laid upon the Table:

1. (1) National Education Policy Amendment Bill (House of Assembly) [B 102—86 (HA)]—(Minister of Education and Culture).
2. (2) Certificate by the State President in terms of section 31 of the Constitution, 1983, that the Bill deals with matters which are own affairs of the House of Assembly.

on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Education and Development Aid, dated 10 June 1986, as follows:

Your Committee was of the opinion that the Bill be proceeded with, and it reports accordingly.

Report to be considered.

as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning, dated 11 June 1986, as follows:

The Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning having considered the subject of the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Amendment Bill [B 93—86 (GA)], referred to it, your Committee begs to report the Bill with amendments [B 93a—86 (GA)].

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House are going to vote against this report from the Standing Committee on Law and Order. The report covers the consideration of two Bills, namely the Public Safety Amendment Bill and the Internal Security Amendment Bill. The reasons why we are voting against this report are, inter alia, that we do not accept the recommendation of the majority of the members of the standing select committee of the House of Assembly. They came to the conclusion that the Bill should be proceeded with, and the standing select committee recommended accordingly.

We on this side of the House, however, do not wish these Bills to be proceeded with, and we reject this report. I would like to point out that it is our impression that the report, though it may well have been framed in terms of the standing rules of the standing committee, gives an incorrect impression because of the manner in which it has been framed. This is not a reflection on any official but I have no doubt that in framing this report he had the co-operation of the chairman of the standing committee who throughout our deliberations certainly treated every member of that committee in a very courteous fashion, and I pay tribute to him for that. However, the manner in which this report is framed gives the impression that the opinion of the House of Assembly representatives was unanimous. That was not so! Both the hon member for Green Point and I who were the representatives of the PFP on that committee voted against the report that the Bills be proceeded with. We voted against the desirability of the Bills and therefore we did not wish the Bills to be proceeded with. The hon member representing the NRP, if I remember correctly, abstained from voting on that particular resolution. When this report therefore implies that the entire committee was of the opinion that the Bills be proceeded with and it recommends accordingly and is signed by the chairman of the committee, it is in fact not true at all.

I want to point out that there were many amendments which were submitted to the standing committee. The vast majority of these were in the name of members of the PFP—the hon member for Green Point and myself. There were some amendments of ours which were taken over by the hon member for Eldorado Park who is a member of the House of Representatives. One or two appeared in the name of the hon the Minister himself and one or two in the name of the hon member of the NRP.

Those amendments were only discussed informally; they were never put formally to the committee. We had no opportunity of registering our rejection or approval of those amendments. I consider that to be a totally illogical way in which to handle the standing committee. It seems to me absurd that the committee was asked to vote on the desirability of the Bills before the committee had rejected or approved very important amendments which had been discussed and put to the committee informally only.

The report of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates—it is a joint report on both Bills together—makes it very clear that had they had the opportunity of having those amendments considered formally by the standing committee they may even—had their important amendments been accepted—been able to consider the Bills themselves. They would not then have voted against their desirability. I want to quote from the report itself:

That is quite correct. They also voted against the desirability together with the hon members of the PFP. I forgot to mention that the hon member for the CP, Mr Theunissen, voted in favour. [Interjections.] We expected that. The report of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates goes on to say:

Where is the logic in that sort of procedure? It may well be laid down in the Standing Rules—I do not know—but Standing Rules do not come down from the Mount. They can be changed if they are shown to be absurd. It is my contention that it is an absurdity to expect a committee to vote on the desirability of Bills before amendments have been rejected or accepted.

Some of the amendments were extremely important. The most important I would say is one that stands in the name of the hon the Minister of Law and Order as well as my own name. I put it on the Order Paper first and the hon the Minister grabbed it! [Interjections.] Be that as it may, I would have been delighted if the hon the Minister had asked the NP members on the standing committee to move that amendment and have it accepted, because it is to my mind probably the most important of the proposed amendments. It would have done away with the proposed new section 5B which excludes entirely any appeal to the courts and eliminates the power of the courts to intervene.

The hon the Minister said he would accept the removal of that proposed measure. I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether he is going to allow the House to go into Committee on this Bill so that we can discuss that and various other very important amendments which the hon member for Green Point and I had proposed and which we very badly wanted debated and accepted by the standing committee. Very briefly, these amendments concern restrictions on the hon the Minister’s power to frame regulations allowing him to grant indemnity to the Police and other officials—something he told us he intended to do. They also concern the media, restrictions on the holding of gatherings and other related matters.

So that I can save myself the trouble of preparing a speech asking for a Committee Stage, will the hon the Minister tell us whether he is going to move the important amendments which are still printed in his name on the Order Paper, and whether he is going to grant this House the right of a Committee Stage on the Bill so that we can discuss these amendments.

We reject the report as it stands because it does not reflect what actually happened in the standing committee and gives the incorrect impression that it was unanimously accepted that the Bills should be proceeded with. The report of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates also gives the impression that all the amendments on the Order Paper were theirs, and that is not true either. The vast majority originated in the PFP. That is not so important, but I would like the true facts placed on the record.

Mr Speaker, I found it very noticeable—I almost want to say amusing—that before the commencement of the debate on this legislation, the PFP had to get up and place a motion of no confidence in the hon the Minister of Law and Order on the Order Paper. [Interjections.]

Absolutely.

I want to tell the hon the Minister, as we said here from the benches, that he will have our complete support. [Interjections.] He need not be afraid of that motion.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the subject matter of the hon member for Berea’s motion now open for discussion, or is it tomorrow? Is there not a rule of anticipation?

Order! So there is, and I will stop the hon member if necessary.

In my opinion this is very relevant since we are dealing with a matter which affects the whole task and work of the hon the Minister of Law and Order very closely.

Order! Yes, but the hon member can discuss the motion when it comes up for discussion.

The CP wants to support the motion of the hon member for Krugersdorp wholeheartedly, because this hon chairman went out of his way for days to try to obtain consensus among the various parties. It was very clear to anyone involved in those discussions, however, that the PFP had no interest even in the desirability of this legislation and least of all in its objectives. That is why one understands that the PFP’s representatives opposed the two pieces of legislation we had to deal with, from the beginning.

It is true that the PFP’s proposed amendments were aimed exclusively at making the task of the SA Police more difficult. I do not doubt that in the slightest. Those amendments were very long. The speech made here by the hon member for Green Point really made me feel at one stage like saying what a former colleague of mine once said in the magistrate’s court: “Your Worship, with respect, the law be damned! Let us talk sense!” We just never reached the stage at which I could feel the PFP wanted to make any meaningful contribution to the debate. As far as the Conservative Party is concerned, it voted for the approval of the report as submitted by the hon member for Krugersdorp. We are convinced of the necessity and desirability of dealing with these two pieces of legislation which the report is about in this House as quickly as possible.

We are in favour of amending the Public Safety Act and the Internal Security Act in such a way that the hon the Minister can appoint certain areas as unrest areas in certain circumstances. In addition we are in favour of the extension of the detention powers of the hon the Minister and the SA Police in certain circumstances. The obvious example of a case in which the authority that is being requested could be used effectively, is that of the Crossroads area and the KTC squatters’ camp. If ever there was an area in which public disturbance, disorder, unrest and violence have run riot, it is Crossroads.

Is it not ironic, however, that the hon the Minister of Law and Order has to struggle now to get legislation onto the Statute Book in order to take effective action in a certain area? Is it not ironic that this is happening in an area such as Crossroads, which came about because of the slackness and lack of action by a former colleague of this hon Minister—Dr Piet Koornhof?

The fact that the Government is dramatically being prevented today from getting this extremely essential legislation onto the Statute Book as quickly as possible, is a fine example of how this Frankenstein Monster of a tricameral system is paralysing our country in times of crisis. The NP’s illusions of rest, peace, law and order which were to follow upon the NP’s new dispensation, have been shattered. The contrary has materialised. There is disorder and chaos not only in Crossroads, but also in many sections of our country.

What we are experiencing today is a classic example of a Government in confusion, a Government which has become powerless and is in fact sitting here without a mandate to continue to govern this country. These things we are experiencing today have been made possible by a Minister whose hands have been tied by a new dispensation. We have to follow this extraordinary procedure, as it were, in order to establish imperative mechanisms and machinery to assist the hon the Minister of Law and Order in his task.

Mr Speaker, we will be voting against this report. The reason for that is very simple, namely that in our opinion the Government is unable even to use the mechanisms in the Constitution of its own making. They failed even to use the tricameral system to achieve consensus in a situation where, when the Bill was returned to the standing committee, had they not decided to ram this Bill through, they might well have done so in the other two Houses. In our opinion this was just an exercise in that the Government had made up its mind to proceed with this Bill once the other two Houses had decided to use their constitutional rights and to return the Bill to the standing committee. The whole effort of recommitting it was therefore a futile one by virtue of a decision that had already been taken. The constitutional safeguards embodied in it were not used, and it will be on that basis that the tricameral system will fail, and not on the basis as suggested by my friend the hon member Mr Theunissen. It requires a measure of give and take and it requires an attitude towards a new democracy which is unfolding and which will unfold further in the years to come.

It is folding up! [Interjections.]

The Government must in fact be seen to be concerned about the general attitude towards matters of this nature in order to obtain support. I would go so far as to say that if the Government had made the necessary consensus-seeking move towards the other two Houses, it could in fact have had the Bills accepted there, not necessarily in the terms which they had envisaged but certainly, having first attained that consensus, they could then have gone back to those Houses with a very clear-cut case as to the adequacy of those terms and sought further amendments with their support. We will not be supporting this report.

This is true local option! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, to begin with I should like to thank those hon members who addressed kind words to me. This did not happen often in the consideration of these measures.

There are two issues as far as the consideration of this report is concerned. The first is the procedure followed in the committee concerning the possibilities that exist for such procedures as set out in the Standing Rules and Orders. The second is the substance of the measures under consideration.

In respect of the first point, I should once again like to thank the Parliamentary staff sincerely for the very capable way in which they assisted the committee and served as this committee’s secretariat. In my opinion it would be only fair, since we were really testing these rules for the first time and I myself had a part in it, to admit that this required one also to read the fine print of the rules. In addition it was often necessary to consult more than one staff member of Parliament about this. Those gentlemen were always only too pleased to support us and assist us by word and deed.

I want to refute the impression which has just been created by the hon member for King William’s Town, and thank all the members of the standing committee without exception for the good atmosphere and spirit that prevailed in the standing committee. I think it would be rather unfair if the impression that will be created when we discuss the substance of the Bills as such in a while, when we seize one another by the lapels and work harshly with one another, is spread abroad without mentioning that the committee members were very serious about seeing eye to eye and understanding one another’s standpoints in the meeting halls and on the committee. I think it is only right to thank each committee member for that.

The minutes placed before us here, are a correct rendition of what took place in the committee. The hon member for Houghton conceded that, but her argument was that the minutes were not complete. The fact of the matter is that the rules and orders and this mechanism are geared to people’s understanding one another’s standpoints and seeking agreement. This was done—for hours, days and nights, in committee rooms in which minutes are not kept. What happens formally in some or other stage and in any parliamentary system and what one devises behind closed doors, must be able to withstand the test of daylight. In respect of the activities of this committee, this had to happen on two occasions. I am referring to the work done in respect of the previous reports as well as the present report of the standing committee.

The hour of truth came at a given moment when the question about the desirability of the measures had to be put. On that occasion it was clear that hon members of the other Houses would not support the measures. It is correct, as the hon member for Houghton indicated, that she, another hon member of the PFP and an hon member of the NRP could not vote in favour of this either. The fact is, however, that the minutes of those proceedings are an official document. For the sake of the annals and history I merely want to say it will emerge clearly from the minutes how individuals of that committee voted when the question was put, but the minutes do not make up part of this document.

Not in the report.

The hon member for Houghton is correct, because she and a number of other hon members put a series of amendments. Those amendments were thrashed out in the finest detail and with the utmost patience. I thank her for being so kind as to say that I tried to oblige hon members and to accommodate their standpoints. If one has taken a stand, however, and it has appeared from the amendments that no clauses of the Bills would remain if all the amendments were agreed to, one would have no legislation to report back on. [Interjections.]

What is more, if one were to vote against the principle of the legislation, I find it difficult to see how one could accommodate amendments consistently.

Mr Speaker, could the hon member please tell us whether his party will agree to a Committee Stage on this Bill.

That is the important thing.

Mr Speaker, I am not the Minister dealing with the legislation; I am merely dealing with the report. Therefore I hold no brief to answer the hon member on that question. My brief relates to the standing committee and I find it completely unacceptable that hon members are now trying to distract me from my argument. [Interjections.]

*I want to make it very clear that, with all respect, it is my conviction that hon members of this House do not understand the rules of Parliament. We have to operate within the framework of the rules. I am not implying that I know the rules, but they are focused on giving three independent components of Parliament the opportunity to participate.

That is why three reports are made, and it is the right of the chairman of the standing select committee of the House of Representatives to submit a different report. I regard it as no less than right, however, to draw the attention of this House courteously to his report.

I refer hon members specifically to page 6 of the report. The chairman of the committee points out there that if the amendments put had been found to be acceptable, the relevant legislation could have been considered. Hon members must note that he did not say we would agree to the desirability of the legislation if the amendments were agreed to, but that the relevant legislation could have been considered. There is a cardinal difference between “agree to” and “consider”. With respect I suggest that we try to accommodate one another as fairly as possible.

The impression the hon member for King William’s Town created, was an unfair impression. I want to tell hon members why.

Interjections.] In this Parliament the NP is part of a tricameral parliamentary system. Therefore that hon member is part of one component of this Parliament. I also point out with respect that that hon member did not take full sitting on the committee. The hon member for Durban Point and I did not always …

Stop that nonsense.

No, what I am trying to say is …

There were two standing committees sitting at the same time, so stop that nonsense.

I am not fighting with him. The hon member for Umhlanga must just listen. [Interjections.] I am simply trying to explain that there was a difference of opinion and I tried to accommodate the hon member for Durban Point when he was present. The deliberation upon these Bills was a long, drawn-out process during which we tried to reach and accommodate each other. That is the only point I am making. I am trying to say, in other words, that I tried to extend the same courtesy to that hon member as to the other hon members.

The fact of the matter is that one cannot come into a standing committee meeting at a later stage and expect to grasp the spirit or essence of deliberations that have been carried on over a few weeks. [Interjections.] I maintain that we did our best to accommodate the hon member.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Second Reading of this Bill was passed in the House of Assembly on 4 June 1986, but was again considered by the Standing Committee on Law and Order after the acceptance of amendments in both the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives to the effect that the Bill be referred back to the standing committee. The standing committee reconsidered the Bill but could not reach consensus in regard to its desirability.

The circumstances which gave rise to the Bill and the underlying motivation were dealt with in the speech delivered in the House of Assembly on 2 June 1986 and tabled and debated in each of the other Houses. That speech has been published in Hansard, and it would be mere duplication to deliver it here once more.

That is all I want to say about that, except for the fact that I withdraw the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper. The Bill is therefore before us for reconsideration in its unrevised form.

Mr Speaker, that is one way, of course, of having a debate in the House of Assembly, but I think it shows utter contempt for this House …

Hear, hear!

… that the hon the Minister does not have the courtesy to use any arguments to motivate the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not think it matters at all that the Bill has been debated before. I think the hon the Minister is in duty bound to put his arguments to this House before he expects Parliament to vote on the Second Reading of this Bill. [Interjections.] It is absolute impertinence.

One question which the hon the Minister might at least have answered before he sat down was the very pertinent question that I put to him during the discussion on the report which came from the standing committee. The question I asked was whether it was the hon the Minister’s intention to allow this House to go into Committee after the Second Reading so that we may consider the amendments which, although discussed informally in some detail in the standing committee, were never put as formal resolutions to the members of the standing committee. I think hon members of this House at least are entitled to go into Committee in order to consider the very important amendments which were advanced during the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Law and Order. The hon the Minister simply sits there, Sir, looking down at his notes. He gives no indication as to whether or not he is going to allow a Committee Stage on this Bill to be taken.

Speak up, Louis!

Speak up! The hon the Minister is not generally so quiet.

You are addressing the House now.

The hon the Minister has never before been deterred from interjecting when somebody else has had the floor of the House! On this occasion, however, when I ask him something he does not breathe a word. He need only nod or shake his head. Or does he think it is likely to fall off? [Interjections.] Anyway, Sir, we in this party will of course move that the House go into Committee. We will then see what happens. [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon the Minister has not even bothered to advance the same arguments he used when he introduced this Bill at Second Reading the previous time. I am going to advance arguments, and I am making no excuse for the fact that I am using some, if not all, of the same arguments that I used when we debated this Bill last week. There might be hon members here who did not hear those arguments. There might be those who did not understand those arguments, as the hon member for Yeoville says. There might also be hon members who did not even bother to listen the previous time. Therefore, Sir, one way or the other, we are going to take full advantage of the opportunity of once again advancing arguments against a measure which we feel is going to heap further opprobrium on South Africa, which is going to take us even further away from the rule of law and even further away from the due process of law—all of which, I might say, weighs very heavily with countries overseas when passing judgment on this country.

We want also to point out that the timing of this measure is singularly bad, that it has come at a moment when South Africa is under scrutiny by the whole of the Commonwealth, the Eminent Persons Group and the American Congress. It also comes at a time when at least the reforms which the Government is introducing by way of the abolition of the pass laws should be having an impact on the rest of the world. The Government, however, does not care what the rest of the world thinks. The Government does not care that the economy is sinking daily. The Government does not care that the rand is at its lowest value. None of these things weighs with the Government. The only thing that weighs with the Government is staying in power and maintaining its position of domination. That is all that weighs with the Government.

It is interesting, Sir, that not even in the Public Safety Amendment Bill is there any stipulation to the effect that this legislation is being introduced in order to protect the safety of the public—a matter pointed out in their memorandum by the Law Society.

Let me get back now to my arguments on this measure, however. We are—I must immediately say—going to move the same amendment now which we moved during the previous Second Reading debate on this Bill, viz that the Bill be read this day six months, which is the strongest form of parliamentary opposition. As I mentioned earlier, no amendments were accepted or even put to the vote during the deliberations of the standing committee, and the hon the Minister does not seem inclined to tell us whether he intends to keep to the bargain which he made when he discussed these matters with the members of the House of Representatives and of the House of Delegates.

No, he said he was going to withdraw his amendments.

When?

He definitely said so, yes.

Well, I beg your pardon, Sir. I did not hear him say that. Is he going to withdraw all his amendments?

Yes.

Alright. Let me ask him then about matters which are not related to his amendments. He had only a few amendments on the Order Paper of which one was important and the other two not. What then about his undertaking to include certain things in the regulations which he is empowered to issue under the Public Safety Amendment Bill? When he was discussing matters with the other two Houses he undertook to effect certain amendments to the regulations he used at the time of his declaring a state of emergency last year. They include that the next-of-kin be informed, that the detainee has access to a medical man, that a lawyer may see a detainee and that a detainee will have access to relatives. Is the hon the Minister at least going to keep to that undertaking? I think it is important for all of us to know.

Just read my Second Reading speech!

I have read his Second Reading speech!

[Inaudible.]

Well, in the Second Reading speech, after all, there were other amendments which the hon the Minister is now to withdraw. One of those was the very important amendment which gave the detainee access to the courts of law. That will now be withdrawn. Can we take it therefore that everything else the hon the Minister said in his Second Reading speech is going to hold good, and that we can expect at least some amelioration in the very far-reaching regulations which he introduced during the state of emergency?

He only withdrew the amendments, not his undertaking.

Well, that is the point. He only withdrew his amendments.

Yes, but not the undertaking.

He did not withdraw the undertaking. Well that does not necessarily mean anything. We shall see.

He is the biggest undertaker in Cape Town! [Interjections.]

I have to say in all honesty that even if the amendments that we proposed on the standing committee and which we would have liked to move had been accepted, I must tell the hon the Minister we would still be voting against the Second Reading of this Bill. I know that the one important amendment which would not allow detention without trial would probably have been considered as an amendment going against the principle of the Bill. Therefore it would probably have been negatived. However, even if all the other important amendments which we would have liked to move had been accepted, we would have been compelled to reject the Bill because of the inclusion of a further right of detention without trial. I hope very much that the same attitude is going to prevail in the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives, namely that they too will not accept any Bill which allows for detention without trial. Despite what one Coloured Representative said, no amendment can really make detention “seem like a holiday inside”. The basic principle which guides Western democracies will once again be violated, and therefore I think it is incumbent upon everybody who has any respect for the rule of law and for democratic principles to vote against this Bill.

The one very important regulation which worried us was the regulation which gave indemnity to the Police to commit “in good faith” any act without fear of prosecution, although the hon the Minister and I have argued about whether or not unlawful acts are covered by this. However, I can tell the hon the Minister that whether unlawful acts are or are not covered by the indemnity, there is no doubt whatsoever in our minds that the presence of the indemnity is what gives the police encouragement to commit excesses. Those excesses undoubtedly have been committed by the Security Police where they have had detainees in their hands who have had no access to legal representation or to the courts. We have memoranda and affidavits which the hon the Minister will be hearing about shortly from other hon members of this House. These affidavits show without doubt that there have been many excesses committed particularly by the Security Police. I have a whole bundle of signed affidavits which have been gathered by various people interested in attempting to stop these malpractices—largely concerning young people under the age of 20. We know that over 2 000 young people under the age of 20 were detained in the emergency period, some of whom were tortured—there is no other word for it—while in detention. They were given electric shocks, beaten and sjambokked or they were teargassed. All sort of things happened to them which in any normal society would be outlawed. Therefore I have no doubt, as I say, that the indemnity clause is one reason why the Police think they can behave in this fashion. There are many cases coming up for trial and we shall see what happens as far as those are concerned. Furthermore, certain hon members here will also be providing the hon the Minister with other details.

We have no doubt that the appalling behaviour that we have read about and indeed seen pictures of in the newspapers throughout this week—from Monday onwards—of what has been happening at KTC and Crossroads, is also largely as a result of the feeling which has now been engendered that although the indemnity no longer applies, the habit has died hard and that the police have a licence to behave as they will. [Interjections.] I can therefore say without fear of contradiction that the police themselves are in fact flouting the law, that they themselves are flouting a court order against harassing the inhabitants of KTC.

I have here a picture from today’s Cape Times. It shows three or four Casspirs in front of a great mob of people—hundreds of people called “witdoeke”—who gathered behind the Security Force vehicles near the KTC squatter camp yesterday. What sort of behaviour is that? Does the hon the Minister condone that sort of behaviour? [Interjections.] I would like to know whether there is a conspiracy—an unholy alliance is the only way I can describe it—between the hon the Minister of Law and Order and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to clear those unfortunate people out of the Crossroads-Nyanga-KTC area so that they can get on with their plan to upgrade Crossroads. If they are doing so, they apparently do not realise that by such behaviour they are in fact giving the green light to anarchy in this country and rewarding people who are using the most unlawful methods of burning, looting and killing to get rid of the other residents of that area. I want to ask the hon the Minister how it is that he can countenance this and how it is that he does not persuade his Cabinet to declare a disaster area in respect of this tragic section of the South African community where an estimated 50 000 people are sitting in the winter rains without shelter. [Interjections.]

We believe, as I say, that the general atmosphere and the background to the indemnity given to the police during the declared state of emergency is one of the reasons why this is happening. Moreover, as I mentioned during the last debate, the Society of Advocates pointed out in their memo that allegations of ill-treatment in court trials dealing with security legislation have become very widespread indeed.

However, the most important criticism of the Bill remains namely that there is a complete lack of any adequate control over the abuse of powers granted to the hon the Minister and to those to whom he can delegate those powers. That is another very dangerous aspect of this legislation. The hon the Minister may delegate powers to junior officials who may then use those powers in the widest possible manner.

As I mentioned earlier, we have to vote blind in respect of this Bill because we do not know what regulations the hon the Minister is going to use. He has told us that he is going to retain the indemnity clause. He has also told us that he is going to retain the clause which places restrictions upon the media in respect of reporting on and filming unrest situations. These, we believe, are two very vital aspects of the legislation which he is attempting to pass today.

The limited safeguard of parliamentary scrutiny of regulations has been watered down very considerably by the amendment to section 6(2) of the principal Act. When we discussed this aspect during the previous Second Reading debate on this Bill, the hon the Minister seemed to think that this was unimportant. This is not the attitude adopted by the Society of Advocates. They believe it to be very important and so does the Law Society. The Law Society of South Africa takes a very serious view of the watering down of parliamentary scrutiny of such regulations. It is now going to be much more difficult for Parliament to annul those regulations than it was previously.

It seems to me that by introducing this measure the Government is simply confirming what many of us on this side of the House have suspected for a long time, namely that it has simply lost control of the situation. We believe that its actions are bound to attract further international opprobrium. We believe that the Government has over and over again attempted to counter radical political opposition by enacting emergency-type measures, first on a temporary basis—I refer, for example to the original 90-day detention-without-trial law of 1963 which had to be approved by Parliament annually—and now by enacting legislation which will be a permanent part of the Statute Book. Of course, we have also had successive measures such as the Terrorism Act and the Internal Security Act. Today we have this amending legislation which, like these other Acts, will be permanently on the Statute Book and will not have to be revised by Parliament annually.

