements? Is that what they want? Details of all troop movements, all anti-terrorist movements and all police movements must be issued daily to be published. We could possibly get to the ridiculous situation of having to ask the editors if we could move troops around the country. [Interjections.] We shall have to get permission from their lords and masters. That is what could happen. We understand the Bill and that is why we are supporting it. [Interjections.] I also want to say that we in this party will not, under any circumstances, be seen to be soft on matters that can adversely affect the security of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brakpan made such an inspired speech this evening when he crossed swords with the hon. member for Musgrave. The hon. member for Umhlanga spoke immediately after him, and I must now congratulate the hon. member for Umhlanga. The hon. member for Umhlanga sometimes reminded me of the hon. member for Simonstown, but that was only with regard to the Press.

The Bill which is before this hon. House tonight has not really been discussed as such, except in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech. Up to now, the debate has been about the speech by the hon. member for Musgrave which appeared in the newspaper, which was meant for foreign consumption and which received great publicity abroad, as the hon. member for Brakpan quite rightly pointed out. I should like to come back to that later.

However, I think we should dwell for a moment on what this measure is concerned with. We see that it is essentially concerned with the security of the State in South Africa. It is concerned with the security of every inhabitant of South Africa, whether it be the voter of the hon. member for Musgrave, or the voter of any hon. member on this side of the House, and whether it be a Brown, and Asian or a Black inhabitant. Therefore it is basically concerned with greater security measures inside South Africa from now on. The Bill is basically concerned with three things, i.e. information with regard to the police, with regard to people who are committing or presumed to be committing acts of terrorism, or with regard to those who are acting in concert with the police, such as the S.A. Defence Force or the S.A. Railway Police. It is not a total ban on the publication of information. It is merely a conditional prohibition, so that the hon. the Minister or the Commissioner of Police may decide whether it is in the interests of the general public that certain information be disclosed. I am very glad that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is in the House at the moment. He waxed eloquent here about what happens when people are restricted. He said: “Can you imagine a popular committee having to decide about the restriction of the freedom of a writer?” Surely that is what the hon. member said. The hon. member went further and said: “Suppose we allowed such a popular committee to decide about the restriction of people under the Terrorism Act?” I concluded that the hon. member had at least referred objectively and fairly positively to the fact that in the case of the detention of terrorists, there is “feedback”, to use his own word, while this does not take place in the case of the restriction of the freedom of writers under our publication legislation.

The hon. member probably used this argument because it suited him at that stage. I think it is extremely important that this House should take cognizance of the fact that the Government, being the Government of the day, has a specific responsibility towards the people outside this House. Every hon. member of this House also has a responsibility towards his own voters. Every inhabitant of South Africa has the right to demand that law and order be maintained and also that this House, of which we are all members, should provide legislation which will ensure the greatest measure of security. If it is true—and I do not think the hon. member would disagree with me about this—that every member of the population of South Africa has the right to demand that he, his family and his possessions should be safeguarded as far as possible, surely it is also correct to say that the Government of the day is responsible for the legislation to make this possible. The hon. member for Musgrave must say whether he disagrees with me. He must tell me—and he will get an opportunity to do so during the Committee Stage or at the Third Reading—whether the terrorist sees any difference between an NRP supporter, a Nat and a Prog or between Black, Brown and Yellow when he plants a bomb or throws a hand grenade. Is the terrorist in this country or in Ireland concerned about the lives of politicians, children or women? Is he concerned about the fact that thousands of people may be left jobless when he blows up a big dam or a big factory? Surely he is not. I think every voter, including the voters of the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition, has the right to expect the Opposition, which is part of the legislative body, organization and mechanism, to make a positive contribution to the provision of the best measures with regard to national security, and not to shoot the legislation down in this country and abroad even before it has been dealt with. Surely this is not responsible opposition.

I want to ask the hon. member for Musgrave just one question. Would he, or the hon. member for Pinelands, or the hon. member for Groote Schuur, be prepared to say here tonight that as the representatives of their voters, they are prepared to put Press freedom, as they see it, above the security of their own voters?

Nonsense.

That is what it is about. [Interjections.] The Government is prepared to say that it puts the possessions and security of each of us above a lot of other things. The hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that he was in favour of Press freedom, but when he has to impose certain restrictions because it is essential for the security of everyone in South Africa, that power must not be taken away from him. In such a case he appeals to hon. member to support him.

Can one say what the hon. member for Musgrave said, if the newspaper quoted him correctly? I am referring to the Rand Daily Mail of 22 May 1980—

Why did the hon. member for Musgrave say this long before the legislation was published? Does the hon. member have such a hatred of the NP, in the first place, that this Government has no credibility for him … [Interjections.] … or, in the second place, does he have such a hatred of the police, because—and I do not want the hon. member to misunderstand me—the restriction of publication is either by the hon. the Minister or by the Commissioner; so the hon. member cannot get away from what he said; or, in the third place, if he does not hate either of those two parties, whom does he love? Surely the reverse is true. The hon. member for Brakpan spelt this out effectively. For whom was the comment of the hon. member for Musgrave intended? Surely it went directly abroad.

The hon. member then felt called upon to say in his Second Reading speech that when this hon. Government wanted to achieve anything, it passed legislation.

The hon. member went on to ask why the Government had not discussed matters with the Press. The hon. member and his party are the ones that consider it so important that we should report back to this House, but to whom does the hon. member want to turn us over: to the English press or to the enemies of South Africa abroad, who delight in quoting the hon. member? [Interjections.] Are we to negotiate with these enemies, or are we to introduce legislation in this House according to the democratic system? I do not think the hon. member for Musgrave did his party a great favour by first making his speech in the Press because he knew that it would be quoted overseas by the enemies of South Africa. [Interjections.] I also think—I do not want to believe only ill of the hon. member for Musgrave—that he is not doing South Africa or any inhabitant of South Africa a favour by undermining the security measures of South Africa. I am not saying this in the bad sense of the word. But if the hon. member is prepared to put what he regards as Press freedom above the interests and security of the inhabitants of South Africa, it is essential that this legislation be passed.

Mr. Speaker, … [Interjections.] … this evening, probably following upon what the hon. member for Durban North said the other evening, the hon. member for Umhlanga began to speak along the lines he realizes he must follow if they want to have any chance whatsoever of being seen in this House again. [Interjections.] They are beginning to play the Nationalist Government’s game more and more because they know that there is no other way in which they as a party can appear in this House again.

That is a lot of tripe, and you know it. Make your own speech.

Put your money where your mouth is.

The hon. member raised arguments that overlook the content of this Bill completely. Then he makes the ludicrous “sweeping statement” that we are ostensibly dealing with a matter of national security here and that his party and he as a member of this House, are not “soft on security”.

Can’t you speak Afrikaans properly?

Once again, it is simply the same old type of ludicrousness that has been dished up to us for so many years already, ludicrous reasons that are used to justify arguments and legislation, that no sound, rational arguments can justify at all.

Tell us what your standpoint is.

If the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is just prepared to wait a little, he will hear what it is. I am coming to it.

Just like the hon. member for Umhlanga, the hon. member for Brakpan also tried to read us the riot act with regard to the events at Silverton and Booysens, and also on other unfortunate events while he was about it, including the one last night at Sasol. They tried to tell us that this legislation is related to this. However, they still owe us one answer. To what extent did the publication of the facts that we have received on these events thus far, aggravate those events themselves? [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Police ought to know the facts. Why then does he not say so? He has not informed us of them. [Interjections.]

Order!

Neither the hon. member for Umhlanga, the hon. member for Brakpan nor the hon. member for Pretoria East gave us an indication or made any attempt whatsoever—neither practically, from their own experience and not even theoretically—to indicate in which way the publication of facts, which this Bill wants to prohibit, can further or aggravate that sort of situation or cause it to be repeated. They did not even make any attempt whatsoever to raise that type of argument there. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister has been requested to give examples of this on various occasions—previously by the Press, and in the Other Place, as far as I know. The only example that the hon. the Minister has given, however, to the best of my knowledge—and I am speaking under correction now—is that he said that it may happen in certain cases that someone is arrested and that it would then not be beneficial to the purposes of police action, for his companions to know that he has been arrested. This is the only example that the hon. the Minister has mentioned. [Interjections.] Quite possibly there may be something in this argument. Now, however, I ask the hon. the Minister how we are to understand this. The fact that he was able to mention this one example only, immediately gives me the impression—of course I am open to conviction—that this type of thing only happens under most exceptional circumstances, and that the potential advantage which can emanate from such legislation, can only manifest itself in very exceptional cases. [Interjections.] If this is true, is it not possible in specific cases, rather to ask the Press to co-operate and remain silent on such facts to begin with—possibly for a day or two—because it is in the interest of further police action rather to avoid further activities of a specific group or body, instead of attacking them with a sledgehammer or by legislation.

