Order! I announce that I have received a message from the State President calling a joint sitting, as follows:

I hereby call, under the provisions of section 67 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, a joint sitting of the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates on 12 June 1986 at 17h20 to enable me to address Parliament on a matter of special importance.

Given under my hand and the Seal of the Republic of South Africa at Cape Town on this twelfth day of June, One thousand Nine hundred and eighty six.

P W BOTHA

State President

J C HEUNIS

By Order of the State President-in-Cabinet.

announced that in terms of Rule 23(4) he had referred the following draft Bill, which had been submitted to him, together with the memorandum thereon, to the Standing Committee on Private Members’ Draft Bills:

laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill [B 103—86 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning).
2. (2) Abolition of Development Bodies Bill [B 104—86 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning).
3. (3) Judges’ Remuneration Amendment Bill [B 105—86 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Justice).
4. (4) Income Tax Bill [B 106—86 (GA)]—(Minister of Finance).

Order! The hon member for Sandton asked me to grant him an opportunity to make a statement, and I now do so.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity. It has been drawn to my attention that my reference to the Nuremberg trials during the debate yesterday has caused offence to some hon members. I accept that the comparison which I made was inappropriate. I regret that such offence has been caused, and I should like to withdraw that reference.

as Chairman, presented the Ninth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, dated 11 June 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Seventh Report of the Standing Select Committee on Home Affairs, dated 16 May 1986, relative to the Temporary Removal of Restrictions on Economic Activities Bill [B 54—86 (GA)].

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed.

Bill to be read a second time.

Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke does not appear to be in the Chamber. I must say, however, that last night he delivered a most extraordinary speech here. It was a strange speech indeed.

One of the points he made was that people who oppose the two Bills currently before Parliament, should not be members of Parliament. That is a strange point of view to hold, particularly if one takes into account the fact that the hon members of the other two Houses almost unanimously opposed these two Bills. [Interjections.] Is the hon member suggesting, therefore, that people like the Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi should leave this parliamentary system?

Yes, that is what he is suggesting.

The other extraordinary point of view he put forward, or rather the suggestion he tried to make, was that the PFP is soft on the ANC. [Interjections.] That is simply not true, and anybody who says that is a public liar. [Interjections.]

I say it! [Interjections.]

The simple fact is that we recognise the need for dialogue with the ANC.

You will not say that outside this Chamber.

We recognise that need, just like the Broederbond did. There was, after all, no condemnation of Prof De Lange’s meeting with Thabo Mbeki in New York the other day. [Interjections.] There was a need for dialogue, and nobody has reprimanded those two gentlemen for getting together to talk about what is going on in South Africa.

Did you also resign from the Broederbond? [Interjections.]

Such a meeting does not suggest agreement with the ANC. It simply demonstrates the reality, namely, that one has to talk to them. We are opposed to the ANC, but we accept the fact that one has to talk to them. Even the NP accepts that there is a necessity to talk to the ANC, as was implicit in the correspondence which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs released on Tuesday night. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

The hon member for Sasolburg said he was surprised that the State President stood up here on Tuesday during question time. I was surprised too because it was a strange point that he attempted to make. The hon member for Sasolburg said he thought the State President should rather have used the opportunity to say that there was a way out of the situation that we are in at the present time. However, they of course cannot do it. Neither the State President nor his party nor the Government can point to any way or any direction that they have chosen to get us out of the situation we are currently in because they have no answer other than “kragdadigheid”. My colleague the hon member for Walmer last night pleaded that there should be some kind of vision or some kind of five year plan. However, the hon members on that side of the House do not have a five week plan, never mind a five year plan, as was proved this afternoon when the acting Leader of the House, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, gave notice that he would move that we should sit extended hours to complete the legislative programme of the Government. The incompetent Government—I emphasise “incompetent”—comes every year with this type of performance. We sit here in February and March and do nothing …

We will discuss that tomorrow.

All right, we will go through it again tomorrow but this happens every year. We have to rush from standing committee meetings to caucus meetings because of the incompetence of a Government that is not able to plan correctly.

Stop wasting our time.

They can neither plan a legislative programme nor a future for this country. It is a government of incompetence and indeed of indifference. They have known about 16 June for a very long time—in fact they have known about it for about ten years. However, at this late stage they come along with Bills of this nature which they attempt to bulldoze through Parliament.

I want to ask the hon the Minister why he treats 16 June differently to the way in which he treated 1 May. On that day there were stay-aways, boycotts and closures of factories and shops and everything went off relatively peacefully. I believe that happened simply because the Police maintained a low profile and people were allowed to go about their business without Police interference. I believe it is the Government that has created the situation that has arisen concerning 16 June. They talk of unrest and the need for special legislation and they are the ones who are whipping up hysteria about this event.

Because of this the private sector at great expense has to go to an enormous amount of trouble to make special arrangements for the day. They have to provide hotel accommodation for some of their employees, they have to make special parking arrangements and in general they have to go to a great deal of trouble.

I visited Johannesburg on Monday. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Communications will not know about Johannesburg but it is a thriving industrial metropolis in spite of this Government. [Interjections.] The Government has done its best to throttle the business life of this country—that hon Minister did so in particular—but in spite of their efforts the business community continues.

There is a great deal of depression in Johannesburg about what will happen on this coming Monday. People will be closing their offices, businesses and factories and even some of the schools will close in a mood of pessimism. This has all been generated by the Government.

In The Star of Tuesday night there was a headline on the front page that read: “Confrontation looms as June 16 draws nearer.” I quote from the article:

What is the Government and in particular the hon the Minister of Law and Order doing to lessen this tension? What are they doing to reduce the pressure that is building up on all sides? This hon Minister comes with this legislation … No, I am actually quite right. The one person who has nothing between his ears is the hon the Minister of Law and Order who is now gesticulating. [Interjections.]

It is quite clear that political organisations such as the Transvaal Indian Congress, Cosatu, the Azanian Students Movement, the Azanian National Youth Unity and Nafcoc are very concerned. Nafcoc is a group of very concerned conservative Black businessmen who have become associated with this concern. What has the hon the Minister done to alleviate their concern besides introducing this legislation? There are, of course, other developments concerning states of emergency, but I believe that the Government is quite mad to proceed with these two Bills. They are just totally insensitive to what is going on in South Africa and the world. Their action is completely inexplicable.

When the hon member for Houghton opened the debate from these benches yesterday, she spoke about the avalanche of sanctions that was building up. There seems to be an inevitability about sanctions, and I do not think the Government cares.

Last night the EPG issued a statement in London in which they referred to the worst bloodbath the world has seen since World War II. The members of the EPG have been here and have had extensive discussions with the Government. The Government was quite happy to talk to them. They have now concluded that the Commonwealth should take immediate concerted action to avert an awesome tragedy.

The conclusions of the EPG are very serious indeed, but what has South Africa done? We have introduced measures like the Bill before us. We are in the world’s spotlight and we are doing absolutely nothing to take that spotlight off us.

In The Star of last Wednesday, there was a picture of a policeman with a quirt in his hand standing over a young Wits student. That sort of picture does not help at all.

During question time last Tuesday, we were told that policemen are not issued with quirts when they are sent to maintain order at NP or AWB meetings such as the one which took place at Pietersburg. Police are not issued with quirts when they have to deal with political thugs, but they are when they have to deal with defenceless 19 or 20 year old female students. The hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism can laugh, but my daughter was one of those beaten with quirts outside St George’s Cathedral on Tuesday afternoon.

What was she doing there?

She was standing on the steps of the Cathedral.

She had every right to be there.

It is her legal right as a citizen of this country to stand on those steps, and she was beaten by a policeman with a quirt.

Your daughter could have been there!

What was she beaten for? It is an absolute disgrace that that is allowed to happen. She was told to run and when she asked where to, he again told her to run and he beat her. [Interjections.] What is happening to the young people of this country? The NP can laugh—certainly, they can laugh—but on Monday when I drove out to the airport at about 11h45 I passed 10 Hippo’s on the way to Crossroads, and my overriding impression was of rows and rows of anxious young eyes looking over the top of those Hippo’s, not knowing where they were going to. [Interjections.] I will not say that there was terror or fear, but there was anxiety because they did not know what they were going to do. They were sent to Crossroads which was burning. There were enormous clouds of smoke billowing out of that township and 10 Hippo’s filled with young men—my son and your son, all our young people—were being sent out there to cope with the situation for which they were not … [Interjections.]

They are doing military service.

They are doing service in a situation created by this Government. [Interjections.] It is an absolute disgrace! [Interjections.]

Now, we have made it absolutely clear that we are opposed to this Bill. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister does not have a son who has to sit in a Hippo to go out to the townships.

He’s in the Navy!

He has never done service.

One of our overriding concerns is the indemnity which is to be granted to the Police in these unrest areas. We are concerned about what individuals might get up to in certain areas. There is always a hue and cry from the Government side about the attitude of this side of the House towards the Police, but we make it absolutely clear that the Police should do the duty which they are expected to do. The hon member for Algoa talks about the Vote which comes up year by year, but it is our duty and our right to criticise the Government at that stage for what we believe has been going wrong. We have a limited amount of time at our disposal during debates and we have to raise the matters which we believe to be important at that stage. It is up to the hon Government members to thank the hon the Minister, not the opposition.

At a time like this when we have some time at our disposal it is important that we should put on record—as we do frequently—that we believe that the Police who do the proper thing and who do the job that they are meant to do deserve our praise and appreciation. However, one cannot say that every policeman is right and proper. There are bad eggs in every basket. There are many bad eggs in the Cabinet basket, not all are good. [Interjections.] Some are not good. Some behave properly and some behave improperly. [Interjections.] That has been shown frequently.

I have gone on record from time to time saying I appreciate the role the Police play; I have told the hon the Minister that, both openly and in private. I appreciate the role the Police play in Rosebank, Johannesburg in apprehending the bag-snatchers and the thieves and the car thieves. However, this debate is not about that. I had a letter from the hon the Minister yesterday concerning a matter in Birnam I had raised with him where the Police had been effective in apprehending some car thieves. I appreciate that very much, and so do my voters. They are pleased that effective action has been taken to stop the car thieves. That is the job of the Police. That is what they are meant to do and therefore there is no need for us to thank them for doing it. Although we are appreciative of what they are doing it is what they are expected to do.

There are loopholes, however. The hon member for Sandton yesterday quoted from some affidavits and I would like to quote from a few more. This one concerns the same case that he referred to in the Eastern Cape Division. There is an affidavit from a gentleman called Cyril Sebane Francis who says that he is 17 years old and that a policeman apprehended him along the Douglas Smit Highway. He carries on as follows:

So there were witnesses—

We have heard that all before!