Security laws may be aimed at containing violence but they may very well retard the attainment of any political solution by increasing the tension between the Security Forces and the community. Thus they become counter-productive in themselves by exacerbating the very problem they were designed to solve.

I have here a letter, which I think everybody in the House has probably received, from the Bishop of Pretoria on this particular subject. It reads as follows:

I presume this is the Anglican synod—

Furthermore, it believes:

We agree wholeheartedly with these sentiments. We think the hon the Minister is taking a most unwise step today. We do not believe that these additional powers are in any way going to get rid of the unrest and the violence in our communities. If anything, they are likely to exacerbate the situation and, at the same time, undermine respect for law in the Black communities.

Finally, I think it must be realised that only a political settlement acceptable to the vast majority of all the disparate groups in our society can hope to bring lasting peace and stability.

I therefore move the following amendment, viz:

Mr Speaker, I am sure that it is impossible to amend this Bill in a manner which will accommodate the hon member for Houghton and her hon colleagues. I do not think it is possible at all to meet the demands set out by the hon member with regard to the security legislation before us.

However, I believe all reasonable and responsible South Africans will concede that South Africa is sick and tired of the violence in the country. All reasonable and responsible South Africans will further concede that one needs special powers to deal with the situation. The situation is not out of control, but one should appreciate the fact that there are people who have a vested interest in the unrest and whose prime objective it is to make this country ungovernable. [Interjections.]

When we ask for special powers we are not calling on Parliament to issue a licence to kill, as some hon members on those benches so often indicate. Anybody who says that spreads an untruth and has no understanding of what the indemnity clause in the regulations means.

*The greatest injustice that is spread abroad is that when the hon the Minister gives the Security Forces certain indemnities in terms of the regulations, it means the Security Forces are being placed in a position in which they can act in an uncontrolled way. In addition it is a disgraceful remark to say that this in fact encourages the Security Forces to take further action. I should like to see those hon members in a Casspir one night so that they can experience how unsafe it makes one feel, how dangerous and oppressive it is and how bitterly, bitterly dangerous it is even just to stick one’s head out or walk outside at night in the face of the danger of being assaulted or shot.

It is easy to advance arguments in any court case or in Parliament afterwards that such a member of the Security Forces should not have acted as he did. In a situation of this kind, in which one’s life is at stake and one has to judge at lightning speed, one needs an indemnity stipulation of this kind. What is more, it is a disgraceful untruth that is broadcast abroad that that indemnity clause cannot be tested by the courts. Every policeman, every member of the Security Forces who acts with malicious intent, can be held responsible for doing so. I think such accusations are crudely unfair to the Security Forces.

†I should like to pose this question: What of the rights of those law-abiding citizens who are subjected to the cruelest and most brutal intimidation and victimisation … [Interjections.] … if they do not submit to the wishes of the people who claim to represent the so-called masses? What about the rights of those decent, law-abiding citizens who have lost the right to decide for themselves where they want to shop, whether they want to go to school or work or whether they want to stay away from school or work? [Interjections.] I maintain that we should pass the Bill at Second Reading in order to provide the Security Forces with power to deal with the situation.

I am delighted to see the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central in the House today because I still have an issue I should like to raise with the hon member. In a previous debate the hon member referred to a video film he had seen. In no uncertain terms did he indicate that he saw that particular film. It was on 3 June, I think, when he referred in his speech to a video, called The Comrades, which was broadcast by the BBC on 19 May 1986. I should like to quote from the hon member’s unrevised speech where he referred to me as follows:

The only inference one can draw from that remark is that the hon member did see that video. [Interjections.] I was also quoted in his speech as having said that I do not condone violence.

For the purposes of the record I should like to take some time to indicate exactly what I did say because I have that particular Hansard speech in front of me. On that particular video I said that I did not condone any illegal action, whether from the SAP, Whites or Blacks. I also referred to a pending court case and went on to say:

That was what I said. Now I should like to put a question to the hon member. Why did he not tell this House about the following four incidents? Why did he not tell this House of the councillor whose house was burnt? I saw for myself what happened in that incident. What were the comrades’ reaction when this particular councillor complained? They said: “We are not prepared to kill, but are prepared to educate.” All I can infer from that reply is that the burning down of a councillor’s house was considered to be education. Why did the hon member not repudiate that statement?

[Inaudible.]

If the hon member will just wait a second, I will tell him why he did not. [Interjections.]

The second incident that I should like to place on record here concerns what I heard a policeman say on that video, namely that he had to resign from the SA Police out of fear that his house would be burnt down. He said he had resigned out of fear after they had intimidated him, “they” being the comrades.

Thirdly, when I watched that video I also saw comrades patrolling as policemen. They searched and investigated law-abiding citizens in order to establish who was “breaking the law of not buying”. If ever there were people who acted as if they were a law unto themselves, then it is those comrades. I think, therefore, that it is grossly unfair to create the public impression that the Police act as if they are a law unto themselves. That is scandalous, to say the least. Why does the hon member remain silent on that issue?

Fourthly, on that video I saw officials of the so-called “people’s court”. Their sitting hours were between five o’clock and nine o’clock every day. The punishment they meted out was lashes. They did not sentence anybody to a “necklace”. No, Sir, that resulted from the anger of the uncontrolled masses! I should like to know why the hon member did not refer to this incident either. I maintain it was because he did not watch the entire video.

I did.

The evidence I have before me suggests that the hon member did not see it. Moreover, if the hon member did see the video, it aggravates his position, because that means that he saw these incidents but that he remained silent about them. Then, when he speaks in this Parliament, he gives a one-sided version of the events. Why does he do that?

If the hon member had admitted that he had not seen the whole video, I would gladly have accepted his word. In fact, I would have accepted his admission in mitigation of this case.

I saw the incidents you mentioned.

So, the hon member saw those incidents yet he declined to highlight those malpractices that were carried on in a section of the society of this country.

In his speech the hon member said he would like to see those people who are found guilty of “necklacing” to be tried before the courts of this land. It is an established fact, however, that there are individuals and forces at work in this country whose policy it is to use the courts but never to give any credit to the courts. No, they turn around and say these courts are instruments of the apartheid régime. In any case, anyone who deals with matters such as these can tell the hon member that people are at present afraid to testify as witnesses before the courts of this land. They are afraid not only because they have been threatened but also because they know that these threats are swiftly executed. In other words, if one testifies against someone who has been charged with committing a particular offence, one can be sure that, in terms of the rulings handed down by the “people’s court”, one has a very good chance of being sentenced either to lashings or to be “educated”.

I should like to place on record in this House today just what these “people’s courts” are. I shall read two paragraphs of a keynote address delivered at the NECC conference held in Durban earlier this year:

*To say the least, anyone who is not prepared to stand up and denigrate and expose these atrocities that arise from so-called people’s courts, is doing South Africa a disservice, because what is happening here is that there is no question at all of any kind of legal system, not a presidential doctrine, Roman-Dutch law nor any presidential system.

The only thing there is any question of here, is that one must keep quiet when one appears before one of those courts. If one is not on the side of the judicial authority of the people’s courts, one is executed in the cruellest possible way. There is a great deal of evidence and many, many examples of this. Policemen are buried alive. Today again we saw a member of the SA Defence Force with inter alia 73 knife wounds.

I think it is of absolutely cardinal importance that everyone in South Africa do everything in their power to counteract these practices. We shall have no choice or alternative but to condemn this.

I should like to refer to another aspect.

Mr Speaker, as the hon member has suggested that I did not give the full side of the story, may I ask the hon member why in mentioning the policeman who had 73 knife wounds—which was a shocking business—he did not also mention the other incident we saw—the Trojan Horse incident?

The hon member must not get excited. On a previous occasion when I hurried to round off and conclude the debate so that we could place these measures on the Statute Book, I was reproached inter alia by those hon members because I had hurried. I was reproached and described as supporting these measures tongue in cheek. I want to give them a lecture today on what a “New Nat” is, and I intend to refer to the point he raised right now.

The hon member asked me to record my opinion with reference to a film we saw today. I received an invitation from one of the hon members of the PFP to watch a video film in the parliamentary auditorium. Apparently invitations were also sent to hon member of the NRP and the Labour Party. The original standpoint I stated here, that I was not prepared to condone any illegal action from whosoever, remains my standpoint. I saw certain atrocities and barbarities in the film. I stand by the statement that I shall not condone any illegal act committed by a police officer, a soldier, a White person, a Black person or a Member of Parliament, in any way. We saw cruel scenes in the film. I concede that.

I now challenge those hon members, when they make their speeches, to emphasise two things. The first is that the policemen’s lives were endangered in a certain incident. It was an extremely dangerous situation. When a crowd of people groups around one’s vehicle and begins to rock it, I believe one has every right, in terms of the law of this country, to interpret the situation as a matter of self-defence and to act accordingly. [Interjections.] I heard a policeman say loudly and clearly he was going to fire certain warning shots.

However, what is more is that the gentleman who led the programme said warnings mean nothing in South Africa because there are people who are bent on revolution and therefore they do not accede to warnings by South African Police officers. I heard that with my own ears today.

I also listened to interviews with the hon members for Green Point and Constantia. The hon member for Green Point said these things, these atrocities, the mass violence the viewers saw, were “because of a lack of direction and because of a lack of discipline”. That is what he disseminated abroad. I think he had a chance there to come out in support of South Africa and to say he did not agree with the Police; that he did not agree with the Government; that he was fighting against apartheid as hard as he could, but that the viewers themselves had seen how difficult it was to maintain law and order in this country.

What did he do, however? He made the most vehement and critical attack on the SA Police and the “leadership at the top”, which probably refers to the hon the Minister.

What did the hon member for Green Point say on a prior occasion? I quote from the Sunday Star of 12 January 1986:

Who in this Parliament, apart from the hon member for Green Point, is prepared to assume that standpoint? Is that the PFP’s official standpoint? I want to know. There are 12 hours of debating ahead of us and before the end I want to know whether it is the PFP’s official standpoint it is more probable that they be killed when they are monitoring the Security Forces’ activities than in attacks by ANC members. [Interjections.] That is an absolute disgrace.

I now want to make a serious statement on my own authority and responsibility. An hon Member of Parliament is an important person, but sometimes he is even more important than he thinks, and I include myself in this. The policemen who are performing their task in the world at large do not have to account to every hon Member of Parliament who gets in their way. The SA Police is a disciplined force which, in terms of its authority structure, has to account to its officers and commanding officers. The Police also have the obligation of political loyalty and accountability to their political authority, viz the State, the Government, Parliament and the hon the Minister. In my opinion, every hon Member of Parliament who thinks he has the right to tell a policeman in the streets how to exercise his authority, is hampering the Police in performing their duties. [Interjections.]

A very delicate balance has to be maintained in South Africa. On the one side of the scale there is reform. Reform has to be implemented with conviction as this side of the House believes is being done at present. One cannot allow oneself to be threatened in order to reform.

On the other side of the scale we have law and order. This should be in balance with reform; the one should not weigh heavier than the other, but the scales are not in balance in the South African situation.

Law without order is ineffectual and licentious, and order without law is illegal.

[Inaudible.]

I agree. I have just said so. Order without law is lawless. We all know how serious the situation is.

There have always been two divisive factors in particular in South African history, viz reform on the one hand and law and order on the other. There are people who stubbornly dig in their heels and refuse to believe that a lot of dreams of the past have become no less than nightmares. I want to quote what a certain woman, Dr Baba Boshoff, said. She is the leader of Die Boervrou. She was quoted in Die Vaderland on 15 May 1986. Her theory about the future of the Boer State is the following:

That is absolute nonsense. It is a dream which is nothing but a nightmare. We are Afrikaners and South Africans, and we do not agree with Mr Terre’Blanche that there are no such things as Afrikaners. According to him his people want to be Boers, not Afrikaners, Whites or South Africans. He simply wants to be a “Boerseun” from the Western Transvaal. Such dreams are nothing but nightmares. [Interjections.] It is the opinion of this side of the House that if one is struggling with reform, one has to place the maintenance of law and order on an even keel. [Interjections.]

There are people who refuse to believe that there are powers which are interested not in power-sharing, but only in a power takeover. These are people who do not believe in evolution, but believe that they can take over this country violently by means of revolution. [Interjections.]

I remain an advocate of dialogue. The Government can talk about power-sharing and political reform, but it cannot talk to communistically inspired revolutionaries about abdication. I remain convinced that a successful constitutional agreement with all population groups in this country can be concluded, but concurrently with this we must demonstrate that we can effectively repel a revolutionary onslaught.

From the left or the right!

I now want to refer to something which becomes irritating at times. It is very difficult for some hon members of the PFP and also some other hon members to conduct a debate without referring to the “New Nats” as if the “New Nats” govern this country. [Interjections.] I am going to tell you who the “New Nats” are and what they stand for. The “New Nats” govern the country.

Before I go further, I want to place something on record very clearly. The conduct of the hon member Mr Theunissen in the standing committee indicated that we have an understanding and an agreement with and an appreciation for one another. Unfortunately, we—not he and I, but his party and mine—now have to become involved in a battle of words. When hon members speak about the “New Nats”, I want to say the spiritual and undisputed leader of the “New Nats” is the State President.

Hear, hear!

His reform politics is acclaimed. At the same time we know he is involved in a serious and vitally important struggle.

The poor man! [Interjections.]

There are people who do not want to share power with us, but we are not going to permit the power to be wrested from our hands by revolutionaries.

The poor man! [Interjections.]

Are you awake?

Whoever tries to do so, must know that we shall fight as hard as we can.

The hon member for Soutpansberg referred to the State President of this country as “the poor man” when I said a moment ago he was the leader of the “New Nats”. Those hon members sometimes become angry and sulky because we support this legislation. They say it looks as though it has our tacit support. [Interjections.] I am not referring to the hon member for Brakpan. I am referring to the speech made by the hon member for Rissik. [Interjections.]

I want to state categorically here that every initiative on the course of reform is an initiative of the State President, and has our greatest support.

In the caucus, you must…

When we do so, we are talking about one scale in the balance. We are just as serious and dedicated in respect of the other scale, viz the maintenance of law and order.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Krugersdorp is of course a very fine fellow and a good man. I also have a great deal of respect for him as a person, but there is one aspect of the speech which surprised me. I do not know whether he received instructions to talk for half an hour, but I do not intend to talk that long, because we are in a hurry to dispose of this Bill.

The hon member for Krugersdorp came and made a few confessions about his membership of the New Nats. I think it was uncalled for him to come here today and explain to us why he was a New Nat. At the end of his speech he also focussed on the right-wing parties again. I assume that the hon member feels overjoyed when he thinks that they may apply this legislation to the AWB, the CP, the HNP and all the other right-wing parties. That is probably what he is sitting there dreaming about in his bench, but he is young. He was not even born yet when Genl Smuts applied the same methods which the hon member is supporting now to imprison our people who were Stormjaers and Ossewabrandwag men, but the hon the Minister knows about this. The hon member is not acquainted with that era in our history. That was the biggest mistake Genl Smuts made and it led to his downfall.

I want to tell that young hon member that he must not sit there dreaming about the right-wing parties as if we had become objectionable and unacceptable in some way or other and they would have to apply this legislation to us. It is better for the hon member to stand in front of the mirror and see what a New Nat looks like. He must do that. It is essential. These are the people who run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. We know them. Consequently, the hon member should rather concentrate on this legislation which is essential. He knows this legislation is essential and he know the hon members there will, as far as it depends on them, delay the legislation as long as possible.

We support the SA Police, but we do not support the NP. Hon members must know that. But as far as this legislation is concerned, we are throwing our weight behind the hon the Minister of Law and Order because we see that it is essential and fair legislation and we want it on the Statute Book as soon as possible.

I am a person who does not like covering the same ground twice and today we have a wonderful example of this because we have to have a second reading debate a second time. [Interjections.] I really want to be brief and not repeat all my standpoints, but I want to say that I think it is necessary for this legislation to be passed and as soon as possible too. We want to do this because we want to strengthen the SA Police’s hand. We also want to do this to afford the hon the Minister the opportunity to declare an unrest situation in specific areas.

Earlier this afternoon I said that if there was ever a clear example of a case where the hon the Minister actually should have had this power, it was Crossroads. There are many other such examples which are developing in the country, and for which we need this legislation. That is why it is actually tragic that delaying tactics have been adopted by the PFP on the one hand and by the other two Houses on the other. If there were ever communities that needed this legislation and the extended powers involved, it was the people represented in those two Houses. One cannot understand this. The evidence is indisputable. In many respects they are the people being threatened, but for the sake of political expediency they are allowing their hands to be tied so that we cannot dispose of this legislation as rapidly as we would like to.

It is absolutely unnecessary either for the Progs, or the NRP or any other party to put obstacles in our way and make things more difficult for us. The sooner we dispose of this Bill and the next one, the better it will be for South Africa and law and order. It is after all necessary to introduce these effective powers.

I want to thank the hon the Minister of Law and Order for withdrawing all those amendments. He will remember that from the start we said that in principle this legislation received our whole-hearted support. This is true, but we had doubts when the hon the Minister had an amendment placed on the Order Paper that the proposed section 5B should be omitted. But this afternoon the hon the Minister stated unequivocally that all those amendments were being withdrawn. I do not want to claim credit for this unnecessarily, but I think the hon the Minister will admit that this may also be a victory for the CP’s standpoint that the specific provision is being retained. [Interjections.] How the hon the Minister will apply it in practice, will only become apparent in future.

It is interesting to speculate on the respective steps we are dealing with again this afternoon in this legislation. It is quite clear that there are some parties that want to use the maximum amount of time to delay the passing of these two pieces of legislation. We saw it here again today, and I believe—I cannot speak on behalf of the PFP; but that is what it looks like—that they are once again going to use the maximum amount of time in order to try to cause a further dilemma. After all, one speculates in one’s own way. Consequently when we finish here and agree to this piece of legislation for the hundredth time, we must still deal with the question of what the position is going to be in the other two Houses. Indeed one has a premonition that those two Houses are going to adopt the same course as the PFP. Of course this then places us in the position where—particularly considering the fact that 16 June is around the corner—elements in our country want to misuse that day to cause further unrest and rioting in South Africa. We also have the position that we are unlikely to get these two measures promulgated before 16 June. As a matter of fact I hope we can succeed in doing this anyway. But I believe one should suggest to the hon the Minister that he should go ahead and make use of the existing emergency powers he has at his disposal.

He will be doing it anyway!

The hon the Minister must please not be afraid of the so-called negative image of South Africa which the proclaiming of a state of emergency will create abroad. It will not make an iota of difference to the impression regarding South Africa abroad. Those people consider us to be the polecat of the world. We can come up with all the legislation imaginable which will satisfy the Progs, which will satisfy the other two Houses, but we will still not make any impression at all on the outside world.

That is not true!

The fact that we … [Interjections.] Our standpoint is that if we do not dispose of this legislation we must make use as soon as possible of the existing emergency legislation to resolve the situation. The situation must be resolved—there is not the least doubt about that.

Particularly considering the situation in which our country is today, I am very sorry that the Government decided to place a moratorium on the pass laws and on the influx measures. If there was ever an inopportune moment for such a step in our country it was definately now.

Hear, hear!

We are getting feedback from everywhere. From one of the suburbs of Pretoria we are getting feedback which amounts to the fact that crime is increasing at an alarming rate. The people there say that the hands of the SA Police are now simply tied. In the past they could use the pass laws to get at vagabonds at night and at least check to see that crime did not increase unhindered. But now the situation is getting far worse. That is why we say that in the present climate these steps are tremendously prejudicial for South Africa.

Once again we want to emphasise the necessity for the legislation under discussion. This also links up very closely with the measure which will be discussed after this—the Internal Security Amendment Bill. We say once again that we cannot afford to place further obstacles in the way giving the SA Police effective powers at this stage. We are really very worried. There is not a single hon member in this House who is not worried about the daily increase in the seriousness of the situations we are coming across everywhere in our country.

As a matter of fact we see this day after day in our newspapers. The Cape Times in particular has a map which is published every day, and on which is indicated where unrest is developing everywhere in our country. It indicates all the latest unrest points and areas every day. This is what the Cape Times is pointing out to us, and I hope that the hon the Minister is collecting these things. We hope that the hon the Minister has the necessary information so that when he has the legislation immediately available he will also use these maps as a clues in the implementing of his essential powers. It is actually surprising to see how well informed those people actually are as regards where unrest is taking place and also where it is still going to take place.

Louis, you should declare the office of the Cape Times an unrest area!

Yes, I really want to endorse what the hon member for Brakpan has just said.

The role being played by the Cape Times, particularly here in Crossroads, is probably one of the most suspicious roles which has ever been played by a daily paper. [Interjections.] Definitely! One is sorry for their journalists at whom shots were fired but if a person meddles in other people’s affairs, he is looking for trouble! That is what they are doing, and if they were only doing it for the sake of the news and because the Capetonians would like to hear what is going on here close by on their through road to the D F Malan Airport, one could understand it. But this is not all it is about. That news is being sent to the outside world every day.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that the time has really come to keep journalists, cameramen and any of those so-called reporters out of those areas. They are doing our country a great deal of harm. As far as this is concerned the hon the Minister will really have to state far more clearly and emphatically in his proclamations that these elements are being kept out of those areas.

It is interesting to listen how the PFP creates the impression that they always have all the answers. The political answers are important to them. This afternoon the hon member for Krugersdorp also touched on that aspect to a certain extent as if the right wingers wanted to usurp power, to seize power.

[Inaudible.]

Did I misunderstand the hon member?

I never said that.

In any case, the PFP places tremendous emphasis on their so-called only answer and the only solution they always have but this is a solution which must not be sought by means of existing legislation. No, they are seeking a political solution. They think that when the day comes that we have a Black majority government in this country, all the problems will disappear like mist before the sun. That is absolute wishful thinking. I cannot understand how people schooled in politics can be so naïve as to think that the day a political Black power situation prevails in this country, there will be love and peace in this country; on the contrary, then we will have the situation here which is prevailing today in Black Africa. There will be one thing only and that is that this country will be governed through the barrel of a gun. That is the case in Black Africa. Or are these hon members suggesting that our set-up in South Africa today is such that we are governing through the barrel of a gun?

Yes!

There hon members can now hear the kind of complaint we get and what we are dealing with. They are politically naïve to think they have a political solution for this problem.

We in the CP say there will in fact not be an end to these disturbances before independent, self-governing states have been established for each of the peoples by means of partition.

With international borders.

There must be clearly defined international borders. Within those borders we will be able to introduce and maintain law and order.

In conclusion I just want to repeat that apart from the legislation now before us hon members must take another look at the report of the Rabie Commission. That report repeatedly pointed out to us what must be done. These were prominent jurists who after hearing a mass of evidence of all kinds and from all quarters pointed out to us in this country that in an emergency situation such as we are experiencing today, there must be emergency legislation and emergency forces. If there has ever been anything the SA Police really needed, it is these provisions we are considering in this Bill.

We want to support this Bill whole-heartedly. We must guard against that attitude that we are only dealing with local difficulties and problems here. The onslaught against South Africa has a deeply political substructure. To people like Rapport and others who are sensitive about the ANC as the so-called really communistically inspired motivators of this onslaught, I must point out that they are living in a dream world. For that reason we want to say that we know that we are not dealing with common criminals in the country. We are dealing with people who have political objectives, who want to make this country totally ungovernable and destroy it. That is why it is necessary for the SA Police to be given those powers so that they can see to it that there can really be calm and peace and order in this country, under the protecting hand of the SA Police and the Security Forces.

Mr Speaker, I can only say that the vision of the hon member Mr Theunissen as to how one should control the situation is a tragic one. [Interjections.] It would be the quickest way for the Afrikaans-speaking South African to lead himself into a war of attrition in which he would be decimated. His culture, his language and all he has fought for and built up over the years, would simply be submerged once and for all.

No, my friend, you are making a big mistake. [Interjections.]

If he thinks he can take on the whole of Africa on a basis which is unarguably unacceptable to the world and survive, then I find it tragic that people can even put those thoughts into the minds of their followers. [Interjections.] If it were not so tragic it would almost be bizarre to think that in the event of the AWB being banned and their leader detained without trial, it would in fact be the hon member for Houghton who would stand up in this House and plead that the Government should not detain him without trial.

Would you do that, Helen? [Interjections.]

That would be the situation that would eventuate.

What did she do in the days of General Smuts?

He was not locked up. [Interjections.] That is the situation, however, and really, as far as the situation in respect of detention without trial is concerned, it is one which will be a perennial bone of contention because people’s perceptions of the rule of law and the way in which it should be executed will always vary.

The dilemma with which the Government is faced, however, is not whether to ban the AWB or the UDF but how to unban the ANC without causing a revolution in the country. After all, it was that banning which brought about the problems that we are faced with today. It is that situation that we are faced with, and not the reverse. It is the situation of those nationalist Blacks who have fought what in their minds is probably a just cause—a just cause which no one can erase from their minds although one can perhaps erase the communistic aspect from their minds.