I have no doubt that in similar circumstances the Press in general would not think twice about granting their co-operation to the hon. the Minister or the Commissioner or other senior officers in question.

The other evening we were privileged to see a detailed edition on TV of how the SAS Defence group in London relieved the Iranian embassy there. It was an extremely impressive scene to watch. After that, it was reported in the Press that the authorities in Britain depended in those very circumstances on the co-operation of the Press and the media. The Press and the media were given as many particulars as possible, but it was not done so in such a way as to jeopardize the relief of that embassy in any way. Reliable sources and Government spokesmen in Britain said afterwards that the mutual trust that existed between the authorities on the one hand and the Press and the media on the other, really produced results. I feel there is much room for success with that type of approach in South Africa in future. I want to recommend it strongly to the hon. the Minister. He should much rather do this than to come to Parliament with legislation of this nature.

Do you really think it could happen? [Interjections.]

I think I should rather not reply to the interjection of the hon. member, because over the past few days he has never really been able to hit the nail on the head.

The Bill constitutes a drastic form of interference in the right and duty of the Press to inform the public. I do not think we should play games about it or deny it, because it is in fact a drastic interference. It is also a drastic interference in the right of the public to know what is happening in South Africa and how the Government is safeguarding South Africa by means of the S.A. Police, particularly after such events have taken place. After all, we are not dealing with the publication of State secrets here. Surely we are not dealing with the publication of detailed future plans on how the police are going to launch an operation under certain conditions. There is no question of this. Mostly, it simply concerns reporting on matters that have already occurred. The interference in the right of the public to be informed, in particular is to be deplored. It is simply taking South Africa a step closer to ostrich politics and in the direction of a totalitarian form of government. Surely this is something which the hon. members on the opposite side of the House should bear in mind from time to time.

The hon. the Prime Minister indicated that we are a country that has expressed its opposition to communism and other repugnant forms of government by way of our legislation, but now hon. members opposite must take care that their attempts do not turn South Africa itself into a communist, Nazi or other repugnant totalitarian form of government.

On what grounds?

This is the very direction in which we are heading, the type of thing that is happening. We are moving closer to it, because every now and then the Government introduces legislation which can only be compared with things which are taking place behind the Iron Curtain and are comparable with the type of legislation that hon. members on this side have issued warnings against when we adopt our standpoint against Nazi Germany, fascism and communism. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Green Point may proceed and hon. members must cease their interjections now. The hon. the Minister will reply to the debate in due course and then I shall probably be expected to protect him from more interjections than they are making now. Therefore, I am asking them to give the hon. member for Green Point the opportunity of delivering his speech. The hon. the Minister will reply to him at the right time, but another hon. member may even reply to him before that.

The hon. members on the other side objected strongly to the hon. member for Musgrave in particular using strong language and drawing comparisons between legislation and practices that occur in countries like Nazi Germany, communist Russia, etc. I want to say with all due respect that that reference is quite correct.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to accuse the Government of deliberately submitting legislation to Parliament that can be compared with that of Nazism? [Interjections.]

With all due respect, Sir, I think you have already given a decision on this in the past.

Order! No, I have not yet given a ruling on that. Did the hon. member for Green Point not say “behind the Iron Curtain”?

I said the Government is passing legislation that is taking us step by step closer to the type of legislation that one would find behind the Iron Curtain.

And in Nazism!

Yes, in Nazism too. If there is another bad example, I can use that too.

Order! The hon. member for Green Point may proceed.

The hon. member for Musgrave was quite correct in drawing these comparisons. Unfortunately, this type of legislation is placing us in the company of those countries where peace can only be maintained by the suppression of normal communication and normal political intercourse.

Whilst we are now dealing with arguments and the language used with regard to this Bill, I just want to refer briefly to what the hon. the Minister said, according to reports in the Press. He said that he did not consult with the Newspaper Press Union on this matter because it has nothing to do with the Press. He said that this legislation has nothing to do with the Press, but that it merely concerns the security of the State. With all due respect, Sir, to my mind this remark is going too far. If this Bill has nothing to do with the Press, heaven knows what it has anything to do with. I want to say that the hon. the Minister has brought this drastic legislation to Parliament without consulting the Newspaper Press Union and indirectly opposition to the spirit of the Steyn Commission’s report because mention is often made in the report that with sound co-operation and liaison …

Supported by strict legislation.

… problems can sometimes be ironed out much better than with legal force. The hon. member for Brakpan mentioned it. He quoted from the report of the Steyn Commission three times where it says that there must be co-operation and communication and liaison, and that this must be supported by strict legislation. [Interjections.] I agree: It is understandable that there should be legislation, but this Bill in its present form does not suggest co-operation at all. To tell the truth, it suggests that co-operation is totally impossible, that it is in fact so impossible that the Government, the Minister and the Commissioner of Police, had no other choice but to adopt drastic legislative powers and to grant themselves the exclusive jurisdiction and discretion of determining what may be published and what may not be published. How anyone can say that this type of legislation indicates co-operation or the possibility of co-operation between the authorities and the Press, escapes me.

What is this Bill actually doing? It is replacing the fundamental right of the Press to publish data for the information of the public, with a discretionary power on the part of the Minister or the Commissioner to allow publication or not to allow it. I want to say at once that I feel that the hon. the Minister is going to find that he has taken an impossible administrative burden upon himself with this legislation. Just look at the Silverton incident as an example. If the hon. the Minister, the Commissioner of Police and another police officer have to censor or look through every piece of news that could flow from such a situation, and grant permission for the publication thereof, they will be letting themselves in for an impossible situation. I want to say that, if the provisions of this Bill have to work properly and if any news is still to get through, it will mean that the police will have to see to it that a liaison office is established as such a scene of a crisis just as quickly as they will have to hurry there to get the terrorist action in question under control. Furthermore, the ambit of this legislation is extremely wide. Firstly this clause is being linked to section 2 of the Terrorism Act. I think that anyone who has any knowledge of law, will concede that section 2 of the Terrorism Act contains a very wide definition. There are in fact cases where someone may be guilty of terrorist activities if it is discovered that he has a firearm or explosives in his possession. The onus of proof is then placed on him and he must prove that he did not have these articles in his possession for subversive activities. In order to create such a situation within the Terrorism Act, makes it untenable if a prosecution takes place in terms of section 2 of the Terrorism Act. How can such a provision be applied? How can such a provision be transferred to other legislation? How must a journalist determine whether he is reporting an activity that is defined within the extent of section 2 of the Terrorism Act, if the definition of section 2 of the Act in question is so wide? I want to suggest that it will create an impossible situation, and that every journalist who wants to avoid prosecution, cannot even take the chance in any circumstances of reporting something which may possibly fall within the purview of that provision.

They must report the facts and the truth, and not take chances.

The truth is prohibited.

The truth is not required here …

I say they must not take chances.

The hon. the Minister suggests that a journalist should report the truth. However, the truth is also prohibited in terms of this legislation. The legislation has nothing to do with the truth, and this makes it even stranger.

Furthermore, the Bill has a very wide definition, which is sometimes incomprehensibly wide, because expressions such as “engaged in” are used. In this regard I refer to fines 9 to 12, on page 1 of the Bill, which read—

I want to allege once again that this gives an almost impossible definition of the ambit of this legislation. It makes it practically impossible for a journalist to carry out his duty in this regard.

The hon. the Minister has already conceded that arrests and detentions fall within the definition of “action” in the legislation, and that even the mere fact that someone has been arrested or detained, may not be reported in terms of the provisions of the Bill, should it become law. I want to point out that that an arrest or detention does not necessarily have to take place in terms of the Terrorism Act in order to fall within the prohibition envisaged by the legislation. The fact that an arrest or detention has taken place may not be published if it occurred in the combating or prevention of any activities that fall within the purview of section 2 of the Terrorism Act. I want to point out once again that we are dealing with what is virtually an impossibly wide definition here. I want to go further and say that it is not at all sure that even the release of a person who is detained in terms of the provisions of the Terrorism Act, may be reported, if the legislation, as it reads now, should become law.

