House of Assembly: Vol10 - MONDAY 2 JUNE 1986
laid upon the Table:
- (1) Promotion of Local Government Affairs Amendment Bill [B 93—86 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning).
- (2) Restoration of South African Citizenship Bill [B 94—86 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Home Affairs).
Mr Speaker, I move:
I am convinced that everybody present here, as well as every responsible citizen, has noted with concern the incidents of unrest which have been occurring since September 1984 and which continue to occur.
During the recess, the nature and extent of the unrest became such that the Government was forced to make use of the provisions of the Public Safety Act, 1953, to confer upon the security forces additional powers in order to deal with the situation.
In terms of the provisions of this Act, the State President declared the existence of a state of emergency in a number of districts in the Republic, and regulations were made by means of which the necessary powers were conferred upon the security forces. It must immediately be stressed that these regulations were aimed at combating the unrest; in other words, the extent of the regulations was in proportion to the need. It is obvious that regulations which are far more drastic may be made in times of emergency, but the Government only promulgated the minimum measures which were necessary in the regulations.
That the Government handles the wide powers conferred upon it by the Public Safety Act, 1953, with the utmost care and responsibility is evident from the fact that since 1953, the Government has applied the provisions of that Act on only two occasions, despite the fact that organisations such as the South African Communist Party and the African National Congress as well as the Pan Africanist Congress and various other internal and external organisations have over the years attempted to overthrow the existing order by violence.
Traditionally, the words “state of emergency” are associated with general disorder and chaos, and the enemies of the Republic attempted to exploit this situation to the utmost and to create the impression, especially abroad, that the unrest was much more widespread than was actually the case. The effect of this was extremely detrimental to the economy of the country. The declaration of the existence of a state of emergency in the relevant areas was, however, the only manner in which the relevant powers could at that stage be conferred upon the security forces. There is thus a clear need to confer upon those responsible for the safety of the State, the maintenance of law and order and the protection of the public additional powers to combat the unrest and thus avert a situation where a state of emergency has to be declared.
The Bill provides for this need by authorising the Minister of Law and Order to declare an area to be an unrest area for a period of three months. This may be done in an area where public disturbance, disorder, riot or public violence is occurring or threatening to occur and where additional measures are necessary to enable the Government to ensure the safety of the public or the maintenance of public order or to combat or prevent such public disturbance, disorder, riot or public violence.
Should circumstances necessitate the extension of the initial period, it will only be possible to extend such period with the approval of the State President; in other words, the approval of the executive authority is required for such a step. To state that the Bill will create a permanent state of emergency in South Africa is, therefore, not correct.
The power is also conferred upon the Minister to make such regulations relating to an unrest area as he deems necessary or expedient for the combating of unrest or the restoration of the public order and for making adequate provision for terminating such public disturbance, disorder, riot or public violence or dealing with any circumstances which have arisen or are likely to arise as a result of it.
It is not the object of the Bill to create an undeclared state of emergency, but to call the problem by its proper name. As has already been mentioned, the problem with which we have to deal is the occurrence of unrest and not a state of emergency in the sense in which this concept is traditionally understood.
The regulations of the Minister of Law and Order will only apply in an area which has been declared to be an unrest area. They will also provide for action to be taken outside an unrest area in connection with circumstances or events in an unrest area.
In the light of certain events which have occurred since the 1985 session, there can be no doubt about the necessity of the powers embodied in the Bill. As a result of unrest in various areas and organised stay-away actions, consumer boycotts and school boycotts which have been enforced by means of intimidation, thousands of people have been prevented from going about their normal business. Local authorities such as community and town councils have been disrupted by the unrest. Members of these councils have been violently intimidated in order to force them to resign. Calculated attempts are being made to replace these disrupted councils by so-called alternative structures.
Grievances, real or imagined, are being used to fuel resistance to government institutions and to provoke unrest.
In certain instances, “people’s courts” have even been established in an attempt to take over the normal functions of the administration of justice, and cruel punishments have been imposed. As part of the intimidation, community councillors and so-called police informers have been killed by way of, inter alia, the so-called “necklace” method, by which a tyre is put around the neck of a victim, filled with petrol and then set alight.Attacks on police have become a frequent occurrence. As a result of the unrest, community services in certain areas have been seriously disrupted. Since the lifting of the state of emergency, the unrest has increased.
Incidents of unrest cannot be viewed in isolation. It is the declared policy of the South African Communist Party and the African National Congress as well as the other organisations to which I have referred to make the Republic ungovernable and, in the process, to create so-called “no-go zones” in order to obtain mobility within the Republic. I indicated during the discussion of my Vote, and I wish to stress again, that there are no “no-go zones” in the Republic. It is, however, a fact that the African National Congress is seeking to create such “no-go zones”.
†In his presidential address at the celebration of the ANC’s 74th commemoration on 8 January 1986, Oliver Tambo confirmed that 1986 had been declared the year of “Umkhonto we Sizwe” or the People’s Army. He appealed to the inhabitants of South Africa to take part in an intensified political and military offensive during 1986 in order to transform the armed offensive into a fully-fledged people’s war. In this regard Tambo, who elaborated on this message during a Press conference in Lusaka on 9 January 1986, also stated that offensive internal political mass-mobilisation actions, especially united action in resistance campaigns, would be undertaken.
The following is stated in Umsebenzi, a publication of the South African Communist Party (Vol 2 No 1 of 1986):
Mrs Winnie Mandela herself recently confirmed publicly that the type of violence which occurs during unrest forms part of the revolutionary onslaught, when she said: “… with our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country”.
Once again we see that the onslaught is an organised one and that the unrest and riot with which we have to deal are part of a communist-inspired and communist-controlled onslaught. It is also a fact that, by means of an intensification of terror including bomb explosions, grenade attacks and shooting incidents, an endeavour is being made to escalate the unrest. Terrorism and unrest are thus connected with each other and should not be viewed in isolation.
In recent times the South African Police have found more and more terrorist arms caches. The policeman has to execute his duty in circumstances where at any time, mostly unexpectedly, sophisticated weaponry may be used against him, sometimes from crowds where he cannot retaliate for fear of loss of innocent lives.
It is a fact that in South Africa there is a process of reform and everything possible is being done to find ways and means to satisfy the political aspirations of all the inhabitants of this country. We must, however, not allow radicals to wreck this process and, to ensure that a climate exists in this country where negotiation is possible, intimidation, terrorism, unrest, disorder and the dismantling of authority cannot be tolerated. The Government would have preferred not to make use of the measures contained in the Bill, but it would be unwise in the prevailing circumstances not to provide for such measures. The Government does indeed hope that it will not be necessary to apply these measures on a large scale and that the proposed amendments will rather serve as a deterrent. The extent to which they will be implemented will be determined by the actions of those who instigate the unrest and violence.
It is a fact that where the State acts in the interests of society it is sometimes necessary to curtail the rights of the individual. It is, however, a recognised principle that where the interests of the individual are weighed against those of society, preference must be given to the interests of society. Naturally the Government regards the rights of the individual highly. For that reason the Government should also be mindful of the rights of those who are intimidated, whose lives and property are threatened and who have to live in fear. We can, therefore, justly ask ourselves whose rights should enjoy preference, those of the instigator of or participant in unrest or the rights of those whose desire is to go about their normal business, free from unrest and intimidation?
A few remarks should be made regarding certain provisions in the Bill.
Section 3(3)(c) of the Public Safety Act, 1953, provides for matters in respect of which emergency regulations may not be made, for example, the qualifications, nominations or election of members of Parliament. The “President’s Council” is inserted by the Bill in order to ensure that regulations regarding the President’s Council may also not be made.
Section 3(6) of the Public Safety Act requires that regulations made in terms of section 3 of the Act must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. The present position is only amended in the sense that Parliament will not be obliged to approve or disapprove the regulations. Parliament, however, has the power to discuss and disapprove such regulations by way of a substantive motion.
Section 4 of the Act presently refers to the Minister of Justice. Clause 4 of the Bill deletes the words “of Justice”. This amendment is necessary as the administration of the Public Safety Act, 1953, has, by Proclamation No R.30, of 9 March 1984, been transferred to the Minister of Law and Order.
As circumstances in connection with what measures are required may differ from one unrest area to another, provision is made that different regulations may be made for different unrest areas. It is not possible to indicate at this stage what the contents will be of the regulations that might be issued. The contents and scope of the regulations will be determined by the nature and extent of unrest in a specific area.
*Following on discussions with members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, at which certain aspects relating to the treatment of detainees were raised, I wish to give the assurance that where such regulations may provide for the detention of persons, provision will be made in the regulations, or in separate directions, for matters such as the medical examination of persons arrested in terms of such regulations, for access to such detainees by relatives and legal representatives, and for notifying a close relative of the detention and the place of detention and informing a detainee of his rights regarding the making of representations for his release.
Consequent upon this discussion certain amendments appear under my name on the Order Paper which were proposed, inter alia, by members of the two Houses concerned, and which have been accepted by me. After consideration of various representations I have also decided to propose the deletion of the proposed section 5B, which would have curtailed the jurisdiction of a court to inquire into or give judgment on the validity of the declaration of a state of emergency, of the declaration of an area to be an unrest area, or of regulations made with relation to an area in which a state of emergency has been declared or which has been declared to be an unrest area, would have been curtailed.
I also wish to express my thanks to these hon members for their contributions and for the responsible manner in which they approached the matter. I am referring here to all hon members of all the various parties in this House who took part in the discussions.
The Government realises only too well that this Bill contains far-reaching provisions, but adequate powers must be conferred upon the security forces without delay to enable them to restore law and order as soon as possible.
Mr Speaker, a Bill of this nature, which makes provision for the granting of virtually unlimited power by regulation, of course allows for a tremendously wide debate. I fully expect this debate to be conducted on a very wide basis. That is the way it should be, because it rarely happens that hon members of Parliament have the opportunity to discuss a Bill of this nature against the background of a very recent, very unpleasant memory of how the kind of regulation made possible by this type of legislation works in practice.
Let me respond immediately to one or two points made by the hon the Minister during his introductory Second Reading speech. The hon the Minister said that it was incorrect to suggest that there are “no-go zones” in South Africa today. In a certain sense I suppose that is correct. When the Police and the Security Forces move into an area with all their might, yes, then they certainly can get in there, and people like the hon the Minister and the State President are able to accompany them there to see for themselves what things look like. However, believe you me, Mr Speaker, when they withdraw from those areas, many of those areas indeed become “no-go zones”. Let me suggest this, for the attention of the hon the Minister: It would be stupid in the extreme to underestimate the degree to which matters have gone out of control in this country. It would be extremely stupid to suggest, for reasons of political vanity, that everything that is wrong in this country can be put right by force, by legislation of this nature and by means of the might of the State.
This Bill is possibly a greater disaster for its symbolic significance than for its content. I say this because it does not really make provision for a great number of extra powers. In other words, the existing Public Safety Act can be used to make regulations in order to do whatever the Government deems fit to be done in those areas to restore order. It is not as if the Bill before this House really extends those provisions. What it does, is to do the same thing under a different name.
The symbolic significance of this fact suggests a number of things to me. Firstly, it suggests a cynical order of priorities applied by the Government in not being so much concerned about the death and destruction and the harm to human relations in this country brought about by this kind of legislation as with the political inconvenience and the unfavourable business climate created by this kind of legislation. The hon the Minister has made that point himself and, in respect of this point, it is not necessary to produce any further proof other than to point out the fact that this Bill seems to give the Police the same unlimited powers as they had under the state of emergency without having the political inconvenience of declaring such a state of emergency. The State President himself and the hon the Minister of Law and Order have made this point very clear on a number of occasions. They somehow believe—and it is a very naïve and forlorn belief—that the international community will be bluffed by this semantic trick—that the declaration of a state of unrest will allow for a more surreptitious exercise of emergency powers and that business confidence will respond more favourably to this new description.
It is hardly necessary to point out what a hopeless suggestion this is. Nobody is going to be bluffed by this! The very fact that this debate is taking place will make this very clear to anybody who needs information about the state of affairs in this country so as to decide whether to have confidence in the future of the country or not, to know precisely where he stands, how safe investments in the country will be and what his future in a country like this will be.
Secondly, this Bill symbolically suggests the paranoia of the Government which sees every manifestation of political conflict as being communist inspired. The Government believes its own propaganda and, therefore, it is unable to see the real causes of conflict in their correct perspective. [Interjections.] The Government’s belief that the underlying causes of political unrest are all to be found in Moscow prevents it from addressing the real problem. It also prevents it from having any real perspective even of the nature of the conflict. It fail to see how tension and conflict end in violence. The concept of “total onslaught” provides ample evidence of this attitude. All sorts of organisations and individuals are compartmentalised and defined as “the enemy”. The same over-simplified motives are ascribed to all of them, and the response to whatever they do is, therefore, mostly short-sighted and counterproductive.
Thirdly, this Bill symbolises something which is quite a disaster for this country because it suggests that a decision has been taken by the Government to address the most fundamental conflict in this country with oppression and violence rather than through negotiation. It suggests that the Government still believe they can extricate South Africa from the mess it finds itself in by sheer oppression and the application of force. In order to test whether this is valid I think one should possibly get away from just having a theoretical discussion and look at the experience of the past 18 months. I believe that the past 18 months has seen in South Africa just about the most extensive application of force possible against a civilian population. I do not believe that the Police, the Government or the executive could have applied more extensive force without actually wiping out entire communities. Was this effective and has it helped to restore peace and order in South Africa?
Statistics of the Institute of Race Relations and other bodies as well as official figures supplied by the hon the Minister have shown that in some areas—since the declaration of the state of emergency on 21 July last year—the number of deaths at least has decreased, but in other areas those statistics show an increase in the number of deaths. I do not suggest that those statistics of themselves necessarily give us the clearest picture from which to draw conclusions, but what I think is more important as far as the state of emergency is concerned or whatever else the Government has done in terms of Police action in the past few years is that they have failed to stem the ever-increasing rate of killing and destruction in this country. People are still being killed in political violence—in some areas more than before or during the state of emergency of the latter half of last year and the beginning of this year.
This state of affairs is now being used in arguments by hon members of the governing party not in order to reconsider oppressive measures of this nature in order to restore law and order, not to weigh up other possible strategies of addressing this terrible problem that faces all of us, but merely to repeat the mistakes of the past and to repeat the approach that in my view has proven to be completely useless.
Democracy in the Black communities has all but been suspended. In fact, not only in the Black communities but also in many other communities have meetings been banned and protests—whatever their nature—prohibited. This has resulted in the detention without trial of thousands of people. We have experienced the banning of meetings, of protests, of news and of views. What have we had in return until today, 2 June 1986? Are we better off than we were 18 months ago? Are we better off than we were two years ago? The answer is no, for we are infinitely worse off. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister’s reaction to this will invariably be—as his Second Reading speech has already indicated—that the reasons must be found in Moscow and Lusaka, in the ANC and the PAC—in fact, in all sorts of other places. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter, however, is that we are not going to change Moscow and neither are we going to change Lusaka, in spite of the pathetic attempt of a few weeks ago. We are, however, able to change certain things in this country, and until and unless we address that question we are going to make no headway in restoring some kind of civilised society in this country.
The question must be asked whether the state of emergency or the application of any similar type of legislation has been effective against those individuals—and they are there!—who are the real culprits in respect of violence and political insurrection in the Black and Coloured townships in this country. Has the state of emergency been effective against them? Once again, I am afraid, the answer is no. After all, what difference does it make to them if democracy is for all practical purposes suspended, if meetings are banned, if protests are prohibited, if news is banned, and if views are banned? It makes no difference to them. What difference does it make to them if their associates and supporters are locked up while they remain on the run? It was no strange thing in the course of the past year to hear of people making statements from positions of hiding. Can we really claim that what we have done has been effective if those people had anything to do with the difficulties we find ourselves in?
What the state of emergency has done and what the application of the Government’s policy of oppression has done in this regard has been to make life impossible for those people who still wanted to function democratically and peacefully.
The enormity of the failure of the Government’s handling of political conflict and violence is really to be found mainly in the desperate degree to which our society has become polarised over the past year and a half. For that the Government must bear a terrible responsibility. Tens of thousands of people in our Black townships who have hardly had any political thoughts or leanings before, have by now given their support to thought, radical activists and to new resistance organisations springing up all over the place. They have done this because they feel that they have been treated as the enemy because of the way in which the unrest situation has been handled by this Government. I believe that this Bill has the potential to aggravate this situation to a point of no return.
*I should like to mention a few examples of what happened during the course of last year. I am not trying to imply that all these things happened as a result of powers which were granted to the Police or to the authority in terms of the emergency. However, it has everything to do with the behaviour of the Police during and their reaction to certain situations. I want to return later to the position of the Police. During the course of last year—this had already been mentioned in the House—an incident occurred at a mosque in Athlone when a meeting of approximately 3 000 people, which was held on the evening of 17 October 1985, was surrounded by a number of armoured vehicles belonging either to the Police or to the Defence Force or to both. Apparently a police vehicle had been fired at earlier that evening, a few blocks away from the mosque, and a policeman had in fact been seriously wounded. Naturally one deplores those kinds of events.
For some reason or other this led to a number of men—whether they were policemen or Defence Force men we still do not know today—surrounding the mosque. They probably did so out of resentment or in retaliation. They simply sat there and made no attempt to enter the mosque. When these people left the mosque after the meeting, shots were fired at them. One person, a certain Mr Free, was then shot and killed in the street in front of the mosque. The bullets had gone through his back and when his friends picked him up his entrails were still lying on the ground in front of him. [Interjections.]
No, the hon members must listen because this is what happened. I am stating it in this way specifically, because the next morning I received a call from the doctor who had treated that man, and that doctor was profoundly shocked about what he had seen.
The shot man was smuggled out and taken to the Somerset Hospital, but upon their arrival the people who took him there were arrested on a charge of motor theft.
Whatever gave rise to that situation, I wonder whether hon members can imagine what the reaction of the community to such a situation had to be. I do not even want to blame anyone for it. [Interjections.] I just wonder what the reaction of the community to such a situation had to be. I want to ask the hon the Minister of Law and Order what he or his Government did to conduct an investigation into the incident. What did he do to institute an investigation?
There was another incident that has also been mentioned in this House already. It is the case of the so-called jack-in-the-box. A SATS lorry with members of the Railway Police Special Task Force hidden in big crates on the back, rode up and down in Thornton Road in Athlone in the hope that the vehicle would be stoned, for otherwise I cannot understand why they drove up and down there. When stones were hurled at them, they jumped out of the crates and started shooting. Three children were shot dead there.
No one condones stone-throwing and that type of disorderliness in any community, but was what happened there not provocation? Does the hon the Minister approve of a vehicle driving up and down with the specific purpose of provoking people into throwing stones at the vehicle? [Interjections.] They then shot and killed three children.
To this day none of the policemen concerned and no member of the Government, least of all the hon the Minister, know whether the three children who were shot and killed were involved in the stone-throwing, or merely got caught in the cross-fire.
What do you say about it?
I say that one of those children was shot in the passage of his own home.
Was any investigation instituted into this incident? Were any attempts made to obtain the particulars of what happened there from whoever was able to give evidence on this matter?
Does the hon the Minister, the Government or hon members on the opposite side of this House have any idea of what such a situation does to race relations in this country?
It is arrogant and out of touch!
Do they realise what it could do to any chance we may possibly have of moving towards reconciliation in this country?
Did you go and have a look at Pretoria West?
Many of the measures in security legislation, as it is called, are sometimes used in a way which, in my respectful opinion, has nothing whatsoever to do with security and orderliness. The number of orders issued by senior officers, or by the hon the Minister himself, which are aimed at democratic expression of opinion rather than at disorder, are legion. I wonder whether the hon the Minister knows about these orders. I know he knows about this one. At the beginning of this parliamentary session the Divisional Commissioner of the Western Cape issued an order with an incredibly wide ambit. It reads as follows:
†This ban was to apply from 30 January to 15 February. Does this prohibition have anything to do with law and order? No, nothing whatsoever. It has to do with the suppression of fundamental democratic rights. This was done on the day or the day before the opening of Parliament.
What was done about it?
I am coming to that. [Interjections.] I appreciate it very much that that hon the Minister promptly took one look at that order and cancelled it. I appreciate that, but … [Interjections.]… I want to suggest to him that he has probably never set eyes on two thirds of these orders which have been issued in the name of the Police and, therefore, in the name of this Government. If he had set eyes on them, he ought to have withdrawn the whole lot of them that had been issued.
However, if one replaces democratic government, democratic rule and a democratic way of addressing political problems by a kind of police state situation, what does one expect? With great respect, Sir, the Police are undermanned and have to cope with incredible tension and difficulties. They have neither the training nor the experience to regulate democracy in this country, and nobody should expect them to do so. That is not their job. If one expects that of the Police, one must know in advance that they will not be able to accomplish that.
I want to deal now with another example, Sir. A few weeks ago I was asked by the family of someone who was to be buried in Mbekweni Township, outside Paarl, to intervene and to establish whether it was necessary to negotiate with either the Police or the local magistrate in order to make sure that that funeral took place peacefully and with the least degree of interference. I phoned the Police as well as the magistrate and, after a couple of days of negotiations, we finally succeeded in changing at least one of the terms of the restrictions imposed on the holding of that funeral. Let me just give hon members some idea of what was contained in that restricting order. First of all it stated that the funeral had to take place indoors. We tried to convey to the relevant authorities that that funeral was going to be attended by anything up to 10 000 people. There was no church in Mbekweni which could accommodate more than 1 000 people. Does it make sense to expect such a funeral to be held indoors? Will it not make more sense if it is held in a stadium? That is where the family and the committee organising the funeral wanted it to be held. That would make much more sense, Sir. Be that as it may, Sir, we made no headway at all.
A second stipulation was that that funeral was not allowed to take place on a Saturday, a Sunday or a public holiday. Once again, why should this be ordered? Was it done in order to create a situation of strain between employers and their employees wanting to attend the funeral, because it was clear, Sir, they would be expected to accept the fact that their employees would not be present at their places of work on the day of the funeral? On the other hand, it could have been done with a view to creating a situation in which people who took their work seriously would be compelled by circumstances not to attend that funeral. This type of irritating restriction is imposed by the authorities in order to cause difficulties for people. The only thing it really achieves is the creation of extra tension in the community concerned. There were also restrictions in connection with who would be allowed to speak and also bans on the raising of flags or banners, on the distribution of pamphlets, on political utterances, and so forth.
I can make quite a long story of this whole affair. The result, however, was that the funeral—let us make no mistake about it, it was a politicised funeral—could have taken place and it could have been possible to have had 20 or 30 well-trained policemen on duty that day, armed with teargas or whatever, in case anything went wrong. They should, however, have been kept at a discreet distance.
Instead, Mr Speaker, what happened? Because of the imposition of all those restrictions it was necessary to have an army of policemen on duty there, on a public holiday, in order to enforce regulations and restrictions which were completely unrealistic in the circumstances.
Mr Speaker, those policemen also have families, friends and homes. They also have hobbies and sporting activities. They also want to live some kind of private life. The way, however, in which this Government handles political conflict in this country causes life to become unbearable for those people. This emanates from political short sightedness and from political arrogance on a quite disturbing scale. I believe, Sir, we cannot continue along these lines. There exists a notion among some people in South Africa, and particularly in Government circles, that when political conflict gets out of hand the best or only solution is really to grant more powers to the Police and the security forces, and also to the executive, and in a process of suspending—at least in part—the functions of the courts of law of the country to decide the guilt or otherwise of an accused person, this Government also sidesteps the functions of Parliament, the institution responsible for the making of laws. This is done by way of the Government deciding for itself what should be allowed and what not.
First of all they should get rid of power sharing!
This view, Sir, suggests of course a massive lack of confidence in the most basic instruments of civilisation, and also in Parliament and in the courts of law. Both Parliament and the courts of law are treated in the process with a kind of contemptuous tolerance. This view, which is held by the Government, implies that in the worst cases of conflict these institutions—Parliament which decides what is right and wrong, and the courts of law which have to administer justice—are really no good at all. One wonders, if this is indeed the point of view of the Government, why those who hold this view have any respect at all for these democratic institutions under normal circumstances. If they cannot work in the real crunch situations and in the real test cases, why should they be effective in normal circumstances? Why, after all, should Parliament as the lawmaker and the courts as the adjudicator be any good in lesser conflict situations if they are no good in regulating the greater conflict situations? I cannot find words strong enough to record my disagreement with this view and to condemn it as dangerous and misguided, and as a first step towards a system of complete totalitarianism.
I believe that members of this House of Parliament in particular should take note of the content of this Bill. We now have a system where legislation is dealt with by standing committees, even before it comes to this House. A great deal of debate takes place in the standing committees, evidence is often called for, and legislation is probably looked at in a more effective manner, I believe in all sincerity, than was the case before. Those hon members must understand, however, that what they are doing in approving this Bill is a cop-out. They are delegating the powers of deciding what is right and wrong to a State department. Whereas we as members of Parliament and members of standing committees would examine the clauses of a new Bill carefully and with great consideration and obtain advice on it, now, as we have done so often in the past, we are giving to policemen the right to decide that something is banned, something else is allowed and something else is not.
[Inaudible.]
No, the hon the Minister does not even understand what I am saying to him. I am suggesting that we are making laws which in a sense gives the law making functions to a department of State which is not qualified or trained to fulfil that functions. That is what I am talking about and the hon the Minister does not seem to understand what I am trying to suggest to him. Once we have done that with regard to the most central and the most important conflict in this country, how can we morally claim that Parliament is still a relevant institution? How can we morally claim the right to sit here and discuss legislation if, in regard to the most important and most fundamental conflict in South Africa, the job is handed over to the Police Force or some other institution of State? The same situation basically applies with regard to the courts. When it comes to the adjudication of whether there has been an offence or not, the role of the court in that regard is suspended when detention without trial is applied.
The hon the Minister is seeking further power, not only in this Bill but also in another Bill that is about to come to this House, to detain people, to impose banning and restrictions without reference to any normal judicial process. I want to say to the hon members of this House that they must understand that if they continue along these fines and along this disastrous course of trying to address the conflict in this country by means of further oppression, it will be infinitely more difficult to deal with these matters in the way they should be dealt with, when they come to their senses one day. That hon Minister takes great exception if we refer to the example of Rhodesia, but I want to quote that example to him once again. Ian Smith passed every conceivable measure and acquired every conceivable right that the Statute Book could give him to deal with any kind of political point of view that he disapproved of. He ended up being the man who had to hand over power in that country. The irony is that the new government of Zimbabwe has not needed to pass one single new Bill in that country to do whatever they want to do. [Interjections.] They can do whatever they like because Mr Ian Smith put on the Statute Book of that country laws granting every conceivable form of power that they need to deal with their political opponents. [Interjections.] For that reason, I would warn that we must understand what we are doing here today. If this Bill is passed, it will take us further down the slippery slope of escalating violence, destruction and the most terrible degree of polarisation. I therefore have no option but to move the following amendment:
Mr Speaker, I am torn between opening my speech by pursuing the hon member for Green Point’s arguments or congratulating you on your birthday. I am afraid circumstances leave me no other choice but to take the latter course and to congratulate you heartily and express the hope that you will have good health in the coming year.
Hear, hear!
Mr Speaker, I want to say, as today is a good day for you, that the example you set in acting firmly and fairly in maintaining order in this House and the other Houses during debating is also to my mind what the Government envisages with this legislation. I think it no more than right to say we are not sensitive to criticism and have repeatedly acknowledged that there are certain fields in which there are justified grounds for grievances. Nevertheless I do not believe that one is playing according to the rules in burying police officers alive or in identifying people during funerals and then murdering them in cold blood.