How would you handle it?

Let me be the first to admit that it is very difficult to handle. There is no question about that.

There is only one solution—partition.

Unfortunately, partition is an impossibility.

It is not.

It is utterly impossible to divide South Africa up today. [Interjections.] We have a little more time on an occasion such as this, and so one has the opportunity to debate these issues. [Interjections.]

What I would like to put to the House, however, is that our attitude toward the rule of law is best summed up in the words of Mr Chief Justice Innes, who said the following:

We find ourselves in such a situation in this country today. There is no doubt about that. This party stands by its attitude over the years. I think the hon the Minister of Law and Order will recall that when he was a member of the Schlebusch Commission, on which members of the old United Party sat, a minority report was put forward by the UP urging the Government to investigate the possibility of instituting a judicial tribunal as a means of replacing or, as nearly as possible, approximating those rights which were taken away by the necessity of detention without trial. [Interjections.]

We have no doubt whatever that there are times and occasions when the executive has to take powers but, at the same time, the measure of the powers which it takes will determine the measure of the replacement of rights which has to accompany such a step. If the period of detention can be, as in this piece of legislation, up to 180 days, then it is impossible for us to support this Bill unless there is a process of judicial review. For that reason, I move as a further amendment:

That is our consistent view on matters of this nature. We have been consistent in every case where legislation of this nature has been debated. I believe if one had the opportunity of having a sensible debate without all the mud-slinging and the name-calling, then hon members of the PFP would accept that under certain circumstances the executive would have to take action.

Then it must declare a state of emergency.

There is absolutely no doubt about that. They, in fact, hide behind some of these measures. [Interjections.] It is fine to stand by one’s principles while one knows that somebody else has to do the dirty work but it takes somewhat more guts to stand up and say that under these circumstances the executive has the right to assume certain powers. Our problem is that when the Government assumes powers, it does not only take them with both hands but borrows as many hands as it can and takes excessive powers. Furthermore, its record in the implementation of such powers is unfortunately not a very happy one. [Interjections.]

The question of rights and the due process from arrest until the court case has to be replaced, as nearly as possible, with a system which will ensure the detainee’s safety. It must ensure that innocent people are not detained without trial and that the authorities and institutions such as the Government and particularly the Police, which a citizen of a country must be able to look up to, do not lose credibility in the process. It is an appalling situation when the political leaders of a country take action which actually further affects the Police’s credibility in a situation which is already fraught with danger in that respect.

The question of rights is one which one can debate for a long, long time. As the hon member for Krugersdorp indicated: What about the rights of the people in the towns who are being burned alive, buried alive, murdered and having their homes destroyed? What about their rights? Only the other day there was a party of women outside Parliament actually pleading for protection in their own areas. Those people were asking for action from the State, for protection.

[Inaudible.]

Speak up, Helen, we cannot hear you.

This is the first time I hear that complaint!

The question of those persons is something which never gets sufficient attention in these debates. Those people who are suffering under the intimidators, the exploiters, we believe must get protection. We, in fact, are in a position where we do not have the protection available to give them. [Interjections.] I should like to take issue with the hon the Minister on this point because so often in this House we have heard that there are no no-go areas. I do not suppose there are any no-go areas if one travels in a Casspir, that there are no places that are ungovernable, but I submit that there are places that are ungovernable. Internal security does not mean that one stops incursions across one’s border; it means that one can walk safely through a subway at night; that one can walk down the street; and that there is not a very good chance that one’s home will be burgled.

I would say that this Government has performed in an abysmal way when it comes to the administration of an adequate Police Force for this country. Two years ago I asked a question in this House about Police strengths because it was so patently obvious that, particularly in the Coloured and Black areas, the protection that we were affording them was inadequate. The number of policemen per 1 000 was totally inadequate and the crime incidence was so high that it was obvious that there was going to be a breakdown and that it was a most fertile area in which exploiters and agitators could function.

The hon the Minister told me at the time that he was not prepared to divulge those statistics. Now—two years later—we are all supposed to feel sorry for him because he does not have enough policemen. This Government is as much responsible for the actions of the people in those areas—who are not getting protection—as the agitators are. They have not planned for an adequate Police Force, they have not done enough to ensure the protection of people in those areas, and the situation that has developed is the result of sheer maladministration. We do not even have enough policemen to carry out the daily tasks in those areas. We have to use the SADF.

I should like now to ask hon members of the Official Opposition something. To my way of thinking, their attitude towards the use of Security Forces, has run just about full circle because when this all started there were yowls that the Police and the troops should be withdrawn from the townships. Now it has changed. The question is now why the Police are not doing something in Crossroads. [Interjections.] Even the Cape Times is now questioning them in asking why they did not shoot.

No, that was The Argus.

Was it The Argus’! One and the same.

Who said that? It is absolute nonsense!

Read the newspaper. [Interjections.] Those hon members have to stand up and be counted as regards this sort of thing. We do not have enough policemen to provide ordinary protection in those areas. We are actually going to have to use troops in order to protect the ordinary, moderate citizen. The hon member for Albany said the other day that the Security Forces were used—I am quoting ad lib here; he may correct me if he wishes—”to suppress political opposition.” That is a most outrageous and unfair statement! [Interjections.] If those hon members believe that the Police go in there to suppress political opposition then they must have warped minds to put things like that in the minds of the overseas Press when there are people there crying out for protection. [Interjections.] That hon member knows very well what the situation is in those areas. He knows how desperately short-staffed they are and that if we had sufficient policemen we would not have to enact further legislation. The reason for this legislation …

Have you any idea what is going on at Crossroads?

I think I do.

Mr Speaker, can the hon member for King William’s Town tell me why the Police are currently arresting members of street committees who have committed no crime whatsoever?

It is nonsensical to ask me why individual members of street committees have been arrested.

To come back to the issue I was dealing with, the hon member for Albany did not qualify his statement. In the course of his speech he made remarks to the effect that the Police had gone into those areas to suppress political opposition. I say that is a totally irresponsible statement.

Are you saying that never happens?

Of course I do not say it never happens.

Then what are you saying? [Interjections.]

The hon member’s party knows full well that we do not have enough policemen to protect the ordinary individual in the street.

They would do a lot better if they were correctly used.

That is another issue. The hon members of the PFP have not yet stood up, however, and retracted their demands for the Police and the Defence Force to get out of the townships. Crossroads is a very good example of this. We say that what should have happened at Crossroads was that the Government should have put two battalions from the SADF in there and left them to carry out a classic cordon and search operation in order to stop further outbreaks of violence.

Would the hon member then tell me why the courts have found it necessary to issue an interdict restraining members of the SA Police Force and members of the SA Defence Force from “participating in, assisting in and encouraging, permitting or allowing any unlawful attack on any person or property residing within or situate within the area known as KTC Camp”?

The answer to that is very simple. Does the hon member really attribute that to every single policeman and SADF member in the country? [Interjections.] In other words, in the event of an incident arising which affects an individual, would that individual not litigate?

An individual? We are talking about hundreds of people.

Whatever the case may be, that interdict affects the individual as well as any number of people. If the hon member is saying that every policeman and every member of the SADF who goes …

I never said that; you are saying that.

Oh no, I am not. The hon member for Albany said that was their role.

You are saying that.

That is the problem with that party, Sir.

Do not put words into my mouth.

Each one hon member in that party appears to be trying to outdo the other with some absolutely sensational statement, quite oblivious of the effect it has on this country.

You should join your masters opposite you.

The hon members of the PFP are so bitter that they do not care whether or not their bitterness destroys this country. [Interjections.]

Cannot you see who is destroying the country?

I am well aware of who is destroying this country. I have no argument with the PFP’s opposition to the NP. I have already stated that the reason for the situation being as it is, is that the NP has failed to administer the Police Force well enough for us to be able to cope with situations like this. That, however, does not give the hon members of the PFP licence to aggravate our situation in the eyes of the people overseas by saying things which are patently untrue. Obviously there are individual cases which bear out what they say, but by generalising along those lines they are being grossly unfair to their own country. [Interjections.]

We would like to make an appeal to the hon the Minister. We will support a Bill containing this concept of an unrest area on condition that a provision for detention is written into the Bill. We believe that the idea behind declaring certain areas unrest areas is a sound one. One could, for instance, write in regulations pertaining to curfew, search, and other measures that may be required for the maintenance of control in that area and in order to bring things back to normal. Using this and using the existing Internal Security Act as well as the existing review board, we could then deal with the situation.

The argument put forward against that is that the process involved is so long-winded that it would be impossible to deal with the administrative work generated in some cases. One of the reasons for this is the large numbers of people who have to be screened and investigated.

To have to pass a Bill of this nature because we are unable to administer another perfectly good system to me sounds ludicrous, especially when we realise what kind of lambasting we are going to get from overseas, when we realise the added impetus that it will give to those seeking to administer sanctions and when we realise the kind of reaction that will develop in our own country as a result. Is it not possible to use this unrest clause without the detention provision? One can use the existing legislation in which a review board already exists. If one slips on one or two pieces of administration and somebody goes free, one is going to pick him up again in any case. However, the damage that this Bill will do this country is something we shudder to contemplate. While we understand fully the circumstances which have led the hon the Minister to this point we cannot agree that his decision is the right one. We on these benches therefore support the amendment that I have read to the House.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Houghton, by means of a question, raised the issue of the interdict that has been applied for. I wish to say to her with all due respect, without going into the merits of this particular application, that as a person who has been involved in the law for years— and I think there are a few of the hon members behind her who could also tell her this—I have dealt with many interdicts that were applied for on a wilful basis and with a specific intention. Such people proceeded with such a matter with open eyes regardless of the possibilities of a costs award. I believe that if she were really interested in an interdict against the hon the Minister of Law and Order in order to prevent him from interfering with her outside the House, she might be able to succeed with such an interdict due to her relationship to the hon the Minister. We should therefore not oversimplify these things.

The hon member Mr Theunissen made a very sturdy contribution. Generally speaking I could not fault his approach. His statement that he is glad that the hon the Minister will no longer move certain amendments to the present measure which was originally placed by him on the Order Paper …

Shame!

… shows each one of us, as well as the hon member for Houghton, that one can also overplay one’s hand in the constitutional system in which we find ourselves. One can also try to take the principle of consensus too far by being inflexible and uncompromising as far as one’s perceptions in respect of the solution to a particular problem are concerned. The solutions to our problems lie in give and take.

The Minister now has a far better ally.

It is therefore very important that we learn a lesson from this whole matter and not merely criticise each other about the position in which we find ourselves.

Concerning the question of review measures which the hon member for King William’s Town broached, I shall exchange a few ideas with him in a moment. I do, however, wish to put it to him very briefly that the question of force levels, in connection with which he maintained that they had put questions as long ago as two years, has been accepted. I think all of us felt a degree of concern in this regard two years ago already.

In this country and in this House, however, we do our work in the midst of specific limitations as far as the economy of the country and specific training facilities are concerned. Furthermore we are also in the position that one cannot double one’s force levels of one’s Police Force overnight, because they undergo a long period of training, which in my opinion is essential.

The Government has done what it could in the midst of the difficult financial position of the country—I think that it went out of its way—to help every available man that it could lay its hands on, also within municipalities and elsewhere, to receive training. I think the hon the Minister will probably react in greater detail to the problems of the hon member. We should also have thorough regard to the limitations of manpower. We cannot simply tell anyone that he is definitely going to become a policeman.

Before I discuss the measures themselves, I wish to tell the hon member for Krugersdorp that the extent of his patience which he displayed on the standing committee was an absolute revelation. I have a lot of respect for the virtually unlimited patience which he displayed. I think he summarised the position very accurately and perceptively by saying that when it came to specific principles that had been laid down in legislation, regardless of the mitigation of the principles, there were nevertheless hon members in the House and elsewhere who were unequivocally quite unable to go along with the measures.

If one does not concede those principles to one another, then one must ask oneself to what extent compromise is possible. How many more days must it last? It is really impractical, and I really do not think we should discuss what happened on the standing committee. I want to tell the House, however, that if we look at the number of amendments which appear in the report, it is apparent that over the course of many days a serious attempt was made by the committee, under the direction of the hon member for Krugersdorp, to reach consensus. I think that was the great desire all of us had.

As I said during the previous Second Reading debate, I again wish to thank the hon the Minister for his patience, not only for listening to the hon members of that party or hon members from the other two Houses, but also for having listened to hon members of our own party who had and still have difficulties with this legislation. His door was always open to us and he listened to us with a great deal of patience, attention and with a cool head and gave us guidance.

Furthermore I do not think we realise what a difficult time Adv Bosch and his people had of it on the standing committee where we as Parliamentarians deliberated. They constantly had to provide us with information. From time to time they received many malicious questions from a political point of view, which they then dealt with in an impartial and practical manner.

I think we should say to one another that these measures are necessary and we should not differ with each other about them today. We can differ about the harshness or the mildness of certain measures, but we must not play at being armchair critics in the cool, calm atmosphere of the House of Assembly.

Owing to merciful Providence, we as Whites have not yet experienced what the people of Crossroads and in many other areas of South Africa have been experiencing for a long time and now also in the midst of the rain, the unrest, a lack of security and concern about their property, while we often try to score political debating points off one another here, and often try to delay measures as a result of our particular political views.

The SA Police is also being accused in the Press and elsewhere of partiality in Crossroads, where they have to operate under very difficult circumstances. I am certainly not saying that such criticism is justified, but every policeman in South Africa must try, as far as it is humanly possible, to act with absolute calm and act fairly in respect of those groups and factions. The choosing of sides cannot help us in this country, as an hon member has already said, and in this regard we cannot generalise. The hon the Minister and the hon member for Krugersdorp adopted a clear standpoint in this regard in the past. The purpose of the SA Police is impartiality in the maintenance of law and order, regardless of who is involved.

In this country we have a system of government and a specific constitutional structure in which Coloureds, Indians and Whites are involved. The task of law-making law enforcement is not made unilaterally easier by this. We in this House and the voters of this country should realise, as it was clearly stated in the State President’s speech before the President’s Council, that discussions must also take place with the Black people of South Africa, and that discussions will take place with them in future if they renounce violence. It will then be possible for them to become involved up to the highest level.

Despite the fact that government becomes more difficult as a result of the involvement of more groups, we have to accept and face up to the responsibilities of such a Government. If we look at the available alternatives in South Africa, we shall see that the NP and the efforts of the Government to defuse the problems is the only balanced approach. On the one hand the system of one man, one vote in a unitary state cannot solve the problems of this country, and on the other hand the policy of mere partition cannot solve those problems either. [Interjections.]

Why not?

The questions which have been interjected—”Who is going to share?” and “Who is going to choose?”—are one of the classic problems in this connection. If one is not going to act in an authoritarian way the party that wishes to implement the policy of partition will have to sit around a conference table with all the people in the country, and they will not only have to be willing to participate in the process of partition, but they will also have to allow other people to exercise choices, otherwise there is no moral justification for that approach. The maintenance of such a system can only occur in practice through the exercise of the power option, but its morality or its reality will not be able to stand up to any test. The act of governing carries with it certain responsibilities, and whether one likes it or not, you have to make the rulings and decisions and stand or fall by them.

An extremely important thing we have also experienced during these days—I think hon members of the CP say it all the time—is that no government can govern without a power-base. [Interjections.] This is an extremely important aspect.

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

Sir, I am making my speech, but if I have any time left, I shall gladly reply to a question.

Unless one lives on another planet, one cannot detach oneself from a specific powerbase. I think that the hon members of the PFP must concede that the simple fact and reality of South Africa is such that their policy cannot be sold to enough people to even maintain them as the Official Opposition in future.

Our support has been increasing over the years.

I want to tell that party that if there were to be an election in this country tomorrow, the CP would be the Official Opposition and not the Progs. I have no doubt about that.

We shall be the government and you will be the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

I also wish to put it to those members that a reasonable approach vis-à-vis the power-base of a government and every other party, has to my mind emerged more clearly during the time consultations on this measure took place between the various parties. That reasonableness, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, we must carefully weigh up against and temper with specific realities. If we do not do so we shall cause the whole system of consensus to miscarry and not be able to reconcile its theory with its practice. That would not be in the national interests and it would only be the people of our country who would suffer.

I think all hon members of this House realise that the maintenance of law and order is of primary importance and is the responsibility of this House and the Government. Politically we cannot escape it, nor do we wish to. The national interest demands at times that one adopt a strong standpoint, regardless of one’s power-base and political expediency. In that regard we must call upon all hon members of this Parliament to take a stand on the side of the maintenance of law and order. It is wonderful to speak about social upliftment and specific reforms, but if there is no law and order and stability, the reform process is out of the question.

I want to make it very clear that in view of the serious situation in which South Africa finds itself, there is no doubt in my mind about the principles contained in these measures and presented in the regulations. I would have preferred these measures—and I said so in my previous speech—to have been taken up in the Internal Security Act. The Public Safety Act is intended primarily for emergency situations. In this regard I wish to refer to the existing Act, and to its long title which reads as follows:

In other Western countries, measures such as these which we wish to adopt in this House also exist in terms of which a less serious situation can be dealt with as a state of emergency.

Such as what country?

There are many such countries. [Interjections.] The hon members of his party on the standing committee will also be able to tell him. We heard evidence on this.

Not among Western countries! No!

There certainly are Western countries where …

Not even Northern Ireland!

These specific measures—I would have preferred this—should rather have been included in the Internal Security Act.

Just give us one example of such a country! Just one!

If I am correct, I think such legislation exists in certain parts of America.

No, never! [Interjections.]

Not on your life!

In Belgium or in Holland similar measures exist. [Interjections.] I undertake to prove it to those hon members in writing.

Just you bring us the relevant Statute!

In my speech during the previous second reading debate on this Bill, I had already indicated that I welcome the abolition of the proposed section 5B …

Yes, but it has now been brought back into the Bill!

… and in that regard I wish to say that I would be glad if the hon the Minister would still see his way clear to getting rid of the proposed new section 5B, or to taking such steps as might be necessary in this regard. [Interjections.] The limitation of the testing right of the courts, as contained in this measure—and which does apply to a certain extent in sections 28 and 29 of the Internal Security Act—I believe, could possibly be adapted and embodied in some way or other in this measure. Sections 28 and 29 of the relevant Act apply to people who commit offences which endanger the security of the State or who commit offences as set out in section 54 of the Act. It includes offences such as terrorism, sabotage, subversion and so forth. They are all offences which have a bearing on attempts to overthrow the security of the State. The measure which we are now discussing here, is aimed at making provision for something less than a state of emergency. In order to control the existing unrest situations, the question of revision, as the hon member for King William’s Town also pointed out, should possibly be considered by the hon the Minister. I gladly support the legislation under discussion, but I ask the hon the Minister if he would possibly consider the matters which I have touched on.

Mr Speaker, would the hon member please inform the House who, in his opinion should be blamed for consensus not having been reached in regard to this legislation between the Coloureds and the Indians on the one hand and the Government on the other?

Mr Speaker, I am not willing to apportion blame or to act as arbiter with regard to what happened on the standing committee. I do not believe it is our task to devote ourselves to that in this House today. Nor can it do the parliamentary system any good at all.

It is because you Nats sit and fight with one another so much that consensus cannot be reached. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, until the latter part of the speech by the hon member for Roodepoort I thought that we had perhaps reached the stage where at last there was evidence that there was some degree of consensus in this House in respect of security legislation, because when the hon member for Roodepoort commenced his speech he remarked on the speech made by the hon member Mr Theunissen, and said he could find very little fault with what the hon member Mr Theunissen had said. I thought that what we were now seeing was consensus being reached between the CP and the NP. Having listened to the latter part of the hon member’s speech, however, I must say something else. I am referring in particular to his plea to the hon the Minister to return to the situation when the hon the Minister was prepared to scrap the new section 5B—that was the situation when the Bill came before this House last week. I must compliment the hon member on that, and I hope that his plea to the hon the Minister will be acceded to. I think it makes sense and I find it very strange indeed that the hon the Minister should come to the House one week later and say he is not going to consider any amendments to the Bill at all. I just wonder what influenced the hon the Minister in the first instance when he decided to scrap the new section 5B, and why he should suddenly, within a few days, change his mind. I shall come back to that a little later. If I may refer to the speech made by the hon member Mr Theunissen of the CP, I want to say on behalf of the hon members in these benches that, if ever we needed evidence of the danger inherent in this legislation, it is the support which it received from the CP this afternoon. The hon member Mr Theunissen congratulated the hon the Minister on abandoning his amendments. He urged stronger regulations and stronger control over the Press and Press photographers, more restrictions, etc. The hon member Mr Theunissen then went on to say that the PFP believes that if we have Black majority power in South Africa, all the evils in the country will disappear. Of course, that is absolute nonsense. We have never said that and we have never indicated that that is our belief. We have always insisted that whatever the future of South Africa may be, it is our view that we should do everything possible to ensure that the rule of law was recognised and respected in this country. I want to tell the hon member Mr Theunissen, and the Government members who support this legislation, that if, by the confrontationist policies presently being followed, there is a result in South Africa of naked Black majority rule, they must not be surprised if future governments under that rule resort to using the same sort of measures as they are resorting to using at present as far as security matters are concerned.

The hon member for King William’s Town, who spoke for the NRP, has moved an amendment in the usual pusillanimous terms which we have come to associate with that party. It was a half-hearted approach, and he said that if there were a process of judicial review in regard to detentions, the NRP would find it possible to support this legislation. The hon member for King William’s Town disappointed one considerably in the attitude which he adopted. He showed himself far too easily satisfied with a few crumbs from the Government table, if he were to get those crumbs. I believe that no such amendment could make this Bill in any way acceptable to anyone who has a real idea and a real appreciation of democratic values in South Africa.

The hon member for King William’s Town asked us a number of questions with regard to the Police and the Security Forces in the townships. Yes, we have said that we believe that the presence of the Security Forces in the townships is bad in principle. We believe there certainly is a need for a Police presence in the townships to carry out their normal duties as a law enforcement agency. We believe there should be more policemen in order to do that, as in all parts of South Africa. In a state of emergency we know the Government, or the State, can do anything including employing the general Security Forces all over South Africa. In principle we are opposed to that, although we do believe that ordinary people in all parts of South Africa are deserving of the normal sort of protection which they should get from a police force in a democratic country.

Now you are being wishy-washy yourself!

I am not being wishywashy at all. It ought to be perfectly clear to anyone who understands what a police force is about in any country. It ought to be perfectly clear.

I want to return now to the Government’s attitude towards the Bill. I believe that the Government’s insistence on going through with this Bill at all costs, despite the fact that there has been a public outcry all over South Africa, fierce condemnation from outside South Africa and the rejection of this measure by the standing committee, is very clear evidence that it has lost control of the situation in this country. This Bill is nothing more than a panic measure which seeks to reinforce the immense powers which the Government and the State already have in order to enforce unjust and indefensible laws and to preserve its brand of law and order at all costs.

The hon the Minister does not need the powers contained in this Bill. He already has them if he wants them. What this Bill does, is to attempt in a feeble way to facilitate the use of massive powers in a manner which the Government—with what I believe is incredible naivety—seems to think will be more palatable than making use of the existing emergency powers that they have.

I think the White Paper gives the game away. When one reads the White Paper, one finds that it argues against the use of existing powers. It argues against the proclamation of a general state of emergency and in favour of the need for additional or alternative powers provided for in this Bill. In advancing that argument, the following statement is made in the White Paper:

It then goes on to say the following:

It goes on to say the following:

It then goes on to say:

In other words, it now seeks to do the same thing by sleight-of-hand. I wonder who they think they are fooling. I wonder if they really think they will get away with it.

They are fooling themselves!

If there are concomitant circumstances arising out of a state of emergency, the same concomitant circumstances will arise out of action taken by virtue of the powers given to the hon the Minister in terms of this legislation.

The provisions of clause 4 of the Bill enable the hon the Minister at his discretion to declare so-called unrest areas in any part of South Africa where—to quote the words used in the White Paper—in his opinion—

He may then assume total power over the lives of the people in those areas. I believe that this is an appalling situation in that one man can at will suspend the existing laws of the land in any area and then reign supreme. The hon the Minister can do what he likes. He can declare an unrest area. He can assume powers for three months and ask for an extension of a further three months. Therefore, if in the opinion of this hon Minister—one man—an area should be declared an unrest area, he may assume these powers. [Interjections.]

This is a totally intolerable situation and is in no way compatible with the operation of a democratic society. It smacks of Nazism, fascism and totalitariansim in their most blatant forms.

To argue, as some hon members on the Government benches have done during the discussion of this measure, that they do not really like to assume these powers and that they really are democrats but that in order to preserve democracy it is sometimes necessary to assume powers which are in conflict with it, is in my opinion sophistry of the most dangerous kind. Once again, it is the sort of argument that is reminiscent of the attitudes in the early days of Hitler’s Germany. If that sort of argument—that because we really want to preserve democracy we are forced to assume these powers in order to preserve it—held any water at all, it would presuppose that those who seek the powers have an understanding of and a feeling for the basic tenets of a real democracy and a respect for the rights of people. I want to say that I do not believe that this Government and this hon Minister have that understanding or that feeling at all.