Why not? What is the reason for that?

Yes, action can also be taken within these provisions. This is a tremendously wide definition. It also deals with the same type of thing.

You are giving Van der Merwe a bad name now.

In terms of sub-paragraph 27C(1)(a)(ii) information with regard to a person a group of persons against whom the police are taking action, may not be reported. With all due respect, I should like to know what the hon. the Minister is trying to achieve with that subparagraph, which states that nothing may be reported, no information with regard to a person or group of persons against whom action is being taken. To mention one example only: The police are always involved with action against Swapo and the police are always involved with action against the ANC, action which very clearly falls within the definition of the Bill, action to combat or prevent terrorist activities. Now this Bill reads that no information may be published with regard to that person or group of persons at all without the permission of the Minister or the Commissioner. This means that, according to subparagraph (ii), no information may be published with regard to those movements, neither their military activity, whether inside or outside or borders, nor their peaceful activities, wherever these may occur, their strength of numbers, their action at the UN or in any diplomatic circles. This is in fact how wide this Bill is. I should like to know what we are going to try to achieve by means of placing such a ludicrous piece of legislation on our Statute Book.

Another interesting facet of the Bill that I should like to mention, and this follows on the hon. the Minister’s own amendment that he made in the Other Place, is that no prohibition is being placed on the disclosure of information, but that a prohibition is in fact being placed on the publication of information. Once again I just want to point out to the hon. member for Brakpan, the hon. member for Umhlanga and other hon. members that we are apparently not dealing with security secrets now. Whilst the hon. member for Musgrave was speaking, the hon. the Minister asked: “Do you want our security secrets to be published?” It has nothing to do with security secrets. If it had something to do with that, surely there would have been a prohibition on any form of disclosure, but this is not what is being envisaged. The prohibition is merely on publication and is aimed directly at the Press and not at all at any talking or gossiping amongst people. It is not even directed at a public speech. People can walk away from a scene and inform other people about what happened there and even tell them in detail what happened there. This Bill does absolutely nothing about that. Now I want to ask once again: If the problem with which the hon. the Minister is struggling, deals with security secrets, and if the problem is that we are afraid that certain plans which the police have with regard to their action in a specific situation are revealed, why then do we not place a total prohibition on disclosure? Why does the prohibition only apply to the Press?

Do you want a total prohibition?

No, I do not want a total prohibition. I do not need it. My following point is that this Bill suggests that there is no question of secrecy with regard to police operations. For years, decades and centuries police units, military units and even large armies consisting of thousands of people, have been planning how to launch attacks, how to launch an action, and those plans are kept strictly secret, and they did not need to place any restriction on the Press in order to ensure this. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the publication of official secrets nor has it anything to do with the publication of police plans to launch a particular attack or to prevent a specific terrorist activity. That is why I understand this Bill even less. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban Point finds it very amusing.

What would have become of the Second Front in the war?

I should like to know whether the hon. member for Durban Point is now trying to allege that this Bill would have been of some use to him if it had applied to the Second Front during the Second World War. It would be ridiculous to allege this, because in terms of this Bill anyone can broadcast it, in whatever manner he thinks fit, as long as he does not write it in a newspaper, a book or a pamphlet. It is selective action. Selective action is being envisaged by this Bill by aiming it at the Press alone. The fact that it is clearly aimed at the Press imparts a very unsavoury political colour to it, to such an extent that one wonders what the hon. the Minister actually envisages with this legislation. As I have already indicated, this Bill has nothing to do with the secrecy of plans of attack or of operational plans of the police or any other military or para-military unit. Moreover it has nothing to do with security secrets. In all honesty I want to say that this Bill will not contribute anything whatsoever to the maintenance of security and order in South Africa in the future. This Bill is simply taking us a step closer to a totalitarian situation, to ostrich politics, where the public are in total ignorance of what is happening in their own country and on grounds of that are unable to form a proper judgment about what the correct direction is that South Africa should take. That is why I support the amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave wholeheartedly.

Order! I have reflected on the expression that the Government is taking South Africa closer to Nazism and conditions behind the Iron Curtain step by step. The hon. member for Green Point must withdraw that expression.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point says that the police are regularly undertaking action against Swapo and the ANC, but he does not condemn Swapo or the ANC. Instead he concentrates his attack on this legislation and on the police. That is very significant.

That is right.

The hon. member for Pinelands says that is right. Swapo and the ANC have murdered innocent men, women and children, Black and White alike, and the hon. member for Pinelands says that is right. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Walmer suggests that hon. members of the PFP are saying that they support Swapo and the ANC. They are traitorous organizations, and therefore the hon. member is suggesting that this party supports traitorous organizations,

I never said that. I say that the hon. member for Green Point does not condemn Swapo or the ANC. He concentrates his attack on the legislation and on the police. He spoke in his speech about the regular police actions against Swapo and the ANC. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Orange Grove said that I lied. Is that permissible?

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this matter? If it could be proved from the hon. member’s Hansard that he is lying, am I not allowed to say that he is lying?

Order! Did the hon. member say that another hon. member was lying?

Yes, Sir. I said so.

The hon. member cannot say that.

I withdraw it, Sir, but could I request that you have a careful look at the hon. member’s Hansard?

Yes, I shall look at his Hansard. I now make an appeal to hon. members to moderate their language as much as possible. The hon. member for Walmer may proceed.

Mr. Speaker …

Do not worry, we shall have a look at your Hansard.

He had better start worrying.

The hon. member for Green Point spoke about the protection of the Press. After all, he was an eyewitness of the events in Elsies River. I expected him to tell us tonight what he was doing there and for what purpose he was in the area at that stage. [Interjections.] Why did the hon. member not also speak of the protection of the whole population of South Africa, protection which this Bill envisages?

†He compared this legislation with what took place in Russia. He did it only to place South Africa in a bad light overseas. He also compared this legislation with what took place in Nazi Germany. We all know that during those years millions of people were murdered …

Order! The hon. member has withdrawn that reference.

All right, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Green Point knows that South African boys are dying on the borders fighting terrorists, and these terrorists are equipped with Russian arms. That is why it behoves every hon. member of this House to deprecate that sort of thing on every occasion they possibly can. In my view the attitude of the hon. member for Green Point affects the morale of all the South African people.

He did it with a purpose.

The hon. member for Musgrave, the hon. member for Green Point and other hon. members of the official Opposition are opposed to this Bill. We have seen what terrorists have done at Silverton, Booysens, Sasolburg and in South West Africa. The blood of South Africans has been shed there. We expected the official Opposition to support a standpoint in favour of the combating of terrorism. There is a choice, and it is a choice in favour of or against the shedding of South African blood. The official Opposition put it clearly that they are opposed to a measure which protects South Africans. The blood which has been shed was the blood of Whites and Blacks. Terrorists are not fussy about whom they murder. The people of South Africa are entitled to protection against terrorism. The official Opposition has a problem. Their hatred for the Government and the police is stronger than their love for South Africa. The Press and the Government both have an extremely important task in the present set-up in South Africa. The Press can encourage the Government and criticize them constructively instead of deliberately or out of ignorance trying, as certain sections of the Press are doing, to disrupt matters and to disturb race relations. The choice exercised by the Press at the political level is not an issue raised by this Bill. The Press has its responsibilities, but the Government has the far greater responsibility towards the people of South Africa to see to the running of the country. Law and order are important elements in this regard. This ensures the freedom of all our people. It also ensures the freedom of the Press. There are certain sections of the Press which are creating the impression that they would make any attempt to exaggerate events here, not only to the detriment of the Government, but to the detriment of the whole of South Africa. This legislation deals with the security of our country, the combating of terrorism and the maintenance of law and order. It is the Government’s duty to provide security and to strengthen the hand of the police and the other Forces as far as such matters are concerned. This Government cannot abdicate its duty to maintain orderly government because the legislation was not received favourably by certain newspapers and politicians. The security of the people of South Africa requires sacrifices from everybody, from the police, the other Forces, the Press, the politicians and the leaders of all the population groups.