No, the hon member has not heard this. He is indifferent to it, is he not? [Interjections.] The affidavit continues as follows:

Stop reading and hand in the whole thing!

Sir, I am sure that many of us received a letter from a gentleman called Peter Quentrall-Thomas, from a company called Quentrall Industries Limited in Trinidad in the West Indies. I believe this letter was sent to most hon members of Parliament. He wrote on 12 May 1986—I am not sure where he obtained all the names and addresses of members of Parliament—setting out all the details about Mr Cyril Francis. The appalling thing is that an hon member called out that he had heard it. I doubt whether he had heard all these details before, but how does Mr Peter QuentrallThomas know all these details? Why is it that people from around the world have to appeal to members of Parliament to have something done about this gentleman when hon members here have not themselves heard about it and are not aware of what is going on in some of the police stations in this country?

There are many other affidavits dealing with this police station. There is for instance an affidavit by Wordsworth Jordan who is an adult male of 29 years old. His mother is a nurse at the Frere Hospital in East London and she has supplied a supporting affidavit attesting to the torture to which he was subjected. It is an agonising story of what happened to this young man. Then there is also Ntombeku Dejeni’s similar affidavit about torture done to him as well. I quote from his affidavit:

He also speaks of torture having been meted out to him.

Most of them make affidavits to the effect that they were given electric shocks. William Mazitsha speaks of similar happenings as does Alfred Ngezi. These are all affidavits about torture that was brought about in police stations in Duncan Village and East London. If this can happen in one police station where indemnity is given to policemen that they will not be responsible for their activities, then it can happen in others. It is a chronicle of some very gruesome events. We know incidents of this nature do happen in other areas, because of our monitoring activities, and the hon the Minister knows as well that we have people around the country who monitor what goes on in many of the townships.

I hope the hon the Minister will say in his reply that he is determined to stamp out these excesses. I hope he will tell us that he is going to make every effort to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again, because it is our genuine and deep concern that what is going on in some of the police stations and cells of this country should come to an end.

For that and for many other reasons we shall be opposing this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Johannesburg North raised quite a number of matters in his speech which I believe should not be permitted to pass unanswered. The hon member said he had just been in Johannesburg. What he encountered there was—to use his own words—”a mood of pessimism generated by this Government”. The hon member also wanted to know what the Government was doing “to lessen the tension”.

He then proceeded with suggestions that we had been aware long before of what would take place on 16 June. That is true. Nevertheless the hon member said at the same time: “The Government is quite mad to go ahead with this legislation.” When the Government is aware of what will possibly—actually quite probably—take place on 16 June and comes up with legislation like the Bill before the House now, what do we find? The hon member for Johannesburg West wants to know what the Government is doing about it. At the same time, however, he is not prepared to support this side of the House regarding the legislation before us.

The Government has more powers than it can ever justify!

Mr Speaker, I shall tell the hon member for Johannesburg North what we are doing “to lessen the tension”. This hon member purports that all Black people are enormously dissatisfied now about the fact that the Police and the Defence Force have to lend assistance in maintaining law and order in South Africa. Nevertheless I should like to read to him what appeared in The Sowetan on 20 February this year. These are reports issued by various Black organisations.

†I quote as follows:

This is the point: It is not only the business people of Johannesburg and elsewhere who are concerned—

Moreover, the president of the Ekangale Youth Organisation, Mr Hamilton Tshalala, said:

Those hon members are so fond of telling us that they know everything that is going on in the Black areas. They should, however, listen to what this Black man says. I quote:

Then that hon member still asks us what we are doing to lessen the tension in South Africa. I can tell him what we are doing: If this Bill had been on the Statute Book today, it would have served as a measure by means of which tension in South Africa could have been lessened. [Interjections.] I quote further:

*That is the situation. Now the hon member is acting as if the Government alone is to blame for the situation prevailing in the country. I hope to furnish the hon member with further information later.

The situation prevailing in South Africa today and the reason why legislation of this nature is necessary reminds one of 26 years ago when we also had to promulgate strict security measures in South Africa to ban the ANC and the PAC.

Poqo.

Poqo came a little later but I want to read to hon members what was said by the then Minister of Justice. I can quote him authoritatively because I think that, if there were two members instrumental in having the old UP support the ban on the ANC and the PAC, it was the hon member for Durban Point sitting over there and I.

Look where we are now. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Consequently I say I have no hesitation in quoting the then Minister of Justice, the late Advocate Erasmus, on this. I shall read what he said (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1960, col 4306):

Hon members should note what he said further:

Excuse me, but that is exactly the same situation as we have today, 26 years later.

Why?

No, I am not replying to questions now. I shall quote further:

As far as the economic boycotts are concerned, the Freedom Volunteers visit shops and threaten the shopowners who sell listed products with assault and arson and with a general boycott of their shops. Guards are placed in front of the shops by the Freedom Volunteers and if people buy any of these products they are taken away from them and destroyed.

That is exactly what these people are doing again today. We have had any amount of evidence from aged Black people buying Jik or paraffin from such shops and then being told to drink it. It is those people whom the hon member for Johannesburg North, his colleagues and henchmen in this House want to protect in not wishing to support this legislation. [Interjections.] Listen to the quotation further:

This deals with their having said people had to burn all reference books.

Read that bit! [Interjections.]

I shall continue quoting:

I could continue like this. One paragraph after another indicates that it was exactly the same as is happening today.

I wish to make this point on the matter: Since then, living standards of Black people have improved appreciably. The number of Black children in South Africa receiving education has risen by millions. The number of Black graduates has also increased by thousands but we find organisations intimidating people are still using the same methods as at that time. Consequently the hon the Minister is altogether justified in instituting these measures contained in the Bill before us.

Let the hon member for Johannesburg North and his colleagues say “the world’s spotlight is on us” but, if South Africa really goes up in flames, then we shall see the world’s spotlight on us.

These are the very people who are perpetually warning us about disinvestment but, if the Government were to permit the neglect of law and order, how many thousands of rands does the hon member think would leave South Africa?

The hon member also asked what we were doing to “relieve the tension”; what we were doing in the interests of South Africa. He should remove the mote from the eyes of the people creating the trouble, not from the eyes of those who desire law and order in South Africa.

I do not wish to refer to the hon member for Johannesburg only, however.

The hon member for Sandton withdrew certain words and I wanted to say a thing or two to him on the subject he broached but I shall honour your ruling, Sir, and speak on it at a later stage as he is in the habit of withdrawing something he has just said and repeating it later. [Interjections.]

It does not happen every day that one is able to speak twice in a Second Reading debate, which also makes it an historic occasion. If the situation in South Africa were not so tragic for the country, this could definitely have been an occasion one should like to remember. [Interjections.]

I wish to put forward certain thoughts here today which we should all accept. Firstly, every person—this includes Black people—has an indisputable right to be heard. He should also have the right to protest against anything he does not like. I think we all accept this as we all have the right of non-violent protest against matters we do not like.

Like every other individual in South Africa, the Black man also has the inalienable right to say so if he does not like the reform occurring in South Africa today. Like every other citizen of the country, he also has the right to state his alternatives and he is constantly being given that opportunity.

In addition, every Black man also has the right to go to his work unhindered every day and, while doing that work, he also has the right to expect that his family will be safe at home.

The debate we are conducting here in this Parliament today is not about this, however. It is not about whether the rule of law should be maintained nor is its subject whether we should grant an hon Minister more extensive powers. Normally not one of us wants to see the system of law destroyed. Still less do we wish to see a specific Minister invested with extraordinary powers. We are just as jealous of it as any hon member on that side of the House that the authority of Parliament should be beyond all doubt and that it should not be defied by anybody either.

As I have said, one would always like to avoid these matters but the question is whether we in South Africa have to do with normal conditions or not; in reality that is the question we should put. If it is true that conditions in South Africa are abnormal, we should ask whether the State has adequate powers to be able to deal with such a situation. We should also ask whether it would not be more in the interests of the country to grant the hon the Minister the powers to localise unrest situations in the country instead of applying other powers provided by the Statute Book nationwide.

I wish to state that South Africa is struggling with a socioeconomic problem in our Black areas. There is great unemployment and thousands of Black people entering the labour market annually.

†We have to contend and deal with the population explosion. This is a problem which cannot be solved overnight. This causes a situation of tremendous overcrowding and unemployment. In this situation it is only natural that a great number of Black people will become the easy prey of so-called political activists who are nothing but intimidators. Instead of protesting that it is the right of any law-abiding citizen to do that, they are inclined to destroy the little that belongs to other Blacks. Hundreds of Blacks have been killed by other Blacks. It appears to us as if we have a civil war. That is correct, but it is between Black and Black. [Interjections.] The economic consequences and the damage as a result of the disastrous fights and destruction already run into millions of rand. Two months ago it was estimated that the direct cost involved amounted to something like R140 million. It must now be close to R150 million.

*That is the situation. Insurance claims are escalating. Owners of buses and private people owning vehicles have suffered some millions of rands’ damage in Black areas. Subsequently bus services to Black areas were suspended and people will stop investing in public transport.

†It was reported in The Weekend Argus of 10 May of this year that Peninsula gangs are now using the unrest situation and that they are becoming more politically conscious. I wish to quote only a few passages from this study carried out by a Mr Wilfred Schaapf. He is a member of the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cape Town. He made the following statement:

He is now talking about gangs—

He also says the following:

*That is what they do. He also makes this point

It sounds like Progs.

Yes. He continues:

The last paragraph I wish to quote runs:

When this type of situation prevails in which gangs even exploit political unrest and take the matter further, I ask whether we should not act as we are acting today. I think the hon the Minister and his department are absolutely right in coming to this House to request these powers.

My deduction after reading this quotation is that these riots also have serious side-effects which have to be dealt with. We have to be careful that the condition does not become endemnic in South Africa because it is not always entirely concerned with politics.

I do not wish to argue that the Government should not proceed with its reform. It is certainly being handicapped in Black areas and rebuilding work will dealy new development. The people suffering most because of this will undoubtedly be the Blacks and they are those who have least.

The great tragedy of our times is that those who should help are impeding matters. Those who maintain that they stand at the forefront of the liberation struggle assist destroyers and perpetrators of violence. Those who loathe a state of emergency do not wish to empower the Minister to declare certain regions as unrest areas. [Interjections.]

