as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, dated 12 June 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Eighth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 12 June 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Eighth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Home Affairs, dated 11 June 1986, as follows:

1. 1. Terms Of Reference

The Standing Committee on Home Affairs having considered the subject of the Identification Bill [B 79—86 (GA)], referred to it, your Committee begs to report the Bill with amendments [B 79a—86 (GA)].

1. 2. Modus Operandi

Oral evidence from officials of the Department of Home Affairs as well as the South African Police was heard. The Committee relied heavily on the comments of the Department of Home Affairs. The last-mentioned department consulted continuously with other Government Departments as well as with the private sector. The Committee also took cognisance of practices regarding identity documents in many other countries.

The Committee did not consider the principle as contained in the Population Registration Act, 1950, as the said Act was not under consideration.

Differences of opinion which arose in the Committee are reflected in the minutes of the Committee.

1. 3. Findings

After thorough deliberation the Committee found as follows:

1. 3.1 The Committee was virtually unanimous in its opinion that a uniform identity document should be issued to all South African citizens. Identity documents to identify citizens of states are universally becoming ever more important and a more general practice.
2. 3.2 The Committee took cognisance of the fact that the State has already had several million identity documents printed in order to replace the reference books, the so-called “passbooks”, of Black people with uniform identity documents.

1. 3.3 The Committee is of the opinion that an identity document is playing an increasingly essential role in the daily lives of the inhabitants of South Africa, not only in dealings with Government institutions, but also in dealings and transactions in the private sector.
2. 3.4 With regard to the use of a race code the Committee, after much reflection, felt that the envisaged identity document for RSA citizens should not include a code number or any other reference to a person’s race group in terms of the Population Registration Act or any other law.
3. 3.5 The Committee expressed itself strongly in favour of the repeal of the Blacks (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act [Act No. 67 of 1952].

1. 3.6 With regard to fingerprints the Committee was of the opinion that this is the most scientific method to prove a person’s identity beyond all doubt. The Committee was therefore of the opinion that fingerprints should form part of a central identity register. The Committee also felt that it was correct that fingerprints should not appear in the identity document.

1. 4. Recommendations>
   1. 4.1 Amendments to Bill
      1. (a) The Committee recommends that clause 5 be amended to provide that a “race code” or other reference to race should not appear in the identity document.
      2. (b) The Committee recommends that clause 6(3) be amended to provide that Whites, Coloureds and Indians must have their fingerprints taken within a period of five years for recording in a central fingerprint register.
   2. 4.2 General

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move the motion as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. (1) the hours of sitting on Tuesday, 17 June, and Thursday, 19 June, shall be:

14h15 to 18h30

20h00 to 22h30;

1. (2) the hours of sitting on Friday, 20 June, shall be:

10h00 to 12h45

14h15 to 18h30

20h00 to 22h30;

1. (3) Saturday, 21 June, shall be a sitting day and on that day the hours of sitting shall be:

10h00 to 18h00;

1. (4) with effect from Monday, 23 June, the hours of sitting shall be:

14h15 until the House adjourns upon its own resolution.

Mr Speaker, I am not sure whether there has been an opportunity in the past week or two to congratulate the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on his assumption of the office of Acting Leader of the House. It may well have been done, but I certainly was not present in the Chamber at the time. If, however, it has not been done, I do so now. Having congratulated him, I must say I think it is the understatement of the year to say that his first or second action in his new post is certainly not his most auspicious yet in his career in this Chamber!

Incidentally, Sir, may I mention that we on this side of the House are extremely glad to hear that the hon the Leader of the House is recovering from his recent operation. I believe he is very much better.

I understand that we also have another excasualty in our midst who is also 100% fit again. We are very glad to see the hon the Minister of Defence back in the House. To him I say: You have been missed, Sir.

When we last debated the question of the running of the House, the Leader of the House made a remarkable statement. I had reminded him that I had served under four Leaders of the House; and I said so just in passing. What did he say when he replied to the debate, however? In a moment of great pride he threw out his chest and told me I might have served under four Leaders of the House but that he was the first Leader of the House who two months before the end of a session had been able to give a firm undertaking to Parliament when Parliament was going to rise. Then he patted himself on the chest and asked: “How do you like that, Mr Chief Whip?” [Interjections.] In my ultimate state of naivety I actually believed him for a moment. [Interjections.] I smiled at him, congratulated him and said there was a good reason for his absolute certainty on that issue because we had to come back in August. That was the reason why he had been able to give us a firm undertaking about the date.

Mr Speaker, imagine my dismay and my horror when I learnt that that was a totally empty claim.

Surely not horror!

What is the poor hon the Leader of the House thinking as he lies in his recuperative bed and he hears that the Acting Leader of the House has pulled the rug from under his feet? [Interjections.] All I can say is that apart from the fact that this undertaking has been breached this is the most radical departure from the normal sitting hours of this House that I have known since I have been here. I used the word “panic-button” and said that the Government presses a panic-button when it finds that its legislative programme has gone out of control. If they go on like this they will only have one other button to press and that will be the ejector-button. [Interjections.] They will just have to eject out of Parliament. They are running out of buttons.

We have sat on a Friday night and a Saturday morning before—not often, but we have on occasion. However, we have done so only in the restricted and exclusive circumstances that by so sitting we would finish a session. That has happened once or twice before. We have never to my knowledge coldly and deliberately sat on a Friday night and right through a Saturday in the middle of a session or in circumstances other than in an attempt to finish on the Saturday. This is an intolerable burden on the non-Capetonian members of this House. Most MPs who are conscientious will have made plans fairly far ahead for a weekend and in particular the weekend that we are talking about. It probably is not much fun representing a non-Capetonian constituency in our dual capital set-up. I know that hon members of the PFP in fact have to travel back to their constituencies most weekends. To destroy their plans for a weekend at fairly short notice—in fact two days’ notice—I think is very bad planning indeed.

No planning.

The problem is compounded by the fact that as always when this Government rushes its end-of-session programme what we are going to have to deal with is the important legislation. What has happened is that there has been the kind of clamour among the members of the Cabinet to try to make sure that their particular Bills will be disposed of by the end of this particular session. Of course, the important ones will have won. It is the important Bills that have to be finished that will come up in this rushed last week or so.

Not all of them.

Let us take for example the Bill on provincial matters. We are abolishing a system which has subsisted in this country for 76 years, on the whole fairly well. We are establishing a new system altogether. Now we are going to have to debate that measure in circumstances where this House is sitting afternoon and night right through a week and then again on the Saturday.

What is the magic of the date, Wednesday, 25 June? Why do we have to rise on that day? Why cannot we go on sitting? What is the problem that the Government have? Cannot they come clean? Do they have a problem about school holidays? Do they have a problem about religious holidays? Is there something funny that is going to happen to the economy or to the hon the Minister of Law and Order? What is the magic of that date? All I can say is that by setting that date the hon the Acting Leader of the House has committed himself to another problem which is the following: When one looks at the legislative programme and considers the matters that are at the moment before standing committees, and when one feels the vibes that we have about impending legislation then I would like the hon the Acting Leader of the House to give the assurance when we come back on 18 August that we will be able to adjourn before Christmas Eve!

We will sit late on Christmas Eve!

Yes, we will sit late on Christmas Eve. [Interjections.] By those means we will be able not to sit on New Year’s Day! [Interjections.] No, it is not a joke. Many people’s lifestyles—not lives—are in jeopardy but I am not going to go through the whole gamut of all the people who will be affected by this particular motion if it is passed. I can run through them but I do not want to do it ad nauseam again.

Is the hon the Minister going to pay us overtime?

This is bad management. When the committee under the guidance of Mr Victor sat to discuss the question of the new dispensation I pleaded that—like the USA—we would have a firm starting date for Parliament—I suggested the middle of January—and a firm, fixed and immutable last day for the session. At that stage I was hoping that it would be 31 May. In that way everybody will know exactly what the name of the game is and everybody can make their arrangements. If need be we could come back for another sitting.

I understand that a committee will sit on this matter and I want to give the hon the Acting Leader of the House notice that we on this side of the House will propose some system by which this kind of rushed legislation will never happen again.

Mr Speaker, I want to support the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition who expressed the hope for a change in the rules of this House to prevent our being steamrollered at the end of a session by legislation for which proper time has not been allocated.

On behalf of the CP I want to extend my best wishes to the hon the Leader of the House. We wish him a speedy recovery and we also want to congratulate him on his birthday on 11 June.

When the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders drew up the rules of this House at the time, prior to the new constitutional dispensation coming into operation, we expressed the desire that this House should commence proceedings on approximately 15 January of each year and try to conclude its deliberations by 31 May. That was the ideal at the time, and the representatives of all the parties were in agreement. It has now become the fashion, over the past three years, for very important legislation to be introduced into this House at the end of the session and then to be bulldozed through the House. It is interesting that all the legislation that has been introduced at the end of the session, over the past three years, has been that of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The hon the Minister, who is now also the acting Leader of the House, does this every year.

In the past the hon the Leader of the House, the Minister of Transport Affairs, has kept the hon the Minister in check to a certain extent, but this year the hon the Minister himself is the acting Leader. Besides presenting us with a massive amount of legislation, not all of which has already been through the standing committees, he also makes these drastic proposals about the hours of sitting of the House, proposals never before made in this House.

As far as the legislation of the hon the Minister’s department is concerned, not a single Bill appeared before a standing committee during the recess. There was not a single Bill! The first Bill from this hon Minister’s department was submitted to the standing committee on 15 March. That was the Pension Benefits for Representatives of Local Authorities Bill. Up to now, however, this Bill has not yet been piloted through the standing committee.

The hon the Minister and his department definitely do not do their job in the recess, and Parliament and hon members of the House of Assembly are penalised for it, particularly at the end of the session. The hon the Minister is also responsible for changes in policy and standpoint which he forces upon the Government on a weekly basis and which have to be translated into legislation before Parliament can adjourn for the recess. I should like to focus hon members’ attention on the standing committee meetings next Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, as indicated on the Order Paper. On Monday, 16 June, the Standing Committee on Home Affairs must convene to consider a Bill. On Tuesday the Standing Committees on Constitutional Development and Planning, Trade and Industry, Internal Arrangements, Home Affairs and National Education must convene. On Wednesday the Sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Pension Benefits and the Standing Committees on Constitutional Development and Planning, National Education and Education and Development Aid must convene. That means that hon members who are also members of those standing committees will have to wrestle with legislation on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday from 09h00 to 22h30. I think that is asking too much.

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Minister of Communications and of Public Works is making a lot of noise now, but normally he just sits here in the House without opening his mouth. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

He is on pension. He only gets R20 per month!

Yes, he is on pension and only earns R20 per month.

He just sits here making a noise!

Next Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday members of the standing committee must do their work from 09h00 to 22h30, but during that week the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill and other very important Bills must also be dealt with. Spokesmen for the various parties must prepare themselves to take part in the debates, but this hon Minister insists on the extended hours of sitting. There is simply not enough opportunity—particularly for the smaller political parties—to do all the necessary work. [Interjections.]

At the end of the first portion of this year’s session the Abolition of Influx Control Bill, in terms of which all influx control measures are to be abolished, comes before this House. [Interjections.] This Bill will make it possible for the uncontrolled influx of Black people into South Africa. [Interjections.]

The Identification Bill must still come before this House. It makes provision for the issuing of an identity document in which the population group to which the holder belongs is not designated.

The Black Communities Development Amendment Bill grants proprietary rights to the millions of Black people who are now in the White areas. In that Bill it is also proposed that all Black people, including those who are members of the States which were previously a part of South Africa, can obtain proprietary rights in South Africa. Even though South Africa has spent millions of rand on the establishment of Black fatherlands in which the Black peoples could govern themselves, it is now going to be possible for Black people to obtain proprietary rights in White South Africa and to convert leasehold into proprietary rights. That legislation is now being submitted in the dying moments of this part of the session when we are being bulldozed by these hours of sitting.

The Joint Executive Authority for KwaZulu and Natal Bill is enabling legislation placing kwaZulu and Natal in a position to govern jointly over that part of South Africa.

The Restoration of South African Citizenship Bill will grant millions of Black people citizenship of South Africa, with both political rights and equal treatment and other rights, with all the implications involved in that. That Bill must also be debated in this limited period of time.

The Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill has been tabled. In 1984 the Regional Services Councils Bill was introduced here, and I remember that was also in the dying moments of the session. On the Wednesday evening after the Second Reading had been dealt with, we did not continue with the Committee Stage, because the hon the Minister who had to deal with that Bill had to be in Douglas the next day.

The Regional Services Councils Bill was piloted through Parliament the following year, but not a single regional services council has yet been established. Each of these Bills, however, transfers certain responsibilities to regional services councils, and now the legislation must again be amended in an effort—I take it—to get regional services councils off the ground. This legislation is being submitted in the dying moments of this session by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning so that it can again be bulldozed through this Parliament.

A system that has served South Africa well for 75 years now, the system of provincial councils, is now being abolished, and the Bill abolishing this system is to be introduced this very week. Very important tasks have already been transferred to the new provincial administrations in terms of legislation which has already been passed, but also on the strength of legislation which has yet to be passed, and that is the legislation that still has to be discussed in the house of Assembly this year. This means that hon members of the standing committee will have to take their seats in the standing committee from 09h00 to 12h00 or 12h30 and then take their seats in the House in the afternoon to participate in debates on legislation of such importance.

The Bills I have just referred to are amongst the most dangerous pieces of legislation affecting the future of the White man in this country. This legislation affects the self-determination of the Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.] Now this hon Minister wants to bulldoze this legislation through Parliament in the dying moments of this session, with hours of sitting that make superhuman demands on hon members.

Mr Chairman, I should like you to have a look, on the Order Paper, at the programme of standing committees for the recess. The Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning must sit on 10 days during the recess so that when the session resumes in August there will be some of the hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning’s Bills available for discussion.

If the hon the Minister wishes to continue in this vein, why can Parliament not simply remain in session until we have finished in August or September? Why must the State incur millions of rands in costs to transport hon members back to their homes and then bring them back to Parliament in a month or two from now? The Public Servants must also be given transport back home and then brought back here again. Why must people, families with school-going children, suffer such disruption?

What about poor Hansard?

We want to go and make biltong!

Yes, there the hon member for Parys has now let the cat out of the bag. They want to go and make biltong. [Interjections.] That is typical of this party which is governing this country.

The biltong party.

The biltong party. They are drying out like a piece of wild-game biltong, but there is no possibility of their being called a delicacy. [Interjections.] That hon member has now let the cat out of the bag. Parliament now has to adjourn so that those hon members opposite can go hunting. [Interjections.] Who must pay for that? The taxpayers of South Africa will have to pay for the hunters in the NP who are now sitting over there, girding their loins. [Interjections.]

Let me say this morning that we oppose this motion by the hon the Minister with all the might at our disposal. I now want to ask him very nicely why he has to force this important legislation through Parliament in this fashion. Why must he try to exhaust us in these final days of this portion of the session? [Interjections.] Why must the hon the Minister do this? Why can the hon the Minister not postpone the legislation which cannot be dealt with in the normal way during the week ending on 20 June, until 20 August so that we can debate it then? Why can the hon the Minister not delay the legislation? I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to withdraw this motion of his so that we can debate the legislation, which we cannot now deal with by the normal procedure, during the second half of the year.

Last week we wasted our time on the debate on the Public Safety Amendment Bill which we now have to debate again. I therefore appeal to the hon the Minister to withdraw this motion so that we can debate this very important legislation during the second half of the year, or continue normally with the session until September so as to deal with this.

I do also want to say, however, that this hon Minister and acting Leader of the House, and that little party with many members—it is a party with many members, but little power …

Biltong-makers! [Interjections.]

Let me tell the biltong-makers opposite that they will not tire the CP out in the 14 days that lie ahead. [Interjections.] They can move a motion this morning to have this House sit until 30 June or until Christmas, but they will not tire this party out. The CP is a party that is fit. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member? The hon member pointed in my direction and said I was a biltong-maker. I object, because I do not eat meat. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I shall not call that hon member a “biltongmaker”, but rather a “droogmaker” … [Interjections.] They make a joke of everything. Let me tell those hon members that the CP is a party that is fit, and those of us sitting here have already decided that each of these Bills …

Order! No, hon members are now being a little too enthusiastic about the biltong. [Interjections.]

Let me give the Chief Whip of the governing party notice of the fact that those of us in the CP who are sitting here are fit, and that we shall be debating each of these Bills as we have envisaged doing, even if we have to take pills to stay awake. [Interjections.] We will be doing so. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether his party’s new name is the Pill Party?

That ridiculous and frivolous question asked by the hon Whip of the governing party is costing South Africa a great deal of money. [Interjections.]

We are going to debate this legislation as we think it should be debated. I want to predict that the hon the Leader of the House will be coming along with guillotine motions on legislation at the end of the session, as was the case when the Constitution was debated. Then his party also implemented guillotine measures to pilot that legislation through and have it passed.

A clause of that legislation was accepted, giving the State President the right to extend the term of the House of Assembly by five years. That is how they had that measure placed on the Statute Book, and that gives that party the right to govern for a further five years when they do not have a mandate to do so.

I want to predict that as far as this important legislation is concerned, they are again going to come to light with guillotine motions. They are free to do so; they will not stop the CP in its fight for the interests of the Whites in South Africa and they will not be able to counter, by such hours of sitting as these, the CP’s resistance to the Whites being sold down the river by virtue of legislation such as this.

In no way can we accept this motion, and I therefore ask the hon the Minister to withdraw his motion so that we can continue normally with this House of Assembly session.

Mr Speaker, the motion before the House …

Brian, are you also on the pill?

Not the pill, Harry; I am on a number of others at the moment! [Interjections.]

The motion before the House is one which I believe is a punishing one for hon members. For the staff of this establishment, however, I believe it is a brutal one, because it is physically impossible for the staff to maintain this sort of pace. It is equally impossible for the smaller parties to keep up with this sort of pace.

While the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition was speaking, the Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill was placed on our desks. It is now being circulated. At the moment one can see service officers moving among us circulating Bills. That is all they have been doing here this morning. The Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill is one that has yet to go before a standing committee before it is debated in this House. Moreover, I venture to suggest that it is going to be a hotly debated issue. However, this is only one of a number of Bills, all of which are going to be contentious measures. I therefore submit, with utmost respect to the hon Acting Leader of the House that the time has come for him and his colleagues in the Cabinet to very seriously re-examine the programming of legislation that comes before this House.

The State President stood up at the beginning of the current session and gave notice of certain things that were to come about. In order to put that notice into effect, the Standing Committee on Home Affairs is still looking at an identification Bill and a citizenship Bill. They have not yet even appeared on the main Order Paper, and yet those are two measures which, in order to comply with the State President’s announcement at the Opening of Parliament, will have to come into effect on 1 July. This is the sort of dilemma we find ourselves in, and we cannot support this motion because quite frankly, we are not able to cope with this amount of work. It is very easy when one belongs to a party that is 126 members strong. It is very, very easy when it comes to a work programme. One can simply send in replacements as one goes along. One cannot do that it in the smaller parties, however.

I also want to say that I seriously believe that this is also a time when all of us should be reassessing the situation of a member of Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, because as from the end of this month—I am now talking about the House of Assembly in particular—he will no longer have a provincial councillor. He will therefore have greater responsibility towards his constituency, and I submit that he is going to have an ever-decreasing amount of time available for his constituency and his constituents. This is because it is patently obvious—even to a blind man on a galloping horse—that we shall never again sit only from January to June. Next year we are going to face the same problems, and we must start planning now for two sessions of Parliament. Whether these take the form of a budgetary session and a legislative session, we must start planning for them.

As far as members of Parliament are concerned, I think there should be a reassessment by the Government of what exactly it expects of members of Parliament, and I think there should be a reassessment by hon members of Parliament of what exactly their functions in this establishment are. They should reassess exactly where they stand in the job market or in the professional market—or wherever else—because no longer can any hon member of Parliament by any stretch of the imagination say that this can be a part-time occupation. This is a full-time occupation and a member has no time to do anything else. [Interjections.]

I sincerely believe that when we have another election—and possibly before that election—a lot of people are going to be doing some very serious thinking if they are expected to come to Parliament under the present conditions. [Interjections.] I want to be quite blunt about it and say that I do not believe people will come to this establishment as members of Parliament for the remuneration that they receive for what is expected of them; that I can tell you now. I believe that is something which should be reassessed. The Cabinet should be looking at this and we ourselves should be reassessing exactly where we stand with regard to the future and bearing in my mind this sort of motion before us. I want to tell the hon the Acting Leader of the House that in my opinion there are a number of hon members, not just on this side of the House but also in his party, who are asking themselves whether it is really worthwhile coming here.

With regard to this motion for these extended sitting hours, I ask myself whether I am going to be able to do justice to the job I enjoy and love doing. Will I be able to do justice to my country and to my constituents? I regret that with this programme the answer is no. It is for that reason that I must say that we on these benches will oppose the motion before the House.

Mr Speaker, I want to associate myself with the hon member for Umhlanga’s remarks. It is my opinion that the conduct of the hon Acting Leader of the House—in view of this motion and the situation that has developed here—Has really gone just about half-way towards finishing off democracy in South Africa. [Interjections.] It makes no difference how big or small a party is, each party in this House has a specific standpoint. How on earth can the respective standpoints of various parties rightfully be dealt with under the circumstances now being proposed by the hon Acting Leader of the House? How can one, in this way, hold proper consultations about South Africa’s future?

I have said previously that I am not asking for any leniency for myself. The hon Acting Leader of the House can do what he wants to, as the hon member for Kuruman has said, but we will go on with the struggle. We ask for no mercy, but we shall not show any mercy either. Sometimes one would also like to be a bit accommodating, even if it is only to a slight degree, but being accommodating in regard to the time taken up for debates is apparently not forthcoming from both sides. I really do not know whether the hon Acting Leader of the House can expect any further overtures from us.

We nevertheless hereby declare our acceptance of his challenge. [Interjections.] I agree with the hon member for Kuruman—I am not a hunter; I eat biltong, but that which my friends send to me—that we shall go on waging war here until the Government is defeated. [Interjections.]

Secondly, earlier this year I was completely convinced that the country could not afford higher salaries to the hon members of this House. The hon Acting Leader of the House is taking things to such extremes at the moment, however, that I shall have to consider asking the electorate whether, as a result of the demands made upon us by the Government, members of Parliament should not be given an extra little hand-out! I am just mentioning this in passing.

I think the most serious aspect of this issue relates to the fact that the hon Acting Leader of the House has great political aspirations, great political ambitions. When he heard the State President proclaiming a state of emergency in the country yesterday, he thought he should also declare a state of emergency here in Parliament! [Interjections.] That is what it is! The struggle with this legislation—what is developing here is a mess—is nothing if not a state of emergency! [Interjections.] The hon Acting Leader of the House does not want to be left behind, but I do not think it is right or fair to take his aspirations out on us in this way. He should rather have been the epitome of efficiency, of a man who can do what has been done in the past. During the first three years of my membership of this House, there was not the kind of confusion, the kind of mess, there is now!

What is more, what about the root of the problem, i.e. the fact that the other two Houses, those of the Coloureds and the Indians, compel this Government and this House to repeat debates on specific legislation? We have already had a Second Reading on the one piece of security legislation! We are now being forced to debate this a second time! I have heard that there are at least another three Bills that the Coloureds and the Indians are also going to block.

This Government has the means to put an end to this mess, i.e. by having recourse to the President’s Council, but it does not want to do so for fear that further clashes, friction and a split will develop in the Cabinet. This House and the country as a whole are suffering today because the Government does not have the courage to take action. In an attempt to preserve its own unity and to keep its own coalition government going, it does not want to take the necessary steps to have this House function effectively.