†The greatest sacrifices are made by the police, the Defence Force personnel and their families. They have to risk their lives under very difficult internal circumstances …

For someone like you.

… so that the rest of South Africa can five in peace. It is not for someone like me. They risk their lives for all of us, for the whole of South Africa; also for that hon. member.

Does the hon. member not want their protection? [Interjections.]

The police and Defence Force are not dealing with amateurs, but with sophisticated terrorists who are experts in their field. Terrorism has been internationalized to such an extent that it has paralysed some of the strongest countries in the Western world. The aims of the terrorists, the Communists and the Marxists in Africa are centralized around bloodshed and revolution. Terrorism is aimed at Black and White alike. The Bill is aimed at terrorist activity and not at the Press. Why the official Opposition wants to oppose a Bill aimed at terrorism is completely inexplicable.

Under the very difficult circumstances of internationalized terrorism, the police and Defence Force in South Africa have to risk their lives, inside and outside the country, to ensure law and order in South Africa. In the heat of battle and under the extreme pressure that is experienced in incidents like that at Silverton, it is possible that mistakes can be made. Mistakes are made in life even under the most favourable circumstances. It is therefore only human to expect that mistakes will be made under pressure. These policemen who put their lives at stake are entitled to this Bill to assist them in the execution of their duties. If the control of information is required by the police in combating terrorism, why should there be people who are reluctant to get the police the required assistance? We must hear in this debate why there are people in South Africa who are reluctant to give the police the required assistance. There are people in South Africa and beyond our borders who want terrorism to succeed. In South Africa they are in the minority, but they are a vociferous group and there are White people who, either wilfully or out of ignorance, are playing a leading part today.

If I look at this Bill through the eyes of the PFP, I see in it that it refers to police effectiveness and ministerial and Press responsibility against terrorist activities. The PFP, weighing up the situation, believes that the police are wielding too much power, that the Minister is given too much responsibility and that the Press has certain limitations imposed upon it. I think that is a fair summary of the position of the PFP. Against that there is the irrefutable argument that this Bill will help to combat terrorism.

How?

The PFP takes a stand that is totally irreconcilable with the task of an official Opposition. There stand should be to put the shoulder to the wheel in the fight against terrorism. [Interjections.] The PFP has failed to take a stand in favour of the law enforcement agencies in South Africa. Terrorism, Communism and Marxism are combining their forces in Southern Africa to subvert the entire continent. The aims of all three are the same. They seek bloodshed, revolution and power through the barrel of the gun.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member objects to my quoting these things, but that is the truth. Nevertheless, he disagrees with me. Look at the hon. member for Sea Point. He sits there laughing. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sea Point knows full well why he is sitting in the back bench now. He knows why he was executed, so to speak, as Leader of the Opposition last year. [Interjections.] He knows that hon. members of his own party did not even trust him any further. That is the situation and he cannot deny it. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Houghton has made her position perfectly clear. She has the courage of her convictions and she has said it. During last year’s discussion of the Justice Vote she once again confirmed that, despite its disregard for human life, which we could see all over the world, she was prepared to allow the Communist Party to operate in South Africa as long as its operations remained within the limits of the law. It is therefore very understandable, even though it is very regrettable, that the hon. member for Houghton has once again managed to persuade her entire caucus to side with her in this matter. [Interjections.] In view of our very special situation I hoped the members of her caucus will overrule the hon. member for Houghton. It is obvious, however, that they are not able to do so.

Sit down. You are embarrassing the hon. the Minister.

The question each one of us has to put to himself today is: What is it that we are deciding on today? In the first instance we are deciding on the control of information regarding the South African law enforcement machinery employed in the fighting and combating of terrorism. In the second place we are taking a decision against the disclosure of information regarding terrorists who have no respect for limb or life. Thirdly, we are deciding against the disclosure of any action that the law enforcing agencies of South Africa are undertaking against terrorists. Fourthly, lives are at stake, and we are taking a stand to prevent the disclosure of information by which lives may be endangered. Fifthly, we want to prevent the disclosure of any information that may assist the terrorists, and we must on no account be of assistance to them. In the sixth place we are taking a decision that, in spite of the problems I have just mentioned, the hon. the Minister and the Commissioner of Police or their duly authorized agents will be entitled and will be allowed to make statements to the Press. Obviously such statements will be made when it is considered advisable, taking into account, of course, all the relevant circumstances.

Obviously the public have the right to know, but that right to know must only be exercised at a time when it will not endanger lives or assist the terrorists. Unfortunately there is no way of advising the public through the Press without the terrorists getting hold of those very publications. Such statements must be made, taking into account the security situation. That is the matter which the official Opposition refuses to appreciate.

The penal provisions in this Bill provide for a stiff penalty. It should always be remembered, however, that that is the maximum penalty, and that the court has the discretion to impose such penalty as it deems fit under the circumstances. The court will have a totally unfettered discretion.

We have faith in our judiciary to administer this legislation in the same spirit which places our judiciary amongst the finest, if not the finest, in the world. We believe that law and order must be maintained if democracy is to survive, and we cast our lot for the maintenance of law and order. Therefore we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reject immediately the arguments forwarded by the hon. member for Walmer as far as they concern the PFP and hon. members of this party. I want to reject that with the utter contempt that it deserves. [Interjections.] I believe the hon. member for Walmer owes an apology to hon. members of the official Opposition. [Interjections.]

The sooner the hon. member for Walmer and his party take a clear stand and join the ranks of the NP in all its endeavours in this country the better it will be for the electorate of South Africa. I hope he will have an opportunity of doing that. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Walmer went completely emotionally berserk here tonight. He thought he had a wonderful weapon with which to hit the PFP. He misconstrued the contents of the Bill, and in listening to his warped arguments one would think the hon. member is under the impression that we are dealing here with the combating of terrorism, with the riots on the border and with the blood of South Africans that is being spilt. One would think that the only law in South Africa, the only form of protection against terrorism, the only weapon in the hands of the South African Government, was this little Bill before us now.

Yes, that is quite correct.

One would really think so. He just does not know what the laws of South Africa are. He does not have a clue of the idea of fighting terrorism. As a matter of fact, I do not believe he has even read the Steyn Report. [Interjections.]

Initially the Bill overstepped the mark. The hon. the Minister then had to perform an operation in order to eradicate the ills of the Bill. I must point out that he himself elected to perform that operation, but having performed the operation, he left the patient still ill. It is therefore now up to the official Opposition to see that the illness is cured and that it is brought home to South Africa just what we are talking about at this moment.

The hon. member for Umhlanga, when he addressed the House on behalf of the NRP, made the same mistake, because he also went off at a tangent about the loyalty of the party, about fighting terrorism and when talking about Sasol, he asked: Who wants to see this slashed across the newspapers? He should have listened to the radio this morning. Surely, he is somebody who owns a radio. Had he listened, he would have heard Mr. Stegmann telling the country every single word about what had happened in regard to the terrorist attack on Sasol. One can read every single word about this attack in the newspapers. Is South Africa any the worse off because all those things have been published? Why does he not want to see it slashed across the newspapers? He made a mistake when he said that this measure would be the only one available to us. Clearly this indicates that he does not understand the Bill. When he was questioned why section 2 of the Terrorism Act had to be mentioned in clause 1 of the Bill, there was dead silence on his part. When the hon. member for Walmer took part in the debate, we really had nothing more than an apology for being an opposition party in South Africa.

Do you agree with what Helen says about communism?

We on this side of the House value the security of South Africa and the life of South African policemen. We value those things—those are the things we are talking about—as much as any single hon. member of this House. I must put that beyond any dispute. I think I can say with a little amount of personal knowledge that we value the work done by the S.A. Police on the borders of South Africa in fighting terrorism. We value that work very highly. That, however, is not really what we are talking about in the Bill. That is how I understand it and the report of the Steyn Commission. Because the hon. members of the other Opposition parties do not understand the position, their arguments ranged further afield than even the arguments of the hon. members on the Government side. The hon. members of the other Opposition parties misinterpret the findings of the Steyn Commission.

This Bill has nothing to do with terrorism? Well, now I understand!

The hon. member should allow me the opportunity to finish my argument and thereafter he can tell me whether he differs from me. He is perfectly entitled to do so.