I think this legislation can do least damage to the good name of South Africa but it can do a great deal in placing South Africa on the road to stability and peace again. Before we can accomplish this, however, the people responsible for this situation will have to be handled firmly. They can only be dealt with strictly by a Government with the necessary power to do so.

I wish to agree with something which appeared recently in an article written by none other than Mr Franklin Sonn who is most definitely not a supporter of the Government. He said:

That is the question hon members should put to themselves. Do they want this type of condition to persist or do they want it stopped—even if it is done with power and authority—and place South Africa on the road to progress, freedom and stability again?

Because to my mind this legislation ultimately envisages this and because it wants to give substance to it as soon as possible, I support the Second Reading of this legislation.

Mr Speaker, I rise to support the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon member for King William’s Town. I was unfortunately involved in the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs yesterday—as indeed I still am today. I support the amendment because I think that in the light of new events—which have been ignored by the other two speakers—the fact that the South African Government has declared a state of general emergency with effect from midnight last night, is crucial to this debate. Apart from being crucial to this debate, I believe it is also tragic for South Africa in the consequences it can bring, because I believe there could have been alternatives. I believe that if the hon the Minister had not been so stubborn and so unwilling to budge from his standpoints, we could have reached consensus and agreed upon a measure.

I want to refer to our amendment which states very clearly that whilst accepting the need for additional Police powers to deal with the violence of the unrest situation and the murder and intimidation of law-abiding citizens, we decline to pass the Bill unless and until an adequate judicial review system is incorporated in any provision for detention. This is fundamental to our philosophy, to our aims and principles, and our commitment to the rule of law. However, the hon the Minister will recall from the days of the Le Grange and Schlebush Commissions that this party has never wavered from its willingness to grant extraordinary powers to deal with an extraordinary situation, provided that there was a judicial process—either review or access to the courts or some process beyond the jurisdiction of the executive alone—regarding the freedom or detention of a person.

That is why we have almost gone overboard in an attempt to find …

[Inaudible.]

I am making a serious speech …

Just tell us whether you are voting against it or not! [Interjections.]

Sir, I will answer the hon member’s question but I will not be led astray now.

We have gone overboard in an attempt to find an agreed solution but, unlike others, we are not prepared to sacrifice the fundamental concept that there should be a review procedure. That principle is accepted by this Government in the Internal Security Act in respect of various aspects of that Act. All we have asked is that what is good enough for the Internal Security Act, what is good enough for the new section 50A which is being inserted so as to deal with this emergency situation, should be good enough for this Bill. In that amendment provision is made for a review, for reference to a review board and the need to satisfy such review board. That is the next Bill on the Order Paper. That Bill provides for the same powers as are provided for in this Bill. Because it makes provision for review we accept that in principle, subject to certain safeguards. We would, however, want to talk about the period involved. But that principle is enshrined both in the Internal Security Act and in the proposed section 50A of the Bill before the House. Yet the hon the Minister is not prepared …

You are talking on the wrong Bill! That is not the Bill before the House!

I said it is in the other Bill.

The hon the Minister is not prepared to make provision for the same principle which is contained in the Internal Security Amendment Bill, the next Bill on the Order Paper, in this Bill. He has given us no explanation and no reason whatever why what is good enough for the Internal Security Amendment Bill is not good enough for this Bill!

Under those circumstances we cannot give a blank cheque with regard to this measure. We have committed ourselves and we remain committed to the acceptance of the need for special Police powers. This is clear from the amendment we have moved, and we have kept to that commitment in every stage of the debate both here and in the standing committee. However, we are not prepared to hand over a totally blank cheque in this regard which will mean that we endorse the fact that there will be unlimited and unqualified powers without the need to report to any independent body for reconsideration or repeal of the measures.

That is our problem with this measure. We disagree with the PFP which has asked for what has happened today—a general state of emergency. I assume they will welcome it.

Don’t talk rubbish!

The hon member for Houghton says “rubbish” but I assumed that party would welcome this declaration.

That is a load of rubbish!

Nonsense!

The hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition says it is a load of rubbish but I want to quote from the hon member for King William’s Town’s speech in this House yesterday.

What does that have to do with us?

This is his Hansard that I am quoting from. He said:

The hon member for Houghton then interjected and said:

If it takes those powers, then obviously … [Interjections.]

So that party says the Government must declare a state of emergency. That has been done, therefore I believed that they would welcome it, but we do not. [Interjections.] We do not welcome a general state of emergency because we believe it will be harmful for South Africa and we regret that because of stubbornness on both sides—those opposed to the Bill on the one hand and the hon the Minister on the other—it was not possible to find that agreement. This means that if there was no other alternative then the Government had to use the power which it has used. However, that does not make it a happy day for South Africa, but we accept that. Only this week—two days ago—I issued a public statement in which I emphasised the need to restore law and order. I said:

Those are the two aspects, the two sides of the coin that are not often dealt with. We hear those who make the accusations and those who say they are untrue. What is needed is that those who make false accusations be as liable to prosecution and action as any policeman who acts beyond his authority and his powers. Everyone believes now whichever side he wants to believe. The facts should be established urgently in order to restore public confidence.

What we are having today is a rehash of the debate we had for three days—the accusations and the denials. We have no doubt at all about the need to restore law and order. We have no doubt that in the present situation this will need special powers and we would have preferred to have had the powers in this Bill before us, provided there was that safeguard for which we asked. If the hon the Minister would undertake to introduce that safeguard and the safeguards he undertook in his introductory speech to provide, it would change the situation very considerably. However, without that recourse to review this party cannot give a blank cheque to detention with no time limit, no recourse to an independent body, no review procedure and no security for the individual against unjust or mistaken detention and loss of freedom. We therefore stand by the amendment in our name.

Mr Chairman, I do not think I should even reply to the two NRP speakers this afternoon because I think Freek Swart did so effectively enough this morning. While the hon Leader of the House was announcing the extended hours of sitting of the House, I wondered whether the extended hours from Monday evening onwards would not help to restrict certain hon members of this House so that we would also in that way get a levelling off of the unrest situation.

This is actually the kind of debate which one is supposed to approach very logically and clinically. For me, however, it is very difficult to do so, particularly after one has listened to hon members of the Official Opposition. This afternoon I want to make the statement that every party and every hon member in this House who helps to cause the legislation under discussion to miscarry, is helping to sign the death sentence of innocent people.

Mr Speaker, allow me to dwell briefly for a moment on a few of the speeches made by hon members in the debate so far. In the first place I want to refer to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. He had a great deal to say about next Monday, 16 June. However, I am not entirely certain that his following target date is not 26 June—the 25th anniversary of the publication of the Freedom Charter in Kliptown.

If I could dwell for a few moments on the hon the Minister of Law and Order, my submission is that with the hours he works and the dedication with which he discharges his obligations, his salary should rather be increased. When other hon members are sleeping peacefully—and in this case I am also referring to the hon member for Houghton—he is awake, looking after the safety of every citizen—including Black people—in this country. I think she ought to thank all her lucky stars she has such an hon Minister of Law and Order in the RS A.

Unfortunately the hon member for Sasolburg is not present here at the moment. Nevertheless, I still want to refer to him. Yesterday evening in this House he made certain remarks concerning the person of the State President. He said inter alia, and I am quoting from his unrevised speech in Hansard:

Surely that is devoid of all truth. I do not want to waste any time on this, but I do nevertheless want to refer to what the State President said in the President’s Council on 15 May this year. I shall quote a single passage from his speech:

I shall say nothing further about the hon member’s speech. I think it is too detestable to elaborate on any further.

What did the State President say in Port Elizabeth on Tuesday?

I shall now refer to the hon member for Walmer. I want to know from him whether he agrees with what the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said, when he made the statements that consumer boycotts in Port Elizabeth were justified. Is the hon member prepared to announce that from a public platform in Port Elizabeth?

The hon member for Johannesburg North said here this afternoon that the Government had no other solution for this country than to adopt strong-arm methods. I put it to him that he is only too pleased about the announcement of a general state of emergency today, because it also helps to save his skin. He will not say so though, for then his great friends—the Oliver Tambos inter alia—will reject him completely in the process. Just like the hon member for Sandton he also read out a number of affidavits here this afternoon. He did not even take the trouble to make the names or addresses of the commissioners of oaths public. Of course it is very easy to come forward here with affidavits of that nature. But why did he not come forward with affidavits from policemen whose homes were set alight? Of course it does not suit his purpose to do that. I now want to quote to him one letter I received. I shall not disclose the name of the writer of this letter, because I am not all that certain whether people will not begin to intimidate this man as well tomorrow. He wrote as follows:

Words of appreciation, Sir, from fellow South Africans who also want to ensure that their children have a better future in this country.

I should very much have liked to have seen what would have happened if the hon member for Johannesburg North had made the speech he made this afternoon on Tuesday evening. When we take note of the result of the by-election in Ward 15 of the Pretoria City Council yesterday, we see that that seat, previously held by the PFP, was won by the National Party with a majority of 43 votes. And then we must not forget that the Conservative Party also put up a candidate. Nevertheless the National Party won that ward. [Interjections.] Last week the NP did the same thing in Johannesburg.

What becomes apparent from this? What becomes apparent from this is that the voters of South Africa are tired of the lip-service of the PFP and the illogical school of thought of the CP. [Interjections.]

Why did you people proclaim a state of emergency at the time?

At some time or other the hon member will regain consciousness. [Interjections.]

Violence is not unique to South Africa. We find violence and the type of methods being adopted here in use all over the world. I do not want to bore hon members with long examples, but what was reported in Die Burger of 11 June 1986? The headline read: “IRL het bom laat ontplof” and the report read as follows:

I shall not elaborate on this. If hon members analyse the report clinically, however, they will discover that it is the same kind of forces who are behind all terrorist attacks of this type.

The problem in South Africa, though, is that we are dealing here with a far more complex social structure and background. The difference is that we in South Africa are dealing with far stranger and more sophisticated allies who are trying to demolish and overthrow the Government.

This afternoon I want to make the statement that the struggle in South Africa is not a struggle between Whites and non-Whites. For example what kind of reporting did we have yesterday in regard to the shootings in Crossroads? According to the reports I heard a White man, among others, fled from those houses and drove off at speed in a car. He managed to escape.

I would not venture to speculate on who it was, but it is very clear to me what the Official Opposition has been doing since their inception. If one analyses them clinically, one will discover that they were at all times opposed to all forms of security legislation. It is clear to me that in a debate such as this we are never going to hear the Official Opposition convey a word of thanks to the Security Forces of this country.