The Government has an appalling and a disgraceful track record when it comes to recognising and respecting the rights of others and democratic principles. In 38 years this Government has reduced South Africa to the tragic and critical situation in which it is at the present time. [Interjections.] Through its policies this Government has done this in a period of 38 years.

We are asked to give powers to the hon the Minister to deal with “the unrest situation”. All I want to say is that it is this Government that stands accused of being the cause of violence and unrest at the present time because of the policies it has followed. It is responsible for what is happening in South Africa at the present time and which threatens to destroy the very existence of this country. [Interjections.]

How can we then trust them to try to eliminate unrest and violence? For decades we have warned against the policies of repression and have pleaded for policies based on the realities of the situation in South Africa. However, the Government has ignored these warnings. They have ignored our warnings and our appeals that they should face up to the reality of the South African situation. Instead, they have become more and more obsessed with divisive racial policies and have more and more found themselves forced to resort to repressive powers in order to enforce those policies. So we have landed up in the situation in which we are at the present time.

Each time there is a dangerous situation in this country, the Government comes along and asks for more and more powers to deal with the mess which they themselves have created. When the hon the Minister introduced this Bill for the first time the other day, he himself told us of the new wave of violence which had erupted in South Africa, the beginning of which could be traced back to September 1984. What is the significance of September 1984? That was when the new Constitution and the tricameral system of Parliament came into operation. It gave some recognition to the Coloured and Asian populations of South Africa while locking them into an apartheid system but ignored the masses of the South African population, the Blacks.

We warned them of the consequences of that legislation, constitution and system. Throughout and even before the referendum campaign we warned of the danger of polarisation. We said that there would be polarisation between the White power group and the voiceless masses of South Africa. We warned of growing frustration, bitterness and resentment but the Government ignored those warnings. Once again, they felt that they knew better. That was the one example I wanted to point out.

Another example of the way in which the Government has consistently refused to heed any warnings—and the country is now paying the price for its refusal to do so—is the ghastly tragedy of what is happening at this very moment in the Western Cape. It is another example of the arrogance and ineptitude of this Government.

And indifference.

We have almost a civil war type situation where lives are being lost every day and where thousands of people are homeless and destitute. All of this is as a direct consequence of the Government proceeding over the years, against all advice and all warnings, with a crazy apartheid ideology which decreed that this part of South Africa would be a Coloured labour preference area. In so decreeing, the Government was able to turn a blind eye to the realities of the situation and to the need for a decent programme, years ago already, of urbanisation, so as to provide decent housing and services for growing numbers of people who were inexorably moving into the Western Cape.

Now the apartheid chickens have come home to roost, and this hon Minister sits here and pleads with people to give him more powers because he has to control the situation. He says he cannot control the situation, not even with the immense powers he already has. The apartheid chickens have come home to roost with consequences which are potentially disastrous for all of us in South Africa. As I have said, the hon the Minister’s response to all of this, on each occasion, has been to ask for greater and alternative powers. I want to know where this is going to end! If there is a worse situation next year as far as violence and unrest is concerned, will he come along with further Bills? Where will it stop? [Interjections.] He has the powers at the present time but he comes along now looking for alternative powers to use in the present situation.

I stress that the White Paper warned against the concomitant consequences of a state of emergency. I wonder what those consequences were. Consequences of a state of emergency would certainly, I think, include a further erosion of confidence in our ability as a country to control the situation by normal means. Another consequence would be a further decline in the economy of the country and another would be a collapse in our international standing. A further consequence, I suppose, in general terms would be to give grist to the mill of those who maintain that we have contempt for civil liberties in this country.

These same consequences are inevitably bound to flow from the exercise of powers given to the hon the Minister in this Bill if it is passed by Parliament. There will not be any difference. The declaration of these unrest areas and the powers which the hon the Minister is going to take in order to deal with the situation in those areas will have exactly the same consequences. In fact, this Bill will encourage those consequences because, as I have said, it is nothing more than a panic measure. It almost seems as if this Government has a death wish for South Africa in that they could be so insensitive as to come at this time with a measure of this kind. It looks as if they are intent upon wrecking South Africa and all that has been built up through the years.

The Government just does not face up to the realities of the South African situation. In the most delicate of situations it seems that by measures of this kind, by raids across our borders, and by stubborn intransigence in regard to its policy it has apparently wrecked the EPG initiatives; it is causing further criticism and action against South Africa in most parts of the Western world; and it is alienating us from our Western allies. One has to come to the conclusion that they have a death wish—that in fact they have decided that they are going to go it alone. It does not matter. As the hon member Mr Theunissen said: “Forget about the rest of the world; they will never understand us anyway.” I think this perhaps is the official attitude of the Government at this time: “We will go into the laager and we will fight it out alone.” I want to say to the Government that if that in fact is its attitude at the present time then it is playing with the future of South Africa and history will never forgive it for its reckless stupidity. [Interjections.]

The Bill gives powers to the hon the Minister which are mind-boggling and we want to say that we have no confidence whatsoever in the ability and the discretion of the hon the Minister in exercising these powers. I must tell him that I believe that he, more than anyone else, is responsible for bringing the SA Police Force into disrepute.

Are you discussing the motion or the Bill?

I am discussing what the rules of the House will allow me to discuss and the hon the Minister will not dictate to me. There is not a state of unrest in this House and I am not going to be dictated to by him! [Interjections.] That hon Minister, by the sort of arrogance which he even displays with that remark, is totally incapable of exercising discretion in regard to the handling of the SA Police. [Interjections.] I believe, because of his incapability, he is bringing that Force into disrepute because through legislation of this kind he charges the Police Force with the responsibility of forcing people to comply with laws which are intrinsically unjust and which are more and more becoming unenforceable. In the process he is perceived to give the Police almost carte blanche to do as they please.

The hon member for Houghton has dealt this afternoon with the controversial indemnity provisions in the state of emergency regulations. The hon member for Krugersdorp said that there was gross exaggeration in regard to the effect of those indemnity provisions. One has a certain respect for the hon member for Krugersdorp; he is normally a balanced member, but I want to know from him whether he is suggesting that the General Bar Council of South Africa was irresponsible last year when in very clear terms it condemned in their entirety the indemnity provisions in the state of emergency. [Interjections.] Does he include those people among the people who he says are reckless and irresponsible on the question on the indemnity provisions? The Bar Council was explicit in the statement which it made, in which it is regarded as a clear inroad into the ordinary rights of individuals where one is clothing the Police Force with authority to do almost what they please and to be above the courts. That is what the Bar Council’s attitude was, but the hon member does not seem to agree with that. The hon the Minister says he was proud of the indemnity provision last year and he has said quite openly that he will be issuing regulations in terms of his powers in this Bill. He says he will do it again. Again I want to say that it means, if he carries on in this way, that in their approach to life, limb and property of ordinary people the Police will have the view that in a situation like this they are in fact above the law. This is a dangerous situation for the people of South Africa and it is also a very dangerous concept for any law enforcement agency to have within its own ranks.

The hon the Minister’s attitude is confirmed by his message of congratulation that is reported in today’s Cape Times. The message was apparently broadcast to security forces in KTC some time yesterday. I may mention that this message was broadcast against the background of widespread and apparently well-founded allegations that have been made in the past few days about Police partisanship and/or inactivity in a group-versus-group confrontation situation here in the Western Cape. The hon the Minister has been asked to conduct an investigation or institute inquiries into the situation, but he has refused to do so. Against that background, the hon the Minister is reported in the Cape Times of this morning to have relayed a message of congratulations to the Police. I quote from the Cape Times:

[Interjections.] There we have it: “Kragdadige Minister Le Grange” virtually telling the security forces to carry on doing whatever they have been doing and that he will answer the “questions at the top”. That was a unilateral decision on his part. There has been no investigation and no regard has been had to the allegations that have been made as to Police involvement and the nature of that involvement. [Interjections.] I believe that is an incredible attitude, but one which conforms to the hon the Minister’s attitude in regard to the whole question of Police indemnity.

No Minister, but no Minister, can be entrusted with the powers envisaged in this Bill; certainly not this hon Minister!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Berea says we rejected the amendments which they moved on the standing committee. I am a member of the standing committee and I can testify that the whole process was handled patiently by the chairman and that we tried to reach consensus numerous times. The hon member for Berea, however, was one of the members who, when we were at the point of reaching consensus about something, interfered to see whether he could sabotage the possibility of consensus. [Interjections.] That is the part which that hon member played in the standing committee. In fact, his party played that part consciously.

The hon member spoke about extraordinary powers for the Police. This Bill makes no provision for extraordinary powers, however. [Interjections.] We spoke to hon members about certain powers which the Police should necessarily obtain. [Interjections.] The hon member also asserted that our legislation would result in a Black majority government. There are certain questions which I want to put to the hon member and his party as regards the establishment of a Black majority government. [Interjections.]

The hon member maintained that the legislation which we want to pass, is something from another world as far as powers are concerned. It is very clear, however, that this legislation will be used selectively on a temporary basis to restore law and order in certain areas.

I have never heard the hon member for Berea or the hon member for Houghton, nor have I read in the Cape Times about Police action being praised, but they did justify and protect the conduct of the “comrades” or the revolutionaries, radical leaders who operate inside the communities. [Interjections.] The hon members of the PFP say that is not so, but in fact it is, Sir. They are not the people who commit injustices, but the Police do commit injustices. We cannot allow that allegation to pass. The hon member said the Police and the Government have no respect for the lives and rights of people.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member aware of the attitude that the Cape Times took for example in regard to the murder of the young man after the … [Interjections.]

I was talking about the impression I get when I look at the photographs and reports every day. They will give anyone abroad or inside the country the impression that the Police are the “crooks” and the “comrades” are the “cowboys”.

Nonsense!

The hon member for Berea said the situation which had arisen here, was the fault of the Police or of the Government. He said we did not heed the realities. Since no Union party has done more for the Blacks than the NP as far as the extension of democracy and the extension of human rights are concerned. In saying this, I am taking the hon member’s former membership of the UP into account. He must show us what he has done as regards the extension of democracy.

It bothers me that the hon member and his colleagues display an open hostility towards the Police. It happens in the House, in the newspapers, abroad and in the standing committee. He said here today that the Police did as they pleased. I shall tell hon members what the Police do. They want to protect people who are being killed in the Black areas. I get the impression from the hon member and his party that they want to prevent the Police from protecting these people. I get the impression that the “comrades” can go on killing, burning and intimidating people. They are not guilty, but the Police are guilty.

Now I ask the hon member for Berea whether he would welcome a state of emergency in the country. We have to control the situation now, not tomorrow or the day after. It does not matter whose fault it is, but things which have to be controlled with the assistance of the Defence Force or the Police or by means of a state of emergency are taking place in the country. Would the hon member welcome it if we were to declare a state of emergency tomorrow? [Interjections.] I ask the hon member whether he would welcome it.

Does the hon member want the present situation to continue or to worsen? [Interjections.] Why do we get the impression—that is my impression and the public’s impression, but I hope we are wrong—that the hon members of the Official Opposition are openly on the side of the “comrades”? Why do they not condemn the loathsome conduct of the “comrades” in one speech, in the standing committee or in the newspaper, their mouthpiece? [Interjections.]

I now ask the hon member whether the Police or the Defence Force should control the situation or whether it should be controlled by means of a state of emergency. Who but the Police should protect people in Kempton Park, Standerton and Crossroads? Do the hon members perhaps have a certain goal in mind in wanting the situation to continue and expand? Do the hon members want reform to continue? They want to prevent reform from continuing, because they know very well that reform cannot continue under the present circumstances.

We therefore want them to say here today whether they want the unrest to expand or to be brought under control. They must also say in what way it should be done. Then we shall have respect for them. I did not hear in the standing committee or in the House how they want us to control the situation. We do not want to hear whose fault it is any more.

They know as well as I do what is happening in the country at the moment, that former members of that party are engaged in serious extra-Parliamentary activities today. [Interjections.] With what purpose are they doing so? To overthrow the State and the present Parliament.

I wish to know: What kind of Government will come into power then? Will it come into power democratically? Are the “comrades” going to allow them in Parliament? I want to know whether the PFP is in favour of the present system and the reform being continued.

We know that the cry of the revolutionary radicals is that the revolution must start now, possibly on 16 June. I want to know from the hon PFP members why they are not helping us to find a way to maintain law and order in view of the present circumstances. Why do they adopt such obvious delaying tactics? Why do they want to paralyse the Parliamentary system which has to give authority to the Police?

It is a generally accepted fact that intimidation among the ranks of the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians is assuming frightening proportions. This intimidation no longer occurs merely outside Parliament, but has even infiltrated into the other two Houses. There are hon members of the other two Houses who are being threatened and whose lives are being endangered. Hon members in this House know that as well as I do.

If ever we want to make a mistake in South Africa, we must imagine we are dealing with children at play. These are sophisticated and highly trained people who are planning a revolution in South Africa and they are the people the Police have to try to control today. I want to know why the hon PFP members want to put a spoke in our wheel to prevent us from doing so. Which methods are they going to use to bring this about?

What is the strategy in respect of the Police? The strategy is that the Police must be made so unpopular that the masses will begin to hate them. That is the strategy, and progress has already been made in achieving this goal. The Police are said to be the culprits every time.

A mass uprising is being planned against the Government and former PFP members are at the head of it. That is why they left Parliament.

The hon member for Berea has left now, but I did not hear whether he had repudiated the hon member on his conduct. Nor did I hear that from the hon leader of the CP. As the hon member for Jeppe said, people in those ranks are being told that they should make the people so dissatisfied with the present system that they will want to change it by forceful means.

There is much concern in South Africa about the fact that people in the Black, Coloured and Indian community are not being protected. This is extending in the present situation so that the lives of Whites are also being threatened. That is the situation as it is today.

I want to tell the House that we are dealing with highly trained people who know what they are doing. In the case of Zimbabwe the revolution was planned to move from the rural areas to the city, but here it is the other way around. The start of the revolution is being planned in the city, and because it is successful there at the moment, it is spreading to the countryside.

Come back to the Bill!

That hon member who is shouting that I must come back to the Bill, has just woken up after falling asleep yesterday. He is so concerned about what the hon member for Jeppe said that he did not sleep well last night. He is just carrying on here. [Interjections.]

The SA Police is not bigger than the cause it is dealing with. [Interjections.] The motto of the SA Police is and has always been “Protect and Serve”. They protect and serve all the citizens of South Africa.

Lenin was one of the greatest exponents of revolution.

The appearance of Lenin.

He said:

That is what is happening in South Africa at the moment.

With “necklaces”!

Among the people who wish to prevent the implementation of this legislation, there is a desire to use the present unemployment situation to incite the dissatisfaction which is already prevalent among the masses. There are people who wish to bring about a planned takeover of power.

Do you only realise that now?

The Police are doing nothing but trying to prevent it.

I want to conclude by saying that to combat this kind of premeditated and well-planned revolutionary conduct, the Police should be given extra powers. The existing order is being threatened by a communist onslaught which is supported by their front organisations. If the Police do not break the stranglehold of the revolutionary radicals on the moderate, peaceful Blacks, Marxism and socialism will be forced onto the majority by means of intimidation. This will enslave everyone, except a small group of the residents of this country of ours.

Mr Chairman, I would like to begin by making it clear to the hon member for Vryheid that the PFP does not attempt to justify violence from any quarter. [Interjections.] We cannot condone the establishment of people’s courts and jungle justice. We neither condone nor attempt to justify necklacing or the intimidation of people who wish to proceed with their normal activities.

The hon member will recall the unfortunate incident of a few days ago when a person attending a UDF meeting was pointed out by the chairman as an informer and subsequently killed by a mob of people who had also been attending the meeting. This party condemned very strongly the action of the chairman and of the grouping which allowed such a thing to happen. [Interjections.]

It should be remembered though that it is the Government and its policies of exclusion and suppression which have bred this undesirable phenomenon which has appeared in our country.

The hon member asks why we do not help. We wish to help and we will help, but we cannot help the Government to suppress the people, destroy the rule of law and evade the judgment of the courts.

We will help when the Government is ready to negotiate and prepared to unban the ANC and other organisations which are presently banned, and when it is prepared to release the political leaders and get down to negotiation.

*Last week, when we discussed this Bill in the House for the first time and I referred to the activities of the Police, the hon the Minister said that I was using calculated untruths. He went further and said the following of me (Hansard: 4 June 1986):

†Sir, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity which the hon the Minister has afforded me by issuing that challenge.

Mr Chairman, does the hon member agree that the facts to which he has just referred, are in connection with his statement that he personally witnessed those murders? Those are the facts to which I referred. [Interjections.] It is recorded in his Hansard and I ask the hon member if that is what he is referring to.

You are back-tracking.

Obviously, Sir, I have not witnessed a murder. I have witnessed a man die in Alexandra, but I have not witnessed a murder. However, I have spoken to people who were involved in that, and I have personal knowledge of some of the facts … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, will you please control the hon the Minister.

Order! All hon members, not only the hon the Minister, are interjecting too loudly.

No, he is the one who is disturbing my peace. [Interjections.]

I call, as my first witness, a lady whose name is Rebecca Beea. She was, until her house was burnt down, living at 11, 8th Avenue, Alexandra. She spoke to me personally, and I verified as best I could the facts of what she had to say. She stated that:

Her husband is the chairman of the Civic Association in Alexandra, and one of the leading opponents of apartheid in that area. I want to continue this quote:

This lady was in my home. I saw her injuries and assisted her in obtaining some refuge from the township for that time.

The next statement I want to read concerning a person who cannot speak because he is dead, but I give hon members the statement of a witness:

Collin was shot through the throat during that incident. He was the brother of Emmarelda Nkozi who is the leader of the Youth Congress in Alexandra.

Unfortunately, I cannot give hon members the name of the next person whose statement I want to read, because he fears for his life, but this documentation has been lodged with a lawyer and an application against this hon Minister will be made shortly.

I, XYZ …

I am not going to quote this person’s name—

This is a person from Soweto. The quote continues:

Sir, I should like also to read from an affidavit made by another person whose name I cannot divulge either because he fears for his fife. This is also going to be the subject of a court case very shortly.

Order! I am sure the hon member for Sandton will be able to indicate how this has a bearing on the particular Bill being discussed by the House now.

Indeed, Sir. It has enormous bearing on this very legislation because it shows us the sort of things that can happen when these enormous powers are granted in terms of regulations giving the Police the right to arrest people and detain them without trial, and the regulations which create an indemnity in favour of the police. The hon the Minister virtually told me I was a liar when I told him what the Police were doing in this country. That was when we previously debated this Bill here in the House. The hon the Minister challenged me to bring proof substantiating my allegations. Therefore, Sir, what I am going to do now, with your permission, is to furnish that very proof for which the hon the Minister asked.

Order! The hon member must understand that that was during a previous debate. The hon member has, however, indicated to me that he can bring it within the confines of the Bill before the House. I will therefore allow him to continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The following affidavit from which I should like to quote was made by a man from Alexandra. I have his name here but I am not prepared to divulge it to this hon Minister. I quote again, as follows:

I interrupt the quote here, Sir, to state that I believe this was a stray bullet that struck this boy in the leg. The quote continues:

That must be a miracle! Fancy, he is still alive!

I believe it is probably a miracle, as the hon member for Langlaagte says.

Have you anything to prove that what that guy is saying is indeed true?

Indeed I have. I am in possession of medical documents. Moreover, this particular boy is going to bring a case against the Police. [Interjections.]

Now, Sir, I want to read out a father’s statement. This father has given me permission to use the name of the person involved. His name is Pilot Mashiane and he lives at Alexandra. I quote from his affidavit, as follows:

Why do the Police never inform the parents when their children are detained?

In this case they also did not inform the parents. I quote again, as follows:

I know this is hard to face, but I hope the hon the Minister is not going away.

Just make sure you take all the names down.

The quote continues:

This statement was made last year. I quote further:

Mjeri, incidentally, is an open piece of land very near to Alexandra. The quote continues:

That was a statement made by a father about the effects of detention on a child.

Now I should like to read to hon members part of an affidavit made by a man called Fundisile Matshini. He launched an application against the SA Police in the Eastern Cape division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, and this is the affidavit which was filed in the Supreme Court at that time. I read from it as follows:

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member but can he assure me that that case is not sub judice?

Qh no, Mr Chairman. This case has been dealt with. This is actually a very important affidavit, Mr Chairman. He says:

I hope the hon the Minister is proud of this. This is his Police Force I am talking about. I wonder whether the hon the Minister is proud of what he is hearing today. These are his boys I am talking about. [Interjections.] The statement continues:

Send them another telegram of congratulations!

Yes, perhaps he should send his Police a telegram of congratulations. I quote further as follows:

He virtually suffocated. He goes on:

[Interjections.] Sir, I find it very disconcerting that while I am reading things which are important for the hon the Minister to hear, he is more interested in trying to tell the hon the Deputy Minister of Information some secrets of his! [Interjections.] The hon the Minister challenged me to bring documentation to the House. I have brought it and am now reading from it. It seems to me that this hon Minister is actually too ashamed to listen to it. He cannot even look me in the eye while I am speaking! [Interjections.] The affidavit continues as follows:

I do not intend reading on because much of what has already been said is repeated.

There is one other affidavit which I have selected but I think it will also take somewhat too long to read, taking into account the time that I have available.

What did the court say about that?

The court did not make a finding on that affidavit.

Oh, didn’t it?

In case the hon member for East London City wants to refer to it, is to be found in the ex parte application of Fundasile Matshini which was heard by the full Bench of the Eastern Cape Division, so the hon member can look it up and find out what decisions were made. [Interjections.]

I just want to tell those hon members here who say that they do not condone excesses that I have approximately 150 affidavits right here—documents and statements emanating from Port Elizabeth, East London, Alexandra, Soweto and every comer of South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to say to all those people who support the sort of Police action we have seen, and to every hon NP member in this House, that I am prepared to let them read these documents. [Interjections.] I am prepared to lend these to them. In fact, I ask some of these hon members to fetch this documentation from me and read it. [Interjections.] I ask the hon member for Roodepoort, whose judgment I value from time to time, and the hon members for Krugersdorp, Innesdal, Randburg and East London City, hon members in this House whom I respect, to have a look at these documents. I will show them to hon members.

However, what I want to know is what hon members are going to do about it once they have looked at these documents. Are they still going to support this sort of legislation which grants this sort of licence to the Police? I am very keen that hon members of this House should be aware of what is going on in this country because when the Nuremburg trials are held in this country—and it will happen—I do not want any members in this House to say: “I did not know.” [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, how many affidavits did the hon member collect from people who suffered as a result of the activities of the so-called comrades? [Interjections.]

I have certainly had statements given to me from people who have suffered at the hands of “comrades”, yes, but at the moment I am discussing the actions of the Police. [Interjections.] I do not want any hon member in this House …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order. May the hon member for Sandton insinuate that there is a Nazi regime in this country in his statement in regard to a Nuremberg trial?

Order! I did not hear that.

My time is running out, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, may I address you in this regard?

Order! The hon member may address me on this, but I did not hear it.

Mr Chairman, shortly before the hon member for Sandton was interrupted on a previous point of order, he referred to evidence that would be heard when a Nuremberg trial took place in this country—which would be here.

Well, let me amend that to satisfy the hon member. [Interjections.] I will then withdraw the words “Nuremberg trial” and say Nuremberg-type trial. I do not want hon members to be able to say they did not know, because I am giving hon members the information if they are interested in it. [Interjections.] Therefore no hon member can say he did not know that this happened. [Interjections.] The last time I spoke on this Bill I said the Government had given up its obligation of governing in terms of ordinary law. It cannot any longer govern this country in terms of ordinary laws.

Either of two actions in the next few days will prove that. The first action is that the Government, having the laws rejected in the Houses of Representatives and Delegates, rams this Bill through by using its artificial majority in the President’s Council. If it does that it will show up forever the fraud that this Constitution is. The second point is that if the Government within the next few days, perhaps even tomorrow, declares a state of emergency, it will be flying in the face of what the hon member for Roodepoort has said about a state of emergency. It is inviting sanctions. It is endangering furthermore our economy and it is allowing the Police a licence to do whatever they like. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, after listening to the hon member for Sandton, I must say tonight’s speech was definitely the most disgraceful of all the speeches I have ever heard him make in the House. [Interjections.] It is a speech which should not have been made by an experienced member of the House.

The hon member said he had approximately 150 statements and added he would permit hon members on this side of the House to view them. If, in addition to the 150 in front of him, he has five affidavits eyewitnesses gave him on the murder of policemen—there were numerous such cases and a policeman was buried alive, for instance, and so on—I shall be very eager to read them.

The hon member’s speech consisted of a series of affidavits; most of them were anonymous which might mean that he could have composed them himself.

He is too stupid.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is suggesting that the hon member for Sandton fabricated these affidavits and that they were his own work. [Interjections.]

Order! Was the hon member insinuating that the hon member for Sandton had forged these affidavits?

Mr Chairman, I said the hon member for Sandton could have drawn them up himself. I did not say he had done so. [Interjections.]