The first argument I should like to raise concerns the role of the Newspaper Press Union. When the hon. member for Brakpan referred to the report, he said, “Dit is ’n wetenskaplike verslag.” In actual fact, he went further by saying that it was a particularly scientific report. He placed a lot of importance on that report, just as I do. I intend quoting extensively out of that report to show what importance I place on it when I take the Bill into consideration.

The commission went into the whole relationship with the Newspaper Press Union in so far as the S.A. Defence Force, the S.A. Police and the S.A. Railways Police are concerned. At the bottom of page 101 the commission talks about liaison with the S.A. Police. We are told that an agreement exists between the S.A. Police and the Newspaper Press Union. That agreement was signed on 21 August 1976; in other words, some four years ago. We are told further, apart from stipulations regarding identity cards, etc., provision for which is made in paragraph 8 of the agreement, that the conditions of the agreement must be scrupulously observed, but in a spirit of mutual co-operation. I ask the hon. the Minister whether this Bill is introduced in the spirit of mutual cooperation between the S.A. Police and the Press. In subparagraph c it is stated—

My question to the hon. the Minister is: How far has this liaison committee progressed? Has the hon. the Minister given the police and the NPU a chance to work together to see if they can solve any problems the hon. the Minister may think still exist in so far as the relationship between the Press and the police is concerned at this stage? With this report being as recent as it is, I do not believe, with great respect, that any chance has been given to this liaison committee to work out …

What was that reference again?

I am referring to subparagraph (c) on page 102 of the report. I wanted to bring that to the hon. the Minister’s attention.

Let me now turn to page 113 of the report. Paragraph 176 at the top of that page concerns the opinion of the commission. I quote—

Is one giving them a chance to base their relations on respect and trust if one comes with a Draconian measure such as this? Where is the opportunity for the respect and trust to be built up which the commission recommends? After all, the Government appointed the commission; we did not. This is the “besonder wetenskaplike verslag” we are talking about at the moment.

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

When I am finished, the hon. member can ask his question. I quote further—

The commission speaks of “excessive secrecy”. Now the Press is being muzzled and at the same time this recommendation of the Steyn Commission is being rejected.

I now turn to page 127. On that page in paragraph 231 we find what the commission considers as “a clear communication policy”. I quote—

Where is that clear communication policy for South Africa if the Press is muzzled in terms of this proposed Bill? I read further—

Here we have three directives of the Steyn Commission with regard to the relations between the SAP and the NPU. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister which, if any, of these three recommendations to build up a good relationship with the Press has been heeded in order to attempt to solve the problem we face. What we have before us is something different altogether.

I now come to the root of the problem. Brig. Du Preez testified before the commission, and his submissions appear in paragraph 421 on page 192 of the report. I hope the hon. member for Umhlanga and the hon. member for Walmer will listen to this. Brig. Du Preez testified on behalf of the S.A. Police and his submissions are very important because, based on these submissions, the commission recommended that the section of the Police Act which forms the subject of the entire discussion today be amended.

That is the point.

The hon. member must now listen very carefully because this is the crux of the matter. The brigadier—

1. (i) Strengths of police units mobilized for combating terrorism;
2. (ii) type and nature of training the Police Reserve to combat terrorism;
3. (iii) particulars relating to arms, vehicles, vessels or other aids used by the police during such operations;
4. (iv) particulars in connection with contacts between the police and terrorists;
5. (v) particulars or information concerning the result of any contact or fight with terrorists, such as casualties, injuries, abductions, arrests, attachments or seizure of weapons and other aids.

These are so far all operations which one would think of as taking place on the borders where we are fighting Swapo terrorists. He then goes on to recommend legislation that would prohibit the publication of—

1. (vi) particulars in connection with any planning of other measures being taken or taken in combating terrorism …
2. (viii) particulars concerning the arrest or detention of a suspected terrorist, his accoutrements, equipment or orders;
3. (ix) particulars concerning the nature of any demand made or condition stated by terrorists in negotiations or during a terrorist incident.

The report says further—

On page 193 in subparagraph (c) of paragraph 421 the report says—

We have no quarrel with the fact that the Press should not publish information which would assist terrorists. We would be the last ones in South Africa to stand up and say: “Let the Press publish information which is going to assist terrorism.” Do hon. members think we do not appreciate that information that goes to the enemy and can cause loss of life to South Africans should not be published? Are hon. members suggesting that we would be so stupid and foolish when it might jeopardize the lives of our own families? [Interjections.] I am just trying to show how sterile the arguments are that have been advanced against us.

As a result of the recommendations made by Brig. Du Preez, the commission recommended that a new section 27(c) should be added to the Police Act. A new provision 27(c) was actually drafted and included in the report on page 193. The proposed new provision reads—

1. (1) any information, which can be of use to any person or organization participating in terroristic activities, whether directly or indirectly, relating to the composition, movement or disposition of—
   1. (i) that portion of the Police Force involved in operations for the prevention or suppression of terrorism, or
   2. (ii) any terrorists or terrorist group being the subject of such police operations …
2. (2) any information, whether directly or indirectly, relating to any joint operations with the South African Defence Force and/or the South African Railway Police and conducted for the prevention or suppression of terrorism.

The only similarity there is is that any person convicted of contravening the provisions can be sentenced to a maximum fine of R15 000 or eight years imprisonment or both.

Let us now compare the Bill before the House with this.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Brakpan is a lawyer and, as such, I want to ask him to compare the recommendations of the Steyn Commission on the combating of terrorism with the Bill before the House. Can the hon. member tell me—I will not ask the hon. member for Umhlanga because he has never heard of it—where does section 2 of the Terrorism Act come into this in so far as the recommendations of the Steyn Commission are concerned. It has nothing to do with section 2 of that Act. We are not talking about combating terrorism on the borders of South Africa where troops are fighting. We are not talking about that sort of thing, in respect of which there is ample protection. As stated by the hon. member for Musgrave, we already have sufficient protection under our security laws in so far as this is concerned.

Is it over here or over there?

The hon. member for Umhlanga must listen. On page 189, in paragraph 419, under the heading “The Police Act, 1958”, the report of the Steyn Commission says—

There we have it. Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act covers the situation fully. Why do we have to have all this nonsense about security interests, the spilling of blood in South Africa and all the other emotional tripe that we have heard from hon. members in the debate? [Interjections.]

I now come to section 2(2). Are we simply dealing with that sort of terrorism on the border? Is it the sort of terrorism that the hon. member for Umhlanga, the hon. member for Walmer and other hon. members apparently know about? [Interjections.] We are talking about section 2 of the Terrorism Act, No. 83 of 1967, and I shall quote it to the hon. member because he has not read it yet. By definition a “terrorist” means any person who has committed an offence under section 2 or an act which had or was likely to have had any of the results referred to in section 2(2). I shall not read the whole of section 2 because it is long…

Why not? You promised.

I shall read enough for the hon. member to understand, if it can get through his head. Section 2 reads—

1. (a) with intent to endanger the maintenance of law and order in the Republic or any portion thereof, in the Republic or elsewhere commits any act or attempts to commit, or conspires with any other person to aid or procure the commission of or to commit, or incites, instigates, commands, aids, advises, encourages or procures any other person to commit, any act; or …

I shall leave out (b) for the moment—

So if he has one round of ammunition on him he is a terrorist. This is the sort of law that has to be invoked to muzzle the Press. A person is declared to be a terrorist simply because he possesses one round of ammunition, and if one suspects that he is guilty of terrorism no facts may be published about this. In terms of section 2(2), if in any prosecution for an offence contemplated in subsection (1)(a), to which I have referred, it is proved that the accused committed, aided in or procured the commission of an act with the following results—

he is presumed to have committed the act, but the act may not necessarily relate to terrorism itself. There are many acts endangering a person or causing bodily injury to the person, but they are not necessarily terrorism. Why include section 2(2)? The commission never brought section 2(2) into this. Let us look, for example, at section 2(2)(k) which states—

Therefore if one places one’s vehicle across a highway one is restricting the free flow of traffic and one is a terrorist. Now in terms of this legislation these facts may not be published because the net has now been spread by this definition of a terrorist. The type of terrorist we have in mind is not the type of terrorist that the Government has in mind.

That is for sure.

The sort of terrorist referred to in the legislation is not the sort contemplated in the Terrorism Act. They are talking about terrorists who go about fighting on the borders. They are talking about people who commit terrorism and sabotage, people who blow up places like Sasol or other organizations. That is the sort of terrorism to which they refer.