Something which has struck me is that the hon Leader of the Official Opposition indicated during previous debates that he would support all effective measures for combating unrest. When this involves the institution of a method which we describe as an effective measure, however, we receive nothing but criticism from hon members of that side of the House. I should like to ask in the course of this debate or of others what exactly is meant by the effective measures alluded to by the hon Leader of the Official Opposition.
I am in no way equipped or competent to be the spokesman for hon members of the other two Houses who are to conduct debates there themselves. Nor am I in any way sufficiently arrogant to wish to speak on their behalf but I think that, when leading articles appear in newspapers such as happened this morning in Business Day, I am entitled merely to give my own version of occurrences in standing committees.
As do your coalition partners! [Interjections.]
I consider it no more than right to say that hon members of the other two Houses exercised their judgment in terms of the rules not to participate in a vote which occurred there and that in terms of the rules I exercised the discretion according to which I should have liked to see the process continue. The remarkable fact that emerges from this is that rules will not preserve a constitution. It is the attitudes of the people who follow the course of that constitution which will maintain it. [Interjections.] I think subsequent discussions were evidence of a spirit of goodwill to find and meet one another and I think it no more than right to congratulate those hon colleagues on the initiatives they took regarding amendments accepted by the hon the Minister. It is a fact that all the hon members from the various Houses testified from different spheres of experience so it is important that the mouthpiece for each sphere of experience should be heard on this.
In this regard I should very much like to thank the officials of the SA Police as well as those of the Directorate of Security Legislation for the hours they put in with this standing committee and also during other discussions, for being available and assisting all hon members laying claim to it. I should also be neglecting my duty if I did not thank Parliamentary officials for their contributions. I think we have broken new ground with the report issued by this standing committee. I have been informed that we are creating a precedent in that one is continually breaking new ground as regards the implementation of the Constitution.
The envisaged operation of this legislation is clearly outlined in the accompanying memorandum. The hon the Minister also explained it clearly in his Second Reading speech. The crucial question will be how one should judge the desirability and necessity of this legislation. It is important to say that we do not draw up legislation for the juristic puritan; we make a law so that it may serve as an instrument to assist authority to maintain law and order in this country. I also experience a conflict between my sense of justice and my political sense but my political sense wins because it tells me we dare not permit unrest to continue uncontrolled in this country any longer. Consequently we have to place effective measures in the hands of authority in order to combat it.
I have reservations on a certain matter. I think the utterances of certain institutions, like hon members of the PFP as well in saying that they also wish to range themselves on the side of people who wish to institute effective measures, are merely lip service.
What circumstances make the situation so serious and urgent? Every South African listening to the news and reading the newspapers can answer this question himself. In brief, it comes down to the fact that no responsible Government can permit minors to govern areas through intimidation. South Africa is tired of unrest. I can defend this standpoint with great confidence as it is not only the standpoint of the White people. [Interjections.]
If I say today that I do not wish to speak on behalf of representatives in the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives, I want to state here that I have a responsibility to speak on behalf of Black people who do not participate in government processes. I think their voice should also be heard so I do not regard myself as arrogant if I reproduce some of the evidence here which was submitted to us by way of informal discussions.
[Inaudible.]
Black people are also sick and tired of being intimidated. [Interjections.] Consequently the Government has the duty to support them in this regard.
I hear the hon member for Kuruman muttering something. If he wishes to put a question, he is welcome to rise and do so.
No, I was saying the White people of Krugersdorp … [Interjections.]
I say that in terms of this measure active steps will be taken to address alternative structures and destroy them.
The fact is that a price is so often put on the role played by the courts in this country. What is said about the scene, however, played out around a people’s court when the statement is made that a people’s court is justified if it has the sanction of the masses? The only test to which it is subjected to establish whether it may be implemented successfully or whether there is any justification for its implementation is whether it has the support of the masses.
What legal system applies in this? What methods for imposing punishment apply in it? What trained jurists act as dispensers of justice and what measure of cross-examination is permitted in such a people’s court? No, when those courts act as an alternative structure, the only test is that they have to have the sanction of the masses. The truth is that the masses in South Africa are intimidated by a box of matches and the so-called necklace murders. All opposition is simply swept away by means of intimidation.
South Africa is making a law for South Africans here. It does matter what fault foreigners find with it; South Africans have to handle the situation here. I feel quiet admiration for the legal systems and the Bill of Human Rights of the USA, Germany and numerous other countries but those are legal systems applying in those states and countries. We have an exceptional population composition in South Africa and the unrest manifests itself in an exceptional way as well. That is why we have to deal with this unrest in a South African way and ward off the onslaught accordingly.
Partition is the solution too. [Interjections.]
South Africans make laws for South Africans as they read the situation today.
The hon member for Kuruman, who shortly before did not wish to reply to a question, has just said by means of an interjection that partition is the only solution to the problems of this country. The fact is that one cannot escape the realities of this country; one can pretend not to see them, but one cannot evade them. [Interjections.]
A part of the realities of this country is that South Africa will now have to oblige and assist those inhabitants ranging themselves on the side of law and order, regardless of the colour of their skins, to be able to establish a respected opinion on this.
Wait until the referendum comes.
One point is unassailable and that is that a person cannot build the future of a country exclusively on security legislation. Any person wishing to do this is building on sand. Justice Rabie confirms this argument. If we do not proceed dynamically and imaginatively on the road of constitutional reform, there will be no future for us. That is why I look forward longingly to the day when all our security legislation will fall into disuse because we have passed along the road of constitutional reform by way of evolution and not revolution.
Nevertheless I have to say in support of this legislation that this juncture requires such a measure.
Mr Speaker, I should like to open by congratulating you heartily on your birthday. We hope there are many fine years ahead of you.
I do not wish to pause for long over the hon member for Green Point. He put his case on behalf of his party but it is amazing that those hon members always come with gruesome representations and seldom also refer in them to the victims of barbarous attacks inspired by ANC forces. If one thinks only of what occurred in Church Street West and of incidents in Amanzimtoti and throughout our country, one really cannot understand why the hon member in particular is often so insensitive toward those victims of truly ferocious ANC attacks.
The hon member exhibited his sympathy by attending the funerals of deceased ANC members. What does this symbolise? It symbolises a spirit of unity with ANC action in our country and the inhuman murders perpetrated here by them. [Interjections.] It is a pity that this image of the party so perpetually comes to the fore.
In opening I wish to say that the CP wholeheartedly supports the principle of affording greater and more effective power to the SA Police and our Security Forces. Such extended powers are included in the amending Bill which has been tabled. When this matter was discussed in the standing committee, we afforded this Bill our unqualified support. This morning a number of amendments appear on the Order Paper as moved by the hon member for Houghton, however, as well as amending motions by the hon the Minister of Law and Order which now make it impossible for us to support the Bill without qualification.
We were expecting the hon member for Houghton’s amendments on the Order Paper as well as those she placed on the Order Paper on 27 May 1986. These were in accordance with the standpoints she and her party adopted throughout during the meetings of the standing committee. It was actually the standpoint of PFP members that they wanted absolutely nothing to do with this legislation and that they would oppose it at the Second Reading as has eventuated.
The strength of PFP feeling on this Bill also emerges from the fact that the hon member for Houghton alleged at one stage that the condition of violence in our country was abating. Can hon members conceive of the hon member for Houghton stating that the condition of violence was abating? [Interjections.] She is doing everything in her power to prevent this legislation from being incorporated in the Statute Book.
Nevertheless we find the Government’s new standpoint, as evidenced by the hon the Minister’s amendments, an enormous surprise. [Interjections.] We ask the hon the Minister why he is bowing to the demands of the Progs and the other members in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates.
And the demands of the New Nats.
It is very clear that over the past few days there has been great scrambling in Government circles to comply with the demands of hon members of the PFP and the hon members in the other two Houses.
We find it totally unacceptable that the hon the Minister has now agreed to abandon the proposed section 5B of the Act because this section is really one of the most effective provisions of the Act. It has been the standpoint of the Government throughout and we should like to have the reason why the hon the Minister has abandoned it more clearly outlined. [Interjections.]
It is clear to us that the hon the Minister has abandoned this section in political compliance with the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates and also to satisfy the demands of hon members of the PFP—but to the detriment of South Africa. The hon Minister was right when he wished to incorporate the proposed section 5B in the Statute Book in the first instance. Similarly the hon the Minister was right when the Internal Security Act was passed in 1982 and section 28(7) of that Act provided:
It was right at the time, Sir, and I wish to state that today it is more than essential that it be there too. [Interjections.]
The consequence of the deletion of the proposed section 5B will lead to drawn-out and prolonged litigation which will delay essential action by the hon the Minister and the SA Police. I emphasise, long-drawn-out litigation will ensue because of frustration built up concerning detained people which will then seriously thwart the effective course of action to maintain peace and order and combat violence. We therefore say it is a pity that the hon the Minister has bowed to those demands.
Nevertheless this provides us with the umpteenth proof of how power-sharing in terms of the new constitutional dispensation in our country paralyses the security services of our country.
It is a fact that the hon the Minister was supported by senior legal circles in our country for the inclusion of the proposed section 5B. I shall read hon members the standpoint of the Pretoria Bar Council as expressed by Adv William de Villiers, the chairman of that council:
Adv De Villiers then draws our attention to a variety of court verdicts. There are also numerous findings in the Rabie Report to which I shall refer here which also made a recommendation in favour of the retention of a clause in circumstances such as those contained in the proposed section 5B.
We had the advantage of various contributions in our consultations in the Standing Committee on Law and Order. There were various standpoints from the Bar and the Association of Law Societies. We also had the exceptionally illuminating confidential report from the SA Police on the influence of the riot situation on the task of the Police.
I wish to repeat that one cannot really hold a meaningful discussion and take decisions on the legislation which is before us without referring thoroughly to the incisive study made by the Rabie Commission a few years ago on situations we are experiencing in our country today.
We believe we should test the legislation before us by means of three important questions. Firstly, we should decide whether the legislation is essential; secondly, whether it is adequate and effective and, thirdly, whether the legislation we now wish to approve is fair. These are the three most important yardsticks against which this legislation should be tested.
I believe we may say that the legislation is decidedly essential to create the mechanisms and machinery to enable the Government and governmental institutions to combat and/or to prevent public disturbance, disorder, riot or public violence effectively and as speedily as possible.
When we examine the riot situation which has existed over the past 18 months in our country and in particular in certain areas of our country and is still occurring at present and is currently—I think this is incontrovertible—escalating dramatically, I think no hon members in this House can retain any doubt that conditions in certain areas continue to deteriorate. This is simply not conducive to the maintenance of law and order. Surely no hon members of this House can retain any doubts that the escalation in public disturbance, disorder, riot and public violence has an important political substructure.
Today we are not dealing with riot, public disturbance, disorder and violence by ordinary criminals and ordinary disregarders of law. This is not the case if land mines, limpet mines, petrol bombs, fire bombs, hand grenades, AK rifles and horrendous, gruesome necklace murders cause so many women, children, holiday-makers and the ordinary inhabitants of especially our Black residential areas to be killed, burnt or seriously injured by self-acknowledged ANC action. Surely it should be very clear to all hon members in this House that the riot conditions are politically inspired to a very great degree. In many circles the escalating riot situation is actually being seen as part of the revolutionary condition our country is experiencing.
I therefore regard it as a fait accompli that we are experiencing an abnormal situation of unrest and disturbance and that the necessity for granting the SA Police extraordinary powers is proof of this in order to create extraordinary mechanisms for combating the condition we are now discussing. If we take the realities of our society into account as they currently appear in some areas and as they were also confidentially spelt out in the standing committee by the SA Police, it is absolutely essential that we afford the hon the Minister the powers he is requesting through this legislation. I think we are all highly concerned that the condition to which this legislation relates may continue. It dare not and must not continue like this any longer because it is turning our country into an ash heap.
Increasing attacks on various structures of authority, for instance the SA Police, the Security Forces and/or local community leaders and other infrastructures as well as their destruction can certainly no longer be tolerated. To attempt stemming them by way of the usual legal processes is to be blind to realities. It is a fact that an increasing number of civil court orders can no longer be executed in some areas. There are illegal courts in many of these unrest areas which ignore the authority of our ordinary courts in barbarous and primitive ways as has already been stated explicitly here this afternoon.
We can decidedly not tolerate this in a civilised, orderly community. Regarding the necessity of the legislation before us, I therefore wish to state it as my unqualified conviction that the legislation is essential. In reply to the question of the adequacy and the effectiveness of this legislation, we want to say that if the legislation were approved unchanged—I underline the word “unchanged”—it would be both adequate and effective.
Surely we all admit that the state of emergency instituted in 36 districts in July of last year and a few months later in a further six districts occasioned a dramatic decline in the riot situation as was pointed out to us by the SA Police on a confidential basis.
The SA Police has already given evidence before the standing committee and I am satisfied with its evidence that, in many respects and for obvious reasons, it would be more advantageous and effective to identify certain towns, cities and regions as unrest areas and to promulgate measures for those areas by means of regulations. This is more desirable in the national interest than to promulgate a general state of emergency as we did last year. The steps envisaged by this legislation are adequate and desirable to make this more intensive and more practicable.
As regards the fairness of the legislation before us and our intention to adopt it, we have to accept that there are many arguments possible in the light of which its fairness and justice may be tested. It is an important question whether the legislation is fair and just in the sense that the right and freedom of the individual will be so drastically limited and eroded by its practical implementation.
This is a source of great concern and anxiety especially to the Association of Law Societies of South Africa, the General Council of the Bar of South Africa and the Johannesburg Bar Council. They also expressed this opinion in the evidence given before the standing committee. Although one has respect and regard for the opinion of the legal fraternity, I believe they are being very naïve and unrealistic in opposing this legislation in view of the extremely serious riot situation which is developing nationwide today.
My standpoint is that the view of those legal experts is definitely naive and not acceptable to us. Of course, as always they are extremely concerned about the so-called “rule of law” principle which is supposedly being seriously eroded by the legislation before us especially in dealing with the summary detention of those who will be arrested and detained in areas of unrest.
They are also concerned about the proposed section 5B. It provides that no interdict or other process shall be issued for the staying or setting aside of any proclamation, regulation or notice by the State President or the hon the Minister issued in terms of the provisions of the principal Act and the Bill.
The legal fraternity and obviously also the PFP are especially unhappy because of the provision in the Bill that no court has the right to investigate or find on the validity of any such proclamation, notice or regulation.
Allow me a few comments on the so-called “rule of law” principle. Various people interpret that concept differently. To some it means the maintenance of individual freedom; to others it means the right of our courts to test Government action and to others it means something more general, that is the maintenance of general principles of justice. To me this principle comprises a combination of the maintenance of individual rights and the rights and interests of the community. The Rabie Commission also found that justice should be sought in that balance.
Justice can only be promoted in an ordered, decent and safe community. The so-called oppressive measures which are so often cause for complaint are directed against the forces wishing to create disorder in South Africa and the so-called “rule of law” can only be defended in an orderly community. It is true that we dare not absolutise the rights of the individual and the community but we had better examine what we wish to do through this legislation against the background of the so-called “rule of law” standpoint.
The Bill is aimed at the actions of creators of disturbance, terrorists, arsonists and perpetrators of violence. These are people who want to overthrow the State. It is aimed at those who want to destroy South Africa by violence; it is not aimed at law-abiding people.
Experience has shown that extraordinary powers are required to take effective steps against creators of disturbance, perpetrators of violence and people wishing to disrupt public order and threaten the general safety of communities. Ordinary police methods are not effective against agitators, arsonists, etc. Legislation such as is required now should be closely linked to the realities which make it essential. I should like to read the House the standpoint of the Rabie Commission in this regard. Paragraph 3.23 on page 7 of the report runs:
In support of that standpoint the Rabie Commission referred to and quoted from a judgement by Chief Justice Innes in an Appeal Court finding in the case Krohn v The Minister of Defence and others in 1915. Chief Justice Innes said the following inter alia:
What is the date of the judgement?
It was an Appeal Court judgement of 1915 which was quoted with acknowledgement by the Rabie Commission in 1982. [Interjections.]
I should also like to draw the attention of the House to two further relevant comments on the Rabie Report which are very applicable to the legislation we have before us at present. Both the General Council of the Bar of South Africa and the Johannesburg Bar Council said in their written representations:
In this regard I wish to draw the attention of the House to a finding of the Rabie Commission in which the following statement is made. I quote from paragraph 7.51 on page 86 of the Rabie report:
That is obviously what we experienced last year.
I should like to conclude by saying that the Rabie Commission stated briefly that it had no doubt that common law and rules of procedure did not provide adequate measures for maintaining law and order in the case of an emergency. The Commission was in agreement in quoting Prof Matthews, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Natal. In a memorandum submitted to the Rabie Commission, the professor made the following statement:
Therefore emergency measures are not only desirable, Sir, but also most essential.
The second comment of the Rabie Commission to which I should like to refer is that related to emergency measures without the proclamation of a state of emergency. Hon members would do well to read what is said in paragraph 7.50 and paragraph 7.52. We read in paragraph 7.51 … [Time expired.]
Mr Speaker, the hon member Mr Theunissen pursued a very shrewd approach to the legislation before us. Initially he expressed his party’s qualified support for it but ultimately, about two thirds through his speech, he said the legislation before us would be both adequate and effective. A little later he said the legislation was not only adequate but desirable.
Yes, without your amendments!
The hon member is therefore quite satisfied that the legislation before us will be altogether adequate and effective—he actually said so himself.
But without your amendments! [Interjections]
Mr Speaker, it is quite clear that there is a split in the CP caucus on this legislation. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kuruman differs diametrically from the hon member Mr Theunissen. [Interjections.]
You have a sick mind! [Interjections.]
Mr Speaker, I shall get to the hon member for Green Point somewhat later. In opening, however, I wish to state that if there is one matter on which South Africans are absolutely united …
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permitted for an hon member to tell another hon member of this House he has a sick mind?
Order! Which hon member made that remark?
Mr Speaker, the hon member for Barberton passed that remark about the hon member for False Bay.
Order! I do not think the hon member for Barberton should make such a remark. He must withdraw it.
I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. I shall say the hon member’s mind is not too healthy. [Interjections.]
His mind has a cold! [Interjections.]
Order! The hon member for False Bay may proceed.
I do not hold the hon member for Barberton’s interjection against him. Usually that hon member is quite civilised. Perhaps he is still upset over what happened at the Voortrekker Monument on Saturday afternoon when Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche took over from them. [Interjections.]
I wish to repeat what I have just said, which is that if there is one case on which we as South Africans should stand absolutely united it is precisely our security legislation. We should take note of the circumstances surrounding us and of the repeated warnings of the hon the Minister of Law and Order and the hon the Minister of Defence as well as the State President’s warnings over many years.
We should be bitterly naive to want to believe that those planning and inciting unrest in South Africa are stupid; on the contrary, the entire pattern of actions launched is evidence of their exceptionally meticulous planning and strategy. One is amazed that so much time and energy and manpower and money are spent in the world on the undermining of existing orders and fomenting revolution.
On Saturday the State President drew loud and clear attention in particular to the threats against South Africa. One asks oneself how many more times this has to be said. Is it possible to state the seriousness of the threat we are experiencing more clearly? One almost reaches the conclusion on seeing how calmly our people accept it that they believe that it cannot be true or valid. One can therefore almost say that we have warned our people too frequently. There is no doubt that war is being planned within South Africa and it does not demand inside information or an acute sense of observation to see how the orchestrated strategy of the incitement to unrest is developing within and outside South Africa and being taken to a climax.
The hon the Minister has already sketched the role of the ANC and other organisations. Bishop Tutu is using the unrest he helped to create within South Africa overseas to cause further unrest through his disinvestment campaign. One then understands why people say, perhaps jocularly, that Bishop Tutu should receive a new peace prize this year because he has broken last year’s.
It is clear that the final round in this macabre play of terrorism and political intrigue on the one hand and the struggle for the retention of Christian values and civilisation on the other is planned to take place before our very eyes shortly. It is also known that the ANC has chosen 1986 as the year in which the South African Government is to fall and is planning and developing its strategy in execution of these plans across quite a few fronts.
I do not regard it as far-fetched to contend that one of those fronts consists of convincing hon members of this House to support its standpoints even if it is only in remaining passive toward the ultimate execution and implementation of its plan. Anyone who wishes to follow and analyse the chess game played by Moscow will soon find that South Africa will not escape its efforts to establish a Marxist system here.
We are already being confronted by the mercenaries of Moscow and the sooner all South Africans realise this the better. That is why it surprises me that the hon member for Green Point—I see him smiling and shaking his head to indicate that he does not believe us—can retain the simplistic approach that Moscow is not involved in events in our country.
I did not say that.
The hon member for Green Point then went further and said it was stupid to think the situation in South Africa could be settled by legislation of this nature. The hon member said: “We are not going to change Moscow but we can change South Africa.” [Interjections.] All I can deduce from this is that he meant: “If you can’t beat them, join them.” That was the only deduction one could make from the hon member for Green Point’s speech.
A spirit of abdication in this country emanated from the entire speech of the hon member for Green Point. The hon member stated inter alia that the Police could actually not apply any more power “without wiping out the entire community”. Surely no statement could be further from the truth than that very one. Firstly, the South African Security Forces have not yet applied a fraction of the power at their disposal which they are capable of applying. They have not applied a fraction of that power. [Interjections.]
There are people moving about this country who believe that the Government will come to a fall within a few days or perhaps a few weeks but in any case within a relatively short period. They believe—they are led to believe from many circles—that the South African Government does not have the power and capability and would be unable to handle the situation if it should escalate further. We should all understand one fact very clearly today which is that, if the situation were to escalate further, the South African Government would be entirely capable of handling this according to the power at its command. I think, however, it is extremely irresponsible to indicate that we have already applied so much force that it would lead to the annihilation of an entire community if we were to apply a little more.
I should like to support this legislation by saying that it is merely one trench in our defence network against what is threatening us. I wish to add that we in South Africa can forget about wanting to deal with all our problems according to American and European norms and standards.
Partition is right!
Here different thinking and a different approach apply and in addition South Africa stands alone in its resistance to terrorism. America and Europe will look on visibly …
[Inaudible.]
The hon member for Kuruman can leave me alone. I shall make my own speech; I usually make my own speeches in contrast with him. [Interjections.]
America and Europe will visibly look on at the way in which Christian civilisation is destroyed here and how this country is undermined and devastated. We live in the decade of the petrol bomb, the land mine, sneak attacks and aerial bombs. Our Security Forces guarantee peaceful discussion on this legislation here in Parliament. When I was listening to the hon member for Green Point, I discovered that the hon member and perhaps his entire party—I doubt whether there is full unanimity on the legislation in his caucus but let us accept that the entire PFP supports it—want to come to the House to hide behind the safety created by our Security Forces while at the same time hamstringing them when they wish to fulfil their duty towards South Africa.
I wish to ask what the situation would have been like if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had been the State President of this country today. What would our country have looked like if that had been the case?
What would it look like without Rev Hendrickse?
In any case the hon member for Rissik is totally prepared to serve under Eugène Terre’ Blanche.
But not under Nelson Mandela!
What would the country have looked like if the hon Leader of the Official Opposition had been the State President? [Interjections.] I should say, if we had still been in a position to introduce legislation of this nature—I say if we had remained in a position to do so because its policy is ultimately heading for a Black Marxist dictatorship—we would have had to introduce far stricter legislation to put the situation in order. [Interjections.] If those hon members were to take over power, it would not be long before South Africa were governed under martial law and not with the aid of legislation such as we have before us today. [Interjections.]
This is strong legislation; we do not deny this. The scope of the legislation—the hon the Minister stated this clearly in his speech earlier this afternoon—is merely being brought into line with the need which exists. I take great pleasure in supporting the legislation.
Mr Speaker, at the outset, on behalf of this party, may I also congratulate you on the anniversary of your birthday today and wish you all the very best for the coming year.
*I should like to ask the hon member Mr. Theunissen just one question about his objection to the limitation of the detention period which the hon the Minister proposed during the course of his speech by way of an amendment. Suppose an unrest situation was declared in an area, a public meeting was held that his friends or allies in the AWB broke up and a group of them were detained in terms of this legislation for causing a disturbance, would they then be satisfied if there was no limitation on the detention period? Would they be satisfied if their friends were detained indefinitely if the police preferred to do so? [Interjections.] On the other hand, would the CP prefer there to be control over the situation?
You are dealing with the wrong Bill. [Interjections.]
No, surely we are discussing the Public Safety Amendment Bill at the moment. [Interjections.]
Vause, you have the wrong Bill there. I think you must wait with that until we discuss the next Bill. [Interjections.]
Clause 7 of this Bill provides for detention:
The offender may be detained for 30 days, and as far as further detention is concerned … [Interjections.]
It is a good point, but you’ve got the wrong Bill there! [Interjections.]
Sir, I have the hon the Minister’s speech here on the Public Safety Amendment Bill. We are dealing with No 1 on the Order Paper, and so I really do not know what the hon members of the CP are talking about.
There is no clause 7 in this Bill! [Interjections.]
Oh, I see, as regards the clause, the hon member for Brakpan is correct. I was actually referring to the proposed new section 5A(7). [Interjections.]
However, I want to deal with the principle contained in the Public Safety Amendment Bill with regard to the declaration of an unrest situation. In terms of this the hon the Minister has undertaken that there will be no detention unless certain safeguards are provided. The hon member Mr Theunissen objected to the amendments proposed by the hon the Minister where he gave certain undertakings with regard to the handling of detainees. Does he dispute that? He does not dispute it. That party objects to what they call the softening of this Bill. They object to the amendments which are proposed and they object to that limitation on which the hon the Minister has given us an undertaking. [Interjections.] My question is absolutely correct. Would that party then not object if their allies—the AWB—should in an unrest declared area break up a meeting and be detained? Would they be quite happy that there should be no limitation, no control at all on that detention? They would be happy. [Interjections.]
One must have the law.
I want to say that when this Bill came before the standing committee I made it quite clear that my party—and I repeat it now in the House—believes that no responsible person can deny that we have an abnormal situation in South Africa.
Yes, by power-sharing.
No person can deny that there is serious unrest. Therefore it is necessary to grant to the Police abnormal powers to deal with an abnormal situation.
No Christian can give any support to what is happening in South Africa today—the ruthless, the brutal, the uncivilised murders and killings that are going on, the intimidation, the necklacing. No person who believes in God or who has any faith and standards can deny that that behaviour must stop and that the murdering, intimidation and burning of homes of law-abiding citizens who have done no wrong must come to an end. Therefore I cannot see how anyone who condemns as we condemn—in the strongest possible language—the actions of the activists, the comrades, those who are saving mayhem in the townships, those who are undermining local government, law and order, destroying the education system of their own people, the opportunities of their own people, can fail to join with us in condemnation of what is going on there. Therefore they should join with us in accepting that special powers are necessary to deal with that situation.