I have known the hon Acting Leader of the House for a long time now. In his day he was the superintendent of the Sunday school at George, and he made a much better job of that than he is making of this. [Interjections.] He was an MEC, and I voted for him as the Cape MEC. I voted him in. If I had not voted for him that day, his political career would have been dealt a devastating blow. I gladly voted for him, however. [Interjections.] I subsequently came to regret it, however, but I nevertheless voted for him. As far as finances and other similar aspects are concerned, he was not inefficient in the provincial council, not in the least. The services he rendered in his Sunday school and provincial council careers were streets ahead of those he is furnishing to us in this House. [Interjections.]

We can interpose all kinds of matters, such as biltong and other aspects, even though some hon members do not eat biltong, but we must realise that the tricameral system is crumbling more and more each day. The tricameral system is the cause of the disruption in this House. [Interjections.] The Government is now not only imposing financial problems on South Africa, but also a political problem that comes very close to being the kind of problem the State President had to deal with here yesterday.

I am therefore opposing this motion on behalf of my party and request that it be withdrawn and that decent arrangements be made so that this House can function as the House of Assembly of the Republic of South Africa ought to function.

Mr Speaker, I am glad to see the House has not lost its sense of humour, although we are in such a depressing state at the moment with the state of emergency hanging over us and the seriousness of the situation facing South Africa.

Certainly no hon member on this side of the House is opposed to doing the work, the serious work, that is placed before us. We want to deal with the Bills and the legislation that is necessary, more particularly the legislation which will bring about reform and hopefully show some light at the end of a dark tunnel. However, we are emphatically opposed to this motion because we believe the motion and the times set are unreasonable. We believe the times set are going to be exhausting and, what is more, we believe that this motion is unnecessary.

What have we seen? We have seen that the Government have lost control of the legislative programme—if they have any control of the legislation whatsoever.

Like they have lost control of everything else!

We have promises, promises, promises—a string of broken promises.

What else could you expect?

Let me remind this House that before the tricameral Parliament was discussed in the new Constitution we sat right through the night. I remember representatives of a tribe of Fingos sitting here till 04h00 in the morning as we went through the night, right into the Saturday. When we entered into the tricameral system this House was told and the promise was made by the Government that in future Parliament would start on the Friday nearest to 18 January and on 31 May they would give us a firm date to complete the session. That never happened. Last year, on 14 June, the hon the Leader of the House moved a motion to extend the sitting hours and we then had another exhausting week of legislation. This year not only was that promise made by the hon the Leader of the House, but it went even further. The State President himself told this House during the discussion of his Budget Vote (Hansard: House of Assembly, 17 April 1986, col 3604):

That promise was made by the State President of the RSA. If we cannot accept his word, whose word can we accept? [Interjections.]

The Leader of the House went even further. He said the House would adjourn at 12h45, I repeat, at 12h45 on 20 June. As a result, some of the hon members in this House made their transport and travel arrangements. They booked their flights, arranged for their cars to be transported by rail, and they arranged trips and holidays. They did all this under the impression that there would be a short recess until 14 July on and after which the standing committees would meet until we came back here on 18 August.

Does the hon the Acting Leader of the House and the rest of the Cabinet have any idea of the chaos this has caused the SATS? For example, bookings for the railage of cars have had to be cancelled and bookings for flights have had to be cancelled. People will not be able to get their cars on the trains for at least another few weeks. This has really created complete chaos. How can we run Parliament like this? Not only have we inconvenienced the 308 members of Parliament, but we have also—I say this with great respect, Sir—placed great strain on these members. The hon member for Kuruman rightly referred to the sitting hours next Tuesday and Wednesday. Not only will we be sitting right through to 22h30 from Monday to Wednesday, but there are also five standing committees sitting on Tuesday and four on Wednesday. The members and the staff therefore have to be here from 09h00 in the morning until 22h30 at night.

Moreover, the Government chooses this time to debate the most important legislation. It does not place on the Order Paper the less contentious legislation or legislation in respect of which the parties are likely to reach agreement or consensus. No, it chooses rather to debate the contentious legislation, legislation that will provoke disagreement among the parties. Furthermore, it is legislation of this nature that calls for the greatest amount of preparation, the greatest calm and the greatest concentration. Now, when we have reached the point of exhaustion, the Government is asking the hon members of this House to consider legislation that is of great importance to South Africa. [Interjections.]

I have not yet even mentioned the strain this places on the staff. I do not know for sure, but I estimate that there are at least 200 people associated with Parliament—the messengers, the staff of Hansard, and the secretarial and professional staff—and they are all affected by this. They will have additional work to do. Where is the consideration for them? How can Parliament function this way?

Today, for instance, is the 83rd sitting day, and 61 Bills have already been passed by this Parliament. The Bill I received most recently was Bill No 105. [Interjections.] Let us, therefore, get this thing organised. Quite frankly, I do not think it is a good idea to sit on Friday nights and on Saturdays. The fact that the Government is proposing to sit and debate legislation on Friday nights and on Saturdays is an indication that the Government has absolutely lost control of its legislative programme. Honestly, Sir, to make us come here on a Friday night and on a Saturday is beyond belief.

There is another important point I want to make. The 20th of June was the date on which everybody based their arrangements. Let us assume that this motion has been agreed to. Chaos has thus been caused. Now, since we are going to continue sitting after the 20th June, surely the urgency or necessity for fixing another date falls away? Why, then, do we have to determine a date on the 25th of June? After all, we are all here and we are prepared to do our work. Let us continue sitting on Monday nights and on Wednesday nights, and let us do our work in the normal way. We may have to sit until the 28th or the 30th of June, or even into July, but let us do our work in order of priority. The hon the Leader of the House and the Whips have given us a list of priorities in respect of the Bills that have to be considered by this Parliament, and we accept that. There is no need, however, to fix a date on the 25 th. There is no need to cram extended sitting hours into the 25th. There is nothing magic about that date. So, to sit on the 23rd, the 24th and the 25 th until we adjourn on our own motion—which means of course, that we continue sitting without a dinner break until later than 22h30 if we do not fix the time at 22h30—is, with great respect, totally unnecessary. I do not know whether it is a joke or not that certain hon members have to go hunting on 25 June but I sincerely hope it is a joke. I do not know whether one is even allowed to go hunting in a state of emergency. [Interjections.]

Let us accept that we have a new parliamentary system. Let us also accept that we have a tricameral system of Parliament. Let us now examine how we can make this tricameral system work in a proper way. The hon member for Umhlanga has made the point which I have made earlier in this House and that is that we should consider two sessions of Parliament. Let us finish the uncontentious legislation, the Budget and all the financial arrangements in the first session. We can then determine a date on which we can come back for the second session to finish the other legislation.

We cannot afford to go on with the tricameral system any longer where we are operating in three different Houses, where the Ministers are playing musical chairs and where time is being taken up and wasted. We must have joint sittings of Parliament to discuss the Bills and to finish our legislation and we will save much time by doing that. The sooner we do that the sooner we will be able to get through our work.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether there has ever been a similar debate to this one prior to the coming into being of the tricameral Parliament? [Interjections.]

You used to support us in those days!

We were asked to sit for extended hours at certain times but we were never asked—this was the point made by the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition—to sit on a Friday night and Saturday when the end of the session was only the next Wednesday, in this case 25 June. If we had to have extended hours on a Friday night and sit on Saturday rather than having to come back on the Monday we would accept it. However, here we have a motion to sit on Friday night and the whole of Saturday from 09h00 in the morning until 18h00 in the afternoon. I thought it was suggested that we start at 10h00 on Saturday and not at 09h00.

It is at 10h00.

I thought the hon the Acting Leader of the House said 09h00 yesterday.

[Inaudible.]

Alright. I accept that that has been changed.

We have to get our act together. With great respect, the hon the Acting Leader of the House and the Cabinet have to get their act together. If they will tell their departments what legislation they will require during a certain session of Parliament, and if their departments can get that legislation ready in time and the Bills can be discussed by the standing committees in good time, we may have some semblance of order.

We could perhaps forgive them for the problems during the first session of this Parliament because the standing committees had not met before. However, we were promised that it would not happen again; that the standing committees would meet towards the end of the year and that we would not be held up by the Bills when we arrived here in January. However, it did not happen. The standing committees have had to meet and legislation has had to be discussed by all of them.

In all these circumstances we are implacably opposed to the motion before us and, as I said at the beginning, this measure is exhausting and unrealistic and, with great respect, unnecessary.

Mr Speaker, I think it is not inappropriate that the hon the Leader of the House is in hospital with a back problem. [Interjections.] The back problem of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs was apparently aggravated by travelling on SA Airways. As a result he had to be taken straight to hospital after a flight.

I believe the fact that hon members of Parliament have back problems has nothing to do with the hairiness or otherwise of their backs because the hon members for Hillbrow and Cape Town Gardens have also had back problems as a result of the work of this House. In fact, I believe back problems of MPs should be a function of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and not of anything else.

The reason, of course, why Wednesday, 25 June is the magical day after which we cannot sit is very simply described. In terms of sections 5 and 6 of the Public Safety Act, No 3 of 1953, the regulations which are published in terms of the state of emergency must be debated in this House 14 days after they were published. I want to inform my colleague the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition and the other hon members that this is the reason why Wednesday, 25 June is a critical day. We must adjourn 13 days after the passing of those regulations.

You mean it has nothing to do with biltong?

So we are being pressed on two sides—on the one side by the emergency regulations and on the other side by the bad management of the Cabinet.

I think it is significant that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament is not present during this debate. I believe he is acutely embarrassed.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament asked to be excused!

That is not a point of order! [Interjections.]

†The hon the Chief Government Whip should know the Rules of the House better than to use that as a point of order.

The poor hon Chief Whip of Parliament has a nightmarish administrative job and it is now recognised that he is a de facto member of the Cabinet. However, he has not been able to get the Cabinet so far to give us the legislation.

What has happened? For the first six weeks of this session we effectively worked only four days a week and even the standing committees did not meet. Now we are forced to work under these circumstances.

We have another problem. One of the most important functions of this Parliament is our Press Gallery because it is our Press who carry the information out of this Parliament to the public at large. How can the public be properly informed and the SABC cover effectively what happens in this House when we are sitting for seven hours every day—it is nine hours on Friday, 20 June—and in addition there are all the other things happening? It is impossible for the public to be informed what Parliament does. It is all the more unfortunate because we will be passing important reform legislation.

On the date that we passed the Abolition of Influx Control Bill—one of the most significant events to take place in this country for the past 150 years—Crossroads was burning and the galleries here were empty. I believe that reform legislation such as that should enjoy proper public attention but we will not be able to do that.

I believe it is an indication of the management incompetence of our Cabinet that we have to sit for these hours. I want to make it clear that we oppose this in the strongest terms possible. These men have to run a country with the vast problems that we have and they have to introduce reforms and try to defuse the situation but they cannot even organise their own legislative programme! There is no shortage of lawyers at the moment and there are actually many of them looking for jobs. Perhaps they should come and draw up our laws.

Mr Speaker, we therefore oppose this motion.

Mr Speaker, a few Thursdays ago our hon Chief Whip told us in the caucus that Parliament was going to adjourn at 12h45 on 20 June. As far as I know, this was the first time in the history of this Parliament that the day, hour and minute of adjournment of Parliament was decided on weeks before the time.

The hon Leader of the House said that!

The hon Leader of the House conveyed this to the hon Whips of Parliament to convey it to their different caucuses in turn.

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

No, I do not have the time now to reply to questions. It will in any case be a stupid question. [Interjections.]

Everyone in the country who is connected to Parliament in one way or another, has made their arrangements according to that day, hour and minute. There are wide-ranging activities, responsibilities and planning involved in this. Now we are informed, with the arrogance unique to the governing party, that the undertaking which they gave and according to which we planned, is being swept off the board with one stroke. This points to a whole number of things.

Tom, you were happily arrogant until 1982.

Oh yes, I agree with the hon member.

But what has that to do with the price of soap?

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the debate. Does the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North want me to sit down? [Interjections.]

Do you agree with what the hon member for Soutpansberg is saying or not? [Interjections.]

This points to the inability of the Government to adhere to a plan which it has proposed.

Remember, cowboys don’t cry!

One of the tests of management and government expertise is the extent to which one can adhere to what one said originally.

In my view, if not in those of hon members over there, and in your opinion, Sir—we observe this with great appreciation—this Chamber is a place which should have a certain measure of dignity, and should project a certain image. This is after all the place where the most important decisions affecting the country’s population are taken. Here a particular plan and programme are struck off the table in a high-handed way, however, and replaced by other plans.

I want to raise another point. Today’s Order Paper is two pages long with only four items on a third page. When we held debates on this subject in the past, which is traditional, there was usually a reasonably long Order Paper and in times such as these the absolute essential legislation was taken and discussed while a long list of Bills fell away. This year’s Order Papers appears very short, but one should at least examine the other part of it where the Bills which are still with the standing committees are mentioned.

As the hon member for Kuruman indicated, this is essentially legislation which originates from the department of the hon acting Leader of the House. This legislation which has to be discussed, is very probably going to strike at the very foundations of the survival of Whites in South Africa, but now the House of Assembly is being asked to bulldoze the legislation through when we begin with it today, in the short period of 12 days. If we had to deal with all the Bills which still have to come from the standing committees, it would mean six Bills which have to be dealt with in a period of 12 days, apart from the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill and the hon the Minister of Law and Order’s security legislation.

There is something else which is basic to this matter. Only now are we practically experiencing the abortive new dispensation fathered by the hon acting Leader of the House for the first time. What is the primary reason why we are now being asked for extra time? It is due to the fact that his coalition partners have made it essential and possible for two Bills to be debated again in the House of Assembly. The Official Opposition also has an out-and-out delaying tactic in regard to it, and is going to utilise the maximum available time for these debates.

As we warned before the referendum and when the draft Constitution of 1983 was discussed, these two Houses can come up with a veto and by means of it delay legislation in these critical times for South Africa. The legislation concerned is of the most important, not according to some hon members of the NP caucus, but according to the hon the Minister…

And according to the State President!

… and the State President, but nonetheless it has been delayed, and precisely as a result of the dispensation which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning forced on South Africa. This is only the beginning of the results of the new dispensation.

Those two Houses have now seen how effectively they can paralyse the Government, and if in the future situations develop in which there is greater tension between them and the Government, or when more radical parties come into power in those Houses, they could delay each piece of legislation in this way. They can still make it impossible for this Government to complete the Appropriation Bill before 30 June, if they want to.

Something else came to the fore in this debate today, and that is the absolute flippancy with which the governing Party and its members control the business of this House. It is as the hon member—I think it was the hon member for Parys—said. They want to go to the hunting grounds to go and make biltong. [Interjections.]

They are going to travel in the Defence Force’s helicopters.

Yes, in Defence Force helicopters. In Soutpansberg we say that in the summer the flies trample one to death and in winter the NP Ministers descend on one. [Interjections.]

You are sitting and sleeping here, man.

Actually the hon member is also correct. [Interjections.] They come, but they are the biltong makers and not the biltong shooters. Not one of them can hit a buck. [Interjections.] What did that little old hon Whip say now?

He said you are hibernating.

Oh, am I hibernating?

Like Alex van Breda! He is not even here. [Interjections.]

Some people are awake even though they are sleeping, but other people sleep when they are awake. Now let me tell the little member …

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

I do not have the time …

I just want to ask if the hon member has ever participated in a stay-awake competition?

Listen to the flippancy! [Interjections.]

I told the hon member the other day what we on this side of the House think of him. He knows what we in the CP think of him. I want to repeat what I told him that day. He came and told us how he stood by us and how conservative he was.

His own NP branch is dead. [Interjections.]

Yes, and I think as little of his questions as I think of his intelligence. [Interjections.] In any case, they now have biltong on the brain.

And pills are on your brain.

They want this House to adjourn so that they can go and hunt. [Interjections.]

Why does the hon the Minister want to push this legislation through now? This is an important question. Why, as my hon Chief Whip said, can it not wait until August or next year? We have governed South Africa well for many years under the existing legislation. The hon the Minister’s sources of information tell him the fall of the NP is imminent. Any event can lead to the final collapse of the NP. The present chairman of the President’s Council said years ago that the NP should draw the non-Whites in to support the NP if the pressure from the right becomes too great. They are in such a hurry now, because as the hon Chief Whip of the Opposition said, these are “panic buttons” that are now being pressed to pass legislation, because they do not know if they are going to have another chance to do so.

He has already called in the assistance of the Coloureds.

He has already called in their assistance against the right-wing elements.

Chris asked the Coloureds to help him. No, Chris old chap, that really is ugly. [Interjections.]

This is a different approach to lengthening the hours of sitting of the House than that we are accustomed to at the end of a session. This is a product of the hon the Minister’s new dispensation with which he is messing up this country. This is a foretaste of much worse situations in which this dispensation is going to land us.

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon the Minister is just as arrogant as his colleague the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. [Interjections.] That is the kind of arrogance of this Government and the hon the Minister, or like the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, or what is he these days?

National Education! [Interjections.]

You do not know what is going on here, man!

He was arrogant enough to say the trains will be arranged for us. They have their staff, their chauffeurs, private secretaries and secretaries and they move from one cushy situation to another. The other hon members of this House have to make their arrangements individually with a great deal of disruption and inconvenience.

We accept that we have to be here, and we are not crying. We are “the cowboys who do not cry”. [Interjections.] As my hon Chief Whip has said, the NP must take note of the fact that we shall fight them, and the only way they can show any progress, is to make arrangements with the authoritarian and dictatorial power they have to overrule us. It is merely on grounds of numbers that they are going to do this, and on no other basis.

Mr Speaker, the first question I want to ask here today, is whether all the matters that have been discussed here had any bearing on the motion of the hon acting Leader of the House.

Of course they had! [Interjections.]

It is very clear to me that someone is trying to steal a political march. That is why all kinds of matters are being broached from all directions without anyone getting round to the actual state of affairs. I listened to the arguments of the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition and of the CP. I listened very carefully to all their complaints, because they were complaints and nothing more. The hon member for Kuruman, the Chief Whip of the CP, said that legislation was being bulldozed through this House. Now I want to put a reasonable question to him as well as to the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition: Did those hon members give their co-operation so that the work in this House could be finalised?

Yes, we did.

I ask the question: Did they give their co-operation so that the work in this House could be finalised? I want to put it even more clearly and say that both of them are busy with delaying politics.

That is not true.

It is true. That is what you are doing.

Here is important legislation which we want to discuss.

I did not interrupt the hon member.

Then do not speak nonsense!

One can see that it has hurt them. If one throws a stone into the undergrowth and a dog yelps, one knows it has been hurt.

I once again say that the hon member who is making such a fuss, is busy with delaying politics. He is trying to keep us going. Furthermore, the hon member for Kuruman has informed me that they will debate all the legislation as it should be debated. He goes on and says they will do this even if they have to drink pills. I want to ask him if it is going to be Salusa 45 pills, or what kind of pills are they going to drink? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sasolburg of the one member party in this House is also following this example and comes up with certain allegations too. The hon member does not serve on any standing committee. How he knows what is discussed there, I do not know. [Interjections.]

You really are a poor speaker.

The hon member for Kuruman will not frighten me off. It is very easy to draw conclusions, and I want to admit that the programme is very demanding at this stage. I immediately want to make it very clear, however, that since the beginning of this session this House has not been without work for a day. I want to underline this, because the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North has made all kinds of allegations here. We have been busy every day and that is why private members’ motions were limited to a minimum. This they must concede.

The legislative programme was discussed in detail with hon Whips. They know exactly which programme has to be finalised. I am waiting now; why do the hon members not react now? The hon members of the CP should surely have responded now.

What do you want me to say now? [Interjections.]

I repeat that the legislative programme was discussed in detail with the hon Whips. They therefore know exactly which programme has to be completed. It is not physically possible to complete the programme on 20 June, as planned. The completion of the appropriation and the tax legislation will take approximately 16 hours.

Why do we not sit until the end of the month?

Will the hon member keep quiet now until I have finished? [Interjections.] I really find it remarkable this morning that when those hon members should react, they do not do so. They then hide and try to lead one off the track. [Interjections.]

It is estimated that the other legislation which has to be dealt with before the adjournment, will take a further 49 hours. A total of 65 hours is therefore needed at this stage.

The hours of sitting proposed by the hon the Acting Leader of the House, gives us 44 hours from Monday to Saturday for legislation. We then need another 21 hours, and if we were to sit on Monday, 23 June and Tuesday, 24 June, until 22h30, it would give us a further 154 hours after the completion of the questions. With the necessary co-operation we should therefore finish on Wednesday, 25 June, at a civilised hour. [Interjections.] I repeat; with the necessary cooperation.

Naturally I can only give an undertaking on behalf of my own party.

Such an undertaking really is not worth anything! [Interjections.]

Whether that is a viable proposition or not, will of course depend chiefly on the opposition parties. [Interjections.] At this stage I cannot listen to the hon members, and I cannot get any less co-operation from them. As a consequence I move that we continue with the hours of sitting as proposed by the hon Acting Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, the hon Chief Whip of the governing Party surely knows why we have stopped co-operating, and the ball is now in its court. [Interjections.] Yes, the ball is now in its court.

We shall not be blackmailed! [Interjections.]

We do after all know about the reprehensible speech made by the hon member for Stilfontein. We do know about it, and all the other members who spoke after the hon member for Stilfontein tried to give an explanation of what he meant by it. But a repudiation of the hon member for Stilfontein has not come from that side yet, nor has the hon member for Stilfontein had the decency himself, like the hon member for Sandton, to stand up and say that if he has hurt anyone, he is sorry about it. That is why we refuse to co-operate with such a party. [Interjections.] These are the grounds on which we refuse to co-operate.

Have you been hurt?

Yes, I have been hurt. [Interjections.] There are also some of our other members who have been hurt. The hon member knows we have been hurt! [Interjections.] Any decent person who knows he has hurt someone, will apologise.

Are you people whining?

No, we are not whining; we just ask that the basic rules of decency and honesty be complied with! These are words which do not exist in the hon members vocabulary! [Interjections.]

Order! We are dealing here with a motion before the House, and I am now going to limit hon members strictly to the discussion of its contents. The hon member for Brakpan may proceed.

Sir, the hon Chief Whip of the NP says amongst other things that we know what legislation has to be finalised. We are not so certain if changes have not been made to the programme for legislation which had to be completed in the first instance. Furthermore, I want to say that this does not mean that we have to adjourn on 25 June. Surely we can continue to a later date if there is such essential legislation. I do not know why laws we have been managing without since the days of Jan van Riebeeck, should suddenly have become so important on 25 June 1986 that the entire society would collapse if it had to be left to August or to 1987. No one can convince me at all why this is so urgent now!

This motion of the hon Acting Leader of the House is clear evidence of the fact that orderly and peaceful government has collapsed totally in this country. I think when this Internal Security Amendment Bill has become law, the State President should declare the Cabinet itself to be an unrest area, because it can no longer govern this country! This is complete mismanagement!

There is another point I want to make in connection with this. The standing committees are now sitting in the mornings. They sit at the same time as the House, and that is why there could not be a quorum in this House for six or more times. The Government now wants to force us to sit according to the hours proposed here, when the House cannot even establish a quorum during normal sitting hours, and we have to ring the bells time and again to get a quorum. [Interjections.] There are eight or ten Whips on that side of the House who cannot even discipline their people to be present in this House while we sit normal hours. What is going to happen when we sit the hours as moved?