But that is not on the border.

It is the sort of terrorism that embarrasses the administration of the affairs of the State. Maybe even one of us could embarrass the administration of the affairs of the State—I do not know— but are we terrorists because we embarrass the administration of the affairs of the State? That is why this Bill is so much nonsense. With great respect to the hon. member for Brakpan, the Government has not followed the recommendations of the Steyn Commission. For them to argue that the reason for introducing this legislation is because of the recommendations of the Steyn Commission is making an absolute farce of the case that they have presented here today, because they have destroyed, in their own argument by mutual contradiction, the very thing they are trying to achieve by means of the legislation which is before us today.

There have been acts of terrorism before. Let us go back to the Sasol operation which took place in the early hours of this morning.

Operation?

If this law were already in force, what would the hon. the Minister have done about the act of sabotage which took place at Sasol, apparently as an act of terrorism? Would he want South Africa to know nothing about it at all? Would Mr. Stegmann be muzzled and not be able to make a statement? Would we know nothing about the matter at all? Would we have to listen to overseas radio stations in Great Britain or in America to find out what is happening in South Africa? Or would we have to read The Guardian or The Washington Post to find out what is happening in South Africa? Is that what the hon. the Minister wants to do to the people of South Africa? Is that how he wants us to get the information? What harm is being done to South Africa by Mr. Stegmann’s statement and by the publication of what happened at Sasol last night? [Interjections.] We have a right to know. If terrorist activities of this kind are taking place in South Africa, every citizen has a right to know. Nobody wants terrorism. Everybody will help combat terrorism. People have to take precautions, but they are not being warned to do so because the hon. the Minister is not telling them that acts of sabotage and terrorism are even taking place. One cannot publish that information until the hon. the Minister makes up his mind.

Let us take the Carlton Hotel case of a little while ago. Here we had a couple of people who apparently had a grudge of some kind, from what I can understand. They went to the Carlton Hotel armed with explosives. The one man had explosives tied to his body. He was going to blow up both himself and the Carlton Hotel. In terms of this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will South Africa know nothing about something like that? Because the man was carrying explosives, he would be a terrorist in terms of the proposed new section 2(2) of the Terrorism Act.

None of the media in South Africa, not even SABC-TV would be able to say one single word about what had happened in the Carlton Hotel until permission is granted. What does the hon. the Minister think we are in South Africa? Does he think we are children? Are we to be told what we are allowed to listen to? Is that a type of censorship, the same as that on films and publications? Now he wants to go further. He now does not even want us to know what is happening in South Africa. It is to the hon. the Minister’s detriment and to the detriment of South Africa if we are not told what is happening, because every person in South Africa can assist the country, can assist the police, take precautions, watch out to see that he and his family is not endangered. Now the hon. the Minister wants to muzzle everybody. That is a lot of nonsense.

I want to deal with another effect of this measure. I think that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister know that one cannot hide anything. Someone is going to know. Someone is going to see it. Someone’s family is going to be involved, and somehow or other the story is going to get out. Since the people are going to be muzzled in terms of this Bill when it becomes law, there are going to be stories. Those stories are going to grow into rumours, and the rumours will get worse and worse. Eventually the country will be swept by rumours of what is happening. If one should give a message to one member of the House, but allow it to be passed around before it gets to him, it will not be the message one started with by the time it gets there. It is humanly impossible. Therefore the rumours are going to be spread. What does the hon. the Minister want to do? Is he going to bring about a Bill to stop rumour mongering in South Africa, because rumours are passing around South Africa with regard to sabotage. I now want to ask, with great respect, whether it is not better to come out with the truth immediately. With regard to our liaison with the Press, whose members are responsible people, I am sure they will respect the hon. the Minister’s wishes if he does not want them to publish names. They will not publish the names if that is the case. However, why should South Africa not be told what is happening? The people of South Africa will co-operate. Try them. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give us one single example of the Press having gone so far, in reporting any act of terrorism which I am referring to now, that it endangered the combating of terrorism or the safety of the State in any way. Could the hon. the Minister give us an example?

Must we wait until it happens?

Oh, you admit it has not happened? The hon. member is now seeing spooks in the future. [Interjections.] The argument of the SAP is that it may happen in the future. My argument is that we should be told the truth. The hon. the Minister must not over-react, as he has done in this Bill. He is giving the impression that terrorism is growing. This he is certainly doing by introducing this draconian measure. He is also giving the impression that terrorism is getting out of hand, that he is losing his nerve, that he is losing control and that he is afraid and is panicking. In fact, he is causing alarm, despair and despondency in South Africa. People are turning around and saying: “My word! Look what they are doing here to combat this. It must really be getting out of hand. Even with all the laws they have they cannot even look after the situation.”

I now want to deal with the question of the laws which curb the Press. There are 97 laws which have been passed in order to curb the Press. If this Bill is passed, it will be the 98th law curbing the Press.

Where did you get that from, Alf?

I obtained this information from the Sunday Express. The following laws are some of the laws curbing the Press: the Police Act, the Prisons Act, the Defence Act, the General Law Amendment Act, the Suppression of Communism Act, the Atomic Energy Act, the Artificial Insemination of Animals Act, the Internal Security Act, the Publications and Entertainments Act, the Terrorism Act, the Unlawful Organizations Act, the Hazardous Substances Act and legislation concerning sabotage. [Interjections.]

Order!

These are just some of them.

Exactly 13.

There are 97 altogether. The hon. member for Umhlanga thinks it is a terrific joke.

I just think you are a joke.

He thinks it is a great joke.

No, you are the joke.

The hon. member for Umhlanga is so stupid that he does not even understand what he is talking about.

I just want to make one quotation in respect of the freedom of the Press.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May one hon. member tell another hon. member that he is stupid? [Interjections.]

Sometimes it is obligatory. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon. member’s hon. colleagues should allow him to go through the last minute of his speech in peace.

Mr. Speaker …

Carry on, stupid.

You are stupid. Perhaps I can try to teach this hon. member some wisdom, although I know it is a hopeless case.

Just read your speech from the Sunday Express.

A famous editor said the following, and I want to ask the hon. member for Umhlanga and hon. members on that side of the House whether they agree with this statement—

Who said that?

Does anybody disagree with that?

Who said that?

Does the hon. member disagree with that?

Who said that?

Does no hon. member disagree with that? I do not think they can afford to disagree with that. It was said by the late Dr. Verwoerd … [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, we have watched an amazing performance by the hon. member for Hillbrow here this evening.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Hillbrow began his speech with the statement that he saw the official Opposition’s task in connection with this so-called sick piece of legislation as that of a doctor “who wants to cure the patient”. I can only thank Heaven that we do not need the services of such a doctor. One need only look at the ridiculous argument the hon. member advanced about the events at Sasol. He asked the hon. the Minister …

Answer the question now.

… whether we would have heard nothing about it … Surely it is clear that the hon. member has not yet read the envisaged section 27(c)(2) of the Bill. It is expressedly stated in paragraph (b) that the Minister, the Commissioner or a person authorized thereto by them may provide information to the Press and the media. He now advances the ridiculous argument that we would have known nothing about the events at Sasol if this Bill was already law. The worst was what he said about what a terrorist is. After quoting from the report of the Steyn Commission with regard to the representations submitted by Brigadier Du Preez, he belittled it by saying that it had nothing to do with the terrorists in our midst. He asked what we had to do with Swapo and the terrorists on our borders. Can he really be so far removed from reality? Is the hon. member, then, unaware that there are already terrorists in our midst and in our cities? Are the events in Booysens, Silverton and Sasolburg not sufficient evidence for him? [Interjections.] Surely the hon. member is living in a daze. Since he referred to the submissions by Brig. Du Preez I want to put a few questions to the hon. member. Does he agree with the Brigadier who gave evidence before the Commission and requested the Commission to recommend legislation prohibiting publication of the following information relating to police activities during operations against terrorists? The hon. member quoted from the Steyn report and I do not want to repeat everything. Does he agree that there should be a prohibition on the publication of, as it is put in paragraph 421(a) of the Steyn report—

1. (iv) particulars in connection with contacts between the police and terrorists;
2. (v) particulars or information concerning the result of any contact or fights with terrorists, such as casualties, injuries, abductions, arrests, attachments or seizure of weapons and other aids; …
3. (vii) particulars concerning the movement of police units or individuals, bases for the combating of terrorism; …

I agree.