Our problem with the Public Safety Amendment Bill was that those powers were unlimited and uncontrolled and that in terms of the proposed new section 5A(7) and particularly the proposed new section 5B the Police were given carte blanche and, at the very first meeting of the standing committee, I pleaded that a review system should be introduced in regard to subsection (7). I asked for a review system, but we were told that there were amendments coming to the Internal Security Act, that the review system would be there, and so we then awaited the publication of the Internal Security Amendment Bill. When that appeared we were able to say that we accepted the fact that that measure had safeguards and that if the Police acted in terms of the proposed new section 50A contained in the Internal Security Amendment Bill and removed the detention powers to be inserted by the Public Safety Amendment Bill we could go along with it. Otherwise we wanted safeguards on the length of detention and on the handling of detainees to be incorporated into the Public Safety Act in the same way as they exist in the existing section 50 and the proposed new section 50A with some amendments which we want to move. Therefore, until today, we had intended to move a reasoned amendment to the effect that the view held by this party was that additional special powers were needed but that they could not be unconditional and that there should be a form of judicial review on any detentions which would take place in connection with the declaration of unrest areas. We had intended to move, inter alia, that this House—
In the light of the amendments published today which remove subsection (7) of the proposed section 5A and the proposed section 5B, which deals with the powers of the court, and if the same provisions as are now proposed in the Internal Security Amendment Bill are used, we will have no problem with this Bill at all. The hon the Minister has given us an undertaking in his speech which now stands recorded in Hansard that if any powers in respect of detention are exercised in terms of the Public Safety Act, he will ensure that the regulations providing therefore will allow the detainee to see his family, to see his legal representative and to be medically cared for.
Mr Speaker, could I ask the hon member how the removal of subsection (7) of the proposed section 5A will improve the Bill?
The removal of subsection (7) will improve the Bill because subsection (7) provides:
Yes, but can you explain how the removal of subsection (7) will improve the Bill?
Yes, I will, if the hon member would just wait a moment. Subsection (7) provides further that the Minister shall—
That would signal the end of the matter. [Interjections.] The Bill, then, is improved in the sense that the Minister no longer has the right to detain the person in question for longer than 30 days without any upward limit, because in terms of this provision all the Minister had to do was to …
He had to name the people.
Yes, and that is all. He only had to name the people.
Yes, he had to name the people. [Interjections.] In other words, uncontrolled detention could take place. In view of the removal of that provision and the removal of the exclusion from court process, as well as the amendment to the Internal Security Act and the hon the Minister’s undertaking in his speech, one must adopt an entirely different approach to this matter. After all, the regulations must still be laid upon the Table and they will still be considered by Parliament, but they will no longer be unlimited in regard to detention.
Removing subsection (7) makes it worse.
Well then, why does the hon member for Houghton, in the amendment moved on the Order Paper in her name seek to move: “On page 7, from line 59, to omit subsection (7)”? [Interjections.] There must be a split in the party. [Interjections.] The hon member for Berea just said that removing subsection (7) makes matters worse. Yet his colleague, the hon member for Houghton, is to move for its removal.
No, she wants to add a proviso to it. Read the amendment.
She seeks to move the omission of subsection (7). That is quite loud and clear. It is no longer and no shorter than that. The hon member for Houghton seeks to move to omit subsection (7). The hon member for Berea, however, has said that makes the matter even worse. So that party is completely at odds over this matter. The hon member for Houghton wants to remove subsection (7) and the hon member who interjected said removing it makes it even worse!
I want to come back now to the provisions of this Bill which we believe are necessary. We believe that it is necessary to give additional powers because of the situation which obtains in the country. However, we believe there must be supervision and control over those powers. I repeat that I was a lone voice on the standing committee pleading for a compromise on this measure. The Official Opposition and the hon members of the other two Houses on the standing committee completely rejected it. They said it should be read this day six months and wanted nothing to do with it. I pleaded throughout the whole period of negotiation with the committee to seek a way of finding a solution to provide the powers without making them unlimited and unqualified.
I do not want to deal now with the proposals under the Internal Security Amendment Bill which provide a form of control and of judicial review. My point and that of this party has been all along that there must be a limit and a review provided in respect of any form of detention. We believe now that in its amended form this Bill is one that we can support. I would like the hon the Minister to go further in regard to the undertaking in his speech because with the Internal Security Amendment Bill I can see no reason why he requires any regulation to be made providing for detention under this Bill. It is unnecessary, I see no reason for it and there is no reference now in this Bill to detention. Therefore I see no reason why it should be necessary at any time to incorporate such a provision. I say this because in terms of the Internal Security Amendment Bill he has all the power he needs to take action in any situation where there is unrest.
Detention is not excluded in terms of this Bill.
I know. I said it was not. However, I see no reason for it to be necessary because we have the other Bill. I ask the hon the Minister to elaborate on whether he really believes he will need at any time to use detention in terms of this Bill when he has those powers under the Internal Security Amendment Bill. That is to us a better method and a better mechanism. It has a review board to which every case of detention is referred after a period of time. I ask him whether in the regulations which he has promised he will formulate if he requires them for detention will be included the same review procedure as is provided for in the Internal Security Amendment Bill. That means that after a period the Police have to account for any action which they take. All we are asking for is accountability and not unlimited powers. With that we can accept in principle this measure before the House.
Mr Speaker, I have no real problems with what the hon member for Durban Point said.
†However, there is just one point where I think one should put the record straight. He said that both the Official Opposition and the other two Houses totally rejected the Bill and said it should be read this day six months. If my reading of the situation is correct hon members from the other two Houses did in fact appeal for more time to discuss the Bill and did not at any point indicate that it should be totally rejected.
Why did they walk out of the standing committee?
Why do you not ask your hon member who was sitting there?
What do you think? He is not one of the “New Nats”!
The hon member for Krugersdorp had no control over them! [Interjections.]
With reference to the hon member Mr Theunissen’s point about the proposed section 5B, I should merely like to say the effect of that section would be an effort to eliminate the authority of the courts from the possible revision or testing of any regulations made in terms of the principal Act.
The problem with that is that, in fact, the complete elimination by means of legislation of the courts’ right to test is almost impossible. The right to test resides in the courts’ not being able to test the validity of the promulgated regulations. Invalid regulations are not regulations, however, and as a result the courts can determine first whether what seem to be regulations, are in fact regulations. That is before they reach the point where they say they are regulations and that therefore they cannot test their validity. For that reason it is very difficult to eliminate, by means of a legal provision, the courts’ inherent right to test.
We are not losing much, therefore, by eliminating that proposed section. Instead we are winning in that there is no effort to eliminate the normal working of the courts. I wanted to make this point in reply to the point put by the hon member Mr Theunissen.
Any political system is applied according to a certain set of rules. If one looks at the most primitive dictatorship, one sees there is one basic rule that says the boss is the boss, and that is almost the only rule that applies in that case. The rules become more involved in the more sophisticated political systems. Democracy is indeed the most sophisticated and most civilised political system that exists, in that in democracy one plays according to civilised rules. If all the players of the game do not adhere to the civilised rules, democracy becomes impossible.
Is the South African nation civilised?
The AWB are hooligans!
For that reason it is imperative that the minimum of law and order exist in a country before democracy can, in fact, exist. If the point is reached in which the disorder in the country is reaching the point after which democracy will no longer be possible, the Government, although it is a government with a democratic point of departure, is forced to take steps which it would have preferred not to have taken. It has to take these steps to create the basic conditions in which democracy can operate.
At present the NP Government is extending democracy to other population groups. We are extending the basis of democracy in this country. That is why a minimum of law and order in the country is a prerequisite for the reform process and for the process of the extension of democracy to continue. [Interjections.]
This problem manifests itself practically in that it is imperative for democracy that the individual members of the system have the greatest possible freedom of speech and decision-making. If intimidation takes place on a large scale, freedom of speech can no longer flourish and people are no longer free to decide as they wish. The system then degenerates into something other than democracy, viz what the English call “mob rule”.
†The difference between mob rule and democracy is sometimes very slight and subtle, but if one does not maintain some degree of law and order in a country, what is supposed to be democracy degenerates into mob rule. That is what we are trying to avoid in this country.
In Western countries, where the conflict between groups has been basically internationalised by the compartmentalisation of states into homogeneous nation states, the main problem of democracy is to deal with the relationship between the power of the state and the powerlessness of the individual. In this context any limitation placed by the state upon the freedom of the individual is seen as a retrogression from democracy and liberty.
It is, however, very clear that in a situation like that of South Africa it is necessary to place some limitations upon the freedom of individuals and to introduce some measures which are essentially undesirable from a philosophical point of view in order to enable the system to broaden the base of democracy. An action such as the one we are taking today would normally be regarded by the Western and the liberal world as a retrogression from democracy, but it is in fact an essential instrument for the furthermore of democracy.
*That is why I say it is with a degree of regret that the Government has to come to the House with legislation such as this. We should very much have liked the circumstances to be different and not to have had to introduce this kind of legislation. That is why we have the principle that these provisions will apply for a limited period, so that that element of the legislation can be eliminated from the political game when it is no longer necessary. We are determined, when the circumstances in the country improve and the democracy has established itself in the general population to such an extent that it is possible for us to get along without this kind of legislation, in fact to amend the Act in such a way that these provisions will no longer be on our Statute Book.
I can confirm the NP’s good faith in this connection by referring to the security legislation of 1982. The measures that existed previously were in fact much stricter and much worse; they granted much greater powers than the legislation of 1982. We therefore judged in 1982 that the strict measures which had existed previously, could be scaled down in view of the circumstances of that time, and that is why it was done in this way.
We find now, however, that the circumstances have changed to the extent that it is necessary to give the legislation more muscle, but as soon as it is possible to get along without this muscle, we should like to take steps to return to a more normal set of laws which are appropriate to a democratic system.
Mr Speaker, I was somewhat surprised earlier today when the hon chairman of the NP Law and Order study group found this law so important that he devoted only 11 minutes to it in his speech.
He is a New Nat.
I was also surprised at the somewhat simplistic way in which he approached this Bill. I think none of us can quarrel with the statements he made that we cannot abide the people’s courts and that we are against intimidation, that we are against the necklacing and the murdering that is happening in our townships. However, I want to ask whether the answer to that lies in this sort of law. Does the answer to solving those sort of problems lie in taking greater executive powers, or does the answer lie in a political direction and a search for political solutions?
The hon member for False Bay criticised the hon member for Green Point who described Police methods and the use of violence. Hon members on the Government’s side have a sort of knee-jerk reaction whenever criticism of the Police comes their way. They feel we are being somewhat disloyal, unpatriotic and unsympathetic about what is happening. However, I want to ask hon members of the NP how many of them have been into the townships during the past six months and have actually spoken—I know some have; I know the hon member for Krugersdorp has—not only to the city councillors and the establishment people but to the people who are sometimes called the “radicals” and learned about the grievances and the problems which these people face? If one has been there, has spoken to the people and has seen the injuries which they have suffered, their broken arms and the stitches in their heads, inflicted by policemen, one sometimes begins to believe them. [Interjections.]
The hon member for Helderkruin says democracy is not possible if law and order is disrupted. I think we can all agree with him there. He must, however, understand that those who are disrupting law and order have always, by the policy of this Government, been excluded from the very process of democracy. They have not been allowed a democracy of any sort.
That is what reform is all about.
The Black people of South Africa have not been allowed any representation in any meaningful forum in this country since Union. [Interjections.] So, I say the answer should not lie in creating more executive powers but rather in looking for ways to include people in democracy; in finding the leadership of Black people and in talking to them rather than suppressing them by force.
I want to say that I regard this as a truly sad day for South Africa for this is the day that the NP Government, in power for 38 years, has finally announced that it can no longer govern the Republic in a normal, democratic and peaceful manner. It must be obvious to all that this Government can no longer run the country without resorting to the use of extraordinary powers being placed on our already overburdened Statute Book, powers held by no other Western government in the world. This Government finds itself so alienated, so estranged from the bulk of South Africans, from the majority of South African citizens, that only by enacting horrendously authoritarian legislation can it continue.
Sir, make no mistake, by passing this Bill, amended or otherwise, as also the Bill changing the Internal Security Act, our country is being forcibly jettisoned into a new era of permanent martial law, of more detentions without trial, of rule by Police and the military. That is where we are heading. That is not an exaggeration, for this Bill provides that once an area has been declared an unrest area, the Minister publishes special regulations relating to that area. We know what these regulations are all about. The recent state of emergency taught us.
These regulations will relate to restrictions on access and egress into townships. They will relate to the right to gather and to meet as also to restrictions on the freedom of expression and speech. The regulations will restrict the right of the media to report, and will grossly impinge upon the right of the public to know what is going on. The White citizens of South Africa will be kept ignorant of the violent activities of the police and the activists in the townships and will be led to believe that unrest is but a passing phase. The regulations will grant to the police special powers of search, of arrest, of detention without trial and of interrogation. There will be more deaths while people are in custody, and of course, the regulations will ensure indemnity to the police in respect of whatever actions they take.
You know you are telling an absolute untruth. [Interjections.]
These are the sort of regulations … [Interjections.] I beg your pardon? Say that again!
I am telling you to your face you are telling an untruth!
I am not telling an untruth.
That is not what the aim of the regulations will be! [Interjections.]
I am not telling an untruth. I am telling that hon Minister what I believe he is going to put into his regulations. We have seen before the sort of stipulations contained in his regulations in a time of emergency. [Interjections.]
His track record suggests what we should expect from him!
Yes, Sir, the track record of this hon Minister leads us to believe that that is what will happen. He has an appalling track record insofar as civil liberties are concerned, and an appalling insensitivity to the suffering of people who are being held in custody without being given the slightest chance to a trial. [Interjections.]
This, Sir, adds up to an official, Government-approved licence to beat up and kill—that is exactly what it is—a licence to organise vigilante groups and a licence to terrorise entire communities, as they have done in Crossroads and as I have personally seen them do in Alexandra. [Interjections.]
You are delivering an utterly irresponsible speech! You should be ashamed of yourself!
Sir, it is a form of state of emergency without having to declare one. [Interjections.]
Perhaps, Sir, I should mention at this point, however, the amendments which appear on the Order Paper in the name of the hon the Minister. Sir, they do not change our attitude to this Bill at all. The first amendment is merely textual. The second amendment seeks the deletion of a tiny subsection. I believe these will not improve the Bill at all. Furthermore, it relieves the hon the Minister of the duty to inform Parliament of the names of those detained in terms of his regulations. [Interjections.]
As for the assurances given by the hon the Minister, those are welcomed. I ask the hon the Minister why he must give assurances—assurances which do not bind his successor. Why does the hon the Minister not include his assurances in the legislation proper? Why cannot he do that? Why do we have to sit with assurances when in fact we have legislation which is binding and assurances which are not? The law remains unchecked and it remains unchanged.
The third amendment is an improvement. This is the amendment which deletes the provision prohibiting the courts from intervening when the regulations are promulgated. While the courts are not excluded, however, the right of intervention, as the hon member for Helderkruin said, even with this stipulation being deleted, is in fact most limited, particularly because of the very careful wording contained in clause 5(1)(a).
Certainly, Sir, there will be National Party speakers, vociferously supported by the Conservative Party, by the HNP—no doubt—and probably by the Afrikaner-weerstandsbeweging too, who will say that these are temporary measures and that they will only be used to quell revolutionary elements, and then used only with great circumspection. Surely, Sir, we have already heard all these arguments before. It is not the first time we will hear those, and quite frankly, in response, there is little new that can be said. We have gone through all this before. We have been hearing these arguments for years and years.
I cannot call today as witnesses the scores of people, Steve Biko and others, who have died violently while being held under the so-called “protection” of the police. Dr Neil Aggett cannot come here and speak about his experiences while in police custody. [Interjections.] The truth is that, since the early 1950s when the Suppression of Communism Act was first introduced the Government has always pleaded special circumstances, has always cited extraordinary crises as the reason for enacting fascist legislation.
Today is no different, and yet, if one can stomach a look at our tawdry, shabby list of security laws, one realises with a jolt that not one of those laws has ever had its strong-arm provisions repealed. Since 1950 the catalogue of police powers has grown longer and longer. All the previously enacted instruments dedicated to the destruction of individual liberties are still intact and on our Statute Book. So, therefore I say, Sir, nothing is temporary. Once enacted, and while this Government remains in power, these laws will never be repealed.
Sir, the Preamble to the Constitution of our country is no more than a bad joke, and the hon member for Randburg is quite correct. A bill of rights, as he said a few days ago, can in our country never have a place in law while the security legislation destroying the rights of citizens remains on the Statute Book. A system of justice caring for the individual cannot live side by side with the South African Constitution.
The introduction of this legislation and the frenetic, almost obscene attempts by the State President and the Government to push it through within the next few days have stimulated in my mind two rather interesting and important insights. The first is this. The Government, under State President Botha, has basically abandoned the concept of a negotiated solution to South Africa’s constitutional problems. There have, during the past weeks, been several straws in the wind. The speech by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning during the discussion of his Vote when he once again rebuffed the idea of talks with the ANC, was one of those straws in the wind. Then there was President Botha’s speech to the President’s Council emphasising the concept of continued ethnic authority in any future dispensation. Finally, Sir, there were the ill-conceived, badly timed and poorly executed, I believe, raids on our neighbouring states.
All these straws, Sir, spell not negotiation but rather only confrontation. True, the State President will yet attempt to set up his national council, and in that forum he will talk to homeland leaders—at least to those who are prepared to participate—and to the establishment urban councillors. At least he will try to talk to those who have not already resigned and, of course, he will talk to those tame appointees whose names he has yet to announce. However, none of these groupings in that statutory council are anywhere remotely representative of those who are at the centre of the trouble afflicting our land at this time.
Whatever he agrees with them, whatever new and bizarre structures eventuate, these latter day Chief Chiraus, these up-to-date Sitholes and Muzorewas, will in no way influence or deter the continuation of the armed struggle. Whatever he decides with them, the unrest will carry on. One cannot settle a revolution by doing a deal with those who are not the revolutionaries. Co-options, no matter how lucrative to the co-optees, in the long run do not work. As Mr Rajbansi, who I see is here today, and the Rev Hendrickse can no doubt testify, political co-option, no matter how materially comfortable, spells eventual alienation for them from the communities of those co-opted. By trying to settle the revolution with those who are not the revolutionaries, the NP is flying blindly in the face of all historical precedent and, I believe, making a public fool of itself.
In deciding to ignore the real Black majority and its leadership, namely the ANC, the Government is forced to take and to use powers which will enable it to rule not by agreement or by consent but rather by physical and violent repression.
The second interesting thought that strikes me and that was mentioned a little earlier today is this: Governments may come and go but most often the laws remain. So the Whites of Rhodesia found out when Mr Mugabe took over. He used, and is still using, several of the Ian Smith security laws in the way he governs his country, and he detains people under those laws. It will yet be ironical when the powers so avidly desired by the hon the Minister of Law and Order are used against that same hon Minister and his supporters when a new and more popular government takes over the reins of power. The NP will have taught them their value.
It will be the CP, so do not worry!
However, there is so much more to this argument. I ask myself: Has this Government really seriously considered the consequences, both internally and externally, of enacting this legislation? Does the NP even remotely appreciate what its actions and words in the past 18 months have meant to South Africa? Have the Kannemeyer and the Van der Walt commission reports meant anything to the Government at all? Have they learnt no lessons? Do the pleas of the Urban Foundation, Assocom, Church leaders and lawyers even begin to register? I do not think they do. What is the result? I will tell hon members the result.
The rand lies decimated at the bottom of the pile of world currencies a pariah coinage, the victim of a total lack of international confidence. Our credit rating lies in tatters. The economy is lapsing into stagnation. Unemployment is at its highest ever level.Rampant and unchecked inflation eats at the living standards of all South Africans. The instances of major company insolvencies and crashes are reaching an all time high. Last week’s inexplicable run on Nedbank mirrors in my view an accurate index of a country in a state of near panic. It is a country behaving irrationally in the face of continuing uncertainty.
World boycotts of our exports are reaching a crescendo. Our diplomats are welcome almost nowhere. Economic sanctions implemented not by our enemies but by our allies, our traditional friends, are just around the comer. Believe me, Sir, they are.
I ask what, in God’s name, does this NP government have to show for its 38 years of rale, 38 years of power? What does it have to show its fellow South Africans? Is it an accident that we are the skunks of the world? Is it a world plot against us? Is it the consequence of a world plot? I say no, it is not!
What is taking place is no accident. It is no plot. It is the direct consequence of 38 years of racist, incompetent, selfish and inept NP rule. That is what it is. That is what the NP has cost this country. What has occurred is that NP policy, on every front, has failed dismally. Since its accession to power in 1948, this Government has tried to choose the Black leaders with whom it would deal, while it has used the full force of the State to crash the others. It is trying to do this again. It is policy of proven failure and I want to say that it is going to fail again.
What is worse, however, is that by enacting this legislation, the Government is creating and perpetuating a cycle of violence which can only escalate. The more violence is used by the Government, the more violence will be used against it. The hon the Minister of Manpower is quite correct—and I hope the hon the Minister will take note of this—in saying that the police today, with some exceptions, are no more than the CP in uniform. God help us when they are given free rein, with the intervention of the courts excluded!
One million people died in Algeria before Gen De Gaulle stepped in and reversed the failed policies. In Zimbabwe 35 000 human beings were slaughtered in a conflict which Ian Smith could have resolved far better almost before the war began. In South Africa, tragically, history is repeating itself yet again.
How many people died in India? [Interjections.]
As much as I differ with him, the hon member for Sasolburg was quite correct in making the statement last week that what we are witnessing is a government that has lost its way, a government without a policy and with no vision of the future; a government pathetically clinging to power, while desperately trying to create an impression of strength. All this is taking place while our country bleeds.
The State President is faffing around, implementing a policy of ignorance and brute force, while watching his Own self-created Frankenstein—the AWB—grow in strength. After all, what greater political insanity can there be than to destroy the rule of law in the name of saving the very same rule of law? I ask hon members: Is it worth fighting for a democracy which no longer exists?
Do hon members believe that I am overstating the case? If they do, they should permit me to ask them the following question: What is the use of having an independent judiciary which delivers enlightened judgments—as it did as recently as last week—when laws like this are introduced which directly, deliberately and with malice aforethought, specifically negate those judicial decisions and nullify their verdicts? That is what is happening here. Despite the amendments on the Order Paper, the courts are once again being rendered almost powerless to intervene on behalf of aggrieved individual citizens.
I should like to ask another question. What about our free Press? This law will kill it off permanently. On this point, the South African Media Council agrees. A creature of statute, it has passed a resolution—a very moderately worded one—which was published a few days ago. Permit me to quote but one sentence, as follows:
Of course the Media Council is opposed to this Bill. So is the Urban Foundation and so is virtually every lawyer in this country. So are we—the PFP—and so, I am informed, is the Labour Party in the House of Representatives and the majority party in the House of Delegates. That appears not to be certain, however, but we shall soon know.
I note the presence of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates here. I hope he is here in order to find good reasons to oppose this Bill in his own House. I fear, however, that he is not, because I view his presence here seated as he was behind the hon the Minister during his introductory speech on this Bill as tacit support for this measure. We shall see, however, whether the finger-pointing and the brow-beating of the State President last week has whipped the hon members of the other two Houses into fine. If he has succeeded and either or both of those two Houses vote for this Bill, they will have forfeited forever any credibility they may claim in their own communities.
In the passage of this Bill, the bad joke that goes under the name of our Constitution will be laid bare for all to see. If this Bill is rejected by both the Coloured and Indian Houses but is forced into law through the built-in Nationalist majority in the President’s Council, it will mean that majority rejection is translated into minority acceptance. That is what it will mean, and if that happens and Ministers Hendrickse and Rajbansi remain members of the Cabinet and Mr Landers and Mr Naicker retain their Deputy Ministerships, then whenever a young Coloured or Indian activist is beaten up or imprisoned or hurt or shot by the police, their parents should ’phone those hon Cabinet Ministers and ask them for an explanation, because they will be jointly responsible for what is happening to their own community. If these Bills become law …
That is arrogance!
I do not care what the hon member for Johannesburg West says about arrogance! I shall say what I want to say about this legislation and, for that matter, about other things.
It is an arrogant law.
Yes, it is an arrogant Bill.
This is a scandalous speech you are delivering! You ought to be ashamed of its scandalousness! [Interjections.]
And that is a scandalous hon Minister! His problem is … [Interjections.]
Order!
The hon Minister likes to take powers into his hands from which the courts are excluded and which are unaccountable. He allows detainees to languish in prison. Let us look, for example, at the members of the Labour Party who have been imprisoned by the hon the Minister’s Government. [Interjections.] Miley Richards was in prison for two months. He was then released, but to this day the Government has not told him why he was imprisoned!
Why don’t you speak the truth? [Interjections.]
The same thing happened to the Rev Alan Hendrickse. [Interjections.] What the Government wants, is laws in terms of which it can lock people up who oppose it! I can tell the Government that it will not get approval for such laws from this side of the House! [Interjections.]
If these Bills become law and those hon members of the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives remain in the Cabinet, they will jointly and severally be responsible for the suppression of their own people. If these gentlemen stay in the Cabinet, they will, in the long run, never be forgiven by their people or by us.
Furthermore, if the Government uses its majority on the President’s Council to enact these Bills, it will display a supreme contempt for all non-White opinion and will telegraph to the whole world that those members of Parliament who sit in the House of Representatives and in the House of Delegates are no more than tokens of White paternalism, tolerated only so long as they remain compliant. [Interjections.]
Finally, to end where I began, on these matters there is little to say which is new but what has to be said relates to true and tried values. This country is in a time of terrible trouble but I want to tell you, Sir, that it can be saved. We should like to help in saving this country. [Interjections.] We offer to help. However, the country will not be saved by police action or military means.
You do not have the integrity to do that! [Interjections.]
I beg your pardon? Someone is cackling like an overweight penguin, Sir. Does someone want to ask a question because, whoever he is, he is being very rude. [Interjections.]
This country will be saved only by negotiation and by reconciliation. It will be saved by negotiation with those who can deliver the goods! Who are they? They are the African National Congress, Mr Mandela and his followers, Chief Buthelezi and Inkatha and the UDF and its affiliates, whether we agree with them or not.
Until the Government comes to grips with the real South Africa and grasps the nettle of true democracy, we shall have to endure the financial debilitation, the emotional trauma of low-level war and the loneliness of international isolation. I say to the Government that when it is ready to talk to those who count, it can talk to us, and we shall help. However, until then this Government is on its own.
Mr Speaker, a number of speakers from all sides of the House have taken part in this debate, and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates has a clear perception as to where the various parties in this House stand. I should like to ask him a very simple question: Does he support the Bill before this House? If he has not heard me, Sir, I shall repeat the question: Does the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates support the legislation which we are debating in this House? [Interjections.] Could the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates give us an indication as to whether or not he supports this legislation? [Interjections.] It is quite clear that he is either embarrassed to indicate where he stands or else the matter has not been cleared by his caucus. [Interjections.]
The hon member for Krugersdorp referred to sentiments expressed by the hon the leader of my party. He concluded that we on this side of the House would support measures to deal with and improve the political and unrest situation in South Africa.
Not this measure but other measures.
I cannot imagine that that hon member had in mind that this side of the House would support the coercive option rather than the political option in dealing with the unrest situation. He knows that from this side of the House there will be support for attempts to deal with our crisis situation through the political option. I say that because we believe that the coercive option actually exacerbates the political and security problem in which we find ourselves. [Interjections.] The hon member must therefore not expect us in this party actually to exacerbate the political and security situation by approving and supporting measures which amount to the security option rather than the political option. I repeat, when it comes to the political option of negotiations we will support the Government in finding accommodation and consensus with the genuine leaders of other population groups.
Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition meant when in the discussion of the State President’s Vote he asked the State President to be tough in dealing with the unrest situation? [Interjections.]
I will try to interpret my hon leader’s views and the hon member will accept that that is a very difficult task. I will have to use my interpretation. [Interjections.]
May I try to answer the hon member because that is a good question. I want to deal with an aspect with which the hon the Minister of Law and Order cannot identify.
[Inaudible.]