Order! It is preferable for the hon member to withdraw that—it is a borderline case.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

I also wanted to ask the hon member for Sandton whether he had attempted to obtain any affidavits from these murderers of our policemen. He made a great fuss at the start of his speech on his party’s condemnation of illegal hearings, necklace murders, etc. We never hear them reacting, however, when members of the SA Police are murdered. [Interjections.]

The hon member said that, in the case of a particular murder, he had seen the person die. He referred to this in his speech in the previous Second Reading debate and said he had witnessed some of these murders. I now ask him what happened to those affidavits and what the findings were in those court cases. The hon member appeared particularly evasive to me and also attempted getting out of the answer when the hon member for East London City asked him whether those cases had served before the courts and, if so, what the verdicts had been. He chose to refer the hon member for East London City to the court reports and told him he could read them up himself. Surely he should know what the verdicts were in those cases. It should present him with no problem to furnish the answers by saying what the court findings were regarding those affidavits which he held up to us with such a fanfare in the House.

The hon member for Groote Schuur also made a great fuss in a question he put to the hon member for Vryheid concerning the attitude of the Cape Times as regards the murder of a man who attended a UDF meeting and he attempted with this single and isolated case to indemnify the Cape Times and exonerate it as supposedly not having maligned the Police in the process. Nevertheless the hon member did not furnish any further details on the incidents surrounding this murder. I think every newspaper, regardless of the political party it supports, in reporting this particular case would have had no choice but to report it as it was actually done. I read that particular report and I agree with the hon member for Vryheid that it is strange for one to find such a report in the Cape Times.

I wish to add that South Africa’s image abroad is important but we are not striving merely to enhance this image overseas. It is also important that we bring about law and order in this country. For that very reason the hon the Minister has come to this House with this legislation.

In debating this legislation, one cannot omit rereading the report of the Rabie Commission and very pertinently stressing a few of the recommendations Justice Rabie made in his report. I am referring to page 131 of the report dealing with intimidation of State witnesses and the Police. I shall quote from 9.5.2.1:

The judge therefore very pertinently points out that intimidation takes place merely by means of a gesture. It is a fact that these “Comrades”, who are such great friends of hon members of the PFP, merely show other members of the public a box of matches, for instance, from which these people may deduce that they will be “necklaced” and they are suddenly no longer prepared to co-operate with the Police.

I also wish to refer to preventive security action in general. I shall quote from page 204, paragraph 14.6 of the report:

He continues:

The executive authority cannot evade that responsibility, consequently the legislation before this House is so important.

The hon member for Houghton made much of the fact that the rand value would plummet if the outside world condemned us. This is certainly so but hon colleagues with us on the standing committee are also accessories to this. When we are obliged to act against creators of unrest in terms of existing legislation, the Government has no choice and the hon members of the other Houses and the PFP have to have it cast in their teeth because, if this legislation is approved, we may ensure peace and calm in this country as we can remove the guilty elements. It is true that the rand value will plunge again if we proclaim a state of emergency. We cannot afford this.

When the state of emergency was lifted, the unrest in our country increased. Let us examine a few statistics on incidents of unrest. There were 1 103 such incidents in January; in February this figure had risen to 1 573, in March to 1 651 and in April to 2 181; it had therefore almost doubled since January. There were 253 cases of arson in January and 377 in April. There were 134 petrol bomb attacks in January and 478 in April and a new tendency developed too. There were 34 cases during April alone in which the SA Police were fired on. We also saw in today’s newspapers that Mr Van Hees of The Citizen—I assume he is a cameraman—was shot in the unrest area yesterday. This should be an indication to the Press of the accuracy of the figures and statistics made available as well.

I had the privilege this afternoon of seeing a video film together with the hon member for Krugersdorp and hon members of the PFP at the invitation of the hon member for Constantia. What struck me particularly was that the hon members of the PFP present there were enormously amused at shots of empty shops in consequence of the boycott action. I do not know what Queenstown businessmen would have thought of this PFP action if they had been present. There was no sympathy of any kind whatever from the side of the hon members of the PFP towards businessmen who could perhaps go under as a result of such a boycott; on the contrary, they relished it because they knew the Government would have to resolve the situation again. When we—we have every intention of doing this—come forward with legislation to resolve the situation, we meet such strong resistance from their side.

An important factor in the unrest areas is also the intimidation that takes place. This intimidation is violent and the “necklace” method exerts a powerful influence on the community. People do not wish to complain openly and witnesses do not come forward with the result that there can be no clamping down on the guilty. The Police Force does receive information but witnesses do not come to give evidence on the intimidation to which I referred earlier.

Society in general is being threatened and this society has to be protected by the executive authority. It is the duty of the executive authority to protect the community even if the individual perhaps has to make certain sacrifices under the circumstances.

During his Second Reading speech, the hon the Minister of Law and Order said thousands of people were being prevented from carrying out their normal pursuits. The Government was reluctant to use these measures but it was its duty to protect society and it was definitely intent upon doing so.

I found it illuminating that, although an hon member of one of the other two Houses commented that he had Police protection 24 hours of the day, he was not in favour of approving this legislation which is so important to us in bringing intimidators to book so that we may use the Police elsewhere. The hon member is voting against this legislation. I wonder how his moderate voters will feel when he opposes it while they do not have the privilege of Police protection round the clock. I think that hon member should reflect on the matter again and in preference enable the Police to remove intimidating elements from the community.

It may be true that there is fear of the Young Turks, as the Weekly Mail stated. It is good advice to excise the canker and remove the rotten apple from the barrel as soon as possible. When this has been done, one can proceed with the task.

Clause 4 of the amending Bill provides for the insertion of section 5B in the Act. The hon the Minister announced that the concessions made in his previous Second Reading speech now lapsed. As a jurist I share the sentiments of the hon member for Roodepoort but as a realist I do not feel we should accord section 5B such prominence as to delete it. This thought is supported by the Pretoria Bar Council. Its members said that, in the light of current circumstances, section 5B would not be superfluous because the courts of the country were in no way affected when a person was male fides and would always retain testing rights in terms of common law. For those reasons I should have no objection to section 5B remaining as part of the legislation.

Mr Chairman, it was very depressing to listen to the hon member for Losberg and particularly to hear him attack the hon member for Sandton with regard to the affidavits that he read out to this House. The hon member for Losberg showed complete insensitivity.

One would at least have hoped that the hon member would have reacted by saying that they were very disturbed at the contents of the affidavits read out by the hon member for Sandton and that they would investigate the situation to see what can be done about it. However, what did he do? He more or less cast aspersions on the hon member and even went so far as to make remarks in this House that he had to withdraw.

The hon member for Losberg then said that he was concerned about the image of South Africa but that the safety of the public came first. He then quoted the recommendation of the Rabie Commission which goes so far as to say that one needs special laws in times of emergency and that should perhaps be the overriding factor. With the greatest respect in the world, however, I have argued in the past and will continue to argue shortly that the laws we already have are more than adequate to deal with the situation of unrest, so there is no need for this new legislation. I am extremely disappointed to hear from the hon member for Losberg that he is not prepared to support an amendment which would remove the proposed new section 5B from the Bill.

I always thought that we in South Africa lived in a democratic, civilised Western society with a judicial system which could compare with the best in the world. Our magistrates and judges are beyond reproach and of the highest integrity, and our society is built on the foundation of basic human rights such as habeas corpus, which is the right not to be incarcerated unnecessarily. It is fundamental to civilised society that habeas corpus be maintained and, most importantly, that detention without trial be regarded as abhorrent to such a society.

Detention without trial is associated with a dictatorship or a military junta in which people are whisked away and locked up incommunicado for ages. Their lawyers and family cannot see them and they are treated in a rather shameful way. That is the connotation of a state of emergency and detention without trial in the minds of the public here and overseas. Can South Africa afford such an image, especially when it is, as I submit, not necessary?

It is interesting to take note of the hon the Minister’s main argument in favour of the Bill. I quote from his Second Reading speech:

That is the reason advanced by the hon the Minister for proposing the present Bill. He goes on to say:

The hon the Minister therefore places this amending Bill before Parliament so that he can declare a state of unrest and have people detained for up to 30 days and longer if necessary.

What additional powers does the hon the Minister need over and above the measures presently at his disposal in order to contain the unrest situation which we all obviously agree exists in this country today and about which we are all very perturbed?

The argument has even been advanced that the Bill provides for measures less harsh than those taken in a state of emergency. If that is so, how is it then that the hon the Minister needs greater powers? On the other hand, what is the difference between a state of unrest and a state of emergency if both provide for detention without trial? The connotations and image will be the same. The implementation of this Bill will recreate the situation which existed during the state of emergency and which the hon the Minister is using as justification for proposing the measures in this Bill.

This Bill must, of course, be read together with the Internal Security Amendment Bill which provides for the extension of an initial 48-hour period of detention to 180 days. Detentions will take place at the discretion of the hon the Minister, and the courts will find this difficult to contest. Several recent judgments have shown that the opinion of the courts does not always agree with that of the hon the Minister.

What has been done previously with regard to unrest in this country? The state of emergency declared by proclamation R120 lasted from 21 July 1985 to 7 March 1986—that is nearly eight months. The security forces were then brought into the state of emergency—the Defence Force, the SA Police, the Railway Police and the Prisons Reserve who were also brought in as part of the forces. There were areas which could be demarcated as unrest areas, there were areas where declarations were issued that people could not be on the streets at certain times, there were areas where emergency regulations and rules applied and where newspapers could be prohibited from publishing information, and indemnity was given to all the forces I have just mentioned. In addition to the indemnity there was a presumption in their favour that whatever they did, they acted in good faith. During this period 371 people died and 416 were injured, whereas 18 569 were detained and 7 097 were arrested. However, since 7 March we have been told that something like five people are dying each day. This brings the total to approximately 450. So, there is not a great difference between the number of deaths during the state of emergency and the number of deaths since the state of emergency was lifted. That is the point I am making.

The first time the Internal Security Act was ever enforced, was after Sharpeville …

Surely you are in possession of the Police report which was dealt with by the standing committee?

Yes. The first time this happened was after Sharpeville on 30 March 1960 and the state of emergency lasted until 31 August 1960. During that period 11 506 people were detained. Then again in 1969 with Poqo and the banned PAC—the Pan African Congress—the night and day detention was brought in and 1 095 people were detained. It is interesting to see that 575 people were charged and 241 turned State evidence. Therefore, it seems as if this legislation is being used to detain people to “cool off’, to incarcerate people and to have people arrested without warrants and punished in terms of the emergency regulations and those very strict rules which I mentioned to the House in my speech during the previous Second Reading debate.

How long can we go on declaring states of emergency? For how long can we have unrest areas being declared? We cannot continue like that for much longer. As far as legislation is concerned, I have quoted some laws before. We have laws on high treason and we have laws covering sedition and demonstrations. We have court orders and we have the Intimidation Act, the Internal Security Act and the Public Safety Act. We have ample laws, and we do not need any emergency regulations. We do not need this Bill or any further regulations which are already contained in the Internal Security Act. A person can, for example, be detained in terms of section 28; interrogated in terms of section 29; the Attorney-General can refuse bail in terms of section 30; witnesses can be detained in terms of section 31; a magistrate himself can prohibit gatherings in terms of section 46; and a warrant officer can make arrests without a warrant in terms of section 50. So, I ask the hon the Minister why he needs the additional powers.

So I want to ask whether it is the additional law that the hon the Minister wants or does his problem lie in insufficient numbers. Does he not have sufficient numbers in the Police Force to cover the situation? If this is the case, I should like to refer the hon the Minister respectfully to the discussions which took place on television on 1 June—the Sunday night just before we started the debate last Monday. On that occasion Freek Robinson had a very frank interview with Gen Coetzee, and Gen Coetzee told us that there are something like 46 000 men in the SA Police Force. He said they are well trained to deal with riot situations. He said they have a certain way of dealing with riot situations where they start off using a loud-hailer to warn the people and, if necessary, to tell the people to disperse. If they do not disperse within three minutes the Police then use quirts or they use shotguns and, only in extreme circumstances do they fire rubber bullets and eventually real bullets.

I know what it is like to be under fire; I was in that situation for nearly two years, and I understand peoples reactions when their lives are endangered. I also realise that we sometimes make tremendous demands of policemen who are in mortal danger. This is often the case, and I do not mean to criticise the Police unduly as far as that is concerned. We cannot, however, ignore incidents such as the one which took place near this Chamber yesterday. A policeman warned an innocent crowd of students …

Young girls!

… including young girls to disperse within three minutes. It was quite obvious that, given time, they would have dispersed. They were unarmed and there was no threat or danger to the policemen present.

Or to anybody else!

Why in God’s name did the Police then attack these people, hit them with quirts and drag them off screaming? How can one account to the world for this extraordinary action?

Gauleiter Louis wanted to punish them!

How stupid can you be!

How could the hon the Minister allow this to happen without reacting? I accept that it is a different story when the Police are under fire in a riot, but they are trained to deal with such a situation.

I now come to the bottom line of our argument. In answer to a question put by Mr Freek Robinson, Gen Coetzee said: “We are in full control of the situation.” The hon the Minister heard it as well; he quoted the same comment himself the other day. If the General and his Police Force are indeed in full control of the situation, why in heaven’s name do we need this legislation? [Interjections.] How can it be justified?

I grant that one has to look sympathetically at the position of policemen confronted with a rioting mob. We are told we have enough policemen and that they are all properly trained. Potentially ugly situations sometimes develop which the Police are numerically inadequate to deal with. I accept that it is the first duty of the State to preserve law and order and to protect life and property. The PFP supports the State all the way as far as that is concerned.

The PFP disapproves in principle of the use of the SADF to augment the Police Force in the townships when the lack numbers, but even if this becomes absolutely necessary one does not need the powers contained in this Bill, the Internal Security Act, the emergency regulations or the Public Safety Act to bring in the SADF. We have the Defence Act for that purpose. It is that Act which has enabled the hon the Minister to call on the SADF from time to time without having to declare a state of emergency.

I would like to put another question to the hon the Minister. The hon member for Sandton gave a graphic account of events in Alexandra. We all read about that ugly situation, and people living nearby were very concerned about what was happening there. What happened subsequently though? The Police went in the other day, to the best of my knowledge without the SADF, and they cleaned up the township. I do not claim that the situation now is completely peaceful, but a kind of peace has been restored between the waning factions there. The hon the Minister did not need to declare Alexandra an unrest area or use emergency powers. He did not need the Public Safety Act. He managed without all these powers.

Why, therefore, is it necessary now to saddle this country with these laws which make us the victim of isolation throughout the world? I am afraid they are really not necessary.

We are living in very difficult times, and I have never heard such doom and gloom in all my life as that which I hear from South Africans today. I am sure many other hon members also sense this mood. There seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. Where is this country heading? What must we do? What of our future?

A letter arrived on my desk this morning from an organisation I will not name as I do not wish to publicise them. It was an invitation to join a club which provided, among other things, the following information: How to get a visa for entry into the United States; tax traps to avoid before one emigrates; using Luxembourg as a tax haven; the best British mutual funds; where to go for advice on international relocation—that is a new word for immigration; buying property in Spain or France; how to invest in strategic metals; and the latest visa requirements for Australia, Canada and the U K. [Interjections.]

I wonder how many thousands of people in South Africa are thinking of using this information because of the situation we face today. [Interjections.] It is a situation created by the NP Government. Many people would even leave this country if they were not the prisoners of the rand. They just do not have the means to do so, and it is not so easy to get into other countries these days either. [Interjections.]

Is this the sort of situation that we want to create in South Africa? Surely the time has come for us to change. We are dealing with a disease at the moment and this disease is taking on epidemic proportions. We are not treating the cause, and the only way to treat the cause is to deal with the political situation in South Africa—to remove the laws of apartheid and to create a climate in which we can talk and share power within the constraints of what the State President has promised us. We do not have to hasten laws of this nature; what we do have to hasten, are laws of reform in South Africa. Moreover, if we hasten laws of reform in South Africa, we will not have any need for states of emergency. We will not even have to enact regulations or rules in terms of existing laws, because we will return to peace. That is what we really want to do in this country, namely to return to peace.

What is the urgency? Perhaps the hon the Minister can explain what the urgency is. We have seen that there is tremendous pressure in this regard. The Order Paper has been altered and these two Bills have been brought before the House for immediate discussion. Moreover, they were rushed through the standing committee yesterday. What is the urgency? Is it for use on 16 or 24 June? What do they want to do on 16 or 24 June?

Clause 4 of the Bill which seeks to insert section 5(A) into the principal Act, affords the hon the Minister the power to declare an unrest area if any public violence is threatening. Now, because 16 June is a day which is to be commemorated as Soweto Day, is the hon the Minister going to say on 15 June that there will be unrest there, or in Sharpeville, Port Elizabeth, East London or Cape Town, or anywhere else for that matter? How is he going to know if there is a threat in any area? After all, this measure gives him the power to declare an unrest area after unrest has occurred. However, what happens when unrest is threatening? Why does he need this legislation by 16 June? What is the urgency? Could he please explain to us why it is needed so urgently before 16 June? [Interjections.]

Under the circumstances we shall have difficulty in understanding why there is this urgency, unless the hon the Minister explains to us the reasons for the urgency. What does he have to fear, and where does he anticipate the unrest areas will be? Furthermore, what is his definition of unrest? There is no definition of unrest in the amending Bill. What is an unrest area? How is he going to establish it and declare it, and how is the area defined? As I asked the other day—and I would still like to have an answer—is it a magisterial area? What sort of an area is it? Is he going to declare the whole of South Africa an area in terms of the powers at his disposal? [Interjections.]

The amending Bill before us contains clauses which are repugnant, both to us and to lawyers. Let me just refresh hon members’ memories in respect of a submission made by the chairman of the General Bar Council of South Africa. He said the following:

These people will be the judges in our courts in South Africa. Our judges are chosen from the Bar Council. These people are of the highest standing in the legal profession. They maintain the highest standards of integrity. The future judicial system of South Africa rests upon these people. Does the hon the Minister choose to ignore completely what they say?

There is a further submission made by the chairman of the Association of Advocates. He says the following:

Is there no respect for an honest submission of that nature?

Under the circumstances, there is no way that we can support the amending Bill before the House, and we strongly support the amendment moved by the hon member for Houghton that it be read this day six months.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Hillbrow dealt with the legal basis and the justification for the powers envisaged in this legislation during the course of his speech. If I heard him correctly, his basic argument was that with or without the declaration of the state of emergency the basic situation remained the same. The number of deaths per day remained the same. I am quite sure he did not mean it in that way but it comes across as an extremely callous argument indeed to say that irrespective of what happens, the number of deaths remain the same and we must just accept it as it is. I want to put it to that member that even one death is one death too many. If with this legislation we can in fact prevent that it is the duty of this Parliament to give effect to this legislation to ensure that.

You missed the point. Our point is that it was during the state of emergency that all those people died.

The hon member’s argument can at best be described as schizophrenic because he argues against himself all the time. I want to quote just one or two examples to prove my statement. He appealed for more policemen. Of course, that is a valid point, but in the same breath—and this is the general argument on that side of the House—he said that the Police should not be in the Black residential area. That does not really make sense.

I never said that. I said the SADF!

Of course he did!

I did not say that!

He then specifically argued that one does not need to declare a state of emergency. One should in fact use the Defence Act and, by doing so, one should employ the Defence Force to see that the unrest is curbed. Yet it is the stance of that party that the Defence Force should not be involved in this at all!

You are twisting my argument.

I think the hon member should listen to himself. I cannot help but come to the conclusion …

Order! The hon member for Hillbrow said that the hon member was twisting his argument.

Yes, Sir, I said he was twisting my argument.

Order! The hon member will withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

I cannot come to any other conclusion but that appeasement takes preference to principle with those hon members, also in respect of a matter such as this one.

The hon member also quoted the Bar Council with approval and with alacrity and gave the impression that the Bar Council of South Africa had indicated that a number of these clauses were unacceptable. However, if he had done his homework correctly, he would have seen that the Pretoria Bar Council argued differently. The point is simply that it is not a cut and dried case as to what is and what is not necessary to solve the problem, and it is up to Parliament to make that decision. In doing so, we must first look at the legal position and obviously also at the facts we have to deal with.

I quoted the Pretoria Bar Council.

Do you know there is a difference between the two?

Yes, I quoted them.

During previous debates on this matter the scope, legitimacy and applicability of granting extraordinary powers to the executive to enable it to protect its citizens and the stability of the State were debated at length. I do not intend to repeat those arguments but only to summarize and to say that in terms of accepted democratic legal principles the State not only has the right but also the duty in situations where its integrity and the safety of its people are threatened, be it by internal or external attack, to take all such measures which are appropriate effectively to deal with such attack. This is historically founded and is a universally accepted position.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, before business was suspended, I stated that the State not only had the right, but actually had a duty to take care of the safety of its subjects in all situations. [Interjections.]

†In assessing this legislation, the question is therefore not whether the State has the right to protect itself and its citizens but only whether the envisaged legislation is reasonably required to enable the State to fulfil its primary obligation, namely the protection of its citizens. In assessing this legislation, attention must then obviously be paid to the form and extent of the aggression, on the one hand, and the proposed protective measures on the other. If one does not take a balanced view of the situation, one’s perspective can easily become distorted. Not only can wrong decisions then be taken but it can finally lead to the destruction of that which one wishes to protect.

I submit that this is in fact what the Official Opposition does with its totally one sided approach in which they emphasise unrestricted individual freedom only and, furthermore, only in a selective context because they apparently apply this only to people who agree with them. In that way they imperil the very principles which they propagate.

Individual freedom and liberty certainly form the cornerstones of a democratic society but if this is totally unrestricted, it can also lead to the destruction of that society and democracy itself. Due emphasis should, therefore, also be placed on the limits of individual action to ensure that it stays within the legal framework and that it does not infringe on the right of our society or of an individual to security and safety.

While we may differ as to how to achieve this, we all agree that our present society is defective and that changes must be made, as is indeed being done, to bring about a fairer and more equitable system, guaranteeing freedom and equality to all South Africans. We all believe that this can be achieved only by way of a proper, democratic system, and that it should be achieved by peaceful means.

With this as the given objective, the final test—and this is important—for any such devised system would lie in its acceptability to the majority of the people. This is indeed the crux of the matter and it implies a freedom of choice by the people to decide for themselves, free of fear and free of intimidation. It is then against this background and the factual position in South Africa that this legislation must be judged. The factual situation has also been extensively referred to in this and other debates and I do not intend dealing with it in detail. It is manifestly clear, however, that whereas there is broad support for reform towards a more equitable system, there are also minority radical elements in existence that do not want such a peaceful and equitable solution but want to take power by force. They use violence as a means to an end, as a political weapon to enforce their will on other people.

By saying this I am not for one moment implying that all the unrest and every incident is caused, orchestrated and controlled by these radical elements; they simply do not have that form of control. Most certainly, natural human aspirations and justified grievances play a significant role. These are, however, largely exploited for own political ends by these people with the ultimate aim of obtaining power for themselves. If there is any doubt about this hon members need only listen to Radio Freedom or read what the ANC and the SACP themselves have to say. In trying to achieve a take-over of power they are prepared to resort to any measures, even the most barbaric acts of violence and terrorism. The object of these acts against innocent civilians is simple. It is to brand innocent and frightened people with terror so as to have them believe that the only way in which to stay alive is to obey.

In essence we are dealing with a war of political ideology—democracy as against communism. Who will win will be determined by who can win the hearts and minds of the people for that system which they believe offers the best for all. In the end democracy will only succeed in South Africa if the majority of people accept and indeed are free to accept that democracy offers them more than the system which these other elements are trying to enforce upon them.

It is in times of fluidity, such as now, that political stability must be maintained. It is essential that a normal, workaday Government functions and is seen to be functioning at all levels. Normal life must as far as possible continue, otherwise there would be no hope for the millions of bewildered people caught up in the turmoil of present violence. To achieve this the Security Forces, and specifically the SA Police, play a key role. In fact, the SA Police is often the only instrument standing between law-abiding citizens and the forces of anarchy. If we wish a negotiated settlement to be achieved and for democracy to survive in South Africa the SA Police must be assisted in every way to enable them to give proper protection to all our citizens. It is a simple truth that one cannot expect support from people one cannot protect.

*I believe then that this is the essence of this legislation; not to force a point of view on people, but in fact to enable them to exercise a free choice. The Security Forces play a cardinal role in this regard. This cardinal role is recognised by everybody.

†It is in fact the very reason why they have become physically the prime targets of the radical factions and also of efforts to discredit them and bring them into disrepute as protectors of the people—hence the insistence that they be withdrawn from the Black residential areas the wild allegations of Police brutality and the wild allegations of Police atrocities.

The hon member for Sandton made a number of allegations and with glee read from a number of affidavits which allegedly were taken from people in some of the unrest areas.

Not with glee; with sadness.

Well, he certainly did not look sad! In any event, he argued, I took it, that this was the prime reason for opposing this type of legislation as these are the things which happen in areas where legislation such as this is applicable.

However, the hon member quoted at length from an affidavit which was apparently used in a court case emanating from East London. The point is that the state of emergency was never applicable to East London. So the whole basis of his argument is in fact false.