Up until the Easter Recess we did not sit on Fridays. Most of us who do not serve on standing committees, had a long week-end from Thursday to Monday. On Wednesday afternoons we only begin at 15h30. Why can things not be arranged as the hon member for Umhlanga suggested, so that we can get a little order in connection with these matters?

In the process the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates hold this House hostage. I have the Order Paper of the House of Representatives here in front of me, and the strange thing is that they are adjourning on 17 June already. Furthermore, they often do not sit on Wednesday evenings or on Fridays.

They never sit on Wednesday evenings!

You are speaking nonsense, man! [Interjections.]

We have now become the hostages of the other two Houses! As my colleague the hon member for Soutpansberg has just said now, they are now showing their muscles. We saw in this morning’s newspaper that they want to shoot down the hon the Minister of Finance’s legislation if the Public Safety Amendment Bill and the Internal Security Amendment Bill are piloted through Parliament.

In concluding I just want to comment that nothing has come of the undertakings of that side of the House, and to my regret, of promises made by the State President. We say that the credibility of that party, not only in respect of politics, but also any other matter, is not worth anything. It is not worth a straw. [Interjections.]

It is now being laid at our door by the hon Chief Whip that we are indulging in delaying politics. The legislation which appears on the Order Paper and which is still going to be debated like, amongst other things, the Abolition of Influx Control Bill, legislation on citizenship and identity documents, are all pieces of legislation concerning undertakings given in accordance with the manifesto of the NP in the election of 1981. This is legislation which deals with the promises and undertakings given by the Government and which we now insist they adhere to in accordance with the NP policy at the time. The legislation represents deviations from the proven policy and principles of the NP. We are therefore not practising delaying politics.

Order! The hon member must now return to the hours of sitting.

Mr Speaker, with all due respect, I just want to make the point that we reject the accusation that when we debate the principles of legislation we do so due to delaying motives. We therefore reject this motion and vote against it.

Mr Speaker, if I can, I should very much like to restore calm to this debate. Firstly I should like to make a general observation which hon members will certainly permit me to do. Yesterday we had an opportunity to listen to the State President’s speech on the general security position in this country. Whether or not we agree with these observations and information is not relevant for the purposes of my speech.

Yesterday, the State President also furnished the motivation for specific standpoints which he adopted for the sake of the security strategy and security actions in our country. The fact that the State President had to do this must surely provide us all with evidence that the atmosphere and the times in which we are living require specific actions and attitudes, particularly from us in this House. I should like to say that some of those should have been reflected in our collective debating. I find it a pity that we have allowed the debate to degenerate into a biltong and pills debate.

Who started it?

The hon member should forget about who started it. It is strange, is it not, how sensitive members of the CP are? [Interjections.]

Allow me to take my argument further now, because I did not interrupt the hon Chief Whip. Let me explain this to the hon Chief Whip quickly, and I hope he will understand why I am saying it.

Say what you want to say.

Well, I have the right to say it.

If we differ on specific matters and if we think that we should solve them, we must conduct a dialogue on them. However, I do not think it is necessary for the House and its business to be detrimentally effected as a result. I should like to come to the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition.

†The hon the Chief Whip does not speak very often in this House, but when he delivered his speech this morning I was very deeply concerned, because he was purring like a kitten when he started. I thought immediately there was something suspect in that attitude. However, I want firstly to thank him very much for the sentiments he expressed in regard to the hon the Leader of the House. I would like to confirm that the hon the Leader of the House is recuperating well and the indications are that he will be back in this House very soon, possibly before we adjourn.

However, the hon member will also allow me a very flippant observation. I wonder whether the hon the Leader of the House is not more comfortable where he is now than he would be where I am now!

I do not think you will change your back for his.

No, but I would gladly exchange my seat for his! That is something I am sure the hon member will understand!

I can assure you, the pain is not worth it.

Coming back to this debate now, Sir, I say it is true, firstly, that we are functioning in the context of a new parliamentary system and, secondly, that we are, to a large extent, going through an experimental stage as regards the working of Parliament. We knew that the Rules of the House would probably require amendment after some time, depending on the experience we gained in the process. Those hon members who are also members of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders will know that for that very reason it was decided to have the rules apply only for a certain period and to amend or adapt them afterwards. So we knew at that stage already that some adaptation might have to be made to the rules in the light of our own experience.

Moreover, it was not simply a case of our knowing that; the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders has also taken decisions in this particular regard. Its report will be tabled in this House and in the other two Houses. One thing, however, is crucial. That is the recommendation of that committee that a subcommittee be appointed to investigate and report on new models and procedures for Parliament itself. [Interjections.]

*I want to tell the hon member for Brakpan that I do not wish to discuss the merits of the case now. I just wanted to make the point.

That is another promise that will come to nothing.

The fact of the matter is that everyone serving on the Committee on the Standing Rules and Orders, wants adjustments to the rules. Of course I concede the point to the hon member for Brakpan that various hon members want various adjustments. I am not arguing the contents of the adjustments now, but the fact of the matter. That is all I want to say about it.

Now I should like to make a second observation. I have been serving in this House for a long time, and I have listened to various debates on motions for extended hours. Hon members will concede to me that such motions have been before this House on repeated occasions. Hon members will also confirm that the arguments for and against such a motion simply assumed precisely the same pattern. Let me say it at once that I do not take it amiss of the hon members for opposing the motion, but there are specific motivations for their behaviour, and I do want to take that amiss of them.

The hon Chief Whip of the NP is correct when he says that not only is there a delaying action …

That is not true.

The hon member can listen to me first; then he can react.

The fact remains that the Whips organisation of Parliament is not functioning properly. [Interjections.] Once again I do not want to discuss the merits of this matter, because I have already dealt with this. The hon member for Brakpan confirmed this, however, when he said: “But we know why that is the case.”

No, that is not true.

Now I am saying in all fairness that I am prepared to debate the reasons with the hon member and I intend to do so if he wishes to discuss the matter. The fact of the matter is that the business of this House is being extended as a result of that fact. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Acting Leader of the House?

No, Sir, I first want to finish speaking.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Yesterday we used only two short turns to speak for legislation which we supported. I just want to say that that is not delaying action. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, that is really not a point of order. It is no use the hon member reproaching me about this, because the hon member for Brakpan confirmed it, and he is the person whose word I accept. I have no problems with that.

You are distorting his words.

Not only are delays being caused but there is also obstructionism.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon Acting Leader of the House to say that there is obstructionism on the part of one side of the House?

I do not think there is anything wrong with that. The hon the Acting Leader of the House may proceed.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member entitled to say that the people’s words?

I do not think there is anything wrong with that. The hon the Acting Leader of the House may proceed.

The hon member can say that if he likes; it does not bother me.

There are a few other things I want to say to hon members, and these link up with what I said in the beginning. I think the responsibilities of every hon member in this House who believes he has an obligation to Parliament also include keeping the institutions in his own constituency informed of the conditions in the country. I thought these hon members would have wanted to go and do that. I believed, apparently incorrectly, that hon members all had the need to get back to their own constituencies as soon as possible.

Yes, 20 June.

Consequently I thought the hon members, owing to that obligation resting on members of Parliament, would have been prepared to dispose of the necessary business here, even if it meant sacrifices in regard to time, so that they could get back to their constituencies quickly. Apparently my approach in respect of what hon members’ own assessment of their responsibilities as members of Parliament differs completely with that of hon members of the Official Opposition.

The hon member for Soutpansberg said the reason why we were sitting here was that our abortive attempts in regard to the new constitutionalism had brought about a need to repeat debates. I shall now reply to the hon member’s argument. What hon members do in Parliament they do in terms of the rules. As far as the rules are concerned, we all agreed to them. With all due respect to the hon members, who debated the Public Safety Amendment Act on two occasions without bringing forward any new points or arguments in the second debate that had not already been raised in the first debate?

You cannot judge because you were not here.

You are quite wrong.

The hon the Minister will be able to confirm my standpoint.

Louis, please enlighten him.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon Acting Leader of the House?

No, Sir, I want to state one further point.

The hon member for Kuruman referred to the sittings of the standing committees during the period when the House was not in session. This indicates that hon members will constantly and for long periods have to meet to dispose of business before the session resumes in August. Once again, therefore, it is essential that the House dispose of its business as quickly as possible so that the standing committees can proceed with their work.

20 June.

The hon member said 20 June.However, he is arguing that we should not sit extended hours and can simply sit until the end of the month. How on earth am I to reconcile these two arguments of theirs with one another?

You were not listening to me!

I was listening very carefully!

You were sitting there, talking to the hon Minister next to you! You do not listen to what a person says!

Oh no, please. Mr Speaker, I ask you now: I did not interrupt that hon member …

Then you must listen to what we say!

Mr Speaker, surely the hon member for Kuruman has already spoken!

Order! I do not want to put a stop to the interjections entirely, but we cannot allow a dialogue here. Hon members must contain themselves. The hon the Acting Leader may proceed.

In this House itself debates were repeatedly conducted which there was no need to conduct. I want to say something to the hon member for Sasolburg in passing, if he will pay a little attention. The hon member said that I was a superintendent of a Sunday school.

Yes, you did far better then!

Yes, I should like to concede that, but that hon member would also have done better if he had been in my Sunday school! [Interjections.] Perhaps I could make the hon member an offer. I have not forgotten the catechism and I wanted to invite him to come and discuss it with me.

I should like to go further. Today accusations were made in regard to this legislation, but there is only one thing I should like to say about it. I should just like to state this, without elaborating on it. I think that to accuse officials of my department of not doing their work, can only be done by a person who has no respect for the truth. I want to say with all due respect to the other departments that the team in my department works more hours than anyone in this House. I think it is unfair to make the officials the subject of our political differences. I want to tell the hon member for Kuruman candidly now that it was not proper for him to do so.

You change your policy so frequently that they cannot keep up.

That is not what the hon member said. The hon member said the officials were not doing their work. I think it is a disgrace to make such an accusation while the hon member has no factual information to support it and the officials are not here to defend themselves. I did think we had different codes than that to use when we debated matters with one another.

I want to take this matter further. I want to suggest that the hon member who has reproached me personally in regard to this legislation while I, in my capacity of acting leader of the House have to move these motions, should look at the Order Paper to see what legislation is still outstanding. It astonishes me that hon members of the opposition reproach the Government and the State President on the one hand for not honouring their undertakings, but when the Government comes forward with the legislation to implement the undertakings it has given, they wish to obstruct and delay the implementation of those undertakings.

Surely that is not true!

I do not understand it; surely it does not make any sense. In his Opening Address this year the State President said that specific legislation would be disposed of at specific times, if the House passed it. The legislation still outstanding on the Order Paper—it makes no difference which hon Minister is responsible for the legislation—has a bearing on that undertaking. As far as it is possible, within the rules of this House, to honour that undertaking, I am not going to flinch from doing so, nor will my hon colleagues.

†I would like to come to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North in this regard. I think the hon member owes the hon Chief Whip of Parliament an apology because he accused him of absence without even trying to establish his reasons for being absent.

I only pointed out that he was absent!

I want to tell the hon member that the reason why the Chief Whip of Parliament is absent is because he had to attend a funeral. I was trying to convey that information to the hon member to prevent his making an unjustified attack on the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. The hon member will understand the spirit in which I am making this observation.

It is not his fault that we have this problem—it is the fault of the Cabinet.

Did the hon member not listen to the point I was making? Does he not understand Afrikaans?

That is the point I was making!

The point the hon member made was that the hon Chief Whip of Parliament would be here while this motion was being discussed. If one of them cannot get round to doing so, he ought to be courageous enough to apologise for that. Then one would be able to retain respect for him. [Interjections.]

I want to deal with one final fundamental point. It is concerned with the question of adjournment at a specific time. Hon members know that reaching a specific time for the disposal of legislation depends on the conduct of hon members of the House.

It depends on their co-operation, not on the Whips.

It depends on hon members’ cooperation. We were being accused of not being able to direct the legislation, and that our Ministers therefore cannot administer the country. However, Parliament must also be administered, and one of the elements is the dissipline the Whips must exercise over members. I maintain that the Whips of certain parties have no control over their own members.

It is the NP! [Interjections.]

The second element of parliamentary administration I want to mention is the fact that it is not only based on discipline, but also on co-operation.

The fact of the matter is that the Government, apart from a security responsibility, also has the responsibility of causing the Bills, which create the rules and instruments which have to be created by legislation to administer and govern this country, to be passed in Parliament. If we do not get co-operation, we must do so in the way suggested in my motion.

Mr Speaker, before we adjourned yesterday afternoon I was making certain remarks about the speech of the hon member for Greenpoint, and this morning I should like to refer to two further aspects of it.

The hon member for Greenpoint referred to the involvement of the Police at Crossroads and made the accusation that the Police had apparently taken sides between the warring factions there. I do not wish to dwell on this matter at any length, except to repeat that the Police did not choose sides in the battle being waged at Crossroads. [Interjections.] The hon member does not have to agree, but the Police did their level best, for days on end, to keep the warring factions apart with the least possible loss of life.

Although this is one of the duties of the Police, they have to do it with great sacrifice, in extremely unfavourable weather conditions and at great risk to their lives, because both sides shoot at them continuously with sharp-nosed ammunition. Handguns, rifles and even AK47 rifles are used. Few members of the Police Force doing duty at Crossroads are not trained in counter-insurgency and have not served on our borders where they have learnt to recognise the sound of an AK47 rifle the moment the first shot is fired. They are fired at with AK47 rifles, amongst other things. Until a day or so ago the Police could not even enter the area in unarmoured vehicles because of the mortal danger that would have involved.

Even in these circumstances I have not yet heard one word of appreciation from that hon member, personally or on behalf of his party, for the Police who have to perform their task in those difficult circumstances. [Interjections.]

He hates the Police!

When the hon member spoke here yesterday, he knew of the urgent new supplementary arrangements made by the Commissioner of Police and by me to bring the situation under control on an impartial basis. The hon member cannot point a finger at me and say that I tried, in any way, to favour anyone by these arrangements. In giving my instructions I requested that Crossroads be dealt with immediately, as far as security was concerned, irrespective of who was involved, because we could not allow the situation there and in other Black residential areas of Cape Town to become any more chaos. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that law and order are maintained there. [Interjections.] There has nevertheless not been a single word of appreciation from the hon member for the Police action and/or the Government’s point of view in this respect.

Far too late!

I shall now deal with the final matter to which the hon member referred. He alleged that I had, during the discussion of this legislation over the past two weeks, moved nearer to the right-wing parties than I had ever been before. The hon member said that the Minister of Law and Order had never been as close to the right-wing parties as he has been during past two weeks. [Interjections.] There is no way in which the hon member can upset me by saying that. What is of importance here?

Whether I am near the left-wing party represented by the hon member or the two right-wing parties represented in the House is of no importance. What does matter, however, is where I want to be in relation to these parties’ standpoints on security matters. I do not want to be seen near that hon member’s party when it comes to security matters, because who are their fellow-travellers?

They are the UDF, the ANC and other organisations of that sort. During this debate the hon member identified himself with those people. He just made one favourable comment after the other here. It is a pity the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was not in the House during the first debate to hear his members make one speech after the other proclaiming the circumstances and actions of the people to whom I have referred. That is why I am telling the hon member for Greenpoint that, as far as security matters are concerned, I would rather be associated with the two right-wing parties who fight enthusiastically at our side for the security of South Africa and do not drag their feet as he and his colleagues have done regarding the matter before the House. That is what it is all about. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Durban Point said here yesterday: “If the Minister had not been so stubborn we could have reached an agreement.” He issued a statement to Die Burger, which published the following report this morning:

He was referring to the declaration of a state of emergency. The report continues:

Now I am being blamed for the fact that we have a state of emergency! [Interjections.]

Let us look at the situation briefly. The hon member made that accusation, but what are the facts? The hon member said that he had an objection, in principle, to the Bill before the House. Why did he have this objection? Because he wants a procedure for review embodied in the legislation, and because the Minister does not want to include one, the hon member is not in favour of the measure. The hon member is not being consistent. The principal Act was passed in 1953 and there is no difference, in principle, between the amending Bill before the House and the 1953 Act. There is a procedural addition regarding the declaration of unrest areas, but there is no difference, in principle, as far as the detention, arrest and treatment of people are concerned. What is more, this legislation has been implemented twice since the hon member became a member of the House. According to what the hon member for De Kuilen said yesterday, he and the hon member for De Kuilen were the two hon members of the old United Party who encouraged the party to support the state of emergency legislation in 1960.

Why was a state of emergency declared in terms of the principal Act? In July last year a state of emergency was declared. In terms of that state of emergency, regulations were promulgated, and the provisions in the amending Bill regarding the promulgation of regulations are the same as those contained in the principal Act. The hon member made no objection then, however.

We did object. [Interjections.]

People have been detained in terms of the emergency regulations just as they were in 1960. Not once in his entire political career has the hon member ever objected to the detention of people in terms of the emergency regulations in 1960. If I am wrong, the hon member may prove it by referring to Hansard. [Interjections.] Last year the hon member did not utter one word of objection against the detention of people in terms of the emergency regulations.

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

No, please wait a moment.

He did not utter one word of objection. The hon member is now, for the third time in his life, dealing with precisely the same principle. What, however, is the attitude of that hon member and his party? [Interjections.]

This matter has been before the standing committee since 18 April. It is public knowledge. A few days before the first second reading debate began, the hon member and I happened to meet in the street outside this Chamber. He was on his way to the Verwoerd Building and I was on my way here. He mentioned, in passing, that he had problems with the question of a procedure for review and that I should give the matter a little attention. I then told the hon member that it would be a good thing if he formulated his standpoints; we would then have a look at them. With that, we went on our way. Such is the great seriousness of the issue.

The debate commenced the next day, and the hon member brought me a note, saying that that was what he would like to see as a procedure for review. I thanked him and said that I would look into it. It appeared on the Order Paper the next day and, before it could be given any consideration, the hon member and his party walked out of the House when the principle of the Bill had to be voted on. [Interjections.] He walked out of the House. We had not even considered his proposed amendment, but he walked out of the House. What nonsense! [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Yet he wants to blame me.

This matter came before the standing committee. I have the standing committee minutes here. I have the full record of how everyone voted or did not vote. What happened in the standing committee? Before the hon member’s amendment was considered, the representative of the hon member’s party walked out of the standing committee. No, pardon me, he abstained in the standing committee. [Interjections.]

It was never put!

As far as the hon member for King William’s Town is concerned, I have here the official minutes in which he is said to have abstained.

The amendment was never put! [Interjections.]

Then the hon member must take the matter up with the Speaker. If he wishes to dispute an official publication of the House, he must take the matter up with the Speaker. I base my statement on the document I have in my possession. He abstained. [Interjections.] He was not prepared to vote on the principle of this matter on behalf of his party. The amendment was not even under consideration yet, but the hon member for Durban Point alleges that I am the cause of the state of emergency because I did not accept his amendment. His amendment had not even been considered, but before it could be considered—before the hon member knew what the Government’s standpoint was—he had twice either walked out or refused to vote on the principle underlying the legislation. [Interjections.] He should not, therefore, sanctimoniously tell me that I stood in the way. His amendment was not even considered.

I want to ask the hon member for Durban Point if he knows what the facts are. [Interjections.] My team of advisors and I spent hours, days, beforehand with members of that standing committee discussing and debating their amendments in an attempt to accommodate one another. In that discussion I was prepared to go as far as agreeing to a 60-day provision. There were hon members in that standing committee who summarily rejected this and insisted on 30 days or nothing. [Interjections.] This is what I have to deal with. This is the sort of attitude I encounter when I introduce legislation in the House. It is not a question of seeking consensus, but one of extortion. It is simply a question of 30 days or nothing.

The hon member must therefore not hold me responsible for the fact that we have a state of emergency in the country today. Nobody else has, in the past two and a half months, leaned over backwards as far as I and people on the Government side—the chairman and other members of the standing committee and our advisors—have done to reach consensus on these matters. That is, however, something I should like to discuss in a moment when we come to the other procedure. I therefore simply want to tell the hon member for Durban Point that his objection …

But you refused to …

… was not based on the principle. Why are he and his party not prepared to vote for the same principle which they have been party to since 1953 and which they have supported in practice? Suddenly they are against the principle! Why, then, do they not vote against it? Each time they walk out of the Chamber! That is the old method which the “Sappe” always used. Why do they not vote for or against it so that one may know where they stand? No, I regret to say that the hon member is being unfair if he holds me responsible. I went out of my way to seek consensus. His amendment was not even discussed, and yet he persists in blaming me.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister if it is not true that he refused to react to my amendment in his reply to the second reading? He said that he was not prepared to give an undertaking and refused to refer to it. Is it not also true that we have always accepted the fact of a state of emergency, but not permanent legislation in that respect, as will now be the case?

Sir, can the hon member for Durban Point tell me what the 1953 legislation was, if not permanent? Surely an Act is permanent! What is the difference between the permanence or impermanence of declaring an area an unrest area and that of declaring a state of emergency? Surely this Act provides for precisely the same thing!

I told the hon member that I was not prepared simply to give an undertaking across the floor of the House and to say I would accept a period of two months, because what has my experience of this negotiating process taught me? I am not referring to the hon member for Durban Point or his party, but I have noted that something can be accepted one day, even in the presence of the State President, and yet be subject to a complete turnabout the next day, and then there is no question of acceptance. One really comes to a point where one realises that one cannot simply continue giving undertakings if people change their standpoints every day! That is why I refused and told the hon member that I had reached a stage at which I would not give any further undertakings, and that the matter would have to be discussed on its merits in the standing committee and/or further in Parliament. There was no question of summarily rejecting, across the floor of the House, the suggestion contained in the hon member’s amendment. I was simply not prepared to give an undertaking in the manner in which the hon member wanted it done in the House. That is what it was all about.

I shall try to proceed with more haste. Before I deal with specific speeches I should like to thank, very sincerely, all hon members who made contributions here in the House as well as in the standing committee. I also thank them for the trouble they took over their speeches and for their support. I should specifically like to thank those who did their best to speed the passage of the legislation by means of all the available parliamentary procedures.

As far as the speech of the hon member for Houghton is concerned, I am unfortunately obliged to say that there was nothing new in the speech at all.

We have been dealing with the same Bill…

I shall therefore try to save time by not responding to it in detail.

I should like to dwell briefly on one or two other speeches. I also thank the hon member Mr Theunissen for the contribution he made on behalf of his party. One or two hon members of the Official Opposition referred to the speech of the hon member for Roodepoort after he had taken a stand concerning a procedural matter and, secondly, concerning a possible amendment which he felt could be introduced into the Bill. I should like to place on record the fact that the hon member for Roodepoort has absolutely no problem, and has never had any problem, with the principle of this legislation. He is, in fact, someone who takes the trouble to devote all the time at his disposal to a matter with which he is involved, to make a study of it and to try to make an positive contribution in our study groups, in the caucus and in Parliament. That is what the hon member did. He is a trained legal man. He is entitled to his standpoint on the procedural steps he would like to suggest, namely whether this particular provision should not rather be incorporated in other legislation, and whether or not it is desirable to proceed with this legislation. I want to place on record the fact that the hon member explained his standpoint and discussed it with me and with his colleagues as would a disciplined member of any caucus in Parliament. I told the hon member very frankly that he was completely entitled to such a standpoint in this House. He is also entitled to it within the disciplinary framework of his party. I should therefore like to tell hon members that I have absolutely no problem with this; I experience nothing but the utmost cooperation from the hon member who is doing his level best to contribute to the improvement of an existing Act and to ensure that a good Act is placed in our Statute Book. Hon members may, therefore, rest assured that no one has an axe to grind as far as this matter is concerned.

But what is the answer to the question?