Not a single hon member of the Official Opposition has ever, in this type of debate, made a direct, unqualified attack on any form of terrorism, communism, the ANC, the PAC or their fellow-travellers. [Interjections.] Why does the PFP not condemn these organisations without qualification? Or does it not suit their purpose? No, the PFP sides with the Boraines. Let me quote to the PFP what was said yesterday in a news bulletin about their former colleague as a result of a meeting in Durban. The news bulletin read verbatim-.

We have nothing to do with that. [Interjections.]

Oh, now it suits those hon members to reject him. Yesterday they were still sitting in the same benches. [Interjections.] Then the hon members must suspend him from the party if he is still a member of the PFP. Otherwise this spectre of Dr Boraine will haunt those hon members into their graves. [Interjections.]

No, but he has left.

I have never yet heard the Official Opposition emphasising the comprehensive, total onslaught on the RSA. [Interjections.] No, all they do is periodically to emphasise the problems caused by individuals.

What are the facts? All of us who work with people are aware that when one works with people, errors will occur. As long as one is working with people, errors will occur. I know of nothing this side of the grave which is perfect—least of all a person in the ranks of the PFP. A person who does nothing will never make a mistake. If we want the Police to take action, there will be individuals in the Police who make mistakes.

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

No, Sir, I am sorry but I do not have the time. [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is that the Police are acting under the worst form of provocation one could ever encounter. I know, because I was a member of the SA Police. The good results attained by the Police are never emphasized by hon members of the Official Opposition. However, they never let an opportunity slip of presenting loyal Police officials as disloyal people. This afternoon I heard them trying to backpedal a little, but those arguments do not hold water. All they are trying to make the public in general believe is that we are maintaining a Gestapotype government by means of the Police.

They are always, in an underhand, derogatory manner, conveying an image intended to bring the Police into discredit. I am asking them this afternoon whose allies they are in this country? I shall quote what was said on Radio Freedom on 4 May of this year, but owing to a lack of time I cannot quote everything:

They continue:

Are those not the same kind of cries we hear from that side of the House? [Interjections.] The Official Opposition is part of the general disparaging process in this country.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member allowed to suggest that what he hears from this side of the House is in fine with the transcription of a broadcast from that radio station from which he is quoting?

Radio Freedom.

Is he allowed to suggest that we are supporting that kind of nonsense? [Interjections.]

Order! I listened to the hon member and I did not find anything wrong with it. Perhaps I should listen to it again. Would the hon member repeat what he said?

Mr Chairman, I said that in the process they encourage these statements. I did not say I was equating them with the people who made such statements. If I said that, I withdraw it, simply owing to a lack of time. I would be able to address hon members on this matter.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member said that was the kind of thing he heard from this side of the House …

That might have been the case, but the hon member has withdrawn it. The hon member may proceed.

I find the constant wild and false accusations that are being made objectionable. To a great extent they are made merely for the sake of an overseas audience. I am not all that certain whether it is always intended overseas for the ears of Western countries only.

George is doing it again.

By George!

The maintenance of law and order is essential in this country and the Government will see to it that the necessary security measures are adopted so that we can eventually bring about the necessary constitutional changes that we have to bring about in this country. Without stability this cannot be done. This afternoon this House has an opportunity to express an opinion in favour of law and order in this country. If hon members are not going to contribute to that, I say that they are traitors to civilisation in South Africa.

Rev Hendrickse as well?

I shall quote another passage of what was said on Radio Freedom on 6 September 1985:

So it goes even further. We heard the same covered tone in this debate as well.

This legislation is not intended for peace loving people. I want to make the statement that the gallows was never intended for little angels, and the same applies to this legislation. Let us deal with the situation and the areas affected by leaving them in the hands of this competent hon Minister.

If I could recommend a book to hon members, it would be The Bear at the Back Door. It was written by Sir Walter Walker, the former commander in chief of the NATO forces. Hon members may perhaps be a little wiser after reading it. [Interjections.]

No country’s future can be perpetuated through the barrel of a gun, but only through an orderly constitutional process. This Government wants to, and will, create that climate. We shall also support our security forces, for if this country should go under, civilisation in its entirety will be destroyed. It is this Government’s standpoint that it has been called upon to ensure the security and the welfare of the whole of the Republic of South Africa and all its people. As in the past this Government will continue to consider our national security in general to be a high priority.

We must have peace now, while we are seeking solutions for posterity. This can only happen in an evolutionary way, and not in a revolutionary way, as some people think.

I conclude with a passage which I read this morning:

This afternoon I am asking that we forget our petty political differences for the sake of tomorrow and a better future.

Mr Chairman, that hon member put so many questions to the PFP that I would have no chance at all to say something myself if I had to reply to all of them. But I do wish to discuss a few of the questions with him.

Firstly he asked whether we were part of the official demolition process of the systems in this country. I can only say that to the extent to which I can contribute to the demolition of apartheid I am very proud of my contribution. The hon member also said that the PFP never spoke about the so-called total communist onslaught which is prevailing throughout the world. It is definitely the case that a cold war is prevailing between East and West, or between the Marxist or the communists and the capitalists. That I want to admit very candidly. In all the Western countries, such as the USA, Germany, France, England and the other European countries, there are communist parties which exist there. Communism cannot of course maintain itself in a good democracy.

South Africa’s problem is not communism, and the state of emergency is not attributable to it. Apartheid is in fact the problem here, not the revolutionary onslaught. One will only get rid of the revolutionary onslaught when a proper democracy has been established here.

In South Africa we also have another problem. All other countries can take action against the revolutionary forces with morality and with the support of their people, but we cannot do so in South Africa. The simple reason for that is that 80% of the people do not share in the democracy. In fact they are regarded by this Government as the enemy, and that is only because they are opposed to the Government’s policy of apartheid. We cannot therefore get away from our problems by means of new definitions of the enemy.

Furthermore the hon member referred to Dr Boraine, who addressed a meeting on Monday evening. The ad hoc committee that objected to this legislation arranged that series of meetings and asked Dr Boraine and UDF speakers to participate. On Monday evening the same organisation arranged a meeting in Pietermaritzburg, and I was asked to participate there. This caused me no problem because I oppose these Bills for precisely the same reasons as those people do.

To participate in a meeting with the UDF is not such a terrible sin either, because the hon member Mr Schutte, for example, has also on occasion shared a platform with a UDF speaker.

Tell us about Mabide’s funeral!

Consequently it is not such a terrible thing to appear with certain people on a platform. [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir, I have already replied to three or four of the hon member’s questions.

It is not all that important who appeared on whose platform, but it is important to ascertain what happens at such meetings.

At the Pietermaritzburg meeting approximately 520 people were present. They were not hysterically incited into a frenzy of bravado. They were merely concerned about what the Government of this country was getting up to. [Interjections.]

A resolution was adopted there, and it read as follows:

I shall let the hon the Minister have this statement with the signatures of 520 people appended to it to tell him in that way that except for the few hon members of the NP we have heard speaking in favour of this measure, there is in the country in general a tremendous feeling against these Bills, because they are merely the Government’s way of resorting once again to “strong-arm” tactics. [Interjections.]

I just want to give an indication of what I said at that meeting. I said inter alia the following:

†The introduction of these Bills should not come as a surprise to anybody who is a serious analyst of the South African political scene. Such a person can ignore powerful analytical tools such as the leopard-and-spots theory; I do not believe in that. I also do not agree with the Good-Hoping, yes-voting brigade who always say the State President is a liar. They say he never tells the truth when he speaks in public and one must read between the lines because that is where he reveals his true reformist instincts.

I told people at the meeting that when we start looking at the actions of the hon the Minister, listen carefully to what the Government says and take it up on what it says and does, it becomes clear why Bills such as these are considered necessary.

One must understand what the State President meant when he declared apartheid dead and why he still needs measures like these. In declaring apartheid dead, the Government was indeed saying that because of the impracticalities, grand partitioning was no longer an option, but it still wants the benefits, namely political self-determination.

The Government has made clear its rejection of the crudest form of pure White domination by wanting to bring others in as junior partners.

Thirdly, the Government is prepared to do away with administrative and statutory discrimination, possibly even the Group Areas Act, but it is not prepared to change the fundamental power structures. It wants to hang on to power, and it knows that if it starts talking to or negotiating with the people of South Africa as the people and not as individual little groups, it will be finished and will not be sitting here controlling this country.

All the Government offers Black people is an invitation to help it make apartheid run a bit more smoothly, but the people of South Africa have simply had enough and they have made that quite clear.

Who are you referring to now?

Who are “they”? Qualify “they”! [Interjections.]

There are 30 million people out there; how many of them vote Nat?

Come on! Tell us!

Please tell me! I told the people that the NP plan to implement this new apartheid and ram it down the throats of the people, and it is in fact, quite simply, an alliance between the latter-day reformers and the old style oppressors like that hon the Minister over there. The NP wants to ram it down the throats of the people, and they do not want it. [Interjections.]

This Government has no intention whatsoever of talking to the ANC or anybody else who does not like apartheid and who does not fit into their new style apartheid. [Interjections.] However, what I think chilled those people’s hearts was the plan which the Government has devised and spelt out so clearly and which they are going to ram down the throats of the people, and everybody who does not fit into that scheme is the enemy. All this is done by means of this revolutionary war concept which we have had again from the hon member for George and which this hon the Minister can spell out on any occasion. It is like putting a sixpence in a juke box and the same old story comes out of all these Nats—reformers and oppressors alike. It is the same old story about revolutionary war. [Interjections.]

I warned those people at the meeting that all of them have now become targets because anybody who protests is an enemy, according to the new game which this hon the Minister wants to play. [Interjections.] I warned them that they can expect to be locked up, banned, shot at and generally treated as “the enemy”. I also told some of those tame Marxist friends of mine that they, like the Government, should not simply depend upon the old, classical revolutionary theory, because this Government will not come to a fall by means of a romantic sort of semi-bloodless revolution. The reason for this is that they do not have to do here with the complacent, fat, ruling class, but with fanatical racists who are scared and cornered and therefore dangerous. The Government is prepared to see South Africa destroyed, but it will not give up its position of power and privilege. Now, many people thought that I was perhaps a bit alarmist, but I think the events of the few days following the meeting quite simply proved my predictions to be correct.