Surely that proves that the hon. member did not know what he was talking about when he spoke just now. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is pointless the hon. member coming forward with all kinds of clever statements. I want to quote to him two basic findings of the Steyn Commission on which the legislation before us is based. Does the hon. member agree with this or not? The Commission, not Brigadier Du Preez, found in paragraph 421b—

Do you agree with that, Alf?

Read paragraph 419. [Interjections.]

Let me again give the hon. member a brief summary of what the Commission says: It is a reasonable test to expect that no information that could be of value to the enemy may be published. Surely that is what we envisage in this legislation. Now the hon. member does not wish to reply. [Interjections.]

I want to refer the hon. member to another basic finding of the Commission and in this regard I refer to paragraph 422b—

that is, the Commission—

Then the Commission goes on to make the following significant statement—

Does the hon. member for Hillbrow agree with this? [Interjections.]

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

Yes, certainly. [Interjections.] Never mind, I shall explain it to the hon. member yet again. The Commission itself states that it expects a systematic increase in terrorist activities in South Africa. The Commission also foresees that in such a case the Police and the Defence Force will act jointly. The Commission accordingly concludes that it is logical that what applies to the Defence Force will also apply to the police. Now the hon. member for Hillbrow surely knows what section 118 of the Defence Act provides. Section 118 of the Defence Act, to which his party, incidentally, raised no objections, contains provisions identical to those in the Bill under discussion. If, therefore, one wants to be logical as the Commission argues, one must necessarily concede that the police and the Defence Force must be treated equally.

However I now wish to leave the hon. member for Hillbrow at that. The hon. member for Green Point also tried to make a speech here this evening.

A non-speech. [Interjections.]

He ought to withdraw his entire speech. [Interjections.]

Actually the hon. member provided a good summary of his speech, indeed, of his whole tirade, when towards the end of his speech he said: “I myself do not understand what this Bill is about.” [Interjections.] The hon. member for Green Point is so far removed from reality that one can only really pity him and ask him: Are you, too, a stranger in Jerusalem? He does not seem to have any idea about what is going on in this country. [Interjections.]

Order!

However, one of the most shocking speeches I have ever heard in this House was made this evening by the hon. member for Musgrave. I regret that he is not present in the House at the moment. [Interjections.]

Of course I am here. Look again.

No, he is just hiding in someone else’s bench.

He is standing in for Japie. [Interjections.]

He is cherishing all kinds of aspirations again. [Interjections.]

Never mind, I have now seen where the hon. member is hiding. Instead of confining himself to the specific circumstances to which the Bill expressly refers, namely the combating of terrorism, the hon. member for Musgrave made a wide-ranging attack on the Government in general terms. What did the hon. member really say? According to him this Bill is typical of the NP Government.

Of course that is not the first time that is so.

I want to put it to the hon. member for Johannesburg North that his party’s reaction to this bill this evening is indeed typical of the attitude of the official Opposition to measures promoting the security of the country.

Now the hon. judge probably wants to make a drama out of that as well. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House have already given up all hope of ever expecting co-operation, or even positive criticism from the official Opposition in connection with matters of this nature. Just listen to the unbridled language used here this evening by the hon. member for Musgrave. He states, inter alia: “The Bill gives the police the all-embracing power to gag the Press.” Apparently the hon. member did not read section 2 of the Bill, because if he had done so, he would have seen that it does not amount to gagging of the Press …

What is the number of the clause in question?

… because the Minister and the Commissioner of Police are specifically given the power to release information to the media. However the hon. member went further by saying: “The provisions of the Bill are contorted and horrific.” However, that was not the comment of his party to section 118 of the Defence Act when it was amended in 1967. The hon. member for Brakpan pointed that out very effectively to the hon. member for Musgrave.

But that was before the rinderpest.

I should prefer not to comment on that interjection. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Musgrave went on to say: “The Minister is setting himself up as a super-censor to decide what the public should know about police activity.” However, why does he not add to that: “Police activities for the prevention or combatting of terroristic activities”? No, he refrains from mentioning that. He simply refers in general to “police activities” and states: “The Minister shall decide what the public generally shall know about police activities.”

As the hon. member for Brakpan and other hon. members have already indicated, the hon. member for Musgrave is quoted in the foreign press, and he must now indicate whether he realizes that his speech in the highest Chamber of the land this evening simply provides our enemies with ammunition of the calibre they are seeking …

That is what was intended.

… because after all, it is our enemies who say that we are living in a police state and do not have Press freedom in this country. Surely it is our enemies who say that we have horrific laws in the country. Our enemies also say that we have oppressive laws. In compiling the next anti-South African propaganda documents of the world Council of Churches, the UN, the OAU and similar organizations, the office-bearers of those organizations will be very pleased to use this speech of the hon. member for Musgrave. The statements made by the hon. member this evening will be quoted by them and dished up in support of their own hostile calumniation of our country. I think the hon. member ought to be ashamed of the irresponsible statements he has made this evening.

By no means.

Moreover he attacked the hon. the Minister personally by saying: “The Minister has the colossal impertinence to deprive the public of their democratic right to know.” He concludes by saying “The official Opposition finds the Bill totally objectionable.” I want to say to him—and I shall leave him at that—that we find his speech on the Bill “totally objectionable”.

We heard from various quarters on the other side of the House this evening about the terribly democratic principles that now have to be maintained in this House. They say that the public has the democratic right to know and the Press has the democratic right to inform.

The terrorists must also know.

Yes.

They will know about us while we will not know about them.

Let us take a closer look at this kind of argument. I want to begin by saying that there is probably no one in this House this evening who does not subscribe to and wish to preserve democracy and the principles of democracy. However I want to warn immediately that we must not walk around with “democracy” pinned to our sleeves without giving due consideration to the aim of democracy. It will be of little use to South Africa to watch over and protect the democratic principles in our system of government with zeal and dedication while the same system of government is being systematically undermined and subverted by our enemies, enemies who indeed perhaps rely on our keeping strictly to democratic principles.

Now I want to ask the Government’s critics whether it is not an aim of democracy that the existing system of Government be maintained. Is it not, then, an aim of democracy that the security of the State should be the highest duty of the Government and of every citizen of the country? Is it not, then, an aim of democracy that public order within the context of the State should be maintained at all times? Surely these are aims of democracy. Just like any other aim, such as the freedom of the Press and the freedom of speech, it is also an aim of democracy that order be maintained and the State secured.

However, what have we been faced with in South Africa in recent years? I think the hon. member for Walmer pointed out very effectively that we are dealing with a well-planned, well-organized and carefully calculated onslaught on our country, the final objective of which is the collapse of our State as we know it today. It is no use us telling our enemies: “Yes, but you are acting undemocratically: We are the great democrats.” We must have the means and the instruments successfully to avert and neutralize the onslaught of these diabolical powers that are operating against us.

What instruments do we have? One of those instruments is our Police Force. I do not want to refer again to the report of the Steyn Commission, but as I indicated, the Steyn Commission envisaged that the threat against us would probably escalate in the future. Because this is so we must arm our police spiritually and morally with regard to these matters we are debating this evening, in such a way that the State will be able to do its duty properly in maintaining State security. This is exactly what we envisage by way of this measure. The Bill before us introduces order into the publication of this type of information. It does not place a total prohibition on the publication of information but it does introduce order into its publication.

Mr. Speaker, like other members on my side of the House I have not the slightest hesitation in giving my full and total support to this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate in the House tonight with a sense of considerable disappointment, because we are at a very important stage of our country’s history when the security of our country is very much at issue. Last night we had probably the most serious terrorist attack we have ever had in the history of South Africa, in terms of property destroyed. We have recently, over a period of time, had manifestations of this sort of activity on a scale which South Africa has not seen to any extent in the past. I may say that I consider the way that hon. members on the other side of the House, including hon. members of the other two Opposition parties, have dealt with this Bill, has been a great disappointment indeed. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. the Minister that Government members generally have tried to defend the Bill as it appears before us. I cannot say the same for hon. members of the other two Opposition parties. They spoke in irrelevancies. They did not speak about anything which had to do with the Bill, and certain hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Umhlanga, had not even read the provisions of the Terrorism Act which …

That is not true.