During the previous debate I placed on record the fact that untruths have been uttered in the House, and that untruths have been put about by the hon member for Sandton. The hon member for Sandton was again guilty of an untruth during this debate. [Interjections.] During the previous debate the hon member expressly said that the Police had a “licence to kill”. I want to refer to his exact words again in order to place this matter on record, so I shall quote from his unrevised Hansard of 2 June, although I cannot see how this can be modified in any way:

In my subsequent speech I personally rebuked the hon member for taking such a stand and asked him whether he had reported a murder to the Police if he had, in fact, witnessed one. Those were more or less my words; unfortunately I do not have my Hansard before me. No, he did not do so. I then told him to show the House proof of incidents in which the Police had murdered members of the public. The hon member is protected here; he is among objective people who will judge objectively. I invited the hon member to present his facts to the House. In his last speech the hon member said that the hon the Minister of Law and Order had challenged him to present the House with proof of cruel acts perpetrated by the Police, which he then proposed to do. That is more or less what he said. By way of a question I then told the hon member that that was not what I had imputed to him. I then asked him if he agreed that the particular facts to which he had referred were relevant to his statement that he had personally seen those murders take place. Those are the facts to which I was referring. I did not challenge the hon member in my speech to provide details about acts of cruelty by the Police. I asked him to inform the House of details of murder committed by the Police. That is what I asked him, but he remained silent on that score. That is my reason for saying that he has again told the House an untruth. While the hon Chief Whip was making an interjection, the hon member for Sandton quite casually said:

These are the words of the hon member with whom we have a seat here. That is why I say that, as long as he lives, that hon member will be known in this House as the hon member who told an untruth here.

Mr Speaker, would the hon the Minister agree with me when I say that he has changed his stance completely during the past year or so in that whereas originally, when we came along with allegations of Police brutality he said he wanted an affidavit, and when we came along with affidavits, he then said we had to submit properly tested affidavits, subsequently, when we submitted tested affidavits, he demanded the testimony of an eye-witness to the alleged brutality to accompany such affidavit?

No, I have never said that!

Does he agree that he has changed his attitude?

That is a red herring!

No, Sir, the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition is not going to get away with that! I never said that!

Do not try to get him off the hook!

Sir, I challenge the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition to prove what he has just alleged. I have never said that.

You said that to the hon member for Sandton!

I have never said that! I have never said to any hon member of the PFP I would have an allegation investigated provided he could call an eye-witness to the alleged crime. I challenge the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition to prove that I have ever said that. [Interjections.]

*Mr Speaker, I wish to say here and now to the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition that he should not tell an untruth too at this point when I have already accused one of his hon fellow party members of telling an untruth. What he is charging me with now is an untruth. [Interjections.] I tell him that to his face!

Abortive rescue attempt, Brian!

Mr Speaker, I am grateful that the hon member for Sandton withdrew his reference to the Nuremberg trials. I am very grateful. Nevertheless I should still like to know from the hon member what he really had in mind in making that reference here. After all, he said in his previous speech that when the true majority—the Black people— came into power, as represented by Mr Mandela, then that would be the opportunity for things to happen in South Africa. He referred to certain discussions that would have to take place. Since the hon member has now withdrawn his reference to the Nuremberg trials I should like to know from the hon member—and he can reply to this later—whether he had anything in mind in this regard. Did he or his friends have anything in mind in this regard for when they, perhaps, come into power in South Africa?

Oh yes!

The hon member would do well to tell us about it later, Sir. After all, I know the hon member for Sandton. He is a very intelligent person. He does not say these things for no reason. Nor is it for nothing that he refers to his friends.

He does so in a calculated way.

Or perhaps out of pure stupidity.

When the hon member for Sandton says things of that kind here it is not because he simply sucked them out of his thumb. He can tell us later what he and his friends meant thereby. [Interjections.]

In the course of his speech the hon member for Berea said inter alia the following, and I quote (Hansard, 11 June 1986):

Hear, hear!

Yes, that hon member can agree if he likes. The hon member for Berea goes on, however, to say:

The hon member for Berea then goes on to refer to a report on a message conveyed on my behalf to the SA Police in regard to which a report appeared in the Cape Times on Wednesday morning. In this regard he also touched on most of the matters which also appear in a Press statement issued by the Official Opposition. I should of course like to refer to the relevant Press statement. It is a Press statement issued by the Official Opposition concerning both this legislation and events which took place here. Some of the Nasionale Pers newspapers—I think it was Die Burger and Beeld—refer to it as a publicity stunt. I wholeheartedly agree with those two newspapers. The Official Opposition really came up with a proper stunt here.

Right at the start of the sitting the day before yesterday the hon member for Berea dramatically gave notice that he was to move that this House had no confidence in me as Minister and that my resignation was therefore demanded. [Interjections.] Subsequently the hon member for Berea made the speech from which I have just quoted extracts. Moreover, at the same time a Press statement was issued by the Official Opposition in which I was also attacked. That Press statement was published in the newspapers that same afternoon. Because that Press statement certainly concerned the things that we are dealing with here I wish to deal briefly with a few aspects in that regard.

In that Press statement the Official Opposition states inter alia, and I quote:

Now I ask the hon member for Berea to inform this House what people regard the Police in this light.

Only that Tiaan van der Merwe! [Interjections.]

Is it only the people who come off worst who regard the Police in that light? Is it the hon members of the Official Opposition who regard the Police in that fight? [Interjections.] It is after all the people who are severely dealt with by the Police who adopt this view. Surely it is the people who are locked up by the Police when they engage in wrongdoing. Surely it is the people who threaten our security situation. It is surely those people who regard the Police in that light. However this is raised by the Official Opposition because some—not all—of those members agree with this. According to this Press statement the hon member says the following, and I quote:

Surely it is only the Progs and the Cape Times and their friends who say that. [Interjections.]

And the whole community on the Cape Flats.

It is only the Progs and the Cape Times and their friends who say so and surely I have identified their friends. Their friends consist of every single left-wing radical in South Africa. [Interjections.] That is who their friends are. According to this Press statement they go on to say that they lay the responsibility at my door. I quote again:

I must have a magistrate or a judge or an ombudsman behind every policeman and then they will be happy. Wherever the police take action they want an ombudsman. A policeman must not be able to move without someone checking through binoculars whether he is taking the correct action or not. That is how those hon members want a police force to be—absolutely paralysed! That is what they want. I now ask those hon members, who are always so full of the Rule of Law and the authority of the Supreme Court: What about the authority of the Supreme Court in the handling of security matters in South Africa? Inherently there are no limits on the Supreme Courts as regards attending to these matters and monitoring the actions of the Police and all other security forces at all times, from that angle. However that is conveniently forgotten.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take a question?

I said the other day that I would not answer that hon member’s questions for the reasons I provided to the hon member. We can exchange questions during the subsequent debate if there is an opportunity, but not during this debate. According to this report the hon members say:

“Country-wide appeals” by whom, I ask? These “country-wide appeals” come only from the Progs and their friends, the UDF and every organisation under them which regard the Police as their enemies. These are the country-wide appeals to which they referred.

The appeals also come from the entire community on the Cape Flats.

Hon members can glance at the newspapers of the past two to three years, and I am certain I will see that scores of those requests came from those hon members. They request judicial commissions of inquiry for every little incident that occurs. I say again, these are their “countrywide appeals”. But I can tell hon members that I can give them a list of telephone calls, telegrams and other messages that have come streaming into my office, and into the offices of other hon members, in support of what we are dealing with here, in support of the Police, in support of the security legislation, and now, too, in support of the state of emergency. They talk about “countrywide appeals”; I can give them proof of “country-wide” support for the Government, coming from all population groups and from all political parties represented in this House. There have even been messages of support from Progs. These, however, have come from intelligent and sensible people in their ranks.

These hon members issued an official statement, which read as follows:

A third of those people, however, were murdered by their own people, and in the cruellest way! Nevertheless this has been laid at my door, particularly the necklace murders and all the other murders that are taking place. But when do we ever hear a strongly stated standpoint in this regard from the members of that party? After the hon member for Brakpan had referred to the standpoint of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition the other day, they suddenly did an about-face. Yes, then they were suddenly able to change their tune. Before that, however, they did not say a word about those things. [Interjections.] But those murders in those situations are laid at my door.

I should now like to quote an even more ridiculous passage:

I ask you, Sir, what am I as Minister of Law and Order to do? Where do my responsibilities be in regard to housing, health conditions, and that kind of thing in respect of the Black communities? However, I am charged with these things in a Press statement which cannot be described as anything else but a ploy. I almost used another word to describe it. Now the hon members are saying that what put the seal on their decision is the fact that a message was broadcast to the Police in the Crossroads area over the loudspeaker system, in which regard I was quoted as follows in the Cape Times. “Keep it up. I will answer all questions at the top.” This is cited as the final and main reason that gave rise to this Press statement which was issued. In the first place I want to say that those words were spoken to the men over the loudspeaker system. It was not intended for the ears of the public, but if a bona fide Press man heard it, it is nothing I resent. In the second place I want to say that these words were the own words of that well-intentioned officer. I did in fact send those policemen a message as their responsible Minister, because we always co-operate as a team. Hostile attacks are being made on them day and night—if hon members read the Cape Times of yesterday morning, that is one complaint after another about the actions of the SA Police.

What about an inquiry?

The hon members of the Official Opposition cannot open their mouths without making attacks on the SA Police. They walk around in those areas and refuse to look for a shred of evidence in favour of the SA Police, only for evidence against the Police. When hon members saw the day before yesterday’s edition of the Cape Times, surely they could have seen that from beginning to end it was all one series of photographs, and those were photographs of the “Comrades”. Surely one can see on whose side the hon members are fighting, but now we are accused of these things. That is why I said, and sent to the policemen working in those areas in the rain and wind and unpleasant and dangerous circumstances, a message to keep up the good work they were doing. I also said that they should see to it that they kept within the provisions of the law, because the eyes of the world were focused on them.

Did you say that?

I also said they should not be concerned because I was their responsible Minister and I would look after their interests here, where I have to act so that they can continue to do their work. The hon members of the Official Opposition can accuse me everyday of supporting the Police, and say that I am fighting with them in the mud and mess in which they have to do their work. Hon members can move just as many motions and issue just as many Press statements as they like, but I shall stand by the SA Police through thick and thin, and we do not need their help.

That is noble!

They should preferable confirm to the people in this country that they speak here about “licences to kill”, and proclaim that kind of thing here. They should rather confirm that the hon member for Port Elizabeth said the Police should not use quirts, but should use rubber bullets.

I did not say that. [Interjections.]

Yes, the hon member did say that and it is on record.

Read it to me.

They must rather tell the country what they mean by their reference to Nuremberg trials. They should rather talk about that, and not issue Press statements in which they try to attack me in this way outside. Now I have to take cognisance in this House of these kind of statements that have already been issued outside the House and given to the newspapers.

Why don’t you have an inquiry?

In conclusion, therefore, I just want to place it on record that these parties and these hon members of parties who have applied these delaying tactics in regard to this legislation which is now before this House will have to live with their conscience because their conduct is one of the most important reasons why we a declared state of emergency today. The delaying technique which they applied inside and outside this House was one of the important reasons of the declared state of emergency. There is no rule in the book which was not utilised by hon members of the Official Opposition and of other parties in regard to the course of this legislation in Parliament.

This legislation, and the security situation in South Africa, does not revolve only around 16 June. Sixteen June and the days that will follow are part of a process in which we are involved. It is the general unrest situation. It is tragic to think that the Government has to argue and struggle to such an extent to get essential legislation on the Statute Book.

Essential?

The CP and the HNP supported us, but apart from that there was not a single party in Parliament that was prepared to support the Government in this connection. I want to give hon members the assurance, however, that we shall proceed with urgency to get this legislation on the Statute Book as quickly as possible within the rules of this House and Parliament, because it is absolutely vital to South Africa. I referred this House to the messages streaming into our offices from people who support this legislation. We know the public are on our side, and we know the country needs this legislation. That makes us all the more determined that this legislation will be placed on the Statute Book.

Question put: That the words “the Bill be” stand part of the Question.

Question affirmed and amendment moved by Mr P R C Rogers dropped (New Republic Party dissenting).

Mr Chairman, I move:

I should like to motivate this motion. As we all know, when the Standing Committee on Law and Order first met on this Bin, there was no consensus and, de facto, no quorum. The amendments which had been put on the Order Paper for consideration by the standing committee, therefore, were never considered. When the standing committee met again, after the Bill had been referred back to it by motions in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, it once again did not have the opportunity of voting on the many amendments before it.

It is true that there was a full informal discussion on each of those amendments, but they were never voted on so one does not know what the attitude of the committee would have been towards each one. Some of the amendments submitted to the standing committee were very important. This House has no idea of the arguments that were advanced when the standing committee considered the amendments informally. I believe that it is surely not only the duty of this House but that this House should wish to consider each one of those amendments so that it could perhaps improve the Bill which has just been passed at the Second Reading.

I want to mention one or two of the amendments which we would have moved from this side of the House. There is an amendment which deals with the indemnification clause which we believe—in fact, we know—will be inserted in any regulation which the hon the Minister will frame under this legislation. I might say, of course, that the declaration of the state of emergency and the very far-reaching regulations which were published yesterday, to some extent make this Bill and the one which follows redundant. Nevertheless, one hopes that the state of emergency is going to be a temporary measure, whereas we know that this Bill as it stands is going to be a permanent part of our legislation. Therefore, it is very important that if we can amend it to improve it, we do so.

One of the amendments proposed by the PFP was that:

I do not want to go further into that, because we have already discussed the effects of the indemnity clause on what we believe to have been Police excesses during the last state of emergency. So, I do not want to go into that again, but that obviously should have been fully debated and voted on in the standing committee. It should also be fully debated and voted on in this House so that one knows where one stands with members of Parliament and what their views are on giving a blanket indemnity to the Police for any act committed under this legislation.

Then the hon member for Green Point tabled amendments providing that no regulation should be framed which in any way affected the public’s right to know; in other words the ability of the media to report on unrest areas or to film events and in other ways inform the public of what is going on.

Then there is what I consider to be the most important amendment of all, and that is the amendment to clause 4, section 5B. Now, the hon the Minister himself apparently was in discussions with the other two Houses and agreed that the proposed new section 5B should be omitted. I think that was taken over by the chairman and it was on the list of amendments to be considered by the standing committee. However, it was never voted on. Now may I remind hon members that the proposed new section 5B ousts the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court from staying or setting aside any proclamation, regulation or notice issued by the State President or the hon the Minister. It is a very far-reaching provision indeed, and it is one which the hon member for Roodepoort said he believed should be omitted from the legislation. I believe this House should be given the opportunity to omit that provision from the Public Safety Amendment Bill. The Society of Advocates of South Africa whose memorandum I have here says that:

[Interjections.] It further complains that the explanatory memorandum is disingenuous and—

The society also says that:

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, when the House adjourned for lunch I was trying hard to persuade the hon the Minister to accept a Committee Stage for the Public Safety Amendment Bill. I gave several reasons for this, and I was in the middle of presenting arguments which I hope would weigh with the hon the Minister since the arguments come from brother lawyers and colleagues of his, the Society of Advocates of South Africa, who objected strongly in their memorandum to the standing committee members to the ousting of the jurisdiction of the courts. They gave two main reasons for their objection. One was that it “undermines the status and the authority of the Supreme Court as a fearless arbiter of justice in the perception of the citizens of this country”, and the second reason is that “it creates the climate for the abuse of power”. We have had many examples given in this House of the abuses of power that have in fact taken place.

There is another legal association, the Association of Law Societies of South Africa, which also submitted a memorandum. On this particular measure, the proposed new section 5B the insertion which is sought in terms of clause 4 of the Bill, they say the following:

I do not believe there are any arguments that I need to add to the words that have been used by these two, I would think, highly revered associations, or associations that should be highly revered by the hon the Minister. Some of the hon members of his own party feel strongly about this. The hon member for Roodepoort told us this during the debate. The hon the Minister himself had accepted the omission of this clause when he discussed matters with the other two Houses.

I do not know for certain but I imagine that the other two Houses are going to move for a Committee Stage and, since the hon the Minister will not be in a position there, as he is here, to reject that request, they will obviously be effecting the amendments which they proposed at the Standing Committee.

I hope the hon the Minister is not going to act like a spiteful child and refuse to accept the amendments simply because, in his view anyway, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates had disappointed him to some extent evidently in not carrying out their undertakings. [Time expired.]

Personal explanation during debate

Order! The hon member for Stilfontein requested permission to raise a point of personal explanation. I now give him the opportunity to do so.

Mr Chairman, it appears from this morning’s debate about extended sitting hours that certain hon members feel personally offended by a speech I made in this House recently, and as a result are now withholding their co-operation.

I was not referring to any hon member in my speech and my speech and the quotations from Dr Heese’s book were used for the sake of argument, and were not meant to offend any person, group or population group, and I am sorry about any such incorrect interpretation.

Debate resumed:

Mr Chairman, I am reacting to the arguments the hon member for Houghton has just advanced. [Interjections.]

When one works in a standing committee, there are two processes in particular that one has to take into account. In the first place there is the standing committee which is formally in sitting, but considers the items on its agenda both formally and informally. The reason for the informal consideration of the relevant item on the agenda, on the list of the standing committee’s activities, is that the committee seeks to give hon members an opportunity of trying to see eye to eye with one another and to reach agreement. It is terribly important that we should understand that when we move away from a Westminster system to another system that is consensus-seeking, the processes and rules that apply in respect of the committees will not be the same as those that apply in a select committee in the Westminster system. [Interjections.]

During the informal consideration of the relevant measures by this standing committee, the Bills were thrashed out and considered step by step. I think it is important for the sake of completeness to place on record that the hon the Minister of Law and Order attended that standing committee as early as 18 April. The legislation was not even available at the time. The hon the Minister explained the contents of those measures and how they would work.

On 6 May the standing committee held another informal discussion, but had the measure on its table for consideration. The legislation has already been tabled and has been discussed.

The first speaker was, with respect, the hon member for Houghton who said she wanted to make it clear that she opposed the principle of the measure.

[Inaudible.]

I shall quote the hon member fairly. She may rest assured on that score. [Interjections.]

*The hon member made a second announcement by saying that if we wanted to declare a state of emergency, we should do so in his name and institute legislation accordingly. It was very clear, therefore, that the hon member for Houghton was opposed to the principle of the measure.

After a debate lasting 12 hours in this House, all the arguments had been thrashed out in the minutest detail. The fact is that some of the hon member for Houghton’s amendments have already appeared on the Order Paper and were therefore available for consideration in that debate.

And the hon the Minister’s amendment. [Interjections.]

Yes, and the hon the Minister’s amendment as well, of course. The matter was referred back to the standing committee in terms of Rule 33(1)(a) of the Joint Rules, and a profound consensus-seeking process once again took place among the majority parties of the three Houses. The matter was considered once again during an informal sitting of the standing committee.

There is something interesting here. Theoretically speaking, it was possible that if the amendments had been put formally, we could have returned to this House without a Bill. It was possible that no Bill would remain, and the hon the Minister would have been forced, if he wanted to have a Bill, to move it clause by clause during the Committee Stage, since if the clauses were voted down because there was no consensus, we would have had no Bill. That was a theoretical possibility.

I regarded it as my duty—in this connection I am referring to Rule 33(5)(b) of the Joint Rules—to draw it to hon members’ attention that if they moved amendments during the formal sitting of the standing committee, they would not be permitted to do so again here. Hon members voted against the principle that is to say the desirability of the legislation, but the fact is that their amendments are on the Order Paper today, whereas this could not have taken place otherwise.

I regard it as my duty to say briefly that we could not see eye to eye about the amendments that we moved because we differed with one another about the fundamental principle. I also regard it as my duty to tackle the hon member for Houghton, because she … [Interjections.] Sir, the hon member for Houghton is reprimanding me in a motherly way for using those words, and I accept this in that spirit!

She quoted two legal opinions in connection with the proposed section 5B, but neglected to make any reference to the submission of the Pretoria Bar Council in this connection. [Interjections.]

Order! It seems there are many hon members who are jealous of the hon member for Krugersdorp’s privilege. If they will keep quiet, the hon member may proceed.

Sir, my time is limited, and that is why I merely want to place it on record that there is no conclusive legal standpoint on this. Lawyers differ on this point. The Pretoria Bar Council expressly stated, for example, that their standpoint is that despite the retention of the proposed section 5B, there are still certain reasons on the grounds of which the matter can be considered. They referred in particular to grounds such as male fides and so on. I regard it as my duty to confine myself to saying that a legal opinion other than those two legal opinions to which the hon member for Houghton referred, was also before the committee.

Mr Chairman, we are living in exceptionally critical times. [Interjections.] A state of emergency in the country was declared yesterday. The State President said he was declaring this state of emergency because he had no legislation to deal with the situation in any other way. The hon the Minister of Law and Order said today it was really as a result of the PFP’s conduct that it had become necessary to declare the state of emergency. [Interjections.]

Just in passing I want to remark that I find it very strange that this is being laid at the PFP’s door, while two of the hon the Minister’s colleagues, who serve in the Cabinet with him, also put a spoke in his wheel. I do not know how one can proceed with this legislation, and how the country is to be governed in these circumstances! I merely want to say that the times are too critical and too serious for us to debate this Bill any further in these circumstances; it must be passed now.

In addition I want to say that I associate myself with the hon member for Krugersdorp in respect of the fact that there are differences of opinion about the courts’ inherent right to give judgment on this matter, viz on steps taken in this connection by the State President or the hon the Minister of Law and Order.

What is important, is that the hon the Minister conceded that the arguments of the hon member for Roodepoort and the academic arguments of the hon member for Helderkruin do not hold water, but that those of the CP are well-founded, and that that is why he is not proceeding with amendments. We are grateful that he conceded that. It is clear that we are correct in this connection, and that the hon the Minister is not withdrawing those amendments because of spite and niggardliness, but because he is convinced that we were correct in this connection.

Mr Chairman, I only have time to say that I hope the hon the Minister will accept the motion that the House go into Committee. If he does, and he accepts the amendment providing for a review board, then we will be able to vote for the Third Reading. That was the sole objection we raised during the Second Reading debate and we would support the Third Reading of the Bill if the review procedure, as set out in the proposed section 50A in the Internal Security Amendment Bill, were to be included in this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to place a few things on record very briefly. In the first place I am not prepared to agree that the House go into Committee on the Bill. I shall give hon members my reasons for this. One of the important reasons is the one also advanced by the hon members for Brakpan and Krugersdorp.

What course has this Bill been taking? Parliament has been dealing with the Bill for two months and we have got no further than discussing the principle of the Bill. As parliamentarians we have progressed no further after two months than a discussion of the principle of the legislation. How many weeks must we continue in this way? How many days must we continue with this? We are getting no further, and unfortunately I have the impression that there is no other political party in Parliament—with the exception of the hon members of the CP and the HNP— that wants to assist the governing party in a positive way to make it possible to finalise this legislation and place it on the Statute Book. There is simply no such thing. [Interjections.]

That is why we are dithering along, day after day. I think the hon member for De Kuilen has already mentioned that we are making history, since this is the first time since 1910 that two Second Reading debates about the principle of the same Bill have taken place one after the other. [Interjections.] How long must this go on?

That is why I say it must come to an end, but are we being unfair in this regard? I want to add immediately that we are not being unfair, because what is the position? The hon member for Krugersdorp pointed out that the earliest date on which Parliament began to discuss this Bill by means of the standing committee was 18 April. That was the earliest date. If I remember correctly, the principle of this legislation and its contents were discussed that day, without the hon members’ even having a printed Bill before them. This was done to save time and to enable them to get a background idea of what the legislation was about as quickly as possible. I personally appeared before the standing committee and explained all aspects of the legislation to the standing committee. I was also available to exchange ideas and answer questions about it.