Last night 27 people were arrested in Pietermaritzburg. I know virtually all of them, and many of them are good people who have worked for good causes. In Pietermaritzburg we have a society which has gone very far down the fine towards racial peace and harmony, and the Government has again gone and upset it for us. I want to mention a few names. Peter Kirchoff worked for years and years to help people who fell foul of the Government’s vicious forced removal policy. Now the Government says there are no more forced removals, but they now go and lock up Peter Kirchoff. They want to draw these people who have done good work out of the society. Another example is Larry Kaufman. He is a gentle priest with whom I have spent many hours as we both tried to help the victims of apartheid. He has never had any political motives in what he has done, only great compassion for people who suffer under this Government’s vicious laws. Now Larry has been taken away, and I want to ask the hon the Minister who they expect—they arrested four or five church leaders in Pietermaritzburg last night—now to give comfort to those people in Pietermaritzburg when the Government clamps down on the rest of those leaders.

He leaves the criminals!

Yes, he leaves the criminals behind. The hon member for De Kuilen made his little speech here about how the common criminals are running about and riding on the back of the troubles of today. [Interjections.] The hon member must go and speak to the hon the Minister over there; he is the one who prevents the true leaders of the people from having meetings to properly organise whatever they want to do and from getting across to their people. By removing these leaders the Government is leaving the people behind in the hands of the anarchists, and the Government is unable to deal with this. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Yesterday evening our branch chairman in Galeshewe at Kimberley, a Black man, was seized in the middle of the night and dragged through his house. After everything had been ransacked, he was taken to the police station where he was asked what he was doing in a White political party.

The PFP is not a White political party. We have members of all the other race groups. [Interjections.] When we met that young man in Galeshewe, he was at his wits’ end. He was also wondering what to do in this situation. We went to speak to him to persuade him that there was perhaps another way and to talk to us about the peaceful method. A lot of other radicals were also persuaded and are people with whom one can now at least hold a conversation, but the hon the Minister prefers to molest Solly and to have him taken away so that the moderates become fewer and fewer and the influence of the others stronger. Another person who was arrested in Pietermaritzburg was Jaq Boulle. She is a brilliant student, and that is why she cannot think as this Government does. That is why the Government then had her seized and locked up.

†I want to call this Bill the Lobotomy Bill because what the Government wants to do is to scrape the brains out of our South African society so that eventually everyone can be brought down to their level. Perhaps then the Government will feel confident because there will be no one left who can challenge them.

However, I must tell the Government that they will not succeed. They have already lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the people. This Bill was intended to be passed before 16 June so that the Government would be able to deal with that situation. I find it very ironic that this hon Minister bans the celebration of 16 June, while he goes ahead and celebrates that day with an orgy of attrition and repression. I wish I could get him under his own law. [Interjections.] He seems to want to celebrate that day as the victory of oppression over the will of the people to be free, but 16 June has another meaning. That was the day that the opprossed people of South Africa finally lost their fear of coercion.

Now you are talking just like a communist. [Interjections.]

Just go out there. I will invite you there.

They realise that the struggle to set themselves free from the oppressor is still a long way ahead, but they have lost their fear. The message that the Government must now get is that no amount of oppression will ever make the oppressed people obedient again to the system of injustice, whether it is the 1948 system of injustice, or the 1983 one, or the so-called “New Nats” one. The Government will just not be able to force it down people’s throats again.

I want to join Bishop Tutu and the UDF when they say that people must please stay calm on this day. I ask the people out there to show constraint on 16 June. Do not allow the day of symbolic freedom to be degraded by the NP and to drag it down to the level where they want it to be. I say to them the NP indeed depends on their preparedness to suffer for the cause because they want people to demonstrate in order to illustrate their strength and bring out the big guns and the weapons of destruction. I also tell them that the NP is down on its knees politically and that they must not do anything to invite the NP to use the only response they are capable of at this stage, namely more repression.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Greytown, who has just resumed his seat, is known in this House as someone who makes blatant statements which are, in effect, half-truths. He bases his statements on fictitious elements. I want to quote from his previous speech on this Bill in which he says, amongst other things:

Yes, that is right!

Surely that is the greatest possible half-truth imaginable. [Interjections.] The truth is that we are considering legislation. The untruth is that anyone who is conducting himself in a peaceful fashion will be restricted. That is the untruth. Let me rather leave that hon member at that, because he is only here on borrowed time. If he gets the right opposition in Greytown, he will, in any event, not be returning to this House. [Interjections.]

Here we are dealing with a trend in the action taken by the PFP which should not be allowed to pass unnoticed, and that is that the hatred that some of those hon PFP members have for the Police in general is so great that they can no longer think rationally. That is why they come along to this House and condemn all the action taken by the security forces. [Interjections.]

To create the impression that they are also sympathetic to some of the action taken by the Police, they quote a single example of the “Comrades” taking action against a specific person. They are thereby trying to say they are opposed to it, but in the very next breath they quote from uncontested evidence concerning numerous cases of supposedly aggressive police action and alleged assault. It is quite clear that the thousands of good deeds performed by the Police are not acceptable to those people. Their hatred for the Police is so fierce that they can no longer think rationally.

This country in which we are living is a country which is, at present, being ravaged by an onslaught from people who want to wipe out all the Whites in this country. Those hon members will also be wiped out if those forces come into power in this country. In this connection I am referring to the ANC.

After all, the members of the ANC are the people to whom the Government made the offer of renouncing violence so that Mr Nelson Mandela could be released from jail to take his place at the negotiating table. They do not, however, want to renounce violence, and now hon members of the PFP are acting here as a mouthpiece for the ANC. It will be of no avail. They will not escape the ANC’s true objectives as far as South Africa is concerned.

It is in the interests of everyone in South Africa that we all make certain sacrifices—or otherwise the consequences for everyone will be catastrophic. Hon members must stop criticising and be ready to co-operate in regard to those common points that we can utilise to ward off this onslaught and build up a peaceful future. Then, after all, we would get much further than we can at present.

The fact that the standing committee could not succeed in reaching consensus is surely not such a dreadful thing that was not foreseen. It is not, after all, a situation foreign to our multiethnic composition. We do, surely, have a democratic set-up in South Africa, and if the other Houses do not agree with us, surely they have every right to have the Constitution take its course. Why do they now take delight in the fact that consensus could not be achieved in the standing committee?

After all, we are still able to maintain the security in this country, but how do we do so? Do we join forces with people who do not want peace, or with people who would like to have peace and, in the process, participate in these peace negotiations? I hold it against hon members of the PFP that they do not want to participate in peace negotiations!

That is why I find it important to get more information from them about a report that appeared in this morning’s Cape Times. According to that report the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is going to address a meeting in the City Hall on 16 June. I should like to know from them whether this meeting is still going to be held.

Of course!

Oh, so they are still going ahead with it. Let us take a brief look at this report:

[Interjections.]

Are they also going to present that meeting with uncontested evidence and tell those attending the meeting what has supposedly happened at Crossroads and the KTC camp? [Interjections.] That is indeed all they have to say! That is, of course, the case, unless the White man who took to his heels was one of them! Now they are as quiet as a mouse, Sir. [Interjections.] I should like hon members of the PFP to react, but they apparently do not want to. So they do not want to lift a finger to propagate any peace initiative. That they do not want to do.

If these hon members do not summarily express their opposition to that, let me also state that they stand accused in the eyes of South Africa for their collaboration in the conditions of unrest prevailing in this country. If hon members of the PFP allow me to get away with this statement, I accept it as being the truth. [Interjections.]

Every country in the world has security legislation on its Statute Book, measures controlling and regulating the security situation in the country. [Interjections.] Every country does have such legislation! Thus England also does, and the Irish do not like it. They do not like it because they do not want peace. They do not want to go to the negotiating table.

We really must learn the lessons that history teaches us and from events in other countries, so that in South Africa we can also adopt a method which will eventually result in a workable system in which there can be no domination of one group by another and in which all the respective population groups in our country can be satisfied and happy. If we do not start working on those possibilities in this House, we shall never have any peace in South Africa. We shall never have that real peace in South Africa that we are striving for.

Hon members of the PFP quote a few exceptions here, as though that were the way the Police acted as a rule. Let me ask those hon members whether we should disband the Police Force.

Pikkie, they are doing their best to ignore you. [Interjections.]

I am asking the hon member for Green Point—he is also a member of the standing committee—whether we should disband the Police Force in South Africa.

That is a stupid question.

No.

I do at least hear an hon member, with the courage of his convictions, saying we should not do so. [Interjections.] That is why I want to invite those hon members to co-operate in also making it easy for the Police to carry out their task so that the frustration and the intimidation against…

It is their political boss that causes the trouble. [Interjections.]

Oh, no, it is not that simple—the hon member is not going to get away with that statement. [Interjections.] Those hon members make it difficult for the Police because they support people who complicate the task of the Police.

We are not against the Police; we are against the Government.

That is why I want to state that those hon members are opposed to the Police Force in South Africa, but they nevertheless do not want the Police to be abolished. [Interjections.]

The NP should be abolished.

Hon members only refer to the extremest cases of so-called assault which have not yet been contested in a court of law. They never refer to the policemen who have lost their lives for the sake of maintaining law and order in this country. [Interjections.] Nowhere do they refer to the loyalty within the Police Force when it comes to consistently maintaining peaceful conditions in this country. I think it is scandalous that they do not also evidence the necessary loyalty towards those policemen who do, in fact, work for peace and prosperity in this country.

They oppose measures in terms of which agitators can be removed from a community so as to obviate violence. They insist on having witnesses, whilst they know there will be no witnesses because they are assaulted and murdered in the most barbaric way in which a person can be killed. Those hon member say nothing about that in the House. [Interjections.] I therefore regret the fact that they will one day be held accountable for those people who were so savagely killed in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I want to take this opportunity of asking the hon the Minister of Law and Order, who has to operate under very difficult circumstances, not to hesitate for a single moment to carry out his duties in South Africa when it comes to maintaining law and order, in spite of the antagonism and the arrogance displayed towards him by hon members of the PFP. We on this side of the House stand by the hon the Minister. I shall not suggest that his salary be increased, because we do not have the money. As soon as the money is again available, however, I shall move that his salary be doubled. [Interjections.] I think we can take a couple of rand out of our own pockets and send the money across to the hon the Minister.

We can deduct that from the salaries of the Progs.

Yes, that is more important—take a few rand from the salaries of hon members of the PFP to increase the hon the Minister’s salary. [Interjections.] I think we could also come along with such a suggestion. [Interjections.] I think we have enough votes on this side of the House to make something of that nature possible. [Interjections.] In the cases of suppression, which the Police are trying to counter, and in which they are trying to institute prosecutions, they simply never get the necessary evidence to have people tried correctly by due legal process—which would, according to hon members of the PFP, be democratic. We should not address the judicial principle here. We should address the problem. In fact, we must take steps to eliminate the problem itself. We on this side of the House are just as sensitive about legislation that deprives people of their democratic rights. We are as strictly opposed to that. When those people abuse shortcomings in existing legislation, however, we surely have to find alternative means of maintaining law and order in this country.