Whilst acknowledging that, as normal human beings, policemen also make mistakes, and that, should they act wrongly, those responsible must be taken to task—in the interests of the SA Police themselves—we must remember that it is indeed very easy to be an armchair critic; and it is certainly so that the vast majority of our Police do their job conscientously and with full regard for the law. Indeed, it is almost incomprehensible that the Official Opposition are so taken in by the propaganda of radical elements that they play along and attack with vigour the very people who also safeguard them.

We cannot sit by idly and allow this to happen. We cannot allow the SA Police, who often have to operate under very trying and extremely dangerous circumstances and do indeed risk their lives to protect our country, to become the sitting ducks of radical elements. Rather than mindlessly joining in with the denunciation of Police action, as a number of the hon members in the opposition benches have done again today, our assessment should be a balanced one. It should be recognised exactly what forces are arraigned against the forces of law and order, and what they are in fact trying to achieve.

The cold statistics in respect of people who have been injured and murdered, have been given. From these we can clearly see the actual extent to which the radical elements are prepared to go to achieve what they want. We are dealing with people who are prepared to hack off the arms of a fellow human being and then literally burn him alive by throwing a so-called “necklace”—a tyre soaked in petrol—around him and setting him alight, his only crime being that he worked for a Government agency. We are dealing, Sir, with people who in our area, for instance, beat to death with spades a respected elder of a church simply because he tried to dissuade them from burning down his church. We are dealing with people who hacked to death a little girl of 11 simply because her father was a community councillor. In short, we are dealing with people who will do anything to get what they want. In assessing this legislation, we must keep this in mind. We must also keep in mind that the SA Police have to contend with these people. It is against these people that they have to protect all of our society, irrespective of race.

What Parliament is being asked to do, then, is to give the SA Police the necessary means to prevent such violence and death and to enable our law enforcers to do exactly what we expect of them. Instead of just rushing in and blaming the Police for all the violence that occurs—as has become so fashionable in opposition circles …

No, that is not true. [Interjections.]

… where they play along in trying to discredit the very people who protect them. Let us see the situation exactly for what it is. If, then, we expect the SA Police to protect our society … [Interjections.] … yes, Sir, they even have to protect people like the hon member for Greytown, although one sometimes wonders why!—from these elements, let us give them the means to do so.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for East London City delivered a well-structured speech. He has a legal background and has had legal training.

He is a “boerevemeuker”. [Interjections.]

It is sad, however, to see an hon member with his background pleading a case for the departure from the rule of law.

Yes, indeed.

This, after all, is what we are doing in this Bill. The whole discipline in which the hon member has been trained and which he must know better than most of us, is in fact being upset by the Bill that we have in front of us today—and by the next Bill on the Order Paper—because it is a departure from the rule of law and a departure from the due process of law.

Why don’t you define “rule of law?” [Interjections.]

I find it strange that the hon member should ask for a definition of the rule of law. [Interjections.]

Order! I suggest the hon member will be able to reply to that question without assistance.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The hon member talked about a number of horrific incidents which have happened: Black on Black violence, the death of an 11-year-old girl and the death of a man trying to protect his church. I agree with him that these are horrific. I sincerely hope that the people who perpetrate this type of misdeed are brought before the courts of our country. I said this last time we debated this Bill and I repeat that I hope that they are dealt with, having been proven guilty, with the full punishment which the law can bring to bear on them. However, that is not what we are doing in this Bill. That sort of incident is no justification for this Bill. This Bill does not entitle us to take them to the courts. The Police in the normal course of their duties are entitled to investigate those incidents and, if they can prove the guilt of the people concerned, to haul them up in front of a judge.

We have had too much experience of the hon the Minister who has detained thousands of people without trial and, come the end of the day, no case has ever been brought against the vast majority of those people in a court of law. I have no doubt that if the Police and the hon the Minister could prove their case those people would be arraigned in front of a court of law. However, he cannot and the Police cannot, and so he has to use these very wide powers which he has been given in order to achieve that objective. Are all the hon members opposite, including the hon member for Krugersdorp, sure that in every case the hon the Minister has acted correctly and wisely and that the people who have been locked up deserved to be locked up? Is their crime that they were encouraging terrorism or is their crime simply that they opposed that Government and the policy of apartheid? I believe that most of the time it is because of their opposition to the policies of apartheid that they are locked up.

The hon member said that our present society was defective. Those were his words. From these benches we agree with him wholeheartedly. He then went on to say that change is being made in our society, and of course there are changes being made. However, the viewpoint from these benches is that those changes are totally inadequate and that they do not in fact take place under a system of freedom of choice, something the hon member himself said he agreed with.

We are apparently discussing a new constitutional system for this country which is going to include Blacks. However, the council which is being set up by a Bill that is due to be discussed in this House is not a council where the freely elected representatives of the Black people are going to sit. Some of them will sit there but by and large they are going to be chosen by the NP and they are not going to reflect the will of the Black people in this country. They are not going to be the chosen representatives …

Who said so? That is not true.

Order! I think the hon member must leave that Bill for the time being.

The hon member went on to talk about the Security Forces who protected us. One of the problems that we have is that as soon as a popular leader in the Black community emerges whether he espouses violence or whether he does not, he is taken away, locked up, banned or detained.

Nonsense! [Interjections.]

Let me just talk of the case of Mkhuseli Jack in Port Elizabeth. He was banned by the hon the Minister of Law and Order and released by a court order. The hon the Minister has not rebanned or redetained him since the court set him free. It was not the hon the Minister but the court that set him free. What was Mkhuseli Jack’s crime? Let me ask the hon the Minister across the floor why he banned Mkhuseli Jack.

He did it because Mkhuseli Jack had emerged in Port Elizabeth as a respected and popular leader of the Black people and he had a following.

Did he start the consumer boycott?

Certainly! Is a consumer boycott illegal?

Was he elected?

The hon member for King William’s Town asks me if he was elected. That hon member knows full well that he was not elected because there is no system in this country which allows him to be elected.

There is!

There is not such a system. May I ask the hon member what system he refers to? [Interjections.] What system can he use to be elected? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is making the speech, not the hon member for King William’s Town, who cannot now reply.

I am sure that the NRP will have a turn later on in this debate and they can then respond to this.

We would not waste our breath on you!

The hon member for Umhlanga should then talk to his colleague the hon member for King William’s Town who apparently was wasting a certain amount of breath on me. [Interjections.]

The situation with which we are faced concerning the Bill before the House today is that the hon the Minister wants it to be passed and—make no mistake—he wants it to be passed in a hurry. He did everything possible to get this Bill before the House at the earliest possible moment. The reason for this is fairly obvious: Next Monday is 16 June and the 10th anniversary of Soweto. This Soweto problem exploded on 16 June 1976. The hon the Minister and his Government are obviously bothered by the fact that there is the possibility of violence on that day. They therefore wanted this Bill to be passed so that they could declare unrest areas and possibly control or contain …

You are doing everything possible to prevent us from doing that!

Right, I want to take that further. It has become quite obvious that the hon the Minister will not succeed in the design of having this Bill become law in time to deal with the problem of 16 June. We have only two more days of debate on the matter left in this House before 16 June dawns. It is therefore apparent that we will not be able to use this legislation in order to contain that violence.

However, the hon the Minister has a vast panoply of powers which he can utilise. He can declare a state of emergency, and it appears to me that the hon the Minister is building up to that. I want to ask him here and now across the floor if it is his intention to declare a state of emergency before the anniversary on 16 June. Is he going to use his powers to declare a state of emergency so that the Police can act in the way he wants them to act in terms of the Bill that is now before the House? There are many rumours flying around South Africa and the hon the Minister is the man who can tell us whether or not those rumours are true. Is 16 June going to be a day on which portions of South Africa will be under a state of emergency?

It is very interesting that the hon the Minister looks down at his notes and is not prepared to answer these questions. I am afraid that his action on this occasion makes one all the more certain that something of this nature—and these measures are the most likely—is going to be used because of 16 June coming up. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must realise that, if he does this, even more harm is going to be caused to the good name of this country or whatever is left of it. It is in tatters and we are all aware of this.

He must be aware of the fact that this makes a siege economy even more likely in South Africa. The rand will drop further. The hon the Minister of Finance is sitting there and he knows what has happened to the rand. He also knows that it is not his fault. [Interjections.] It has nothing to do with the economy. It is simply the politics of the matter which is causing this. It is the politics and he shares responsibility for the politics, but it is a different story as far as his capacity as Minister of Finance is concerned. These are the problems that a state of emergency is going to bring about, and it appears to me that this Government have decided that if they have to go into the laager, so be it, they will go ahead, they will follow their own course and they are going to continue to do just as they like.

Now, the hon member for Krugersdorp who started this debate for the NP, saw fit to refer to a video to which I had referred. He mentioned a number of incidents in which there was Black on Black violence. He mentioned a number of incidents which he believed I should have spelt out in my last speech when I was pointing out various actions which the Police had taken. I want to say to the hon member that the Bill with which we are dealing at the moment is going to give extra, and very wide, powers to the Police, and we are seeking to persuade this House that they are not justified in giving the Police these powers. We are not giving these powers to the “comrades”, the ANC or any of those people. We are giving these powers to the Police which is why one specifically talks about the Police and what they do with these powers, and how the hon the Minister himself behaves in regard to those powers.

Now, the hon member himself agrees that I said in that debate that anybody who put a necklace around the neck of any other person and burned that person, should get the fullest punishment that the law can provide. What more can I say? We believe totally that violence of any kind—as the hon member himself said—cannot be condoned, but we do not believe that what this Bill is trying to achieve, is the right way to go about ending that violence.

The hon member and I saw a video at 13h15 this afternoon, and the hon member referred to it. He said that one could see in that video that the Police were in great danger on some occasions. I think he was referring to a shot which we had seen of a police landrover—I think it was—being rocked by a crowd of Blacks. This landrover could have been in danger of turning over. Then another police vehicle arrived and policemen jumped out. The crowd scattered. I think the hon member will agree that that was what we saw. However, the crowd having scattered, we then saw the Police firing shots at a fast retreating crowd.

Now, I do not believe that that is prevention, because prevention happened the moment the Police arrived. The people who were rocking that landrover were in full retreat and they were running as hard as their legs could carry them. Then the Police used their shotguns to fire at that fleeing crowd.

Now, I do not think that that is prevention of a riot. I do not think that that particular action is protection of the lives of policemen. I think it smacks more of punishment than of prevention.

Retribution.

The hon member also implied that hon members on this side of the House had been giving the Police orders. I should like him to get in touch with us later and tell us who has done that, because I do not believe anybody on these benches has ever given the Police orders. We have talked to Police on these occasions. We have asked them what their intentions are. We have suggested to them that if they acted quietly and with a minimum of violence it would be advantageous. Never, however, have we given them orders. [Interjections.]

One other point made by the hon member for East London City …

Mr Chairman, will the hon member concede that on that video we heard the interviewer state clearly that in South Africa people did not take cognisance of warnings any more because they were bent on violence?

Yes, Sir, I concede that fully and totally. I was talking, however, about a situation in which they were already running away. They had taken fright and they were in the process of running away. When one talks about Security Force behaviour in circumstances of that nature, there is something else which is important to remember. The hon member for Hillbrow reminded hon members of the television interview last Sunday evening in which General Coetzee told us how well trained the Police were and how capable they were in all those methods of riot control and so on. Unfortunately, however, the Kannemeyer Commission is too fresh in my memory for me to allow that to go unchallenged. On that very occasion it happened that the Police were sent into a dangerous situation. Firstly, they did not have loudhailers. Secondly, they did not have teargas. Thirdly, they did not have rubber bullets. Fourthly, they did not have birdshot. The only thing those policemen were given by their superior officers was buckshot—AAA buckshot, as far as I can remember. They only had AAA buckshot in their shotguns. They also had side-arms with hard-nosed ammunition.

Now, Sir, the Kannemeyer Commission reached that finding and recommended that there should be an investigation into why and how this had occurred. The hon the Minister said that that investigation would be a Police investigation and that it would be carried out. From that day until now, Sir, we have heard nothing more about what happened. In fact the senior officer in the Eastern Cape at that stage, Brigadier Swart, has since been promoted to senior officer in the Western Cape, and he is the man who now has the responsibility for dealing with the fantastic problems we are experiencing at Crossroads.

And Louis congratulates him!

Some hard things have been said in this debate, Sir. The hon member for Berea said that this Bill smacked of totalitarianism, of Fascism and of Nazism. The hon member for Sandton talked about Nuremberg trials. I should like to ask hon members opposite—because I saw the expression of shock on their faces when the Nuremberg trials were mentioned—whether it does not make them realise, whether it does not cause them to stop and think for one brief moment that the possibility might just exist that other people regard their actions in this same light. Does it not worry them that numbers of other people …

The whole world!

… and, as the hon member for Greytown says there, the whole world, believe that these actions are of that very nature? You know, Sir, appearing overseas on television at the moment are pictures of the Afrikaner-Weerstandsbeweging breaking up the National Party meeting in Pietersburg. They appear on television abroad with their Swastika-like emblem in full view, and there are also shots of the SA Police beating up the students at Wits University. There is an inevitable correlation between those two things, and this is what the rest of the world thinks of us.

I believe it is quite appalling that at this particular time the hon the Minister has not given any indication—neither has the State President—that the incidents at Crossroads are going to be investigated by a commission of inquiry.

Or will they perhaps?

Sir, I believe it is absolutely appalling that one of the worst tragedies that has happened in South Africa for some considerable time should be treated by the Government with such utter lack of concern. There are some 50 000 people homeless in that region, and yet there is not to be a commission of inquiry. [Interjections.] I believe that that is so serious that I want to call on all those people who have evidence to give in relation to what has been happening there … [Interjections.] No, I am not prepared to make any judgment in connection with the responsibility of the Police, the responsibility of the witdoeke and the responsibility of the comrades. I do not want to make that judgment. I do not believe it is my job to do so. I do, however, want that to be properly investigated. Therefore, I should like to appeal to all those people who have evidence to give, who have affidavits, who have knowledge of what happened at the Zolani Centre and elsewhere, to put that evidence on record and to retain it, because I believe that when this National Party Government no longer sits on those green benches on the other side of the House …

That is going to happen quite soon!

… it is very likely that a commission of inquiry will be called upon to investigate what has been happenning in Crossroads over the past few weeks. That evidence on record will be invaluable in order to ensure that anybody who was responsible for deaths or destruction of property is ultimately brought to justice, irrespective of who he might be—from the highest position in the land to the lowest.

Including this hon Minister!

I believe, Sir, that it is absolutely essential that that record should be kept. [Interjections.]

Sir, there was an article in the Cape Times a little while ago. It was written by Gerald Gordon, QC, and Dennis Davis, who is an Associate Professor of the Faculty of Law at UCT. This specific article made some very valid points about the Bill that we are debating in this House today. They say in that article, and I quote:

As to the first…

That is detention without trial—

It goes on to say:

Sir, this article goes on, and I would recommend it to hon members opposite. It concludes, however, by saying:

This, Sir, as I have said, is written by a QC and by an Associate Professor of the Faculty of Law at UCT. That is a very bothersome record indeed.

Now, Sir, we know that the history of this Bill has been a somewhat troubled one. We know that in the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives a decision was reached contrary to the decision reached by this House. This was patently much to the shock and the dismay of this hon Minister. This hon Minister, however, is now patently punishing the whole of South Africa as a result, because during the negotiating process, when he was attempting to persuade the other two Houses to pass this Bill, he agreed to certain amendments which he put on the Order Paper. This afternoon he told us he was no longer going to move those amendments. In other words, Sir, because the other two Houses did not go along with him, because he could not persuade them by granting some concessions to pass his atrocious Bill, he is now taking it out on the rest of South Africa by withdrawing some amendments which would have made the Bill somewhat more acceptable in the eyes of many people—amendments which would have given more judicial responsibility. That hon Minister is now punishing us by not putting his amendments. Could we ask the hon the Minister across the floor whether he is going to have a Committee Stage on this Bill? Will he allow one?

The hon member for Krugersdorp made the extraordinary statement earlier today when we asked him the question that he did not have a brief to be able to answer. There sits the official spokesman for the NP and the chairman of the Standing Committee on Law and Order and he says he does not know what the answer is. What a fine democratic party we have sitting over there! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, is the hon member aware of the fact that not I but the hon the Minister of Law and Order is going to reply to this debate?

Of course I am aware of it! [Interjections.] When we asked the hon member that question, he patently did not know the answer! He does not have a brief. He would not even express an opinion on it. [Interjections.]

I want to get back to the action of the Labour Party and the National Peoples Party. I think it is fairly clear to the whole of South Africa what happened on this occasion, namely that the leaders of both those parties, the Rev Mr Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi, were patently persuaded by the Cabinet to accept the Bills in the form in which they are now. It also becomes apparent that they were persuaded by their own parties that that was a mistaken course. For that reason I pay tribute to them for reversing their course, because I think that was good. Most of all, however, I particularly want to pay tribute to those members of the Labour Party who I know have fought a long and hard battle against the progress of this Bill in their House. I think that they have done a great job for South Africa in this regard. I only hope that they can continue to persuade their party to reject this Bill with all the power at their command so that ultimately, if this hon Minister wishes to have this Bill passed he is going to have to use the full power and might of the NP as established in the Constitution of this Parliament in order to pass it. It would demonstrate once and for all that we do not have a democracy in South Africa and that the vote of the Coloured and the Indian is absolutely meaningless in the South African context. Any Bill that that hon Minister and his party wish to have passed, can be passed despite the fact that the majority of the hon members of Parliament are opposed to it. If that is democratic then there is no hope for any of us. I would appeal to the hon members on that side of the House: Let us in heaven’s name move towards a democratic society in South Africa because Bills of this nature and that hon Minister are leading this country to disaster.

Mr Chairman, to a certain extent I pity the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] He has not heard any additional arguments in order to reply to this debate. No serious arguments have been advanced by the hon members of the PFP which differ in any way from the arguments that they employed during the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill in the first instance. [Interjections.]

What pleases me and the other hon members of the CP is that the hon Minister has indicated that he is not going to move his amendments. [Interjections.] We pleaded with the hon the Minister to retain the Bill as it came before this House and the other two Houses from the outset of this whole exercise. [Interjections.] In an endeavour to please the hon members of the PFP and the hon members of the other two Houses, the hon the Minister agreed to certain amendments. No consensus could be reached, however, and therefore we are pleased and we congratulate the hon the Minister on taking a very strong stand in connection with this very serious matter. [Interjections.]

What I find very distressing and very sad about the arguments emanating from the benches of the PFP, is that the image of the Police has suffered. It appeared as if this was a debate on law and order—a debate in which the Police were the accused—instead of referring to this matter as one having very serious consequences and viewing it in the perspective of a serious situation existing in this country. [Interjections.]

*All of us agree that in a crisis situation the State has to take certain special powers upon itself. The PFP also agrees with that. The question is simply: When do we have crisis situation and when not? We think we can in the first place just refer …

What is the crisis? The NP is the crisis!

If there is a crisis situation, one must take certain steps precisely for the sake of retaining the rule of law. In this connection there are judgments and authorities to the effect that if steps are not in fact taken under certain circumstances to restore law and order in the country the rule of law will undoubtedly suffer. What is the rule of law? [Interjections.] That hon member is laughing.

Tell the hon member for East London City what it is.

No, I think he also knows what the rule of law is.

He has forgotten!

I think Judge of Appeal Mr Justice Rabie quoted an exceptionally good definition from an authoritative source in this connection on page 8 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation:

The one thing to keep clear is that the rule of law is not a rule at all but a statement of principle that the law rules or ought to rule.

What is the difference?

I shall tell the hon member what the difference is. When one has a society like the one we have in South Africa in which the hon member for Sandton, who is now leaving the Chamber, is entitled to quote from affidavits—1 500 affidavits, as he claims—and when he tells this House that those affidavits will form the basis of court actions that are to be instituted against the hon the Minister, then I say that is part of the rule of law.

Part of it? [Interjections.]

That is part of the rule of law, and that is very important.

Now this law is cutting out access to the courts.

They want to protect themselves. [Interjections.]

It does not cut out access to the courts, because in terms of existing legislation—section 28(7) of the Internal Security Act—mention is already made of the fact that the courts are precluded in certain instances from handing down a decision on matters of this nature.

This extends it considerably.

The principle is that in certain emergency situations the courts can be excluded when matters of this nature are being considered. [Interjections.]

*What body must decide whether the law should be suspended under certain circumstances? Once again the answer is very clearly apparent from the Rabie Report. Firstly I want to quote from the recommendations from the Gardiner Committee, which were quoted by the hon Mr Justice Rabie on page 168 of the report. There the following was stated:

Is that not what the State is doing at this very moment? [Interjections.] I have quoted from the report of the Rabie Commission, paragraph 11.3.1.16, on page 168. It is further stated in paragraph 11.3.1.23:

The executive is the authority in possession of the facts, and which has to decide whether emergency measures should be adopted under certain circumstances.

I think the PFP should once again be criticised for the statement which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made during the discussion of the State President’s Vote. I am not going to quote that statement of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition again, but I do want to go into the reaction of the State President to the words of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I am referring hon members to the debate which took place here in this House on Friday, 18 April 1986. The State President said on that occasion (House of Assembly: Hansard, 1986, col 3740):

Fair and just!

The Leader of the Official Opposition then said:

The State President responded by saying:

He then went on to say:

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition interjected and said:

Upon which the State President said:

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member, in view of the fact that the State President believes that he never broke up any public meetings, whether he could not probably believe anything? [Interjections.]

That question should not be put to us! I think the State President’s statements have been disproved very ably and effectively by the hon member for Jeppe … [Interjections.] I can quote another authority on this point. [Interjections.] On page 19 of the biography on Mr P W Botha by Dirk and Johanna de Villiers, one reads:

It goes on to say:

[Interjections.]

*The former senator Hein Basson is therefore, according to the State President, a public liar. [Interjections.]

Disrupt is not break up. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon member for Brakpan whether he can explain to this House how the State President disrupted meetings in the past. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I do not want to spend my time on this subject, but I just want to refer the hon member to Mr Jan J van Rooyen’s book, P W Botha, 40 jaar. The hon member can read on page 28 where it is explained how it was done. The hon member can read there how he demanded that his own chairman be elected—precisely what happened at Brits. One evening in Epping, Senator A M Conroy, the then Minister of Lands, wanted to address a meeting, but after an argument lasting 80 minutes over the right of the meeting to elect its own chairman, the Minister went home without having spoken. The meeting was subsequently addressed, Senator Conroy made two attempts to speak, but in vain. He subsequently walked out and said in passing to the Pressmen that he had been there an hour and twenty minutes, but that they had broken up the meeting. He said it was their responsibility. The 250 Nationalists remained seated, and were addressed by Van Nierop, Botha and J A van Wyk. [Interjections.] I just want to tell the hon member that this evidence has existed for many years. [Interjections.] The evidence of Mr and Miss De Villiers is of more recent origin, and not one of these three writers has ever been repudiated by the State President. [Interjections.]

†I thank the hon Chief Whip for that question. [Interjections.] It was right up my alley.

Will you do the same for me sometime.

Certainly, I will certainly oblige him if I can.

I should just like to answer the hon the Chief Whip by saying that the point is that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition very definitely said that the Government had to be tough and effective. If one wants to be tough and effective in ordinary circumstances, one must decide whether these are ordinary circumstances. [Interjections.] All of us will agree that we are living in critical circumstances.

The only crisis is apartheid.

The hon member will agree that Gen Smuts used these same powers; that Mr Vorster was kept in custody for more than a year without trial; and that many of the Ossewabrandwag were … [Interjections.] Are we not at this stage in a situation resemblant of a war situation? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Brakpan must now be given the opportunity to continue his speech without further undue interruptions. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for Brakpan if he considers the whipping of students with quirts by the Police as tough action.

Every instance must be judged according to the circumstances prevailing in that very situation.

*I do not want to express any opinion on the one-sided ex parte statements that have been made here today. I think it is unfair, but in my opinion it is to be welcomed that under these compelling circumstances and at the stage in which we are living in South Africa it is to be welcomed that hon members such as the hon members for Sandton and Port Elizabeth Central are allowed to say such things about the Police Force. Does he think it will be tolerated if the ANC takes over? Does he think it will be tolerated behind the Iron Curtain? If so, he is living in a fools’ paradise. [Interjections.]

Then they use the terminology of Nazis, and hold up the Nuremberg Trial as an example, because they know that if one talks about Nazis and Nuremburg abroad, the outside world is immediately incensed. [Interjections.] This is the terrible damage that has been wrought by this Bill we have been discussing for the past few days. What happened to Dr Waldheim? There was a mere suggestion that he was involved in Nazism at an earlier stage in his life, and consider what happened to him; he was unable, in the first place, to achieve an overall majority in the Austrian election. The hon members of the PFP know that with this Bill they have hold of something with which they can damage the State.

But you people fool around with the AWB.

Our charge against them is that one does not expect this from a patriot. It is not a patriotic gesture. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member whether or not he will support the call we have made for a judicial commission of inquiry into the Police behaviour so that if they have in fact behaved correctly they will be cleared? Surely the allegations could be handled in that way.