The violence which is being perpetrated in the townships originates from two different sources. It originates in the first instance from genuinely committed revolutionaries through planned action. [Interjections.] It originates secondly as an unco-ordinated response, unplanned, by mobs as a result of the socio-political problems which exist. These are the two sources of violence. The hon the Minister ignores that altogether and propounds a revolutionary theory. I believe that the law should be applied in as effective a way as possible, through the courts, to deal with planned revolutionary violence. I have no problem with that and I assume, therefore, in answer to the hon member’s question, that this is what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had in mind.
As regards the violence committed by those who do so in an un co-ordinated, unplanned way in response to political and social problems in that area, one cannot just use the coercive security option and try to put them into the same basket as the revolutionaries. This is precisely what we are doing through this Bill. Why cannot and why should we not do that? It is because through such an action we are playing directly into the hands of the real revolutionaries. [Interjections.] We are playing directly into their hands in the sense that we dilute the dividing line between the real revolutionary and the genuine anti-apartheid activist.
The hon the Minister does not seem to care about that dividing line or else he has not recognised it. He throws them all into one basket because they are all the tools of Moscow. They are not all the tools of Moscow. The majority of Blacks, the majority of political activists hate the system under which they live. This hatred was not instilled in them by Moscow; it was instilled in them by the very weaknesses and fatal flaws of the system itself.
By the ANC.
By the NP.
So until the hon the Minister in his security legislation starts recognising the division between violence stemming from planned revolutionary action and violence stemming from an unco-ordinated, knee-jerk reaction to genuine political and social problems, security legislation, like the Bill before us, is going to play right into the hands of the revolutionaries. We have heard Moscow mentioned by a number of hon members today. The hon member for False Bay mentioned that we are busy with a chess game which is being played by Moscow and that Moscow wants to instal a Marxist system.
No one doubts that members of the Communist Party are involved. No one doubts—at least I do not—that the Marxists and those with the Marxist-Leninist approach are gaining influence in South Africa. I say once again, however, that to confuse genuine mass anti-apartheid action with a chess game being orchestrated by Moscow, is dangerous, because that again plays right into the hands of the Marxists who are trying to hijack the discontented anti-apartheid activists into their camp. [Interjections.] What does this legislation do to distinguish between those two? It in no way distinguishes between them. The two violences, I believe, have to be met with a political response, the emphasis being on that rather than on a security-oriented response.
It has already been mentioned by my colleague, the hon member for Sandton, that the passing of this legislation is an acceptance by the Government that they have failed to use the political option. They have failed to do so. There is despondency in the NP. In fact, I would say there is despondency in the White community as a whole because the Government is showing no direction.
You are stating the obvious.
I am stating the obvious: There is no leadership; there is no direction. There is political bankruptcy. [Interjections.] They depend on ceremonies, on trumpets and on military parades to impress the public with their power and confidence. This does not work. [Interjections.] The public and the hon members of the NP themselves—I can see the despondent faces of the hon members of the NP in front of me—need political direction. [Interjections.] They need political options. This Government, through this Bill, has shown that it has run out of political options. It can now only rely on the coercive security options. [Interjections.]
Is that what you told the ANC?
We say the ANC must be unbanned, and the hon member knows that. We say that Nelson Mandela must be released in order for us to start a process of normalisation of the political society as a whole. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kroonstad laughs. That hon member is one of the confused, loudmouthed Freestaters at the back of the Chamber who do not have the guts to put a political option to their constituencies. [Interjections.]
Come and share a platform with me there.
Instead, the hon member supports a security option. He is also bankrupt of all political options.
We on this side of the House say we support political moves which promote negotiations among the genuine leaders of the population groups of this country. Until freedom of association prevails and until political leaders of this country are allowed to operate, the anti-apartheid activists in the Black communities are going to move faster and faster into the Marxists camp.
The hon the Minister of Law and Order with his information machine will, I am sure, agree with me when I say to him that outside this comfortable Chamber and outside White politics the real debate going on now is not whether we should have open beaches or integrated buses or mixed marriages but whether or not we are going to have a democracy in a post-apartheid society. That is what it is all about: Are we going to have democracy, or are we going to have an authoritarian, Marxist-oriented state? [Interjections.] I can tell this hon Minister that my impression is that the ones who stand for a multi-party democracy are losing ground, and that the Marxist elements which stand for some sort of authoritarian elitist system are gaining ground. Why is this so? It is because this Government refuses to allow free political association or to allow those moderates who stand for multi-party democracy to operate openly. Instead, those who believe in genuine democracy but are against apartheid and want to demolish it, are thrown into the same basket and thrashed with the same ammunition as the revolutionaries are.
Where does all this get us? It gets us closer to a post-apartheid South Africa where there will be no multi-party democracy. Hon members may shake their heads but there are many precedents where this has happened. There are precedents where new governments have used exactly the same legislation which was used to flatten them in order to flatten their new opponents. We are doing exactly the same in this case. We on this side of the House will not support the coercive option because it exacerbates the security situation and makes the political situation worse. We support the political option in preference. This Bill does not address the problem and it proves the failure of the Government to deal with the political situation.
I support the amendment moved by my colleague the hon member for Green Point.
Mr Chairman, in the first place I wish to refer briefly to the hon member for Sandton. He has an exceptionally sharp tongue and I think he is known for that. I think he was making a conscious attempt to browbeat members of the other Houses into following his point of view here today. [Interjections.] I am glad the hon the Minister is sitting here and can take cognisance of the way in which the hon member is behaving. I wish to assure him that hon members of the other Houses are not stooges of the House of Assembly or of the NP. They realise the urgency of our time and they will base their action on that.
Why are you trying to act for the Minister?
I wish to tell that hon member that if he thinks the Government is of the opinion that the laws and the security legislation alone are the solution to South Africa’s problems, he is making a very big mistake. The Government is definitely not so naive as to think that. I think we should accept that the Government works hard every day to find the constitutional solutions to which the hon member for Durban Central referred.
Without becoming personal, I think his speech sank to a level on which he referred to the injuries, which should be observed, inflicted on the Black public by the police. With respect, I wish to suggest that the hon member’s approach to this legislation and to the position in South Africa is nothing if not absolutely naive. There are more democratic rights under the NP and the NP Government than have been acquired under any other government in the history of our country.[Interjections.]
The hon member made the accusation that legislation such as this gives the police licence to act, to make themselves guilty of misconduct and then to get off scot-free. That is surely not the truth. Many policemen who are guilty of misconduct and act outside the law, are charged and found guilty if they have violated the law. That is why I do not think he is doing this country, this House or the police a great favour in generalising in that way and making the kind of statement he has today. He referred to cases such as those of Biko and Aggett.
If we review the Government’s conduct since 1948 and compare it to the conduct of his own party, it appears that the only thing those hon members were interested in, was that the Government surrender themselves to the Communist Party and its followers. They did not want the Government at any stage to show backbone of any kind or to govern. I wish to assure him that this party is not a capitulation party like his party.
We do not live in a perfect world. The events in the USA, France and England bear witness to this. We need only turn on the television and look at events in Beirut and other places throughout the world. We are living in times of terrorism, regardless of the justness of a particular system.
That hon member should wake up from the dream-world in which he is living. He only criticises and sees nothing positive in the actions of the Government and the State over the last 18 months. That is what he said in this House a few moments ago.
It is, however, devoid of all truth. If one looks at the attacks of the members of the CP, the HNP and the AWB, surely they bear witness to other perspectives than those held by the hon member. If only he looked calmly at the positive results the NP Government has had through the years since 1948, I wish to tell him that it would fill volumes. [Interjections.]
In addition the hon member for Durban Central furthermore spoke about two sources of violence. I wish to agree with him that the violence which we are experiencing in South Africa has more than one source. [Interjections.] I think he stated a true point in his concession in the first place that a definite revolutionary onslaught is in progress. The Government acknowledges that the socio-economic position in South Africa is not ideal in every respect. We work at improving it every day. Only to see its negative aspect is not correct, however. The two forms of violence which exist in our country also prey on each other to a certain extent. The State does in fact discern clearly what it has to do in respect of this.
I am grateful that the hon member expressly rejected communism, but I did not receive a clear message from his speech that he rejected violence unconditionally.
Of course!
To me it sounded as if he does not quite reject violence against any system which goes against the grain according to the perception of a particular individual.
Of course you know what our standpoint is!
I should be pleased if the hon member would reject it openly, because I think it is necessary for him to do so.
Yes, I reject it!
Thank you very much. [Interjections.]
We must be careful of political reactions. Security legislation is one of the methods this Government has to follow to eradicate the problems of the day and to initiate dialogue properly. The Official Leader of the PFP saw that point very clearly and that is why he also said that tough action was essential.
He puts the democratic option against the military option. I wish to tell him that the hon members of this party detest the military option just as much as the PFP may deem it necessary. Intimidation is the most dangerous single problem which exists in South Africa at the moment and which inhibits dialogue. I wish to tell the hon member that unless we enable other reasonable leaders in South Africa to come to the fore and to talk freely and if we cannot remove intimidation, we shall either have to surrender or come up with a military option. That is why the Government’s two-pronged approach is the correct approach.
I wish to put it to the hon member for Green Point that unfortunately he made use of a lot of adjectives which, with respect go too far. He spoke about of “virtually unlimited powers, sheer oppression and force” and could hardly have used stronger language. I do not think that kind of approach is a solution to the problems in our country.
Unfortunately the hon member for Kuruman is not in the House at the moment, but I wish to refer to his remark. He said by implication that he was willing to serve under Mr Terre’Blanche, because he came up with the accusation that we would be prepared to serve under someone like Mr Tambo or someone similar.
I wish to tell the hon members of the CP that they should treat events such as those at the Voortrekker Monument last week-end carefully, because they are really a party which is being taken into tow by the AWB. [Interjections.] They should beware of the kind of forcefulness with which Mr Terre’Blanche wishes to help that party. [Interjections.]
I wish to congratulate the hon member for Krugersdorp on his performance and on the tireless way in which he worked with dedication behind the screens to promote this legislation to this stage. [Interjections.] I also wish to express my thanks to Adv Bosch and members of his department for the patience they displayed to everyone on the standing committee. They saw me countless times and helped me with problems I had in respect of this legislation. We thank them for their advice and assistance in this regard.
I also thank the hon the Minister for his willingness to listen to us and to consider our contributions despite the differences we had in respect of certain aspects of the legislation.
There may be differences of opinion about measures such as are contained in the Bill, but I wish to say, as I already have, that these measures are essential. I should rather have seen them contained in the Internal Security Act, but I have no doubt that the measures are essential.
I find the Bill and the related amendments an indication of the efficacy of the principles of democracy and consensus, and proof that those principles do in fact work very well in the various Houses of this Parliament.
Consensus with whom? Is there consensus?
This legislation is desirable and essential, and as far as I am concerned, there is consensus. The other Houses will have to decide for themselves to what extent they have consensus.
Do you have consensus in the NP about this matter?
We are living in times of adjustment and reform and, regardless of one’s party affiliation, a well-balanced approach is essential. If we do not have equilibrium in this country and if we do not all give thorough consideration to finding solutions by means of give and take, we have no right to survive in South Africa. Without the stability which this Bill can help to bring about, survival would be very difficult.
All reasonable leaders will have to take a strong lead. Extremism will only destroy us all. Selfishness is also definitely no answer to our problems.
This legislation is desirable to restore order, so that we can talk to each other calmly. Only in dialogue, reason and compromise will we find the solutions to our country’s problems.
As a legal man I should not like to support this legislation in reasonable circumstances, but we are not experiencing reasonable times. I am very grateful for the concession there was in scrapping the proposed section 5B. I wish to tell the hon member Mr Theunissen I think it is a great improvement.
Tell us why!
The State has the responsibility to govern and the Government will not hesitate to govern. The Bench also has the inalienable right to take care of the rights of the indivual, however. The maintenance of human rights is the basis and the essence of every civilised state. This ideal cannot be maintained in all circumstances, however.
I gladly associate myself with the hon member for Helderkruin by saying that we hope these measures will be temporary and that, once a proper discussion, through which we can find proper solutions to our problems, has been initiated, we will be able to repeal these measures.
Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member?
No, Sir, I have finished.
Mr Chairman, I think the response by the hon member for Roodepoort was a very weak and dispirited response to the telling arguments submitted so far by all the hon speakers on this side of the House. He dismissed these arguments as naive. What is the hon member’s interpretation of the word “naive”? In what way is it naive to oppose these laws? To compare legislation in other countries in this situation is one thing, but to look at the situation in this country is another thing.
Terrorism is something that we do not countenance at all. We do not countenance violence, whether it comes from the right or whether it comes from the left. However, what we are up against here, is a form of terrorism which is really defined as a struggle for political rights. The sooner we face that as the aspect of terrorism, the sooner we might be able to solve the problems. I shall deal with the other arguments advanced by the hon member for Roodepoort during the course of my speech.
What I want to submit to this House today is perhaps a cold, analytical and objective analysis and view of the legislation before us. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister in both his capacity as the Minister of Law and Order who is in charge of this Bill and in his capacity as a lawyer who, I believe, has practised law and knows, understands and respects the law of the country and what it means. I also appeal to all hon members of this House, to all hon members who are trained in law and to all hon members who have respect for the rule of law, for habeas corpus, for civil liberties and who have respect for and confidence and faith in the judicial system of South Africa and the men and women who man the courts of South Africa to reject the main principle contained in this Bill, namely detention without trial. I appeal to all those who are against detention without trial and all that it means to those who are detained without trial to reject the principle of this Bill and not to proceed with the Bill as it is before us.
I want to submit to this House today that, in fact, what we have in this Bill is very little change from the emergency regulations which have been promulgated in terms of the Public Safety Act of 1953. What are we really doing? We are substituting the term “a state of unrest” for the term “a state of emergency”. The powers previously vested in the State President are now being vested in the hon the Minister of Law and Order. So, what do we really have here today? We have the same lady wearing a different dress.
Not a very attractive lady, in any case! [Interjections.]
I want to submit to this House that there are sufficient laws on our Statute Book to deal with the unrest and the situation facing us in South Africa. It is clear that this Bill aims to deal with a situation that threatens the safety of the public or the maintenance of public order, or where circumstances have arisen which seriously threaten the safety of the public or the maintenance of public order and the ordinary law of the land is inadequate to enable the Government to ensure the safety of the public or to maintain public order. The operative words here—I want to emphasise them—are that the ordinary laws of the land are inadequate to enable the Government to ensure the safety of the public or to maintain public order. I want to refute that statement in the course of my speech tonight.
A schedule was published containing a list of all the magisterial districts in which a state of emergency had been declared. Regulations were also published in terms of the Act, and the Security Forces were given additional powers. In terms of the measure now before the House it will be the hon the Minister of Law and Order who will be granted the power to declare any area where there is public disturbance, disorder, rioting or public violence, to be an unrest area.
In terms of clause 3, section 4 of the principal Act is amended to read that in special circumstances, if it is in the opinion of the Minister—now the Minister of Law and Order—necessary to do so, he may declare by proclamation an area to be an unrest area. This will of course have the same effect as if the State President had declared a state of emergency in a magisterial district in terms of the Public Safety Act, 1953. This power is now contained in the proposed new sections 5A and 5B. The hon the Minister has, however, intimated that he is going to seek permission to withdraw the proposed new section 5B.
In terms of the proposed new section 5A(2), which is contained in clause 4 of the Bill, the declaration of an area to be an unrest area shall remain in force for a period of three months or less, but can only be extended with the approval of the State President from time to time. The proposed new section 5A(4) enables the Minister, in relation to an unrest area, to issue regulations—and this is important—to be published in the Gazette if such regulations appear to him to be necessary or expedient for providing for the combating or prevention of public disturbance, disorder, riot or public violence or the maintenance or restoration of public order.
In terms of the proposed new section 5A(6) these regulations can, in turn, provide for orders, rules and by-laws, for which the Minister is, in terms of this new section, authorised to make regulations, and also to prescribe penalties for any contravention of or failure to comply with the provisions of such orders, rules of laws.
Are you delivering a Second Reading speech? That has already been done, you know?
I am merely motivating my case. Just listen, and you might learn something. [Interjections.]
The penalties may include the confiscation of any goods, property or instruments by means of which offences were committed. Referring to summary arrests and the detention of any person—commonly known as detention without trial—I should point out that if a person is thus detained for a period exceeding 30 days, the Minister shall, within 14 days or at the time when that period of 30 days expires, if Parliament is in session, lay the name of such a person on the Table in each of the three Houses of Parliament. This, Sir, is where the proposed new section 5B causes me problems. I suggest the hon the Minister should clear the matter up because I believe there is some type of protection of Parliament which is being ignored in this instance.
Such a detained person may be kept in custody anywhere in the Republic. The proposed new section 5B states that no interdict or other process shall issue for the staying or setting aside of any proclamation issued by the State President under section 2 of the Act or in terms of any regulation issued under section 3 of the Act, or any notice issued by the hon the Minister in terms of the proposed new section 4 or 5A of the Act, or in terms of any regulation issued in terms of the proposed new section 5A(4). It also states that no court of law shall be competent to inquire into or give judgment on the validity of any such proclamation, notice or regulation. Although the hon the Minister has intimated he wants to withdraw the proposed new section 5B, I want to submit that any notice issued by him in terms of either of the proposed new sections 4 or 5A can, in fact, be substituted by a regulation. Here we have the hon the Minister’s assurance which we have to have clarified during this debate.
Furthermore, Sir, power is also granted to the hon the Minister, when issuing regulations, for such regulations to be made applicable in relation to any area outside an unrest area as well.
This Bill, however, cannot be separated from the next Bill which we are going to discuss, namely the Internal Security Amendment Bill, which follows this one on the Order Paper. The two Bills are inseparable. They have to be discussed together.
After the person in question has first been detained for a period of 48 hours, his detention can be extended for a maximum period of 180 days, if the hon the Minister is of the opinion that the further detention of that person will be in the interests of terminating, combating or preventing public disturbance, disorder, riot or public violence. Here again I must stress the wording as we find it in the Bill, namely that if a police officer of or above the rank of warrant officer is of the opinion that the detention of that person will contribute to the quelling or prevention of public disorder, such detention can be ordered to continue or to be extended.
If such commissioned officer is again of the opinion that the further detention of the detainee will contribute to the termination or prevention of public violence or unrest, such detention can be extended to continue for a period not exceeding 180 days. Here again, the hon the Minister is empowered to issue regulations in relation to such detentions. Further details of the Bill will be discussed. Suffice it for me at this stage to make the following references to the Public Safety Amendment Bill.
I must now pose the following question to the hon the Minister: In what way do the present measures differ from the measures introduced when the state of emergency was declared by the State President in terms of Proclamation R120 of 21 July 1985 contained in Gazette No 9876, which I have before me? Gazettes Nos 9877 and 9878 were published simultaneously on 21 July 1985. Gazette No 9877 contained the proclamation and regulations in terms of the Public Safety Act to apply to the 36 magisterial districts referred to under the proclamation in Gazette No 9876. Gazette No 9878 of 21 July 1985 provided for rules which were made under those regulations and which were published in Proclamation R121, to which I have just referred. These regulations defined the word “Force” as including the following: The South Africa Police Force, the South African Railway Police Force, the South African Defence Force and the Prisons Service.
At this stage I pause to ask the hon the Minister whether it is his intention to involve the same four units under the definition of the word “Force” in terms of any of the regulations that are to be promulgated in terms of this Bill if and when it is passed. Is it the hon the Minister’s intention to do so?
Those regulations empowered a member of the Force, where “Force” in this case had the very wide connotation of including all four service arms, without warrant to arrest or cause to be arrested any person whose detention was in his opinion necessary for the maintenance of public order and of the safety of the public. A person was to be detained for a period of not exceeding 14 days under those regulations, but then the Minister could, by written notice addressed to the head of the prison, order that such person be detained in that prison for further periods in terms of that notice. That person could be interrogated. The Minister of Justice could make regulations relating to the detention of such a person.
Here again I pause to ask the hon the Minister whether it is his intention to provide in these regulations that persons detained in terms of this Bill will be interrogated. Are they to be interrogated? I hope the hon the Minister will answer that question.
No person other than the Minister or a person acting under him could have access to a detainee except with the consent of the Minister or the Commissioner of the South African Police Force. Is it the intention of the hon the Minister to allow people to have access to detainees?
In terms of the regulations I have mentioned, no such detainee was entitled to any official information. Is it the hon the Minister’s intention to include this regulation as well?
In terms of those regulations no person would be entitled to any official information relating to such person or to any information of whatever nature. That means that the person was detained incommunicado. Nobody could get any messages to him …
Have you not read my Second Reading speech?
Yes, I have read the Second Reading speech, but …
Have you not been listening at all?
I read it, but we have to get positive and absolute assurances from the hon the Minister that he or any person who might take his place will give us these safeguards. For this reason I am going to keep asking questions, because this is where the sting in the tail lies as far as this Bill is concerned. The sting in the tail lies in the regulations, and unless the hon the Minister is going to outline to us in this House how he intends framing these regulations, by passing this Bill we are giving him a blank cheque and carte blanche …
He has that right in any event under the existing Act!
I will come to that. [Interjections.] We are now discussing this Bill and the regulations still have to be framed. May I remind the hon member for Brakpan that we are going to get fresh regulations in terms of this Bill.
A member of the Force had the right at any time to search any person, premises or place, vehicle, vessel, aircraft or receptacle. Is this to be re-enacted?
The Commissioner of Police was given powers to demarcate areas, to close entrances, to control traffic, to close any public or private place, business or industry, to move any person or any section of the public out of a particular area, to prescribe the periods and hours during which persons could or could not be on the streets. Is it the hon the Minister’s intention to impose a curfew on areas which he is going to declare as unrest areas?
Is he going to control the dissemination and distribution of or any comment on any news in connection with a declaration in this regard? It was an offence for a person to fail to comply with any order or direction given, to hinder any person in the discharge of his duties, to disturb, deface or falsify any notice, or to disclose the name and identity of any detainee without written consent to do so.
The penalty was a fine not exceeding R20 000, or imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or both, and the court could declare any goods, property or instrument connected with the offence to be forfeited to the State.
Section 11 provided an indemnity that no civil or criminal proceedings could be brought in any court against the State, the State President, a member of the Cabinet, any member of the Force, any member in the service of the State, or any person acting on their behalf. Is it the hon the Minister’s intention again to indemnify all members of the Force, members of the Cabinet and all those involved? Will they receive that same indemnity in respect of an area declared to be an unrest area?
As for interdicts or other processes for the staying or setting aside of an order, or for a stay on the grounds of an appeal against a conviction, the hon the Minister has indicated that he intends to withdraw that particular provision. I take it, however, that he will not attempt to reintroduce the measure in the form in which it was previously contained in the regulations. I think the hon the Minister will probably agree with me that if he tried to do that, it may be ultra vires in respect of the Bill itself. He may like to give us some clarity as far as that point is concerned.
A presumption was also created in favour of a member of the Force that until the contrary was proved, such person had acted in good faith. We need clarity on this.
The regulations also gave the hon the Minister the power to make certain rules applicable to detainees. Let us look at those rules. Perhaps the hon the Minister will tell us whether he intends to re-enact these rules in respect of detainees. The first rule was that the detainee should be searched. The hon the Minister should not shake his head because I am merely repeating the law of the land exactly as it existed during the state of emergency.
You are going back to Adam! [Interjections.]
The hon the Minister is shaking his head. I would be only too happy if he could give me the assurance that detainees will not be searched and that it is not true that a detainee shall not receive any letters or any form of communication; that no reading matter except the Holy Bible is given to him; that he may not receive food parcels; that he is only allowed one hour’s exercise per day; that he may not have a radio, a TV set, a tape recorder or a musical instrument; that he may not have bedding sent to him and that he is entitled to receive visits only from a minister of religion. The detainee was entitled to be examined by a doctor on admission. That was granted him. [Interjections.]
There were also disciplinary measures and I ask hon members to listen to the disciplinary powers in terms of those regulations. Disciplinary measures were promulgated and they provided that it was an offence to disobey a lawful command; to be insolent or disrespectful; to be idle, careless or negligent; to swear or to use obscene language; to commit a petty assault; to sing, whistle or make unnecessary noises, or to leave one’s sleeping or eating quarters without permission. Those are the rules that applied to a detainee and I ask the hon the Minister whether it is his intention in the promulgation of the regulations to have rules and, if so, whether these same rules will be applicable to future detainees. [Interjections.]
The law contained in regulation 21 may be read by hon members, but the penalties laid down were the following: The imposition of extra duty for a specified period not exceeding 14 days or a fine of R20. They could be confined to a room, building or place. They might get a reprimand if the offence was not very serious but they could receive corporal punishment not exceeding 6 strokes for those under 40, and solitary confinement for a period not exceeding 30 days. In addition to all that, for those who were confined there was a nice little diet set aside for them. They could have a spare diet, a reduced diet or a full diet in accordance with the number of days of detention according to the scales laid down in the rules that were promulgated. Will this Bill and the regulations to be promulgated be any different? The hon the Minister must tell this House. Therein lies the sting in the tail.
I am in fact saying at this stage that apart from certain assurances given by the hon the Minister, all this is going to be repeated in terms of this Bill. In this case, however, it is the hon the Minister of Law and Order.
The last state of emergency declared on 21 July 1985 was terminated on 7 March 1986. During that period 371 people died and 416 were injured. According to the reply to question No 686, 18 569 people were detained and 7 097 were arrested.
When this Act was invoked for the first time on 30 March 1960, 82 magisterial districts were placed under the state of emergency. Thereafter, another 31 and finally 8 more magisterial districts were added to this figure. The state of emergency was withdrawn on 31 August 1960. During that period 11 503 persons were detained.
In 1963, as a result of an upsurge in acts of terrorism committed by Poqo, ie the militant wing of the banned PAC, the 90 day detention law came into effect. The Commissioner of Police or a Police officer was empowered to arrest a person without a warrant, and he could be detained for up to 12 months.
I mention these facts because I want to know for how long we can five under a state of emergency, legislation empowering detention for 90 days and longer and the sort of state of unrest which is given as the reason why this Bill should be passed.
I want to draw the attention of the House to question No 585 in which the hon the Minister of Law and Order advised that persons arrested by Security Forces in 1985 in connection with unrest-related offences and public violence numbered 9 857. The breakdown of this figure is as follows—this is important:
Malicious damage to property |
1 853 |
Arson |
1 609 |
Murder |
1 332 |
Assault |
4 315 |
I mention this because I submit that there are, in fact, sufficient laws on our Statute Book and in the criminal code today to deal with the situation without the need for any emergency regulations whatsoever.
Our laws can deal with the crimes of arson, assault, malicious damage to property, theft, including looting, murder, incitement, public violence and disturbance of the public peace and security. They cover high treason, sedition, any act of violence by the populace to inflict injury upon or invade the rights of another section of the population. I hope the hon the Minister is aware of all these provisions!
There is legislation, passed in 1982, prohibiting demonstrations or gatherings in or within a fixed distance of certain buildings. The penalty for a transgression of this law is R1 000 or imprisonment for one year, or both.
In addition to that, we have legislation which prohibits intimidation. It provides that any person who without lawful reason and with intent to compel or induce a particular person to do or abstain from doing any act, or assume or abandon a particular standpoint, or assaults, injures or causes damage to that person in any way, or who threatens to kill, assault or cause damage to that person is guilty of an offence. The penalty in such a case is a fine of up to R20 000 or 10 years imprisonment, or both. Is that not indicative of the fact that those are serious offences?