I hope and trust that the measures just announced will contribute to a greater degree of peace in this country so that Black people—especially those who have suffered greatly from intimidation—will be able to breath more easily and resume their normal pattern of life. I believe there are more moderate than communist-inspired Black people in this country. [Interjections.] There are many more moderate Black people in this country who would like to engage in dialogue with the Government on their future than there are Black people who are not prepared to do so. Those Black people are not allowed to do so, however, because of the existence of the ANC. That is why I believe that when this state of emergency is lifted, we shall really start working towards a better South Africa. Then, I believe, hon members of the PFP will look back with embarrassment at what they have been doing in this House today and in the past few days.

Mr Speaker, this debate on the Public Safety Amendment Bill in which we are involved has at this stage become largely an irrelevant—yes, an almost pathetic—process owing to the fact that a state of emergency has been declared and that the powers the hon Minister wanted in terms of the legislation before the House are in his hands now in any case. The state of emergency has been declared and those very powers have now been made applicable by the Government. It is actually important for us to note the implications this has for democracy and this Parliament. We have been occupied for nearly two weeks in argument and debate in both the standing committee and this House and in the other two Houses of this Parliament. There is even a feverish debate in progress in the Press and among the general public on the wisdom or lack of it of legislation investing the hon the Minister with these powers.

While all these events are occurring to keep the so-called “window-dressing” of democracy alive in South Africa, the hon the Minister went and, in one fell swoop, made it law anyway. Now he has all those powers he wanted in any case—powers to prohibit and restrict and limit as he likes. The hon Minister went and did just that. Do hon members on the other side realise what this means to them and to us? As early as 1953 when the principal Act was placed on the Statute Book, the Government was given the right to make laws by regulation, as it were, to provide what was allowed and what not, what was permitted to be done and what not and what was legal and what illegal.

This process we are experiencing, to which we are devoting many, many hours, in which we are debating with one another and attempting to move amendments is simply futile. This entire process is ludicrous in the light of the fact that the hon the Minister in any case has the right to do as he likes. Hon members should take note of this because it involves their entire position in this House—the position of every hon member of this House regardless of his party affiliation. If this is the role we are to play and if this is the best we are capable of as the elected representatives of the voters of this country, we had better go home. If this is actually the case, we should have the moral conviction to say … [Interjections.] If that is the respect the hon member for De Kuilen in particular accords democracy, he does not have the moral right to be here. He should then tell his voters he would prefer to leave matters in the hands of Louis la Grange or P W Botha. He should then say to his voters: “Forget about me. I shall attend a meeting every month; but don’t waste your money and your time in electing me to Parliament. Don’t give me your support and don’t pay me a salary to represent your standpoints in Parliament. I choose to leave all this to some Minister or other and he can do as he likes.”

Do you regard the circumstances as normal?

No, of course the circumstances are not normal! Nevertheless—and this is actually the tragic aspect of this debate—it is terribly sterile. This hon member keeps telling us circumstances are not normal. He need not tell us this because we know far better how abnormal circumstances are. We have far more direct experience of what is currently occurring in Black residential areas than that hon member has. [Interjections.] He actually makes the most ridiculous historical mistakes. He speaks, for instance, of Sobukwe as a communist. [Interjections.] If I had made that faux pas, I should not have shown my face here for a fortnight.

This hon member wants to tell us conditions are abnormal. Of course conditions are abnormal. The hon member is obliged, however, once he has identified the problem—and he would be well advised to attempt identifying it a little more closely—to make it more plausible. He might then attempt contributing in some way or other by trying to work out how to deal with this problem. It is not good enough to say conditions are abnormal and we are therefore abolishing democracy, we are therefore suspending the normal course of parliamentary activities and we are therefore revoking the normal powers of the courts. That is not good enough. It is not good enough to say conditions are abnormal and consequently we are repealing the normal function of Parliament and granting the Police more powers. It does not work like that.

A further fallacy of which hon members are guilty is that they perpetually say the Police require more powers to take certain steps. These regulations announced today indicate, however, that the Police do not require more powers. This legislation we are now discussing does not grant the Police more powers than those they already have at their disposal in terms of the existing Public Safety Act. This grants the Police exactly the same powers simply under a different name. That it is what it is about. Nevertheless hon members are debating beyond that point.

So why aren’t you supporting the Bills?

I shall tell the hon member why. One of the most important reasons to us is that we do not wish the public to be under a misapprehension on what is occurring in this country. It is of no avail to offer them the same miserable situation under a different name just to attempt bluffing someone—if he believes this, he is certainly stupid—that there is no state of emergency whereas the state of emergency is merely being called by another name. This will not get us anywhere.

This is actually what disappoints me bitterly. There are some hon members on that side of the House with whom one may conduct an intelligent and meaningful conversation on various subjects. Not one of the hon members on that side of the House—and this is without exception—even made an effort, however, to make their case plausible and to say that we were faced at present with a terribly distasteful situation in the country, to say murders, killings, and “necklacings” were taking place and then to admit that hon members on this side of the House were just as concerned or even more concerned than they.

Nevertheless I wish to say to the Government its members will have to analyse this situation and deal with it meaningfully because their achievements over the past 18 months are indicative of a miserable failure. There is nothing of which this Government or this Parliament—in fact, the whole establishment—may be proud as far as results achieved are concerned.

Say something about the ANC for a change.

This debate does not deal with the ANC. It deals with the granting of new powers to the Police; with additional powers which, according to this hon member’s thinking, can solve our problems. It is in this way—by means of a type of red herring—that he really wishes to lead us off the point. This will not get us anywhere.

Figures and statistics show that nobody, however arrogant, regarding what has occurred in the past 18 months …

Say something about the UDF.

I wish the hon member would make intelligent interjections to enable one to react to them. [Interjections.] If we examine the statistics and the nature of events during the past 18 months and review the development of the situation at two-months intervals, for instance, can every hon member in this House say the situation is better today than it was 18 months ago? Hon members cannot say so because their very argument is that it is not better. Surely a state of emergency has been declared in the interim. Surely the hon the Minister has had the opportunity of declaring this type of regulation and of putting it to full use. Surely this has been done and where are we today! It was definitely not this House or anyone else who decided when to declare a state of emergency or when to lift it. The hon the Minister, the Cabinet and the State President had the opportunity of doing this. They decided when to declare it and they decided when to lift it and we are no better off today.

Then say something about the lawless and the unrestrained.

I shall ignore the hon member as he is really not capable of reacting intelligently. [Interjections.]

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

The position is simply that we cannot imply today—no hon member on that side of the House can lay claim to this with any conviction—that the methods used so far and the powers applied up to this point have actually improved our position. One of the arguments used in the standing committee and also in the House was that circumstances had deteriorated since the lifting of the state of emergency and we should therefore perhaps again provide for such a state. That argument means that a type of permanent state of emergency is the only way in which we will evade this problem. I find this a terribly depressing thought. I do not know whether hon members on the other side see it like this but it is incredibly depressing. It means democracy has been swept off the table and one now has to function in a totally different way and a very much less democratic and more autocratic manner.

That is the result of power-sharing.

If hon members think this may be reconciled with a policy of reform by which one will really involve the leaders of all the people of a country in a system of government, they are wrong. If any one of them is not yet convinced of this or does not understand it yet, he had better reflect on it again.

Partition is the solution.

It is interesting that the debate has also accomplished a type of political reunion. I found it a very interesting development that the hon the Minister of Law and Order had never been as close to the hon members of the CP and the hon member for Sasolburg and even AWB members. He had never been as close to the rightist establishment as over the past week and a half during the discussion of this Bill.

You have never been as close to the ANC.

The source of the support for the hon the Minister which is taking place here is very interesting; for this type of legislation and such regulations. It was mentioned today that some hon members of the NP were obviously unhappy about these Bills and it was clear to all that this was actually the case. The people really supporting the hon the Minister were hon members of the rightist parties in South Africa.

The right parties.

The fact that we are debating this Bill has a great deal to do with this and there are other indications that power has shifted some degree within the Cabinet in the course of the past few weeks. There are quite a number of other indications of this. [Interjections.] I should like to put a number of points on the personal position of the Police in these circumstances. Much was said about the Police and strong criticism expressed of them, most of it justified to my mind. Many hon members defended the Police too and that is part of debating. I want to say only this: It is a most unenviable task to be a policeman under a government like ours. [Interjections.] The Police Force, more than anyone else, is the prey of mismanagement, weak application and poor priorities. Its members are the cutting edge of apartheid in South Africa. They are the cutting edge of every distateful piece of legislation applied in South Africa. They are the people who have to resolve the situation in the final instance when the Government has made one of its many mistakes. That is what the Police has to do from day to day and I consider this an unenviable position.

Many of the short-term methods applied over the past year or so to bring order to the unrest situation created more problems for the Police than they solved. The hon the Minister has now forbidden all meetings even remotely connected with 16 or 25 June. No such meetings may take place within the next fortnight.

Hon members certainly know that there are hundreds of thousands of Black people in this country with feelings about that occasion. They might perhaps wish for altogether bona fide participation in some action or other in memory of those days. What the hon the Minister is doing with his prohibition is treating each of those people as a potential criminal. Everyone having something to do with such a meeting now falls outside the limits of the legal order. That is not how this problem will be solved; one does not isolate the true revolutionary in that way and one does not deal with the true troublemakers and agitators like this.

What actually happens is that one is creating artificial support for those people which they would otherwise not have had. One causes the entire Black population to be up in arms against the Police and one places them in the position of supporting political leadership of which they would otherwise have wanted no part. The hon member for Parys mentioned this and said the majority of Blacks in South Africa were moderate. He is probably right but unfortunately this element in our society is being reduced. Why is this happening? The reason is that moderate Black communities in South Africa are being ground down by revolutionary political functionaries on the one hand and on the other by an unsympathetic, utterly inane Government. The Government acts in a totally clumsy and unsympathetic manner in all situations somehow connected with Black communities; the Government is placing all Black people in the revolutionary fold. That is not the way to act and it has failed pitifully over the past 18 months.

This Bill and the regulations promulgated today are yet more indications that the Government will repeat its mistakes of the past.

†They have chosen the oppressive option once again. They are once more creating a situation which makes it difficult—if not impossible—to negotiate with people and to try to resolve the difficult problems of this country by way of negotiation in peaceful fashion.

They have created a situation which makes it impossible even for those who want to try to resolve these issues by peaceful means by introducing the heavy hand and the mailed fist in the way they have done.