Well, it obviously has not stuck in his mind, because he appeared to be completely ignorant of what he was talking about.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

In looking at the legislation itself, I think one has to try to establish what exactly the issue is between the Bill the hon. the Minister has introduced and our attitude towards it. Firstly, we must establish the ground, and the ground is that none of us are in favour of terrorism, none of us want to see our country damaged, none of us want to see our property destroyed or the lives of our people placed in jeopardy at all. We all love our country. We have this as common ground.

You want a communist régime.

I do not want a communist regime at all, and the hon. the Minister knows it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister permitted to say that I want a communist regime in this country? [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon. the Minister say?

Mr. Speaker, I said the hon. member for Groote Schuur wanted a communist regime in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. the Minister should have descended to that level. I was trying to introduce a serious note into this debate on a matter which I believe needs to be handled very seriously, because we are talking about the preservation of the democratic system in South Africa. We are talking about democracy. I can say to the hon. the Minister, and he knows it, that there is not a solitary member in the official Opposition who wants to have anything to do with communism.

Last year during the Justice Vote the hon. member for Houghton said she wanted the Communist Party to operate in South Africa.

The hon. member knows perfectly well she does not want the Communist Party to operate in South Africa.

In column 542 of the Hansard of the Standing Committee Debates she said she wanted the Communist Party to operate in South Africa.

She did not say that, and the hon. member knows it.

It is in column 542 of Hansard. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to my argument. We are talking about this piece of legislation in the light of a very serious situation in South Africa, and one asks oneself how is this legislation going to help democracy. How are we going to preserve the democratic system, the Western way of life, in South Africa with legislation like this? I am not going to call hon. members on the other side of the House communists, fascists, Nazis or anything of the sort, but want to proffer a very solemn warning to them, and that is they must not use the weapons of totalitarianism to defeat it. They must not behave like that to defeat them. We have pride in our system. We believe the democratic system is the system which is going to survive in this world, and we believe that its innate strength is freedom, freedom to operate in that system.

The freedom to terrorize.

It is not the freedom to terrorize at all. That is not the issue. What we are talking about is whether or not the Press should have the right to publish certain matters. That is all.

Like what?

To publish matters which might affect the security of the State. That is not what the Bill in fact says. [Interjections.] It becomes very, very difficult indeed to try to conduct any sort of intelligent debate with hon. members on that side of the House because they are not prepared to listen, but I shall continue and try to do my best. I hope that some of the words that I am saying are getting through to the hon. the Minister who, I must say, has listened with considerable courtesy for the most part; not always, but for the most part. [Interjections.]

Firstly, I want to deal with the question of comments made by this side of the House about this piece of legislation when it was published. Hon. members on that side of the House have said that hon. members on this side of the House have done South Africa a disservice by commenting on the legislation.

Yes.

But it is not those comments that have been embarrassing to South Africa; it is the legislation itself that is embarrassing to South Africa, because there is no way in which in any democratic country or to any democratic reader of a newspaper this legislation can be defended in democratic terms. There is no doubt at all that it is totalitarian legislation. That is the embarrassing thing to South Africa overseas. That is where the damage is done to South Africa’s name overseas. It lies in the fact that this legislation should even appear on the Order Paper. That is bad enough, but what is much worse is the appearance of the Bill in its original form. When it appeared— and perhaps the hon. the Minister will be able to put us right on this—it seemed as if the hon. the Minister did not really understand the provisions of his own Bill at that stage. [Interjections.] Perhaps he will tell us differently.

Do not be childish; just carry on.

A lot of play has been made by hon. members on that side of the House about the proposed section 27C(2) which gives the Minister the right to release certain information when he sees fit. I should now like to put a serious question to the hon. the Minister because we would like an answer to this. What sort of system does he envisage is going to operate to enable publication of innocuous matters? The Bill is couched in such broad terms that many innocuous matters will inevitably fall within its ambit. If this Bill is passed, the hon. the Minister will have the power to say that he does give his permission and that these matters may be published.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether any terroristic activities can be considered as innocuous matters?

That brings us back to the definition of terrorism. I must tell that hon. member, because he is a fairly new member in the House and sits in the back benches, that perhaps he should read some of the legislation on the Statute Book. He must also read some of the comments made by hon. Ministers when that legislation was introduced. They said they had to introduce it in very general, all-embracing terms so that nothing would slip through the net. Therefore, if I am to answer that question, let me say that as regards true terroristic activities as outlined in paragraph 421 of the report which relates to the evidence of the police brigadier, we want nothing to do with that, we do not want that sort of thing to be published. It is quite right that there should be restrictions against the publication of that sort of thing. But this Bill does not say that, and this is what we are quarrelling about. We are not at odds on those points at all. What we are at odds about is the ambit of the Bill, exactly how broad the Bill spreads. We already have the situation that newspapers in South Africa may not publish certain information. In terms of the legislation which is already on the Statute Book—and I am talking about the Terrorism Act of 1967—if I should punch the hon. the Minister on the nose, outside this House of course, I could be classified as a terrorist.

Or as a brave man.

On that basis, without the permission of the hon. the Minister that fact could not be published in a newspaper. [Interjections.]

You would not dare, because I would hit you back.

He might hit back, but I tend to think that it would damage his image if he did. I think that that hon. Minister is trying to become the Ronald Reagan of South African politics, and that would therefore not be the right thing for him as an hon. Minister to do. Perhaps we more rough and ready politicians might descend to that sort of thing, but not the hon. the Minister.

I very sincerely ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this Bill in toto. I believe it is going to do damage to the cause of democracy in South Africa. I do not believe the police need the protection that is envisaged in the Bill. I should also like to quote the paragraph which the hon. member for Hillbrow has quoted and which I think is a very important one, viz. paragraph 419—

I should like the hon. the Minister to react to that paragraph specifically. I believe that there is already legislation on the Statute Book which gives the police the protection envisaged in this Bill. The hon. the Minister should give us an answer in respect of paragraph 419, which I think is a very important paragraph. We do not believe that this Bill is necessary. We believe that that protection is already contained in legislation on the Statute Book. However, perhaps the hon. the Minister has something else in mind in introducing this Bill. Perhaps he was upset about the Silverton operation. I must tell the hon. the Minister that there was a great deal in that operation of which South Africa can be proud. I thought it was a very fine thing that in South Africa we could read about the very brave deeds of some of our policemen who did a very fine job indeed.

[Inaudible.]

What is the problem? I want to ask the hon. the Minister. Not a word can be published about an escapade like the Silverton escapade until such time as he has given his permission, that is in terms of the legislation before us. Firstly I should like to know what machinery the hon. the Minister is going to set up to enable the newspapers to be fed information they can publish. Are newspapers going to submit requests to a particular bureau operating night and day, as it would have to as far as the Press is concerned? If the Press is to be relevant at all, it has to publish up to the minute news. Are there going to be people who will be delegated by the hon. the Minister and who will be available 24 hours a day to say “yes” or “no” to requests to publish information of this nature? One must realize just how broad the field is that this information covers. As I have said flippantly, it could involve somebody punching somebody else on the nose. In terms of the provisions of the Terrorism Act of 1967 one is a terrorist if one embarrasses the administration of the affairs of the State. Well, I would say that perhaps the affairs of the State are a little embarrassed by things like the bus boycott, but I do not equate that with terrorism.

Do not read subsection (2) out of context.

I shall read it in toto.

You are doing this House a serious disfavour.

No, not at all. The hon. the Minister must admit that that is very broad indeed. Section 2(2) of the Terrorism Act reads as follows—

The subsection nominates a series of possible offences.

Have you read subsection (1)?

Yes, I have read it.

Do not quote out of context.

Now the hon. the Minister says that I must not quote it out of context. Does he want me to read the whole Act?

[Inaudible.]

Yes. Section 2(2)(1) reads as follows—

Perhaps I am reading it out of context, because I cannot quote the whole Act. It is a long Act and it would take all night to do so. I do not have time for that.

What are the hon. the Minister’s intentions? How is he going to arrange for the release of information for publication by the Press? It is interesting to note that the Press, the radio and magazines are involved, but not television. I wonder whether there is any particular significance in this.

Television is included under the term “radio”.

It is interesting to hear from the hon. the Minister that television is actually included.