In the process of trying to maintain law and order, Sir, we have had court inquiries and commissions. I cite the Kannemeyer Commission and the Cillié Commission, for instance. [Interjections.]

Talk specifics.

The point is that throughout this process the image of the Police, which is the first arm of the State, is being damaged to such an extent that by and large we will not be able to restore law and order. Let us decide on these things once we have restored law and order. [Interjections.] To do this sort of thing at this critical stage, cannot be patriotic. [Interjections.]

*I am pleased the hon member for Krugersdorp and his friends spoke a little more forcefully today to strengthen the hand of the hon the Minister of Law and Order. It was interesting, however, to note that that hon member said that the credo of the New Nats was in the first place that they were loyal to the State President. It is good to hear that, because I know there are and have been some of them, for example the hon the Minister of Finance, who are not in the first place loyal supporters of the State President.Interjections.]

After all, we know about the meeting which took place after the State President was elected Prime Minister. We know who attended the meeting to discuss that matter and to hold a post mortem after the State President was elected. It is therefore a good thing that, after eight years, they are loyal to the State President. After all, we know where their original loyalty lay, and we also know where their final loyalty is going to lie when next they have to make a choice. [Interjections.]

We are nevertheless very grateful that even those New Nats, even at this stage, support the hon the Minister of Law and Order.

We are all New Nats.

Dawie, you stick to your kubuses.

[Inaudible.]

Dawie, can I have a chance to finish speaking? Why don’t you go and play rugby and leave us to finish what we have to say here. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Krugersdorp is conversing too loudly.

The tragic aspect of this whole exercise of the past two weeks—I do want to add that it was not a tragedy as far as we were concerned—is that the new dispensation is in the process of collapsing. [Interjections.]

We had the situation that the hon the Minister reached a certain agreement with the leaders of the Labour Party and the National Peoples’ Party. The hon the Minister was very upset when the legislation was not approved after it had been discussed in the other two Houses. He was upset because his coalition partners had left him in the lurch. Now I should like to know whether those hon Ministers, who serve in the same Cabinet as the hon the Minister of Law and Order, the hon chairmen of the other two Ministers’ Councils, are going to remain in the Cabinet if this legislation is approved. Are they going to reconcile themselves to it, because they have voted against this legislation? [Interjections.]

That is for them to decide.

If they stay on in the Cabinet, how is the Cabinet going to be able to implement this legislation? How is the Government going to able to strengthen the hand of the hon the Minister of Law and Order? After all, we know what happened last year in Uitenhage.

What happens if a Coloured MP becomes the Minister of Law and Order?

That is another problem. [Interjections.]

They will lock up Louis! [Interjections.]

Thank heaven I left the NP a long time ago, because how anyone can stay on in the ranks of the NP and retain his equilibrium and a sound mind, no one can understand. [Interjections.]

I want to know whether the hon Chairmen of the two other Ministers’ Councils are going to stay on in the Cabinet if this Bill is agreed to. It is inconceivable, inexplicable and incredible that the same Cabinet can proceed to govern a country if two members of a Cabinet are not prepared to support the Government in principle when it comes to critical legislation.

They are going to ask Louis to resign.

Is the State President going to keep them on in the Cabinet if they do not resign? Is the State President going to allow the two hon Ministers who are conflict with the principles and policy of the NP Government, to stay on in the Cabinet?

It is not a matter of principle.

Is is par excellence a standpoint of principle. The fact that the State President and the hon the Minister of Law and Order were prepared under these circumstances to proceed with this legislation, is proof of that.

They cannot even spell “principle”. [Interjections.]

At this critical stage the Government is saddled with a specific problem. There is unrest and there is a lack of stability in South Africa. At this stage of our history it is imperative that law and order be restored. The hon Chief Whip of the PFP knows what the legal rule is in this case. When something is disturbed, the disturbance must at all costs be restored. Spoliatus ante omnia restituendea est. In constitutional law it is as essential that one first restore law and order before one begins to negotiate or to seek consensus.

That relief applies against the State as well.

The position is it will apply against the State in normal circumstances.

The mandament van spolie applies also against the State.

They are using it every day. The hon member for Sandton is about to go to court with two or three instances which he quoted from today. [Interjections.] That inherent right to go to court still remains. [Interjections.]

Order! I find it a very interesting legal argument, but I also find it difficult to listen to two hon members at once!

What do the events of the past two weeks prove? As my hon leader said on more than one occasion, it proves that one cannot compel members of different cultural groups, traditions, historical backgrounds and races into one dispensation. The events proved this. There is no better example of the failure of power-sharing than what the events surrounding this Bill have shown.

When the hon NP members move in the direction of a unitary state, they are embarking on a fatal course. This afternoon the hon member for Roodepoort once again raised arguments concerning partition, the fact that apartheid is dead, and so on. We just want to say that every time an hon member of the Government party says apartheid is dead, a bell tolls. The bell tolls the lack of credibility of the NP; it is diminishing all the time.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member dealing with the Bill? What is he dealing with?

Order! I shall listen to the hon member attentively. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman I am merely replying to the hon member for Roodepoort, who raised this point. I want to reiterate that the hon member for Roodepoort said that the mandate the NP received was a mandate for separate development. It is no use trying to back away from this and to tell us that there was no Coloured homeland contained in that mandate either. Basically the Government asked for a mandate on the basis of separate development.

This Bill and the events touching it prove that a unitary state cannot succeed. The hon NP members are fond of using the word “perception”. I now want to say that the perceptions in respect of peace and order, of a possible revolution and of the direction in which we are moving, differ from one cultural group to another.

The only way in which we can salvage such a situation is by means of a homogeneous state. The Government must be homogeneous and its members must be elected by their own people and they must be accountable to their own people in their own territory. There is no alternative to that, and all the hon NP members, all 126 of them, believed in this from the time they were toddlers until 1982. The hon the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs, who is sitting there smiling at me, believed in this just as strongly and even a week longer than the other members of that party. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Brakpan. His speech was reasonably good at the beginning, but he spoilt it in the end by making certain political statements about our State President. I want to tell the hon member that if the State President did in fact break up certain meetings, he did not make use of the kind of strong-arm tactics the AWB used. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, I want to tell the hon member that the CP has on several occasions been asked in this House whether they dissociate themselves from the AWB. The HNP has in fact done so, and we have appreciation for that. They have dissociated themselves from the policy and standpoints of the AWB. However, neither the hon leader nor the hon members of the CP have had the courage to do so. The other day the hon member for Turffontein put this question to the hon the Leader of the CP, but he still has not repudiated the strong-arm tactics of the AWB. [Interjections.] The hon member for Brakpan mentioned the Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi. This is a matter on which the State President will decide, and when he comes to that hurdle, he would decide as the Constitution allows him to decide. [Interjections.]

I do not want to omit to thank the hon member for Brakpan because his party is in this respect still patriotic enough to support this legislation and to give recognition to the hon the Minister and the Police. [Interjections.]

We are always patriotic.

Frans, go and play on your organ!

It seems to me the hon member over there plays the organ. He should rather keep quiet, even though there is a great deal he wants to tell this House. [Interjections.]

I should like to say something about the PFP. Earlier this evening the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central had a great deal to say here about right and wrong. He said inter alia he was very sorry that the hon the Minister had allowed the amendments, printed in his name on the Order Paper, to lapse and had withdrawn them. But that was the medicine the PFP was looking for, because the Bill will now be accepted as it was originally drafted.

He also mentioned that a large group of the hon members of the other two Houses were also opposed to the Bill. I maintain that a large group of those hon members are also in favour of the Bill, but they are being intimidated by that leftist-radical party. This afternoon the hon member for Vryheid referred to calls that had been received by those people in which their lives were threatened. In my opinion most of the hon members in the other two Houses are in favour of this legislation, but they fear for their lives as a result of intimidation. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sandton made just as repulsive a speech here this afternoon. I want to ask him whether he will also on occasion defend the Police, as he indicted them here today. He is not here at the moment, but I shall reply on his behalf: He will not do it. [Interjections.]

Furthermore I want to ask whether the hon member for Sandton has ever heard of kangaroo courts. I am certain he has, and in his absence I want to ask him whether he approves or disapproves of those “courts”.

He has already answered that question.

If people are tried in those courts and then executed, is he going to take up the cudgels here for those victims as well? He will not do it.

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

No, Sir, I do not reply to questions from pink hon members. Interjections.] If that hon member would have a look in the mirror, he would see that I am speaking the truth. [Interjections.]

Recently the Police have been going through extremely difficult times, particularly our Black policemen. According to figures furnished by the State President to the House of Delegates, 1 417 business premises and 4 400 private dwellings belonging to Blacks have been destroyed since September 1984. Eight hundred and fourteen of these dwellings belonged to Black policemen, and many Black members of the Force have been killed. I want to ask why the hon member for Sandton did not make a plea here as well for the 814 families. [Interjections.]

The PFP is the enemy not only of South Africa, but more specifically of the people of this country. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke said the PFP is the enemy of South Africa. Is that permissible? [Interjections.]

Order! I think there is a thread of unpatriotism there, and the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke must therefore withdraw it.

Out of respect for you, Sir, I withdraw it.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: When the hon member for Hillbrow took the previous point of order, there were hon members on the other side of the House who said, “Dit is reg”. They were in effect repeating what the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke said. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke may proceed.

I shall say instead that the hon members of the PFP are not friends of South Africa or of its people. We shall see what happens at the next election. Their supporters will no longer trust them, and they will shrink to a small minority party

The NP will be the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.] Order!

The NP majority in Schweizer-Reneke is a slender one.

Order! Who was that who spoke?

I beg your pardon, Sir.

Order! In future I am going to act very strictly. When I call for order, there has to be order in this House. This sort of behaviour is occurring every day and I am not going to tolerate it any longer. The hon Chief Whip may address me now.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Do you not believe that the hon member having had to withdraw the remark that the PFP are the enemies of South Africa, is playing with the Chair when he says immediately thereafter what he means is that the PFP are not the friends of South Africa?

Order! Let me put it to the hon Chief Whip in this way: If I say a man is an enemy, he is an enemy, but if I say he is not a friend, it does not necessarily mean that he is an enemy. The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I should like to proceed by referring specifically to this amending Bill. In the times in which we are living it is necessary to make security legislation more flexible. Unrest areas must be declared so that the Police can go in, do their work and protect the lives of people who are being threatened. In essence that is what this legislation is concerned with.

This legislation is necessary in the times in which we are living. The lives and property of people are being threatened on a large scale, and this kind of legislation is necessary to protect them. The legislation is not specifically aimed at increasing the power of the hon the Minister and the Police, but to enable them to protect people who are being threatened.

The Internal Security Amendment Bill, which we may be discussing during the next few days, is just as necessary a piece of legislation in these times. That legislation makes provision for intimidators, and I think the Bill we are now discussing, together with the one which is to follow, is going to enable the Police to remove people who are causing disturbances in certain areas and to allow them to cool off so that both communities can recover. I therefore trust, and I want to express the hope, that these two pieces of legislation will be used to great advantage to the people of South Africa.

The Government is engaged in a reform process in which we wish to accommodate the fair aspirations of Black nationalism, and the enemies of South Africa do not want to allow this attempt to succeed. They want to put a spoke in the wheel of this attempt of the Government to deal with the matter in a peaceful way. They have seen that the Government is capable of channelising nationalism in an orderly way, and we have demonstrated this in the past. That is why they want to try to ensure that the Government’s peaceful process of negotiation with Black leaders, on which it is at present engaged, is also harmed. What does the ANC say? The ANC, the blood brothers of the PFP, say the following, and I should like to quote a few examples. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I think you heard, Sir, what the hon member said about the PFP, and the ANC.

Order! The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it. I should like to indicate what the enemies of South Africa have to say, and I want to add that I find it very strange that many hon members of the PFP, and the PFP as a whole, do not at times repudiate these people’s statements. I have here a pamphlet from which I want to quote a speech made by an ANC spokesman, a certain Mr Moloi, on 10 October 1985 at the State University of California. He said:

On the same occasion a certain Mr Ngubane said:

That is what the ANC, the enemies of South Africa, are saying. That is also what they are doing. They are keeping Black people, who would like to participate in the dialogue the Government is trying to create, away from that conference table. The PFP is not repudiating these statements. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sandton said they would help with reform if the Government would unban the ANC and release Nelson Mandela. That is the condition he lays down. He has probably heard, on some occasion or another, what Mrs Mandela, the wife of Nelson Mandela, said. I shall quote from a speech which she made, as follows:

She then continued, and said:

Mr Speaker, I have not heard that the hon member for Sandton repudiating Mrs Mandela. When he makes the condition that we must first unban the ANC and release Mr Nelson Mandela before the talks can proceed, I ask whether he does not realise that they are not interested in talks at all. They are not interested in meeting around a conference table. They are interested only in seizing power. [Interjections.]

The reform process in this country must take place in an orderly manner. That is why the measure now under consideration are necessary in order to control and restrict as far as possible the unrest at present prevailing in our country. That is how the process must continue so that reform can reach every Black leader and every Black person in this country at the lowest level, and so that the talks we would like to hold can take place. As has already been said, the enemy has deliberately planned its attempt to keep the Blacks away from that reform. The enemy can only achieve his objectives in South Africa when conflict is prevailing. Consequently they do not want peace to be made in this country.

At this stage emotions must be stirred up against the legislation under discussion. I heard on the news that the meeting was held in Durban last night at which a number of people were present. The meeting was held in the city centre of Durban, and many people present were incited against this very legislation.

Yes, and who was the speaker?

Someone is asking who the speaker was.

Alex Boraine!

Yes, a certain Mr Alex Boraine, who not long ago was still the hon member for Pinelands in this House. [Interjections.] Dr Alex Boraine was the speaker at that meeting in Durban last night! [Interjections.] I cannot help wondering now, Mr Speaker, because in the past…

Mr Speaker, could the hon member inform this House whether Dr Boraine is perhaps a member of the PFP?

Mr Speaker, as far as I know, Dr Boraine is at this juncture still a member of the PFP. [Interjections.] Although he resigned as member of this House, he has not yet resigned as member of the PFP. We are therefore waiting for the PFP to repudiate him—him and the former leader of the Official Opposition, who wish to erode this parliament system from without. We are waiting for the PFP to repudiate those two gentlemen. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, will the hon member take a question?

Order! Is the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke prepared to reply to a question now?

No, Mr Speaker, I said, after all, that I would not reply to the questions of pink members of this House. [Interjections.] I stand by that, Sir. We must not talk to the people who …

Order! What adjective did the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke just use in regard to certain hon members of this House?

Mr Speaker, I referred to pink members.

What is that supposed to mean?

Mr Speaker, if it was wrong to do so, I withdraw the word “pink”. [Interjections.]

Order! With all due respect to the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke, I want to make the following statement. He has been a member of this House for a long time. If there is one thing I insist on in this House, with sincere intentions—and the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke knows this—it is that hon members should display the necessary mutual respect to which every hon member is entitled. I make an appeal to hon members, we really cannot disparage people. It simply does not work. Debate in a healthy way. Attack one another’s arguments. Advance counterarguments. Let us conduct a proper debate with one another. Adverse remarks and comments of this nature, however, can do no one any good. Besides, it can only harm our image externally.

I am making an earnest appeal to all hon members to contribute their share towards raising the standard of debate in this House. The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, I shall proceed.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: It became clear from the second remark by the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke that he had used the same phrase earlier, when reacting to a question which I wished to ask him. May I ask, Sir, that that, too, be withdrawn? I did not hear what he said at the time, but that was obviously the same thing.

Order! I believe we have dealt with this subject sufficiently now. The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Furthermore I should like to point out that in the process in which those emotions are being stirred up against the legislation under discussion, the English-language Press also plays a definite role. In his speech the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central also mentioned Press reports which appeared in the Cape Times. Actually that illustrates the point I am trying to make. I want to tell those Press people—particularly the representatives of the English-language Press—that they must be careful when they enter the unrest areas. They must be careful, because as we saw on television news and in this morning’s newspapers, people got hurt there. I do not want to warn them because the Black people have already warned them. They must be careful because they can get killed.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that we are increasingly alive to this in future, and that he will also provide in terms of this legislation that the Press and television cameramen should not be allowed into such unrest areas. These people only create trouble for us internationally.

The hon member for Sandton said the legislation was not in the interests of South Africa’s external image. The possible announcement of states of emergency might lead to sanctions. That is what he said. We are also concerned about this. We also listened to what the outside world is saying, and sometimes we take cognisance of it too. That does not mean, however, that we are always going to do what they prescribe to us because we are afraid of them in situations in which the country’s security is affected. I do not think the Government will allow the country’s security and integrity to be affected. That is why I believe that thorough measures will be adopted by the hon the Minister and the Government to deal with possible situations which could arise in regard to 16 June. Our Government will not allow our country to go up in flames. Even if it ultimately means that the world is going to introduce sanctions against us, it will be because we have acted in the interests of the people of South Africa to protect the people in this country against evil-doers. Then we as South Africans will show one another that we will stand together, back to back, under those circumstances, to meet the challenges made on us.

It is a pity there is no unanimity among the three Houses of Parliament on this legislation. Ultimately I think that the legislation which will be accepted will in future in fact be used to a greater extent to protect voters of the hon members of the other two Houses. We have respect for the standpoint of the other hon members, and we hope and trust that they will also have respect for the Government’s standpoint that we need this legislation on the Statute Book. People who are indifferent to security legislation do not belong in this highest Council Chamber. That also includes hon members of this House.

I want to proceed by saying that what we need in South Africa today is patriotism and, I would almost say blind patriotism in order to protect and reserve our country and its integrity. [Interjections.] It is our task as the representatives, the people who were elected to govern this country on behalf of the people outside to pass the best security legislation so as to enable the security forces to maintain law and order as far as possible. It is our task and our duty.

If other hon members of Parliament do not feel that they can do this, or feel that they do not wish to co-operate in this connection, I must point out that the NP believes that it is in the interests of South Africa and of all its people. As the NP frequently had to lead South Africa through difficult situations in the past, we shall also do so in this connection and accept the challenges to South Africa. It is necessary for us to support the police in these times. They, too, sometimes make mistakes, but there are channels through which these mistakes can be rectified.

In these times we must also thank the hon the Minister of Law and Order for dealing in a very patient way with this legislation here in Parliament. However, I do not only want to thank him for that, but also for the hours of work he does in the interests of South Africa. He is virtually on duty permanently, and I want to thank him for that. The hon member for Berea gave notice earlier this afternoon that a motion should be put before this House tomorrow afternoon to the effect that the hon the Minister of Law and Order should resign. The hon member for Berea gave notice earlier this afternoon that a motion should be put before this House tomorrow afternoon to the effect that the hon the Minister of Law and Order should resign. The hon member for Berea ought to be ashamed of himself. What should actually happen is that we should move a motion for the hon the Minister’s salary to be increased. [Interjections.]

On this occasion should also like to mention my constituency. For a considerable time unrest situations have prevailed there too. The energetic actions of our Police and of the commandos were responsible for those unrest situations being effectively controlled and for peace being restored. I want to thank the members of the Force who were on duty there. On that occasion I told them that the Government was considering certain security legislation which would be passed and which would make it possible for them to clamp down on the intimidators. It was a major problem to eliminate the intimidators from the community. With the passing of this legislation, this will now happen. We are grateful that this is now going to be done. I should like to say that I support this legislation and that it is a pleasure for me to do so. However, it is not only a pleasure for me, it is also my duty as a loyal South African to do so.

Mr Speaker, we also support this legislation, actually much more readily than on the previous occasion, because the legislation is now stricter than it was then. [Interjections.] Hon members will recall that we then argued for stricter legislation. We did not want to obtain it by these means, but we do want to express our thanks and appreciation to the hon the Minister for having got the other two Houses to understand if that they did not accept what he regarded as reasonable measures, he would revert to his initial position.

As far as the hon member for Sandton is concerned, I should like to say that I listened attentively this afternoon to his statements. I am not attributing anything to him now, but in my opinion those statements gave evidence of a remarkably fluid journalistic style. I want to tell the hon member that I hope he will acknowledge to this House that not a single one of those statements has been subjected to cross-examination. [Interjections.] I know—and hon members of this House know—that before someone who has given evidence has been cross-examined under oath, that evidence is, in fact, not really worth anything yet. [Interjections.] Before his statements are subjected to cross-examination under oath, I am really not going to allow myself to be stampeded by his statements, emotionally or otherwise. [Interjections.]

Questions were put here this afternoon about judicial inquiries into the conduct of the Police. I should like to tell the hon the Minister this afternoon that it is our considered conviction that the situation has now grown to such serious proportions that there should no longer be any question at all of any judicial inquiry into the conduct of the Police until order has been completely restored. [Interjections.] Then we can institute an investigation. To institute an investigation, however, whilst the unrest rages on, would simply inhibit the Police. This borders on treason against South Africa. Anyone now arguing for a judicial inquiry, with the Police having to struggle on, day and night, is doing South Africa no favour, nor proving of any benefit to South Africa, to the person concerned or to any of the population groups in South Africa.

I hope and trust that the hon the Minister will not give in to any demands in this connection—whether from abroad, from left wing elements, or whatever. We are now waging war to restore order, and before this has happened, we are not going to involve the Police in any judicial inquiry or bring them before the judiciary—there are no two ways about that! So in this connection the hon the Minister need not ask for our support—he has it! [Interjections.]

I also want to tell the hon the Minister, however, that we are somewhat surprised that he did not, to a certain extent, explain why the other two Houses—to use a more common expression—upset the apple-cart. Surely they were in favour of the measures initially. There is no indication, as far as we, South Africa or the world are concerned, of the forces that implinged upon the other two Houses causing them to upset the apple-cart after they were initially in agreement. [Interjections.] What forces—possibly obscure forces—impinged upon the other Houses after they had reached consensus with the hon the Minister on the concessions he had made, causing them subsequently to upset the apple-cart? [Interjections.] We are gravely concerned about this matter, and I am actually disappointed at the fact that the hon the Minister has not given us a statement on this issue. The situation is extremely critical, as the hon member for Losberg indicated here this afternoon. I must tell him that his figures even shocked me. I did not know that the situation was as grave as it is until the hon member for Losberg provided us with those figures, and for the other two Houses to have acted in this way, in such a critical situation, needs to be explained. If the hon the Minister cannot furnish the explanation, the other two Houses must let South Africa know. The hon Minister Rajbansi and Rev Hendrickse must make a statement about this. They cannot act in this way and then simply remain silent about it. They really have to come forward now and make a clean breast of things. They must say why they acted as they did. They owe their own people and South Africa a full explanation for this.

I want to come to another important matter. The other two Houses disagree with the Government about whether schools should be thrown open to all races or not. They have thrown their schools open and hon members of the NP shrugged their shoulders and said the matter was an own affair. Now, however, they disagree with the Government, on policy grounds, in regard to a fundamental principle. Here it is not a matter of an own affair, but of a general affair, and that is another kettle of fish! That is all the more reason why, in the present crisis, they should put their cards on the table as far as South Africa as a whole is concerned. The crisis can, and probably will, get worse, and at this stage we do not know what the reaction of the other two Houses is going to be.

That is why I put that question to the hon member for Roodepoort, to whose speech I listened very attentively, this afternoon. In their heart of hearts the hon members of the governing party must surely have told themselves that either the hon members of the other two Houses or the Government are the guilty party. After all, one of the two parties must be the guilty party! Who was behind the fact that consensus could not be reached? The Coloureds and Indians are probably saying, in turn, that it is the infernal Government’s fault, the hon the Minister of Law and Order’s fault. They are shifting the blame across to this side.

I must frankly tell the hon the Minister and the Government that in this respect we are not all that interested in who the guilty party is. Let me indicate what we are actually getting at. We want to point out the deficiencies in this tricameral system which have now again come to light and about which I shall be saying a few more words in a moment. [Interjections.]

When I caught the ‘plane in Port Elizabeth this morning the newspapers there were full of what the State President said yesterday afternoon—a great deal has also been said about that in the House this afternoon—and that is that anyone who says that he broke up meetings is publicly a liar. The poster reports in Port Elizabeth dealt with that this morning, and according to the headlines in the newspapers the State President was very angry.

Let me now tell the hon Ministers Mr Rajbansi and Hendrickse that their political fives are hanging on a thread. I was driven from the NP for much less than they are getting up to now, and they are both in the Cabinet! I want to warn the two hon Ministers that they must be terribly careful now! [Interjections.] That was not the first time the State President was angry yesterday afternoon. He has always become angry when someone has thwarted him. It is a character trait of his that he does not tolerate what he considers to be unnecessary opposition. [Interjections.]

When I disagreed with the present State President about sport at the time, he said in the NP caucus: “Ek sal hierdie aksie presipiteer met die uitdrywing van Stofberg.” [Interjections.] He said that in the caucus long before the then Prime Minister, Mr Vorster, actually intimated that a break was imminent. If my memory serves me correctly, the present State President even used the word “split” that day. [Interjections.]