Mention has been made of the Crossroads situation.

*Hon members said that, if ever a situation justified police powers of this type, the events at Crossroads did. The hon member for Durban Point mentioned this. I think he suggested that brigades of troops be sent in there.

There is no shortage of policemen and Defence Force personnel in Crossroads but there is an unwillingness among certain …

Order! I think the hon member should leave that subject at that. I think there is a sub judice rule which still applies to the circumstances in Crossroads.

I apologise, Sir, but I am actually talking about KTC and events there over the past few days but not of earlier happenings at Crossroads.

Order! In terms of Mr Speaker’s ruling the hon member must still refrain from discussing this matter. [Interjections.]

I merely wish to make this point, Sir. Initially I was also sceptical about it but today I have no doubts. There is overwhelming evidence that there are elements in the Police in that area who have taken sides.

Order! I want the hon member to drop that aspect of his argument immediately.

I have concluded my argument, Sir. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member what he contributed by his recent action at a funeral in Mbekweni under the banner of the ANC and the Hammer and Sickle? [Interjections.]

I take pleasure in replying to the hon member’s question. I was requested by a relative of the deceased’s to intervene because they were expecting some Police interference or other. [Interjections.]

Were you the referee?

The hon member put a question but his henchmen do not want me to reply. I should like to reply.

The relatives said they wished the funeral to proceed in an orderly fashion and I was to help them negotiate. That is exactly what I did. [Interjections.] The first step I took was to ask the family what they proposed doing at that funeral. I asked inter alia who was to speak and where it would take place. It took me a long time but I obtained those details.

The second step I took was to telephone the magistrate in Paarl and tell him that I wished to be of assistance by negotiating with the family, the Police and whomever. He then told me he had already signed an order prohibiting the entire matter.

I then pursued my discussions with the relatives. Will hon members listen because they are more than prepared to make the most terrible suggestions on what hon members on this side of the House supposedly did.

I then telephoned the people arranging the funeral and told them for Heaven’s sake to try to have the funeral postponed. They were informed on Friday afternoon and the funeral was to have taken place at 10h00 the following morning. I warned them not to contravene the prohibition. I said it would lead to confrontation and they would have been looking for trouble in doing this.

Please, comrade!

The hon member said: “Please, comrade”. [Interjections.] That ridiculous category of little old men sitting there represent nothing. [Interjections.] Why does he not go back to the chickens on the farm?

It is only stupidity! [Interjections.]

That is the hon member’s intellectual level. [Interjections.]

I telephoned every half-hour until 23h00 that night when they told me they had persuaded the people and the funeral had been postponed. They also asked me to see them the next morning to decide on how to handle the case. The hon member for Houghton and I therefore went there.

We negotiated with them and said we would attempt making submissions to resolve the situation so that the restrictions imposed would be of such a nature that people could comply with them realistically.

We did make submissions with the assistance of other hon members. We ultimately succeeded in obtaining permission for the funeral to take place on a public holiday in the course of the following week.

The people showed their bona fides by waiting until the following Thursday. They requested us to attend the funeral to prevent any problems being experienced.

I wish to tell the hon member I do not enjoy attending funerals; I do not enjoy attending funerals and I do not enjoy standing around for six hours in the sun on a public holiday. I find this no pleasure.

It took place in South Africa, so why did you not carry the Hag?

We attended it the whole day and there were flags—that is correct. There was an ANC flag, the Communist flag was there and there was also one on which Mandela was pictured. [Interjections.] All those things were there as we know because we were there.

It is very interesting that those hon members would prefer to deny the realities of South Africa; they do not care. I now accuse the hon member for Kroonstad of preferring to see ten more people dead on the street to be buried the next week to showing his miserable political presence near some flag or other. [Interjections.] He would rather see people shot as a result of conflict and violence and not want them buried before the next weekend …

That is true.

Such is that hon member’s superficial nature. [Interjections.] I do not mind what flag is waved near me …

Order! I do not think an hon member can tell another hon member he would prefer to see people shot. The hon member must withdraw those words.

I shall withdraw them, Sir, and explain to the hon member what it is all about.

Over the past few months I have had experience on too many occasions of how stupid, short-sighted and immature action at a funeral has caused more people to be shot so that funerals have to take place again the next weekend. It becomes a vicious circle because each weekend sees yet another political funeral and another political confrontation but those hon members enjoy it—they enjoy it. I do not enjoy it. I do not want to see this country degenerating into conflict and experiencing a blood bath. Those hon members do not understand this. [Interjections.]

If I knew that any contribution of mine could prevent conflict which could possibly lead to loss of life, I would make it without caring a damn about any flag being waved near me. [Interjections.] If that hon member’s priorities are in any way different, he is not worthy of a seat in this House; nor is he worth being a normal person. I want to tell the hon member this. Any man who cares so little about what is really taking place in this country dare not even indicate his support for a Bill to restore law and order. That is what it is about.

We attend those occasions to ensure that the dreadful conflict in this country does not get further out of hand. [Interjections.] The sooner the hon member realises that is the reason why we do this, the better for him but he does not want to. He is not interested.

You are living entirely in a dream world.

He prefers bumbling on in his amazing ignorance and inanity (dom-onnoselheid) and pushing this country further in one direction—to violence and a blood bath. [Interjections.] The hon member is exhibiting political vanity and immaturity. Who has to solve these problems for him? The Police. When matters go really wrong, the Police Force has to …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is this hon member permitted to use the type of language he is using at present and call another member “domonnosel”? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member say another hon member was “dom-onnosel”?

I did say so and I withdraw it. Let me put it like this: His intellectual level is lower than he regards passable as a qualification for a member of this House. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, there is probably not a single hon member in this House who is not worried about the unrest situation in our country. There is probably not a single hon member in this House who can delight in the death or suffering of people and the burning down of their houses. The hon member for Green Point may have become excited during the last few minutes, but I think he said some things in the last six, seven or eight minutes which he will not be very happy about tomorrow morning. [Interjections.] He is not going to be very happy about what he said tomorrow morning.

The hon member for Green Point made a responsible speech in the first Second Reading debate on this legislation. It was clear to me that the hon member was going to attempt to make a responsible speech again this afternoon. Was it necessary for the hon member to tell hon members on this side of the House during the last few minutes that they enjoyed it when people were shot dead at funerals, and that there had to be funerals weekend after weekend? That is not true!

They do nothing about it! [Interjections.]

The hon members in this House are responsible people. [Interjections.] I do not know of one hon member who can enjoy seeing people killed, or seeing funerals taking place or attending funerals in those circumstances. I think the hon member will hide his head in shame tomorrow about what he said here this afternoon. [Interjections.] If the hon member is serious, however, I want to tell him the members of the NP will not attend the funerals attended by the hon member—for a specific reason. I shall tell the hon member why not. The funerals which this discussion is about, were funerals which were employed and abused for political purposes. They were funerals which were employed for political purposes by organisations. Who are those organisations? The ringleader among them is the UDF. Who are the UDF? In many respects they act under direct orders of the ANC and of the Communist Party in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, we adjourn in two minutes’ time. The hon member can ask me a question tomorrow morning. I shall continue tomorrow morning and then he can ask me something.

We have experience of these funerals, which are used for political purposes in a calculated way—whether the deceased was killed in an unrest situation or not.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Greytown told the hon the Minister: “You make the bodies.” [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

He is a fool in any case! [Interjections.]

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Man, you are a big fool! [Interjections.]

We have examples of how the funerals of people who did not die near a scene of unrest, are used by these organisations for political purposes. Not one hon member of this party …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Shortly after the hon member for Greytown withdrew his interjection, somebody across the floor said: “Jy is ‘n groot gek.” Is that parliamentary, Sir? [Interjections.]

Order! I do not think hon members on any side of the House are fools. Who said that?

Mr Chairman, I said it and I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the great difference between the NP and the Official Opposition resides inter alia in that the Official Opposition is prepared to take part in the funerals they know are used for political purposes. They grant their co-operation for this. They wilfully attend those funerals, at which the Russian and ANC flags are displayed …

That is not true! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if the hon member wants me to show him photographs of hon members of the PFP attending funerals under those circumstances, I shall do so. [Interjections.] The hon member knows that is true. [Interjections.] This party is not prepared to do that or to promote the interests of those organisations in South Africa. The hon member and his party are prepared to do so, however, by their conduct and their presence, as well as by their conduct in this House. During this and the previous debate in this House, speaker after speaker of the Official Opposition has referred to the ANC and its involvement in a favourable way. The party I represent is not prepared to do so. Then the hon member has the temerity to lay that at our door!

Business suspended at 16h45.

Order! In terms of the message which I received from the State President, I now afford him the opportunity of addressing this Joint Sitting of the three Houses of Parliament.

Mr Speaker, on 4 March of this year I announced in Parliament the lifting of the state of emergency in the small number of places in which it still existed. I then indicated that the situation had improved sufficiently to enable me to lift the state of emergency, and that existing legislation would be revised during the present session of Parliament to give the authorities the statutory powers necessary to protect lives and possessions effectively. Furthermore, I indicated that it was the objective of the Government to deal with continuing cases of unrest without subjecting the population to the inconvenience of a state of emergency. The necessity for such legislation is no longer a debating point; it is a fact. Everything indicates that there is now, and there will be for the foreseeable future a need for such legislation. Unfortunately that legislation is not at present available.

Since that time—that is to say, since March 1986—sporadic cases of violence have begun to increase again, and they have begun to assume such proportions that I am of the opinion that the ordinary laws of the country which are now on the Stature Book are insufficient to enable the Government to ensure the safety of the public and to maintain public order. In fact, the Government has information at its disposal concerning what is being planned for the coming days by radicals and revolutionary elements. This constitutes a real danger to all population groups in this country. The safety of the inhabitants of a country is the greatest responsibility of any government.

†Since I became Prime Minister in 1978, more has been done in spheres of life than most people considered the Government willing or able to do. Far-reaching reform initiatives have been undertaken in order to improve the living conditions of people and to give substance to the Government’s declared point of view that all people should be accorded political participation at all levels of decision-making which affect their lives. These reforms include the following: The establishment of the Development Bank of Southern Africa; the creation and expansion of the Small Business Development Corporation; drastic reform in the field of labour relations; the adopting of a new Constitution as a broadening of democracy; the abolition of discriminatory measures; the granting of freehold property rights to Black communities; the new urbanisation policy; the willingness to negotiate with all South Africans on political reform, for example, within the President’s Council and the National Council which is to be established; steps taken with regard to the citizenship of Blacks; and projects to upgrade education and to provide housing.