There is also the Internal Security Act, No 74 of 1982, which deals with steps which can be taken against certain organisations or persons who endanger the security of the State. In terms of this Act, meetings can be banned and people can be compelled to report to the Police or be detained in terms of section 28 and be interrogated in terms of section 29. Furthermore, in terms of section 30, the Attorney-General can refuse bail. Witnesses can be detained in terms of section 31 and, in terms of section 46, a magistrate can prohibit gatherings.
What further powers does this hon Minister want in order to deal with these situations and with crimes which are committed in South Africa? I submit with the greatest respect that further measures are totally unnecessary.
In terms of section 50 of the abovementioned Act a warrant officer may arrest a person without a warrant. Section 54 deals with terrorism and related offences. It deals with persons who cause general dislocation or disorder or endanger the public or who cripple or prejudice industries or undertakings.
I submit that in all these circumstances the existing law is more than adequate to deal with the present situation of unrest. I accordingly dispute, in the strongest possible way, the proclamation of the State President which reads, inter alia:
These are depressed and most difficult times that we are living in today; and so, in one respect, we will support the hon the Minister. We know the first duty of the State is to protect life and property and to maintain law and order. So, as far as that is concerned, we will most surely support the hon the Minister. We cannot support detention without trial, however, for we cannot afford to abrogate the natural rule of law. We cannot abrogate the basic rule of habeas corpus. We cannot live in what could be termed a police state. We must revert to the natural laws of the land: That every person who is arrested must be arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence; that such person must be brought before a magistrate within 48 hours of his arrest; and that such person is entitled to bail, to legal representation and to visits from his family.
We cannot sustain a position where a member of the Force arrests, prosecutes, judges and hands down sentence to the person arrested, because he then becomes judge and prosecutor in his own court. What we need is to attain the goodwill of all people and to restore confidence in the judicial system and in the Government. That is what we need. What is more, the court should be the final arbiter in all cases. There is no way in which we can sustain provisions which diminish or take away the rights of the courts of law.
I want now to refer to clause 4 of the Bill under discussion which inserts the proposed section 5A into the Act. I want to place special emphasis on the word, “opinion”, for example, the opinion of the Minister, the opinion of the warrant officer and the opinion of the lieutenant-colonel, whatever the case may be. In the case of Stanton v The Minister of Justice, 1960 (3) SA 353 (T), it was argued on behalf of a detainee that her detention had been unlawful because her activities had been innocuous. The court, however, held, and I quote:
In addition I cite the cases of Nkondo v The Minister of Law and Order and Hurley v The Minister of Law and Order. In these cases it was laid down that the Police must furnish reasons for their decision to detain a person. However, in Hurley’s case it was held that the words, “in the opinion of’ circumscribed the judicial rights of the court to define the indefinite sentence and to deal with the charge since section 29(1) of the Internal Security Act, 1982, provides that “any commissioned officer … may, if he has reason to believe …” Therefore, as soon as the court is dealing with the “opinion” of the commissioned officer—and this is the judgement handed down by the court—“the court cannot substitute its own opinion.” So, even if the hon the Minister does away with the provision that the court cannot interfere and includes a provision to the effect that the court can interfere and that there can be litigation, the court may still not, in terms of the judgment handed down in the Stanton case, change the “opinion”. As I have pointed out, in terms of the existing legislation it is not the court’s opinion that counts but the Minister’s opinion. The effect of the omission of this clause is, therefore, merely a question of semantics. Those, then, are the court rulings I submit in support of my argument.
I therefore submit that if the courts are to play a part, the wording of this provision must be changed to enable the court to hear evidence and determine the facts to see whether or not the court would come to the same conclusion, namely that the person detained had carried on activities which had been innocuous or not. Is that not a better way of dealing with the situation? Surely, if the evidence is there and the facts are proven, the court will take the necessary action and ensure that the person is detained or sentenced where necessary. Or do the hon the Minister and hon members of the NP not have any faith in the courts and the judicial system of South Africa? That would appear to me to be the case if they are going to take the matter out of the judiciary’s hands.
The Bill also refers to “an unrest area”. This is interesting because it is being substituted for “magisterial district”. However, whereas a magisterial district is defined, “an unrest area” is not defined in the Bill before us. We therefore ask the hon the Minister please to tell us in his reply what he envisages as “an unrest area”. Is such an area going to be the whole of South Africa? Is it going to be the whole of the Transvaal? Or the whole of the Cape? What is an “area”?
Hillbrow.
Hillbrow does not need this. This is the last thing Hillbrow needs, I can assure the hon member of that. Coming back to the question of the definition, what is an “area”? What does the hon member for Brakpan consider to be the definition of “area”? Surely the hon member can appreciate the problem? After all, he is a lawyer.
It could be the magisterial area of Johannesburg.
The Bill does not stipulate “magisterial area”, however. That is my point. The previous legislation stipulated “magisterial districts”, but this legislation stipulates “an unrest area”, and the word “area” is not defined. It can mean any area anywhere [Time expired.]
Mr Speaker, I think that everyone in this House is aware of the seriousness of the situation in our country and of the necessity that we confront ourselves with the measures that could be adopted in order to improve that position. That is why it is essential that in considering this Bill one asks oneself whether it is the correct and only way this situation can be dealt with. One should ask that question with responsibility—great responsibility, in view of the seriousness to which I referred.
The specific question with which I therefore confronted myself, was whether the powers which are being granted to the State and other authorities by this legislation is justified in the circumstances. The first criteria I had to apply to myself in this regard, was that I asked myself how I would have reacted if there were another kind of government in power in South Africa. It is a legitimate question. That question has been put in the House, but it is a question which I wish to repeat here, because it is the question I have asked myself.
My immediate reaction was that I could not allow powers to accrue to the State or the authorities which could be arbitrarily used against me, without my having the right to oppose those powers democratically or to appeal to the courts against the exercising of those powers and abilities. That is my main premise. I cannot, I dare not give anyone whatsoever those arbitrary rights and powers over the exercising of my civil liberties. Arising out of the question which I have put here, I wondered how would I react if an organisation such as the ANC, Azapo or the AWB were to come to power and were to come forward with this measure.
That is a question which I also wish to put to the hon the Minister. If he would find himself in a situation in which he were not on the governing side, but one of these organisations were, how would he react if those organisations had arrogated these rights to themselves?
What we have in this Bill, is the granting of unprecedented, wide and arbitrary powers to the authorities. As I see it, those powers can do nothing but interfere with one’s right of assembly, freedom of movement, freedom of speech and one’s physical freedom, because more specific provision is being made for the right of detention.
In this regard I immediately wish to distance myself from the general philosophy expressed by the hon the Minister as well as the hon member for Krugersdorp, that it is the interests of society which, in the first place, must always carry the greatest weight. That argument has been used throughout history by all dictators. Hon members need only look at Russia or any other dictatorship. It always involves the opinion of some dictator or other, because that is what it is what we are dealing with here. In the opinion of such a dictator, it is the interests of society which carry the greatest weight. In this Bill, similarly, the opinion of the hon the Minister is referred to, but if there are other objective criteria, if there were a court of law or other people who could lay down provisions and limit the implementation of that opinion, then this argument cannot be used, for it means that it is the arbitrary discretion of a single person which determines whether he has the right to interfere with those civil liberties and whether he is of the opinion that the interests of society come first.
Have you read the Rabie report yet?
I have read the Rabie report very carefully, but it is my main standpoint which I am stating. If it depends on a single individual to determine, then it is comparable with the situation of a dictator in as much as he can determine what he considers to be in the interests of society.
Is an individual allowed to go ahead and disrupt the community?
I wish to point out to the hon member for Rissik that that is not the argument which I used. I am merely saying that if a single individual determines what is in the interests of the State, we have the same situation that occurs in all dictatorships. In the opinion of the dictator it is the interests of the State which come first. It is he who then determines what interests of the State are, and that is the crux of the matter.
I wish to add that the rule of law shows its strength most when it is threatened. It is when the very democratic processes are threatened that democracy becomes important. Otherwise democracy means nothing. If we want to put aside and disrupt democracy the moment we have a conflict, then we are doing so to the detriment of democracy itself.
My fundamental standpoint on this matter is very clear. I am fundamentally opposed to any detention of people without trial. That is a fundamental premise. I am afraid that I cannot reach a compromise in this regard with anyone, no matter who.
We know that the situation here is one of unrest in our Black residential areas. We are all deeply concerned about it. This Bill is merely symbolic of the vicious cycle of violence and counter-violence which exists at present in South Africa. I do not think—I wish to repeat what my hon colleagues said—that the use of violence is going to solve that problem for us.
Mention has been made—this certainly influence one’s reaction—of complaints, not only about police conduct, but also about what one can describe in no other way but the abuse of the authority and power conferred upon police officials. The hon member for Green Point quoted an example of this.
I wish to make it very clear that I do not think that there is any doubt that the police are only human. I do not think that there is any doubt that some of the policemen acted and are still acting in an irresponsible way. They are human beings and after all we cannot expect them to act in a manner which would make superhuman demands on them. We cannot, however, create the situation in which further license is given to arbitrary actions by the police.
I wish to add immediately that I am not one of those people who considers all police officers to be thugs. That is not true. I myself had two brothers who occupied high positions in the Police Force. I am prepared to entrust my future and the future of my country to such policemen.
Surely they were not Progs? [Interjections.]
I believe in the necessity of an adequate, well-trained, well-disciplined and well-paid Police Force. [Interjections.] I wish to make it very clear—this side of the House has done so time and again—that we believe that a responsibility and an obligation rests on the authorities to ensure that order and peace are maintained. It is their duty and responsibility to protect people’s lives.
As the hon member for Durban Central said, there is no way in which any right-minded person in this country could condone the atrocities which are being committed on both sides—sometimes it is on the part of the police and at other times on the part of Blacks in respect of other Blacks. I wish to make it very clear and repeat that this side of the House is opposed to any such form of violence, because that violence solves no problems and merely exacerbates our problems.
Clearly there are two fundamental problems in this regard. One is the relationship between the Police and the Black people. It is without the slightest doubt part of the reaction which these Blacks and of these Black people and of the Black majority, the other groups to which the hon member for Durban Central referred, namely the people who are not revolutionaries, that their attitude towards the Police was to a considerable extent created—the hon the Minister knows this—by the fact that those policemen were obliged to apply legislation which impaired the human dignity and fundamental rights of the majority of Black people in South Africa. There is no doubt about that; we all know it.
This Parliament made those laws. One is thankful that some of those laws are now being repealed, but I say again that I believe that the bad feeling between many Blacks and the Police is the result of the legislation which the Police applied to them. Unfortunately this Parliament made those laws as a consequence of the policy of this Government.
The second factor—it has also been stated here—is the absence of political participation by the Black people. Consequently there were no means available to the Blacks of having a policy changed in a democratic way or of putting across their points of view. We can talk until we are blue in the face, but as long as the Black people in South Africa have no say in the political decision-making process, we shall not be able to solve our problems.
I am aware of the fact that the Government is proposing things in this regard, but the problem is that we are saddled with the present situation. Neither we nor they know what is going to happen and to what extent the Government will be prepared to commit itself to the democratisation of South Africa. Those prospects are therefore not going to help us now to deal with this situation. The present situation is a result of years and years of denying the Black people rights in our political system.
Let us be honest. As long as that political participation is absent, many Black people will feel justified in using other methods in order to put forward their standpoints and to have their demands satisfied.
[Inaudible.]
I am going to deal with that.
As long as that situation exists, our enemies inside and outside South Africa will continue to exploit that fact. Overseas opinion will use it as a justification for the violence which occurs in South Africa.
If one turns South Africa into a unified society, one has those problems!
Allow me to come back to this point in a few minutes. I wish to tell the Government that we are going to become embroiled in mounting conflict if the Government is going to apply different measures to the militant leftists than those it is prepared to apply to the militant right wingers.
Who are they?
I shall tell the hon member. Every time there is a reference to the AWB or to Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche then the so-called “liberation struggle” is referred to.
Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?
I shall reply to questions a little later, Sir.
Every time someone gets up and speaks about the struggle for freedom of the Afrikaner, how does it differ from the Black person who speaks of his liberation struggle?
There is a difference!
How does it differ? [Interjections.]
You yourself were a member of the OB, Nic. [Interjections.]
In the eyes of those people there is only one difference, namely that they do not consider the Blacks to be South Africans. They say that they want to arrogate South Africa for themselves as though it were their country. Every Black person in South Africa has as much claim to this country as I or any other person. [Interjections.]
What claim do the Tswanas have to the Karoo? And what claim do the Vendas have to the Karoo?
Every person in this country, be he White, Black, Coloured or Indian, have just as much claim to this land as I or any one of those hon members do. [Interjections.]
We differ in principle.
That is why I say that when hon members speak of the struggle for freedom of the Afrikaner, the Black also has the right to speak of the liberation struggle.
Our struggle for freedom was never a struggle for dominance.
The AWB says, in spite of the law, that the Government has no legitimacy because five years have lapsed since the last election.
They have no mandate.
They say the Government has no mandate, and therefore it is not legitimate. Those militant leftists have as much right to say that the Government has no legitimacy because they did not contribute to establishing the Government in office, because they had no part in the election of that Government, and because they have been excluded from the political process. They would then have just as much right to say that the Government is not legitimate.
That is nonsense! [Interjections.]
If the right-wingers say that they will not respect the laws of Parliament, and I have heard them say it here … [Interjections.]
Who said it? [Interjections.]
What did the State President do with influx control legislation?
Allow me to mention a specific case here. [Interjections.] At a recent debate in Pretoria the hon member for Koedoespoort said that if it were to happen that they received the majority of Whites support, they would ignore Parliament as it is presently constituted. They are not going to concern themselves with the retention of the other two Houses. [Interjections.] Whether I like Parliament or not, is irrelevant, but it was created by an Act of Parliament.
If you were to come to power, would you maintain this Parliament, or constitute it differently?
The answer is very clear. [Interjections.] We said that this constitutional system is one which did not satisfy us, and Parliament would change it. We never said we would negate Parliament. [Interjections.]
But when did we say that? [Interjections.] Your age is catching up with you! [Interjections.]
That was the very clear message conveyed that evening by the hon member for Koedoespoort.
Now you are making a big mistake!
I do not want to say much about this.
We said this Parliament…
Order! The hon member for Kuruman must contain himself!
The leftists say exactly the same. They are not going to maintain or respect laws which have been made by this Parliament.
But surely you are a leftist too! [Interjections.]
The essence of the matter is that we shall not solve our problems through violence.
I should now like to associate myself with the hon member for Hillbrow, because this is the second major difficulty I had with my inquiry into the Bill. Probably 96% of what the hon Minister mentioned and to which we are also opposed—the murders and all the other things which are being done—can be dealt with under our normal criminal law and normal statutory law which already exists and by our normal administration of justice. [Interjections.] I truly believe this, and the hon member for Hillbrow indicated it. But the problem does not lie there. It lies in the inability of the Police and our Security Forces to apply the law.
Admission to the Black urban areas has been mentioned. Once again I wish to say that the answer to the problem should not then be sought in additional arbitrary powers for the authorities, but in the creation of a situation in which the policemen can do their work effectively and well in a disciplined manner. They will then be in a position to deal properly with at least 96% of the problems which the hon the Minister spelt out here, as the hon member for Hillbrow indicated, within the framework of our own legal system.
That is why I believe that there is a need for an effective and—let me add—a disciplined Police Force. Furthermore there must be a socio-political system which satisfies the basic needs of the majority of the people of South Africa. In view of this I merely wish to say that I have no other choice but to say that I believe this way of doing things and the attempt to solve problems along these lines with this kind of legislation, are in fact going to aggravate our problem and not resolve it.
Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member Prof Olivier, but allow me to say that I served in the Provincial Council with the hon member for Koedoespoort and I am going to be loyal enough to him not to allow the Progs to castigate him if he is innocent. I think what the hon member for Koedoespoort meant when he said they would not respect the Acts, was surely that if they were to come into office in Parliament, they would change the Acts to adapt to their point of view.
That is correct.
Surely that is logical. [Interjections.] I also think the hon member Prof Olivier and his party would do the same thing. If they were to come into office, they would do the same thing.
Ask Louis Nel. He was there!
The hon member also spoke about the Police who should take disciplined action. I think it is discipline among our policemen which has in fact prevented large-scale unrest from flaring up in South Africa. We can be grateful to our policemen for the discipline they display.
The hon member also said that the relationship between the Police and the Black community was supposedly not very good. I want to say it is precisely because the relationship between the Police and the Black community is exceptionally good that we do, in fact, need this legislation.
At the same time I want to involve the hon member for Hillbrow in this. Like the hon member Prof Olivier, he spoke about the personal freedom of the individual that is being assailed. What about those people who are being intimidated then? Is their personal freedom not being assailed by the intimidators and inciters, preventing them from exercising their rights as well?
I also have a question to the hon members of the PFP. How many of them have sons—I am not talking about the hon member Prof Olivier’s two brothers—or close relatives who are members of the Police Force or the Reservists?
Or friends?
How many of them are friends of the Police, as the hon member for Krugersdorp said? [Interjections.] How many of them make a contribution to our Police Force to support our Police and place them in a position in which they can maintain law and order in South Africa?
As the hon the Minister told the hon member for Sandton in an interjection, he made a scandalous speech, teeming with false accusations which he levelled at the hon the Minister. What was worse, however, was that the hon member for Krugersdorp said more in any two minutes of the 11 minutes for which he spoke, than the hon member for Sandton did in the full 23 minutes for which he spoke. It is not appropriate for the hon member for Sandton to make that kind of remark about the length of a speech.
The hon member for Durban Central made a positive effort to involve the hon the Minister in the House of Delegates in this debate, well knowing that this debate still has to be conducted in that House. He wanted to know whether the particular hon Minister supported this measure, especially in the present circumstances. He deliberately tried to embarrass the hon Minister Mr Rajbansi by the way in which he acted here tonight. The hon member Mr Theunissen mentioned the finding of the Pretoria Bar Council in which they indicated their support of the proposed new section 5B, which is now to be omitted. I also want to refer to it. I want to tell the hon member Mr Theunissen, however, that perhaps it is better, when one quotes people, to do so fully. The Pretoria Bar Council spoke about the proposed new section 5B, and began by saying:
Of course it is correct, as the hon member said, that the Pretoria Bar Council does give its support to this measure later in its finding. The Pretoria Bar Council says that nevertheless, they are also prepared to agree to the proposed new section 5B’s being retained. The hon member Mr Theunissen was correct in that respect. That is indeed correct. I say, however, that the opinion of the Pretoria Bar Council, seen as a whole, amounts to their also criticising it, juridically speaking, but, in view of the present conditions in South Africa, they arc in fact in favour of the proposed new section SB’s being retained in the measure as is.
I believe the hon member for Roodepoort has dealt with this particular provision thoroughly enough, however.
The General Bar Council said that the measure as a whole is unacceptable to them. They do concede, however, that there are difficult problems in South Africa. Consequently I want to quote the following section from the beginning of their finding in this connection to hon members:
Then they proceed to oppose the legislation which is serving before the House in these circumstances.
The hon member for Green Point spoke about “no-go areas”, and said those “no-go areas” did exist. He also referred to an SA Transport Services truck, however, which rode up and down the streets. He regarded that as provocation, and said it gave Black children and other Blacks the right to throw stones at that truck. Because the truck rides up and down the street, those Blacks have the right to pick up stones and throw them at the truck.
I want to go further, however. During the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill in this House, the hon the Minister said the following with reference to the hon member for Constantia on 10 April this year, and I quote (Hansard, 1986, col 3114):
The hon the Minister went on to say:
The hon member for Houghton reacted to this by way of an interjection, and said:
The hon member for Sandton, who mentioned Alexandra—today again in this House—also said in his speech, as quoted by the hon the Minister on 10 April:
A little later that same day the hon member for Houghton said, and I quote (Hansard, 1986, col 3116):
The hon members of the PFP therefore themselves admit that there is unrest in the country.
They make the statement that the authority of the Government is being undermined and threatened in certain conditions, and then they go further and condone it in this House. They plead that the perpetrators of unrest should be able to continue their constant provocation of the authority of the Government. I want to quote Bishop Tutu in this connection when, according to the Daily Telegraph of November 1984, he said:
I now ask hon members: If the ringleaders among the Black community, who are regarded as the leaders of the Black community by the PFP, are the inciters and the perpetrators of unrest, must one not remove those elements from the community in some way or another so that law and order and peace and tranquillity can be restored?
The South African Federated Chamber of Industries also objected to this legislation, but what is illuminating is that they said:
Then later they object to the legislation! I now ask what the position of these chambers of industry, which earn their living from the industries, will be if this threat of Black socialism and Marxism, as they put it themselves, were to get the upper hand in South Africa and take over control here? Surely these people’s business enterprises would not flourish then, because as the hon chairman of the standing committee has said repeatedly: “If there is no law and order, there will be no business.”
You help the Marxists!
If that is the case, as their chairman says, that is indeed the course things will take.
In conclusion I want to tell hon members that during the meetings of the standing committee, I was filled with the greatest regard and respect for the hon member for Krugersdorp, for the way in which he handled the meetings. Indeed, I think he had too much patience at times, and we have only the greatest respect for that. I can assure hon members that it is really a pleasure to serve in that standing committee under the chairmanship of the hon member for Krugersdorp.
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Losberg accused the PFP inter alia of trying to drag the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates into this debate. I want to point out to hon members that the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates was in this House, and sat in the benches for visiting Ministers. He participated in the debate on the admission of Indians to the Free State and Northern Natal. Therefore I think it is quite fair to ask him what his standpoint in regard to this legislation is. We also want to know it. Hon members of the House of Representatives also came to this House this afternoon to listen to the debate.
We want to know what their standpoint is. We want to know whether Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi are going to resign from the coalition Cabinet if this legislation is passed. This is a fair question to put to these hon Ministers. I want to know whether the hon member for Losberg can tell us what is going to happen in the House of Delegates and in the House of Representatives. What is their attitude? Is he perhaps interested in what their attitude is, and in what they are going to do if this legislation is passed?
[Inaudible.]
Since the hon member for False Bay has made an interjection, I want to say something to him in passing. We are ostensibly grieving over the Monument now. I want to ask him to ask the State President, Prof De Lange of the Broederbond and Mr Sloet of the FAK, as well as fourth friend of the Government, to hold a meeting.
And the Progs as well, while he is about it.
Yes, he may as well ask his other friends from the PFP too, and then he must see whether he can attract as big a crowd as was gathered together at the Monument. Let them try to emulate us.
How many were there?
There were more than 25 000 people. [Interjections.] I shall return to this later. [Interjections.] I just hope I can get a chance to proceed with my speech.
The hon member for Losberg also said that the hon member for Roodepoort had replied to the arguments in connection with the proposed section 5B, which is now being withdrawn. The hon member for Helderkruin came forward here with the fantastic argument in connection with the proposed section 5B that the courts first had to establish whether a regulation was in fact a regulation before they could determine whether that regulation was valid or invalid.
Let us just see what the present Internal Security Act has to say. In section 28 the following is referred to:
Furthermore it is stated in subsection (2) that when such a person is detained, the Minister may promulgate provisions and regulations while this person is detained in prison for the period during which the notice is in force. Subsection (7) then reads as follows:
That, then, is the existing legislation of 1982. Hon members of this House—Parliament at the time—resolved that a regulation could be safeguarded to such an extent that the courts had no jurisdiction to pronounce upon it. Consequently I do not know how the hon member for Helderkruin can try to imply that when such a regulation or proclamation is made, one can never make it in such a way that the courts cannot arrive at some finding or other in that regard. [Interjections.]
The position is that not one hon member of the NP has so far given us an explanation of why the hon the Minister made a concession in regard to the proposed section 5B.
I shall do so myself! [Interjections.]
One would have expected this, so that it could have been debated. If the hon the Minister’s friends do not tell us, we come to the unfortunate conclusion …
Surely it is my responsibility.
No, the hon the Minister and I are good friends after all. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must surely have consulted his caucus, and they must have known why the proposed section 5B is being withdrawn. [Interjections.] So far, however, no one has told us why. The involuntary conclusion which I should not like to draw because I have too much respect for the hon the Minister is that his knees caved in. Otherwise the knees of those other little friends of his in the Cabinet caved in.
It is just my old back that does not want to play golf any more; my knees are both fine.
We came to that conclusion because we have been debating the whole afternoon and we have still not received an explanation of why the proposed section 5B, which is a very fair provision, is going to be withdrawn. [Interjections.] Is it part of the process to which the NP is committed?
To a certain extent I feel sorry for the hon the Minister of Law and Order because, except perhaps for the hon members for Roodepoort and Losberg, the other hon members, particularly the New Nats who participated in this debate, participated with a very large measure of regret and in fact supported this Bill very regretfully. [Interjections.]
I cannot understand that, because all this Bill is doing in actual fact is to empower the hon the Minister, in respect of a situation in which one is able to proclaim an emergency throughout the entire country, now to proclaim an emergency only in respect of a specific part of the country. Consequently it is to a certain extent even limiting, and what I cannot understand is that it is the present legislation which is merely being presented in another way. Regulations can be made and in essence the Public Safety Act is not being infringed upon. All that is being done is that certain amendments in this connection are being effected.
Sir, I wonder whether it is not an opportune time now to suspend business.
Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.
Evening Sitting
Mr Chairman, prior to the suspension of business for supper I had asked why it was unfair of the PFP or of us to ascertain precisely what happened between the hon the Minister and the Chairmen of the Ministers’ Councils of the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives. For example I have the Weekly Mail of 30 May 1086 here in my possession, in which it is stated inter alia that negotiations took place:
We are entitled to ask the hon the Minister what is happening, and what the attitude of the Chairmen of the Ministers’ Councils of the other two Houses is. [Interjections.]
Furthermore we are also entitled to ask why the proposed section 5B is being relinquished. During the supper-break I ascertained that the fact that the envisaged section 5B is being omitted was not resubmitted to the standing committee. We only know that when the chairman asked on the standing committee on one occasion whether we accepted the advisability of the Bill concerned, the Coloured and Indian representatives got up and walked out. [Interjections.] Certain amendments are now being effected to this amending Bill, but it does not seem to me as if they were before the standing committee again. And it seems as though they have definitely not been before the caucus or the hon the Minister’s study group, because not one of the hon members who have participated in this debate so far, including the chairman of the standing committee, gave us an explanation of why the envisaged section 5B is being relinquished. Only the academic, the hon member for Helderkruin, gave a very confused academic explanation in this connection.
Yes, and it was not all that clear (helder)! [Interjections.]
Perhaps that is why there is no real enthusiasm for this measure among the hon members of the NP. They are merely going along with it. There is no real enthusiasm! One thinks to what extent the NP fought with all its hosts in debates of this nature to defeat the PFP in earlier years. [Interjections.] Today there was merely a rather shame-faced attempt at defending this measure! [Interjections.]
The hon member for Krugersdorp did not even get at the hon member for Green Point a little, in spite of everything the hon member for Green Point said. For example he referred to “a cynical order of priorities” and said:
He also said:
The hon member for Green point got away with all these very strong and contentious remarks. The hon member for Krugersdorp simply allowed him to get away with them! Can hon members believe that? That is not how the fighting men of old used to act!
He is one of us! [Interjections.]
That is the point! [Interjections.] Allegations were made to the effect that democracy is dead, but hon members on that side of the House simply allowed Dr Boesak and Bishop Tutu to say precisely what they like. They get away with everything they say, even when it amounts to economic sabotage! [Interjections.] Then it is said, is this not a free country, after all, one in which one can express one’s ideas as one sees fit!