Subsequently this Bill was discussed by the standing committee on various occasions. These discussions commenced as early as 6 May, after which they were continued on 13 May, as well as on 18, 19 and 20 May. Those were the sittings of the standing committee.

We did not vote on the amendments.

Because of the attitude of those hon members in the standing committee, they will not have voted on it even by Christmas.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Minister, on the assumption that he does not want to accept any amendments which have been moved by this side of the House, whether he would be prepared to go into Committee if he were given—and I will put it hypothetically—the undertaking that all that would happen is that he could move his own amendments as proposed by him?

I shall come to that.

On 23 May, members of the standing committee walked out of the committee room with the purpose of evading a decision on the question, but the question had already been put by the chairman of the committee. Upon his written request, the Speaker agreed that the chairman had followed the correct procedure, since the question had been put while the members were still in the committee. This was then accepted as the correct procedure, and this question was binding on the members, therefore. Formal and informal discussions were then held—even the State President, the Chief Whip of Parliament and I were present there …

Not with the whole committee.

Let me qualify: With members of the standing committee of the other two Houses. I just want to get my facts in order, since my time is limited too.

These discussions were held on 29 and 30 May, and then the Second Reading debate took place in this House and the other Houses. [Interjections.] This was done in the Houses on 4 and 5 June. The matter then served before the standing committee again, and once again the standing committee got no further than talking about the principle. There was not even an effort to get past the principle to the amendments. This was done with only one purpose in view, which was delaying politics and nothing else. It was nothing else, since there is no difference in principle between this and the existing legislation. There is no difference in principle in any stipulation between the amending Bill serving before the House and the existing legislation.

Will you reply to my question now, please?

Wait a minute, I am coming to it. I still have sufficient time left to reply to it. My standpoint with reference to the amendments—to the chairman as well as every hon member who wanted to talk to me about it—was always that when the amendments were considered in the standing committee, I would let a discussion of my amendments by the other members of the committee suffice. There was no question— and I want to place this on record—of my trying to threaten anyone at any stage, or doing anything improper in respect of the amendments. I said throughout that I adhered to the amendments I had proposed. Members of the committee asked me about this, and my answer was affirmative every time. What can one do, after all? I affirmed that my amendments would remain before the standing committee as long as all the amendments were discussed by the committee. I said, however, that if the amendments lapsed because of the procedure in the standing committee, my amendments would lapse with all those of the other hon members. There is no question, therefore, of my being able to be accused—by whosoever, and in good faith or not—of pettiness in this connection. With reference to this, the Cape Times spoke about “parliamentary petulance”. Naturally I am not here for the sake of the Cape Times. There is a whole series of Afrikaans words for “petulance”, but the one I believe suits this context best, is “knorrigheid”. I regard this as being the best one in the whole list given in the dictionary in which I looked up the word. I want to place this on record in the presence of all hon members—there is no question of that. I am not “knorrig”. I said as long as the amendments served before the standing committee, mine would serve there too. I made it clear that I would not step back, regardless of the attitude of every opposition party in all the Houses. No one must accuse me, therefore, of stepping back with reference to this.

When all the amendments before the standing committee lapsed, however, mine lapsed as well.

Why?

Why? [Interjections.]

Why, Mr Chairman, should I be the only party to lean over backwards? Why should the Government be the only party to lean over backwards? No one in this House—except the Conservative Party and the HNP—is prepared to lean over backwards with us to try to reach consensus.

That is not true! [Interjections.]

Just give me a chance, please! Please, just give me a chance! No one else helps us to reach consensus. For two months this Government had to lean over backwards in an effort to reach consensus. For two months! We made full use of this parliamentary process which we established with hon members on the opposite side. There is not a single person who can point an accusing finger at us. Even the State President came to speak to committee members. He came of his own accord. He came to try to persuade them. Why? Because he was also very eager for us to reach consensus. That is part of our parliamentary pattern.

The chairman of the standing committee, the hon member for Krugersdorp, worked with the members of the standing committee day and night. They did this with the greatest patience and good nature. Why? To reach consensus among all the involved parties. Until today we have got no further than to take a decision on the principle of the legislation. That is why I say we have talked long enough. [Interjections.] We have really talked long enough. There is such a thing as urgency in this matter. We must reach finality on it. The hon member for Yeoville asked whether I would be prepared for us to accept only my proposals in Committee of the whole House. Once again there is not even an effort from the side of the Official Opposition to mention a single example in which they will make an effort to reach consensus. Not even an effort, Mr Chairman! [Interjections.] No, the Government must lean over backwards again. We must again be prepared to say we shall permit a Committee Stage so that we can move our amendments. The fact of the matter is that the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper— the one with reference to the proposed new section 5B—is an amendment I proposed, with other hon members who asked for it. [Interjections.] All lawyers, including those of the Pretoria Bar Council, also insist that the proposed section 5B contains an imperative provision in this legislation. This does not mean that when I now insist that the proposed section 5B be retained, this amounts in any way to an aggravating factor in the legislation under discussion. Not at all! I have nothing on my conscience that obliges me to contend that the maintenance of the proposed section 5B weakens the legislation. Nor does it make the legislation ineffective. Not at all! In the same way I would have been satisfied had we not included the proposed section 5B in the Bill at all.

I believe, however, we have now reached a stage in which we must reach finality, and since I am satisfied that the inclusion of the proposed section 5B in the Bill will not result in weaker legislation, I cannot agree to any further argument about this. I have the complete list of proposed amendments before me. Unfortunately I do not have the time to read them all now. We did not agree to a single amendment proposed by the Official Opposition except the one with reference to the proposed section 5B. Finished! Over and done with! There is not a single other amendment from the side of the PFP which is acceptable to us.

The hon member for Houghton asked us not to promulgate regulations for the arrest of people. How must one deal with an emergency situation when one may not even arrest people? [Interjections.] The hon member for Houghton also said we must not make provision for indemnity clauses in the legislation in question. How must we send our Security Forces into those danger areas without an indemnity clause?

Business interrupted in accordance with Rule 33.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Section 50 of the Internal Security Act, 1982 (Act 74 of 1982), was enacted on the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation as a measure with which to combat unrest. At the time of the commission’s inquiry, unrest of the nature and extent to which it is presently being experienced, did not prevail. Notwithstanding the fact that section 28 of the Act also provides for preventive detention, the commission considered a provision such as section 50 necessary.

In the combating of unrest it is necessary for the South African Police to have powers of detention. Section 50 of the Act, which is still regarded as a necessary measure, is not effective in the combat of unrest of the nature and extent being experienced at present, as section 50 only provides for the detention of a person for a maximum period of 14 days. Experience has shown that the period of detention of 14 days which is provided for in section 50 is too short. Those who are involved in the unrest and who are detained in terms of the provision have to be released before the state of unrest in a specific area has been brought under control, with the result that their influence on the unrest cannot be neutralised.

It is essential to remove those concerned in fermenting unrest from the community for a long enough period of time in order to normalise the situation. There can be no doubt that the nature and extent of the unrest which has occurred since 1984 necessitate drastic measures. The continuation of unrest and intimidation adversely affects not only individuals, but also the interests of society as a whole. It is an accepted principle that where the interests of the individual is weighed against those of the community as a whole, the interest of the individual is secondary to that of the community.

*The provisions of the proposed section 50A will only be applied if the State President declares them to be applicable by proclamation in the Gazette. The State President may at any time suspend the operation of the section and thereafter, when circumstances necessitate it, declare it to be operative again. In order to exercise control over the implementation and suspension of the section, provision is made that every proclamation in terms of which the section is put into operation or suspended shall be tabled in Parliament.

†The period of detention provided of the proposed section is a maximum period of 180 days. If a person is still being detained after three months, the Commissioner of the South African Police or the police official designated thereto by him, must produce reasons before a board of review as to why that person should not be released. A board of review shall submit to the hon the Minister a written report on each case and if the hon the Minister rejects the recommendation of a board of review, the hon the Minister shall in terms of the provision of section 72 of the Act report the circumstances of each case to Parliament.

The Commissioner of the South African Police must also, as soon as possible after arrest, notify the hon the Minister of Law and Order of the name and place of detention of the person detained under the proposed section. Such a person may at any time make written representation to the hon the Minister who at any time may order his release. The person detained under the proposed Section 50A shall be detained subject to regulations made by the hon the Minister of Justice.

As I indicated during the Second Reading of the Public Safety Amendment Bill, specific directions regarding the treatment of detainees will be issued which will, inter alia make provision for a medical examination of persons being detained, access to such persons by relatives and legal advisors, the notification of a next of kin of the detention and the place of detention of such a detainee, as well as the informing of the detainee of his rights regarding the making of representations for his release to the hon the Minister and the making of representations to the board of review. On the Order Paper certain amendments also appear, which were accepted by me, following proposals made by members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. I also wish to thank them for these contributions.

Every government has the duty to ensure the safety of the public and to equip those who are entrusted with the task of protecting the public with those legal powers necessary to enable them to perform that duty. Hon members will agree with me that lawlessness and violence cannot be allowed to continue uncurbed. Human lives, in most cases those of Blacks, are lost in this process—more often than not in the most gruesome and barbaric manner. Damage of millions of rand is caused. In many cases community services and community life are disrupted. In the interest, not only of those who are affected by the unrest, but of the community as a whole, it is necessary that this Bill be passed.

Today I just want to add that the need for this Bill and the circumstances which led to the drafting of it are contained in the Second Reading speech above.

I withdraw the amendment under my name on the Order Paper. [Interjections.]

As is known, both the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates adopted amendments that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Law and Order. The standing committee reconsidered the Bill but could not reach consensus on the desirability of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, first of all I want to thank the hon member for Houghton for giving me the opportunity to lead off on behalf of the Official Opposition on this Bill. In case the hon the Minister thinks that the hon member for Houghton has either run out of steam, run out of spirit or run out of the appropriate invective I want to promise him that she will be back later during this debate. Therefore he must not smile too early.

The hon the Minister has told us quite casually that he made a speech on 4 June 1986 and everything is the same. Much has happened since 4 June 1986. First of all the procedure for this Bill has been blocked by other Houses—that is a significant factor. Quite apart from that, yesterday a state of emergency was declared on a nation-wide basis and that has a direct implication for this Bill because many of the features of this Bill are the same as the features of the state of emergency.

The hon the Minister said that it was a pity that I had not been in the House to listen to certain speeches made by some of my hon colleagues on this side of the House. I also regret that I was not in the House during those speeches and during the debate but this is the result of the crazy situation that has arisen because of the mismanagement of the legislative programme by the Government. Hon members of this House are sitting on important standing committees while simultaneously important Bills are being discussed in this House. That is what is happening and it is because of that that I was not able to be present when the speeches were made. Neither was I able to participate as I wished to yesterday and the day before in the debate on this Bill.

[Inaudible.]

No, I was with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

I did not accuse you—I said that…

No, I am not criticising the hon the Minister for his comment. I am drawing attention to the crazy situation that has developed in this Parliament. I can tell the House that this will happen throughout next week. We will be debating in this House but simultaneously senior members of the Opposition will be caught up in standing committees. I think not only this House but also the general public should know what a farce this ministry is making of Parliament as a result of this procedure.

The hon the Minister will be pleased to know that I was here to listen to his reply in which he attempted to justify wanting more power for the Police. At the same time he tried to defend his performance as Minister of Law and Order. I have known the hon the Minister for a long time and I have to tell him that his defence of his request for more power and his defence of his performance as the Minister of Law and Order was absolutely pathetic. It was pathetic! I could see from the hon members on that side of the House that the hon the Minister impressed no-one other than perhaps himself. [Interjections.] As the hon member for Berea has indicated by way of a notice of motion, and as we want to say once again, the irony is that instead of the hon the Minister resigning because of the mess he has made of the security situation in South Africa he comes to this House and has the audacity to ask for more power to make an even greater mess of the security situation. This time and in this Bill he does not only ask for power for the Police in terms of the previous measure but also power to detain people for up to 180 days.

We believe that this Bill has to be seen in the context of the Public Safety Amendment Bill which we have just debated. They are in fact twin Bills asking for extended Police powers. This Bill has to be seen in the context of the general political situation in South Africa and in particular of the declaration yesterday of a nationwide state of emergency.

It is interesting to note that the long title of this Bill reads as follows:

It is almost identical to the concept contained in the regulations promulgated yesterday. This is a legislative enactment of part of it and the other one is a gazetted proclamation that involves executive action. This Bill and its purpose is exactly the same as the proclamation of a state of emergency yesterday. Indeed there are certain common and almost parallel features.

This Bill makes provision for the detention of persons. According to the new section 50A(1) a police officer of or above the rank of warrant officer can first arrest a person for 48 hours. Then a commissioned officer of a defined rank can extend the holding in detention of such a person for a period of up to 180 days. There are also certain other provisions.

It is interesting to note that Proclamation 109 of 1986 in yesterday’s Government Gazette deals with roughly the same matters. It says that in terms of these regulations—not in terms of the Act—any member of the Force may arrest a person. He can detain such person up to 14 days—not 48 hours. Then the hon the Minister—not a commissioned officer—can thereafter detain such person for an unlimited period provided the regulations last.

Both in terms of the contents and the purpose of this Bill we are in an overlapping situation with the state of emergency as it was declared yesterday. I do not believe one can divorce what happened yesterday by way of proclamation from the consideration of this Bill that is taking place in the House today.

I want to make it quite clear that the record of this Government in the field of civil liberties, upholding the rule of law and access to the courts is an absolutely dismal one. It has been dismal over the years and the record of this Government in the field of detention without trial is nothing less than thoroughly disgraceful. If one wants the evidence for that, one should take into account the 43 deaths in detention.

The Government continues to play lip service to the concept of civil liberties. At the Opening of Parliament this year, the State President said the following on behalf of the Government:

This is what the State President said from a rostrum in this House. He went on to say:

The State President said this as recently as 31 January this year. He said that any civilised system “must ensure access to the courts and equality before the law”, and yet the Bill before us and the regulations which have been announced deny access to the courts. This Bill and that set of regulations are a denial of the fundamental principles of the rule of law.

Let there be no mistake about this: Now that one has had time to peruse the regulations proclaimed under the state of emergency which was declared yesterday, there is no doubt that they represent the most severe clampdown on civil liberty and the most far-reaching denial of the freedom of speech, assembly and the Press in the history of South Africa. That is the factual situation.

I put it to hon members that this Bill, the Bill we discussed previously and the state of emergency declared yesterday are more than mere legal documents. They are a reflection of a political reality. The political reality is that these measures are an admission by the Government, after all these years, that its policy has failed. It can no longer rule South Africa in terms of the rule of law, access to the courts or any other democratic precept. It is not the first time that this has happened.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who is partly responsible for the constitutional shambles in this country today, need not look so excited and tense. He knows that he is part of the problem.

Are you just being stupid or what? [Interjections.]

You’ve got a problem!

What a reply!

Just who is being stupid? We can start cataloguing what has been done in the field of constitutional reform that has aggravated the security situation in South Africa. The lack of sensitivity in the field of constitutional reform has in fact jeopardised the legitimacy of Government in South Africa. It is an essential and important ingredient of the whole conflict situation today.

Go and make a telephone call! [Interjections.]

You are a disaster! You can’t even use a telephone!

What a silly man!

The hon the Minister can bring that up if he likes, but it is not going to get him off the hook.

This is not the first time that the Government has come back for more and more power outside of the rule of law. It is not the first time that the Government has declared a state of emergency. The hon the Minister was not then a member of this House, but the hon member for Houghton and I were here when a state of emergency was declared after the shootings at Sharpeville in 1960. There was another one after the shootings in Soweto in 1976. Last year there was another state of emergency following the disturbances triggered off by the shootings at Uitenhage. Now we are in 1986.

It is interesting that the gaps between the states of emergency are getting shorter. I predict that we will be in a permanent state of emergency one day, unless the Government changes its policy.

Like Rhodesia!

If one examines the regulations issued each time, each state of emergency has been more severe and restrictive than the previous one. Each state of emergency bears traumatic testimony to the fact that, after 38 years in power, the Government is simply not fit or competent to govern a modern multiracial South Africa. [Interjections.]

Thirty-eight years after coming to power, the Government cannot say things like: “Die Sappe het dit nou verdoem en die hele ding opgefoeter”.

Give us the chance!

The NP has been in power for 38 years. It is 38 years since the “New utopia” of Daniel Malan came into being. They claimed to have the answers. They said there was going to be a new democracy for South Africa, and a new way to uphold those values. [Interjections.]

Thirty-eight years have passed since Daniël Francois Malan entered this House as Prime Minister with the new message from the NP; 25 years since we became a Republic; and 10 years since 600 people died in Soweto. After thousands and thousands of bannings, detentions, house arrests and detentions without trial this Government still has no policy that will make it possible for you, Sir, and me and the people outside to live in peace in this country. That is the simple indictment of this Bill and of the state of emergency. [Interjections.]

How many more deaths, bannings, detentions and states of emergency must we endure before this Government goes or changes its policy? [Interjections.] In a normal democratic country a government which has made such a mess of almost everything it touched would either resign out of a sense of guilt or split or at least call in other people who have the vision and the competence to try to lead the country out of a crisis. However, the Government’s response to the shambles it has created, is to ask for more power.

Yes!

More power, more power, more power, is the only response this Government has to the crisis situation in South Africa. Every time this Government grabs more power it makes the situation in South Africa worse.

The state of emergency which was proclaimed yesterday may because of censorship, lack of communication and Police action, produce a temporary facade of peace in South Africa. That might be the outward facade of South Africa, but behind that facade the problems, the bitterness, the frustrations and the anger will still be mounting up. The declaration of a state of emergency will do nothing to remove the fundamental causes of conflict in South Africa; on the contrary, it will intensify racial animosities. We believe it will accelerate the process of polarisation in the society and, regrettably, the prospects of peace in South Africa will be reduced.

I was interested to note in this morning’s paper the reaction of two relatively conservative bodies in South Africa to the situation which was proclaimed yesterday. The Federated Chamber of Industries in South Africa which has a very, very heavy stake in South Africa and is the heartbeat of our industrial production—they have perhaps, in terms of money, more to lose than many people in South Africa—reacted by completely dissociating itself from the strategy of political repression and economic isolation to which the South Africa Government is apparently committed. In a statement it said:

This is not the PFP, it is the conservative business community of South Africa which says:

Assocom whose people have a tremendous stake in this country—as we all have a personal stake—reacted by saying:

That is their attitude—I might express if differently—but they express the essence of our concern about the decisions and the developments which took place yesterday in conjunction with this Bill which is before the House today.

I hope hon members have now read the regulations in Government Gazette 10280 under Proclamation R109 of 1986. Hon members must consider for a moment the awesome powers which have been conferred on the Police—not on the Police collectively, but on every single policeman—to arrest, detain, enter, search, seize, confiscate, order, restrict…

Hear, hear!

Yes, I could have expected that from the hon the Minister. He is a restricting person. [Interjections.] Yes, that is what he is. His concept is to restrict, prohibit and interrogate. [Interjections.] Those are the phrases used in this proclamations. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon members of the PFP should certainly allow their leader to continue with his speech.

I hope that all hon members would curb their enthusiasm for a moment and let me get on with my speech.

Those are the phrases taken from the regulations in the Gazette. This is not Suzman, Eglin or Schwarz rhetoric. Hon members must bear in mind that all those powers which are now being conferred on other individuals acting on behalf of the State are being exercised under an indemnity and beyond any control of the courts. When one adds it all together one realises that as long as these regulations are on the Statute Book South Africans are indeed living in a police state. That is the reality that these regulations create. That is why we want these regulations removed. We do not want that stigma attached to our country. We want this county to be a democratic country. We want it to believe in the rule of law, and we want the Government of the day to uphold the rule of law and not to destroy it.

Indeed, when one reflects that these awesome powers outside of the protection of the courts and restricting individual freedom are taken without reference to Parliament, or that they can be taken without reference to Parliament, one realises how shaky the foundations of freedom in South Africa are. We are in any case on very shaky foundations of freedom in South Africa.

I do not want to go through all the details. Other hon members will deal with them in due course. However, I want to say that as I read those regulations, and as I read of the blanket exemption from any legal and civil action, and when I read the X clause in terms of which, when one has done all of these things, one can still do anything that one thinks is necessary, then all I can say is that these regulations as they stand are quite horrific.

[Inaudible.]

I will tell the hon the Minister why. The purposes of these two measures are identical and if the hon the Minister believes that the regulations are adequate, he should withdraw his Bill.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Can we have clarity on what the discussion of the emergency regulations under the Public Safety Act has to do with the amendment of the Internal Security Act?

Order! Firstly I want to say that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is referring to regulations and not to a Bill which had been passed previously. Secondly, I should like to point out that it is very difficult to distinguish between those two measures and to ensure that they are discussed completely independently. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is relating these two measures. The hon the Leader of Official Opposition may proceed. [Interjections.]

I understand the problems of the rules and the problems the hon the Minister has. He does not want us to deal with this matter. The fact is, however, that he has come to the House with a Bill which provides for the combating and prevention of a state of public disturbance, disorder, riot or public violence and matters incidental thereto. What we are trying to explain to him is that there are other ways of dealing with those problems other than the way in which he is doing it. One of the alternative ways is the one the State President indicated which we also think is wrong. We have indicated that there are other ways. We are debating the best ways and means of dealing with public disturbances, disorder, riots and public violence. In that context, quite clearly one is looking at what happened yesterday as a means of doing it. We are saying that the hon the Minister’s case has been aggravated. He is going to have more problems in implementing the measures provided for in this Bill, if it goes through, as a result of the state of emergency than if there had been no state of emergency. The state of emergency is going to aggravate the situation.

The hon the Minister is coming to this House to ask for special measures to combat public disturbance, disorder, riot and public violence. I want to say to the hon the Minister that if he wants to combat these things— and we all want to combat these things—I believe he should start by looking at himself. He should start looking at himself. If there is one hon Minister in this House who is part of the cause of the deteriorating security situation in South Africa, then it is the hon the Minister of Law and Order. [Interjections.] It is his failure, as the Minister responsible for law and order, to control, direct and to discipline his agents in the form of the Security Forces and the Police that has been the major cause of the conflict and violence which have taken the lives of people and torn the fabric out of our society. If the hon the Minister sincerely wants to get rid of violence, conflict and disorder in South Africa, I believe he should remove himself from those benches and let somebody else who is more competent take over. [Interjections.]

I say this with some regret but over recent months—and the hon the Minister is aware of this—the PFP has been engaged in an extensive programme of monitoring, and on occasion even trying to mediate wherever possible, in difficult unrest situations. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister is aware of this because on occasions we have had to consult with and deal with his department in this regard. I must tell the hon the Minister—who, in terms of this Bill, is concerned with combating unrest—that there are, I readily agree, certain exceptions on an individual basis and on an area basis. However, the overwhelming evidence that has come before us over the past few months, is that Police action and Police behaviour have been a significant contributory factor to the conflict situation. Those are simply the facts that have come to our attention and are not the result of our having started off with any preconceived attitude. Indeed, as my hon colleagues have said, it is regrettable that instead of the Police being part of the solution—and they are there to be part of the solution—under this hon Minister they have become part of the problem in South Africa. That is a simple reality. [Interjections.] With their shotguns, their sjamboks and their tearsmoke there is no doubt that under this hon Minister they have radicalised and consolidated communities into hostility against the authorities in a way which no party politician could have done. No politician could have done what the hon the Minister’s agents have done.