These steps by the Government form part of the reform process. Despite the Government’s commitment to negotiation for a new South Africa in which the reasonable aspirations of all its citizens will be satisfied, violence has continued and even increased.

Violence has also increased in White areas. The largest increase occurred, however, in Black communities, where it has been imposed on decent members of the Black community by faceless so-called “comrades”. This action, encouraged by the ANC and its followers, has made the burning of innocent people who disagree with them a daily occurrence. During the period 1 March to 5 June alone, 284 Black people were killed violently by radicals—172 of them by means of the barbaric so-called “necklace” method. In some areas, this led to retaliation by Black groups.

Since the beginning of March, Black on Black violence has led to the destruction or damaging by fire bombs of 1 125 homes, damage to 347 business premises and damage to 11 church buildings used by Blacks.

It is clear that Black revolutionaries do not enjoy the spontaneous support of the majority of Blacks, and that they consequently resort to these methods of intimidation in order to gain control. These revolutionaries are controlled by a power clique which is typical of Marxist regimes and which is interested only in a violent takeover of power.

The Government has, after thorough consideration and with due regard to the economic, political and security implications, taken certain security actions. In this climate of increasing violence, it is not possible for the reasonable majority to continue the search for a peaceful and democratic solution. The Government is well aware of the fact that stricter security action will elicit strong criticism and even punitive measures from the outside world. The implications and the price of these have also been taken into account. The call for sanctions presently heard in the USA, is a cynical political move to buy Black votes in the USA at the expense of job opportunities for Black people in the Republic of South Africa.

*This Government has ensured, at a high price, that the principle of justice has constantly been expanded in this country. It has frequently been our experience that organisations, and even governments in the free world undermine our efforts by giving naïve moral, political and material support to the forces of revolution, and do so in spite of the fact that the ANC and its fellow-travellers have unequivocally stated that they are committed to revolutionary violence.

In this connection Dr Henry Kissinger makes the following significant observation in his book Years of Upheaval:

I want to say candidly to the outside world: We have seen clearly what happened in Angola, as well as in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Afghanistan and Iran. We shall consequently prevent our heritage of more than 300 years of civilisation being needlessly sacrificed on the altars of disorder and decline. No responsible government can allow the normal political and economic activities in its country to be disrupted indefinitely by extra-parliamentary and violent action.

The Government is therefore making an appeal for national and international understanding for the strict action which has been decided upon, and confirms once again that it has committed itself to the principle of the broadening of democracy in the Republic of South Africa. At the same time the Government wishes to confirm that constitutional reform will be achieved in an evolutionary and constitutional way. The object is to create a situation of relative normality so that every citizen can perform his daily task in peace, so that business communities can play their part, and so that it is possible to proceed with the reform programme to which the Government has committed itself. Such a programme will be aimed at accommodating the aspirations and the expectations of all South African citizens in a new constitutional dispensation.

The concern with which the South African Communist Party and its demonstrated pawn, the ANC, regards the Government’s reform initiatives, is apparent for example from a discussion held during the ANC’s national conference during the course of last year. It was inter alia argued:

It is therefore clear that reform, unanimity on democratic objectives and the establishment of a peaceful community, is a threat to them. In fact, in some of the latest ANC documents which are being distributed, it is stated that 16 June should be utilised as—

In order to counteract the Government’s reform initiatives, radical and revolutionary groups have since 1985 committed themselves to making the Republic of South Africa ungovernable and to making institutions of government unworkable.

The ANC, the UDF and other radicals and anarchists are planning large-scale unrest in the interior during the period 16 to 18 June, which is to begin with demonstrations and marches on important centres. They want to bolster up these actions with sabotage and acts of terror. It is being planned that certain identified points will serve as places of assembly, from whence further disruptive activities will be initiated. If these activities are put into effect, it will lead to the destruction of property and loss of life.

Radical elements say that their resistance campaign will be peaceful. That is cheap propaganda. The Government has the facts at its disposal, and is aware that a great deal more is being envisaged. Furthermore they plan to undermine Government institutions by means of an intensified effort, and to try to establish so-called “alternative structures” on a wider basis. These structures include inter alia the so-called people’s courts, and activities by the comrades. Practices of this kind have already led to a great deal of suffering in Black communities.

†It is accepted practice that information obtained by the intelligence community is, as a rule, not brought to public attention. However, by way of the highest exception, I am today prepared to make available documentary material which clearly sets out the strategy, objectives and planning of the SA Communist Party, and from which it is, inter alia, evident that the ANC is only a front. This document of the SA Communist Party will be made available to hon members.

The document to which I wish to refer originated in the Politburo of the SACP and was distributed during May this year in SACP circles with the purpose of establishing policy guidelines by 20 June, according to which discussions could take place and which would have to be executed by the ANC. The strategy contained in this document is significant, if account is taken of the fact that the majority of members of the national executive committee of the ANC are members or supporters of the SA Communist Party. The SA Communist Party, as a proven instrument of the USSR, in the abovementioned document confirms its overall strategic objective with the ANC’s so-called revolution and I quote:

The term “socialism” is here used as synonymous with the term “communist”. Against the background of these strategic objectives the SA Communist Party in the document in question points out a number of objectives which should be applicable in any discussion or negotiation between the ANC and other groups in the Republic of South Africa.

Firstly, it points out that the aim of the violent take-over of power must not be diluted or abandoned. The SA Communist Party warns that such discussions can be to the advantage of Western governments and South African business people. I quote from the document:

Even the desire to project an image of reasonableness to the outside world should not divert the ANC and the SA Communist Party from the aforementioned strategic objectives.

Secondly, discussion by interest groups with the ANC and the simultaneous intensification of the ANC’s violence must, according to the SA Communist Party, serve to create division in the so-called ruling class and in White ranks. In this regard it is stated:

Thirdly, “true negotiation,” as the SA Communist Party puts it, “can only take place when opposition to the SA Communist Party and the ANC has been dismantled by revolutionary violence.” Everyone involved in discussions with the ANC should be thoroughly aware of this approach. The ANC has on various occasions emphasised that it is not interested in the renunciation of violence, but that it will continue its onslaught until the takeover of power by violence has been achieved. It should be clear that there is no question of a desire on the part of the ANC to bring about peace. Indeed, unrest must be further stimulated; the economy must be weakened; and terrorist acts which will claim the lives of more innocent Black and White citizens must increase.

Neither is there any question or, for that matter, any intention, of sharing power with any internal group. Even the visits of radical groups such as Cosatu and the UDF to the ANC are not viewed as recognition of the existence of other power groups, but as demonstration of subservience to the ANC. Some people, for instance, the UDF and even members within the ANC’s own ranks, hold the opinion that the Freedom Charter represents the ultimate objective of their revolutionary onslaught, and also represents the basis for political stability. This is not correct, however, and I wish this afternoon to dispel this illusion.

The SA Communist Party describes the Freedom Charter in this document simply as, and I quote:

It is evident from this, that the Freedom Charter is only the starting point for the SA Communist Party.

The Communist Party elucidates the Freedom Charter in practical terms, as follows:

In my address on 17 April, I elaborated on the SA Communist Party’s domination of the ANC structures. This is again confirmed by the document in question when it is stated that:

The time has arrived for the ANC to incisively investigate its relationship with the SA Communist Party, the infiltration of its structures by the SA Communist Party, as well as its identification or not with the ideology and planning of the SA Communist Party, and to state clearly its findings to the world. As matters now stand the two organisations are now so interwoven that no one can enter into discussions with the ANC without the knowledge that he is probably also in discussion with the SACP.

A further important aspect which I want to emphasise in this regard is that the SACP—and, as stated before, also the ANC—has at no stage accepted the sincerity of the motives of visiting groups. Although the ANC immediately realised the possibilities of exploiting discussions to its own advantage, the SACP nonetheless finds it necessary to issue the following warning:

This then is the background against which violence and unrest are planned and perpetrated.

*The object of extending the violence over the whole country, which I have explained, is accompanied by active attempts to bring this about. In fact I have been unanimously advised by security experts that the whole of the Republic is a target area and that the security of the State can be jeopardised. In my opinion the incidence and increase in violence as perpetrated by persons and organisations is in itself of such a nature and of such an extent that the security of the Republic and the preservation of public order is being seriously threatened.

Moreover, circumstances have arisen in the Republic of South Africa which constitute a threat to the public as a whole and to public order. Because I am therefore of the opinion that the ordinary laws of the country are inadequate to enable the Government to ensure the security of the public or to maintain public order, I have decided to introduce a state of emergency throughout the entire country, including the self-governing national states.

This state of emergency applies with effect from today. At the same time regulations have been made which have been promulgated in the Gazette. These measures are not aimed at the normal activities of law abiding citizens. They are in fact intended to protect their interests and to neutralise those who wish to destroy everything. I am therefore making an appeal to all peace-loving South Africans to continue with their daily task to the benefit of our country.

We can expect that in the financial and economic spheres, the immediate reaction abroad will be negative. Consequently temporary tensions can also be expected on the financial markets. Recent trends in the exchange rate and interest rate patterns seem already to have partly off-set these expected adjustments. I should like to warn against an overreaction in this sphere. For example the extent to which the rand moves downwards in circumstances such as those prevailing at present is probably not the only and final criterion for the present or future economic ability of our country. Our exporters must continue to take advantage of the low rand value on the export markets of the world to their own benefit. In this way job opportunities are created and maintained, and valuable exchange earned for South Africa. We can develop the major economic potential of our country properly only if we preserve law and order in the Republic of South Africa.

The private sector plays a key role in the creation of welfare. Workers who want to work must be protected and the properties and assets of investments must be safeguarded. The business world expects this of the Government. That is why these measures ought soon to be beneficial to the national economy in general. In the meantime we shall continue to support the economy in a sound way, with suitable fiscal and monetary measures.

I therefore hope that the private sector will utilise the challenge, the skills and the means they have at their disposal, in these difficult times too, for the establishment of a flourishing economy, in which all the people of South Africa can share.

Large numbers of people have already suffered grievously under the unrest situation. The Government has full understanding for the precarious circumstances into which they have been compelled by perpetrators of violence.

I therefore request everyone in South Africa, and hon members—under the hopefully brief yet even more difficult circumstances now confronting us—to ensure in particular that our children, our building blocks and hope for the future, are not exposed to further physical and spiritual destruction. Help us to ensure their future. We can offer everyone who wishes to work and build in peace, a safe and prosperous future. Let us free our country from violence.

The Joint Sitting rose at 17h49.

Business resumed at 17h55.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.