The speech made by the hon member for Sandton was replied to very feebly. The tragedy in the political situation of today is that the actions of the Police are constantly being scrutinised when legislation of this nature is discussed. The hon member for Sandton was unable to disguise his contempt for the Police. He spoke about “the violent activities of the Police”. He spoke about “licence to beat up and to kill”. The worst thing was that he said these things, and got away with them. [Interjections.] I find this so typical of the NP—in the words of the Sunday Times yesterday—“that now have the middle-age spread”. It is a “middle-aged party” that must go! [Interjections.] There is no enthusiasm for the cause any more. The poor hon Minister of Law and Order has to rake the chestnuts out of the fire.
I just want to refer in passing to the envisaged new section 5A(7). This is the provision over which the hon member for Durban Point and the hon member for Houghton are to a certain extent at loggerheads. I cannot really understand what their problem is. I can understand why the hon the Minister is withdrawing this provision. It reduces his burdens.
It means less work!
It means less work for the hon the Minister, because all that is actually stated here is that the names of certain detainees need no longer be tabled. It does not mean that the hon the Minister may not issue further restriction orders, or may not act as he sees fit in terms of the Internal Security Act. [Interjections.] I cannot understand the arguments of the hon member for Houghton and the hon member for Durban Point. The hon member for Houghton will probably explain it to her caucus tomorrow, because her own caucus members do not understand it either. And the hon member for Durban Point will probably furnish his explanation of this matter tomorrow as well. The point I find so difficult to understand about the PFP is that we have still not heard what the real difference is between the present Public Safety Act and the Bill which is under discussion here today, in spite of the fact that they have argued about it all afternoon, and the hon member for Hillbrow, quoted about six folios full.
That is my point.
There is no material difference. Why put up such a fight then?
Why is this legislation necessary?
This Bill simply empowers the hon the Minister to exercise certain powers in certain—smaller or larger—areas. Why oppose that so vehemently, while the hon the Minister and the State President have the right to declare an emergency throughout the entire country. Why cannot the hon the Minister, for example, declare an emergency in Hillbrow only? Why cannot he do that?
They must say why these powers are necessary.
There is no material difference, and that is why I cannot understand why the PFP is kicking up such a terrible fuss, particularly when one reads what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said. I put this question to the hon member for Durban Central too. The words of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition are far more relevant. I am quoting from Hansard, 17 April 1986, col 3610:
He then continues to wax lyrical about his abhorrence of violence. I quote further:
What does “tough” mean? It means the Public Safety Act. [Interjections.] I quote what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went on to say:
That is through the judicial process. It is the duty of every Government to deal with this type of thing.
To deal with it judicially.
How can one deal with it judicially in these circumstances?
By proving one’s case.
Arthur Suzman says in the South African Law Journal, on page 269:
When the rule of law is not being infringed. That is what he said.
Surely we have exceptional circumstances at this stage. The position is that the hon member Mr Theunissen has quoted to hon members of the PFP the report of the Rabie commission and the Appeal Court’s judgement on the question of when the State is entitled to use all the power at its disposal. What is the biggest priority at this stage? The biggest priority, surely, is to restore peace and order with all the means at the disposal of the State. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon member for Brakpan to tell us why he believes this measure will solve the security problem if the state of emergency which was announced last year seems to have exacerbated the problem in that an increase in the incidence of violence, a rise in the number of killings and also more deaths have occurred?
No, that is not true!
Look at the statistics.
I do not think I am entitled to disclose the figures, but I am sure the hon member for Durban Central is in possession of the facts as they were presented to the standing committee. According to these facts there was an increase in the incidence of violence after the state of emergency had been lifted.
So it did not work!
No, after the state of emergency was lifted. During the state of emergency the State achieved success in limiting the outburst of violence, the number of deaths and the damage to property.
Not according to the figures I gave you.
Well, the hon member for Hillbrow can go and have a look at that report. [Interjections.]
What are you going to solve, Frank?
The important thing is that before one proceeds with any further solutions, one must first restore peace and order in South Africa. Only then can one debate other matters. [Interjections.]
There is another aspect I want to mention in this connection. Last night we had the privilege of listening to the Commissioner of Police. If the hon members of the PFP had listened to the discussion last night …
It was very good!
I did!
If hon members had listened, they ought to have been convinced that it was essential in this connection for legislation to be introduced to keep the conditions prevailing in South Africa at present in check. We are living in a situation in which the revolutionaries are trying to pit one population group against another, in which as much suspicion as possible must be cast on the primary arm of the authority of the State, and in which they should like to cause our Western allies to become even more antagonistic towards the RSA. Those are the three aspects the General mentioned. I shall repeat them: Firstly, the revolutionaries are trying to bring about polarisation, secondly to cast suspicion on the Police, and thirdly to ensure that the Western world becomes even more antagonistic towards the RSA. That is precisely what is happening at this stage. Consequently we need strong forces to cope with these threats.
We therefore welcome the statement by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs over the weekend that we shall fight terrorism, even if it leads to sanctions and further isolation. Do hon members know, it seems to me the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was at Monument Koppie on Saturday, because that is precisely what we said. We said we would fight terrorism, even though it brought further isolation in its wake. [Interjections.] Does the hon member for Bloemfontein East agree with that?
Who won on Monument Koppie?
One of the speakers there.
Yes, but who was that speaker?
The hon member’s old friend, Mr Jaap Marais, said it. [Interjections.]
Furthermore I want to say I think Freek Robinson was itching to ask Gen Coetzee last night: “What about the behaviour of the right-wingers?” [Interjections.] This was clearly apparent from the entire programme. In fact, this is clearly apparent from the whole atmosphere in South Africa, regardless of from which quarter the threat to South Africa comes. We must see this in conjunction with what happened at Monument Koppie. The Police were not there. They knew that no problems would arise at Monument Koppie. They displayed very good, sound judgment, and the whole propaganda campaign about smouldering dangers from the right was shown, and will always be shown, to be a leftist ploy, merely a leftist ploy.
Now you are implying that it is our fault.
No, I am talking about the left-wing Press that supports the NP. [Interjections.] It is alarming that this unrest situation in South Africa has been continuing since September 1984. We heard how much damage has been caused. I think it is approximately R60 million. We heard about the loss of human lives. We have heard that their normal community life is being totally threatened. We heard that these people are no longer even in the position to pay for the services the authorities are rendering to them. That money, taxes and so on, is being channelled to other sources. We have heard how extremely difficult it is to cause the pattern of life in the Black residential areas to return to normal. More and more policemen are having to be concentrated in the unrest-stricken areas so that normal police work is suffering.
The most important aspect is that the image of the police is suffering in the process. That image is being demolished further by hon members of the left-wing party, the PFP, in this House.
We are not left. We are ahead of you.
Last night the general said on TV that the police appeared on the scene when an emotional and charged atmosphere was already prevailing. To the malcontent, the insurgent and the perpetrator of violence the police are an obstacle and a hindrance in their devilish mission. It therefore suits those people who want to try to establish unrest, strife and mischief in South Africa by trying in the first place to demolish the image of the police. It goes without saying that these days in which the pendulum is clearly swinging in the direction of community protection, the emphasis upon the individual’s freedom and rights should be assessed less firmly.
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member how he reacts to the fact that Gen Coetzee said last night that he had the situation completely under control; and secondly that he said it was better not to have a thousand guilty men in jail than to have one man who was not guilty in jail?
With the second point he made we have no problem. As far as the first point is concerned he obviously says that the situation is not such that it is completely beyond control. However, he has also been instrumental in bringing this legislation to Parliament to give him more powers. What is more, he says we have only 1,7 policeman for ever 1 000 citizens in this country, whereas the countries on the other side of the Iron Curtain have six or seven policemen for every 1 000 members of the population. His problem is therefore that he wants more policemen, and it takes time to train them and to get them operational. [Interjections.] Does the hon member not agree that under the prevailing circumstances the police must have stronger powers than they have at the moment?
No.
Since September 1984 they have not had success with the powers available to them.
It does not give them stronger powers. They have the same power they had before.
[Inaudible.]
On that point I concede the correctness of the argument. The reason why to a certain extent they do not use these powers is because the political strongmen in the Cabinet are tying the hands of the hon the Minister of Law and Order behind his back. [Interjections.] There is for example the hon member for Brits who gets very nervous when a few AWB supporters have some fun at his meeting at Brits. [Interjections.]
*This also applies to the hon the Minister of Manpower and Dr Dennis Worrall, who is making the matter so difficult for the hon the Minister of Law and Order abroad. [Interjections.]
In spite of all these powers which the State arrogates to itself, the law-abiding, peace-loving citizen need have no fears. That person who proceeds with his daily task in peace and transquility can continue to do so. This legislation is solely an attempt to do everything possible to enable these citizens to proceed with their normal activities peacefully and in an atmosphere of security. This is an urgent priority.
When I advocate this, I wonder whether those hon members do not wish to send me another blue card, because they really cannot fight as hard for this legislation as we are doing. [Interjections.] They are sitting there, but their knees are weak. They are not fighting, they are merely making concessions. [Interjections.]
It serves no purpose, in the atmosphere in which South Africa finds itself at present, to approach this problem with an armchair mentality. The hon members should ride around in the Casspirs. They talk about visiting Black residential areas, but they must go into those places with the police. They must see under what conditions the police have to work 24 hours a day. They should see what their leave position looks like, and how many hours of overtime they have to work. [Interjections.]
Then the hon member for Sandton talks about “the violence of the police” and the “licence to kill” of the police. It is disgraceful to speak like that! The Police Force is the primary arm of the State, and it protects us as we are sitting here. Our members are sitting in this House conducting a peaceful debate, but to whom are we indebted for that privilege? It is to one arm only of the State, namely the Police Force.
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member on how many occasions he himself has actually witnessed police action in the Black townships?
I am not able to give the hon member an answer offhand but I have been with the police while they were on duty in the Black townships.
And there is no problem?
Well, sometimes there are no problems but we know what the situation has been in the past and we have evidence of what has happened in certain situations. [Interjections.]
*I just want to say a few words about intimidation. As regards intimidation, we found evidence in Ovambo, and we also know what the position is in Angola, Zimbabwe and in this country. We even know about some of our own employees. They prefer to sleep on the premises because they want to keep on working. They know that once they have returned to their residential areas, they will be prevented from returning to work by the intimidators. This position has existed since 1960.
If these intimidators cannot be brought to book, and are readily returned to civilian life after having been arrested for 14 days, it aggravates the attitude of contempt for authority and the loss of confidence in the laws and the legal systems of our country. Our first priority must be to create law and order in the country, and then we can talk further. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, I think I can best answer the hon member for Brakpan if I say the following: Let us suppose the time is 1902 or 1903. At that time the British Empire had brought its forces right around the world to attack the tiny little Boer Republic of the Transvaal and the Boer Republic of.
They started doing that in 1899!
Right. Now the British Empire has won. If Lord Milner had got control of the Cabinet at that stage …
Your historical perspective is not correct!
… and he had said that there were enough “uitlanders” in the country at that time and that he would not grant civic rights to the old citizens of the republics. They would be excluded from these rights, there would be areas where they would be forced to live and they would not be allowed to participate in the economy. I would like the hon the Minister to tell me what his attitude as a young man at that stage and under those circumstances would have been. Would he have obeyed the laws that applied to the country at that stage? I cannot believe that he would have; I certainly would not have.
That is the nub of the whole matter. The point was raised by the hon member Prof Olivier that one has to put oneself politically in the right before one can act toughly. I am not a pacifist, and when I am asked if I would act toughly against terrorism my answer is most definitely in the affirmative. First of all, however, I have to put myself morally in the right. I cannot exclude all those people from participation in the political system on a basis exactly equal to that of everybody else in the country in which they were born, and then apply by force the measures we have at our disposal. That is what puts us in the wrong.
Put yourself in the place of a policeman in a location at night with thousands of people around him. [Interjections.]
It has been said that the PFP despises the Police. I have worked with just as many workmen as the hon member for Langlaagte, and I do not despise the Police at all.
†I have a great admiration for workmen. I have frequently accused the Government of putting the Police in an impossible position, and I detest it. I hate it when the Government does not back up the people under them, because it is responsible for putting them in that impossible position. I mentioned this the other day in this House.
If the hon members of this party, feeling as we do, were taken to the Port Elizabeth townships and told to administer these laws, we would either have to move out of those townships or have to attempt to administer these unjust laws as the police do. It is the laws that are at fault. That is the problem.
Hear, hear!
The stated purpose of the amended Act is to make provision for the safety of the public and the maintenance of public order in cases of emergency or internal unrest. Not only will the Act fail to achieve this purpose but, as I will try to show, it will have very dangerous consequences and the House should reject the measure.
The explanatory memorandum makes it clear that the Bill is an attempt to make it possible to achieve the effects of the emergency regulations in another guise in which some of the implications of a state of emergency will be avoided. That is a vain hope because we will have to live with those implications.
One must ask in what circumstances it is proposed to use these formidable new powers. After all, we have had the opportunity of watching the hon the Minister use the powers he received under the emergency regulations, and they failed significantly to achieve the safety of the public and the maintenance of public order. If they had succeeded, we would not have had this Bill before us now.
The State President graphically chronicled the enormous material damage caused at the time of the state of emergency. I think it was estimated at nearly R70 million, and it could be even higher. The Government’s failure to manage political change and its loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of our people caused the overseas investor to lose confidence in the political economy. He decided to leave the sinking ship. Every statement this Government makes—this Bill is such a statement—endorses his decision instead of refuting it. Consequent economic depression and unemployment serve to exacerbate township unrest.
I have a feeling that the hon the Minister does not fully grasp the effect of the state of the economy on the unrest, and how important it is to run the country without letting legislation like that before us disrupt the economy.
The state of emergency proved ineffective in the achievement of its purposes and was strategically damaging. It was consequently lifted. It is now naively proposed to apply it in another guise. The hon the Minister’s powers are already immense, but he argues that he needs more. To justify this he must surely show that the emergency regulations were effective in helping him to achieve peace during that period, and that when they were subsequently removed there was a serious deterioration in the situation. That has not been established.
The position, therefore, is that the emergency regulations did not help the Government restore order, and that the reduction in powers because of the lifting of the state of emergency did not aggravate the situation. Yet now the hon the Minister seeks vast additional authority and we must ask why. He asks for such powers because he intends to use them.
Order! Hon members must modulate their voices and speak more softly.
The Government’s policy will require even more “kragdadigheid” if it is to be imposed. We are in a cycle of violence which is intensified by attempts to dominate and to impose our policy on a reluctant people. It is the road trod by every tyrant in history. Ultimately, the enormous power we appropriate cannot be used because it is more destructive of the oppressor than of the oppressed in that it inevitably destroys his legitimacy. The hon member for False Bay said just now that the Government had not used its power. However, the Government can never use the kind of power he is talking about. Aeroplanes, tanks and big guns cannot be used against a civic resistance. The Government is in exactly the same situation in which the Germans were during the war. They had all the armaments one could wish to find, but did they use that against the resistance groups in Europe as they dominated 200 million people? They could not. One uses small arms and inevitably ends up in the business of taking hostages and carrying out reprisals against a civilian population.
Do you suggest that we use gas chambers?
I believe we shall end up with reprisals, because one cannot ever identify who did the damage. This is exactly the case in Black townships today. How does one actually know who did the damage? Eventually one is powerless because one cannot use one’s big weapons, one’s air force and one’s tanks. One is powerless in a situation of civic resistance like that. [Interjections.]
Before giving the hon the Minister discretion to decide “that measures additional to the ordinary law of the land are necessary” we should surely examine the responsibility with which he has used his powers in the past. The hon the Minister is not a policeman. He is a senior Cabinet Minister and he is responsible to every single person who fives in this country whether he is a comrade, a street sweeper, or a councillor for the administration of justice. He has failed in this. In judging between the Police and Blacks he is blatantly biased. His statement to this House at the time of the Langa massacre—subsequently proved to be untrue—is indicative of this. It is obvious that this attitude has an effect on the rank and file of the Police. I think of Lt Fouché. He was the officer who gave the order to fire at Langa. The other day—I think I am right in saying this—he appeared at a hearing in Port Elizabeth where he was giving evidence, and he admitted that he had never even read the Kannemeyer report. Presumably, none of his senior officers had ever taken the trouble to discuss it with him!
We on this side of the House have taken countless affidavits from people who allege Police brutality, intimidation, interrogation under torture and inexplicable killings. Many of these have been sent to the hon the Minister. He is unfailingly available, courteous, unruffled and uncaring. I certainly do not believe that justice is either being seen to be done or being done. The indemnity given the Police in terms of the emergency regulations is indicative of the way in which the wrong message gets through to people. One just has to read what it says:
That message, when it gets down the ranks, is regarded as an open licence.
Nonsense!
Of course it is.
The intention behind the Bill now before us is to enable similar regulations to the emergency regulations to be promulgated, but whereas the principal Act provides that regulations have to be approved by Parliament, the proposed new section 3(6)(a) now provides that Parliament has the power to annual regulations. For that to be effective the National Party caucus would have to vote against the National Party Government. I believe that is unlikely to happen before the Second Coming! [Interjections.]
The explanatory memorandum describes very clearly what it is intended to achieve with this Bill. It is to give the hon the Minister the muscle he thinks necessary to impose structures of Government on Blacks which they have had no part in formulating and which they reject. This has not had the desired effect in the past and will be counterproductive in future. It plays into the hands of the most radical and ruthless elements of Black and White society. The moderates of all communities stand appalled and effectively neutralised as the polarised extremes slug it out, tearing all civilised values to shreds in the process.
Black on Black violence cannot be excused. There can never be an extenuating circumstance for a necklacing, and never can there be an extenuating circumstance for the chopping up of a 10-year old child because its father happens to be a community councillor in one of the National Party’s local government systems. If one seeks to excuse such action, one must also excuse Police brutality on the grounds that the policeman is also the product of his own social environment and traditional cultural values. A code of behaviour has to be more certain, more rigid and more defined in turbulent times than in ordinary times. The Bill before the House is destructive of a rigid code of conduct. By licensing irregular action on the part of the forces of law and order, one plays into the hands of the worst elements of all races—promoting barbaric behaviour in the townships and bringing the rule of law into disrepute.
I should like to address myself very briefly, Sir, to the question of leadership—Black leadership. Not only do I want to refer to Black leadership at a national level, and whether we should be negotiating with the leaders of the ANC, but also to Black leadership in the local townships. Now I know—and I am talking from experience because I know the people and I know the policemen involved as well—that there is very effective, competent, intelligent Black leadership with which we can make tremendous progress and with which the Police can make tremendous progress. In some areas they are beginning to talk with them, particularly in Black urban communities. Originally, however, the orders went out that one did not talk to those people because it meant undercutting the leadership in the established, Government-created structures of local government, and those people are powerless. In huge areas of the country they do not run their townships. The intelligent young Black leadership are the people who frequently ask us to attend their funerals. Therefore, they cannot be thinking in terms of creating unrest and violence. They are seeking responsible witnesses.
Oh, nonsense! [Interjections.]
Of course, that is true! We go there as witnesses and nothing happens.
Do you mean to tell the House they do not kill and maim innocent civilians? [Interjections.]
Oh, Louis, you are simply “toe”! [Interjections.]
The hon the Minister should have a word with some of his own people. What is the origin of this initiative to arm the hon the Minister with such unwarranted authority? [Interjections.] I think the only conversation that hon Minister ever has with them is from his position of interrogator.
That is right! An inquisitorial conversation!
Yes, and that is an absolutely worthless type of communication. [Interjections.] I would guess that the origin of this Bill can be traced to two sources. First of all, it can be traced to the hon the Minister and his department, because their explanation of their failure to accomplish the objects set for them must always be that they needed more power. No explanation other than that can ever be used by people who see their jobs simply as the imposition of this Government’s laws by force of arms. One can have a degree of sympathy for the policemen themselves. After all, their mandate was not to make laws but to implement the rotten laws that this Government makes. The hon the Minister, as a member of the Cabinet, has a different responsibility. There can be no sympathy for him because he shares responsibility for the policy behind the laws.
Secondly, I would suggest that strong support for a Police Force armed with extraordinary powers that bypass the legal system comes from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. This might seem an improbable, unholy alliance of the Cabinet’s reform and conservative wings, but this hon Minister has a vested interest in making his constitutional plans stick by hook or by crook. It is that hon Minister who has had most to do with the formulation of the tricameral Constitution, structures of Black local government, the regional services’ councils and possibly the Statutory Council. The formation of all these constitutional bodies has had one thing in common: They have never been negotiated with the people involved and consequently have no legitimacy or acceptance. [Interjections.]
[Inaudible.]
Consequently the structures of Government have no legitimacy and are repudiated by the Blacks—by Inkatha, the UDF and the ANC; and others. This hon Minister’s reputation and his career must depend on the viability and continuity of his constitutional creations. His ambitions and his pride require it. For this reason I believe we have an alliance there in front of us.
The type of legislation we are considering today will have no chance of achieving the objectives for which it was formulated while we refuse to negotiate with freely chosen Black leaders, while we insist on our own constitutional structures that we have designed independently, while we fail to understand Black commitment to freedom, keep Dr Mandela locked up, ban the ANC and refuse to negotiate with it, and while we insist on an ethnically based constitution.
The powers given to the hon the Minister under the proposed new section 5A(1) to declare any area an unrest area will not help to create a free and prosperous nation. The enormous powers inherent in that clause which allows the hon the Minister to make regulations will not give South African Blacks respect for this Government. This Bill will ensure that the economy does not recover, that we do not create the jobs that we need for stability and that we continue to sell our export products into a hostile world market because it reinforces the authoritarian oppressive nature of a government based on racialism. What a paradox that each step we take for reasons of security and safety actually takes us into the position of handing more and more of the initiative into the hands of the extremists on the left and on the right!
The Bill before us is another tick of the time bomb. What a tragedy! It need not be so. There is another way. There is a giant constituency of moderates out there, Black and White, waiting to come together, waiting for a lead, waiting for Afrikanerdom to throw off old prejudices and to set the stage for a South Africa of free and equal citizens to negotiate a new constitution for everybody at a national convention. The initiative cannot come from the ANC, Inkatha, the UDF or the PFP. It can only come from the Government, the people who have the reins of power in their hands.
When one goes to a funeral and one sits there all day and hears the speeches from the dais, what is the feeling that one gets? The feeling one gets is that those people do not belong together at all. There are communists and clerics and capitalists. They do not belong together. Why are they together then? It is because the NP forces them together. They have one thing in common, namely common hostility to an unjust regime. If that could be overcome, we would find that the dialogue should be between those people. The argument should frequently be between those people who are sharing that platform today. I do not have anything in common with a Marxist, other than a common opposition to apartheid. That initiative is simple. The Government must accept that there will be freedom of choice in a non-ethnically based constitution. Ultimately, it has no power to prevent this happening. If it acts now, it can negotiate a just, non-racial, democratic solution. The longer it delays, the more inevitable radicalisation and conflict will be. The Government has lost all its outlying strongpoints, and what it is defending now is its last bastion of apartheid—the ethnic basis of the Constitution. “Die reg op selfbeskikking” is a snare and a delusion. Adherence to that concept from a political point of view will sink this country.
My fear is that the NP is too rigid, too old, too rheumatic and too frustrated to take a giant leap forward. In that case, those Nationalists who see the situation as we do, should think very deeply about the words of the hon member for Sasolburg the other day. At the end of last week he made a very true statement when he said of people in that party that they had to have the courage to move into the desert and follow their convictions. They do indeed have to.
When one takes the speeches made by many hon members on that side of the House today, one finds that they were decidedly unhappy speeches. [Interjections.]
The NP is following in your footsteps.
They must follow what was said by the hon member for Sasolburg. They must be prepared to have the courage of their convictions and to move out of that party. [Interjections.]
On Saturday night I saw the State President on TV and he called for national unity. There is nothing we would like more than to put our weight behind a government of national reconciliation pledged to bringing about a non-racial democracy. As far as many of us are concerned, however, the State President has one more river to cross before that is possible. Unless he does away with ethnicity as the non-negotiable basis of a South African constitution, he will have set conditions that are impossible to accept. Morality must take precedence over patriotism and there is no way that we can become involved in this sort of legislation.
Mr Chairman, having listened to the speeches this afternoon, it becomes more and more apparent that this little six clause Bill before the House is really nothing more and nothing less than a nice, neat little ministerial do-it-yourself emergency kit. That is really what it is about because it gives this hon Minister the authority to assume powers which are already provided in existing legislation. It makes things far easier, however, because the hon the Minister can of his own volition simply designate unrest areas in South Africa. He can thereafter promulgate regulations which will affect the lives of people and organisations in those particular areas. He can do so for a period of three months and, at the end of those three months he can, with the consent of the State President, extend it for a further three months. From his point of view, therefore, he has a nice do-it-yourself kit with which he may declare an instant state of emergency in any particular area of South Africa he might choose to designate. He may issue different proclamations and different regulations in different areas of South Africa. He may also issue regulations which will affect the lives of individuals even if they live outside the so-called unrest areas which he designates.
The main clause of the Bill is clause 4, and this is where the hon the Minister will derive his powers from, because it states that if in the opinion of the hon the Minister, there is public disturbance, disorder, riots or cause to fear public violence, then he may declare an area to be an unrest area. The other point is that if—once again in his opinion—certain steps are necessary in addition to the ordinary law of the land, then he may take those steps. These are immense powers indeed. It is true, as has been pointed out, that the powers already exist in the existing legislation. However, what we are now being asked to do as a Parliament is to give these powers to an individual to be exercised if, in his opinion, it is necessary to apply them in any particular area. In fact, he will thus take over the powers which are at present, in the existing situation, vested in the State President.
The rationale for all this is very interesting indeed, if we are to be guided by the White Paper. I do not know who the draftsman of the White Paper was but I think as an exercise in sophistry it takes first prize. The White Paper tells us that the reason for this is:
That, of course, is a masterpiece of understatement! The White Paper blandly goes on to advance the need for what it terms “a different mechanism”. It is simply called a different mechanism, Sir, but it will affect the lives of people. According to the White Paper this is needed—
That is the Security Forces—
As I have said, this is a classic piece of sophistry. In other words, a state of emergency can be created by sleight of hand. It is a new streamlined version of the old onslaught on the rule of law and civil liberties in South Africa.
They talk about new and speedy mechanisms. I would call them ministerial do-it-yourself measures. As far as the tabling of regulations are concerned, the White Paper has a new mechanism for that too. As far as Parliament is concerned, the White Paper simply states that the new procedure will be to modernise the old situation and to bring it into line. What this means is that rather than having the tedious procedure, from the Government’s point of view, where the onus was on the Government to obtain a positive approval of regulations by resolution of Parliament, the situation is now reversed and the regulations may be annulled by Parliament by way of resolution. The Government, therefore, does not have to do anything. If nobody else takes any step to annul the regulations, then they remain. From the Government’s point of view this is thus really a neater and less troublesome way of handling the situation. The proclamations will stand unless somebody moves their annulment.
I want to return again to the following words in the White Paper:
Furthermore, it is stated that the Government will thus be enabled to cope with a situation without having to declare a state of emergency and having to deal with the concomitant circumstances.
How will it avoid—and will it, in fact, avoid—what the White Paper terms “the concomitant consequences” of a state of emergency? I want to see whether the Government will achieve its purpose and that is what worries me with regard to this Bill because I do not know what the Government is getting at. It already has the necessary powers so what does it hope to achieve by introducing a Bill of this kind at this stage?