Here we now have two hon members of his Cabinet who are not back-benchers, as I was at the time, and who represent other population groups. I was in the State President’s Cape party and he could very easily have thought: “Well, we shall finish Stofberg off; we shall drive him out!” These two people, however, are representatives of other population groups. This is a crisis in Government circles! The hon the Minister of Brakpan said … [Interjections.] Well, Sir, he made such a brilliant speech that he deserves to be called the hon the Minister of Brakpan!

The hon the Minister of Bile! [Interjections.]

What is involved here, and what is of the utmost importance, is that the State President now owes it to South Africa to make a statement! If one of Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet Ministers have had an affair with a young lady she acts, issues a statement and gives some kind of lead. If a highly placed State official in America is given a fur coat by someone, for example, and there is even a hint of corruption, President makes a statement, and his predecessors also did so. South Africa now finds itself facing a crisis, but the only guidance we have received from the State President in recent weeks—virtually months now—is that anyone who said he broke up meetings is a liar. [Interjections.] In this crisis caused by the other two Houses the State President, with all due respect, should already have stood up and indicated to South Africa that he is confident that order will be restored. He should have stood up and said that we shall take steps and that order would be restored. He should have indicated publicly that he had confidence in the future of South Africa, but there is nothing of that; he merely flares up, and why—because of the allegation that he used to break up meetings!

I—and South Africa as a whole—want to know from the hon the Minister whether the differences that led to this breach in the Cabinet were deep-rooted or merely of a trivial nature.

You are curious, aren’t you? [Interjections.]

Is it a question of principle of honour, in the eyes of the party concerned, or is it a question of preference? These aspects must be explained and clarified for us. What is the Government now going to do when the present debates have been dispensed with—the one being conducted now and the one that lies ahead—and the other two Houses act in this way again? What is the Government going to do? What are its intentions? South Africa is in a state of tension. In Port Elizabeth, here in Cape Town and in Pretoria people are saying that they are not going to leave home on 16 June. At the moment there is a mood of depression hanging over South Africa, and in such a situation we cannot condone the fact that there is no lead given from the highest echelons. [Interjections.]

The cause of the shortcomings in the tricameral system lie in the principle of consensus. Consensus is a question of give-and take. Both parties make concessions, a process which can lead to agreement. It can happen, however, that one party makes no concessions, but that the other one is so hard-up that it makes all the concessions. Consensus can also be reached in that way. Our whole system is based on the principle of consensus. That is why we now have to know what the position is going to be in the future, in other crisis situations that could possibly arise. [Interjections.]

That is why the hon member for Roodepoort was so sensitive when I put the question to him this afternoon. He said one could take the principle of consensus too far by not making concessions—a fact which I appreciate. I then added: “As in the case of the Coloureds and the Indians now.” The hon member said one could take the principle of consensus too far. It is true that he did not spell this out, but from the tenor of his speech I gained the impression that he meant that one could set too much store by the co-operation that the principle of consensus presupposes. So what the hon member was implying this afternoon, without actually saying it, was that we are now dealing with a situation—something I agree with—in which the principle of consensus has been taken too far. It therefore broke down when it was taken too far or had to be taken too far. Now that this has happened, what is the hon the Minister’s position in this crisis in which the other two Houses are thwarting him and blocking consensus? What would the position have been if there had not been other, existing legislation on which the hon the Minister could fall back in this crisis? Let us suppose there was no existing legislation, no previous legislation, which we could now confidently fall back on? Then the real shortcomings of the tricameral system would have come to light. [Interjections.]

That is why I want to tell the hon the Minister and the Government that it is not only the NP’s position that is at stake. That of South Africa as a whole is at stake. The survival of the Afrikaners, the Whites, as a whole is at stake. In the future South Africa will have to be given some lead when we are faced by the next similar crisis—perhaps because of a declaration of war or in a major economic crisis, which is also possibly on the doorstep—so that we can have our legislative authority take rapid and drastic action. The old, despised Westminster system made that possible; it has always made it possible to take a decision. One never doubted that a decision would be taken. At present we are faced with a position embodying some dangers for South Africa, but which could become infinitely more dangerous if there were not the old legislation to fall back on, as there is—thank heavens—in this instance. [Interjections.]

I have now expressed my criticism, but we appreciate and support the fact that in this situation the hon the Minister and the Government as a whole are taking stronger action than we ourselves initially thought they would.

Mr Speaker, I do not think we should judge the hon member for Sasolburg too harshly if he sees a crisis behind every bush because, after all, this hon member is used to crises. His whole political career has actually been a crisis. So we do not blame him for now speaking about crises and seeing a crisis at every turn. [Interjections.] I want to give him the assurance, however, that he need not worry. He need not worry at all.

As long as Mr P W Botha is State President, he will protect the hon member. The hon member for Sasolburg knows his history, and I shall therefore not delve back into the past. He knows what the present State President meant to him. The State President will again protect the hon member and will also protect South Africa. The announcements are going to be made, so the hon member need not be concerned.

I want to come back to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. When the hon member for East London City asked him whether he was in favour of a consumer boycott in Port Elizabeth, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said he was. I am now asking the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central if that is really what he said.

As I remember it, my answer was that it was not illegal.

He also said that that was the only form of protest open to these people.

Yes.

The hon member again confirms it. I want to ask the hon member please to have his newspapers in Port Elizabeth give banner headlines to this. I think that is the most irresponsible argument I have yet heard from an hon member in this House. [Interjections.] This hon member is from East London originally. It does not surprise me that he makes such statements, because at the time of his leaving East London, he was one of the reasons why East London was almost brought to its knees. [Interjections.]

I must have been more important than I thought I was.

That is impossible!

I wonder whether that hon member realises what this consumer boycott means to Port Elizabeth. Does he know how many businessmen have already had to close their doors? Does he know how many people have become unemployed as a result of this boycott? This evening the hon member comes along, however, and says he is in favour of this consumer boycott in Port Elizabeth because it is the only way these people have of protesting. [Interjections.]

You are putting words into my mouth which I do not recall saying.

Yes, I am coming to that in a moment.

I shall consult my Hansard.

The hon member went on to refer to the people organising this boycott as the popular leaders in the Black communities.

Yes, that I did do. [Interjections.]

He then made further references to these popular leaders.

I think the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central owes the businessmen of Port Elizabeth an explanation, because they are the ones who are now having a hard time of it. [Interjections.] I am not surprised, however, because for the past six years now I have been sitting here listening to that hon member. At one stage, when the Commerce and Industry Vote was being discussed, I though that if I were an investor or a potential investor who wished to invest in Port Elizabeth, and if I had been sitting here in the gallery listening to that hon member’s speech, I would not have come within a hundred miles of Port Elizabeth. [Interjections.] I also thought that if I had an investment there, I would get it out of there as quickly as possible.

I want to tell the hon member that he has, this evening, done the business community and the people of Port Elizabeth a tremendous disservice. I also want to tell the hon member that he has added fuel to the fire as far as those people organising the consumer boycott are concerned. I think the hon member should stand up and say he is sorry. It is clear where that hon member’s sympathies lie. [Interjections.]

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

Mr Speaker, I should like to complete my speech. I did not interrupt the hon member earlier on. [Interjections.] It is very clear to me that the sympathies of that hon member and his party do not lie with the businessmen of Port Elizabeth, but with the people organising the consumer boycott.

Do not talk nonsense.

What I am saying is true.

You are setting up a huge straw doll.

Up to now we have had an opportunity to listen to what has been said in the House and in the standing committee, and we have again come to the conclusion that the PFP and the NP are poles apart as far as national security and the maintenance of law and order are concerned.

That is the only point at which you are poles apart.

I am afraid we cannot discuss this kind of legislation with the hon members of the PFP, and we cannot hold discussions with them about these two cardinal issues which are so important to the survival of a country and a nation. They believe that someone who becomes a danger to society and the State should not be arrested and detained. He must simply continue perpetrating his atrocities against the community and his acts of terrorism against the State. Just let things slide and eventually things will come right—that is the PFP’s policy.

Something for which I really do reproach them is the fact that they always place the Police in the dock and not the accused themselves.

Only when they do something wrong. [Interjections.]

Each year we discuss the Law and Order Vote in this House. Since coming to the House for the first time, I have heard many Bills concerning the Police and law and order discussed here. Have any of us ever heard the hon members of the PFP say that their party thinks the Police have done their duty in the course of the previous year? [Interjections.] No, instead scandalous statements are made. The hon member for Sasolburg spoke about a commission of inquiry. I want to go further and tell the hon member for Sasolburg that there is no need for a commission of inquiry at present and that it will not be necessary after the unrest has passed either.

How do you know that? [Interjections.]

You said that prior to the advent of the Kannemeyer report too.

The hon member is speaking of an individual case. The PFP wants to have everything investigated. I think those hon members should appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate their party. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member said that the State President would make an announcement to set matters straight. Does the hon member not want to give us any further information about that announcement? [Interjections.]

I want to convey the same message to the hon member for Kuruman and tell him that he does not need to worry, because this side of the House will protect him.

Tell us what the State President told you in the caucus meeting.

Another matter for which I want to take the PFP to task is the fact that they do not believe in the prohibition of meetings. They believe that every organisation in this country should be able to hold meetings, regardless of whether they are legal, illegal, prohibited or whatever. It makes no difference what effect this would have on the country—they should simply be allowed to hold meetings. [Interjections.] I want to ask hon members whether they, if they were to come into power, would also allow the ANC and the Communist Party to hold meetings and gatherings.

Everyone should be permitted to do so, but they appear before the courts if they have contravened the law. [Interjections.]

That is why I am saying that we cannot discuss the security of the country and the maintenance of law and order.

Are you in favour of the AWB?

At least I do not attend the funerals of communists!

Do you want the AWB to be banned?

They also believe … [Interjections.] Would the hon member please repeat the question? I shall answer it. What was the question?

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon member whether he would permit an AWB meeting in his constituency or whether he would ask the hon the Minister to ban that organisation?

If the AWB wanted to hold a meeting in my constituency, it could do so tomorrow. The AWB is not yet a banned organisation in this country. [Interjections.] The Communist Party and the ANC are banned organisations.

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

No, but if I have any time left after my speech, I shall reply to the hon member’s questions.

There is another matter I want to lay at the PFP’s door. Why are they so set on having distorted photographs and reports of the unrest areas disseminated abroad? They advocate Press freedom because the pressmen must have free access to the areas, but what is the result? The result is that distorted photographs and reports are sent abroad. They made a great fuss about the fact that the rand was going to drop as a result of this legislation and that we would be worse off in every way. At the same time that party is helping people send distorted material out of the country to the detriment of those of us in South Africa.

You are a disgrace!

I am of the opinion that all of us in this country agree that if it had not been necessary to draw up drastic legislation to ensure the public safety of the inhabitants of South Africa, it would not have been done. Who of us like such drastic measures?

You love it!

Unfortunately we in South Africa find ourselves in an abnormal situation, particularly in our Black residential areas, where the ordinary citizens simply do not have an opportunity of carrying out their normal, lawful activities any longer.

Leftist radical criminals who want to take over the Government by force make use of the most develish methods to intimidate and murder people. It has become absolutely essential to have the power of these radicals broken, and quickly too, or this country will be plunged into chaos.

In July 1985 it was necessary for the State President to proclaim a state of emergency. The SA Police, the SA Defence Force and the Railway Police could subsequently contain the unrest. When the state of emergency was lifted the unrest gradually increased, as is evident from the figures I shall now furnish.

In January of this year we had 1 103 cases of unrest, in February 1 573, in March 1 651 and in April 2 181. One sees that from January to April of this year the number of cases doubled. Where is it all going to end if this flood of unrest is not contained?

The increase in the incidence of unrest also has a tremendous influence on the increase in crime in this country. Public violence has assumed alarming proportions, as have acts of attempted murder and arson. Even in areas where unrest is not prevalent, crime figures have increased because the Police cannot carry out their normal tasks, all of them being engaged in combating unrest.

The voting public expects law and order to be maintained in this country. The Black people of the Eastern Cape are arguing in favour of action being taken and in favour of peace. It is the duty of this Parliament, with every means at its disposal, to give the South African Police the necessary assistance, by way of legislation, to enable them to maintain law and order, as is expected of them. That is why this Government is introducing this Bill. The additional powers will enable the Government to restore order without proclaiming a state of emergency.

We must remember that law and order is a prerequisite for reform. Without law and order no reform can take place. Numerous Black areas are, at present, under the control of radicals and of robbers. Collecting rent through the normal channels has virtually come to a standstill. Municipal and telephone services, and other facilities that people would normally have a right to, are no longer available. The Government owes it to the overall majority of Blacks to maintain law and order in their areas so that their services can be restored.

We trust that we shall again reach a point in this country at which everyone will again start living and working in peace and quiet and at which the Police will again be able to do the work for which they have been employed.

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Walmer to address the House, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central put a question to the hon member for Algoa and, when the question was not replied to, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said “you are ‘bang’”. The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

Order! Furthermore, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central told the hon member for Algoa that he was a disgrace. He must also withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the House might not realise it, but we have just seen a revelation. The hon member for Algoa’s address revealed in some degree the reason for the mess that Port Elizabeth is in. Since 1982, the hon member has praised every incentive introduced by the Government to assist Port Elizabeth regardless of the total inadequacy of those incentives. He has been quite unappreciative of the way in which a businessman makes decisions, which is from the point of view of comparative advantages.

I would like to ask the hon member how he thinks a businessman makes a decision. Should he do so, in the hon member’s opinion, using figures, or should be simply approach decision-making in a “positiewe gees”? The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has done more for Port Elizabeth since being elected to Parliament than both the other hon members for the Port Elizabeth area combined. [Interjections.]

Please!

I regard as utterly childish the observation of the hon member for Algoa that what the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said would make businessmen turn away from Port Elizabeth because they would not have the confidence to invest there. Businessmen do not make investment decisions like that. They add up the figures, relate the benefits of establishing themselves in Port Elizabeth to those of establishing themselves anywhere else and make a comparative advantage decision. [Interjections.]

I can remember that hon member praising, at the time of the Newton Park election, the totally inadequate incentives that Port Elizabeth received at that time. This problem is being addressed again, albeit very dilatorily, and that proves that we were right and the hon member was wrong.

Who asked for it? [Interjections.]

Goodness me! The hon member has praised sycophantically every Minister who has ever been to Port Elizabeth, and for many of us it has been quite a disgusting performance. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Brakpan quoted Mr Justice Rabie as having said:

I believe that is incomplete. One also has to address the base from which the law has to operate. It is possible to usurp a legal system and commit it to the implementation of unjust laws. I believe that is what we have been seeing in this country for a long time.

The hon member for Brakpan also referred to my hon leader’s remarks in Hansard (col 3740) where he spoke about tough action against violence. However, one should only take tough action if one’s position is defendable. One cannot have tough action if one’s base is indefensible and unjust because it can then easily become thuggery. The Government certainly has to implement the law and see to it that laws are carried out, but it must first of all see to it that these laws are just and that there are no laws which are totally indefensible.

Another extraordinary remark of the hon member for Brakpan was that it would be unpatriotic to have an inquiry now into Police action. [Interjections.] He said one should wait till after the unrest and then have the inquiry. Either the situation justifies an inquiry or it does not. One cannot put up with something which one believes in one’s heart of hearts may be wrong just because it is inconvenient now and then subsequently have the inquiry and probably condemn a lot of people in retrospect who have behaved as they have in the belief that they had received indemnity from the hon the Minister. I think that is totally impossible.

The hon member for Sasolburg was right when he said that a Government which does not produce crisp decisions is a dangerous type of Government. He pointed to this type of situation under the tricameral system. If a Government is not going to produce crisp decisions, it had better have a very high degree of legitimacy as well as support from all sections of the population, otherwise we face disaster. That is the situation at the moment.

I believe when we pass a Bill like the one we are considering at the moment, we should ask what this Government’s long term objectives for this country are. I just cannot understand how a law like this can contribute to acceptable long-term objectives. How does the hon the Minister see us administering this country, not a long way ahead, just five, 10 or 15 years ahead when we will have 30 million or 40 million or 50 million Black citizens?

They do not have plans for five weeks ahead.

Do they foresee that laws like this one and other laws presumably are going to help them to dominate this country from a base of 5 million Whites? [Interjections.] This seems to me to be so destructive of any acceptable long-term view. Does the hon the Minister not look forward to a day when the Government of this country is supported by the whole population or the majority of the population, or does he believe he can build an autocratic oligarchy here that can force the total Black population into some sort of line-up acceptable to the NP? If he does, he is flying in the face of all reality.

The CP, of course, is honest in its belief that separate geographic areas would be acceptable. I can understand that as an argument. It is an honest argument. [Interjections.] However, the arguments from the Nationalist side of the House are totally ambivalent and hypocritical. The CP argument, I believe, one has to explode because it cannot work. For 34 years when these hon members sat in those benches they helped to run a country according to the principles of apartheid.

We had peace and prosperity.

However, the policy came apart at the seams. [Interjections.] In 1976 the lid blew off and that cannot be denied. [Interjections.] Since 1976 we have had no growth. It is a pie in the sky proposition, and it just cannot hang together. The economy must find them out, and the economy will find them out.

Where is the economy now, and where is it going to end?

Exactly! [Interjections.] We have a Government which intends to keep control in NP hands while giving the appearance of reform. That is hypocrisy …

What will happen to them?

Power-sharing brought disaster to South Africa!

Will you be more specific with relation to when Mandela or Tutu takes over?

All right! It is interesting to note that the currency of Botswana and the currency of Zimbabwe are both stronger and have both been devalued very much less than the rand. The financial rand today stood at just over 20 cents. [Interjections.]

And that is under a White Government!

There is no way in which one can maintain growth in the economy with the kind of policy being followed by this Government. They will have to come to terms with that otherwise they will be running down the same cul-de-sac they have been running up for 38 years. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister, I believe, does not actually understand the effect of the economy on law and order and on a stable society at all. He will remember that I asked him once about one of the major companies in Port Elizabeth. I said to him at the time that the banning of Mkhusele Jack and Henry Fazzie could influence a company like that to leave Port Elizabeth. The hon the Minister replied by telling me not to expect him to run his department on the basis of what was good for one company. I was not talking about what was good for a specific company. I was talking about the effect of increasing the unemployment in Port Elizabeth by between 5 000 and 10 000 people. That sort of thing could lead to chaos; to a situation of absolute disaster in the Eastern Cape.

Why then did you have to support Mkhusele Jack and Henry Fazzie in the way you did?

Mr Speaker, what do we have in relation to the kind of scenario which exists under policies such as those of the Conservative Party and those of the Government at the moment? We have a flight of capital and also a flight of emigrants. It is all very well to say that those emigrants are part of the chicken run.

They are also not bad South Africans!

They are some of our best and most valuable and most highly qualified people, and there is no way in which we can afford to lose them.

Just ask Lapa!

Disinvestment is the result of policies and of laws such as the measure we are considering here at the moment. People who are investing in this country realise that if the Government can introduce that type of legislation their investments are placed in jeopardy. Then they begin to ask why the devil they should invest their money in this country. The result is that they get out. The most extraordinary thing is, of course, that South Africans also disinvest. When one looks at investment in fixed capital in South Africa over the past two years, it is clear that it is actually on the decline. It has declined very much faster than it appears to have declined because the depreciation we have allowed is of course on historic value, and we have not even reinvested that in plant and equipment.

Another thing, Sir, which I should like to discuss briefly is the question of Black leadership. I believe it is not possible to get this country even half right until we begin to allow Blacks to form their own constitutional structures and to elect their own leaders. The hon member for Algoa earlier criticised the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central because he had said that the popular leaders in the Black townships were the leaders of the UDF and the leaders of the boycott committee and similar bodies. That is indeed correct. Those people can walk and move about with impunity in those Black townships but the leaders who occupy the positions in the structures of government which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has created need Police protection all the time. This hon Minister is in fact fond of saying that there are no no-go areas in South Africa. [Interjections.] That is total rubbish! What is more, Sir, the facts prove it to be rubbish. [Interjections.]

Throughout many Black townships rents and service charges cannot even be collected. I have just been looking into this matter and I note that debts—primarily in respect of rents and service charges—in all the development board and community council areas right throughout the country, increased from R99 million last year to R192 million this year. Development boards deficits for this year amount to R161 million. There was a R17 million surplus but due to the deterioration in the situation the accumulated deficit is now R144 million. Amounts from the capital development fund which were used to finance deficits on revenue account amounted to R34 million last year.

The system is just not working. Why is it not working? It is because we have leaders who are totally rejected and structures of government that Blacks simply will not accept. That hon Minister believes that with laws such as this “gaan hy hierdie wette op hulle afdwing”. That is a recipe for disaster and there is no medium to long-term future in it.

It is quite interesting to note that more than 40 of the community councils and local authorities in the country do not even have a quorum and cannot even pretend to operate. Therefore it is not that the system might not work; it is not working. The purpose of this measure is to force that system onto a reluctant population that rejects it totally. I would like to know from the hon the Minister what his medium-term goal is. What are we actually trying to achieve by this? One cannot create law and order in a society which totally rejects the structures of government that we insist on devising without consulting the people involved at all. It is just impossible.

Nothing highlights this more than what is going to happen this coming Monday. The hon Minister has imposed a blanket ban on all gatherings of people throughout the country on that day. That means that a senior Police officer, whether it be in Grahamstown or wherever, has no right to use his own initiative whatsoever. He cannot decide to let the Blacks hold the meetings they want because he believes, after consultation with them, that they will be able to do so quietly and without any chaos or disruption. Now he cannot use that initiative. He is going to have to impose this law on these people.

More policemen on duty, more conflict, more tension. That is the way the hon the Minister deals with it. It is unbelievable!

He is not even doing correctly what he wants to do!

When one goes into those Black townships, one realises that the key to this issue must be to allow Blacks to elect their own leaders. You might not like them all, but those townships will be like a decapitated chicken if they have no legitimate leaders.

We have seen the situation that will be created by this Bill during a period commencing in July last year, when the leaders from the Black townships were apprehended on a massive scale and locked away. The situation in those townships was impossible then. One could not enter them and it was dangerous for anyone to be there. When the leaders were released, there was at least some semblance of structure, but it is extremely difficult for them to maintain such a structure under present circumstances.

What is good for Blacks, is good for Whites. There is nothing that is good for Blacks that is not good for Whites. Chaos and necklaces are bad for Blacks, just as they are bad for Whites, and the sooner we get that into our heads and we start thinking not in terms of what we can impose upon these people but in terms of what is good for all citizens—because it will be good for us as well if it is good for them—the better.

The other point I want to make is that in a sense, the Government is far more to blame than the ANC for violence.

Don’t be silly! [Interjections.]

It is far more guilty in that the initiative for change cannot lie with the ANC. It cannot lie with Black resistance. It can only lie with the government of the day. What initiative does someone have who feels he is subject to an unjust regime? The only initiative he has is to protest against this and, when there are no structures for protest, what actions can he take? There is the possibility of illegal gatherings but they can get out of hand.

The Government holds the initiative. It is, in fact, the power of the land. The more we can bring about change from within this Parliament, the less violence there will be and the more acceptable will be the dispensation that replaces it. The more change takes place outside this Parliament, the more violent it will be, and the type of regime and constitution which is created will be that much less acceptable.

Oh no, you are more intelligent than that!

Well, the hon member can say that if he likes but that does not really answer the question.

The initiative lies with the Government which has the power to make and to scrap laws, and to consult and negotiate. [Interjections.] If it does not do so, what option does it leave to moderate resistance? One cannot get away from the fact that the ANC was, in fact, a peaceful movement.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he will admit that there is an open invitation to any person in this country who renounces violence to come along and take part in negotiations? [Interjections.]

Sir, we are functioning within a particular structure in which the provisos have been clearly set by the Government. It will approve a structure which is based on ethnic groups. That is a pre-condition. [Interjections.] Until one gets away from ethnic groups as the cornerstone of …

Will the Blacks get away from ethnic groups?

As long as they are voluntary. While one has ethnic groups as the cornerstone of any new constitution, civil war is “ons voorland”! [Interjections.] There is no doubt about that. I know, because I have talked to Blacks in the townships. They will not accept an ethnic group basis for a constitution because they know that it means that there will be a division of spoils, and that the division of the wealth of this country will be in the hands of Whites alone. They are not prepared to accept that. I do not believe that that hon member would be prepared to accept it either, were he in their position.

You are not answering the question. [Interjections.]

We sit paralysed in this country, waiting for the Government to break out of its deep freeze. It is frozen in indecision. It does not know whether it wants to stumble into the future with those members of its party who still think like the CP and is prevented from making reasonable advances because of that or whether it should break away and really move in a new direction.

I am glad the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is here, because I want to tell him unless the Government is able to get away from the situation …

Cannot you people leave me alone?

If you promise to leave the rest of the country alone.

If the hon the Minister would stop hatching up by himself little constitutional models and presenting them to the country and then forcing them through, and if he would enter into proper negotiation with the rest of the people in this country there might be a future. I think in those two benches we have the new axis of power in this Government. I believe it is very frightening as the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is wedded to constitutional proposals that can never work and that Blacks totally reject, and the hon the Minister of Law and Order is ready to impose these on the country by force, if necessary.