The hon the Minister may not know the Cape Flats very well, but there are some hon members here who do. I want to tell him that the activities of the Security Forces in the Cape Flats over the past year have radicalised and changed attitudes, and have changed that community from a relatively placid one into one which is united in its hostility towards the regime. That is the situation. [Interjections.] I can tell hon members that I live here, and I know the feel of that community. They should go to Mitchell’s Plain and find out for themselves. The situation has changed over the past year, for a number of reasons, but primarily because of the behaviour of the Security Forces. Make no mistake about that.

The hon the Minister came back to the question of Crossroads and KTC, and mustered some kind of spirited defence. He said: “Die Polisie het nie kant gekies nie. Die Polisie het probeer om die mense uitmekaar uit te hou.” He gave them an instruction to be neutral. I do not know why he had to give them an instruction to be neutral; I should have thought that they would have been neutral in any event. Perhaps he thought it was time that he stepped in. I want to know from the hon the Minister when he gave them that instruction. Did he do so after the damage had been done; after they had convoyed the “witdoeke” into that area; after they had sat back watching the situation? Is that when he gave the instruction? [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister feels agrieved on behalf, of the Police. I must say that I have sympathy for the position in which the Police find themselves in South Africa.

It does not sound like it.

They are caught in the middle. They are caught in between the oppressed people of South Africa and the oppressive laws of South Africa. They are at the interface. They have a really difficult job in any case. That is no excuse, however, for partiality or brutality and it is no excuse for closing one’s eyes to things that are wrong when one knows that they are wrong. I want to say to the hon the Minister that I have a high regard for the position and the problems of the Police. There is sufficient prima facie evidence, there have been sufficient photographs and sworn affidavits to indicate that there was a partisanship on the part of the Police and that they did not do their duty as one would expect a law enforcement agency to do. I therefore submit to the hon the Minister that he owes it to the Police to ask for a judicial commission of inquiry. [Interjections.] He owes it to the Police to do so. He did not object to a judicial commission of inquiry by Judge Kannemeyer into the Uitenhage incident.

I want to say that Uitenhage was important in that 19 lives were lost. It was important because it triggered off a series of events, but it pales into insignificance compared with the mayhem and the burnings that have taken place at Crossroads. It pales into insignificance! If there was reason enough to appoint a commission of inquiry in that case, then there is quite clearly a case for a commission of inquiry in respect of the performance of the Police and of the hon the Minister in relation to the shambles which occurred at Crossroads and KTC. [Interjections.] I put it to the hon the Minister that he must show his courage!

What courage? [Interjections.]

You are the last one who can talk about courage! Don’t you talk about courage with that lot of cowards behind you! [Interjections.]

Before the hon the Minister was even a departmental…

Mr Chairman, on a point of a order: Is the hon the Minister entitled to point his finger and say: “Those gentlemen behind you are all cowards”?

Order! Did the hon the Minister say that?

Sir, I was not pointing at the gentlemen behind the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I said: “With that lot of cowards behind you”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

Sir, I want to tell the hon the Minister that we are in fact not cowards and that he is not a coward either. I am not assuming that he is one. The reality is that prior to having had a proper departmental inquiry the hon the Minister expressed an opinion. The hon the Minister will recall that he did exactly the same before he went to Uitenhage. When certain allegations were made, he stood up in this House and said: “These are the facts …”. He then flew to Uitenhage and came back, saying that those were still the facts. They were in fact not the facts! [Interjections.] If the hon the Minister was wrong that time, why is he sure that he is right this time?

I said that within 24 hours in this House … [Interjections.]

Oh, and then the hon the Minister flew to Uitenhage. [Interjections.] No, I have no problem about that. However, within 24 hours the hon the Minister declared …

I have just said that I came back to this House within 24 hours … [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister then went out to Uitenhage. No, I did not say the hon the Minister came back to this House … [Interjections.]

Order! We are listening to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition stating the views of his party. He must be accorded the opportunity to do so. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may continue.

Sir, I shall try to let the hon the Minister relax more in respect of this matter.

Just stick to the truth!

Look who’s talking! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister responded in this House, then went to Uitenhage and subsequently confirmed that the information was correct. [Interjections.] He confirmed that he had been to Uitenhage and that the information was correct.

You are not telling the truth!

Sir, all I want to say is that if the hon the Minister was wrong last time, why is he so sure that he is right this time? Can he only be wrong once? [Interjections.] What staggers me is that while all of this was taking place and before he possibly had time to have even a departmental inquiry into the matter, he was sending out messages of congratulations. He told his people not to worry, that they were doing fine and that they should carry on. He said that he would answer the questions here in Parliament. Does that mean that he will defend the Police, no matter what they do?

Yes, it does. [Interjections.]

I want to know whether answering the questions means that he stands in the breach for them, no matter what they have done.

If it does not, then the time has come for an inquiry. We want to help the hon the Minister! If the Police have in fact behaved in the way it is alleged they have then I believe that nothing short of a judicial inquiry is going to be adequate to clear up this matter once and for all. [Interjections.]

I want to give another illustration of what I mean. A couple of months ago I did a tour of the country. I met various people who had been in sensitive areas. I ended up at Mamelodi at a time when there was great tension in that area. On that particular day there was a stay away from work and from the city of Pretoria. There had been conflict with the Police, alleged bombings of people’s homes by agents of the Police etc. I do not want to get involved in the truth or untruth of that situation. However, we tried very hard to come to grips just with the reality of that problem. In the end we found that the radicals rejected us. They said: “Whitey, we don’t want to talk to you!” and “MP, go home!” The reality was that the anarchists, the radicals, do not want to talk to us.

In the end we managed to find four articulate and, I believe, representative Black people of the middle group in that community. They came out to the NG Sendingkerk in Africa where we met, together with a young lady, a man with his leg shot off—on his other foot he was still wearing a soccer sock—and a lady with an arm full of buckshot. We met these people, not in the sense of interrogation; we actually wanted to find out how they felt. I want to make all the allowances for facts being wrong, but I want to convey to the hon the Minister the impact that this made on the …

The facts may be wrong. [Interjections.]

Well, there is mister clever again. The facts as they presented them may have been wrong; I am not arguing that. [Interjections.] I am talking of the impact, because in the end it is the perception that is in fact perhaps much more important; it is the perception of what is taking place. What were the statements of this group, sitting quietly in that African Sendingkerk? They say: “The Police are making war on us.” Hon members can argue whether that was true or not. That is the perception. They say: “We have lost all confidence in this Government”; and other things such as: “The Police and the Government are killing us.” Furthermore there are questions such as: “How much longer must our sisters be raped and our mothers be shot?”

By whom? [Interjections.]

I will come to that in a minute. [Interjections.]

“We have reached the stage where a lot of people are being killed”—I am telling of the overall impression. [Interjections.] “Apartheid kills slowly; the Police kill fast.” These are the statements whether hon members like it or not. In the end a Black policeman was killed in his home and his body was only discovered three days later. One of these people said: “I shudder when I find that I celebrate the death of another man.” This was the anguish of a person caught up in a situation like this. Somebody also said: “I have reached the point where death actually means very little any more, but we are not prepared to accept it.”

I would like the hon the Minister to understand—whatever the formal reports may be—the cry from the heart and the emotions of people caught up in this situation, and to realise that there is wrong on both sides. I believe in these circumstances the behaviour of the Police should be impeccable. In this situation the major part of the blame should not be identified with the people who should be the forces of law and order in South Africa. I put it to the hon the Minister that it is not good enough even to say “technically correct”—which is often not even the case. It is an image, a perception which the hon the Minister has to get across and he will not get it across as long as he defends everything the Police do.

I was overseas last week. This legislation has to do with the detention of people. Part of the emergency regulations has to give power to detain people concerned with unrest—and this involves the whole question of economic sanctions. These detentions are part of the regulations which were presented yesterday. Has the hon the Minister any conception of the disastrous impact which his agents are having on our South African image and the opinion overseas? Has he seen the film of the Trojan Horse? Has he seen that? I want to vomit every time I see that film in the company of people outside of South Africa. It was a frightening incident. I hope hon members will agree.

I presume the hon the Minister has heard of the AWB. I saw a film of the fracas at Pietersburg and that was followed up with an interview between Hennie Serfontein and Eugéne Terre’Blanche with his three-cornered-type swastika. I was sitting in that foreign environment with people all of whom were friends of South Africa. They were people who were basically either South Africans or interested in South Africa, and the behaviour of the AWB, their naked racism sickened the people who watched that film. It sickened them. That interview alone did untold damage, and all I could say to those people was: “That is not South Africa; it is the lunatic right-wing fringe.” That was my explanation of what it was.

The next film was even far worse. It showed big, burly policemen with sjamboks lashing, sjambokking and beating up young students as they lay or sat on the ground. [Interjections.] They picked them up and then lashed them and beat them again. What is more, when one looked at that they appeared to be enjoying the situation. [Interjections.] I do not know whether they were or not, but the hon the Minister is responsible. I can accept that these people may be the bad ones in the Police Force, but bad people—even if they are in the minority— taint the whole of a Force and we just cannot carry on like that. This is the hon the Minister’s responsibility. These people are not the AWB in action. They may be AWB members, but clad in that uniform they were the agents of the State and of that hon Minister. I believe that their activities did more damage to South Africa than even the activities of the AWB.

The hon the Minister comes to this House and asks for yet more power. He wants more power to detain people; power to detain people for up to 180 days. We in these benches say we are not going to give him more power. If he wants more power, we can tell him what he can do. He can team up with the Conservative Party. He can team up with the HNP. He can team up with his soulmates in the AWB. As far as we in these benches are concerned, however, we are not prepared to grant him any more power. [Interjections.] In these circumstances, Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

[Interjections.]

That was a real ANC speech!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary for an hon member to say of another hon member that he has made an “ANC-toespraak”, or to allege that hon members of this House are teaming up with the ANC?

Order! Which hon member said that?

Mr Chairman, I said that.

Order! What does the hon member mean by “teaming up with the ANC”?

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this matter? The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition …

Order! No, I want to know what the hon member meant when he said “they are teaming up with the ANC”.

Mr Chairman, I meant that they support the ANC in their actions in South Africa.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: I should suggest that you also order the hon member to withdraw the words “ANC-toespraak”. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, may I address you on that?

Order! The hon member may address me on that.

Mr Chairman, at the present moment, in accordance with the law of South Africa, the ANC is an illegal organisation. The ANC is committed to violence. We have only just received regulations in terms of which if one quotes from an ANC speech outside of this Chamber at this moment one is liable to arrest. Under those circumstances, Sir, I believe it is not even arguable that that is unparliamentary.

Order! In the Afrikaans idiom those words may have a different meaning. Therefore, I should like to give the hon member Mr Theunissen an opportunity of saying exactly what he means when he said that it was an ANC speech. What did the hon member mean by that?

Mr Chairman, I may explain the matter briefly by saying that if I should be asked what impression the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made on me this afternoon, I should say that the language he used was that of the ANC. [Interjections.]

Order! Yes, I do not think I can order the hon member to withdraw those words now without further consideration. I now call upon the hon member for Krugersdorp to speak.

Mr Chairman, I must say that while I was listening to the hon Leader of the Official Opposition I was seething with rage. I do not, however, intend to follow his example and be guilty of the same kind of emotional outburst which we witnessed on his part here this afternoon. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, I am going to try to react to some of his arguments. One thing that is very clear to me, however, is that the hon Leader of the Official Opposition has obviously become bogged down for hours, days, weeks or months on standing committees or has been abroad, for he has not come forward with a single new argument which affects the merits of the present measures in any way.

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition advanced arguments here which were previously repeated, hour after hour, to the point of tedium. Yet I think the one aspect which I blame the hon member for the most, is that he made a nasty and virulent personal attack on the hon the Minister and the SA Police. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, hon members of the Official Opposition gallivant abroad, sit on standing committees and visit all kinds of residential areas and who knows what other places as well. Then they come to this House and unleash one tirade after another against the hon Minister of Law and Order and on the SA Police. As far as I am concerned, this was an extremely poor performance by the hon Leader of the Official Opposition and his party colleagues. What has he not been guilty of? I have written down five allegations which he made against the SA Police. He accused them of a lack of discipline, an inability to take the lead, and also of acting in a radical way, and of being biased and cruel.

None of those five allegations were substantiated by facts and to refer to specific individual cases is of no use at all. To say that the way in which the hon the Minister of Law and Order defended himself was pathetic, is just as pathetic as his behaviour a moment ago and his conduct in this House. It was an absolutely pathetic gesture coming from a person who occupies such an important position in this House to say that the way in which the hon the Minister defended himself was pathetic.

What are the facts? The facts of this matter are that outside this House in South Africa two worlds have been unleashed on the Black community. Those hon members, as the hon Leader of the Official Opposition has just done, come here and testify to one world; the one world which fell victim to the so-called atrocities of the SA Police and the so-called undisciplined Security Forces.

However, they refrain from saying anything about the other Black world, a Black world which begs and pleads to be defended. Against what should they be defended, they say? They should be defended against undisciplined conduct, against people who are radicalising them and against the cruelties of people who are acting against them unilaterally.

There is sufficient evidence of a fury which is raging in the Black residential areas between warring forces, between people who in no way support the Government’s policy, but who are engaged in a power struggle among their own number.

For the sake of convenience, however, the complexity of that situation is being suppressed and ignored. It is so irritating listening to those speeches. I wish the hon Leader would go abroad again, because he does this country more good abroad. There at least he furthers South Africa’s cause, but here in this House he tries to imply that he is in possession of all the facts.

Is he a member of the ANC?

That I am not prepared to say, but the hon Leader is promoting the aims of those people in a very naïve way. [Interjections.]

Now I wish to deal with a further aspect. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition addressed the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Minister of Law and Order as though he had not even heard what the State President said yesterday. If he heard, he did not understand what the State President said. If he did in fact understand, he presented the relevant facts to suit himself. The hon Leader showed absolutely no sign of comprehending the complexities of the South African situation.

As far as the facts are concerned, we differ with each other. Because we differ with one another about the facts, we cannot agree with one another about the consequences. The first point I want to point out very clearly and which has been put made in this House, is indicated on page 7 of the Rabie Commission report. There it is made very obvious that certain existing grievances and contributory factors are the cause of the unrest, and that security measures are required to combat this unrest. But it is also stated that security measures alone cannot combat the unrest.

What case do those hon members then present? They say the facts do not justify these strict measures and powers which the Government is asking of the country. What kind of absurdity is that? Is there no dialogue amongst those hon members?

On 6 May, in a meeting of the standing committee, the hon member for Houghton challenged the Government to proclaim a state of emergency. If the circumstances were so serious, she said, as the Government was trying to imply, the Government should not request mitigating legislation of the kind we are now debating. No, she said, we should then proclaim a state of emergency and call a spade a spade. We then announced the state of emergency, but now hon members are complaining about it. They say the facts are not so serious as to justify a state of emergency. They do not justify a state of emergency, nor do they justify the measures under discussion.

The hon member said this debate was being conducted against the background of two factors. The first factor was the proclamation of the state of emergency. Then in an extremely superficial and cursory way, he referred to the powers which are being requested in terms of this legislation and the powers which have been proclaimed under the state of emergency.

It should be placed on record very clearly that the proposed section 50A of the Act can only be put into operation by way of a proclamation by the State President. It is not a measure which will be on this Statute Books in perpetuity. It is placed on the Statute Books by way of a proclamation by the State President. After a detention period of 48 hours a lieutenant colonel may detain a person for a further 180 days subject to the condition that a board of review approves of that further detention after 90 days. That is what the Bill states.

Despite the fact that a state of emergency was proclaimed yesterday, I can think of no single argument why we should not let this legislation go through. The state of emergency has been proclaimed country-wide, it includes wide powers and is concerned with more than mere detention.

Hon members cannot plead ignorance. One could almost say that it was on their cynical advice that we proclaimed the state of emergency. They said we should proclaim a state of emergency if we wanted one, and we should not ask for powers contained in this legislation. According to the state of emergency regulations any member of the Police may detain a person for 14 days, and if he wishes to detain that person for a longer period, he requires the signature of the hon the Minister.

A cardinal difference is that a person may be interrogated in terms of the emergency regulations, while that is not the intention in respect of this Bill.

I do not understand the superficial way in which hon members deal with extremely complicated matters. To say that we are talking about the same legislation, is utter nonsense; it is just not true. One does not understand how delicate the South African situation is today if one says the measure is not necessary and that we can rely solely on a state of emergency.

The evidence of the hon member now before this House has disturbing implications in view of the proclamation of the state of emergency. We told them a state of emergency could have been avoided, but hon members stubbornly challenged us to proclaim the state of emergency. I am not a person who wishes to become cynical about this, but I wish to state one thing categorically: If those hon members want to capitulate to people who are communistically inspired and simply want to surrender the country to them and to abdicate, I want to tell them that this side of the House is disinclined to do so.

I stated repeatedly during my first speech on the first measure that we realised what tremendous inroads it made on a person’s personal and private rights. We also realised what tremendous negative publicity the measure generated. One thing we said to one another, and are now repeating, was that we were in no way prepared to sacrifice the interests of South Africa for the sake of popularity.

It is cynical to remark that all that this side of the House is doing is to come here and plead for more power and that that is all we are capable of doing. We have made it very clear, and the State President also spelt out yesterday what steps he had taken and what measures he had adopted to recognise people’s civil rights, to help people on the road to reform and to accommodate them, and how he went out of his way to display a flexibility in regard to his reform policy. In spite of that we are being forced into this situation in which we now find ourselves.

Something which is very clear when one takes a look at the effect of section 50 of the Internal Security Act is that—I am sorry to say this—is that people are more afraid of the so-called “peoples’ courts” than of section 50. I am not saying this on the basis of the evidence of a police official or on the grounds of a security report, I am saying it on the basis of my own evidence. Those hon members correctly gave evidence—I do not take it amiss of them for doing so—of their experiences in the Black residential areas, but it is a one-sided picture of what is going on there.

What about all the people who came to us and pleaded for protection? What about the untenable situation in which the policemen find themselves? On the basis of my own evidence and several trips in Casspirs, and on the basis of my own discussions with Blacks in various situations in Black residential areas—I am referring to people who are not well-disposed towards this Government—I can say here that the provision in section 50(1) of detention for 48 hours by a warrant officer and further authorisation by a magistrate, is not effective in the times in which we are living. After their detention people return to the residential areas, merely to proceed with what they were engaged in when they were interrupted for a time. What do these people say? They say they were on holiday, and then they march in the streets under the banner of victory.

I wish to state categorically that it is not as though one were dealing here with a lot of power-drunk politicians, as the hon Leader of the Official Opposition said. I say on the basis of my own evidence that the people are more afraid of the “peoples court” with its punitive measures, intimidation and atrocities than they are of detention in terms of section 50 of the Internal Security Act, 1982. That is why we are amending the Act.

We are dealing with a revision procedure. We may differ with each other concerning the effectiveness and the duration of the specific review procedure, but there is an inherent revision procedure.

Hon members ask so easily—it is not happening in this debate because they are discussing other things—why we do not adopt the precedent which has been established in other countries such as Israel. There detainees are entitled to legal representation before the board of review. Hon members leave the matter at that and they conveniently omit to mention that the legal representatives have to have security clearance before that board of review. I want to say here and now that I do not trust all the legal practitioners in South Africa. [Interjections.] I am convinced that not all legal practitioners would be successful in obtaining security clearance.

I know this from my own knowledge of legal practitioners who participate at meetings and offer their legal advice there. On top of that they tell people that of they have problems with the Police, the legal practitioners will support them. I know about legal practitioners on whose behalf pamphlets were distributed with telephone numbers at which they could be contacted night and day. Any persons who found himself on the wrong side of the Security Forces, could call upon that legal practitioner. I wish to state here that I have no faith in those legal practitioners. I do not think those people would obtain security clearance. It is therefore a senseless argument to present the precedent of Israel to us as the alpha and the omega.

We are really ranting and raving at one another in this House. I find it a great pity that the earnest spirit with which we struggled, argued and debated with each other about the contents of the legislation during private, informal discussions and during the formal sittings of the standing committee did not come into its own in, what I could almost call the war situation which prevails in Parliament.

[Inaudible.]

It is a war situation of vociferous ranting and raving at one another. I am terribly sorry that that spirit of constructive criticism and extremely stimulating ratiocination was not reflected in the debates in this House.

I think the essence of the differences between some hon members lay therein that we did not appreciate the seriousness of the situation, but that it is not possible to create an effective measure if one wishes to accommodate everyone’s ideas and amendments. We are living in a troublesome time, and it will in all likelihood become more troublesome. We have not—as an hon member put it—come to the end of the road of building bridges and of reconciliation. The fact of the matter is that it is going to become more difficult for people in these days to build bridges and to seek understanding and reconciliation with one another. We are, however, determined to accommodate the law-abiding citizens of this country, and we have no choice but to place these measures on our Statute Book in order to isolate the hostile elements in their respective communities.

Mr Chairman, I think I have now cooled down a bit after becoming so heated about the hon Leader of the Official Opposition’s speech. It was not my intention to say that he made an ANC speech.

Order! Then the hon member would not have the slightest objection to withdrawing it.

I very gladly do so, Sir, because I have never heard an ANC speech. So it was perhaps a bit uncalled-for to have said that. [Interjections.]

That is what it sounded like!

I wanted to say that it sounded very much like one, but I do not know how to express myself. [Interjections.]

It is quite astounding to see how the PFP’s logic works. This afternoon I listened attentively to the hon Leader of the Official Opposition tackling the hon the Minister of Law and Order and accusing him of being the cause of the delay we have been subjected to in the past weeks. There was also the accusation that the hon Minister was making a farce of Parliamentary procedures.

The truth is quite the obverse, however, the PFP being fully to blame for the delays that we have been subjected to during the past few months.

Why “months”?

In fact, I even want to say that without their delays it would probably not have been necessary to proclaim a state of emergency yesterday. There would have been legislation available to the hon Minister to declare a situation of unrest in specific areas.

After having listened to the PFP speakers, one really gains the impression that they are continually subjecting the South African Police to a witch-hunt. That is the overall image I have of that party when it discusses law and order and matters involving the Police.

Every hon member of the PFP is continually asking for a commission of inquiry, but has the time not come for us to ask for a commission of inquiry to investigate the continual discussions being held between members of the PFP and the ANC?

And Prof De Lange too!

The hon member need not worry—I shall be coming to Prof De Lange. [Interjections.]

The Broeders also go creeping!

I am now dealing with the hon members of the PFP. A commission should, without a doubt, be appointed to investigate the PFP’s ongoing discussions with the ANC. [Interjections.]

There is another striking aspect of the speeches of hon members of the PFP. They give an equal amount of attention—going into the finest detail—to the victims of the so-called inhuman actions of the Police, but—and this has been said repeatedly in the House—there is not a single word said about the victims of acts perpetrated by the ANC. Let me mention, for example, the terrible case of Martin Coetzer near Volksrust. The PFP apparently has no feeling for the cruel suffering of that family and their child.

Of course not!

We are very sorry that such a negative attitude is discernible in their conduct. At a later stage I also want to refer to attitudes towards certain things we are experiencing in this country at the moment.

We support this amending Bill. In the discussion of this Bill it is necessary to reflect on the question of why it has become necessary to place a supplementary measure on the Statute Book by the insertion of the proposed new section 50A to give the SA Police further, extended powers. The obvious reason why the Police need further powers is clearly set out in the memorandum which the department gave to us when the legislation was submitted to all members in draft form. The powers of detention, which the SA Police have at their disposal at the moment, are inadequate. There is, without doubt, a need for a measure that will enable the Police to take more effective action against those involved in situations of unrest. The present period of detention of 14 days, for which the present section 50 makes provision, is definitely too short a period. This is consistently pointed out to us by the SA Police.