In the first place, I do not believe that the measure will in any way end or lessen violence, unrest and public disturbance in South Africa. This measure alone will neither achieve that nor will it avoid the concomitant consequences of a state of emergency in South Africa. I want to ask the hon the Minister—I ask myself the same question—what the consequences alluded to in the White Paper are in regard to a state of emergency.
I imagine that a consequence would be, in the first instance, a further erosion of confidence in our ability to control the situation in South Africa by normal means. I think a second consequence would be the effect which this sort of situation has on the economy of South Africa. A third consequence would be the effect on our international standing as a free and democratic society. A fourth consequence may be that it would provide grist to the mill of those who claim that we have a contempt for civil liberties in this country. Those are some of the consequences which flow from an emergency situation. I want to know how the exercise of powers in terms of this Bill can possibly hope to avoid the same sort of consequences as a general state of emergency.
The Bill gives the hon the Minister power to declare unrest areas. He will have a busy time in that regard. When one looks at the situation around South Africa at present one wonders where the hon the Minister is going to start. If this Bill is passed by the end of this week or early next week and the hon the Minister has power to declare unrest areas, where is he going to start? [Interjections.] Is he going to start at Crossroads, Guguletu, Langa, New Brighton, Duncan Village, Alexandra, Mamelodi? Is he going to Chesterville or kwaMashu in Natal? Where is he going to start? Or is he going to look at the hundreds of small Black townships right across the platteland of South Africa, from Cradock, Grahamstown, Upington, Kimberley to Nelspruit or wherever there are unrest areas in South Africa? Where does it begin, where does it end?
What are you implying with that?
I want to know what the hon the Minister is going to do. He is looking at the unrest situation as if this is an isolated incident, but if the Government are realistic about what is happening around South Africa at the present time, they will realise that there are a number of unrest situations all over the country and they are taking place simultaneously. [Interjections.]
What the Government ought to be doing is what we have suggested on this side of the House. They should be seriously addressing the need for socio-economic and political reform in South Africa, not going for more repressive measures in this country. When the hon the Minister exercises his powers I wonder whether he does not think the consequences will be the same—I ask him this—as with the declaration of the state of emergency in terms of existing legislation. How will these powers differ, except that they will be piecemeal powers from one area to another?
While I am on this point I want to deal with the whole question which arose this afternoon when the hon member for Sandton indicated in his speech that one of the powers which the hon the Minister would exercise in terms of this Bill would be that the measure would ensure indemnity to the Police in respect of whatever actions they take. At that stage the hon the Minister, sitting in his bench this afternoon, reacted with great indignation and told the hon member for Sandton what he was saying was not true.
That is correct, yes.
Is that what the hon the Minister said?
I maintain that.
The hon the Minister was sensitive when the hon member said that one of the powers he would exercise would be to indemnify the Police.
No, no, you cannot get away with that. [Interjections.] Use his exact words.
The hon the Minister must listen to me. I want to get it very clear. Why was the hon the Minister so indignant this afternoon when the hon member for Sandton said …
I will reply tomorrow.
When the hon member for Sandton said “and of course the regulations will ensure indemnity to the Police in respect of whatever actions they take”, the hon the Minister reacted very angrily and said “You know you are telling an absolute untruth.” I want to be very clear as to what the hon the Minister’s action is going to be in regard to regulations which he is going to promulgate in terms of the powers he will get as a consequence of this legislation, because we know very well that last year in the state of emergency one of the regulations did indemnify the police in terms of their reactions.
In this regard I want to quote some of the general disapproval of this on the part of right minded people throughout South Africa including the General Bar Council. The General Bar Council reacting to that indemnity provision said this, and I quote:
It went on to say:
As long as these actions—
That was the statement of the General Bar Council on the indemnity provisions in respect of the state of emergency of last year.
I want to ask the hon the Minister very clearly: Is he suggesting or will he give an assurance that similar indemnity provisions will not be provided for in regulations which he institutes in terms of the powers he will get through this Bill? I want the hon the Minister to answer that when he replies to this debate. If that is not so then I do not understand why he reacted so sharply to the hon member for Sandton this afternoon. Either he is going to give us that assurance or he is going to acknowledge in addition—if he gives us that assurance that in itself must be an acknowledgement—that last year when the indemnity provision was inserted it was in fact a mistake and he regrets it. The hon the Minister must be very clear on the whole question of what sort of indemnity he is going to give to the Security Forces and the Police in terms of the powers he is going to derive from this legislation.
When one looks at the Bill one must concede that it does not grant more powers than the existing legislation does. It is, however, an additional symbol of oppression in South Africa. That is what the Bill symbolises and that is why I cannot understand why the Government should have introduced it at this time. The powers may be the same but the intention, apparently, is to make the use of those powers less obvious. So I want to say to the hon the Minister that if that is the strategem it simply is not going to work. The Government is not going to make the exercise of those powers less obvious than if it were actually to declare a state of emergency. In my view, this legislation is not only going to be ineffective but it is also going to be totally counter-productive to any reform measures which the Government may be contemplating.
This measure and its counterpart, the second Bill we are going to deal with, were announced within one or two days of the Government’s announcement on its reform policies relating to its urbanisation programme. However, if one is to judge by reaction published in the media and from overseas reaction, the Government, with the announcement of these Bills, has already erased any good effects that the announcement of the urbanisation programme may have had. After all, in announcing these Bills the Government simply put back the big question mark as to its future intentions. Rightly or wrongly, the announcement of these Bills questioned the whole programme of reform in South Africa and once again raised the question of whether this Government is interested in reform or whether it is interested in repression. The Government cannot have it both ways, and it must make up its mind.
When this hon Minister comes with legislation of this kind, he erases whatever the hon Minister sitting next to him—the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—is trying to do in other spheres in South Africa. I believe, therefore, that this Bill is not going to help contain the security situation in South Africa. It is not going to give any greater assistance to the Government or to the Security Forces in preserving law and order in South Africa, and is certainly not going to help South Africa’s image overseas; neither is it going to create any feeling of security among the hundreds of thousands of people who are going to be subjected to the immense powers which this hon Minister is seeking to exercise in terms of this legislation.
For those reasons, among others, we on these benches are determined to oppose this measure, and we hope that the other Houses will do the same.
Mr Chairman, during the course of my speech I shall deal more fully with certain standpoints on principle taken by earlier speakers. First I want to dwell briefly on aspects which the speakers immediately before me pointed out.
I think the hon member for Brakpan made a very valid point when he said the maintenance of law and order is of cardinal importance in working out any dispensation in our country. It is indeed true that any dispensation, if it is going to work at all, will have a chance only if it is accepted by the majority of people. This implies that that majority of people should be able to exercise freedom of choice.
†That brings me to the hon members of the PFP and more specifically to the hon member for Berea and the hon member for Walmer. These hon members made certain statements which one can only describe as either glaringly erroneous or simply nonsensical.
The hon member for Walmer, for instance, says that we must set ourselves right politically before we can hope that the unrest situation will settle down. [Interjections.] The implication of that is that we must, in the meantime, leave the radical elements to kill people in order to bring them over to their point of view, and not do anything about these radical elements. [Interjections.] If the hon member seriously believes that then his party is in deeper trouble than he realises.
The second point made by the hon member for Walmer is that the security measures during the state of emergency and the lifting of it had no effect whatsoever. In previous debates the hon the Minister indicated what that effect was. I would think that an increase of more than 100% in the incidence of violence in three months certainly warrants another look at the measures that one should take to combat the unrest situation.
A further point that both the hon member for Berea and the hon member for Walmer made, although they phrased it differently, was that with this legislation we were on the road to a dictatorship. The hon member for Berea said that we had a choice between reform or repression and that we could not have it both ways.
This Government has since 1983 broadened democracy to just on another 4 million people, and the people who disagree most with his view that we are on our way to a dictatorship are the members of the ANC themselves who are doing everything in their power to in fact stop the change and that is why we have the unrest situation as we have it today.
One last point I think one should mention is that both hon members and various other hon members have indicated that there can be no excuse for the violence that is perpetrated by Blacks on Blacks. In conjunction with this the hon member Prof Olivier made the point earlier today that what one should do is prosecute the people concerned. It is of little comfort to tell a person that you will prosecute the people who kill him after they have killed him. That is most certainly not a very effective way of trying to restore law and order and a situation in which people can have a freedom of choice.
Another interesting point is that hon members have pleaded that there should be negotiation with Black leaders. It is interesting that in determining who those leaders should be they appear to have just completely wiped off the board all moderate leaders. It appears that the only time that a person becomes a leader in their eyes is when he is radical.
No, that is not true.
I think the most telling example of this was when the hon member for Sandton earlier today with blatant paternalism told the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates while he was here that if his House voted for this legislation they would have no credibility whatsoever. Subsequently the hon member for Berea added to that that the only people the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was talking to were, as he called them, the “stooges within the system” and the community councillors who have no credibility whatsoever. I want to put an interesting point to him. If his house was burnt down and he was chased out of the residential area, would he be satisfied if we accepted the person who had in fact burnt down his house and chased him out as representing that area simply because he could not move back in there because of threats of violence? [Interjections.] That is exactly what they are asking this Government to do insofar as the Black community councillors are concerned. That is exactly what they are asking us to do. [Interjections.]
*During the course of this debate, constant reference was made to the concept “rule of law” and of how the Government was trampling on the “rule of law” with this kind of legislation. From what the hon members of the Official Opposition have had to say about the “rule of law”, it is very clear that either they do not understand its full meaning or that they abuse it on purpose for the sake of political expediency. The concept is an English constitutional concept which literally means “the sovereignty of the law”. That is not the meaning normally attributed to it, however.
According to the English constitutional writers, “rule of law” means the absence of abitrary exercise of powers, the maintenance of personal freedom, equality of all when they are tried, and equal treatment by impartial and independent courts. An important point, however, is—the hon members on the opposite side are welcome to listen—that the “rule of law” does not restrict or assail the sovereignty of Parliament as the highest legislative authority. It would therefore be quite in agreement with the law if any of the characteristics of the “rule of law” were to be abolished by means of legislation. As an enforceable positive law legal rule, the “rule of law” therefore has little value or principle content. Instead it has significance as a bearer of values which have to be applied against the arbitrary exercising of authority within the constitutional structure and as such it forms the basis of the English constitutional state idea.
In the international sphere the “rule of law” concept has become interwoven with the concept of human rights. I shall point out later that this has happened in our case to a great extent as well. It has acquired the nature of the Western code of conduct for good, democratic government to a much greater extent. As in many other spheres, this principle has also found expression in our legal system. The concept has enjoyed a great deal of attention and just as many interpretations in the RSA.
The broad content given to this is essentially that which it has in the international sphere, and the “rule of law” can be brought home under a general principle of legality. What it amounts to in short, is that all State action must be controlled by the law, common law as well as statutory law, and that there is no area of State conduct which may take place at State discretion or in the legally free sphere, but that State conduct is determined by fixed legal regulations; that such action is subject to clear boundaries and that the necessary control, legal or otherwise, exists to control State action.
With this as a premise, one must look at the content and scope of the State’s rights when action is taken in an emergency situation. Both English and Roman-Dutch law permit certain restrictions on personal rights and freedoms when the State security is seriously threatened by war or internal unrest.
That’s not true!
If the hon member does not know that, I suggest that he study his law again. This is trite law!
Roman-Dutch law had a stronger protection for the individuals than English law ever had!
In some circumstances this not only grants the right of action to the executive authority, but also the duty of taking certain steps to protect the State’s authority and the safety of the State’s subjects. This is what our appeal court stated on occasion:
This right is based on common law, and government action in given circumstances in protection of the State and the safety of its subjects would not amount to infringement of the principle of “rule of law”.
The test as to which action and measures would in terms of this, be permissible in given circumstances, is fundamentally what we have in our private law in respect of civil defence or emergency situations. In terms of this, there must be an attack or an immediate imminent danger to the State or the lives and safety of its subjects. Any action within reasonable bounds to resist this danger, can legally be taken by the executive authority.
To create legal security—this is an interesting point—our courts have on occasion in the past expressed themselves in favour of the executive authority’s right and obligations in respect of its security conduct being laid down in legislation, rather than having to resort to common law.
One must look at the proposed legislation against this perspective and then test it on the basis of the factual circumstances in South Africa today. A number of speakers have pointed out the factual circumstances and it is definitely not necessary to repeat this in detail. To sum up, however, it can indisputably be stated that there is indeed a revolutionary onslaught on the existing dispensation in South Africa. This onslaught is both external and internal, has many facets with many participants and is taking the shape of a confluence of a variety of actions.
It is definitely wrong to regard every unrest event and unrest situation as communistically inspired and controlled, but it is also true that a definite co-ordination and a purposeful revolutionary action are in progress. In addition it is definitely true that communism is the one protaganist which hopes to derive the eventual benefit from the chaos they are helping to incite and cause.
It is the clearly expressed purpose of the SACP, the ANC and their followers to make the country ungovernable, but to me it seems that the PFP does not really want to take these people at their word, no matter how hard they are trying to prove it to them by their acts of terror.
Efforts are being made to make the country ungovernable by the most barbaric acts of intimidation and terror, with the simple objective of terrorising the public, which consists mainly of innocent and afraid people, to such an extent that they will believe the only way in which they can survive is by obeying.
In the most drastic ways imaginable, the people are being prevented, by means of violence, from exercising freedom of choice, not only in respect of the constitutional dispensation they would like to see in South Africa, but in fact in almost every detail of their lives.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that in these circumstances, the State not only has the right, but indeed also the duty, to fight these violent elements, and to restore and maintain stability. To do this, the State has the right to take all reasonable steps which are necessary.
The legislation serving before us does, in fact, attempt to give the Security Forces, which are central to the protection of the State and its subjects, the necessary means to do precisely this.
Although the legislation gives the State authority extended powers, these are definitely not unlimited powers, as was argued earlier, but measures are being taken to ensure that the invasion of individual rights will be restricted to the minimum that is necessary.
In this way the measures will be applicable only in situations in which unrest conditions apply and the normal means at the State’s disposal are not sufficient for the State to fulfil its primary duty of protecting its subjects.
The legal position is clear as well. The courts are entitled—they have shown in practice that they will do so in a fearless and unbiased way—to inquire into and take action against unlawful conduct by the State or any of its subjects when they are acting within the framework of these measures.
A last and extremely important security measure which would not apply in an ordinary emergency situation, is that the executive authority will have to account to Parliament for action taken in terms of these measures.
This legislation will enable the State to do its duty in protecting its subjects effectively. There will be certainty in respect of the nature and scope of permissible State action in that it will be stipulated by means of legislation and regulations. The courts will still be able to take action against offences and unlawful action by the State, and in conclusion Parliamentary control over security action is being retained.
Contrary to what one would have liked in normal circumstances, measures of this nature in our present situation are extremely necessary to protect not only the community, but also every law-abiding individual. As many security measures as possible have been built into this to restrict and control the invasion of individual rights. This side of the House would like to support the Bill.
Mr Chairman, the legislation before us this evening is being opposed for what it symbolises as much as for what it contains. For the Government to seek to introduce legislation of this nature at this time is a sign of weakness rather than of strength, and of despair rather than of hope.
This legislation is not aimed primarily at the criminal elements in our society. It is aimed rather at breaking the resistance of those who oppose this Government’s political philosophy. There is a plethora of laws which enable the Security Forces to take tough action against criminals. The failure of the Security Forces to contain the violence in the townships is not the result of a lack of power; it reflects the indisputable fact that in the battle for the hearts and minds of the Black people of South Africa, this Government has lost hands down. How could it have been otherwise when, through its apartheid policies, this Government has for the past 40 years been insulting and humiliating the Black community to the very core of its being?
This legislation sends out a very simple message to the Black people of South Africa. It says to them, “We are the all-powerful Government and we shall not hesitate to give ourselves even greater powers if these are needed to smash your resistance to our policies”. That is the kind of bare-fisted approach to which Black people have become accustomed and which has served to alienate them so effectively. It is nothing but old-fashioned “kragdadigheid”. It is the modern version of colonial gunboat diplomacy. These days, instead of sending a gunboat up the river to give the restless natives a whiff of grapeshot, we use Casspirs and buckshot, but we like to make it legal. For this reason, we give the State the power to declare a state of emergency and, if that particular terminology becomes discredited, we seek to call it by a different name—“a state of unrest”. Of one thing this Government can be sure: If a Black anti-apartheid activist is arrested, be it under a state of emergency or a state of unrest or whatever else one might like to call it, the anger and bitterness in his heart will be just the same. There will be no difference whatsoever.
That the townships are in a state of violent upheaval today, none but the blind would deny. That law and order has broken down is equally obvious. That stern and effective action must be taken against those who damage and destroy, who maim and kill, is unquestionable. For the purpose of this debate, however, there are a few simple questions we must ask this Government. Why do people behave in this way? Will this legislation stop people from indulging in this behaviour? Lastly, do the Police not already have sufficient powers to act effectively?
Apologists for the Government would have us believe that what is happening in the townships is all the result of the communist-inspired total onslaught on South Africa. This simplistic argument, which is an insult to anyone with a grain of intelligence, would have us believe that if it were not for these diabolical Marxist agitators, all Blacks would be living happily in their slums, content to service the White man’s economy like political eunuchs with a’ “yes, Sir, no, Sir, three bags full, Sir”. How dare little Black Sambo look at the White man and talk about equality! How dare he look at the White community’s status and power and say, “I want my fair share of that”! Who else but nasty Marxists could put such ideas into his head? Sir, how blind are those who will not see; how deaf are those who will not hear!
On the question of Police power, of course the Police have sufficient power to act against criminal elements. They have immense powers with a wide range of catch-all laws in terms of which such niceties as “innocent until proved guilty” become a bad joke. Why then is this legislation before us? Why does the Government deem it necessary?
To answer this question, I believe we should look beyond this hon Minister. I am glad the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is in the House because I believe we should perhaps focus our attention on him in order to seek an answer.
When the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning came forward with his half-baked constitutional proposals for a tricameral Parliament which excluded Blacks he was warned by us on this side of the House of the inevitable consequences, but he and his colleagues proceeded with the plan regardless. They would not heed our warning and today we are paying the price. The apartheid chickens have finally come home to roost. Evidence of this is everywhere.
We are now paying the price for this Government’s obsession with race and skin colour and for its insensitivity which has caused immeasurable hurt to people of colour for almost forty years. It is the price for this Government’s greed in seeking to retain power, privilege and wealth as the exclusive preserve of Whites, and for its disastrous shortsightedness in attempting to maintain its status by means of legislation such as that which we have before us this evening.
Most disturbing of all, Mr Chairman, and with particular reference to this legislation, is the price we are paying for having believed that security lies in the strength of our Security Forces alone, irrespective of the cost.
The tricameral Parliament is thoroughly discredited, but not being content with having lumbered us with this failure, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is now preparing to unleash his next brainchild on us—the regional services councils. Now, I believe, we are approaching closer to the answer of why this legislation is before us today.
Those of us who have sought to find the root causes of the unrest in the townships have found, to our concern, that Black anger and frustration is as vehement about the way in which Blacks have been excluded from joint decision-making at local government level as it is about its exclusion from higher levels; perhaps even more so, Mr Chairman, because it is at local government level that the grossest forms of apartheid have been and still are being applied. Apartheid has blighted the lives of Blacks in their ordinary everyday lives in a way which no privileged hon member of this Parliament, sitting in this Assembly, will ever be able even to begin to comprehend.
Is it any surprise, therefore, that Black communities have rejected outright any structure of government which smacks of apartheid? Black community councils are the best examples that they have of such structures. In the Eastern Cape in particular, Black communities have spelt out their opposition to these community councils very clearly. They have, almost without exception, set up rival structures to oppose them. These are the civic associations such as Pebco and Cradora, Grafco and Graca. These associations, unlike the community councils, enjoy substantial popular support and have succeeded in discrediting the community councillors whom they have branded collaborators and sellers-out to apartheid.
This defiance of the official structures has made them the target of Police action right from their inception. Members have been harassed and arrested. Many have been beaten and tortured. Others have disappeared under mysterious circumstances. None of this has served to break their will to resist. If anything, it appears to have strengthened their resolve. It has certainly enhanced their credibility in the townships.
The Government has at no time shown any indication that it really understands what is going on in the townships. It portrays resistance to the community councils as the work of Marxist agitators. It has at no stage shown itself willing to meet and to negotiate with these popular leaders but has rather tried to smash them by force, and it has failed.
I have made it my business to meet with these leaders and to discuss their problems. I have made it my business to try to understand what motivates Black politics—not from the comfort of these green benches, like 99% of hon members on the Government side, but out there in the townships, and I should tell the hon the Minister that for every Marxist agitator I have met, I have met a hundred ordinary, decent, God-fearing Blacks, who are neither communists nor revolutionaries. [Interjections.]
That is right! Do you believe that, Louis?
Of course, yes.
These are people, Sir, who, because they have dared to oppose apartheid have been hounded and harried by the Police in the most unbelievable way. They have been the victims of the kind of laws such as that which we have before us here this evening. Yet, somehow, miraculously, they have remained ordinary, decent human beings, fellow South Africans with whom I would feel privileged to share the future. One of the saddest aspects of this debate was to hear the hon the Minister of Law and Order pooh-poohing the hon member for Walmer when he spoke about these leaders in the same way. I wish he could get to meet some of these people because then he would change his views on what sort of leaders they are. [Interjections.] How long they will remain this way before they become embittered racists themselves, I do not know. What I do know is that when this happens there will be no place for me or my children in this country.
The reason why we have this legislation before us, I believe, is therefore fairly easy to understand. The Government appears determined to press forward regardless with its plans to impose racially determined structures of Government on us at every level.
The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has a personal vested interest in making these racial structures work. He and the Government know that there will be vehement opposition from Blacks. They anticipate it. He and the Government are putting their faith in the hon the Minister of Law and Order to break this opposition. For this reason they are seeking to give him additional powers to deal with the defiance which they know is inevitable.
What they apparently do not know is the extent of the determination of Black people to resist. This Government can declare areas of unrest, it can declare states of emergency, it can declare martial law, it can detain people for 90 or for 180 days, it can lock them up for life, but it is not going to break their determination to resist apartheid. For this reason the legislation we have before us is futile. It addresses the symptoms and not the disease. The disease in South Africa is apartheid. Until the cancer of apartheid is excised from the body politic of South Africa, this country will continue to live under the shadow of violent revolution, and nothing that this hon Minister can do will save us from it.
For this reason I oppose the Bill and I support the amendment moved in the name of the hon member for Houghton.
Mr Chairman, I am pleased to confirm what my colleague, the hon member for Albany, has said.
The hon the Minister of Law and Order will probably use this legislation firstly to declare an unrest area in the Cabinet. [Interjections.] I can imagine how the hon the Minister, while playing one of his Rambo tapes one evening, thought he should tell the chaps the next day to give him a chance to do things his way again. Naturally his colleagues were only too pleased because they really are almost at their wits’ end. I do want to tell the hon the Minister a secret. Those are only tapes. That was a film. This is the real world. He must stop dreaming. [Interjections.]
†I want to look at this Bill from the real position of South Africa, from the point of view of sane people who live here. There are more or less 28 million sane people in South Africa.
When will it become clear to the Government that the armed struggle is but a small part of the overall struggle in South Africa? The battle for the hearts and minds of the people has already been won. They have said loudly to the Government that they do not want their apartheid. They will fight it in all manners, through peaceful resistance and through protest. They are prepared to suffer and to die. Unfortunately, some people are also prepared to kill. The more people who fall foul of laws of this nature, the more people there are who are prepared to kill to set themselves free.
Secondly, nobody but the true revolutionaries stand to gain from this silly little flexing of more coercive muscle. It illustrates that the NP regards the ANC’s military wing as a real fighting force while they snub them as a political force worth talking to. It provides proof of this by the repression, the corpses and the destruction that are hallmarks of war and not of a democratic political struggle. It therefore makes it worthwhile for a young man to join the armed struggle because what is a violent war without the bizarre excitement of a “kill or be killed” situation? This, then, is the challenge of the schoolyard bully who knows that he cannot win the argument but who also knows that if he provokes his opponent far enough, he can attack him with his physical might and overcome him by force. Such action against the ANC and other organisations, irrespective of whether they are anti-apartheid or nationalist or communist organisations, only serves to strengthen the bond between these various factions to the benefit of the revolutionaries. Furthermore, it strengthens their dependence on the USSR and on other revolutionary organisations. The revolutionary elements can thus quite legitimately say: “Look, this Government does not want to talk; it wants to shoot”. The Government is therefore allowing the anti-apartheid struggle to be hijacked by the true revolutionaries, a trend which is now gaining momentum.
At the diplomatic level this Bill surely cannot have been designed to strengthen the hand of those governments which still wish to help South Africa seek a peaceful settlement.
A further observation is that this Bill confirms the Government’s willingness to use force, and it certainly does demonstrate the Government’s coercive might. That is a well-known fact. Therein lies the irony for both the Government and the revolutionaries because while the Government can prevent the ANC’s winning for a long long time, it cannot crush them despite what the State President says and despite the Government’s renewed efforts in that direction. In the meantime we shall count bodies but the Government cannot win this war.
Why, then, is the Government doing this? They must have weighed up the consequences as other sane people do. However, they have still gone ahead and done it, and there can only be two explanations for this. The first is that if they are really committed to finding a peaceful solution in South Africa, then they are being just plain stupid. If they continue with this, then they are indeed silly. The other explanation, of course, is that they are not committed to finding a peaceful solution in South Africa; that they are not committed to striving towards an open, non-racial democracy in South Africa and that they are therefore resorting to this sort of tactic. There can be no other explanation because, to any sane mind, one does not propose to fight the struggle for the hearts and the minds of the people in the manner in which they are attempting to do so with this sort of legislation.
In order to discover the Nats’ true stance in the whole political battle, one has only to open one’s ears a little. I have been involved in various debates in the House this year, such as the defence debate and the constitutional development debate. I have read the White Paper on Defence and I have been briefed—so-called—by the military. I have also listened to Rubicon speeches and Rambo speeches. I have listened to the SABC and read Die Burger ad nauseam and I have heard all their new-speak reform—the gobbledygook of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I have studied Bills on reform and urbanisation strategies, and everything always just skirts around the true problem in South Africa. However, when one puts all those things together, then one knows exactly where the NP stands in regard to its politics. Furthermore, knowing what the general public—the people—want, I know that the two clash.
What is the diabolical plan of the NP? They want to hang on to power. That is what they want to do. [Interjections.] How they therefore want to do it, is to plan this crazy web of so-called “ethnic democracies” which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has dreamt up. Some of them have some sort of geographical boundaries whereas others have boundaries only in the mind of that hon the Minister—his imaginary “own affairs” type boundaries. They then invite the leaders of these groups to help administer their little blocks of apartheid. The Black man is then told that he can move around freely from one ghetto to the next; he does not need a “dompas” any longer. He is told that he can own a ghetto and even administer it! However, the Black man cannot have a decisive say in abolishing apartheid. [Interjections.]
The hon the Minister knows, in view of the powers of coercion he already has and those he will obtain through this Bill, and with his hands in the till, that he hopes to be able always to outbid any of the other smaller groups when they meet in a bilateral situation. The Government is too scared to bring the people of South Africa together and face them as the people of South Africa. From its position of power, with all its money, it imposes its will on the will of those people, one after the other, at one braai after the other. [Interjections.]
The powers of patronage are first dished out in this way and, afterwards, the Government lends assistance through powers of coercion. [Interjections.] I have seen it happen, for example, in the Northern Transvaal and in the townships. In the townships it is organised cleverly so that the township police protect the vested interests of those people. [Interjections.] It is indeed a transparent scheme! The Government sees to it that various ethnic defence units for these places are formed, so that if any of these little satellite “democracies” is opposed, the Government can sit back and say: “See it is not White oppression; it is only Blacks fighting the common revolutionary enemy.” Sir, the Government’s plans are indeed transparent.
The other leg of the plan which we have clearly seen manifesting itself has to do with the sudden introduction of new buzzwords. There is no longer a “total onslaught” because that was something external, a sinister force outside of South Africa, including, for example, the USA and the United Nations. Therefore, to make it an internal matter as well, the concept is redefined. It is now called “the revolutionary war”. This opens up new possibilities. One can, for example, define new enemies.
Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member entitled to speak so widely on an amending Bill? [Interjections.] I would like to refer you to Standing Order No 28 which specifies that at the Second Reading of an amending Bill, debate shall be confined to the proposed amendments to the principal Act.
He is talking about public safety. [Interjections.]
Order! The hon member for Greytown may proceed.
Sir, if that hon member would just wait a while, I will tell him a thing or two in a while. [Interjections.]
†Talking about public safety, I think this Bill is to a great extent part of the Government’s diabolical plan. As I have said, according to this plan, one wants to obtain certain powers for oneself, and everybody who does not fit exactly into the scheme is suddenly defined as a “revolutionary”.
I have seen that happen, read about it in the White Paper and I have been briefed. Who is the enemy? The enemy is everybody who is identified as acting in a way which is normally characteristic of a revolutionary war. What does that mean? It means that anybody who protests suddenly becomes “the enemy”. Anybody who organises something on a large scale becomes “the enemy”.[Interjections.] The same goes for anybody who takes part in mass actions, boycotts and protest meetings. [Interjections.] The Police can fire teargas at them. Teargas was fired at my daughter!
Was that in Pietersburg? [Interjections.]
Therefore, it is an easy way out. It is easy for the Government to go out there, sell its grand war and use its weapons of destruction. What is more, the people who are out there competing for the support of the masses, for the hearts and minds of the people, have given up. They say it is no longer a political struggle. They will leave it in the capable hands of Louis le Grange; he will fight their battles for them. I have heard this from hon members in the other two Houses. [Interjections.] The anti revolutionary struggle that was then dreamed up by this Government quite simply says one can use any of the activities the revolutionary uses to counter it; do not allow the revolutionary to dictate the terms. If such a “revolutionary” wants to make propaganda the Government is allowed to shoot at him with teargas or whatever. That is really getting South Africa into a spiral of violence from which it will be difficult to escape. The Government do not recognise the existence of the anti-apartheid struggle. They do not recognise that protest and mass actions are also part of the truly democratic mechanisms people use to fight with.
Buy yourself an island where you will be all alone.
You should try Robben Island! [Interjections.]
Only people who have been fooled by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning’s gobbledygook can believe that the Government is truly committed to accepting finally the democratic will of the people and, for that reason, the Government needs the sort of legislation before us. When one has to resort to these sort of tactics one has already admitted that one has lost the political battle and one has admitted that the system has run its course.
Quite simply, the symptoms that any system has run its course are, firstly, the need for more coercion—“nog ’n stuk doringdraad om die ding aanmekaar te hou”. Secondly, it costs money. Some systems, like some motorcars, have been designed to last. One can give it an overhaul, it will still go for a while and people will always want it. The Government’s system, I am afraid, has run its course; they need to scrap it. [Interjections.] The market economy tells us that—the whole economy—and I can quote umpteen examples. It tells us that this system has become just too expensive. The second thing it tells us is that the system needs more and more coercion to keep it going.
What does that have to do with the legislation? Return to the Bill. [Interjections.]
It has very much to do with the legislation. Twenty years ago one was drafted into the Army—one out of three persons. They went for nine months and even then it was considered to be like a bit of a holiday camp, but today every adult White male has to spend four years in defence of this system.
What about the Coloureds and the Indians?
We had Sharpeville. The Government shot the people there into submission which lasted for about 16 years—until Soweto of 1976. The Government then again went on a shooting spree with bannings, detentions etcetera, but that only bought us about five years of submission, until 1981. [Interjections.] We have since seen some more bannings, some more detentions and new security legislation. However, what did that buy us? What did our fancy security legislation buy us? Did it buy us peace? No, it bought us about a year of peace and from 1984 onwards violence became endemic and it is still escalating.
Because they started power-sharing.
The cause of the spiral of violence, quite simply, is that frustration results from coercion and compulsion. Frustration, if not relieved, leads to protest, which lead to repression, and the Government’s repression and frustration of the people out there is an absolute recipe for violence. The Government has got what it was looking for.
The truth is that those whose freedom has been curtailed for so long have finally overcome their fear of coercive power. They are now prepared to suffer; they are not scared any more. [Interjections.] Yes, there is instigation and intimidation to urge them on, but the promise of liberation falls on the very fertile ground of real grievances.
The lesson the Government now has to learn but does not seem to want to learn is that no amount of security legislation will ever again succeed in restoring obedience to a system that is based on coercion and fear. Everyone in South Africa is searching for peace and for stability. Change is the buzzword of today. When one looks for the facts they tell us that this does not merely mean reshaping, updating or expanding the current order as we know it. We must accept that peace will not come to us unless we replace the old order based on coercion with one that is based on freedom. This Bill again seeks to reduce freedom in this country—freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of organisation and also freedom to obtain information. One must have information as to what is going on inside those Black townships. By means of this Bill the Government can now repress reports on scenes of violence if it so desires. Those reports are vital if people want to understand what the depths of anger and of frustration are that drive people to face armoured cars with bare hands and sticks and stones. Those scenes must be shown to the people of South Africa so that they know why it is that young children stand up against the Government and think that they have a chance against all that the Government can use against them. I do not need scenes of the sun setting over Hout Bay to get a so-called “proper” or “balanced” view of Cape Town. I want to know why there are more Casspirs than Golfs on the road between the airport and the city these days. The people outside will not know that if the Government denies them the information.
You are making a disgraceful speech. [Interjections.]
There will also be consequences if this Bill is agreed to by the other two Houses. If the Labour Party and the National Peoples Party give the hon the Minister the powers that this Bill will give him, they will also be playing directly into the hands of those who support the armed struggle and extra-parliamentary resistance. This will further discredit participation as a means to oppose the NP. They will know that when they oppose the NP they are called in and reprimanded until eventually they give in. Their support started with the RSCs and with the division of local government into its ethnic components, and this has already caused great problems in their communities. Their haste in creating own affairs departments further entrenched apartheid which they had said they were coming to destroy. They have given no proof as yet that the system does provide limited opportunities actually to oppose the NP. If they let this Bill through they will certainly have let an opportunity go by to demonstrate that solid opposition to the Government can indeed have an effect.
If they do not oppose the Bill it will also demonstrate that the Labour Party and the National Peoples Party are admitting political defeat. It will send out the message to the UDF that these two Houses have failed to capture the imagination of the people and that the UDF has won the battle. It will mean that they will hand the UDF over to the hon the Minister of Law and Order who will have to subdue the UDF with all the new methods at this disposal. It will also backfire against those people who genuinely seek change and want to engage the people outside Parliament in the political debate.
*If the hon the Minister continues to lock up those people whom he calls “revolutionaries”, one would not be able to engage them in a political debate.
It is completely counter-productive to do this, and I can provide examples to back up my points. Whereas before we in the PFP could walk into those communities and talk to those people, I am now referring to people who belong to the UDF and other bodies we can no longer do so. When we go into those areas now, people tell us we are stepping into a vacuum caused by the fact that the hon the Minister of Law and Order has locked up their leaders. They then tell us that they cannot talk to us until their leaders have been freed.
They found out how worthless you are.
No, that is not the case. It just took a little longer to convince them. They were quickly convinced, however, when I told them they should not place the same prohibitions on me as P W Botha places on them. Then we sat and spoke for quite a long time, and we signed up hundreds of members.
There is therefore another way in which to reach those people, but it is just being made increasingly difficult for us to assure those who do in fact want to have these matters debated. [Interjections.] I am just saying that the removal of the leadership elements in terms of legislation such as this legislation which is now being proposed, results in the leadership of the communities being taken over by what are tantamount to second and third rate revolutionaries; and with the latter one can eventually not argue at all.
Where are you going to join the ANC?
No, I do not need to join them, but I should very much like to argue about certain issues with them. [Interjections.] I can at least still talk to them, but to the hon the Deputy Minister they have nothing more to say at all. The hon the Deputy Minister and his colleagues can really only regard themselves as being just to the left of the far-right. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, my Whips tell me it is time for me to take my seat, and I shall do so. [Interjections.]
Order! I should like to appeal to hon members to confine themselves to the contents of the Bill. A very wide field has been covered by the 19 speakers who have taken part in the debate thus far. The rules determine, however, that in the case of an amending Bill, the speakers should confine themselves to the contents of the amending Bill. I therefore appeal to hon members to confine themselves more closely to the amending Bill. [Interjections.]
The hon member for Sasolburg may now address the House.
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Greytown referred a few times to “powers of coercion”. In this regard he linked up with what the hon member for Sandton said earlier this afternoon, namely “we must negotiate with those who can deliver the goods”. Then he only mentioned the ANC. Not one of those hon members in the PFP said today that they would also negotiate with the SA Communist Party. [Interjections.] If they are not prepared to negotiate with the SA Communist Party, they can just as well not negotiate with anyone, because the SA Communist Party is the heart and soul of the entire ANC. [Interjections.]
What about the UDF?
That is why those hon must now tell us what they are going to do. They want Nelson Mandela to be released, but they must be above-board with South Africa. They must not only talk about the ANC, the UDF and the other front organisations. [Interjections.] The heart of the left-wing onslaught on South Africa is after all the SA Communist Party. Yet they hardly mention the word. Why not?
The hon member for Durban Central is sitting there smiling broadly. He said this afternoon “we believe in the political option, not the coercive option”. Basically what this amounts to is that there must be negotiation. Consequently I also want to know from him: Why not negotiate with the SA Communist Party too?
The hon member for Helderkruin said “democracy can easily degenerate into mob rule”. That is true, but when democracy degenerates into mob rule, what remains is in fact the state of affairs in which the SA Communist Party wants to come into power. They want this mob rule. That is why we want to know from these hon members whether they are prepared to negotiate with the SA Communist Party. They spell out all the dangers, they mention all the names, but are they prepared to negotiate with the SA Communist Party?
Where in this world has a situation arisen in which the negotiations took place in such a way, from the point of view of the left wingers, and people like the hon members in the PFP, that the outcome has not been one man, one vote, as the SA Communist Party would like it to be?
Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member allowed to allege that we in this party are in favour of mob rule? [Interjections.]
Order! It is not unparliamentary to make such a statement in general. The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.
I merely quoted what the hon member for Helderkruin had said. We must take note that they constantly want to negotiate; negotiation is the panacea, and one need only be able to negotiate. Then they must talk about negotiating with the Communist Party.
Let us take Africa as an example, but I could virtually say the rest of the world too. Where in Africa were there negotiations which took place in such a way that one did not arrive at the Communist Party’s story of one man, one vote? [Interjections.] In every situation into which the left-wingers are pressurising us and insisting on negotiation, they are playing into the hands of the Communists. [Interjections.]
Pres Roosevelt once said: “You can bet that nothing happens in politics but it was planned that way.”
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?
No, I cannot answer questions now.
But you have half an hour!
No! [Interjections.] I must now make short shrift of the PFP so that I can get to the Government. [Interjections.]
It is again my point that Pres Roosevelt said: “You can bet that nothing happens in politics but it was planned that way.” In politics something is being planned. Ideas, planning, momentum and money are involved. The onslaught against South Africa comes from communism.
But why does the PFP always stand with its back towards communism? The communists are always the wall they have their backs to, while they always face to the right. They are always saying there must be negotiation, but never with right-wingers. The PFP never say one must make peace by negotiating with the right-wingers. [Interjections.]
In South Africa apartheid is not the root of the evil. From their point of view—they just do not have the courage to admit it—the root of the evil is the independent Afrikaner people and the Whites. That is the root of the evil.
Absolute rubbish!
Apartheid is the Afrikaner people and the Whites. If one rails against racial segregation and apartheid, one is railing against the Afrikaner people and against the Whites. [Interjections.] They just do not have the courage to admit it.
That is true!
They need only go and look what happened last Saturday at the Voortrekker Monument. That is what they are fighting against, but they do not have the courage to say so. That is what the Communist Party wants to eradicate in South Africa; they want to eradicate the Afrikaner people and the Whites.
The hon members of the PFP always fight the right, and they always give way to the left. They are always indulgent, complaint, polite and friendly to the left, but they always vent their hatred and their spleen on the right. [Interjections.]
Here is the reason for this. In his remarkable book Suicide of the West, with the subtitle The Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism, James Burnham says the following on page 217:
This is now the Progs. In the last paragraph of this chapter, on page 220, he goes on to say:
Mr Chairman, can the hon member perhaps indicate to us what clause he is discussing now? [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, I am reacting to the Progs. I have now lost the entire thread of my story, and I am consequently going to repeat the entire quote. [Interjections.] The paragraph I quoted is an important and concise paragraph, with great insight into the innermost nature of the Progressives and the left-wingers. I am again quoting what Burnham said:
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?
No, Sir. [Interjections.]
Will the hon member read it again? I did not quite understand it. [Interjections.]
They are doing this deliberately! They are too afraid to hear the truth. No one has ever exposed them to the same extent Burnham does, and they do not want to hear it!
He is an Englishman!
Here we come to the weakness, the injustice and the distorted view of the left-wingers, and the basic reason why they always fight the right, and in South Africa they always fight the Afrikaner and the White man. [Interjections.]
Nonsense!
They are always on the side of the left-wingers and the communists. They always defend to the left, while they fight to the right. [Interjections.] Burnham says:
This is what Burnham says about them. [Interjections.] Burnham makes short shrift of them, and disposes of them. [Interjections.]
I am asking the NP, and particularly the hon the Minister, to take cognisance of the fact that we on this side notice that the NP is not fighting with enthusiasm, because they do not realise they are not fighting against an idea or against the “immorality of apartheid”; the left-wingers are fighting to put an end to the Afrikaner people and to the sovereign independence of the Afrikaners in their own fatherland. [Interjections.]
That is rubbish!
They are quaking in their boots about what happened on Saturday because the Afrikaner people said to them in particular that they were not prepared to sacrifice their sovereign independence.
Order! Surely the hon member can discuss the Bill more specifically now.
My party supports the Bill in so far as it makes more effective police action possible. We are on the side of the Police. We rejoice at every blow the Police strike against the left-wingers in South Africa. [Interjections.] We are in favour of stronger police action. We are more on the side of the Police than the Police themselves sometimes are. [Interjections.] We say this in all seriousness, because the rioting is getting worse.
But there is something in connection with the present situation which is worrying us, and the Government and specifically the hon the Minister must take note of this. The events surrounding Sharpeville, Langa and Nyanga in I960 lasted a very short time, and then order was restored in South Africa, and there was a big upturn and revival in the economy. One can almost say that South Africa moved towards its climax then.
As hon member know, we are not Vorster people, but one must admit that in 1976 the war in Soweto, as it was known, also lasted only a few months—I think it was six or seven months—and then South Africa calmed down again. But the present unrest situation has now lasted almost two years, and at the moment there is no prospect of it coming to an end. This fills us with concern. We support the Bill in so far as it joins battle with the left-wing revolutionary forces, because they have links with a political power base outside South Africa.
All day and every day it is being said that the AWB is the right-wing equivalent of the ANC, but that is not true. The AWB has no links with a political power base outside South Africa. [Interjections.] But the left wing forces have their links with big businesses in America, Britain and elsewhere. They are also sympathetic towards the communists.
No one in South Africa must judge the AWB by the same yardstick as the ANC again. [Interjections.] It is an absolute disgrace. The members of the AWB are good Afrikaners, even if the Government is not happy about their behaviour. I want to say frankly here that we do not endorse their policy. [Interjections.] I am not championing the AWB, but I am merely saying that no one can say again that the AWB has links with a political power base outside South Africa. [Interjections.] It is an absolute lie to judge the AWB by the same yardstick as the ANC. [Interjections.]
We support this legislation, but my problem is—the hon the Minister and the two hon legal gentlemen sitting next to him know this just as well as anyone else—that one can accept any legislation. But if such legislation is not implemented and applied, and if there is not the desire to do so either, that legislation is worthless. This improvement can be made in the legislation. We and the Conservative Party welcome it. I think that some of the NP men also welcome it. In this regard we are in agreement.
I do not know how many of them did so, but I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to apply this legislation with absolute ruthlessness. He must show no mercy to these left-wing forces who are seeking the end of the entire White, Christian, Afrikaner civilisation in South Africa.
And the right-wing forces!
No mercy! It upsets us—this is what the hon the Minister and the hon gentlemen next to him will have to look into—that the Government has been paralysed by groups from its own ranks, such as students, businessmen, clergymen, lecturers, newspaper men and, according to rumours, even the Broederbond, who have been heading for Lusaka as if the road to the North was the road to Lusaka.
That is not true!
The hon member for Randfontein knows this is true. In the ranks of the NP, in Afrikaner circles, and in other circles in South Africa—in which this sort of thing should never have taken place—there are those persons who want to take the road to Lusaka to negotiate at all costs, just like the Progs. This is the panacea. It is paralysing the Government and making the task of the Police difficult.
All left-wing paths lead to Lusaka!
I wish the Police would arrest each and every one of these people and lock them up—with or without detention. We are on the side of this hon Minister in so far as he must fight this battle. These things have a paralysing effect on South Africa, and on the Government, to the detriment of us all.
From the inner circles of the NP the editor of Beeld has been heard to say that the day will come when we will have to negotiate with the ANC. He speaks the same language as the Progs. When Cosatu—Congress of South African Trade-Unions—was founded, it was said at the founding meeting: “Cosatu beskou homself as ’n substituut vir die ANC binne Suid-Afrika”, in so far as the ANC is still banned. Then Prof Wiehahn, who helped to work out large parts of the Government’s policy, came along and said:
Instead of joining battle, he further paralysed the Government by saying that it should not even look at Cosatu, because Cosatu was nothing more than a perfectly ordinary occurrence. But it is not a perfectly ordinary occurrence. It is part of the onslaught against South Africa.
Not very long after that, we read in Rapport:
This was a report by Anne-Marie Mischke and Eddie Botha. If there is something which is causing concern in South Africa and regarding which the people came together at the Voortrekker Monument on Saturday, it is that Government newspapers are reporting that careful consideration is being given to the matter of a discussion with the ANC. This is, to put it mildly, not fair to the Police.
Order! The hon member began to speak so admirably within the ambit of the Bill. I would be pleased if he would return to the Bill. The hon member may proceed.
Yes, Mr Chairman, I am merely saying that it is not fair to the Police. They shed tears about the Blacks who are dying, but I am worried about the policemen and their wives and children. That is where our concern lies. Day after day, week after week, month after month, they must fight the battle, also so that the Blacks can participate in a democracy, which they will not have if there is a communist government in South Africa. Then they will just as easily be locked up as the rest of us. That is what we are worried about.
I also want to ask the Government not to allow itself to be paralysed as far as the implementation of this legislation is concerned. This hon Minister must not allow himself to be paralysed by talking about Marxism. Have you noticed, Mr Chairman, that the word “Communism” has very rarely been used in this debate? I am the first person to harp on communism. It has now become the fashion to talk about Marxism, but Marxism is a philosophy. It is an attitude towards life and a theory. Virtually anyone can be a Marxist. If I have read Das Kapital, because there are a few ideas in it which on the surface are attractive, a day or two afterwards I can also be a Marxist for a while, without being a Communist.
But we must be careful, and the hon the Minister must not allow himself to be caught out by people talking about Marxism. Marxism is not the danger against which we must join battle. For the sake of giving an example, I want to point out the following. Prof H W van der Merwe from the Centre for Intergroup Studies at the University of Cape Town, which is financed by the Abe Bailey Foundation …
He must be a Van der Merwe by marriage! [Interjections.]
… writes in the publication Buurman, which is published by the Jewish Board of Deputies—and the hon member for Hillbrow would do well to listen—as follows:
This is the treason we encounter in certain English-speaking circles! Now, after so many years, they talk about that famous Supreme Court case as an occasion on which the State tried to allege that Mandela was a communist. This is not true at all. The State proved beyond all doubt that Mandela was a communist. But this is part and parcel of the process of condonation—so-called whitewashing—by the communists; part and parcel of the process in which there must be a change-over to Marxism.
Prof Van der Merwe goes even further—and now hon members must listen carefully—and alleges that Mandela testified in court that he was a Christian. This Mandela is held before us and presented as a Christian by people from the ranks of our intellectuals! How difficult does the Police’s battle become now? How difficult does the Government’s battle become? How difficult does our battle become, when Mandela is misrepresented as a Christian?
Prof Van der Merwe went on to say that Mandela had told him personally that he was a Christian. This is what Prof H W van der Merwe says. Fortunately Mandela himself rejects this claim of Prof Van der Merwe. Prof Van der Merwe says that Mandela says he is a Christian. [Interjections.] But Mandela himself comes up with a different story.
The legislation now before the House has everything to do with Mandela, Sir. Mandela himself said, in a handwritten document, how to be a good Communist:
This, Sir, is what we are fighting against, and this is also what this legislation is being introduced for.
But Mandela went further, and in his diary, between 14 and 21 March 1962, he wrote:
Here Mandela tells us in his diary, from the innermost recesses of his own existence, of his own private moments, how people should cheat, deceive, mislead, hoodwink and goodness knows what else their opponents. What the world must think, according to Mandela, is that they are a popular revolutionary movement.
Then an American reporter, a certain Cal Thomas, visited Mandela. We read about this in a report in the Sunday Times of 24 August 1985. Remember now, Prof Van der Merwe said that Mandela was a Christian. Cal Thomas said that when he visited Mandela in Pollsmoor Prison, in the company of another American journalist, a certain John Letton, and I am quoting:
Whereas, in left-wing circles, Mandela is presented as a Christian and a Marxist, he himself says that he is not a Marxist. In this way Mandela testified that he was not a theoretical Communist—which is the meaning of Marxist—but a full-blooded Communist. The Sunday Times went on to report that Mr Thomas said that there was no doubt in his mind that Mandela was committed to violence. He is simply dedicated to violence, without any reservation or explanation.
Consequently we see—and now hon members of the National Party must not become too angry—that Mandela differs from the National Party, and the Communist Party differs from the National Party in this one respect. They stand by their principles. They do not deviate from them like the NP. Mandela confesses in his diary in jail that in his heart he is what he is. He has never changed. That is why time and again he shocks the world when he is asked to participate in negotiations by saying no, he is still in favour of violence.
I cannot remember who it was, but someone said: “You can trust a communist to be a communist.” There is a lesson to be learnt from this, not about firmness of principle as such, but about these people’s absolutely relentless desire to establish a communist dispensation in South Africa.
The hon the Minister must not allow himself to be the least bit distracted, led away or misled with regard to the fact that this is the root of the evil. The NP can change its principles and policy, and it has. But the National Party must not think that because it has changed its policy, the communists will also change their policy if one just talks to them.
The NP changed its policy under the influence of the left-wing liberal world. The National Party has not always stood where it stands today. Today it stands where it does because of influences from Britain and American, certain ecclesiastical circles, universities, and so on. We need not elaborate on that. [Interjections.]
The communists want to govern in our country, in Southern Africa, like elsewhere in Africa. The hon the Minister must not allow himself to be paralysed either by shifting the focus of our battle from the left to the right. Earlier, in the days of Dr Malan, Adv Strijdom and Dr Verwoerd, as well as before them, and a while after them, we were taught to seek our enemies to the left. The Progs were merely a reconnaissance movement here, but the real enemy lay behind them.
At that stage Prof Piet Cillié was one of the men who, when we were suspended from the NP and formed the HNP in 1969, came up with the statement that the danger actually lay to the right. The danger did not He to the left, but to the right. In this way people like Prof Cillié shifted the entire focus of the NP. And this is dangerous. One must not allow the focus to be shifted.
These things in part—sometime in their entirety—are the cause of the listless, spiritless and apologetic way in which the NP is fighting this battle. [Interjections.] Who is fighting the battle here today? It is the right wingers who are doing so. The NP is cold, fist less and sluggish. Where is the enthusiasm of the past?
But who came up with the legislation?
Yes, you came up with the legislation. You did. Granted—and we support the legislation. But where is the enthusiasm in the NP for this battle? It is no longer there, and that is what is dangerous for South Africa.
I want to ask the hon the Minister to take even more drastic steps than he has done thusfar. In the first place he must prohibit the UDF from marching around as if it is a democratic organisation. The UDF is the public arm of the ANC, like the ANC is of the Communist Party. Consequently we are asking the hon the Minister to ban the UDF as well in order to enable the Police to break and destroy the entire left-wing set-up in South Africa.
I am not going to read out all the evidence I have here. The patrons of the UDF are communists. Organisations operating within the UDF are entirely communistic. They openly enjoy the support of the ANC and of the SA Communist Party. I shall give hon members just one piece of evidence of this. In a publication the Communist Party openly made an appeal to the public to support the UDF. [Interjections.]
The SA Communist Party also expressed its open support for the UDF. The African Communist, the mouthpiece of the SA Communist Party, last year, for example, devoted a report to the UDF under the caption: “United Front to end apartheid: The road to mass action in South Africa”. The following paragraph appears in that article:
This is how the SA Communist Party continued to give its support openly to the UDF.
As far as Tutu and Boesak are concerned, they are good examples of the “Red Dean of Canterbury”. It is quite possible for an out and out communist to work in an ecclesiastical organisation. I do not want to insult Bishop Tutu or say things here about Dr Boesak which I cannot absolutely prove, but I can think what I like, and Genl Coetzee and the hon the Minister can think what they like. No one can stop us! I have a report here of what Bishop Tutu said yesterday or the day before yesterday in Toronto in Canada:
If Bishop Tutu says that the church can justify violence, we are also quite entitled to use violence. We need not even debate this further.
The hon the Minister himself said that the UDF was pursuing the same revolutionary objectives as the banned ANC and the banned South African Communist Party, and was actively involved in creating a revolutionary climate in South Africa. That is why I am asking him to ban the UDF!
I want to ask the hon the Minister if he really can restore law and order in South Africa without declaring the UDF a banned organisation. He can only restore law and order in South Africa by banning every organisation the South African Communist Party spawns. We want to tell him that in this connection he has our support in advance; he need not even ask us for it. We give him unqualified support with regard to every step he takes to ban every new branch of the SACP in our country. [Interjections.] There are hon members of the NP here who say that they agree.
If we want to win this battle, we must win it now! We cannot delay. In that respect the PFP is right; the sands of time are running out. The unrest situation has lasted almost two years now, and calm is not returning to the country. How long must the Police still continue to try to suppress it? We say that the Police must be given a free rein now.
People must not come and cry to us about children who are dying in the battle. Who is it in the first place who is pushing the children into the battle? It is the communist thugs, bullies and cowards who do not want to fight the battle themselves! They send the children to do battle against us, because they know we would not like to shoot the children. They know that we come from homes where we were taught not to hate people. They know that we do not hate the Black masses. They know that we have a special bond with the Black peoples in South Africa.
I am a right-winger, but I would not like to shoot Black children or allow this to happen. But if the communist thugs use them in the war against us we have no choice. I know this is a terrible thing to say, but we want to survive as a people, and there is no justification for such action against us. No one must come and cry to us. We will tell them that we will use counter-measures no matter what measures they use against us. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, I move:
Agreed to.
Mr Chairman, I move:
Agreed to.
The House adjourned at