Situations of unrest, which are now very widespread, cannot effectively be brought under control with the existing measures. The motivation for the granting of further powers of detention is clear and acceptable to us. The fact that further detention, ie after the initial 48 hours, can only take place on the instructions of a senior Police Officer endorses the important fact, as far as I am concerned, that the SA Police will use these further powers with great circumspection and responsibility.

The proposed section 50A is indeed, as the hon member for Krugersdorp said, an interim measure. It is temporary measure which will only come into force if the State President puts it into operation by way of a proclamation. Subsection (10) of the proposed section 50A states this very clearly. I would say that these are powers that are really necessary when the hon the Minister of Law and Order declares areas of unrest, as he will be empowered to do in terms of the Public Safety Bill, which we have just dealt with. The necessary preventive measures can then also be adopted in such areas in terms of the proposed section 50A. I am therefore saying that this is an interim measure that will be used from time to time, if and when we come across areas of unrest in the future. That is why it is essential.

The introduction or provision of further, extended powers, as provided for in the proposed new section 50A, are the result of the tremendous increase in the conflict situation we are experiencing in South Africa today. [Interjections.] I want to make it very clear that the conflict situation in South Africa today is not the fault of the SA Police. We must primarily blame it on the activities of the South African Communist Party and its ANC fellow-travellers in South Africa. They are people who are chiefly responsible for the unrest situation we are experiencing, but the present Government must also, to a certain degree, be blamed for this conflict situation. One of the most important side-effects of the Government’s policy of power-sharing is the tremendous polarisation we have experienced in the past few years. There is polarisation in human relations and in the relations between peoples. It is a question of White against White and Black against Black, and when we speak about hostilities amongst Blacks, what is now happening at Crossroads is really an excellent example of the polarisation that is taking place. Coloureds are also setting themselves against Coloureds. If we merely look at the tremendously large percentage of the Coloured population joining the ranks of the UDF and participating in its activities, we cannot but regard this as an integral part of the polarisation that is taking place here. The same applies in the case of the Indians. The fruits of the Government’s policy that we are picking today, with the new course it has adopted, is something the Government must also take the blame for as far as the situation of unrest in our country today is concerned.

Let me, however, hasten to point to another sphere in which there is tremendous destabilisation in our country. I want to confine myself to the destabilisation in the field of law and order in our country. There is not the slightest doubt that the situation of unrest, as I have already pointed out, can very largely be ascribed to the deliberate efforts of revolutionary forces to overthrow the ordered State in South Africa. By chaos and disorder the country must be made so ungovernable that orderly government is no longer possible in our country. Other hon members and I know that when chaos prevails in a country, revolutionaries flourish. And this applies to ordinary criminals, too, with public unrest escalating in leaps and bounds when there is a situation of destabilisation in the country.

The proclamation of a state of emergency was an unavoidable step which had to be taken as a result of the dramatic deterioration of the situation of unrest throughout the country. It was specifically necessary because of the clear signs that the revolutionary forces intended to create chaos on a nationwide scale. They are still engaged in doing so, and at present they are making some progress in creating nation-wide chaos. On the strength of that the CP issued the following Press statement in which we stated the following:

The lifting of the state of emergency earlier this year, in fact on 7 March, was in many respects incomprehensible to us. It was altogether too soon to do so, and was a big mistake. That is why we emphasised this as far back as March when the CP issued the following Press statement:

With that Press statement on 6 March we were indeed right on target. All present-day indications are that the Government acted altogether too hastily in lifting the state of emergency as early as March of this year. [Interjections.] We wish to contend that the Government bowed to pressure from abroad. Whether the pressure came from foreign governments or from foreign bankers, the Government bowed to that pressure and lifted the state of emergency in March, which was altogether too soon. To obtain the support of the so-called Black leaders in our country the Government also, of course, put into operation its programme for the establishment of the National Statutory Council. That is also an integral part of the reason why the Government lifted the state of emergency at the time, to give the appearance that there was nothing wrong in our country so that we could involve the Black leaders in these activities.

Everyone was allowed to enter the country, to ferret around here and to return, only to attack our country with even greater venom. [Interjections.] We ask the hon the Minister: Of what use was it to have allowed people like Mr Malcolm Fraser and his entourage into the country to ferret around here and then to return, only to attack our country with even greater venom than was previously the case, introducing a situation beneficial to the ANC and those people, thus promoting their activities? Our standpoint is that such action only creates further chaos in our country. We say it does not help at all. All it does is to encourage the ANC to continue, with even greater zeal, to create a situation of chaos in our country.

What we find astounding, too, are the discussions—to which I have referred—being held between the PFP and the ANC. [Interjections.] It is shocking that someone like Prof De Lange himself has now agreed to hold discussions with the ANC. [Interjections.] Let me put a question to the many Broeders here in the House: Do they agree with Prof De Lange’s conduct? It is simply nonsensical, after all, to come along and tell us that the meeting with the ANC was coincidental. [Interjections.] That excuse is now popping up everywhere: “Oh, my meeting him was a coincidence.” We are asking hon members on that side of the House who are members of the Broederbond: Do they agree with Prof De Lange’s conduct? [Interjections.] I am also asking the hon the Minister: Does he agree with Prof De Lange’s conduct?

But he is not a member of the Broederbond. [Interjections.]

Ask Brother Koot!

I have asked the hon the Minister of Law and Order, but let me answer for him. Let me say that he definitely does not approve, and let me add that I think he is the only hon member on that side of the House who, in regard to those discussions …

[Inaudible.]

Does the hon member for Mossel Bay approve of it?

There is nothing to approve of. What you are saying is simply not true. [Interjections.]

Is the hon member saying it is not true? We have frequently heard those denials. All I want to tell him is that his political mentor, Dr Willem de Klerk of Rapport, approves of it. There is surely no doubt about that. [Interjections.] I should like to know whether the hon the Minister of National Education—the brother of their political mentor—would also approve of the Broederbond conducting discussions with the ANC. [Interjections.] I should also like to know from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning whether he approves of it.

I shall be speaking in a minute; then I shall tell the hon member. [Interjections.]

The principle of detention without trial is not a new one that is now being introduced by this legislation. In terms of the provisions of the proposed new section 50A people will be detained because their detention will contribute to the termination, combating or prevention of public disturbance, disorder, riot or public violence. That is the object of this legislation. Provision is now being made for the fact that someone can be detained for up to 180 days, for the reasons I have delineated here, and those are the primary reasons why someone will be detained in terms of the proposed new section 50A.

The hon the Minister is correct when he says that the Rabie Commission discussed the principle of detention without trial in detail. I notice that the hon the Minister said as much in his reply to the debate in the House of Representatives, and we agree with him. His standpoint does, in fact, accord with that of the Rabie Commission. In the report of the Rabie Commission we read that it is clear that the employment of preventive detention is not confined to times of war. It is also stated:

One also finds the following remark in the Rabie Report:

It is therefore nothing new. Consequently no new principle is being introduced in this regard.

As other hon members have already indicated, the provision made for detention in the existing section 50 of the Internal Security Act was inadequate. It is not good enough to detain someone for not longer than 14 days with a view to combating riots, violence, etc. After all, we know what happens in practice! If the detainees are released after 14 days, they immediately go back and join the other agitators and rioters. The SA Police have pointed out to us that it is essential to be able to detain such a person for a period of up to 180 days. Excessive emphasis is, however, being placed on the 180 days. I think one should put this very clearly into perspective, seen in the light of the day-to-day measures the SA Police need in the action they take.

Today we find ourselves, after many days of debate, engaged in dealing with the last of these two security Bills. I think it is essential—more than ever before—that we get this legislation onto the Statute Book in the interests of the country. We expect the PFP to see it in that light too. The hon members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates ought to realise, too, that it is in the interests of our country.

The negative attitude of the PFP, in regard to these Bills, in no way augurs well for our country and for the future. Even if we were to get the legislation onto the Statute Book, the attitude of those hon members towards the legislation would be extremely detrimental to the country. It would have a very detrimental effect on the security situation in the country. We therefore want to appeal to them to change their attitude if they really want order in the country. It is also necessary, however, to make the same appeal to the House of Representatives. Last week on Sunday we saw a statement by Minister Allan Hendrickse in Rapport which was very disquieting, particularly in the light of the fact that we are dealing here with a major endeavour to get essential legislation onto the Statute Book. Let me quote what Rev Hendrickse said in Rapport:

He went on to say:

This statement by the hon the Minister makes one uneasy because he, as a member of the Cabinet, is playing a dual role as far as this is concerned. It is very clear that hon Minister Hendrickse is opposed to this legislation.

My question to the hon the Minister is therefore whether he can give us any indication of whether the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives—serving with him in the Cabinet—is going to support this legislation. That is important. If both the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives do not support this legislation, one would feel one was engaged in a futile exercise. It is important for South Africa to know whether such a prominent leader from that community gives his unconditional support to this legislation. Surely he cannot thus publicly lash out at this legislation from the inner echelons of the Cabinet. Surely that is totally unacceptable, judging by all the norms of joint Cabinet responsibility. Surely that makes a mockery of the new dispensation. [Interjections.] Here we now have an hon Minister in the NP Cabinet who makes public statements about the fact that he and his colleague, the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates, do not want anything to do with this legislation. We therefore again ask what Minister Hendrickse’s role is. Must we accept that he will be allowed to play such a dual role?

According to latest reports, he gave his support to the state of emergency proclaimed by the State President yesterday. The question one asks oneself is whether it is unqualified support of the state of emergency or whether his attitude is the same ambiguous attitude he evidenced in Rapport in connection with the two Bills we have before us today. If his answer is still that he is opposed to this legislation, the honourable thing for him to do is to resign from the Cabinet.

Kick him out!

If he does not resign of his own free will, I think it is the State President’s duty to fire him, as he did in the case of Boetie Abramjee. [Interjections.]

You are arrogant.

If he continues to be opposed to this legislation …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member Mr Vermeulen say the hon member Mr Theunissen is arrogant when he asks the State President to fire Rev Hendrickse if he does not support this legislation?

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, if Minister Hendrickse continues to be opposed to this legislation, but wishes to remain in the Cabinet, he must accept that the impact of his dual role will very adversely affect the action taken by the SA Police. He cannot remain in the Cabinet and be opposed to specific pieces of legislation. Nor can he, under such circumstances, also expect the Police, who place their lives in jeopardy every day, to step into the breach for him and for his people and to protect him. Surely Minister Hendrickse’s actions do not accord with the demand that as a Minister of the Cabinet he should display loyalty to his colleague, the hon the Minister of Law and Order. Nor does this accord with the demand that he display some loyalty to the thousands upon thousands of policemen throughout our country. I think that South Africa demands that Rev Hendrickse vacate his post.

I believe that the next-of-kin of the numerous victims of ANC terrorism, all the innocent parents, children and even holidaymakers who have died as a result of acts of terrorism perpetrated by the ANC—all those who have been victims of landmines, bombs and other instruments of death—demand that Mr Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi be removed from the Cabinet. If that does not happen, the Government itself should resign. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to concede at once that it is somewhat unusual for me to enter this debate. It is not customary for one Minister to participate in a debate on the legislation of another Minister. However, I feel compelled to …

Then just do not stand there talking nonsense!

Mr Chairman, for the hon member for Green Point to talk sense is extremely unusual, of course. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the speech made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Naturally, a contribution by the hon the Leader of the Opposition in this House is always important. It merits special consideration, therefore. I do not intend to debate the specific provisions of this legislation with him. The hon the Minister of Law and Order and his colleagues will be able to deal with those aspects quite effectively. However, I think there is another aspect which is relevant and which merits attention. No one has ever argued that security action is a permanent solution to unrest or violence. What is true, however—we have learnt this from experience—is that security action is needed from time to time in order to make solutions possible. This is in fact the subject I wish to discuss.

The speech made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition this afternoon showed a total lack of understanding of what had happened in this House yesterday. The hon leader’s contribution does not serve the cause of stability and order, nor does it serve the cause of reform. This is what I wish to discuss. Reference to the speech made by the State President yesterday will emphasise one important facet. This is that the security measures—including the declaration of the state of emergency—are specifically aimed at enabling the process of orderly development to continue in this country. It is also aimed at enabling that process of reform to continue in every sphere of South African life. That is why the State President and all hon members on this side of the House have consistently adopted the attitude which I want to repeat here today. This is that security action does not serve any purpose in itself, but is aimed at achieving a different objective in other spheres.

We have repeatedly debated the fact that there must be condoned action in the various spheres in which the State functions. That action must take place in the social, economic, political and security spheres. I want to emphasise today that economic development is not possible unless action is taken in the security sphere. Without action in the security sphere, social development is not possible. Without action in the security sphere, political development is not possible. I found it surprising, therefore, that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made a speech here this afternoon even though he does not understand that crucial truth. [Interjections.]

I want to go further. In fact, I want to go much further. I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition quite frankly that there is not a single hon member in this House who does not believe that adjustments are called for in our society. In saying this, I am expressing my own sentiments …

That is a vague principle.

No, it is not a vague principle, because I could implement the principles which I propagate in concrete terms in this House. [Interjections.] What does this hon leader do, however? He and the hon member for Houghton are known for the fact that they propagate foreign intervention in South Africa’s affairs. [Interjections.] In fact, it is on record that the hon member for Houghton went to request the intervention of the British Government in South Africa’s affairs during this session.

So what? I will do it again.

Do you see, Sir, she says “so that?”

Every time you abuse people I shall ask them to use that …

I do not wish to enter into a debate with the hon member. I would rather say something else. I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition a question—if you manage to silence the hon member for Houghton! I admit, Sir, that silencing her will be no easy task. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is deliberately fighting this legislation, and with his speech he is playing into the hands of the forces that wish to destroy reform. [Interjections.] Let us examine it.

Who are they? The “Witdoeke”?

I want to say to the hon member for Cape Town Gardens that he is more dangerous than any other agency in Crossroads that I know of. Apart from his rude behaviour, that place would have been quiet long ago if he had kept out of it. [Interjections.]

I should like to take this matter much further. In the speech he made today, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition told Black revolutionaries that they had cause for revolution. [Interjections.] I want to repeat that: The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition today told people who engage in revolution and violence that they had cause for revolution.

Is that your interpretation? [Interjections.]

You are the cause of it. Your Constitution! [Interjections.]

You are saying I said that. I say it is a lie. I did not use those words. [Interjections.]

Order! That applies to the hon member for Durban Central as well. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Surely the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition cannot say to the hon the Minister, “It is a lie.”

Order! I understood the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to say that if it was alleged that he had made a certain statement, the allegation was a lie. The hon the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to repeat that what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did today was to apologise for the forces of violence and revolution. [Interjections.] It will not avail the hon Leader…

You are the ones who are causing the revolution! You as a Minister!

You see, Sir, the hon member for Durban Central is doing exactly what his hon Leader did.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Does the hon member for Durban Central have the right to say to the hon the Minister that he is the cause of a revolution? [Interjections.]

I do not wish to put words into the mouth of the hon member for Durban Central, but I understood him to mean that the actions of this side of the House were causing a revolution. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister may proceed.

There is a second conclusion that can be drawn, and I should like to deal with it. [Interjections.]

Order! I request hon members to limit their interjections. This applies to both sides of the House.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister allowed to say the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition “apologised for the forces of violence”?

Order! I did not see anything wrong with that. The hon the Minister may proceed.

It is very interesting to see that people object when the consequences of their actions are pointed out to them.

That is your interpretation.

Let it be mine, and then we can debate it, but can the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition not be quiet for a change? I should like to go further and point out to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition what he is doing. He gave us quite an emotional account of his conversation with four people who conveyed certain standpoints to him. He did not say in his speech whether he had made any attempt at all to test the accuracy of those allegations.

They never do that.

It does not suit them to test it.

A man with his leg off is a man with his leg off.

Does the hon member know how many policemen have died? [Interjections.] Hon members read statements here, as the hon member for Sandton did, which are officially reported as emanating from this House and which are accepted as facts outside. I say with absolute conviction that whoever may have caused the country’s circumstances …

Chris, are you on TV now?

Does the hon member want me to be? [Interjections.]

Order! I find that the remarks of the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition may just as well be ignored, because they have no bearing on the debate at all. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I want to tell the hon member a different story. Does the Official Opposition understand, in the first place, that the Black communities, whose rights they profess to champion, are the primary victims of the forces of violence and revolution? Has the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—I am now asking him directly—had any talks with any of the members of the management committees and local authorities—he voted for the Act—to ask them what their wishes are on behalf of the communities which they represent? I want to answer the question myself. If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had indeed had such talks, he would have admitted it and used it as evidence.

I want to make a second statement. If he had talked to them, they would have conveyed to him the cries of distress of the communities that have asked us, and keep asking us every day, to protect them from the forces of violence.

And from Chris Heunis, who is twisting their arm.

The hon member for Green Point shelters in the security created for him by the SA Police and the Defence Force. He reserves the right to abuse the Security Forces morning, noon and night. In saying this, I am not for a moment suggesting that all the people in the Defence Force and the Police are saints. That would not even be true of the people in Parliament. However, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves at the moment, we are taking the side of the Security Forces, so that our country may be stabilised. In this connection, I want to say that it is very easy to condemn people’s behaviour in an atmosphere of protection—in this House, for example— while one has never been expected to make a decision and to take action oneself under those circumstances.

I should like to go further. If we are to succeed in finding democratic solutions in this country, we must not allow the institutions of democracy to be used to destroy democracy itself. Surely this would not be the first time in the history of the world that people have destroyed democracy itself in terms of the definition of democracy. Surely it would not be the first time in the history of Africa and of the rest of the world that all freedom has been destroyed in the name of individual freedom. I want to ask: When shall we learn the lessons of history? [Interjections.]

I wish to take the argument even further: If we do not succeed in returning the country to normality and if we do not succeed in creating a climate, by means of the security operations, in which people are not only prepared to enter into negotiations, but also feel that it is safe for them to participate in negotiations, none of the plans of any of the parties in this House will ever have any chance of succeeding.

Ten minutes!

Surely it is not for that hon member to decide how much time I should be allowed for my speech.

This brings me to the next aspect, which is not understood at all. It does not seem to me that we in this House understand what the real options are. In his rashness and superficiality, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition thinks that there is still a choice between his policy, my policy and the next policy. The hon leader does not understand that if the forces that are now being combated by the security legislation were to succeed, it would no longer be a question of his policy, my policy or any democracy at all.

Which clause are you speaking to?

The Eglin clause! [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that at every meeting addressed by him and his hon party members, they attribute the unrest violence to the Government’s reform plans, or the lack of them. This happens every time. The hon leader made a policy speech on important legislation today, but I did not hear him condemn communism. I did not hear him condemn the ANC. I did not hear him …

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

No, I am speaking now.

I did not hear the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition condemn the perpetrators of violence today. All he really did today—he can debate the matter later—was to find excuses for the violence in South Africa. That was the sum total of his speech. I want to say that it does not behove the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, with the responsibilities resting on him under this system, to be so superficial in his evaluation of the circumstances of this country.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend to follow the direction of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. However, I would like to say the following: Some of the speeches of the Official Opposition that I have heard over the whole period of the debate have sullied our country and its reputation and damaged South Africa as much as any terrorist can do. I have felt sickened at the things said by some—not all—of the PFP speakers in this debate.

If things happen, one must speak about them.

I wish to return to the hon the Minister of Law and Order. I believe he is his own worst enemy. He attacked my party and me this afternoon, and made a blatantly untrue accusation against us when he associated us with the Official Opposition by saying that we had not been interested in seeking consensus regarding the two security Bills. I cannot remember all his exact words, but he said we had not lifted a finger. He used the words “opposed in principle” and “not prepared to seek consensus”.

He ought to know that that is not true, because he admitted in the previous debate that I had submitted a proposed amendment to him. He knows our attitude in the standing committee, and how we tried to reach agreement. He knows that I spoke to his officials during the standing committee meetings in order to look for methods which could lead us to consensus. I strove for consensus because I would have preferred to have seen these Bills enacted and properly controlled rather than the proclamation of a full, national state of emergency. It was therefore blatantly not true that this party was opposed to or did not try in any way to find consensus.

He then quoted from a report in today’s Die Burger which referred to certain words I had used, in order to launch an attack on me on the basis of my having said that the state of emergency was a tragedy for South Africa.

I didn’t say that.

He quoted from Die Burger!

What you said is not in Die Burger.

Order!

The hon the Minister quoted from Die Burger.

Must I send the cutting over to you? I’ll do that. [Interjections.]

He quoted it, and attacked me on it.

I shall send a copy of the report across to you. That is not what I said, and it is not in Die Burger.

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue across the floor of the House. The hon member for Durban Point may proceed.

I would like the hon the Minister to look at his Hansard when he receives it. I would like to quote from my Hansard of yesterday, because it will clarify our attitude towards this measure.

He says he didn’t quote from Die Burger. There it is!

I have just received the hon the Minister’s copy of the report in Die Burger, and he has underlined the part he quoted, as follows:

That is all I said.

That is where he stopped!

But that is according to Die Burger!

The hon the Minister used Die Burger’s incomplete quotation. In my speech there was no full stop after “’n tragiese gebeurtenis vir Suid-Afrika”. I should like to quote the relevant passage from my Hansard:

I went on to refer to the obstinacy of the hon the Minister.

[Inaudible.]

Later in my speech I made my party’s attitude very clear because the hon the Minister had accused us of having double standards as we had supported the Public Safety Act and not objected to its use on previous occasions.

It is better to use Hansard than Die Burger!

After quoting the hon member for Houghton as having said of the Government, “then it must declare a state of emergency” and deducing that the PFP presumably welcomed it, I said the following:

I stress that I said “both sides”—

Loud and clear. Then the hon the Minister launches an attack on me for inconsistency!

We have always said that if a situation arises where it is necessary to declare a state of emergency, then we accept those powers.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member agree with me that the only thing that I said against him was the fact that he claimed that my alleged refusal to accept an amendment was a reason for the state of emergency? The only debatable point on which we differed was that fact alone and not his party’s point of view on the state of emergency. Will the hon member agree with me?

No, that is only a part of it. He continued talking about our attitude to the original legislation on public safety and its use in certain districts during the former state of emergency. He referred to it specifically and said that we had not raised any objections to it even when it was used formerly.

Therefore he had much to say about how inconsistent we were by opposing it now although we hadn’t opposed it beforehand. Could the hon Minister deny that? [Interjections.] No, he cannot deny it because it’s in his Hansard. [Interjections.]

†For some reason, Hansard has put a line through the words “but we accept that” in the unrevised copy. However, I said that and it stands here typed. So, it is part of my Hansard and will remain part of it. There was no question about our accepting it. In a public statement I gave to the SABC—which I believe was used, I have not heard it—I said that the Government had no option but to declare a state of emergency.

In my speech yesterday I referred specifically to this and said:

In my statement to the SABC I repeated that it was vital that we restore law and order. Then the hon the Minister tries to play politics here. It is no wonder he is his own worst enemy. Moreover, he introduced the Bill by saying that he had already made an introductory speech in another House so he was not going to repeat it.

However, we have just had the experience that although he had given assurances about a previous Bill and had gone so far as to put amendments on the Order Paper, when he dealt with it again this afternoon he had withdrawn those amendments. He was not even prepared to go on with amendments which he had not merely said he would accept but had put on the Order Paper. Now, nothing can be more committing of a Minister than to put an amendment on the Order Paper; if he does that, he commits himself. If a committed undertaking in black and white on the Order Paper is not upheld, then we obviously cannot accept or give any credit to an undertaking with regard to this Bill and the other in a speech which he did not make.

It is parliamentary procedure, and you know that.

On page 6 of the typed copy of the Second Reading speech he made on introducing this Bill in another House he said:

[Inaudible.]

We accept all those things, but if his amendments fall away because he is not going to have a Committee Stage on this Bill in order to pass those amendments, what does this mean? He has not even spoken about them in this House. He mentioned them in another House, and then he said in this House that he was not going to make an explanatory speech in introducing the measure, with the result that we do not have that undertaking before us. He went further, however, and accused us and the other opposition parties of not putting any amendments on the Order Paper. Today’s Order Paper carries a list of amendments, both on this Bill, the Internal Security Amendment Bill, and on the Public Safety Amendment Bill. Amendments to the Internal Security Amendment Bill are on pages 397, 420 and 433, according to the Order Paper, and the amendments to the Public Safety Amendment Bill are on pages 397, 403, 420, 433 and 472. The amendments are on the Order Paper, and yet the hon the Minister accuses us of not having put any amendments on these Bills, but still wanting him to move his amendments! Those were his words. He said: “You expect me to move my amendments but you don’t put forward any amendments”.

Were you asleep when I made my speech or not?

I listened much more closely to it than the hon the Minister apparently listened to my speech. The hon the Minister misinterpreted my speech fundamentally. He said he would not have a Committee Stage because it would be a waste of time. He was not going to waste any more time. That was his basic motivation. He said that the Official Opposition were not looking for solutions but were opposing the Bill in principle. That does not mean the hon the Minister could not have improved the measure, however. He seemed to indicate that he was not averse to a review procedure which we asked for and which in fact is mentioned in the Internal Security Amendment Bill. I could not quite hear whether he said he would accept a limitation of 60 days on detention or not. It sounded as though he said he would accept 60 days. If he was prepared to make that concession, how does he know that he could not have reached agreement with the other Houses? Did he try it?

I tried everything possible. [Interjections.]

No! No! Not in this House.

If the hon the Minister had said that he was prepared to accept a review procedure in the Public Safety Amendment Bill, would that not have changed the whole situation?

No, it would not. [Interjections.]

Concerning this Bill…

[Inaudible.]

Well, I am not so sure of that. On the Order Paper there are four amendments in the name of the hon member for Houghton on the Internal Security Amendment Bill, three by the hon the Minister which were withdrawn, and there was one amendment by myself. We would have supported two of the amendments by the hon member for Houghton because they refer to the undertakings given by the hon the Minister in his speech. They concern the access to legal representation and the notification of the next of kin. The other one concerns detainees awaiting trial. That was acceptable because families would be able to visit them. An additional measure concerned medical attention for the detainees.

The hon the Minister accepts all those measures, and therefore I cannot understand why he will not have a Committee Stage on this Bill. There are only two proposed amendments which he would not be able to accept. Our basic objection to this is the period of detention before a detainee’s situation is reviewed. We asked that instead of 90 days that period should be 60 days. According to all the evidence we heard that was all that would be required to process a case. A case would be put before a review board after a detainee has been in detention for 60 days instead of 90 days. There has been so much antagonism to this Bill because people have read about the provision concerning detention for 180 days. Everyone talks about this as the 180-day detention Bill. It is in fact proposed, however, that 90 days must elapse before the Police must give evidence before a board of review as to why the person should not be released. In terms of the printed Bill, therefore, he would automatically be released after three months, unless a case was made out for his further detention to a judicial board of review.

All we are asking, is for that period to be reduced to two months—60 days—and we would then, upon the hon the Minister’s acceptance of the various conditions for detention, have been able to accept that. Moreover, we would still be able to accept it, but in view of the example we have just had and the assumption that there will be no Committee Stage, there is no way we can blindly sign a blank cheque, as it were. The hon the Minister therefore compels us to put our attitude on paper, and I therefore move as a further amendment:

That may have a familiar ring to the hon the Minister, because I have taken verbatim from his speech exactly what stands in this amendment. It has been taken from the second paragraph on page six of his speech, and his own words have been included in this amendment.

I want to make one final point clear. I said that we had always accepted that in a critical situation such as war, anarchy or revolution—in this instance youth anarchy to a large extent—any government had a responsibly to restore law and order. We have also accepted the right to declare a state of emergency, whether it be on a partial or national basis. We have never had problems with that. What we have objected to, however, is entrenching measures pertaining to that state of emergency—which is a special circumstance that must be proclaimed for a specified period—into the law as a normal legal power which can be used at the whim of the hon the Minister—not even the State President, but the hon the Minister—from time to time. It makes of an emergency provision a permanent feature of our law, and we would have preferred to see any action taken in terms of the Internal Security Amendment Bill we are now dealing with. The way the hon the Minister has handled it, however, he leaves us no option because we have no guarantees of anything. If he were to approve this amendment in the Bill, we could support it. We would have no problem with a 60-day period instead of a 90-day one. I want to make it clear, however, that we do not go along with the total rejection of the measure, as the Official Opposition has done.

In the case of the original Internal Security Bill, we abstained. We opposed certain clauses but we abstained because where there is provision for review, we are prepared to accept it.

In the case of the Public Safety Amendment Bill, we moved our amendment, voted for it, and then we abstained on the Official Opposition amendment because we wanted to place on record our attitude towards the measure. Having placed that on record and having voted for our amendment, we abstained on the total rejection of the Bill. As South Africans we recognise the need to maintain law and order in this country. We also recognise that there are certain times and situations where special circumstances are required. All that we stand by is the principle that in the Public Safety Act there should also be a review system, and that the period of detention in terms of this measure should be shorter and that an assurance in this regard by the hon the Minister himself should be included in the wording of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I will refer to the speech of the hon member for Durban Point somewhat later. I want to deal now with the hon member for Sandton. I requested his Whips to ask him to be present in the House but he wrote me a courteous letter apologising for not being able to be present. I told him that I had to address this matter this afternoon, and he said he would read my Hansard as far as this was concerned.

I believe we in this House should endeavour to occupy ourselves with positive debate and criticism. Petty politics should not be part of our approach. We must play the ball, rather than the man. However, I will be neglecting my duty if I do not take the hon member for Sandton to task for his irresponsible utterances in this House during the past week. The hon member thinks he has a licence to vilify and degrade the actions of the Police. We, as members of this House, can still defend ourselves but members of the Police Force who are not here cannot do so. His utterances in respect of the Police were calculated and deliberate so as to obtain, firstly, maximum publicity not only in South Africa but also overseas; and secondly, to harm the image of the Police and of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Later on, with an angelic face, he withdrew those statements in this House. However, he realised fully that it would not be possible to erase the picture and the belief created by his utterances in public locally and overseas.

*The actions of the hon member for Sandton not only defile our country; they are also a blot on his own reputation and on that of his party, to such an extent that they as a party will not make progress if they use that type of language in respect of this country and the law enforcement agencies in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, the hon member for Johannesburg North knows that what I have just said is the whole truth.

Section 50 of the Internal Security Act, Act No 74 of 1982, was introduced with the following purpose—I should like to quote the way it is explained on page 219 in the Rabie Report:

The amendment, which is now being requested in the proposed new section 50A, indicates that the previous measure could not resolve the existing problems. Since 18 April it has been repeatedly indicated that the existing measures are not sufficient. During my previous speech hon members consequently asked—including the hon Chief Whip …

Order! I can only permit one debate at a time in this House. The hon member may proceed.

During my previous speech on this Bill I referred to similar measures in other Western countries of the world, when less serious measures than a state of emergency were proclaimed, and I indicated by way of a comparison that the unrest area that we have created there would also amount to a lesser situation. The hon Chief Whip, as well as the hon member for East London City, asked for my source of information, and I made that information available in writing to the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition.

I should like to refer here to only one such case, and that is the Dutch Act of 23 June 1952, STB361, in which provision is made for what they call an exceptional civil situation, which is comparable with out state of emergency and in the second place a situation of enhanced vigilance, which can be compared with an unrest area. It has been clearly apparent since 18 April that the measures that were adopted would not be sufficient to cope with the situation, after which the hon the Minister and the State President clearly indicated that supplementary measures would be necessary, and consequently, in this connection, the need for this has been pointed out clearly and thoroughly over a long period.

From questions asked in this House, it was consequently indicated to members of the House and to the public in general how the situation had deteriorated since 1984. In 1984 the number of detentions under section 50 of the principal Act were 166. During 1985 there were 1 924, and for the period 1 January 1986 to 31 May 1986, 2 392. Under the present measure we have an extension of this, and the indication is that detentions up to a period of 14 days are not sufficient, so that it is now being proposed that that period be extended to 180 days. In this is expressed the need of the Government as well as the public in general, viz that order be maintained and situations stabilised during that period of detention, and that those instigators of unrest can then be removed from the community. This proposal, however, is not without measures to ameliorate the periods as well as the mode of conduct. As has already been indicated, a person with the rank of at least a lieutenant-colonel must decide whether such further detention is necessary. Consequently written representations can immediately be addressed to the hon the Minister, and the commissioner must, as soon as possible after such persons have been taken into custody, furnish the hon the Minister with the place and the particulars of the detention of such a person. If such a detainee has still not been released after three months, the Commissioner of Police or an officer designated by him must furnish the reasons why the detainee cannot be released to the board of review.

In this respect there were intensive negotiations on an informal basis on the period prior to review, and a genuine attempt was made to reduce the period, as prescribed at present in the principal Act. In this respect, however, it was not possible to achieve consensus, as the hon the Minister has already indicated. It was a clear demonstration of everything or nothing, also by hon members of the other Houses. With the best will in the world we were not able to arrive at a compromise in this respect. One has to deal with certain practical problems. The question was also asked how many matters such a board of review could deal with in one day. The indication was that apparently it would only be four or five matters. It can probably be argued that several such review boards could be established.

When we take cognisance of the final figure which I have indicated, what do we notice? From the beginning of January until the end of May of this year, there were 2 392 such detentions in terms of the existing section 50. In view of this, I think one can begin to form an idea of the workload of such a review board. In addition there is the practical problem that the applications submitted to the review board have to be processed. That is why the hon the Minister, at one stage, also indicated that he could possibly try to arrive at a period of 60 days, but that even this would be a very problematical period, particularly in view of the possible volume of the applications that would have to be dealt with.

The hon the Minister will give attention to this aspect, and will in due course furnish the hon member for Durban Point with an adequate reply in this regard. We of course have serious problems in this respect. Consequently it is a good thing that we speak to one another honestly about these things. The eventual determination of a period of 90 days was not made in a wilful or arbitrary fashion.

After the proceedings of a review board, a report must be submitted to the hon the Minister on the strength of which he must then decide how he is going to react. We must remember that this report is drawn up by a senior judge, a senior regional court chairman and another senior lawyer. Three senior people are therefore involved. I think a Minister would be politically foolish if he omitted to give serious attention to the negative aspects of such a report submitted to him. In addition there is still the case of parliamentary control, in the sense that a list of names has to be tables in this House in regard to the cases in which attention is not given to the advice and directions of the review board.

And then? What happens after that? Nothing!

Sir, if the members of this Parliament and that review board carry out their duties in that respect properly I suppose that a great deal can be done about it.

Such as what?

When one takes cognisance of the problems of South Africa, surely it is clearly true that unrest is threatening the foundations of an orderly community. For that reason that unrest must be curtailed. It is not easy to bring unrest and disorder of the present nature under control or to terminate it. Of course it is frequently thoroughly organised in advance. This problem, of course, becomes aggravated when planning of this nature takes place in various places in this country.

In the present case the ANC has in fact made repeated appeals to people, and many people who might normally perhaps have nothing to do with unrest and disorder of this nature are now becoming involved. They, too, are now participating. Very frequently, though, innocent people are also involved in activities of this nature.

Further disadvantages of the situation in which we find ourselves are that the normal task of the Police is made tremendously difficult owing, in the first place, to a shortage of manpower and, in the second place, to an increase in ordinary crime, which undoubtedly flourishes in conditions of this nature. Frequently it amounts to nothing more than ordinary hooliganism. The intimidation of witnesses also impedes and damages the effective operation of the normal information network of the Police. The position of the informant is made so difficult that he is frequently unable to render the services that he rendered to the Police in the past. The priorities in such a case are therefore in the first place the restoration of law and order and of community services that have been brought to a halt and impeded or that still have to be restored. It is necessary for law and order to be maintained so that those activities can be carried out.

Community leaders must be protected more effectively and must be placed in a position to function and to carry out their task in their communities.

In that respect the Government has a greater task than ever before to give attention to those problems. All responsible leaders in the country must persuade their communities, under the present circumstances, to help to restore law and order so that it is possible to proceed with the process of constitutional and socio-economic reform. Through the State President the Government has committed itself unequivocally to peaceful negotiations and a socio-economic reform. The leaders of all groups in the Republic are involved in this, and it is only unreasonable people who are not well disposed to the interest of South Africa and democracy who reject this offer.

Mr Chairman, before I come to the Bill itself and some of the offensive clauses therein I would like to make a few comments about one or two of the speeches which were made this afternoon from Government benches. I am sorry that the hon the Minister for Constitutional Development and Planning is not here.

He is seeing the Press!

He did tell me that he was unable to stay when I told him that I wished to say something about his speech.

Hon members will remember that he tried to comment on the fact that I had approached the British government about some matter concerning South Africa to try to get the British government to intervene. Of course it is perfectly true and I am absolutely delighted to admit it. I want to tell the hon the Minister—I hope his hon colleague will convey this news to him—that I have every intention of using the diplomatic offices of our Western friends wherever I can in order to try to prevent the Government from carrying out some of its offensive actions.

In this case it happened to be the case of the Moutse people whom the Government intends to put under the jurisdiction of kwaNdebele which is about to become independent. This is a move that the Moutse people are resisting tooth and nail—they are having court cases about this matter. I asked the then Secretary of State for Africa, Mr Rifkind, whether he would tell Mrs Thatcher what was happening. I then gave him the information and hope very much that he used it. I hope he is doing his best to try to stop the move of the unfortunate Moutse people.

Since the hon the Minister’s spies are apparently not very active in the USA, I would like to tell him here and now that I did exactly the same thing in America the year before when I asked Dr Crocker to use his diplomatic influence to see that the Magopo people were not moved. [Interjections.] I might add that Dr Crocker managed to delay this forced removal but unfortunately he could only delay and not avert it altogether. However, he did manage to delay it for three months.

I want to tell the Government that I will use whatever influence I have among Western governments—it is not great but I am known among certain circles overseas—to try to get them to use diplomatic pressure to stop the Government from continuing with its offensive actions. [Interjections.] If the Government had listened to some of the warnings that I have uttered over the past seven years about the threat of sanctions and disinvestment and had abstained from some of those offensive actions we would not be in the parlous state in which we are today.

You have not only been to Western countries!

Are you threatening me?

You have not only been to Western countries!

Oh, where have I been? To Moscow? The hon the Minister is quite right—I have been to Moscow, where unfortunately I have no influence at all. So much so, that I sent the hon the Minister a card addressed to “Dear Comrade Louis”—I said on that card “There is plenty of law and order here, and I am coming home”—but he tells me he did not receive it. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I am not at all sure whether the KGB have got that postcard or whether the hon the Minister’s Security Police have nabbed it en route to Comrade Louis. It is probably now in their files, Comrade Louis! [Interjections.]

I want to say something to the hon member for Roodepoort. In the course of his speech he mentioned—it was admittedly in the other debate, but he linked the two Bills together by referring to “the type of legislation which we are passing”, and the two Bills, the Public Safety Amendment Bill and the Internal Security Amendment Bill which we are dealing with now, are of course ugly sisters—that other countries have the same sort of legislation, including other Western countries. He actually said that some of the states in the USA have this sort of legislation. I challenge that hon member to give me chapter and verse about which one of the 50 American states has this sort of legislation. It would be completely counter to the American Bill of Rights to have legislation like this on the Statute Book. It would be challenged instantly, and therefore I do not think the hon member knows what he is talking about. I think he might have been thinking, when he was talking of other Western countries, of Northern Ireland and maybe Israel, because those two countries are constantly suffering from terrorism and sabotage, and they are the two Western countries who are likely to have this sort of legislation. However, I want to tell the hon member that not even in those two countries is there legislation which compares to this.

Order! If hon members have urgent matters to discuss in the House, then they must lower their voices when they do so.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. In Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act of 1978 allows a person to be detained for 48 hours without trial, and that is the normal habeas corpus period, and thereafter only for a maximum of five further days on the authority of the Home Secretary. [interjections.] It is very different from this Bill which we are considering today. I want to tell the hon member that detention without trial was phased out completely in Northern Ireland in 1975. There is no detention without trial.

In Israel the relevant Act is called the Emergency Powers Detention Law of 1979 which may only be used if a state of emergency has been declared. Israel, I might say, is in a perpetual state of emergency—one might well say a perpetual state of war—and has been ever since the state of Israel came into existence in 1948. Now, the 1979 law which I have just mentioned, lays down that a detainee must be brought before the President of the District Court who may confirm or set aside the detention order or shorten the term of detention. Otherwise the detainee must be released after 48 hours. The President of the District Court is presumably a senior judge and not a magistrate such as is allowed in the existing section 50 of the Internal Security Act. If the President of the District Court does not confirm the detention, the man has to be freed. Now, I do not know whether the hon member knows of any other country which has legislation like this. If there is such a country, he ought to tell us which country he was referring to, otherwise he was giving misinformation to this House, which is something which frequently happens in South Africa, I might say, when the Security Police act on misinformation and detain people left, right and centre who are really not up to any evil acts whatsoever.

I want to return to the Bill itself. I want to remind the House that in 1982 when the consolidating measure was passed, the Internal Security Act of 1982, it was based on the report of the Rabie Commission. It introduced some amendments which even included some important improvements such as leaving it to the courts to decide what sentences should be passed, there were no mandatory minimum sentences; it again brought children under the age of 20 under the protection of the Children’s Act, and so on. However, it also introduced further detention clauses, among others. The hon the Minister at that time said “we are now standing at the door of a whole new deal in security legislation.” It was a somewhat melodramatic phrase but he used it. Today it appears we have passed through that door to another threshold, this time extending the 14-day detention provision in section 50 of the Internal Security Act to 180 days detention without trial. Why? It is because the Police, as they told the standing committee, feel that 14 days is not sufficient in the present unrest situation. The hon the Minister agrees with that saying that the nature and extent of the unrest which has occurred since 1984 necessitate drastic measures. That is what he said in his Second Reading speech.

Well, when one listens to that, one would honestly think that the hon the Minister did not already have drastic powers. One would think he had to rely on due process, on habeas corpus and that he had no drastic powers whatever. I think we ought to remind the hon the Minister that he has all the powers in the world to ban people under the old Suppression of Communism Act which has now been included in the Internal Security Act. He has powers of house arrest. There is section 28 of the Internal Security Act which provides for preventive detention which enables him to put a person away for a whole year! There is a board of review, but nevertheless he can put a person away for a whole year.

Why then does he need 180 day detention if 14 days are not sufficient when he already has the provision of preventive detention at his disposal? As we all know, he also has the provisions of section 29 of the Internal Security Act, the most Draconian of all, which allows him to put somebody into solitary confinement for an indefinite period for interrogation purposes. That is the very provision under which at least 50 people, I must tell my hon leader who mentioned this in his excellent speech, have died, including of course Steve Biko.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for Houghton whether she will concede that section 29 cannot apply in the same circumstances in which one will apply section 58? Section 29 is applied if somebody is suspected of terrorism and other acts.

Yes, but there is no limitation as to the particular suspicion under which people will be detained under the 180 day detention provision. For that reason I do not really think the hon member’s question is relevant. There are no restrictions on the hon the Minister. He can use all these different provisions as he will. He only has to suspect that someone knows something about terrorism, not even that he has committed an act of terrorism. If one suspects that he has information about terrorism he can be locked up in terms of section 29.

The one provides for interrogation and the other one not.

The hon member is quite wrong. There is provision for interrogation under the 180 day detention provision as well. [Interjections.] Of course there are provisions for interrogation, certainly in the regulations, and I am pretty sure he is going to extend it.

[Inaudible.]

What is wrong with section 28? That provides for preventive detention to “let him cool off”, as the hon the Minister once told us. He wants to lock someone up because he is inciting people.

I am not advocating the use of section 28, but when the hon the Minister tells us that he needs drastic powers, I am pointing out that he has a vast armoury …

Order! Hon members are conversing too loudly; I can hardly hear the hon member. The hon member for Houghton may proceed.

Thank you, Sir, I am getting a sore throat trying to outdo the CP!

You have made your point, now get on with it!

Well, dry up then! [Interjections.]

Over and above this vast armoury, the hon the Minister says he needs additional powers to lock up people. I say that this hon the Minister has an insatiable appetite for power! He is greedy for power; the more power he has, the more he wants! [Interjections.]

What safeguards, if any, are provided for the unfortunate detainee in this Bill? If the detainee is detained for more than three months, the Commissioner of the SA Police or his designated official must adduce reasons before a board of review as to why the person should not be released. The board then submits a written report to the hon the Minister who, if he rejects the recommendation of the board, must report the circumstances in each case to Parliament. The hon member for Roodepoort, who has just disappeared, also made this point. [Interjections.]

Come back! [Interjections.] I really will not be a minute, and then the hon member can go! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Roodepoort said that all those names would be laid upon the Table if the hon the Minister rejected the recommendations of the board of review. What would happen then? They would only gather some dust! Parliament cannot even debate the rejections of the recommendations of the review board. They would be laid upon the Table, gather some dust, and that is it! It is not as if Parliament even debates the subject. There would have to be a special private member’s motion in order to debate that and, of course, we never get time from the Government and the Government is unlikely to use its time in order to debate rejections by the hon the Minister of Law and Order.

Which rejections?

Those of the board of review.

When have I rejected them?

No, no. If there are rejections about the release of people, their names have to be laid upon the Table. The hon the Minister should have a look at his Bill!

Yes?

Right. What happens then?

Where have I rejected those recommendations?

No, but what happens after that? I shall tell the hon the Minister about that right now, Sir. First of all, written representations may be made to the hon the Minister and the board can hear oral or written representations but there is no mention whatever that the detainee can have the help of a legal representative. [Interjections.] Now, imagine a 17 year old, semi-literate— very often—Black youth who left school when he was 12 who has been locked up being told—the hon the Minister informs us that he is going to tell detainees what their rights are—that he may make written representations to the Minister or the board of review. Imagine the disabilities under which such a young detainee is going to suffer! How is he ever going to be able to put a coherent case to the board of review or to the hon the Minister?

I am sorry that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was not here earlier. I told him what I have done before and that I would do it again. I have done it in America and in England and, if I can ever use my good offices to get the diplomatic corps to use their good offices, I shall do so. He must not try to do a Don McHenry on me; it will not work.

As for the board of review, in which the hon member for Durban Point has such confidence, I want to tell him—I hope the hon the Minister will listen to this—that from 1977 to 1981, 366 cases of preventive detention were reviewed by the board of review, and release was recommended in exactly nine cases. Big deal! That was nine out of 366 in a period of five years.

Well, that is a joke! You have always asked for Supreme Court involvement, and there you have it. Now you are criticising it!

I am just saying that it does not always help. [Interjections.] In 1984 four cases were reviewed, and no releases were recommended. In 1985, 54 cases were reviewed by the board, with not a single positive result. So, the hon member must not think that the Police …

Doesn’t that show that the Police have done their work well?

It may well show that the unfortunate detainee who does not have legal representation to help him put his case to the board just does not stand a chance! Is the hon the Minister going to allow legal representation for detainees in presenting their case to the board. That is what I want to know.